AI systems are getting more powerful, and they're increasingly being used to build the next version of themselves. We want to illuminate that progress for the public. Today, we're sharing three measurements that help track AI development: 1. How much AI R&D is done by AI. 2. How well AI agents are overseen. 3. How compute is allocated. We provide a snapshot of these metrics from inside Anthropic. Any frontier developer could publish the same measures, and third parties could verify them. As the world considers pacing the frontier, we should do everything possible to minimize the gap between what frontier labs know and what the public knows. This means better measuring the development of AI, publishing our findings, and giving society an opportunity to decide how to use this information. Read the full post and methodology:

My personal @muse agent got me $2,120.95 already 🤯: • $300/yr — negotiated my AT&T bill down • $192 — Amazon returns I never got around to • $47 — more returns on the way • $230 — IKEA ALEX 9-drawer unit, returned end to end • $516 — vet claim filed for my dog • $836 — unclaimed property with my name on it i'm selling a car next month — you guys think i should let Muse handle it?

Research|Optics: CIOE Takeaway - 2026 Orders Extend into 2027, Supply Determines Who Delivers First The clearest takeaway from this year’s CIOE is that 1.6T orders and production schedules now extend into 2027. Demand is growing rapidly, and the availability of DSPs, lasers and PCBs will determine the pace of deliveries and vendor market share. Zhongji InnoLight (InnoLight), Eoptolink, Coherent and Lumentum have all entered volume production of 1.6T products, supported by the strongest customer bases and most secure supply chains. For second-tier vendors such as Cambridge Industries Group (CIG), Linktel and Source Photonics, growth will come first from higher 800G shipments, followed by the introduction of 1.6T products. Adoption of near-packaged optics (NPO) is broadening, creating additional demand for high-power light sources, fiber arrays and connectors. Demand is also taking shape for 2028: Rubin Ultra, TPU v9 and Chinese supernodes already incorporate optical interconnects into their designs. Held in Shenzhen on 9–11 September, the show recorded nearly 190,000 visits over three days, up 32% year on year and a record for CIOE. The halls were packed, visitors queued to see samples at popular booths, and many exhibitors posted recruitment notices. One exhibitor said that, having booked late, it could secure only a small booth. Detailed Report

-Meta upgraded by Citi, Muse downloads exceeding IG -Instinct raising at $10b val -Zuck letter saying pace on your own & not stopping -2 OpenAI execs admitting pacing/safety = more compute -OAI new raise @ $1.2T -Dario clarifying comments at Dreamforce -Ant new Aus compute deal

In case you missed it — the full TomorrowX Summit speaker lineup is out. Nov 17–18, Austin. Jensen Huang (@JensenHuang): Nvidia (@nvidia) David Solomon (@DavidSolomon): Goldman Sachs (@GoldmanSachs) Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong): Coinbase (@coinbase) Jon Gray: Blackstone (@blackstone) Ali Ghodsi (@alighodsi): Databricks (@databricks) Marc Rowan: Apollo (@apolloglobal) Chase Lochmiller (@ChaseLochmiller): Crusoe (@CrusoeAI) Arvind Jain (@jainarvind): Glean (@glean) Aravind Srinivas (@AravSrinivas): Perplexity (@perplexity_ai) Tony Xu (@t_xu): DoorDash (@DoorDash) Jitendra Mohan: Astera Labs (@AsteraLabs) Lin Qiao (@lqiao): Fireworks (@FireworksAI_HQ) Andrew Feldman: Cerebras (@cerebras) Scott Wu (@ScottWu46): Cognition AI (@cognition) Zach Dell (@ZachBDell): Base Power (@basepowerco) Joe Lonsdale (@JTLonsdale): 8VC (@8vc) Guillermo Rauch (@rauchg): Vercel (@vercel) Michael Eisenberg (@mikeeisenberg): Aleph (@aleph) Rene Haas (@renehaas237): Arm (@arm) Glenn Solomon (@glennsolomon): Notable Capital (@notablecap) David George (@DavidGeorge83): a16z (@a16z) Dylan Field (@zoink): Figma (@figma) Matt Witheiler: Wellington (@Wellington_Mgmt) Howard Lindzon (@howardlindzon): Stocktwits (@Stocktwits) The conversations that happen after the feed. Hosted by @GavinSBaker @rbiscardi @AntonioGracias Register here:

Wild 24 hours for AI and lots of different proposals have been made. TLDR; the only *tangible* new fact is that OpenAI and Anthropic are going to have embedded 3rd party evaluators from unknown organizations with Dario floating METR as a possibility. Having 3rd party evaluators is smart as there is no Section 230 style liability shield for model outputs and showing a “duty of care” will be important in future litigation. Several internet companies might have gone bankrupt without Section 230 so limiting liability really matters. There are minimal investment implications from this single new fact, but I do think that for anyone who wants a “smoother for longer” cycle then most constraints are good: wafers, watts, real rates and spreads. Excessive regulation is a different matter but I don’t think we are anywhere close to this even if the vector changed over the last 24 hours. To summarize the events: Dario made the most maximalist proposal of the weekend: embedded 3rd party evaluators, a national regulatory regime for models beyond a certain capability/ingredient threshold, a broad international regulatory pact between democracies, stricter limits on compute/distillation for China and then a different international regulatory regime that encompasses China. Before there is a national regulatory regime, he wants a Sherman act waiver so that Anthropic can safely coordinate with OpenAI and other frontier labs without antitrust fears. TBF, this latest proposal is much less maximalist than some of his prior proposals like “Policy on the AI Exponential,” where he advocated for an FAA for AI. I believe he is sincere in his beliefs. And despite all the protestations, all of this would also probably be good for his business over the long-term. Sam agreed that embedded 3rd party evaluators were a good idea and stated they would implement them. Again, this is smart as should help limit future liability. Elon said “Dario is right” and later specified that “Dario is right that there should be some oversight. Peer review of AI by competitors is the right way to start this off.” This would be a MPAA like self-regulatory structure for AI with regular calls between the labs plus a process where each new model is evaluated for safety by competitors for a 1-2 week period before being released. That is *wildly* different from Dario’s proposal and in-line with what David Sacks has been proposing. Elon also stated that nothing was going to slow down open-weight models. Demis said that Dario’s essay was a “step in the right direction.” Dario also said that he was also open to Demis’ idea of a FINRA like self-regulatory structure as part of his proposal. David Sacks had a thoughtful post where he said that Dario and Sam should pace unilaterally, called the antitrust waiver a cartel request and denied that METR was truly independent given their ties to Anthropic. Sriram Krishnan, former White House AI advisor, noted that it would be important to have the 3rd party evaluators come from independent organizations that are not affiliated with any lab, which is basically an indirect statement about the relationship between METR and Anthropic which Sacks was explicit about. Clem from Hugging Face said they were open to being a neutral 3rd party evaluator, which is interesting especially if Jensen was consulted before that post. Alexander Wang from Meta noted that alignment would be an increasing focus going forward. An executive order seems likely after all this and the language in this EO is going to be really important. It is possible to democratize and distribute AI broadly and safely without centralizing it in the hands of a few corporations who might each become more powerful than any single government. I do not want a few humans in control of intelligence. I want us all to have our own intelligences that reflect our own values and human variation in all of its richness. Intelligence distribution over intelligence centralization FTW.

Citibank TMT: "lasers and optical fibers are being positioned as the "next HBM." I've been talking about lasers like $LITE / $AAOI since 2025... and architectural shifts toward CW, ahead of the current industry consensus. And fully agree with Lightmatter/Citi. Just for reference: For lasers: $LITE / $SIVE / $AAOI / $COHR / $MTSI / Furukawa / Sumitomo are your better known ones. For fiber: $GLW / Furukawa / Fujikura / Sumitomo are your more well-known exposure (obviously a lot more in the supply chain) *disclosure, personal exposure to theme With added commentary that: "Tight supply conditions will support a scarcity premium for these assets." We're already seeing price hikes with lasers as seen with $SIVE channel checks at CIOE 2026 Shenzhen today + $LITE commentary from earnings. So I think the 2027–2028 photonics supercycle will look a lot like memory did in 2025–2026. Especially as optical content/GPU-ASIC goes up significantly per Goldman Sachs revised estimates...