Paul Triolo

Now SK and Micron saying the same.

This is correct. The vast majority of enterprise workflows have not actually had agents applied to them in any meaningful way. The economy probably has this deployed < 1% right now. At best you have a few automated systems in a company that do a single pass of an LLM to make a decision or provide feedback, but very little real “automation”. Some of this is a statement about the adoption rates of technology in enterprises, but the vast majority of it is really just due to the capability of AI itself. That’s all changing. Now with computer use, long running agents, harness improvements and surrounding infrastructure, we’re finally at a point where we can start to apply agents at more complex workflows. We will see self-improving systems that can take any particular workflow goal and improve the execution rates over a volume of instances. And with the emerging form factor of agent swarms, you can just choose to deploy any amount of compute at a problem and agents will off and do the work. This won’t be about and users prompting agents to complete a specific task for them, but instead the organization reengineering the underlying workflows to take advantage of agents in their processes. This will have a massive impact in finance, life sciences, healthcare, and other information-heavy domains. Lots of opportunity to build and deploy these systems right now.

Over the past few months, Anthropic scientists have engaged in deep research partnerships with six organizations developing new medicines. We've also begun drug discovery efforts of our own. In doing so, we’ve learned much more about how Claude can support the many stages of drug development. In this blog post, we share some early results from these efforts, and describe how this work fits in with our wider ambitions in the life sciences. anthropic.com/research/early…

Future studies trying to judge magnitude of Chinese industrial subsidies should improve methodology, including fully disclosing the data on which they base their estimates & explaining why their estimates differ from prior studies, Nicholas Lardy says. piie.com/publications/policy…

Open weights models fall further behind in v5. The leader, Kimi K3.1 Pro (weights not yet released), scores 46, 12 points behind the leader, compared with a 3-point gap in v4.3. Of models with released weights, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and GLM-5.3 (max) score highest at 32, and Claude Haiku 5.5 (max) outscores all of them. The gap is widest on HLE-Diamond and Terminal-Bench-Science, where Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 37% and 34%, compared with 68% for Claude Opus 5.5 (max) and 63% for GPT-6 Astra (max).