Thursday, September 10, 2026


The EU got access to Anthropic's most powerful model, three months later

Pages from the Anthropic website and the company's logos are displayed on a computer screen in New York on Thursday, Feb. 26, 2026.
Copyright AP Photo/Patrick Sison

By Luca Bertuzzi
Published on

The EU's cybersecurity agency ENISA has gained access to Anthropic's Mythos 5, one of the most powerful AI technologies with disruptive cyber capabilities, three months after it was released to selected partners.

Brussels has finally obtained access to Anthropic's most powerful model, whose availability had been restricted due to its advanced hacking capabilities. But the request took over three months to bear fruit.

"Following our constructive engagement with Anthropic, we can confirm that the EU's cybersecurity agency ENISA has been granted access to Mythos 5 and is testing it now," said the European Commission's spokesperson for tech sovereignty, Thomas Regnier.

In April, the leading AI lab launched a preview of Mythos 5, a model capable of identifying and exploiting cyber vulnerabilities with unprecedented speed, making it a formidable hacking tool.

Given its cybersecurity implications, Anthropic restricted access to the model to a select number of partners via Project Glasswing, run in collaboration with the US government.

The programme started with around 50 organisations in April before Anthropic expanded it by some 150 more in June, bringing the total to roughly 200 partners. The US government subsequently introduced export control measures barring access to non-American users worldwide — including Anthropic's own employees outside the US.

The move prompted the European Commission to question whether it was discriminatory towards a trusted partner, fuelling concern that Washington was both capable and willing to trigger a "kill switch" on the latest US technologies.

Brussels continued pressing Anthropic for access, which was finally granted on Thursday. The Commission holds significant regulatory powers under the EU AI Act, powers that may make tech companies wary of sharing information that could later surface in infringement proceedings.

"ENISA has previously received access to OpenAI's GPT-5.6-Cyber model. Access was also granted to the latest OpenAI model, GPT-6 Astra," Regnier said.


 

AMD unveils ‘personal super computer’ for new era of computing

Visitors walk by the AMD booth at the AI Wave Show exhibition in Taipei, Taiwan, Friday, July 31, 2026 - FILE PHOTO
Copyright AP Photo

By Jonathan Benton
Updated

The American chipmaker launched what they have described as a ‘personal supercomputer’ in Berlin on Friday, designed and made for a “completely new era of computing” driven by AI.

The supercomputer, called the Threadripper Halo Station, was unveiled at the German tech event Internationale Funkausstellung by AMD Senior Vice President Jack Huynh.

The Threadripper Halo is an ultra-high-performance workstation equipped with up to two terabytes of system memory, up to 576 gigabytes of high bandwidth memory (HBM3E), along with 96 cores of Threadripper Pro, two MI350P data centre accelerators, all supported by liquid cooling.

Huynh said the new supercomputer is the “most powerful workstation in the world”, capable of running AI models with more than a trillion parameters.

The AMD executive gave a brief demonstration of its potential at the event by generating an entire 3D world and flight simulator from a single prompt.

The company’s pitch is to bring data-centre level AI performance and capacity to a desktop format, as demand for AI rapidly grows around the world.

The supercomputer is slated for release early next year, however AMD are yet to reveal how much it will cost. It is expected that it could exceed €100,000, geared towards corporate and institutional budgets rather than as personal computers as originally pitched.

Yet it will give its consumers a platform to deploy large-language models and agentic AI systems themselves rather than rely on increasingly expensive cloud computing.

The Threadripper Halo Station’s direct competitor is the NvidiaDGX Station, with both able to run large AI models in a desktop form, however they differ in how they approach this challenge.

AMD’s supercomputer dominates on memory capacity and bandwidth, offering more than three times as much memory than Nvidia’s, allowing it to run on trillion parameter AI models locally.

However, Nvidia’s offering more seamless integration when moving code from a local workstation to the cloud and, crucially, it is already available, retailing at around €100,000.

Industry analysts see AMD's announcement as a potential catalyst for reshaping the competitive landscape of the local AI computing market.

With cloud AI subscription costs adding up for many institutions and businesses, demand for computers such as the Threadripper Halo Station to run large models on their own infrastructure will continue.

Therefore, AMD's approach of delivering data-centre-class performance using standardised components to lower the barrier to entry could be a major turning point in the expansion of the AI and personal computing sectors.


AI D-Day weather forecast falters under pressure




University of Reading






Today's best weather computers would still have struggled to accurately predict the weather for the D-Day landings, University of Reading research shows.

The new research, accepted in the journal Weather ahead of the release of D-Day blockbuster Pressure, used AI models to produce 50 different forecasts of the storm that famously pushed back the Allies’ invasion of Normandy in June 1944. 

The researchers checked how confident the AI model was about the weather Group Captain James Stagg had to forecast on 5 and 6 June. For 5 June, the day originally planned for the invasion, the model got the storm's position right and correctly predicted poor conditions over Normandy, matching Stagg's own analysis. For 6 June, the model predicted the storm would move towards Norway, bringing calmer weather, albeit much quicker than what really happened.

Professor Andrew Charlton-Perez, lead author of the study at the University of Reading, said: "Captain James Stagg had one of the hardest jobs in history. Get the forecast wrong, the invasion could have failed and the Second World War could have been lost.

“Some Allied meteorologists were insistent the weather would be fine for the invasion to take place as planned on 5 June, after weeks of hot weather. Our research shows Stagg would likely have defied his colleagues and made the same call to delay if he had the AI forecast to support him. The AI pointed to a real risk of dangerous winds on 5 June, enough to justify delaying the invasion by a day.

“The AI incorrectly predicted 6 June would be much calm and clearer than it really was, as soldiers faced more treacherous weather. Captain Stagg believed the conditions were fair enough on 6 June, leading to Eisenhower to give his famous order, "OK, we'll go."

“AI weather forecasts can process huge amounts of data in seconds, but they can still make mistakes. Having a trained meteorologist to make sense of all of the forecast data and make forecasts based on their knowledge and experience remains just as critical today as it was for the D-Day landings."

Where the model went wrong

The extraordinary story of how Captain James Stagg had to determine if the weather would be good enough to let 160,000 troops cross the Channel and storm the beaches of Normandy on 5 June is now the subject of a major Hollywood film called Pressure starring Andrew Scott as Stagg and Brendan Fraser as Eisenhower.

In the film, Stagg has to balance his advice between different forecasting teams who disagree about how a storm in the North Sea will affect the invasion.

Researchers compared the model against what actually happened over the Channel and the Normandy beaches, using weather records from the Copernicus Climate Change Service.

  • The model showed the storm clearing away from Britain too quickly on the 6th June. This wrongly suggested that 6 June would be calm and clear, when on the day of the invasion some of the invading forces faced high winds and stormy seas. 

  • Underneath that overall confidence, the wind numbers told a different story. The model still showed a 30% chance the wind would break the safety limit for landing craft on 6 June, a real risk hidden behind its reassuring overall picture.

  • The model also predicted clearer skies than actually happened on 6 June, adding to the false sense that conditions would be fine.

Filling in the gaps

Weather records from 1944 were limited, so the researchers also compare the forecasts with new paper weather logs for the Faroe Islands recently found in an archive at the Met Office. These islands sit close to the path the storm took on its way past Britain, so the readings kept there in 1944 capture the storm at a point the main records miss.

Turning these old paper logs into digital data made it possible to check the storm's strength more closely and showed it may have been slightly stronger than current reconstructions suggest. Digitising more of these historic logs from archives across Europe could let scientists test storms like this one even more precisely in future.

Pressure releases in UK cinemas on Wednesday, 9 September. 

Notes to editors: 

Professor Andrew Charlton-Perez is available for interview. Contact the University of Reading Press Office on 0118 378 5757 or pressoffice@reading.ac.uk

Images via Studio Canal.

Full reference: Charlton-Perez, A., Burt, S., Cloke, H., Hawkins, E., Lee, R., Simmons, A. and Volonte, A. (2026), Pressure: reimagining the D-Day forecast through machine learning. Weather, 81: 284-293. https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.70123

Augmentation not abdication, when using AI in research



PNAS Nexus





An editorial by Charles Branas and Bruce Levine proposes norms for the use of AI in science. The authors distinguish between using AI tools for non-generative tasks, such as data classification or copyediting, and using AI tools to generate scientific ideas or seed research questions. While the former is broadly acceptable, they argue, the latter deserves more scrutiny and should be disclosed in scientific manuscripts. The use of generative AI for the core intellectual, creative, ethical, interpretive, or accountability-bearing work of research, where AI replaces human interpretation and judgement, should be disallowed, according to the authors. Additionally, the authors propose that researchers should not use AI to generate their own initial research ideas, research questions, or to make ethical determinations, risk assessments, or policy recommendations.  

AI can reduce science’s happy accidents and human insights if everyone is relying on the same tools with similar inputs, the authors argue. They note that science should not be unthinkingly optimized, as if it were a manufacturing workflow producing standardized outputs. Science requires a wide diversity of inputs, approaches, and ideas. Generative AI is trained to produce probable outputs based on known patterns and trained on existing data, whereas scientific breakthroughs often require departing from prior assumptions and breaking free of typical patterns. Serendipity counts in science.

According to the authors, the originating research question and final evidentiary judgment in every scientific publication should be produced by human minds. 

No comments: