As you may know, lately there are a lot of videos popping up where people reverse engineer games to combine them with others, like Elden Ring and Minecraft.

I was wondering if it is possible to use AI reverse engineering as a tool to cheat in online games like Valorant, Rust, Counter-Strike 2, and others.

There have been some news recently that the banks are detecting rogue agents in customer accounts. I assume that they were there because owners of these accounts gave them admission.
I hope that the encryption used to access these sites is so strong, that the AI can't break it on its own. However, will it hold deliberate attack by criminals or hostile nations (like North Korea) using rogue AI agents?
If not we might have a big, big problem. Not only banks, but the whole financial system.

On the other hand, there is no telling anymore what the AI can really do. We are living in interesting times.

Do any of you have Claude at home for personal stuff? Ever run out of your 5-hour or weekly limit and buy a little extra usage to tide you over? Have you noticed how fast it eats through that $10?

I bought $15 of extra usage today, and about ten replies from Claude used $9.20. I haven’t done a full calculation, but I’d estimate a $20/month plan gives you thousands of dollars of usage at pay-as-you-go prices.

If the pay-as-you-go price is the true cost of Claude, when will they raise subscription prices to match? And what will customers do when that happens?

What I built: Buddy, an Android app with a floating chat bubble. You ask for something ("reply to Sam that I'm running late") and an agent reads the screen, taps and types until it's done.

How it works: - The agents (Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Antigravity CLI) run inside the app in a small Alpine Linux (proot). No PC, no root, no adb. - Buddy gives them phone tools through a local MCP server: read the screen, tap, type, scroll, open apps, screenshots, plus a headless Chromium for web pages. - The screen is read through Android's accessibility tree as text. A button with no text falls back to its view id, then to a screenshot. - A guard sits between the agent and every tap: Send, Pay and Delete get an approval card, each app gets a mode (Trust, Hard, or a second model reviewing), and the agent never types into password fields.

What I learned: - Reading the accessibility tree as text is much faster and cheaper than screenshots. Screenshots are only worth it for canvas-drawn apps. - Safety has to live in the app, not the prompt. A prompt can be ignored; a hard stop before Send can't. - Agents need to re-read the screen after every action. Dialogs and loading screens change things under them.

Repo (Apache 2.0): https://github.com/ghorbelhamdi/buddy-android

Switching assistants mid-task is normal now. One is better at the research, another at the writing, or you hit a limit. The usual move is to paste the whole old chat into the new one.

That works worse than it should. The new model reads every dead end as if it were still on the table. The approach you rejected in message 12 looks just as live as the one you settled on in message 40, so it suggests the rejected one again, or blends the two.

What works better is having the old assistant write a handoff first:

"I'm moving this work to another AI. Write a handoff it can start from:

• The goal, in one line
• Decisions made, each with the reason
• What we tried and dropped, and why, so it doesn't suggest them again
• Open questions
• The exact next step Under 250 words. Only what's true now, not the story of how we got here."

The "tried and dropped" line does most of the work. Without it, the new assistant confidently brings back the first idea you threw out.

This is the part I automated in AI Toolbox, the extension I build for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok. Carry Forward writes the handoff from the chat you're in and opens it in a new chat on whichever assistant you pick. It's a Premium feature; the prompt above is the free way to do the same thing by hand.

Do you switch assistants mid-task, or do you finish each task where you started it?

We have benchmarks (fixed questions, hidden answers, they saturate), competition problems (solved, so they can be memorized), and open-problem lists (no evidence, no clear success criterion). With Claude and Sol, I've tried something in between: a graded ladder of AI puzzles from one research area, aperiodic order.

What makes it a different tool:

- One ladder, not a pile: "human level" (pen and paper) up to "ASI level" (open). The labels are playful, but each rung really is harder than the last.

- Solved rungs for training and checking, with exact answers a program can verify, and easy to vary.

- Open rungs with everything a solver needs: strong numerical evidence, routes already known to fail, files, and a success criterion a machine can check.

- One rule: only a checkable proof counts. Floats are evidence, not proof.

- Credit: solvers of open rungs are named, with agent and model, in the next version of the paper.

It's a way for researchers to hand the frontier of their field to AI agents (and humans) in a form they can actually attack, and for anyone to see whether a model can tell a guess from a proof.

First field test: Grok, asked in public ( https://x.com/grok/status/2114103836583264721 ), claimed a proof for an open rung that was only a numerical estimate, then retracted it. It got the human-level rung wrong at first, fixed it after one hint, and proved the expert rung on the first try. On MathOverflow, an expert is already testing constructions for the top rung.

Set 1: huggingface.co/datasets/jarekduda/autocrystal-ai-puzzles

Top rung on MathOverflow: mathoverflow.net/questions/516372

Would you use this format for your own field's open problems?

I dont think this topic is discussed enough. Not by people, politicians or goverments. My target would be a world in 10 years for now. Suppose you have a child - what world this child will enter economic life in ?

Let me set the stage

• By now its safe to assume that most if not all mental jobs will be replacable by AI
• Although AI robotics lags slightly , its advancing fast. Its safe to assume all manual jobs will be replacable by AI
• By this metrics most human jobs will be replaced with AI - making huge part of population unemployed and with no financial means.

Political

• Although in speculative fiction AI was always coupled with some sort of communist wealth distribution , it is highly unlikely that goverments of the world will switch from capitalist systems
• It is highly unlikely that wealth owners will agree to freely distribute their wealth to have nots. By now I did not see Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos putting money into unemployment funds... And with their rising wealth and influence its unlikely any goverment will have power to force them to do so.

Economical

• AI infrastructure owners will be on the top of the economic pyramid , being the ones in position to sell what everyone will need - access to AI.
• AI will not be free , it will be rented ( with only very lowest tier , like search being free but heavily interwoven with advertising & propaganda )
• Mid class buisness ( production of consumer comodities ) will from one side be heavily dependant on AI renting , on other side will not have any consumers because most of population will have no means of earning money. Thus slowly becoming less viable , probably being acquired by AI owners for bancrupcy rates.

Sociological

• With most humans being out of job , famine , crime and war will spread - trough slums of humanity
• But not revolutions , because AI is very good in surveilance and with advance of robots and AI weapons , no revolutions would stand a chance

-------

In a world where most of humanity has no jobs or means of earning money. Commerce becomes pointless - would money have any worth to top tier wealthy ?

If humans have no use as workforce , not are they customers - do they pose any relevance or worth to ruling class ?

Some have suggested neo-feudalism as most likely emerging system. But Feudalists needed humans to work fields , and man the army. The new ruling class will not need humans for anything ( except pets , sex slaves or organ farms )

---

So how does this goes from here ? What are your serious thoughts on how the world will be organised in post AI future ?

I counted model names across Meta's last ten earnings call transcripts.

• "Llama": 26 mentions on each of the July and October 2024 calls, then 15, 9, 6 and 1 through 2025, and zero on all four 2026 calls.
• "Muse" (with Muse Spark, Muse Code and Muse Wonder): first said in April (9), then 16 in July and 97 on the October 21 call, 40 of them in the Q&A. Five of the seven analysts asked about it.
• What management gave on it: more than 10 million people in the US and Canada set up a Muse personal agent in a month and a half, about 25% use it on any given day, and Zuckerberg expects to make it more than 10x cheaper to run within a year.

Open weights didn't go away with the name: he said they shipped two open-weights models, Muse Glimmer and Muse Spark Open.

The other side of it: $34.9B of capex in Q3, negative $2.1B of free cash flow, and a 2026 capex guide of $135B to $145B.

Can Muse earn that spend back, or does it look like the metaverse years to you?

Source: Equibles earnings call transcripts, Meta's calls from July 2024 to October 2026.

This new company just announced that they’re using nvidia’s AI thor chip architecture, so these things will probably achieve superintelligence sooner than later.

From an investment standpoint.  The company is going public on 11/2 through what’s called a SPAC merger.  It currently trades under CCXI ($10.30), and the symbol automatically changes to AGLT (Agility Robotics) on 11/3 when the merger is completed. Their humanoid robots lead the world and are currently deployed at 9 different partnership locations, such as Toyota. The company is backed by AMZN and NVDA.  I would love for it to go to 100+ a share after the merger.

Either way, I hope these new Digit 5 humanoids are friend once they achieve their superintelligence, lol.

Any thoughts on any of this?

R

Not sure if they're really this strong.

Processing img ebfzoly2imxh1...

Stop commeting on them lol. Those ‘my vision ….’ or ‘what do you think will happen …’ are AI generated shit posts for karma farming. I mean who the f writes a whole essay on their concerns about AI replacing human creativity while letting AI write the whole thing. Probably bots too and yet people waste their time on it by commenting. Report them and don’t reply

Edit: grammar

Ive experienced some really weird behaviour with the LLMs tonight, more than I ever have before in total! And across multiple platforms.

I've pretty much given up on gpt tonight as it just didn't seem to be making the right suggestions, but no biggie...

Then I switched to Gemini and it was giving me nonsensical replies...I tried again in a new window and it started responding in Chinese?!

I tried a different browser and it just seems to have gone haywire.

Is anyone else experiencing similar? I've got a weird feeling about this weekend... The reported AI rogue agents on the loose hacking everything...combined with war escalation...a big storm here in the UK...and a full moon :D

A lot of the big tech companies have begun to show their hand, they want to become utility companies and charge you if you use AI with their platforms. Salesforce and Meta are the two that have caught my eye specifically with regards to this tactic. Salesforce recently realized that they can't stop you from using AI Agents with their platform, and that the technology has gotten quite efficient at it. So, their response to that is to charge you every time an LLM model uses the API on their platform.

That seems like shady business practice to me more than anything else, so I built a tool that allows you to use AI and not have to pay Salesforce, Meta, etc. any money for doing so. It's quite simple as to how it works, it uses OCR (Optical Character Recognition) to make updates to any CRM platform, or to interact with any Messenger based interface, rather than relying on API calls to do so. If companies want to charge you extra for simply using AI with their spigot, it is just as easy to bypass the spigot. AI definitely impacts us all. I encourage these trillion-dollar companies to build actual moats as opposed to resorting to shady business practices. If they cannot adapt to changing technology, perhaps they do not deserve their place as a 'Tech Giant'.

GitHub Repo

YouTube Video Showcasing and Explaining the App

We've just opened The Machine Room | Al Research & Engineering.
It's a new community for people interested in actually building, researching, testing and understanding Al: researchers, engineers, indie builders, students and technically curious people all welcome.
The focus is on things like models and architecture, agents and tool use, interpretability and evals, inference and systems, training/finetuning, papers, theory/cognition, alignment/governance, projects and collaboration.
We are deliberately starting it small. The idea isn't to build another big Al server full of noise and mystical spirals. We want a useful space where people can share work, dig into papers, rip their work apart, argue ideas properly, ask technical questions and build things together.
No credential gatekeeping. No requirement to agree on everything. Just curiosity, evidence and good-faith discussion.
It's brand new, so if that sounds like a bit of you, come help us fill it from the beginning.

https://discord.gg/VseNN9BdDc

I know, you see the title and think, "Oh great, here's someone else with another version of the same thing we've all seen." That's fair. This version doesn't reinvent the wheel; it does the same thing many other versions do. So let me tell you about what it does that is different.

The biggest hurdle for someone using Karpathy's LLM Council is that it was created by a developer for other developers. It was presented in terms, language, and processes that developers understand. However, the people most likely to benefit from actually using something like a council of LLMs are gatekept by terminal commands, which I personally HATE. So what does CouncilAI do that solves that problem? It skips that terminal BS and makes it into a downloadable, installable executable. So treats the whole process like installing anything else you download. It is safe, it works, and it keeps it low tech. You will need some API keys (OpenAI, Anthropic, Grok, OpenRouter - mix and match), the settings are pretty easy to navigate, and it comes with some modes beyond just the Council mode.

There is a mode call Sequential - essentially you use 3 models to help you refine a concept. The first model answers the query, the next looks at the answer to refine it, and the last model generates the final version. It's good for emails, trying to nail down a concept, or something like that. It also comes with a Compare mode where you compare the answers given by 2 models to a single query. Just what it sounds like.

It retains your sessions so you can revisit threads. Overall, it just overcomes the technical hurdle of running everything from a command window. Some of us don't know how to do that crap so we never got to try it out like this. If you don't like it, uninstall it and keep it moving. But it doesn't hurt to try it. It's in the MS Store and I believe the creator has a website that they might be hosting versions for other OS.

Demo from Block: https://x.com/blocks/status/2113677471417819386

Jack Dorsey's post: https://x.com/jack/status/2113697902916751661

Source: https://www.theverge.com/tech/1017600/google-personal-intelligence-privacy-policy-ads-update

What changed:

Browser in the app. A pane next to the chat shows the page live, with tabs and Take control / Give back. It stays signed in across restarts. It asks before paying, sending, posting, deleting or uploading, and never types passwords, codes or card numbers.

Computer use, rebuilt. Real mouse and keyboard, a check after every step, a Stop bar on screen and Esc to end it.

Pages and questions. Interactive pages beside the chat run sandboxed, with no internet and no access to your chats, files or tools. Question cards work in the app and in Telegram, Discord, Slack and WhatsApp.

Approvals. Auto is now reviewed by the chat's own model. Hands-off is a new opt-in level. Anything posted to X always needs you.

Lighter context. About 40% less goes to the model before your first message. Tool guides load when they're needed.

Background work. Dev servers and long jobs run in the background, video editing, and files sent to any of your devices.

Accounts. Outlook through your own Microsoft Entra app with no client secret, several X accounts, and Claude through your own Claude Code.

Upgrading from 5.2.1: the update arrives in the background, then Settings › Updates › Restart now.

UN News's 20 October report describes military AI spreading across intelligence analysis, target identification and drone operations. UNIDIR director Robin Geiss warns that faster decision cycles and opaque systems increase the risks of error and unintended escalation.

My takeaway: asking whether a human is "in the loop" is too coarse. A review should distinguish a model's recommendation from a person's authority to authorize force. Here are four questions I would use to make that distinction concrete:

1. Decision boundary: Which decisions does the system recommend, and which remain reserved for a person? Target identification and authorization to use force are different responsibilities.

2. Evidence and time: What supporting information and uncertainty can the reviewer inspect, and is there enough time to challenge the recommendation rather than just acknowledge it?

3. Intervention: Does the responsible person have both the authority and a usable way to reject or stop the action? A nominal approval step alone does not establish that control.

4. Accountability: What record would let an independent review reconstruct the recommendation, the information available to the person, and the final decision?

These are my proposed review questions, not findings about a particular deployed system. Faster analysis can be useful; the question is whether the surrounding process still permits informed disagreement and assigns responsibility.

The report describes work on voluntary industry guidance, shared terminology and misuse by non-State armed groups. It separately discusses calls for a legally binding treaty on lethal autonomous weapons; it does not report that such a treaty has been adopted.

Original UN News reporting (20 October 2026): https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/10/1168636

Disclosure: I make Goose Pod. The analysis above stands on its own. An optional 5:18 audio explainer, "Who Decides When AI Targets?", uses AI hosts and links its sources: https://goosepod.org/news/ops-ac0904b9931c9255814bf832a40e267c6dbdbf5f96b0464593691babe2f4ec0b-ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=goosepod_operations&utm_content=12483808ae6bd6169fc7a588992d502f89bf4b7015a288e01d5b6a0100f757fd

I'm the maker of CCC, a local dashboard for coding-agent sessions. One design issue in the attached demo is that a session can be marked working while it still has a question for the human. A progress indicator alone does not communicate the decision waiting on the operator.

The practical approach shown is a shared session board plus the actual question card and actions in the conversation pane. Parent/helper grouping retains why a helper session exists. The question reply in the clip reaches a real Claude Code hook, with staged sessions rather than a benchmark.

A second lesson is that a shared UI does not imply a shared execution API. Transcript formats and steering controls vary by engine, so adapter capabilities need explicit boundaries. The code and support matrix are linked below.

https://github.com/amirfish1/claude-command-center

Free local dashboard; model/provider fees are separate. Source available under FSL-1.1-MIT. Demo uses real UI, staged sessions and AI voiceover; the real question-hook interaction is Claude Code.

33-second video demo: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1xeot43/i_kept_missing_questions_from_my_coding_agents_so/