Most AI alignment proposals try to teach one system to satisfy everyone. Roman Yampolskiy’s Personal Universes proposal goes the other way. Give each person their own universe. Stop pretending that several billion conflicting value systems can be merged into a single coherent objective for a superintelligence to optimise, and instead carve reality into per-person simulations, each one a custom optimisation target for an AI tuned to a single mind. It is, on first reading, ridiculous. On second reading it is still ridiculous, but in a way that reveals something real about the alignment problem. That is the part of the talk worth taking seriously. ...

The “is the software engineer dead” genre has been running long enough that you can predict most of the takes before you read them. The interesting interviews are the ones where the person being interviewed is in a position to know something the rest of us do not. Boris Cherny, the creator of Claude Code at Anthropic, is one of those people. Sky News got him in front of three charts and asked him to react. ...

For most of the last few years, the “AI and cybersecurity” conversation has been a vibes argument. One side said the models would soon write novel exploits at scale. The other side said the models were still tripping over basic shell commands and could not be trusted to hack anything more dangerous than a CTF box. The honest answer was that nobody had hard numbers, so the debate stayed stuck on intuition. ...

TL;DR - The last month gave producers three things worth paying attention to. Superbooth 2026 in Berlin put neural audio processing into a hardware pedal for the first time and handed Buchla a $999 entry point. The AI music legal picture kept moving, with a fresh lawsuit against Suno and a still-pending Sony ruling expected this summer. And the tooling caught up quietly, with Ableton Live 12.4 and REAPER 7.73 shipping solid point releases. Here is what actually changed - and what is just noise. ...

“Are we living in a simulation?” is one of those questions that sounds like late-night dorm-room talk and then turns out to have a serious literature behind it. The honest short answer to “how likely” is that nobody knows, and that the question may not even have a clean numerical answer. But that is not a reason to wave it away. The reasons we cannot confidently put a number on it are themselves interesting, and they tell us something real about the limits of probability, the nature of consciousness, and what counts as science. ...

TL;DR Recursive self-improvement (RSI) is the idea of an AI that improves its own ability to improve - each round producing a smarter system that does the next round better. It is the engine behind every “intelligence explosion” story since I.J. Good described it in 1965 The narrow version is already real. Systems like AlphaEvolve and the AI Scientist measurably improve algorithms, code, and even research output - including, in AlphaEvolve’s case, the infrastructure that trains the models themselves The leap people fear is different: improving an algorithm is not the same as improving general intelligence. Nothing in 2026 has crossed that line, and the gap is structural, not just a matter of scale Four bottlenecks decide whether RSI runs away or fizzles: compute, data, verification, and diminishing returns. Each is a hard physical or informational limit, not a temporary engineering nuisance The realistic picture is steady, human-paced acceleration - AI assisting AI research - not an overnight takeoff. METR’s time-horizon data shows fast but smooth exponential progress, which is exactly what a bottlenecked process looks like It still deserves serious safety attention, because a slow takeoff is the one we can actually govern There is a particular shape of argument that has haunted artificial intelligence since before the field had a settled name. It goes like this: build a machine slightly better than humans at designing machines, and it will design a machine better than itself. That machine designs a better one. The loop tightens, each turn faster than the last, and intelligence runs away from us in an afternoon. ...

TL;DR Prompt engineering optimised the wording of a single human-written request. Context engineering optimises the entire set of tokens in the model’s window across a whole run - system prompt, tool definitions, retrieved documents, tool results, conversation history, and memory The shift happened because of agents. The window is no longer one prompt you wrote - it is an accumulation that grows on every step, and most of it is produced by the system, not by you More context is not better context. Research on “context rot” and the older lost-in-the-middle effect show model accuracy degrades as the window fills, even well below the advertised limit The four levers are retrieval (what you pull in), memory (what persists across runs), tool results (what tools dump back), and compaction (what you summarise and discard) Treat the window as a budget. Measure its token composition, design tools to return terse output, curate rather than accumulate, and keep the static prefix stable so prompt caching still works For a few years, “prompt engineering” was the named skill of working with language models. It meant finding the wording, the framing, the few-shot examples, and the role instructions that coaxed the best answer out of a single request. It produced a small industry of prompt libraries, prompt marketplaces, and job titles. And in 2026 it is mostly gone, absorbed into something larger and harder. ...

TL;DR A scanner finds bugs in code that already exists. Threat modeling finds flaws in a design before the code exists - which is the cheapest possible time to find them It is a structured conversation built around four questions: what are we building, what can go wrong, what are we going to do about it, and did we do a good job STRIDE gives you a vocabulary for “what can go wrong”: Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information disclosure, Denial of service, and Elevation of privilege You do not need a tool or a certificate. You need a diagram, the people who understand the system, and an hour The highest-value moment to threat model is when the design is still cheap to change - and the most common mistake is treating it as a one-off audit instead of a habit Most security work, as people experience it day to day, is reactive. A scanner flags a vulnerable dependency. A penetration test produces a report. An alert fires. Someone patches the thing, closes the ticket, and moves on. This is necessary work, but it has a structural weakness: it can only find problems in systems that already exist. By the time a scanner can see a flaw, you have already built it, shipped it, and possibly run it in production for months. ...

TL;DR Quantum computers threaten Bitcoin because Shor’s algorithm can derive a private key from an exposed public key, breaking the ECDSA and Schnorr signatures that authorise transactions. The threat is real but not imminent. Credible estimates put a cryptographically relevant quantum computer somewhere between 2029 and 2035. Research cited by Google and Bitcoin security analysts suggests a roughly 10% chance of a break by 2032. Around 6.9 million BTC - close to a third of all supply - sit in addresses with exposed public keys, including roughly 1 million BTC believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto. These are the coins most at risk. Mining (SHA-256) is far less exposed. Grover’s algorithm only offers a quadratic speed-up, which higher network difficulty can absorb. Bitcoin’s defences are forming: BIP-360 adds a quantum-resistant address type, BIP-361 proposes a controversial migrate-or-freeze deadline, and NIST has finalised post-quantum standards (ML-DSA, SLH-DSA) for future signature schemes to draw on. The safest action for an ordinary holder today: use a modern address and never reuse it, so your public key stays hidden behind a hash until you spend. Overview Quantum computing is one of the most significant theoretical threats to modern cryptography. For Bitcoin, the core concern is that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could run Shor’s algorithm to solve the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem - the hard maths that secures Bitcoin’s public-key cryptography. ...

TL;DR System design has no right answers, only trade-offs chosen deliberately or chosen by accident. The skill is making the choice consciously Most decisions move along a few core axes: consistency against availability, latency against throughput, simplicity against flexibility, and build against buy A good design states its assumptions - expected load, acceptable latency, failure tolerance - because a design is only “good” relative to assumptions The most common self-inflicted wound is designing for scale you do not have. Complexity added for an imagined future is paid for every day until that future arrives, if it ever does Write designs down. A short document that names the options, the choice, and the reason is worth more than any diagram There is a particular kind of interview question, and a particular kind of blog post, that treats system design as a body of correct answers - as if there were a known-good way to “design a URL shortener” or “design a news feed” and the job is to recall it. This framing is actively harmful, because it teaches people that system design is about memorising solutions. ...