Perplexity wants its AI agents to use more of the computing power already sitting inside a Mac. The company launched Hybrid Compute on Tuesday, a new feature that lets Perplexity Computer move parts of the same task between powerful cloud models and smaller models running directly on Apple silicon.

The timing is significant. Hybrid Compute arrives on the first day of John Ternus’ tenure as Apple’s CEO. Ternus, who previously led Apple’s hardware engineering organization and played a key role in the company’s transition from Intel processors to its own Apple silicon, succeeds Tim Cook after 15 years as CEO. Perplexity is now betting that same hardware can become part of the infrastructure behind autonomous AI agents.

The task starts in the cloud. When a step involves sensitive information, Computer can move that part of the job to a model running on the Mac without having to start over.

When a step involves sensitive information, Computer can move that part of the job to a model running on the Mac without starting over.

Privacy Gate checks first

A Perplexity-trained Privacy Gate runs locally on the Mac and looks for sensitive information such as names, addresses, account numbers, and secrets. When it flags something, the user can decide whether that part of the task should stay on the device.

Users can review what the system wants to keep local before work begins and ensure it hasn’t missed anything they don’t want sent to the cloud. They can also choose which model handles the local work.

At launch, users can choose between Gemma E4B, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B, and a version of Qwen3.6 35B that Perplexity post-trained itself, with more models planned for later. Perplexity also handles the installation through the desktop app, so users don’t have to open a terminal or set up the model themselves.

Local tokens cost nothing

Once a task is running, the app displays local CPU, GPU, and memory utilization, as well as the number of tokens consumed. Users aren’t charged for tokens generated by models running locally on their Mac. That gives Perplexity another reason to move work onto the device beyond privacy, since running models locally can also cut inference costs. (The question of who bears inference costs and when is becoming a competitive issue across the industry.)

There is a compromise. Perplexity uses its most capable models in the cloud, while smaller models handle local work, so keeping more of a task on the Mac can improve privacy and cut costs at the expense of some capability. Hybrid Compute leaves that choice to the user.

Perplexity uses its most capable models in the cloud, while smaller models handle local work, so keeping more of a task on the Mac can improve privacy and cut costs at the expense of some capability.

Context crosses the boundary

The trickier bit is what happens to context when part of a task moves onto the Mac. The cloud model still needs to know enough about what happened locally to continue the job, without getting access to the private information that was supposed to stay there.

Perplexity says Computer can move a step from the cloud to a local model without restarting the task or losing context, and ultimately combine the cloud and local work into a single result. It does not detail in its announcement exactly what context is passed between those environments or how information produced by the local subagent is filtered before it returns to the broader workflow.

The local subagent can work with private files and data and take actions on the Mac. Users can also start a task on an iPhone and hand off local work to their Mac without having to start over.

For enterprise customers, Perplexity adds company-wide rules for what stays local and a record of what leaves each device, bringing the same governance questions facing AI agents down to the device level.

DGX Spark starts local

Hybrid Compute reverses the approach Perplexity introduced for Nvidia’s DGX Spark last week. DGX Spark starts locally and reaches out to frontier cloud models only with permission, while the Mac version starts in the cloud and moves work onto the device when needed.

In both cases, the agent harness decides where each part of the job runs. That orchestration — deciding which tools and context an agent actually needs — is becoming an increasingly difficult engineering problem as agents gain access to more systems and data.

Apple silicon becomes part of the agent stack

Running this much of an agent locally still requires a fairly powerful Mac. Perplexity recommends at least 32GB of unified memory, Apple silicon, and macOS 15. The feature is available to Pro and Max subscribers as well as enterprise customers.

Those requirements show the limits of local AI at the moment. Smaller models can run on plenty of Macs, but giving an agent enough compute to handle meaningful work still requires relatively high-end hardware.

That will likely change as Macs get better at running larger models. For Ternus, the bigger question is how much of the AI work now happening in the cloud will eventually move onto the machines Apple sells.

For Ternus, the bigger question is how much of the AI work now happening in the cloud will eventually move onto the machines Apple sells.

The post Your Mac is now part of Perplexity’s AI infrastructure appeared first on The New Stack.

Every application has always needed a place to keep its state. That is not new. What is new is who creates that place, how many get created, and how long they have to survive after everyone has stopped looking.

“Separating durable state from ephemeral compute is the new requirement, and the idle cost trap is only half of it.”

Consider the agents built by Kimi, the AI platform from Moonshot AI. A non-technical user describes an application in plain language. An agent builds the frontend, backend, and database, then deploys them in minutes. The user never thinks about infrastructure. They asked for a tool and received a running one.

Then the agent does something the previous generation of coding assistants never did. It does not hand over code and walk away. It keeps the application running and comes back to maintain it. That last word is where the old assumptions break. Build once and hand off, and state is almost an afterthought. 

Build, deploy, and maintain across tens of millions of applications, most idle most of the time, and persistence stops being a database feature and becomes the central economic problem of the whole system.

I have written before about what happens to a database when its user is an agent rather than a human. Kimi is the clearest production example I have seen, and it surfaces a requirement that the industry has not really been asked to meet: keep state alive cheaply in two very different places at once. The problem is not performance. It is the economics of persistence.

The number that changes the question

When you serve thousands of tenants, the questions are familiar. How fast are queries? How do we fail over? How do we back up? The industry has good answers for all of them. When you serve tens of millions, most created by agents and most idle most of the time, a different question moves to the front, and it is the one nobody planned for: what does it cost to keep something alive that nobody is using right now?

Ask it once, and you are talking about idle databases. Ask it again, one layer up, and you are talking about the agent’s own half-finished work sitting between maintenance sessions. Same question, two surfaces. At a thousand you absorb it. At ten thousand it stings. At tens of millions it is fatal.

“In a human-driven product, what you provision and what people use track each other. In an agent-driven product, they diverge wildly.”

This is the shift agents force. In a human-driven product, what you provision and what people use track each other. In an agent-driven product, they diverge wildly, because agents create far faster and more casually than humans ever did, and most of what they create goes idle immediately.

One principle, two places

There is a single move underneath everything that follows: separate durable state from ephemeral compute. State is the part you must never lose, so it belongs on a shared, cheap, effectively infinite foundation. 

I have argued before that object storage is becoming the new network layer of the data stack, and this is what that looks like, built for agents: durable data at rest costs almost nothing. Compute is the part you should be able to throw away, summoned when work arrives and released when it stops.

Couple the two and you pay to keep compute running for state that is doing nothing. Decouple them, and your cost stops tracking how much you have created and starts tracking how much work is happening. 

Every hard number in the Kimi deployment comes from getting this separation right in the two places an agent-scale product needs it: the databases the agent provisions for its users and the workspace the agent lives in.

The first place: the idle tenant

The instinct most teams start with is the one that has worked for a decade: give each tenant its own database instance. It is clean and easy to reason about. Kimi’s earlier shape was close to this, with single-instance PostgreSQL behind the product. It works beautifully until the tenant count climbs into the tens of thousands, and then the economics invert. The reason is structural. 

A per-tenant instance couples the logical experience of an isolated database to the physical reality of dedicated, always-on compute. The tenant needs the first. The business cannot afford the second at scale. Cost grows with tenants created, not tenants active, and in an agent-driven product those two numbers are worlds apart.

“The agent experiences a dedicated, isolated database, while a virtual layer beneath provides each one its own namespace. The agent does not need a dedicated instance. It needs the experience of one.”

I have started calling this the idle cost trap, because teams walk into it without seeing it, and by the time they feel it, the architecture that created it is load-bearing. The way out is the principle. The agent experiences a dedicated, isolated database, while a virtual layer beneath provides each one its own namespace and isolation guarantees over a shared substrate, with object storage holding durable data and a routing layer sending requests where they belong. The agent does not need a dedicated instance. It needs the experience of one.

There is a catch worth being honest about. If compute is summoned on demand, then when a request arrives for an idle tenant something has to spin up, and if that is slow, you have traded a cost problem for a latency problem. 

Kimi provisions a database in about a second, from a warm pool of pre-initialized resources kept ready and replenished behind each claim, so database setup drops out of the delivery pipeline entirely. That number is not a benchmark to brag about. It is the evidence that ephemeral compute over shared, persistent storage can stand in for the always-on model, because it appears fast enough to feel always-on.

The second place: the agent’s own workspace

The maintenance half of the lifecycle drags the same problem into a place most teams never look: the agent’s own working environment. An agent that builds once can treat its workspace as disposable: spin up a sandbox, write code, ship, discard. An agent that maintains cannot work that way. 

It has to return days or weeks later and pick up where it left off: source code, Git history, checkpoints, the record of what it was in the middle of doing. If that context is lost, the agent does not resume work. It is reconstructing it.

And execution environments are ephemeral on purpose, because keeping millions alive between sessions is the idle cost trap in a different costume. So the environment gets torn down. If the work goes with it, every maintenance session begins by rebuilding state the agent already had: wasted compute, wasted tokens, and a user watching an agent relearn its own project.

The fix is the same separation, one layer up. Kimi uses a persistent filesystem that keeps development state alive independently of the compute that produced it. Source code, Git history, checkpoints, and task progress persist after the environment is destroyed, so the agent resumes rather than starting over. Compute is ephemeral and cheap to discard. State is durable and cheap to keep. Same trade as the idle tenant, seen from the builder’s side.

The database choice becomes a quality input

There is a further effect that surprised me, because it shows up in the quality of what the agent builds. Every infrastructure decision is a chance to get something wrong. If each task forces the agent to reason from scratch about which database to use and how to configure it, it is improvising on every run, and improvisation is where errors enter. 

When the stack is unified, it applies known-good patterns instead. Kimi saw code generation success rates improve from standardizing on a unified data layer, and that is the mechanism: fewer places for the output to go wrong.

“The choice of database is no longer just an infrastructure decision. It is a quality input to the agent’s work.”

This is a version of an argument I keep returning to. Agents need guardrails, and the most effective ones are built into the infrastructure rather than bolted on as instructions. A database that behaves consistently every time is a guardrail. The choice of database is no longer just an infrastructure decision. It is a quality input to the agent’s work.

Four properties that have never been requried together

Step back from Kimi and the shape of the requirement is clear. An agent-scale product needs four things from its data layer at once:

• Tenant isolation: every agent-created database must be logically separate, so millions of tenants never bleed into one another.
• Instant provisioning: a new tenant has to exist in about a second, because an agent will not wait and neither will the user behind it.
• Cost elasticity: an idle tenant, and an idle workspace, has to cost almost nothing, because most things are idle most of the time.
• Persistent state independent of compute: the tenant’s data and the agent’s development state alike must survive the ephemeral environments that produced them.

Each has been solved before in isolation. Databases have offered isolation for decades. Serverless systems provision quickly. Object storage is cheap at rest. What is new is the demand for all four at once, at a scale where any one failing breaks the product. That is the real infrastructure competition of the agent era, and it is not the one the industry is used to having. It is not about who has the fastest single query. It is about who can hold all four together at tens of millions of tenants without one collapsing the others.

The pattern is bigger than one product

I do not think Kimi is a special case. It is an early, unusually clear instance of a pattern that will repeat across every product where agents build for non-technical users at scale. The shape is always the same. One agent, one workspace, one database, repeated millions of times. Each instance feels independent. 

The infrastructure underneath is shared, and it works only because a virtual layer separates the logical experience of isolation from the physical cost of compute, and because durable state is allowed to outlive the compute that produced it.

Kimi is the version where the agent hands a finished application to an end user and then stays on to maintain it, which is harder in two ways at once. The tenant does not go away when the run ends; it persists, idle, waiting, multiplied by tens of millions. And the agent does not go away either, so its own working state has to survive every gap between sessions. Persistence is no longer a property of one component. It is the property the whole system is organized around.

“The database conversation in the agent era is no longer really about speed. Get it wrong, and no amount of model quality will save the margins.”

Teams building in this direction will hit the idle cost trap on both surfaces, whether they plan for it or not. The only choice is whether they see it coming. Design for all four from the start and you scale past the point where the per-tenant-instance model collapses. Do not, and you hit that ceiling at tens of thousands of tenants, exactly where Kimi’s earlier architecture did, and sooner than you expect, because agents fill a tenant table faster than any human-driven product ever has.

The database conversation in the agent era is no longer really about speed. It is about whether the economics of persistence can survive the scale that agents create in both the database and the workspace. Get that right early, and the rest of the product has room to grow. Get it wrong, and no amount of model quality will save the margins.

If you are building a product where agents provision infrastructure for end users and then stay on to maintain it, four things make that economically viable: isolation, instant provisioning, near-zero idle cost, and durable state on a shared substrate. That is what we have built into TiDB’s serverless and agent workloads. It is the pattern these teams keep arriving at from different directions.

The post When agents build, deploy, and maintain, persistence becomes the hard problem appeared first on The New Stack.

Connecting an AI agent to a tool is relatively straightforward. Things get more complicated once an organization has hundreds or thousands of resources spread across different clouds and platforms. Agentic Resource Discovery, or ARD, is designed to help agents navigate all of that.

AWS highlighted the open specification in its August 31 Weekly Roundup after taking a deeper technical look at it a week earlier, describing the idea as “DNS, but for agents.” Instead of telling an agent where to find everything in advance, ARD lets it search across different registries for what it needs.

And despite AWS highlighting the project, ARD isn’t an AWS technology. It was authored by Junjie Bu of Google, R.V. Guha of Microsoft, and Shaun Smith of Hugging Face, and released under the Apache 2.0 license. Engineers from several other companies have helped shape the project, including Cisco, Databricks, GitHub, GoDaddy, Nvidia, Salesforce, ServiceNow, and Snowflake.

AWS’s role, at least so far, has been to provide feedback on the specification and explore how it could work with its own Agent Registry. The goal is to make the existing registries work together.

Instead of telling an agent where to find everything ahead of time, ARD lets it search across different registries for what it needs.

MCP skips the discovery step

The Model Context Protocol has become a common way for AI applications to connect to external tools and data, but it assumes the client already knows which server it wants to use. That becomes a problem as companies spread their infrastructure across clouds, SaaS platforms, and internal systems.

ARD helps an agent find a resource before it tries to use it. The specification uses the term “agentic resource” to refer to anything an AI client can connect to, from an MCP server to other external capabilities. An ARD-compatible service keeps track of what’s available, rather than requiring developers to set up every connection in advance.

The Model Context Protocol has become a common way for AI applications to connect to external tools and data, but it assumes the client already knows which server it wants to use.

Federation without forced migration

Companies can keep their own catalogs and policies while routing searches to other ARD-compatible services. An enterprise, for example, could keep internal resources private while searching approved external catalogs when needed. AWS calls this “describe once, discover everywhere.”

The current v0.91 proposal, dated August 26, uses JSON-LD and a REST interface. Its required POST /search endpoint searches by task, while optional endpoints allow clients to browse available resources.

Each discovery service can set its own rules for what it returns and which sources it trusts. This is also where AWS’s DNS comparison falls short. A domain name points to a specific location, while an ARD search could turn up several options that all appear capable of doing the job.

Route 53 engineers shaped ARD

The DNS comparison has some history behind it. Two of the three authors of AWS’s August 24 ARD post work closely with Route 53. Principal software engineer Jeffrey Damick focuses on DNS and networking technologies. At the same time, Bhargav Talluri leads product management for Route 53 and for agent identity and discovery in AWS Agent Registry.The

Agent Registry already provides AWS customers with a central view of their resources. Adding ARD could bring resources running elsewhere into that view without requiring companies to register everything with AWS.

Adding ARD could bring resources running elsewhere into that view without requiring companies to register everything with AWS.

ARD’s governance is still being worked out, with board terms and membership among the details yet to be settled. The group has also discussed eventually moving the project to a neutral organization such as the W3C or an AI foundation.

Finding tools before using them

AWS is already exploring how it could connect with Agent Registry and find resources outside its own catalog.

There may not be much time to settle on a common approach, since connecting all these directories will only get harder once companies have built their own discovery systems.

The post MCP was supposed to solve the agent tooling problem. It missed a step. appeared first on The New Stack.

The five MLOps monitoring assumptions agents break, and which inherited signals now pass failed runs as healthy.

The post AgentOps Is Not MLOps: What Breaks in Your Monitoring Stack When Agents Go to Production appeared first on Towards Data Science.

How we stopped reviewing every agent action and started routing human attention where it actually mattered

The post Human-in-the-Loop Without Killing Throughput appeared first on Towards Data Science.

AI coding company Replit is throwing its weight behind the model-routing trend by making its “intelligent model routing” system the default across every account.

The system automatically selects the underlying model to handle a task as it evolves, with Replit weighing quality, speed, and cost in its routing decisions.

The company says the feature, dubbed Auto mode, will become the default option for all users, though Core and Pro subscribers can still override it and manually select models when they want more control.

Model-routing momentum

The announcement comes hot on the heels of a flurry of activity in the model-routing realm. Earlier in August, Stripe agreed to acquire model gateway platform OpenRouter for a reported $8 billion. On the very same day, Ramp launched Router.com, which routes requests to the lowest-cost model that meets a specified performance bar.

Before all that, in July, SpaceX-owned Cursor launched its own router, which automatically selects models for coding requests and claims to deliver comparable performance at a substantially lower cost. Meanwhile, Meta is reportedly developing an internal router called “Switchboard” that scores coding tasks by difficulty and sends simpler jobs to cheaper models.

“Across one model family, per-token rates can span orders of magnitude. At the same time, the intelligence of cheaper, smaller models is now much closer to their larger frontier counterparts, providing us a lot of room for cost optimizations.”

Michele Catasta, president and head of AI at Replit, says that one reason for the wider push into routing is simple economics — the growing gap between what models cost and the level of capability developers actually need for a given task.

“Across one model family, per-token rates can span orders of magnitude,” Catasta tells The New Stack. “At the same time, the intelligence of cheaper, smaller models is now much closer to their larger frontier counterparts, providing us a lot of room for cost optimizations.”

Replit, for its part, has been moving in this direction for some time. Catasta says that the company has spent recent months experimenting with early versions of Auto mode, subagent routing, and multiple iterations.

“Like any pivotal launch, we thoroughly tested Intelligent Model Routing in beta for a long period of time before we decided to release it in public,” he says. “The most important learning is understanding from first principles the failure modes of every experiment, so we could keep hill climbing on the final system that we just shipped.”

Enter Auto mode

The foundation of that work surfaced last week when Replit introduced Free Mode, a lower-cost Agent mode that doesn’t consume usage credits and uses Auto to choose the model on theuser’ss behalf, subject to usage limits.

Now, that same Auto routing approach is being pushed more broadly across Replit. The company says intelligent model routing will become the default across every account, with all users starting in Free Mode and Replit deciding which model is best suited to the task.

Free Mode, it’s worth noting, isn’t “free” in the sense of unlimited usage. When it launched, Replit made it available to Core and Pro subscribers without consuming their usage credits, but imposed limits that reset every five hours, with higher allowances for Pro users. In Free Mode, users cannot manually select a model.

Core and Pro subscribers can, however, switch to Replit’s Power or Max modes, where they can turn off Auto and choose a model themselves. Replit may also suggest moving a task into one of those higher-powered modes when it determines that more capability is required, though those modes can incur usage costs.

For Enterprise customers, meanwhile, administrators can restrict Auto to an approved set of models for each workspace, allowing Replit to continue routing tasks automatically while keeping model choice within company policy.

The agent advantage

Even before SpaceX agreed to pay a cool $60 billion to acquire Cursor, the AI coding startup had long been investing in its own coding models, including its Composer family. More recently, under the auspices of SpaceX, Cursor has been developing more cutting-edge models, too.

Replit, by contrast, isn’t making ownership of the underlying model layer central to its pitch. Instead, it’s betting that controlling the agent and the systems around it gives Replit enough insight to make better model-selection decisions on the fly.

“Replit has owned, from the start, both the agent harness and the infrastructure surrounding models which in turn allows us to train sophisticated model routers.”

“Replit has owned, from the start, both the agent harness and the infrastructure surrounding models which in turn allows us to train sophisticated model routers,” Catasta said. “Only in this way can we always offer useful intelligence to our users at the most competitive price point.”

That becomes particularly relevant as an Agent task unfolds, with Replit noting that its system can change which model it uses as the task develops, seeking a better trade-off between capability and cost at different points in the process. But for Catasta, that kind of dynamic routing is still only one part of a much broader research problem around how agents should use models.

“Model routing is still in its early development phase, and we expect further research will move the needle on serving the best intelligence when customers most need it,” Catasta explains. “Routing is but one piece of the puzzle that is tightly integrated to many other aspects of our harness research.”

“No third-party router company could reproduce the same results for our own agent.”

Replit also argues that seeing how people use its own Agent gives it an advantage that a standalone routing provider would struggle to reproduce. Catasta says a router has to infer the nature, difficulty, scope, and intent of a request, with Replit able to train against proprietary usage data and observe those signals across its user base.

“No third-party router company could reproduce the same results for our own agent,” he says.

The post Replit’s new default: Auto mode picks the best model for each task appeared first on The New Stack.

Documentation files on more than 100 websites are referencing potentially dangerous executable content that gets installed automatically when visited by many AI agents. A few dozen companies, some of them Fortune 500s, are among those that executed proof-of-concept code. At least one misconfigured site is directing visitors, human or AI, to live malware.

The potentially dangerous content is in llms.txt and llms-full.txt files, an emerging convention websites employ to provide machine-readable summaries of the site’s content and its high-level structure. These files are the AI equivalent of the robots.txt standard that instructs search engines how to index the site's content. Google Lighthouse, a tool for helping web developers, has more here. Correctly configured llms.txt and llms-full.txt files for Cloudflare are here and here.

How the researchers found it

Researchers at a stealth startup in Israel scanned 6,214 live domains belonging to defense contractors, Fortune 500, and Big Tech companies. Of the 8,265 llms.txt and llms-full.txt files they found (many sites hosted both an llms.txt and an llms-full.txt file), 120 of them, each on a different site, pointed to one or more code packages or domain names that weren’t registered. To test what happens when an AI agent processes such files, the researchers registered a handful of the unclaimed names and hosted packages that caused any machine executing them to reach out to their server. Within an hour, the researchers received a phone-home response from a Fortune 500 company. Over time, they got a few dozen more, some from more Fortune 500 companies and others from startups. Their beacon also recorded the chain of parent processes that spawned each install, ultimately revealing that coding agents, including Claude, OpenAI's Codex, and Nous Research's Hermes, were involved. Anthropic, OpenAI, and Nous Research did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.

Read full article

Comments

© Aurich Lawson

The OpenAI agents involved in last month’s incursion into Hugging Face were trained so heavily on winning a competition that they pursued a relentless campaign to cheat, a new report documented. In the process, and without authorization, they created an improvised message board to hatch a plan that ultimately landed them squarely inside the latter company’s network.

Over the course of May and June, OpenAI gave the agents what the company described as “impossible tasks” to complete on the benchmarking framework ExploitGym. The internal test was designed to test how the agents would respond. To get a full understanding of the agent capabilities, company engineers disabled safety guardrails that normally are in place to prevent the sort of hacks that eventually hit Hugging Face and one other undisclosed organization. The stymied agents’ training made them so focused on winning that they performed tasks they were never explicitly instructed to follow.

Cheaters gonna cheat

The first step was creating a message board that allowed the agents to pass notes to each other. OpenAI hadn’t provided any such platform, so the agents repurposed a platform called Artifactory, which OpenAI was using in internal testing of several unreleased hacking agents. OpenAI was using Artifactory as one of the measures to prevent the agents from egressing its isolated sandboxes and accessing the Internet, while at the same time simulating a real-world hacking environment.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images

OpenAI’s unreleased foundation model, codenamed Astra, is already working directly inside the company’s internal codebase, taking on experimental work that previously required as much as a week from a human researcher.

As part of a series of interviews with Time, OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki said Astra can take an idea for an experiment, turn it into code, run it, and return the results. A step beyond asking AI to fix a bug or write a function, OpenAI is essentially testing what happens when you hand the agent the experiment itself and let it figure out the steps in between.

For developers, Astra offers a glimpse into the future of coding agents. But giving an agent that much freedom creates another problem. Astra may already be powerful enough to trigger OpenAI’s highest-level cybersecurity safeguards.

OpenAI is essentially testing what happens when you hand the agent the experiment itself and let it figure out the steps in between.

Persistent agents change everything

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman described what the company is building as “persistent agents,” or systems that can keep working without needing a person to prompt them through every step.

Coding agents can already dig through a repository, change files, run tests, and try again when something breaks. Persistent agents are meant to keep going without a developer guiding them through each step.

That also changes what developers need from the tools around the agent. An IDE gives it somewhere to work, but a long-running agent needs infrastructure that can keep it running safely without constant oversight.

Multi-agent coordination at scale

In one demonstration witnessed by Time, 16 Astra agents worked together on a research-level math problem, splitting it into smaller pieces and then bringing their work together into a proposed solution.

For developers, it’s not hard to imagine that same setup applied to a large software project, with different agents working on different pieces at the same time. OpenAI is already experimenting with that kind of coordination, along with agents that can stay on a job for much longer.

Running several agents at once also complicates the infrastructure behind them. Developers need a way to keep the whole operation under control. Giving agents that much freedom, though, has created another problem for OpenAI: keeping them under control.

When agents escape containment

OpenAI said this month that preliminary evaluations indicate Astra may have reached the “Critical” cybersecurity capability threshold in the company’s Preparedness Framework, a finding the company disclosed alongside a pause on some frontier workloads.

Under the company’s framework, hitting that threshold brings stricter safeguards for how the model can be used.

OpenAI had already seen what could go wrong with agents that have access to tools. During a cybersecurity test, one of its internal AI agents escaped its sandbox and accessed Hugging Face systems without authorization. Astra was not the model involved, but the incident led OpenAI to pause some frontier-model research workloads while it tightened the infrastructure used to run them.

And OpenAI isn’t the only company running into this problem. Google’s AI coding agent recently broke out of the boundaries of its IDE. The circumstances were different, and the incident was less serious, but both point to the same problem that happens when giving an agent more freedom to act; you also have to make sure it stays where you put it.

Astra is now running under OpenAI’s strictest security controls. Some training and evaluation workloads have resumed, but OpenAI says a “significant number” are still paused while it upgrades the infrastructure behind them.

Astra is now running under OpenAI’s strictest security controls.

Monitoring costs real compute

The company also says it is monitoring Astra more closely when it uses tools, watching for behavior that could signal it is going beyond what it’s allowed to do. OpenAI estimates that monitoring adds about 20% to the inference compute for those workloads.

Time reports that OpenAI still plans to release Astra, although there’s no launch date yet. Until then, OpenAI is working through the same challenge developers could eventually face as agents work for longer stretches without human supervision and begin coordinating with other agents.

As agents take on more work, the IDE is only part of the picture. Developers also need a way to see what those agents are doing and keep them from going where they shouldn’t. OpenAI is already seeing the cost, with monitoring alone adding about 20% to Astra’s inference compute.

That kind of overhead could become another cost developers have to account for, along with the governance around autonomous agents that sets boundaries on what they can do.

OpenAI is already seeing what that costs, with monitoring alone adding about 20% to Astra’s inference compute.

The post OpenAI’s Astra can do a researcher’s week of work. That’s the problem. appeared first on The New Stack.

Perplexity shipped Portable Computer this week, the local-first version of its Computer agent running on an Nvidia DGX Spark workstation, and the bill is steep: A DGX Spark starts at $4,700, and even an aging 24GB RTX 3090 sells well above $1,500.

The architectural choice beneath the surface deserves as much attention as the price tag: Most platforms building agents address reliability with greater intelligence. That typically includes a larger orchestrator model, a planner model, or a critic model reviewing the work.

Probabilistic reasoning proposes the next action, and deterministic software decides whether to execute it.

Perplexity separated the two jobs instead of stacking them. Probabilistic reasoning proposes the next action, and deterministic software decides whether to execute it.

The loop controller is code, and the decisions are still a model

Perplexity uses the term “orchestrator” to refer to the runtime controller rather than the planning model. That controller assembles context, enforces policy, and executes approved tool calls inside an OS-level sandbox. The company says it is deterministic code, not yet another model. The local model proposes the next action, including which tool to call and when to ask a cloud advisor for help. The split resembles a control plane architecture, where reasoning suggests, and inspectable software retains authority. Nate Kupp, Perplexity’s vice president of Computer Enterprise and Infrastructure, tells The New Stack that the harness accounted for most of the engineering work.

Same weights, better scores

Perplexity kept the base model and the silicon constant, putting Qwen3.8-27B on the same DGX Spark across three agent stacks. On its internal Local Knowledge Work Bench, a held-out set of 53 tasks, the company reported 82.6% for Computer. Pi scored 77.6% and Hermes 74%.

On ParseBench-100, a subset covering charts, layouts, tables, and formatting, the gap widened considerably. Perplexity reported 65.1% for Computer, while Hermes reported 34.6% and Pi reported 13.9%.

Because the base weights were constant, the gap measures the system around the model rather than a better model. That does not mean weights stopped mattering. Perplexity post-trained Qwen into PPLX 27B and reported 85.4%, above its own base-model number. Harness engineering and post-training are significant factors of this approach.

The word harness also covers a lot of ground, including prompts, tool schemas, context management, verification hooks, and document processing. Orchestration code is one part of that surface.

The security boundary lives outside the model

The sandbox is the boundary, not the determinism. Perplexity says the sandbox restricts processes, filesystem paths, and network access. If the sandbox is unavailable, the harness disables itself before making any tool call. Deterministic code is valuable here because it makes policy easy to inspect and helps the system fail safely. Deterministic code can still ship a vulnerability or faithfully execute a permitted mistake.

The key distinction is not between model orchestration and code orchestration. It is whether permission is enforced by something other than asking a model in plain English to comply.

The key distinction is not between model orchestration and code orchestration. It is whether permission is enforced by something other than asking a model in plain English to comply.

The same discipline shapes how context gets spent. Perplexity reports that Qwen3.8-27B advertises a 260,000-token context window but begins to struggle beyond 100,000 tokens. The harness therefore keeps the core prompt and toolset small and loads skills on demand. Commonly used connectors became command-line tools rather than full Model Context Protocol definitions sitting permanently in context.

Deterministic execution cannot rescue reasoning that exceeds the local model. On Terminal Bench 2.1, Perplexity reported 59.6% running locally. Letting the local agent consult Claude Opus 5 raised it to 73.0%, compared with 82.4% when Opus 5 worked alone. All of this remains vendor-reported evidence on a bench that the company has yet to open-source.

For enterprises evaluating local agents, the component to scrutinize is the layer that grants and denies authority, because that is where the platform’s engineering is most evident.

The post Perplexity just separated reasoning from authority. Here’s why it matters for enterprises. appeared first on The New Stack.

Agentic reinforcement learning has been suffering from a disconnect, an uncoupling, and a misarticulation. The polarity arises from how a training engine handles resource management, compared with how a post-training live production harness does.

Microsoft wants to ensure the production harness is engaged from the start to oversee infrastructure services and agent interactions, during both initial training and subsequent reinforcement learning actions.

Redmond’s Microsoft Research division first introduced the Agent Lightning framework in August 2025 as an infrastructure concept for agent optimization to address structural challenges in post-training LLM-based agents as they enter reinforcement learning processes. Microsoft subsequently launched the Agent Lightning v1.0 release with a commit tagged on GitHub on August 16. 

Using Agent Lightning v1.0 on what Microsoft has called “modest compute” 6K training examples, reinforcement learning improves Qwen3.5-9B on OpenAI’s SWE-bench Verified benchmark from 41.8% to 56.4%, an absolute 14.6-point gain.

“Using Agent Lightning v1.0 on ‘modest compute’ 6K training examples, reinforcement learning improves Qwen3.5-9B on OpenAI’s SWE-bench Verified benchmark from 41.8% to 56.4%, an absolute 14.6-point gain.”

Who owns the interaction loop?

In traditional agentic reinforcement learning, the training engine owns the interaction loop, i.e., steps including observing the environment, selecting an action based on the policy, executing the action, receiving a numerical reward, storing and updating the policy… and so on. 

In harnessed agentic reinforcement learning, the harness owns context construction, tool execution, and the agent–environment loop. The training engine observes only a sequence of LLM request–response pairs across a service boundary. Therefore, developers do not need to reimplement the agent loop within the training environment.

According to a collected group of software engineers at Microsoft, because an AI model harness owns the loop that governs infrastructure access and operations procedures during harnessed agentic reinforcement learning, it “introduces challenges” including retokenization (re-segmenting text into new tokens during active training), sample merging, advantage calculation, loss normalization, and training backend scheduling.

All of which, if not addressed, can result in ineffective or unstable training.

How Agent Lightning v1.0 turns the tables

“[In Agent Lightning v1.0] the harness, rather than the trainer, owns context construction, tool execution, and the agent–environment interaction loop, while the training system observes and optimizes the resulting model calls across a service boundary. This formulation preserves the harness’s deployment-time context policy, tool protocols, and execution semantics without requiring its agent loop to be reimplemented inside the RL framework,” explained the Redmond team.

For coding agents, the team has said that it finds existing reinforcement learning frameworks provide limited support, including a lack of data and complete training scripts, and a reliance on large-scale computational resources. To address this gap, with Agent Lightning v1.0, Microsoft provides a “complete data-cleaning pipeline” and reproducible training scripts built on open-source datasets and models.

Is this the end of the training time liability?

For users inside Microsoft environments, this might feel like good news. Machine learning specialists and platform engineers may have a good harness or a good set of reinforcement learning tools; they would rarely have both.

Rather than having to hard-code retokenization, advantage calculation, and reward shaping every time they wanted to train an agent to call external services in reinforcement learning procedures, they can keep their existing agent architecture as an asset, rather than treating it as a training-time liability.

Nebraska-based software engineering researcher Md Rashedul “Rashed” Hasan tells The New Stack that training on the exact production harness matters, but not only for its efficiency and benchmark gains. 

Training through the real harness keeps semantics intact

“It reduces train–serve mismatch,” Hasan says. “If you train inside a simplified trainer loop and deploy inside a different harness, tool protocols, context policy, and recovery behavior can all drift. Training through the real harness keeps those semantics intact, so gains are more likely to transfer to production behavior, not only to a lab environment.”

Hasan thinks that Microsoft has clearly named the paradigm, kept the core framework small, and shipped what he defines as a “concrete coding-agent pipeline” with open data and scripts. 

“In terms of who this will appeal to, it’s application and platform engineers who already have a production agent harness (such as a coding assistant or support-triage agent), and want to improve the underlying model with reinforcement learning without rewriting deployment logic to fit a training framework. Reinforcement learning and machine learning platform teams would also use it when they need a thin, reproducible testbed for harnessed agentic reinforcement learning,” Hasan clarifies.

He agrees that the SWE-bench Verified lift with only 6K examples is “useful proof” that harnessed reinforcement learning can move a hard-coding benchmark without forcing teams to reimplement their agent stack within the trainer.

“Environment setup for coding agents, reward design, evaluation fidelity, and the retokenization, sample-merging, advantage, and loss-normalization details are still easy to get wrong. Adoption will also depend on whether teams can integrate this proxy pattern into existing orchestration, observability, and safety controls,” cautions Hasan.

“Environment setup for coding agents, reward design, evaluation fidelity, and the retokenization, sample-merging, advantage, loss-normalization details are still easy to get wrong. Adoption will also depend on whether teams can integrate this proxy pattern into existing orchestration, observability, and safety controls.”

Killing train-serve skew, the oldest & most expensive bug in machine learning

Colorado-based data science professional Priyank Jain tells The New Stack that training through the production harness to strip the framing away is really all about “killing train-serve skew”, which is the oldest and most expensive bug in applied machine learning.

“Models rarely blow up in production because the math was wrong,” Jain says. “They blow up because the training setup quietly lied to them about what production actually looks like. Training through the same harness that serves the agent is the right instinct, and honestly it’s overdue. The accuracy bump is nice, but the real win is that the thing you optimized is finally the thing you shipped.”

In terms of what Microsoft is getting right here, Jain says it shows Redmond wants to “meet developers where they already are,” i.e., allowing users to improve an existing agent with reinforcement learning without rewriting their deployment just to please a training framework.

“That’s a genuinely good call, and it opens this up to folks who aren’t reinforcement learning specialists. What I’d worry about is that it also lowers the bar for people to run reinforcement learning they don’t fully understand. The hard part was never wiring up the loop; it’s designing a reward that survives contact with a model actively looking for the path of least resistance. Make that part easy, and you’ll get more people optimizing the wrong thing faster,” Jain advises.

“3500 lines of code is small enough that an infrastructure engineer can actually read it before trusting it… and that’s a good thing.”

Just 3,500 lines of core Python code

Built with “simplicity as its first principle”, the entire framework consists of around 3,500 lines of core Python code.

Infrastructure engineering developer and founder-developer of Tooldex, a platform that autodiscovers MCP servers across LLM agents, Ria Banerjee, tells The New Stack that the simplicity element here is a positive, i.e. 3500 lines of code is small enough that an “infrastructure engineer can actually read it before trusting it,” and that’s a good thing.

“But in terms of who would actually use this tool, the honest answer is fewer teams than the framing suggests,” Banerjee says. “Realistically, you would need a GPU cluster and a Kubernetes cluster under your control. An app developer who built a support-triage agent on LangChain isn’t running that. So the real audience is platform teams that already employ infrastructure engineers.”

“Because the harness is where the behavior actually lives, but you’re now baking your harness’s quirks into the model weights… so you change your retry logic next quarter, you’ve silently shifted what the model was trained on. So now, you have to version your harness,” adds Albuquerque-based Banerjee.

Microsoft has released the complete workflow and training scripts to facilitate reproducible, harnessed agentic RL in Agent Lightning v1.0 on GitHub under the MIT license, including data cleaning and reward-hacking prevention.

The post Microsoft just released Agent Lightning v1.0. Here’s why it matters for platform engineers. appeared first on The New Stack.

A lightweight runtime layer that separates instructions, evidence, memory, and tool output before they reach the model

The post AI Agents Don’t Need More Context — They Need Typed Context appeared first on Towards Data Science.

Turning a demo agent into something that can keep real booking data

The post Building a Proper Backend for My LangGraph AI Agent appeared first on Towards Data Science.

What do you do when a technology you’ve become dependent on belongs to someone else? You buy the startup behind it, of course. And that’s exactly what data warehouse company MotherDuck has done with Tower, a data infrastructure startup whose technology was already powering MotherDuck’s AI-built data pipelines.

The deal, announced on Tuesday, is MotherDuck’s first acquisition in its four-year history, bringing both Tower’s technology and team in-house as MotherDuck pushes further into AI agents that can build and operate data pipelines.

Tower takes flight

Tower was founded out of Germany in late 2024 by ex-Snowflake engineers Serhii Sokolenko (CEO) and Brad Heller (CTO). Their pitch: once a developer, or an AI assistant, has written the code for a data pipeline, someone still has to package it, deploy it to the right infrastructure, wire up credentials, and maintain it — the unglamorous work, Sokolenko told The New Stack back in March, that amounts to data engineering’s “last mile.”

Tower, essentially, is a managed runtime for Python pipelines — it packages the code, deploys it, and keeps it running in production. It also offers tools built on top of that runtime, like the browser-based AI agent Tower Control that allows users to describe the pipeline they want in plain language.

Control can then generate the code, deploy it as a Tower app, and run it — effectively taking the process from prompt to production without the developer having to set up the underlying runtime themselves.

MotherDuck, for its part, is a serverless data warehouse built on the open-source database DuckDB, founded in 2022 by Jordan Tigani, a former engineering lead at Google focused on BigQuery. The company has raised some $100 million since its inception.

MotherDuck’s original pitch leaned on speed and local compute: queries could run on a laptop via DuckDB, in MotherDuck’s cloud, or across both — a departure from the likes of Snowflake, Databricks and BigQuery’s cloud-first model. More recently, MotherDuck has extended that approach to AI agents, using MCP to let agents interact directly with data. And things took a more operational turn in June with the launch of Flights, a feature that exposes a general-purpose Python runtime through the same MCP server, letting agents create, run and schedule data pipelines.

And Tower, as it turns out, was the key infrastructure underpinning Flights.

‘We became their largest customer almost overnight’

Tower’s involvement with MotherDuck actually predates Flights. Tigani says MotherDuck had initially been looking for a third-party tool it could recommend to customers as an easier way to get data into its warehouses. But then advances in AI changed the nature of the problem the company thought it needed to solve.

“When AI suddenly started to be able to solve data problems, we realized we were thinking about the problem wrong.”

“When AI suddenly started to be able to solve data problems, we realized we were thinking about the problem wrong,” Tigani tells The New Stack. “Claude can solve that problem we were trying to address by writing the connectors to help people move their data, but what it can’t do is the sandboxing and scheduling.”

That left MotherDuck needing somewhere to safely execute the code those agents generated, manage credentials and run jobs on a schedule. And as luck would have it, Tower already provided those capabilities.

“It perfectly solved our problem and let us ship Flights in only a matter of weeks,” Tigani adds.

For MotherDuck, Tower had supplied the missing execution layer; for Tower, that realization translated into a significant customer relationship. “We became their largest customer almost overnight, and our teams have been shipping together ever since,” Tigani says.

Having Tower on its radar so early also gave MotherDuck a chance to test the technology — and the team behind it — before deciding whether to build something similar itself. Tigani says the calculation ultimately came down to how quickly MotherDuck could get the capabilities it wanted into customers’ hands.

“It’s always tempting to build yourself, but after trying out Tower, we realized pretty quickly that there were a bunch of problems we were going to have to solve to make our underlying infrastructure actually work well, and Tower was pretty much exactly what we needed,” he says.

Ultimately, the more central Tower became to what MotherDuck wanted to build, the stronger the case became for owning the technology outright. Once Tower was executing jobs created and scheduled inside MotherDuck, Tigani argues, customers would inevitably hold MotherDuck accountable for the security, reliability and behavior of that runtime.

“There’s a rule I’ve relearned at every infrastructure company I’ve worked at: you can rent a feature, but you can’t rent a foundation,” Tigani says. “When an agent inside MotherDuck builds a job and schedules it, the thing executing that job is our product — whatever logo is on it.”

“There’s a rule I’ve relearned at every infrastructure company I’ve worked at: you can rent a feature, but you can’t rent a foundation.”

One example of what MotherDuck now hopes to do with that technology involves bringing Flights together with Dives, an AI-generated data visualization feature it debuted in February. Tower can generate stable URLs for jobs running through Flights, effectively allowing those jobs to act as data APIs that a Dive — or another frontend — can call.

Tigani gives the example of an application displaying user recommendations. A Dive could generate the interface for viewing those recommendations, while a Flight could handle requests to create or modify them. Rather than giving the frontend broad write access to the underlying data, the Flight can constrain and validate what changes users are allowed to make.

“When you put them together, you can build rich applications,” Tigani says.

Tower’s next chapter

All of this raises an obvious question for Tower customers. Part of the startup’s pitch was that developers could use its runtime without tying themselves to a particular data platform, and now Tower itself belongs to one.

Tower co-founder and CEO Serhii Sokolenko argues that MotherDuck represents a different kind of home to that of the industry’s larger cloud data platforms. His case is that Tower can become more deeply integrated without being bent around an architecture established long before AI agents entered the picture.

“Joining a hyperscaler usually means adapting to its legacy architecture,” Sokolenko tells The New Stack. “Joining MotherDuck lets us help shape where data and AI infrastructure are heading.”

“Joining a hyperscaler usually means adapting to its legacy architecture.”

There is still a trade-off, though. Tower is giving up some of the breadth that came with being database-agnostic in exchange for building much more specifically around one platform — a bet that tighter integration will ultimately produce a better experience than supporting many systems at arm’s length.

“By focusing Tower’s Pythonic compute specifically on MotherDuck, we’re trading broad, basic connectivity for deep, native execution,” he says.

Sokolenko’s argument is that the “lock-in” question then shifts down a layer. Tower may now be tied much more closely to MotherDuck, but because MotherDuck itself is built on DuckDB, he says the underlying data remains open and portable. The aim is to bring the runtime, agents and warehouse closer together without trapping the data itself inside a proprietary system.

That also helps explain why MotherDuck’s hybrid execution model appealed to Tower. DuckDB lets work move between local and cloud compute, which Sokolenko sees as closely aligned with Tower’s own direction.

“This directly matches Tower’s vision — allowing business users and agents to move seamlessly from local data exploration to cloud production execution,” he says.

For Tower’s existing customers, the immediate future means a move toward MotherDuck. Sokolenko says Tower customers are already in discussions with MotherDuck about migration paths, while people who have used Tower previously will be invited to try MotherDuck and its broader agentic data capabilities.

Tigani confirms that MotherDuck is working to move existing Tower customers onto Flights, though he concedes that the two products aren’t entirely identical. “There are a couple of differences, and we’re working on closing the gaps to make the transition more seamless,” he says.

Tower’s technology will meanwhile be folded more deeply into MotherDuck itself. Today, MotherDuck has two separate sandboxed, on-demand runtimes: Flights, which is backed by Tower, and Ducklings, its serverless DuckDB instances. Tigani says the plan is eventually to merge the two, combining the near-instant startup of Ducklings with the more robust sandboxing provided by Tower jobs.

Surfing the agent wave

MotherDuck is hardly alone in pushing data agents beyond answering questions. Databricks’ Genie Code can generate and run code, build pipelines and debug failures inside Databricks. Snowflake, meanwhile, has been moving in a similar direction with the likes of CoCo, its AI coding agent, while newer CoCo Automations can schedule unattended agent runs inside Snowflake-managed sandboxes.

The details differ, but both point toward a broader shift in the data industry: giving AI agents the infrastructure to act on data and operate the systems around it, rather than simply query what is already there.

“AI makes it possible to build useful features that we could never fathom five to 10 years ago. The platform is the most complex part of the data estate, and so warehouse vendors are well positioned to be at the center of whatever new patterns emerge.”

Tigani has been predicting something close to this for some time. Earlier this year, he outlined a future in which data engineering increasingly becomes an agent-supervision problem, with agents handling tasks such as building and repairing pipelines and responding to changes in schemas and data quality, while humans oversee their work. He also previously likened the advance of LLMs to a wave that data companies will have to learn to ride.

“The way I like to think about it is this — data platform vendors are reacting to new opportunities to make lives better for their customers,” Tigani says. “AI makes it possible to build useful features that we could never fathom five to 10 years ago. The platform is the most complex part of the data estate, and so warehouse vendors are well positioned to be at the center of whatever new patterns emerge. The Tower acquisition gives us a platform for deploying, tracking, and scheduling data agents, which should set us up well to surf that wave.”

The post “You can rent a feature, but you can’t rent a foundation”: why MotherDuck bought the startup already powering its data pipelines appeared first on The New Stack.

Between July 2024 and February 2025, Adobe recorded a 1,200% increase in traffic to U.S. retail websites from generative AI sources. That figure alone would be notable in any industry. For anyone tracking the broader shift toward automation and machine-led decision-making, it’s a signal of something larger than a marketing trend, it’s the early shape […]

Put several AI bots to work, and a mistake by one may not stay within its assigned task. For example, that error could reach another bot’s files and login credentials, or even the computer running them all. Two releases this month offered companies very different ways of containing that risk.

On August 17, Nous Research announced that its Bot Mode would ship bundled and enabled by default in Hermes Agent v0.20.3, turning agent profiles into a roster of named bots that hand off work to one another. About a week earlier, SpaceXAI launched Grok Bot with almost the same interface: a sidebar of named teammates who sign in to your tools and keep working long after you close your laptop.

The interface converged within a week, but the answer to the question every platform team has to ask did not: When one bot goes wrong, what can it reach?

Four projects have now come to their own answer, and no two of them agree.

1. Grok Bot draws the line around the user account.
2. Hermes draws it around the profile.
3. OpenClaw draws it around an optional runtime sandbox.
4. ClawFleet draws it around a container.

Taken together, the documentation shows an industry converging on the persistent coworker interface far faster than it is converging on what constitutes an identity or a security boundary for it.

Four projects, four written answers

Every one of these products now offers the same surface. You create several named agents, assign them different jobs, and have them pass work among themselves. The naming convention alone suggests separation, since a bot called Expense Manager and a bot called Talent Scout sound like they occupy different rooms in a shared office.

The documentation says otherwise, and it says something different in each case. The unit of isolation is the account in one product, the profile directory in another, an opt-in container in a third, and the deployment topology in the fourth. Those four units are not interchangeable, and an operator who assumes the roster itself is the boundary will be right in exactly one of the four cases.

Is Grok Bot confused about what it wants to be?

SpaceXAI’s launch post leads with the promise that bots have their own computer. The documentation, last updated the same day, describes a single persistent cloud computer assigned to the user account rather than to any individual bot. Browser cookies and signed-in sessions are shared across the roster, files are visible to every bot, and command-line credentials are shared. One bot can pick up work that another bot saved.

Each bot gets its own screen on that machine, which allows several of them to run browser and desktop tools in parallel. SpaceXAI is direct about what those screens are not. The documentation calls them “separate work surfaces, not separate security boundaries.” It then instructs operators to keep a credential or file off the machine entirely if another bot on the account cannot use it.

The consequences run further than credentials. Signing in for one bot makes that session available to the others because the browser is shared. Installed connectors are account-wide, and their availability is not isolated to a single bot. The shared workspace sits at /workspace and is designed to survive computer updates and recovery, so the durable state is shared across the whole roster.

None of this is an implementation accident. It is what makes handoffs between bots cheap, and cheap handoffs are the product. But an operator reading only the launch page would build a mental model that the documentation contradicts, and that gap is where the risk sits.

Hermes gives each bot its own profile

Nous took the opposite architectural position. In Hermes, a bot is a profile, and each profile has its own configuration, memory, skills, credentials, and chat history stored in its own directory on disk. Handoffs between bots run as real invocations against the named profile, rather than as a shared context blob passed around within a single process.

Nous shipped the teammate protocol as part of v0.20.3, alongside the MCP 2.x SDK migration and a set of runtime hardening changes. The company archived the standalone plugin repository once the merge was completed. Bot Mode is on by default, so a Hermes user who updates gets the roster without opting in.

Two qualifications matter before anyone reads that as containment. A separate credential store does not guarantee different credentials, since what ends up in a new profile depends on how the operator created it and what they edited afterward. And every profile still shares the host machine, its operating system user, and its filesystem permissions. What Hermes documents is workstation-level separation of agent state, a meaningfully stronger default than a shared cloud account, but not the same as isolation.

OpenClaw’s sandbox is off by default

OpenClaw documents the most complete boundary of the four. When the sandbox is enabled with the Docker backend, agent tool execution runs inside isolated containers. At the same time, the gateway remains on the host, and the scope can be selected per session, per agent, or shared across agents. Each scope gets its own workspace. Auth material lives per agent under an agent-scoped auth profiles file. Operators can configure network isolation, resource limits, and allow-or-deny tool policies on top of it.

The documented default for that sandbox mode is off. That is a defensible choice for a project most people run on a laptop, where the container overhead buys little against a single-user threat model. The underlying setup behavior deserves more attention. If sandbox prerequisites fail during setup, the script resets sandbox mode to off rather than refusing to start, so an operator who intended isolation and encountered a Docker socket issue ends up running without sandbox isolation. The documentation also warns against mounting the host Docker socket into agent sandbox containers and flags the CLI container’s shared network namespace with the gateway as a trust boundary in its own right.

ClawFleet answers the same question by moving it into the deployment topology. The project documents a wrapper that puts each OpenClaw or Hermes agent in its own Docker container with an isolated filesystem and network. It lists roughly 500 MB of memory per OpenClaw instance and 150 MB per Hermes instance. That cost is why the other three projects make the boundary optional or skip it, and naming the number makes the trade-off legible.

How to choose which bot is right for you

Scenario	Documented fit	Rationale
Persistent work that must continue with the laptop closed	Grok Bot	The only one of the four with a vendor-run always-on cloud computer, at the cost of one shared credential surface for the whole roster
Several agents with genuinely different credential sets on one workstation	Hermes	Per-profile stores are the documented default, and Bot Mode ships on
Untrusted or multi-tenant agent sessions	OpenClaw with sandbox enabled	Per-agent or per-session container scope with configurable network and tool policy, provided the operator turns it on and verifies it
Isolation as the deployment model rather than a runtime setting	ClawFleet	Container per agent with separate filesystem and networking, at a documented memory cost per instance

Each project gives operators different advice

The operational guidance diverges as sharply as the architecture. OpenClaw’s docs read like infrastructure documentation, naming specific hazards such as the Docker socket and the shared network namespace, and telling the operator what not to do. Hermes documents the profile layout and the protocol, then leaves policy to the operator. Grok Bot’s guidance is largely the warning itself, an instruction to treat the account as the boundary and to keep sensitive credentials off the shared machine entirely.

Grok Bot carries a second disclaimer worth reading alongside the first. Sensitive actions route through an approval mechanism. SpaceXAI documents the categories that trigger it, including sending messages, publishing content, purchases and transfers, deleting data, and touching production. Enforcement runs through an LLM classifier. Cursor‘s documentation for that same engine states plainly that the classifier is not a security boundary and can make mistakes. A buyer evaluating the product therefore finds the phrase twice, attached to the two mechanisms they would most reasonably assume protect them.

AI agents still lack identities of their own

Enterprises can adopt any of these four products today and get real work done, and the honest reading is that all four are engineering their boundaries in good faith against different threat models. What none of them provides is an identity for the agent. In every case, the bot borrows the operator’s credentials, whether from a shared cloud browser, a profile directory, or a container volume, and the entire security conversation boils down to how far those borrowed credentials travel.

“There is no primitive to standardize on, so each project has invented a boundary at whatever layer it already controlled, the account, the profile, the runtime, or the container.”

That is why the four answers differ so much. There is no primitive to standardize on, so each project has invented a boundary at whatever layer it already controlled: the account, the profile, the runtime, or the container. Expect to see that gap close on the identity side rather than the agent side, through scoped delegation and per-agent credentials issued by the identity provider, rather than being copied from the human. Until then, the useful move for platform teams is unglamorous and specific. Read the security page before the launch page, because for this class of product, they describe different things.

The post Grok Bot vs. Hermes: Where each draws the security boundary appeared first on The New Stack.

If you’ve searched “Abacus.AI” recently, you’ve probably landed on a review that covers one or two products and leaves you wondering how everything fits together. That’s the gap this guide fills. Abacus.AI does not consist of a single chatbot; instead, it’s an ecosystem of products which include personal autonomous agents, multilayered chat app, AI code […]

AI agents don’t just have a context problem—they have a context typing problem. When instructions, memory, retrieved evidence, and tool outputs are flattened into one string, their semantic boundaries can disappear. I built a lightweight, zero-dependency Python runtime that keeps those boundaries explicit, tracks provenance, and rejects invalid context transformations before they reach the model. This article walks through the implementation, tests, and what this approach does—and does not—guarantee.

The post AI Agents Don’t Need More Context — They Need Typed Context appeared first on Towards Data Science.

Turning a demo agent into something that can keep real booking data

The post Building a Proper Backend for My LangGraph AI Agent appeared first on Towards Data Science.

On July 16, the team at Hugging Face noticed something weird moving through their production systems: An intruder that was cloning datasets, harvesting credentials, and hopping between internal clusters faster than a human could type. Five days into the investigation, the authorities were notified, and several days later, OpenAI traced the intruder back to one of its models.

“Two frontier models escaped their test environments this summer; only one of them had a funny reason.”

That prompted Anthropic to look through its own test logs, and it found that similar events had occurred three times. One Claude model probed nine thousand hosts in a single run without setting off any alarms. Another slipped a poisoned package into the public Python registry, compromising fifteen machines before it was caught. The third incident dated back to April and went undetected for three months until a rival’s error prompted the audit. Nobody had noticed. Two of the three companies involved didn’t know anything was amiss until they got a call.

Containment by instruction

A sandbox, in the context of AI testing, means a model gets a task, a set of tools, and an instruction: no access to the outside world.

OpenAI’s model found an exploit in a tool it was allowed to use, and leveraged it to access the open Internet. Anthropic’s models didn’t even need that. The models were told a path didn’t exist, so when their tasks led them down a path that wasn’t supposed to be there, they treated it as part of the exercise.

“In both instances, the only constraint was an instruction. There was no mechanism outside the model itself to ensure those instructions wouldn’t be treated as optional.”

In both instances, the only constraint was an instruction. There was no mechanism outside the model itself to ensure those instructions wouldn’t be treated as optional.

So how did they escape?

OpenAI’s agent was being evaluated on a cybersecurity benchmark called CyberGym. During the test, it chained a code-execution flaw in a dataset loader to a second flaw in the platform dataset configuration file handler. It used the combined exploit to run commands on a live processing worker. From there it grabbed a write-scoped access token and cloned a private dataset as a staging area, which became a dead drop for its own tools. By the time anyone noticed, the intrusion had been running for three days, touched several internal clusters, and compromised accounts at four other companies, according to Hugging Face’s own review.

What it wanted, in the end, was comical: the answer key to the test it was taking.

Anthropic’s three incidents were nowhere near as convoluted. Its models were being run through security exercises against third-party evaluation partners, and the only thing keeping them from accessing the Internet was an instruction not to. One incident involved an SQL injection targeting a resource the model wasn’t supposed to be able to access. Another, during an exercise where the usual safeguards were deliberately switched off, ended with a Claude model publishing a malicious package to the Python Package Index, and fifteen machines picking it up before it was pulled down. No zero-day exploit. No dramatic escape. Just locked doors that turned out to be mirages.

The structural weakness

Strip away the specifics, and both incidents share the same root cause: there was nothing outside the model’s own judgment that could enforce the limitations placed on it. A credential that shouldn’t have been able to access the open Internet did so anyway. An instruction that should’ve stopped a plan cold got treated as just another input to reason around.

“If a fence doesn’t hold during testing, it won’t hold in production.”

It feels like we’ve spent the last year reliving the same problem in new ways. For example, in deleted databases, in poisoned supply chains, in every credential an agent inherited because provisioning it correctly took one extra step nobody got around to. The only delta is where the boundary was supposed to be: around the dev experiment, meant to contain dangerous capabilities, or standing between it and every production system it could reach. If a fence doesn’t hold during testing, it won’t hold in production.

How do we break out of the loop?

Unfortunately, the answer isn’t self-improvement. A more capable model wouldn’t have caught any of this. The only way to fix it is with Infrastructure that verifies where a model actually is, rather than trusting its reports.

Egress controls that are closed by default. A test environment that can reach the open Internet is probably not a great idea. Outbound traffic should be locked to an explicit allowlist. Never assume a model will simply decline to look for a way out. “No internet access” needs to be a network-enforced fact, not just an instruction.

Narrowly scoped credentials with short lifespans. Both incidents ran, in part, on tokens that extended beyond what the tasks required. A credential built for one evaluation run, scoped to nothing beyond it, and expiring on a timer, can’t become the write-scoped key that turns into a lateral-movement problem across multiple clusters. Yes, it will be a chore; so gird your patience by imagining having to explain to company leadership why taking steps to avert a catastrophe was too tedious to bother with.

Policy gates that sit outside the agent’s reasoning. An agent that can decide for itself whether an action is in scope is grading its own test. A plan should have clear rules written in code, evaluated by something other than the agent, before anything executes. Open Policy Agent has become a de facto default here for exactly this reason. It doesn’t care how confident the plan sounds; nothing runs without proper authorization from an external source.

An audit trail that is entirely independent of the agent. Both incidents were discovered by rereading logs after the fact, not by asking the models what happened. That’s how oversight should be done. As the proverb goes: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers? A system of record that captures what actually occurred, regardless of the agent’s own account of itself, is the only version of events worth trusting.

This is a sign

The industry spent a decade learning that the CI/CD pipeline is an attack vector that requires real fortification, not just bolted-on convenience. Test environments for frontier models are following the same arc at a faster pace. The next time one of these agents escapes containment, it’ll probably be one built around finding unlocked doors, which will make it substantially more dangerous than a coding agent that deletes a few databases.

Test rigs must be treated as if they hold something real, because, as far as the credentials are concerned, they do. A sign on a door is never going to be enough to keep everyone out; there has to be a lock whose robustness correlates to the value of what it guards.

“A sign on a door is never going to be enough to keep everyone out; there has to be a lock whose robustness correlates to the value of what it guards.”

Whether by a state-sponsored crew probing a water management system in the middle of the night, or a company’s own model trying to shave a few points off a benchmark, boundaries will always be tested. Two labs found out this summer, and the story needs to be taken seriously. The vulnerabilities are real, the transparency from the labs is welcome, and the containment failures are a cause for concern.

Catching a model that tried the handle is the easy part; both labs proved that. The more challenging, and therefore critical, part is making sure the next containment environment actually has doors that are firmly locked.

The post Securing sandboxes: What happens when AI agents escape containment? appeared first on The New Stack.