Demis Hassabis published a surprisingly detailed proposal for regulating frontier AI, and it’s blowing up on X. Sam Altman, Satya Nadella, Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, Mustafa Suleyman and others have all publicly responded positively.

Hassabis' idea is to create an AI version of FINRA: an industry-funded but federally overseen standards body, staffed by independent technical experts and representatives from the open-source community.

It would define when a model becomes “Frontier-class” based on regularly updated capability thresholds. Any lab crossing that line would be expected to:

1. submit its model for testing up to 30 days before release
2. undergo evaluations for cyber, biological and other national-security risks
3. test whether agents deceive evaluators, bypass safeguards or hide their intentions
4. maintain strong cybersecurity, vet key personnel and publish detailed model cards
5. help fix critical vulnerabilities discovered after release

The system would initially be voluntary, but Hassabis wants it to eventually become mandatory that a frontier model would need to pass the assessment before it could be deployed in the US.

The benchmarks would be updated regularly, possibly every quarter, and the regulator would eventually create secret held-out tests so labs couldn’t simply train specifically for the exam.

The proposal would apply to both open and closed models, including foreign models entering the US market, while smaller startups, academic projects and non-frontier models would be exempt.

And the strongest one: if the risks became serious enough, the body could even coordinate a temporary slowdown across frontier labs.

Altman soon responded and called it a thoughtful proposal(Image2). Nadella said the goal should be to preserve innovation while avoiding a model release that causes catastrophic harm(Image3). Suleyman(Image 4) said he fully supports it, while Pichai(Image 5) simply said it was well worth reading, Elon Musk called it a good starting point for discussion(Image 6), while Aaron Levie praised its ability to move faster than a traditional regulator.

In comparison, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has not publicly joined the chorus around Demis’s proposal. His own, much tougher AI policy framework also failed to attract anything close to the same public show of support from rival tech CEOs.

My take is, this is pretter rare to see the heads of all this giants publicly lining up behind the same regulatory framework lol. what do you guys think?

Hassabis' post link: https://x.com/demishassabis/status/2076957440109625718 or https://demishassabis.substack.com/p/a-framework-for-frontier-ai-and-the-dawning-of-a-new-age

Nous Research, the company behind Hermes AI agent, is reportedly raising at least $75M at a $1.5B valuation.

This is also not the first funding round for Nous. The company has been building more than just Hermes, with projects around open-source models and AI research, while Hermes has become one of its most visible products in the agent space.

Also, OpenClaw recently moved toward the OpenClaw Foundation, trying to build a more neutral, community-driven ecosystem around AI agents. The idea is closer to projects like Linux Foundation? that focus on open infra and standards rather than building a single commercial product.

As I see, Hermes for now seems to be taking a more traditional startup approach:

Open-source agent + models → grow adoption → monetize through products, hosted services, enterprise solutions, and infrastructure.

OpenClaw seems to be betting on a different logic:

Open ecosystem → get support from sponsors and partners → maintain the project as a neutral layer that developers and companies can build on top of. Perhaps it could do something similar to what OpenAI did in the future, but that’s not the direction right now I think.

So in general Hermes is betting "Build the best open agent company?" while openclaw is betting "Become the foundation everyone builds agents on?"

what do you guys think?

Highlights from this release:

• Web UI and onboarding overhaul: major improvements to the setup flow and browser experience, making OpenClaw easier to configure and use
• Mobile and desktop apps upgraded: major work across iOS, Android, and macOS, with iOS receiving one of the biggest improvements thanks to community contributors
• Channel improvements: Telegram, Slack, Discord, and iMessage all receive usability and reliability updates
• New model support: GPT-5.6, Muse Spark 1.1, and more models join the OpenClaw ecosystem
• Large contributor release: 3,063 contributions from 532 contributors helped shape this update

Community reaction:

On X, the conversation is mixed. Positive reactions focus on the scale of the update: Web UI, onboarding, iOS/Android/macOS apps, Control UI, and model provider improvements are being described by some users as a major upgrade.

The cautious side is much louder than usual. Some users report upgrades completely breaking their setup, broken instances, failed builds, rollback situations, Homebrew DMG checksum mismatches, plugin install failures, GPT-5.6/OpenAI provider issues, and local model compatibility problems. A few users say the experience is great after fixing migration issues, but the upgrade path itself remains the main concern.

Reddit discussion shows a similar pattern: excitement around the new GUI, Codex integration, GPT-5.6 support, Discord fixes, and localization improvements, but also detailed reports around failed post-install checks, Gateway crashes, Telegram/Discord disconnects, local llama.cpp issues, memory index conflicts, SQLite/legacy state migrations, and Node version requirements:)

Repo link: https://docs.openclaw.ai/releases/2026.7.1

Claude Code lead Boris Cherny said in Big Technology Podcast that Anthropic has seen something like a 250% increase in code written per engineer since introducing Claude Code, while code quality, reliability, and related metrics have apparently stayed stable.

He also mentioned that companies need the right culture to actually get this kind of productivity gain:

A few things he suggested:

1. Don’t over-control AI usage Instead of making employees ask for approval for every token, companies should give people enough access to experiment and figure out useful workflows.
2. Psychological safety matters People need to feel safe trying weird ideas, failing, and learning. If everyone is afraid of being blamed when AI makes a mistake, adoption stays shallow.
3. The biggest gains may come from unexpected people Not just the obvious top engineers. It could be accountants, marketers, new grads, or people who suddenly become much more capable with AI tools.

Feels like anthropic are really not shy with the claims lol. tbh i dont believe it. what do you guys think?

OpenClaw just announced the OpenClaw Foundation, turning the project from a fast-growing open-source github repo into a 501(c)(3) non-profit.

The goal: keep OpenClaw open, independent, MIT licensed, and community-driven while it grows into a bigger personal AI ecosystem.

A few key points:

1. OpenClaw says it is now seeing 4.5 million new claws born every week, after starting six months ago as a weekend project and Discord server.
2. The foundation’s vision is “your agent, your machine, your rules” - personal AI that runs closer to users, works with their apps, and is not fully locked inside someone else’s cloud.
3. The new structure is meant to make OpenClaw a neutral stewarded project, similar in spirit to Linux, Apache, or Mozilla.
4. Peter is still leading the technical direction, even after joining OpenAI, with OpenAI publicly committing to keep OpenClaw open and independent.
5. OpenClaw now has its first full-time team across engineering, operations, partnerships, community, finance, and talent.
6. Major partners now include OpenAI, NVIDIA, Microsoft, University of Michigan, Tencent, Atlassian, Vercel, Cloudflare, GitHub, and others.
7. The ecosystem is expanding beyond the core repo, with tools like ClawSweeper, Crabbox, Crabfleet, ClawHub, and ClawCon events across 16 countries.
8. The bigger pitch is that OpenClaw wants to become neutral infrastructure for the agent era, a place where different models, labs, companies, and developers can build together.

That’s it. Now let’s see if the foundation structure can actually keep openclaw independent as more big companies pile in, and if it really can become the Linux of the AI era.

Original post link: https://openclaw.ai/blog/introducing-openclaw-foundation

For anyone who doesn’t live on Hugging Face every day: Hugging Face is basically where a lot of open-source AI models and community-tuned versions live.   

People mainly use it not just because models can run locally, but also you can find all kinds of modified variants there: quantized models that fit on smaller machines, fine-tuned models for coding or Chinese, and task-specific versions made by the community.   

OpenClaw is now part of Hugging Face’s “Local Apps” flow, which means when you find a local-friendly model on HF, especially formats like GGUF or MLX, you can get the OpenClaw setup directly from the model page (like image 2). GGUF is commonly used by llama.cpp, LM Studio, and Ollama. MLX is more for Apple Silicon Macs.   

Main takeaway: easier access to the weird, useful, community-tuned model ecosystem around Hugging Face:)   

I’m sorry but what exactly is MS doing here? Am I supposed to burn my vibe slop onto a CD-ROM and hand it to my children.. or is this just GitHub dunking on Sony for killing physical discs? but isn’t Xbox literally doing the same “physical ownership is dead“, thing earlier in 2024??... quite confusing

Original post: https://x.com/github/status/2072801888525840476

The event is hosted by Warp, with Sequoia involved, and is focused on agentic engineering, software factories, coding loops, and the future of software development.

Speakers listed include:

Zach Lloyd from Warp
Peter Steinberger from OpenAI
Paige Bailey from Google DeepMind
Andrew Reed from Sequoia

The event runs 6:00–10:00 PM PDT on Wednesday, July 1 at Novela in San Francisco.

Agenda:

6:00 PM — doors open, check-in, food, drinks, networking
7:00–7:45 PM — fireside chat with Zach Lloyd, Peter Steinberger, and Paige Bailey
7:45–10:00 PM — networking, food, cocktails

Registration is through Luma and requires host approval. The Warp events page describes their events as “mostly livestreamed, sometimes in person,” but I don’t see a separate public livestream URL yet, so the Luma page seems to be the main place to register or follow the event:)

Link: https://luma.com/warp-5xsy

Highlights from this release:

• Multi-channel stability: Telegram, WhatsApp, Matrix, Google Chat, iMessage, Feishu, Mattermost, and WebChat all get fixes for reply routing, duplicate replies, stuck queues, misplaced attachments, reconnects, and lost messages
• Telegram-specific cleanup: quoted replies, progress bubbles, webhook restarts, stuck-message recovery, and rich-message formatting should behave more reliably
• Mobile app polish: Android overview now shows connection state, agent, node health, approvals, recent sessions, Chat / Talk, and in-app Allow Once / Always / Deny approvals; iOS gets notification, push relay, onboarding, color, and status fixes
• Model / provider recovery: OpenAI, OpenRouter, Google / Gemini, Claude CLI, local providers, LM Studio, and Vercel AI Gateway all get setup and fallback fixes, including full 1,048,576-token context for Gemini 3.5 Flash
• Long-task / session reliability: fixes for finished tasks that still look stuck, context drift after reconnects, silent Gateway restarts, queue database stalls, memory/session handoff, and final reply reconciliation
• Safer defaults: DOMPurify patching, stricter tool policies / secret handling, trusted package path hardening, clearer TLS config errors, and safer Matrix E2EE recovery behavior

6.11 is basically a “stability debt” release. It is not flashy, but for heavy Telegram, mobile, multi-channel, and 24/7 self-hosted users.

Community reaction:

X reaction does not feel especially hyped. The tone is closer to “good, they are finally fixing stability.” Discussion mostly centers on pain points from recent releases: Telegram / multi-channel reply routing, stuck sends, reconnects, mobile approvals, and provider setup. not seen many users posting strong “upgrade feels amazing” reports yet; it feels more like a maintenance release being quietly accepted.

Reddit is similar, but more critical and practical. The direction is generally recognized: 6.11 is clearly targeting misplaced replies, stuck sends, reconnects, and model setup failures. But users are still pointing out unresolved reliability issues around UI, SQLite migrations, memory, tool calling, mobile / iMessage, and Control UI session conflicts.

Repo link: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/releases#release-v2026.6.11

OpenClaw has now released official mobile apps for both iOS and Android. Based on the official docs, the mobile app is not only a chat interface or a Telegram replacement. It works more like a mobile control surface for an OpenClaw Gateway, with support for chat, Talk, task approvals, notifications, sharing images / links / text to agents, and optional device capabilities such as camera, screen, and location after permission is granted.

Community reaction on both X and Reddit is mixed.

On X, positive comments focus on “agents in your pocket” and the idea that a phone can act as another node in a self-hosted Gateway setup. Negative feedback is more about early product polish: rough UI, crashes, blank pages, confusing back navigation, QR / pairing failures, protocol mismatch unless the OpenClaw instance is updated, and regional app-store availability issues.

On Reddit, the discussion is more practical and troubleshooting-oriented. People are asking how to connect the app, how to upgrade Docker, how it differs from Telegram, whether Tailscale is needed, and why some Android users get stuck on “connecting.” Earlier Android feedback also suggests Telegram is still the more mature mobile workaround for some users.

Overall, the mobile apps look like an important direction for OpenClaw, but the current experience still seems early and uneven:)

Original post link: https://x.com/openclaw/status/2071688039114342592

For anyone not deep in advertising: Cannes Lions is basically one of the biggest global events for the ad/marketing industry. Agencies, brands, platforms, and adtech companies use it to show where they think the industry is going.

I’m sharing this because even if you don’t care about advertising, these announcements may give some interesting ideas for how agents can actually be used in real workflows:)

This year’s big theme: adtech is moving from “AI as a creative tool” to “AI agents operating the ad stack.”

heres the quick TLDR:

Amazon:
Amazon showed conversational display Alexa+ Agentic Ads. The idea is that people could see an ad on an Echo Show and immediately buy something through Alexa, like ordering Papa Johns or buying Ticketmaster tickets.

The bigger point: ads may become direct shopping triggers for agents, not just banners or videos people click on.

Databricks:
Databricks launched CustomerLake, an agentic customer data platform.

Its agents can write campaign briefs, build audience segments, and launch campaigns across channels. It also supports third-party APIs and MCPs.

The bigger point: traditional CDPs may get squeezed if agents can continuously manage customer data and campaigns without humans manually segmenting everything.

Fox:
Fox launched an end-to-end agentic advertising platform for audience planning, media transactions, and activation.

Both buy-side and sell-side agents can work across Fox’s media portfolio.

The bigger point: TV and CTV ad buying is also getting agentified, not just search/social/display.

Horizon Media:
Horizon updated OS Blu so its ad-buying agents can interact with agents from partners like Smartly and Fox.

The bigger point: agencies are trying to become agent-accessible operating systems, not just human service layers.

This also raises an interesting question: if agents can directly access data, audiences, and media workflows, what happens to the role of DSPs and SSPs?

Nexxen:
Nexxen is opening its platform to Anthropic’s MCP and Google’s agent-to-agent protocol.

That means agencies could use their own internal agents to communicate directly with Nexxen’s agents.

The bigger point: interoperability may become the new adtech moat. The winning platforms may be the ones easiest for other agents to call.

Nvidia:
Nvidia showed how its chips and AI software are being embedded into the adtech stack, across companies like Alembic, Criteo, Taboola, AWS, and others.

Use cases include causal measurement, real-time bidding, marketing automation, and video ad understanding.

The bigger point: Nvidia wants everything and It is becoming part of the infrastructure layer for how ads are created, bought, targeted, and measured.

Pinterest:
Pinterest built an MCP that gives outside AI agents access to campaign, analytics, and keyword data.

Initial partners include Dentsu, Havas, Pacvue, PMG, Innovid, and Omnicom.

The bigger point: Pinterest has very valuable trend data around what people search, save, and plan. Agents can use that to help advertisers understand emerging aesthetics, fashion, recipes, home design, etc.

WPP Enterprise Solutions:
WPP’s consulting arm signed a multi-year deal with AWS to help brands deploy AI agents across marketing stacks.

The tools connect creative work to sales outcomes, help local advertisers create on-brand content at scale, and provide workflow automation blueprints.

The bigger point: WPP is trying to compete more directly with consultancies like Accenture, not just traditional ad agencies.

WPP Media:
WPP Media announced an industry standards push for how buyer and seller agents communicate, plus its own video buying agent inside WPP Open.

Partners on the standards side include Disney Advertising, Fox, NBCUniversal, Netflix, and others.

The bigger point: everyone knows agent-to-agent workflows are coming, but the standards are still messy. WPP wants a seat at the standards table.

Yahoo:
Yahoo opened its DSP to outside AI agents.

Ad buyers could run campaigns through their own tools instead of using Yahoo’s interface.

Yahoo also built four MCP servers: creative, audience activation, targeting, and measurement. Each server has one specific function, partly to reduce hallucinations.

The bigger point: future ad platforms may become less like software for humans and more like backends for agents.

Yahoo expects partner integrations to quadruple in six months, and in a year marketers may be able to run DSP campaigns without learning Yahoo’s interface.

Zeta Global x Palantir:
Zeta signed a seven-year deal with Palantir to rebuild its Data Cloud on Palantir Foundry, with Zeta’s agentic layer Athena sitting on top.

The bigger point: marketing companies are trying to reposition themselves as AI infrastructure companies.

Also interesting/controversial: Palantir is an unusual partner for adtech because of its government surveillance and immigration enforcement associations, but its footprint in advertising seems to be growing.

-----

Overall, the shift is that the ad industry is moving from dashboards humans operate to systems agents can call.

Also, the future adtech moat that all company agreed is who exposes the cleanest data, APIs, MCPs, and agent-to-agent workflows.

Thats it. Hope this help, all are pretty good cases to me:)

Original post link: https://www.adweek.com/media/the-major-agentic-moves-from-cannes-lionsand-what-they-say-about-the-future/

Feels like I've been seeing a lot of news lately about companies moving toward Chinese models....?

Lindy says it moved 100% of its agent traffic from Anthropic to DeepSeek because inference had become its biggest cost. Coinbase is testing Chinese open-weight models like GLM and Kimi as default options to reduce AI spending while keeping token usage high. Microsoft is also reportedly looking at DeepSeek as a lower-cost option for Copilot Cowork....

I get why companies are doing this. But from a privacy and security angle... is this really fine? OpenAI and Anthropic are not magically perfect either, obviously, but something about this still feels weird... what you guys think?

Satya Nadella recently talked on Reid Hoffman’s Possible Podcast about what it would take for Microsoft to manage AI agents at real company scale.

The “20 million agents” number comes from a simple scale assumption: Microsoft has around 200,000 employees, so 2 million agents would mean roughly 10 agents per employee, and 20 million would mean roughly 100 agents per employee.

Nadella said he personally sometimes has around 100 coding agents running at the same time, but managing them through chat creates a huge cognitive load.

So his point was that if every employee eventually has many agents working for them, companies need real infrastructure to manage them: identities, permissions, sandboxes, policies, observability, and audit trails...

I think he’s right that the infrastructure has to exist. But 20 million still sounds kind of wild... what exactly are we building this workforce to do?

Peter Steinberger reposted a post from Hannes Rudolph, OpenClaw’s new Community Manager, titled “OpenClaw or BrokenClaw?”

The post basically acknowledges that OpenClaw’s stability has been a real problem lately. Hannes says they’ve “broken your claws,” admits their public response has been lackluster, and points to an independent stability tracker as one data point showing how bad things got and where things stand now.

The main points were:

• OpenClaw knows users are frustrated with repeated stability issues
• They say stability has improved recently, but still isn’t where it should be
• They want users to keep being vocal about what is broken
• Feedback is supposed to be routed to the dev team more seriously
• Hannes is also telling some users to message him directly on Discord, username hrudolph, with their version info so he can help debug
• In the replies, he also agreed that core features breaking across “stable” releases is not acceptable, and mentioned 2026.6.10 as the latest version to try

One interesting suggestion in the replies was whether OpenClaw should be able to file its own bug reports, since the current form is apparently long and annoying. Hannes said it can, though not out of the box, and called it a good idea.

So overall this feels like OpenClaw trying to reset the relationship with the community after a rough stability period... What do you guys think?