News & Updates
The latest news and updates from companies in the WLTH portfolio.
OpenAI Cuts Cursor Loose After SpaceX Takeover. Anthropic Seizes the Moment With More Claude Capacity
OpenAI just told SpaceX it plans to stop supplying models to Cursor. The proposed cutoff lands on November 12, 2026. Developers who built workflows inside the AI-powered code editor now face a choice. Stick with what remains or shift heavily toward alternatives. Anthropic moved fast. Its co-founder promised extra compute for Claude inside Cursor and pointed to a long-standing partnership. The move turns a corporate breakup into an opening for one rival to capture more developer mindshare. The trigger was straightforward. SpaceX closed its $60 billion all-stock acquisition of Anysphere, Cursor's parent, earlier in August. OpenAI cited a change-of-control clause in its custom contract that gave it a narrow window to exit. Company executives said they could not trust that SpaceX would honor terms of service. Past dealings with Elon Musk's companies factored heavily into that judgment. "We are making this choice because we cannot be confident that SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk's companies violating contracts," OpenAI wrote. The post referenced Musk's acquisition of Twitter, which it said broke prior agreements, and Musk's testimony this year admitting xAI had violated similar rules. It also noted new accountability attached to its unreleased Astra model. Future versions would stay off limits for Cursor. Cursor's reaction stayed measured. Co-founder and CEO Michael Truell posted that OpenAI models represented only about 5% of user traffic. "We're sorry to see that OpenAI put out a note saying they plan to block Cursor users from accessing OpenAI models in three months. OpenAI models serve about 5% of Cursor user traffic, and we're speaking with the OpenAI team to resolve this," he wrote on X. The company has spent years positioning itself as model-agnostic. Users could tap GPT, Claude, Gemini or others depending on the task. But 5% still matters when that slice includes power users who rely on specific GPT behaviors for certain refactors or agent runs. And the timing stings. Cursor has grown into one of the most widely adopted AI coding tools among professional developers. Engineers at more than 60% of Fortune 500 companies reportedly use it. Many treat the editor like a daily driver. Losing direct baked-in access to one family of frontier models forces adjustments. Some will bring their own OpenAI API keys. Others will route through gateways. A few may simply migrate workloads to Claude. Anthropic's Swift Counter-Move Anthropic did not wait. Within hours Tom Brown, co-founder and chief compute officer, posted: "Cursor has been a trusted partner of Anthropic since Sonnet 3.5. We'll continue to increase compute to support Claude models in Cursor and are excited for what comes next with them at SpaceX." The statement landed like a direct response. It signaled not just continuity but expansion. Brown's team would add capacity to absorb any displaced traffic. That pledge carries weight. Digital Trends reported Anthropic is also raising weekly usage limits for Claude Code users. Standard limits for Pro, Max, Team and seat-based Enterprise plans get a permanent 25% bump starting September 14. Until then, the existing 50% temporary boost remains. The combination gives developers more room to run longer agent sessions or tackle bigger codebases without hitting caps as quickly. Claude models already dominate many Cursor workflows. Recent benchmarks show Sonnet and Opus variants excel at multi-file edits, repository-scale reasoning and clean code generation. Developers praise their ability to maintain context across large contexts. Now those strengths get amplified at the precise moment OpenAI steps back. The shift could accelerate. Cursor users who previously split time between providers may default to Claude for consistency and higher limits. Yet the episode reveals deeper tensions. AI labs increasingly treat their models as strategic assets rather than neutral commodities. Contracts come with strict usage rules. Competitive concerns surface when a customer gets acquired by a rival. Anthropic itself cut off access to other coding tools in the past when acquisition rumors swirled. The pattern repeats. Loyalty lasts only as long as business interests align. Musk dismissed the news. "I couldn't care less," he posted on X, adding pointed criticism of Sam Altman and OpenAI leadership. The remark fits a years-long public feud. Reuters detailed how the rivalry has played out in lawsuits, public accusations and now commercial retaliation. Reuters noted the $60 billion deal turned Cursor into part of a larger SpaceX AI organization. That integration apparently crossed a line for OpenAI. Developers watch these moves with a mix of frustration and pragmatism. Many already maintain multiple subscriptions. They bring their own keys where possible. They test models side by side. The Cursor situation forces a sharper evaluation. How much does direct integration matter versus raw capability and rate limits? For teams running heavy agentic workloads, capacity often decides. OpenAI's help center post outlines workarounds. Users can plug in personal API keys for supported chat and agent features, though some advanced Cursor capabilities like Tab, Cloud Agents or the CLI remain tied to provider-supplied models. The Codex IDE extension offers another path. Gateways provide a third. None fully replicate the pre-acquisition experience. And none guarantee access to future OpenAI releases inside Cursor. Anthropic's response looks calculated. It keeps a key customer. It gains potential volume. It burnishes its image as the more developer-friendly option in a moment of disruption. Whether the added compute scales without new bottlenecks remains to be seen. Demand for Claude in coding tasks has climbed steadily. Extra capacity helps, but frontier models still require massive resources. The next several weeks will test these promises. Cursor must guide users through the transition without losing momentum. Anthropic must deliver on higher limits and extra headroom. OpenAI must demonstrate that its workarounds satisfy the developer community it says it wants to support. And everyone watches to see whether this accelerates a broader fragmentation of the AI coding stack or simply pushes more traffic toward the current leader in that category. One thing looks clear already. In the contest for developer loyalty, raw model performance still matters. But so does reliability of access, predictable limits and willingness to scale alongside fast-growing tools. Anthropic just bet it can meet that test. The market will deliver the verdict.
Anthropic Sued Over Claude Max Plans That Deliver Far Less Than Advertised - Startup Fortune
A proposed class action filed against Anthropic in the Northern District of California claims Claude Max subscribers pay for 5x or 20x the usage of the base Pro plan but receive far less. Plaintiff Karl Kahn says internal Anthropic emails and his own account activity point to real multipliers closer to 3.5x and 6-8x, not the numbers in the marketing. A Claude Max subscriber says Anthropic promised 20 times the usage of its base plan and delivered closer to six. Karl Kahn paid $200 a month for Anthropic's top-tier Max 20x plan to run Claude Code through long coding sessions. He wanted the usage Anthropic advertised: twenty times what a $20-a-month Pro subscriber gets. What he got, according to a lawsuit he filed against Anthropic, PBC in June, was nowhere close. Kahn v. Anthropic, PBC, case number 3:26-cv-05763, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 14. It's a proposed class action, seeking to represent every U.S. buyer of the Max 5x or Max 20x plans since Anthropic rolled them out in April 2025. The complaint puts the amount in controversy above $5 million and brings four claims: false advertising, a violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The gap is at the center of it. Anthropic markets Max 5x, at $100 a month, as five times the usage of Pro. Max 20x, at $200, is billed as twenty times Pro. According to reporting from Engadget and Qz, the complaint alleges the real multipliers land far lower: roughly 3.5x for Max 5x and somewhere between 6x and 8x for Max 20x. That's not a rounding error. It's the difference between paying for twenty units and getting six. The complaint leans on internal Anthropic emails from July 2025 that spelled out, tier by tier, what subscribers should expect to use each week. Pro users were told to expect 40 to 80 hours of Sonnet 4 access weekly. The higher tiers promised more. Max 5x subscribers were told 140 to 280 hours of Sonnet 4, plus 15 to 35 hours of Opus 4. Max 20x subscribers got 240 to 480 hours of Sonnet 4, plus 24 to 40 hours of Opus 4. Run the math on the high end of each range, and Max 20x tops out around 520 combined hours against Pro's 80. That's roughly 6.5 times, not 20. Sony Music and Warner Chappell Sue Anthropic Over Stolen Song Lyrics Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell filed a new copyright lawsuit against Anthropic on August 28, 2026, alleging the AI company scraped and stripped copyright data from thousands of song lyrics to train Claude. The suit, which names co-founders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann personally, seeks statutory damages that could reach billions of... - how to copyright AI training data lawsuits - anthropic claude AI music copyright infringement case Kahn's personal experience, described in the filing and reported by letsdatascience.com, is blunter. He says he burned through 15% of his weekly quota in a single five-hour coding session. Part of what makes the multiplier hard to verify, per the complaint, is that Anthropic doesn't run one limit. It runs two. A rolling five-hour window caps what you can use in any short burst. A separate weekly cycle caps your total across seven days. Reporting indicates the weekly layer was added on top of the five-hour window in late August 2025, after Anthropic found power users running Claude Code close to nonstop. Stack those two systems and you lose any clean way to check whether your weekly allotment scales the way the price tag implies. You burn through the five-hour window, wait for it to reset, and repeat. There's no visibility into how that maps back to the weekly promise Anthropic emailed you in July. The complaint argues that opacity isn't incidental. It's the mechanism that let the gap between advertised and real usage go unnoticed for over a year. Anthropic has declined to comment on the lawsuit, according to every outlet that has asked, including Engadget and Yahoo Finance. The case remains active in the Northern District of California. No ruling yet. No settlement either. A pricing model other AI companies are watching Anthropic isn't alone in using usage multipliers to sell higher subscription tiers instead of flat token limits. OpenAI, Google, and other AI vendors have built similar tiered structures for their own coding and chat assistants, betting that most subscribers never audit their actual weekly consumption against the marketing math. Kahn's suit tests whether that bet is legally safe. If a federal court in California finds that Anthropic's emailed usage estimates amounted to a promise it didn't keep, other companies selling 5x or 10x usage upgrades will have reason to rewrite those numbers before a subscriber does the math for them. For now, nothing about Claude Max's pricing has changed. The $100 and $200 tiers are still live, still promising 5x and 20x. Whether that number survives the lawsuit is the open question, and it's the one Anthropic still won't answer. Also read: Twitch Streamer Sues Amazon Claiming It Trained AI on Streams Without Consent * Meta Is Testing Robots to Take Over Cabling and Server Jobs at Its Data Centers * Big Tech Booked $160 Billion in Paper Gains From AI Bets Last Quarter OpenAI, Anthropic and Over 100 Firms Warn AI Cyberattacks Are Months Away OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft and more than 100 other companies, including CrowdStrike, Visa and Capital One, signed an August 27, 2026 letter warning that AI-powered cyberattacks on hospitals and water systems are months, not years, away. The same labs sounding the alarm are already selling the defensive AI tools meant to stop it. - AI powered cyberattacks on critical infrastructure timeline - when will AI cyberattacks happen to hospitals
Anthropic Accused of Stealing Thousands of Songs in Music Label Suit | PYMNTS.com
Sony Music, Warner Chappell Music and several other labels filed a federal lawsuit Friday (Aug. 28) alleging that the Claude maker improperly used "thousands upon thousands" of their songs to train the AI model. "Defendants can no longer hide their extraordinary theft, and their mass infringement is now well-documented," the suit said, adding that another court in the district had "recently described Anthropic's actions as 'straightforward piracy but at massive scale.'" The suit, filed in in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, demands a jury trial and was first reported by the website Music Business Worldwide. That report noted that the lawsuit means that the publishing arms of all three major music companies have taken legal action against Anthropic. Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord Music Group, and ABKCO sued the company in October 2023 over roughly 500 songs, and filed a second suit earlier this year. That action covers more than 20,000 works and seeks more than $3 billion. BMG sued Anthropic in March over 493 songs, with Round Hill Music suing the company earlier this month, the report added. In this latest suit, the record labels seek statutory damages of up to $150,000 for work willfully infringed, as well as up to $25,000 for each alleged "removal and/or alteration" of copyright management information. Anthropic told TechCrunch it disagrees "with the publishers' claims and we intend to defend ourselves robustly in court." Anthropic last month agreed to pay a historic $1.5 billion copyright violation settlement in a case brought by authors who had accused the company of improperly using their works to train Claude. The settlement is thought to be the largest such award in a U.S. copyright case. As PYMNTS wrote last month, the judicial record on AI copyright issues is a divided one. For example, U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco called AI training "quintessentially transformative" and said copyright law "seeks to advance original works of authorship, not to protect authors against competition." But U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, also in San Francisco, warned in a ruling days later that widespread AI training could undermine the economic incentives that fuel human creative work. For all PYMNTS AI coverage, subscribe to the daily AI Newsletter.
Anthropic Sued Over Copyrighted Music Used to Train Claude
Sony Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music and affiliated publishers sued Anthropic over allegations that copyrighted music was illegally obtained and used to develop Claude Anthropic already paid $1.5 billion to settle claims that it pirated books to train Claude. Now the music industry is coming after the company with a similar allegation, but with a sharper legal argument: the problem wasn't simply what Claude learned. It was how Anthropic allegedly got the material in the first place. Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music, joined by numerous affiliated publishers, sued Anthropic late Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. "Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music have filed a lawsuit against Anthropic, alleging that the company engaged in a 'brazen campaign of illegally torrenting, scraping, and downloading copyrighted works," Music Business Worldwide reported after obtaining the 48-page complaint. Anthropic has not publicly responded to this specific complaint. TechCrunch reported the company could not be reached for comment before publication. But the lawsuit arrives with unusually convenient timing for the plaintiffs: a federal court has already ruled in Anthropic's books case that acquiring copyrighted works through piracy is a separate problem from whether those works can legally be used to train an AI model. "While training an AI model on copyrighted works can be fair use, that does not mean that Anthropic's acquisition of those works was lawful," U.S. District Judge William Alsup wrote in Bartz v. Anthropic, finding that Anthropic's downloading and storage of pirated books was not protected by fair use. The Fight Is About Acquisition In Bartz v. Anthropic, a judge found that using copyrighted books to train AI could, under certain circumstances, qualify as fair use. But that did not make the way Anthropic obtained those books legal. The court found that the company had acquired millions of works from pirate sources including LibGen and the Pirate Library Mirror, describing the conduct as "straightforward piracy but at massive scale." Anthropic ultimately agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement, which received final approval in July 2026. "The $1.5 billion settlement provides meaningful relief to the Class," U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín wrote when granting final approval of the settlement in July 2026. The music publishers are building directly on that precedent. Their argument is effectively that even if Anthropic eventually wins some fair-use protection for training Claude on copyrighted lyrics, that protection cannot excuse allegedly torrenting and downloading the works in the first place. That gives the case a much narrower question than the sweeping debate over whether AI companies can train on copyrighted material. The issue is whether the acquisition pipeline itself violated copyright law. DimensionDetails & ParametersPlaintiffsSony Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music, and affiliated music publishersDefendantsAnthropic PBC, Dario Amodei (CEO & Co-founder), Benjamin Mann (Co-founder)JurisdictionU.S. District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaStatutory Relief SoughtUp to $150,000 per work for willful infringement; up to $25,000 per violation for removal of Copyright Management Information (CMI)Legal Precedent LeverageBartz v. Anthropic (approved $1.5 billion settlement over pirated book corpora) What The Publishers Want The complaint alleges direct copyright infringement through the alleged torrenting activity against Anthropic, Amodei and Mann. It also accuses Amodei and Mann personally of contributory infringement for allegedly directing and approving the activity. "Anthropic's infringement threatens to substitute Claude-generated lyrics for the original works, thereby depriving Plaintiffs and other music publishers and songwriters of licensing opportunities and revenue," the publishers allege in their complaint filed in the Northern District of California. The complaint names "tens of thousands" of compositions, including Ain't No Mountain High Enough, All I Want for Christmas Is You, Eye of the Tiger, Livin' On a Prayer, September, Hallelujah and Taylor Swift's Paper Rings. The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 per willfully infringed work, along with as much as $25,000 for each alleged removal or alteration of copyright-management information. They are also asking for an accounting of Claude's training data and destruction of infringing copies. Claude's Guardrails Face A Test Anthropic added safeguards following earlier litigation designed to stop users from getting the model to reproduce protected material. The new complaint argues those protections can be circumvented simply by changing or repeating prompts. That matters because the publishers are not arguing only that copyrighted material went into the training system. They are pointing to what Claude can produce and arguing that the resulting outputs can compete with the works Anthropic allegedly used to build the model. Whether that argument survives in court is another matter. The complaint establishes what the publishers allege, not what a judge has found. The Music Cases Keep Multiplying Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord Music Group and ABKCO sued the company in 2023 over roughly 500 songs. The case was later transferred to California, and a January 2026 lawsuit from the same publishers expanded the fight to more than 20,000 works and sought more than $3 billion. BMG filed another case in March 2026 covering hundreds of compositions. Round Hill Music followed with another lawsuit on August 17. The latest filing puts the publishing arms of all three major music companies into litigation against Anthropic. What looks like repeated litigation over the same basic technology is partly a consequence of how music rights are divided: lyrics, musical compositions and sound recordings can carry separate copyrights controlled by different owners. One song can therefore produce multiple potential plaintiffs, each with a different legal interest in what an AI company allegedly copied. The Rule That Could Spread If courts continue separating how copyrighted material was acquired from whether that material could legally be used for AI training, then an AI company's data pipeline becomes a legal issue in its own right. That would matter to every AI lab that built training datasets from material gathered across the open internet, unofficial repositories or other sources whose copyright status was uncertain. A company might eventually establish that a particular use of copyrighted material was transformative or otherwise protected. The music publishers are betting that distinction gives them a stronger case than simply arguing that Claude learned from copyrighted lyrics. And that may be the most consequential part of this lawsuit. The fight isn't only over what AI is allowed to learn. It is increasingly about whether AI companies were legally entitled to obtain the material they taught it in the first place.
Anthropic Downloaded Music From Torrent Sites to Train Claude | Editor's Pick AI News
Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music sued Anthropic on Friday. They say the company used BitTorrent to take songbooks, then fed them to Claude. While Anthropic has already admitted torrenting books, it has never conceded that music sat inside those files, hence the copyright case. Anthropic Music Lawsuit Explained The complaint names two hauls, both from shadow libraries and containing unlicensed copies of published works. * Roughly 5 million books came from Library Genesis in June 2021. * Another 2 million came from Pirate Library Mirror in July 2022. According to the publishers, sheet music and songbooks sat in those collections. Torrenting is not the only route in the filing. The publishers also say Anthropic scraped lyrics from Musixmatch and LyricFind. Both sites pay for the right to display them. "...one of the largest and most blatant ongoing thefts of intellectual property in history," the opening line of the complaint reads. Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens Why Torrenting Is the Dangerous Part A judge has already drawn this line once. Buying books and scanning them leaned toward fair use. Taking them from pirate sites did not. The same judge described those downloads bluntly. "...straightforward piracy but at massive scale." That is why Anthropic's destructive book scanning program survived court, while its downloads ended in a settlement. Torrenting sits on the wrong side of that line, and it carries a second problem. The software uploads while it downloads. Every copy taken is also a copy shared. Two of the four counts rest on that point, with both naming Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann as individuals, not as employees. Companies settle. People give depositions. What It Could Cost The publishers want up to $150,000 for each song a jury finds was knowingly infringed. The publishers say hundreds of their songs sat in those files. They put the wider training claim in the tens of thousands. Notably, however, Anthropic has beaten these publishers before. It beat their bid to block Claude's training in a 2023 case over lyrics. It agreed to run output guardrails instead. It has not commented on this one. Everything now turns on discovery. Did the songs reach Claude through a purchase, or through a swarm?
Anthropic's $7bn Chip Hunt Tests the Economics of Gulf AI Investment
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are spending heavily to become global suppliers of AI computing power. Anthropic's push into proprietary silicon raises a harder investment question: can data-centre returns keep pace with increasingly rapid hardware replacement cycles? Anthropic's abandoned attempt to acquire AI-chip start-up MatX for about $7 billion carries implications well beyond Silicon Valley. For the Gulf, it exposes an emerging financial risk beneath one of the region's biggest technology bets: the accelerated economic depreciation of the AI processors and computing hardware powering its new data centres. Reuters reported that Anthropic considered acquiring MatX, founded by former Google TPU engineers, before shifting towards a possible partnership. MatX is separately seeking funding at a valuation of around $4 billion, while Anthropic is recruiting semiconductor specialists and examining several chip developers as it builds an internal silicon capability. The motivation is increasingly economic. Anthropic is simultaneously committing enormous sums to external computing capacity, including a reported six-year, $45 billion agreement for around 460MW from Nscale using Nvidia's Vera Rubin systems. At that scale, even relatively small improvements in the cost, power consumption or utilisation of each AI workload can justify investment in proprietary processors. Anthropic is also following a broader industry direction already established by Google, Amazon, Meta and others: leading AI companies increasingly want greater control over the hardware beneath their models. For Gulf investors, that changes the equation. The Gulf's Compute Bet Saudi Arabia and the UAE are positioning computing capacity as a new strategic infrastructure industry. Saudi Arabia's HUMAIN and AMD announced plans to invest up to $10 billion to deploy as much as 500MW of AI capacity over five years. HUMAIN's Nvidia programme separately targets up to 500MW, beginning with an 18,000-unit GB300 Grace Blackwell system. Both are expansion targets rather than currently operating capacity. The Saudi strategy is already broadening. HUMAIN, AMD and Cisco subsequently announced a joint venture targeting up to 1GW by 2030, beginning with a planned 100MW deployment, while Qualcomm is targeting 200MW of inference infrastructure from 2026 alongside an AI engineering centre in Riyadh. Abu Dhabi is pursuing even greater scale. Stargate UAE is being developed as a 1GW AI cluster within the planned 5GW UAE-US AI Campus, with the first 200MW under construction towards planned delivery in 2026. The opportunity is substantial. Demand remains strong: Nvidia's latest outlook pointed to continued rapid growth in AI infrastructure spending rather than an imminent collapse in accelerator demand. The investment risk is subtler. MEO Analysis: The "Stranded Compute" Risk A data-centre building, grid connection, fibre network and cooling system can remain productive for years or decades. The accelerator hardware inside it operates on a very different economic clock. MEO defines stranded compute not as an obsolete data centre, but as accelerated economic depreciation of installed processors before investors have fully captured the returns originally expected from them. The distinction is important. Older GPUs do not suddenly become useless when a new generation arrives. They can move into less demanding training or inference workloads, or remain profitable at lower prices. But if newer accelerators perform substantially more computation per megawatt or per dollar, the market value and rental economics of older machines can weaken quickly. That creates an unusual asset-duration mismatch: long-lived infrastructure surrounding short-lived technology. The financial transmission is straightforward: faster hardware depreciation → lower achievable pricing or utilisation → higher replacement capex → weaker free cash flow and project IRR. For Gulf investors, that is more important than whether one particular processor architecture wins. MW Measures Capacity. Utilisation Determines Returns. The AI infrastructure race is frequently described through GPU numbers and megawatts. Neither determines profitability on its own. A 500MW facility operating close to capacity under multi-year contracts with creditworthy customers can produce attractive infrastructure economics. The same facility carrying expensive processors without sufficient utilisation can destroy capital. Anthropic's Nscale deal illustrates why contract structure matters almost as much as hardware selection. Long-duration customer commitments can transfer part of the technology-cycle risk away from the infrastructure owner by providing greater revenue visibility through several years of hardware depreciation. Gulf AI projects should therefore increasingly be judged on four variables: utilisation, contracted revenue, replacement capex and upgrade flexibility. Investors should ask who pays when processors need replacing, who carries their residual-value risk, whether contracts survive a hardware refresh, and whether power and cooling infrastructure can support future architectures. This is particularly important as financing moves deeper into AI equipment. Reuters Breakingviews has highlighted efforts to develop hundreds of billions of dollars of financing around AI hardware, including structures that may depend partly on assumptions about the residual value of Nvidia accelerators. The question is increasingly not whether AI demand exists, but who absorbs depreciation if hardware economics change faster than expected. Stranded Compute Does Not Mean Stranded Infrastructure There is also an important counterargument. Better processors can actually increase the value of high-quality Gulf data centres. If a future accelerator delivers considerably more compute from the same megawatt of electricity, scarce grid capacity becomes more productive. Revenue per MW can rise even as individual servers are replaced. That means the underlying powered infrastructure -- land, electricity, fibre and cooling -- could retain or increase its strategic value while the accelerator layer turns over rapidly. The Gulf's comparative advantages therefore remain powerful. Its challenge is to avoid allowing most technology-cycle risk to sit on regional balance sheets while the highest-margin intellectual property remains elsewhere. From Compute Capacity to Value Capture Saudi Arabia is already beginning to address that issue. Qualcomm's collaboration includes a semiconductor design centre intended to develop local engineering capabilities alongside infrastructure investment. That may prove strategically important. Gulf investors do not need to replicate TSMC's fabrication model to capture more of the AI value chain. More durable opportunities could lie in chip design, specialised software, networking, advanced packaging, model optimisation and equity participation in semiconductor technology, alongside data-centre ownership. The capital-allocation principle is straightforward: regional investors should seek assets capable of generating returns across multiple generations of processors, rather than relying excessively on the scarcity premium attached to one generation of hardware. Anthropic's MatX discussions therefore do not undermine the Gulf's AI strategy. Even companies developing proprietary processors continue to commit tens of billions of dollars to external compute, demonstrating how large global demand remains. But the investment standard is becoming tougher. The next phase of Gulf AI development should be measured less by headline GPU counts and more by how effectively projects recover capital, maintain utilisation and upgrade through successive silicon cycles. The key question is no longer simply how much compute Saudi Arabia and the UAE can install. It is whether the region can keep earning attractive returns after today's chips are replaced.
Anthropic Downloaded Music From Torrent Sites to Train Claude
Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music sued Anthropic on Friday. They say the company used BitTorrent to take songbooks, then fed them to Claude. While Anthropic has already admitted torrenting books, it has never conceded that music sat inside those files, hence the copyright case. Anthropic Music Lawsuit Explained The complaint names two hauls, both from shadow libraries and containing unlicensed copies of published works. * Roughly 5 million books came from Library Genesis in June 2021. * Another 2 million came from Pirate Library Mirror in July 2022. According to the publishers, sheet music and songbooks sat in those collections. Torrenting is not the only route in the filing. The publishers also say Anthropic scraped lyrics from Musixmatch and LyricFind. Both sites pay for the right to display them. "...one of the largest and most blatant ongoing thefts of intellectual property in history," the opening line of the complaint reads. Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens Why Torrenting Is the Dangerous Part A judge has already drawn this line once. Buying books and scanning them leaned toward fair use. Taking them from pirate sites did not. The same judge described those downloads bluntly. "...straightforward piracy but at massive scale." That is why Anthropic's destructive book scanning program survived court, while its downloads ended in a settlement. Torrenting sits on the wrong side of that line, and it carries a second problem. The software uploads while it downloads. Every copy taken is also a copy shared. Two of the four counts rest on that point, with both naming Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann as individuals, not as employees. Companies settle. People give depositions. What It Could Cost The publishers want up to $150,000 for each song a jury finds was knowingly infringed. The publishers say hundreds of their songs sat in those files. They put the wider training claim in the tens of thousands. Notably, however, Anthropic has beaten these publishers before. It beat their bid to block Claude's training in a 2023 case over lyrics. It agreed to run output guardrails instead. It has not commented on this one. Everything now turns on discovery. Did the songs reach Claude through a purchase, or through a swarm?
:quality(82)/9b4f024c2b5f4f7fbb12281b5aa35fb3)
Sony Music, Warner sue Anthropic, alleging copyright infringement
Music giants Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music have just filed a potentially multibillion-dollar lawsuit against Anthropic, and the publishers aren't mincing words. The lawsuit, filed Friday evening in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, calls Anthropic "the culprits behind one of the largest and most blatant ongoing thefts of intellectual property in history." Sony and Warner also named Anthropic CEO and cofounder Dario Amodei and cofounder Benjamin Mann in the lawsuit. * Play our Big Guessing Game: Make your predictions now for a chance to win a new Apple Watch. Time's running out! In the lawsuit, first reported by Music Business Worldwide, the music companies claim that Anthropic has carried out "a brazen campaign of illegally torrenting, scraping, and downloading copyrighted works on a massive scale" to train its popular Claude AI models. Sony and Warner accused Anthropic of having "reaped enormous profits" from the stolen music. Sony and Warner are seeking $150,000 in damages per work as well as $25,000 per copyright violation. The music companies, which are the second- and third-largest in the industry, allege that thousands of titles have been stolen, putting compensation in the range of billions of dollars. The publishers have specifically accused Anthropic of "blatant theft" of song titles such as "Ain't No Mountain High Enough," "All I Want for Christmas is You," "Eye of the Tiger," and "Here Comes Santa Claus." Anthropic has been hit with intellectual property lawsuits before. In fact, Sony and Warner's lawsuit directly references the $1.5 billion settlement that Anthropic reached with book publishers earlier this year in a similar case where the AI company was accused of training models on stolen works. The world's largest music company, Universal Music Group (UMG), previously filed copyright infringement lawsuits against Anthropic. UMG, along with Concord Music Group and ABKCO Music, filed a lawsuit against Anthropic in 2023 and again earlier this year. Their latest suit seeks more than $3 billion in damages.
Anthropic Beats Trump in Court and a Judge Just Said He Couldn't Do That - Memeburn
This is one of several clashes between AI labs and the Trump administration this year, and Anthropic still has a second lawsuit pending. In March, Judge Rita Lin called the Pentagon's case against Anthropic "Orwellian." On August 27, 2026, she made it official, ruling the blacklist illegal. That capped months of legal fighting between the two sides. That came right as Anthropic gears up for what could be the biggest IPO in AI history. Here's what the ruling actually changes, and why it matters for every other AI company dealing with Washington. How Anthropic Ended Up on the Pentagon's Blacklist It started in early 2026, with the blacklisting formally imposed in February. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wanted AI companies to sign contracts letting the military use their models for anything. That included fully autonomous weapons and surveillance of Americans at home. Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and SpaceX agreed. Anthropic refused. Anthropic set two hard limits: no lethal weapons without a human in control, no spying on US citizens. Dario Amodei said so out loud, and the Pentagon was not happy about it. Officials went after Anthropic publicly, then slapped it with a "supply chain risk" label. That's normally reserved for foreign vendors nobody trusts. Federal agencies were told to stop using Claude, and Pentagon contractors were told to stop doing business with Anthropic altogether. Anthropic is preparing for what could be the largest stock market debut ever for an AI company. The label threatened billions in lost contracts and damaged its reputation. Why the Judge Said the Blacklist Was Illegal The label was originally designed for foreign vendors, not domestic companies engaged in policy disputes. Judge Lin's 59-page ruling found three separate problems. The government punished Anthropic for speaking out, which breaks the First Amendment. It never gave Anthropic a fair chance to respond, breaking the Fifth Amendment. And the decision itself had no real justification, which breaks federal law. Internal Pentagon documents showed the real reason was frustration with Anthropic's public criticism, not any actual security threat. As Lin wrote, invoking national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics. What Anthropic Gains From Winning The blacklist label has to be removed. The order stopping other contractors from working with Anthropic no longer applies. Federal agencies can use Claude again starting now. But don't think this is totally wrapped up. Anthropic actually filed two lawsuits, and this ruling only knocks out the first one. There's still a second case sitting in a federal appeals court in Washington, and the Trump administration could try to appeal this too. So there might be more of this to come. What Other AI Companies Can Take From This This is the first time an American company has beaten the Pentagon's "supply chain risk" label in court. The real motive was punishment for speaking up. This isn't an isolated case. In June, Anthropic's Fable and Mythos models were suspended due to export controls, before being restored in July. At this point it feels less like bad luck. It's starting to look like the cost of doing business as an AI company under this administration. The message is simple: Washington can pick any AI vendor it wants. But it cannot use a security label to punish companies for what they say. Other AI companies now have proof that setting their own limits doesn't mean losing government business. A few years ago, betting against the Pentagon would have looked like a losing move for any startup. Anthropic bet on it anyway, and won. A second case is still pending, so the final word isn't written. But this ruling already shows something important. Standing on principle doesn't have to cost an AI company its seat at the table with Washington. FAQs What did the court rule on August 27, 2026? Judge Rita Lin ruled that the Pentagon broke the law when it labeled Anthropic a "supply chain risk." She told them to drop the label and undo the order that had other contractors avoiding Anthropic. Why did the Pentagon blacklist Anthropic in the first place? Anthropic refused to let its AI be used for autonomous weapons or mass surveillance of US citizens. After the company said so publicly, Pentagon officials criticized it, then labeled it a security risk. Turns out their own internal docs showed they were just annoyed and not actually worried about security. What changes for Anthropic now? Federal agencies can work with Anthropic again, and it clears a legal headache right as the company's gearing up for a huge IPO. Is this legal fight completely over? Not quite. This was one of two lawsuits Anthropic filed, so there's still a second case pending, and the government could try to appeal this one too. Why does this matter for other AI companies? It basically tells the government it can't use "national security" as an excuse to punish companies. That includes companies taking a stand on how their tech gets used.
Anthropic unveils standard linking AI agents to physical devices
Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said SAN FRANCISCO, California: Anthropic has unveiled a new framework that allows AI agents to operate physical equipment, including microscopes and robotic arms, for use in scientific research and advanced manufacturing. The company on August 27 rolled out a research preview of the "Model Hardware Standard," or MHS, which enables AI agents to operate laboratory and manufacturing instruments together and carry out complex tasks. Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said. By combining agentic AI capabilities with laboratory and manufacturing hardware, the Claude chatbot maker aims to help researchers and engineers carry out autonomous, round-the-clock workflows with minimal human intervention, helping speed up processes. Anthropic said the standard can work with any device that has a programmable interface and allows devices and AI agents to communicate across networks. The company is sharing an early version of MHS with partners to help develop safety evaluations before making the framework open source.
Anthropic rolls out AI framework for labs and manufacturing
SAN FRANCISCO, California: Anthropic has unveiled a new framework that allows AI agents to operate physical equipment, including microscopes and robotic arms, for use in scientific research and advanced manufacturing. The company on August 27 rolled out a research preview of the "Model Hardware Standard," or MHS, which enables AI agents to operate laboratory and manufacturing instruments together and carry out complex tasks. Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said. By combining agentic AI capabilities with laboratory and manufacturing hardware, the Claude chatbot maker aims to help researchers and engineers carry out autonomous, round-the-clock workflows with minimal human intervention, helping speed up processes. Anthropic said the standard can work with any device that has a programmable interface and allows devices and AI agents to communicate across networks. The company is sharing an early version of MHS with partners to help develop safety evaluations before making the framework open source.
Anthropic Sued By Sony Music, Warner Chappell Music, Other Music Publishers Over Alleged Mass Piracy Of Copyrighted Songs
Anthropic has been sued by Sony Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music and other major music publishers, which accuse the artificial intelligence company of illegally obtaining and using thousands of copyrighted musical works to train its Claude AI models. The publishers filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming Anthropic and co-founders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann as defendants. They accused the AI company and its founders of conducting what they described as a "brazen campaign of illegally torrenting, scraping, and downloading copyrighted works" on a massive scale. The case adds the music industry to a growing legal battle over how AI companies obtain the enormous quantities of copyrighted material needed to train generative AI systems. "Defendants Anthropic and its founders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann have conducted a brazen campaign of illegally torrenting, scraping, and downloading copyrighted works on a massive scale in order to develop, operate, and reap enormous profits from Anthropic's 'Claude' series of artificial intelligence ('AI') models," the publishers said in the complaint. Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell said Anthropic obtained "thousands upon thousands" of copyrighted songs, including "Eye of the Tiger," Marvin Gaye's "Ain't No Mountain High Enough," Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas is You" and Taylor Swift's "Paper Rings." The publishers allege that Anthropic acquired copyrighted material through several sources, including Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror, two digital archives that have been associated with pirated books and other content. The lawsuit builds on an earlier copyright case against Anthropic involving books. In June 2025, a federal judge ruled that Anthropic had downloaded more than 7 million pirated books to train Claude. The music publishers argue that those books also contained lyrics and sheet music belonging to their catalogues. They identified works including Bon Jovi's "Livin' On a Prayer," Earth, Wind & Fire's "September," Jerry Lee Lewis' "Great Balls of Fire," the Allman Brothers Band's "Ramblin' Man," and Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah." According to the complaint, the alleged infringement goes beyond the use of copyrighted works during model training. The publishers claim Claude can generate identical or nearly identical versions of copyrighted material in response to users' prompts. That allegation could become crucial because the case raises two separate questions for the AI industry: whether copyrighted works can lawfully be used to train AI models and whether AI systems can reproduce protected works closely enough to constitute infringement when responding to users. The publishers argue that training Claude on copyrighted compositions enables Anthropic to generate lyrics that could compete directly with music created by human songwriters. "Even the most revolutionary of technologies must develop within the bounds of the law, and Anthropic's Claude models are no different," the publishers said in the complaint. They are seeking statutory damages and have requested a jury trial. Under U.S. copyright law, statutory damages can reach $150,000 per infringed work when the infringement is found to be willful. The potential exposure could therefore become substantial if the publishers succeed in establishing infringement across a large catalogue. The lawsuit marks another escalation in the confrontation between copyright owners and AI companies over training data. Generative AI systems require enormous datasets to develop their capabilities, creating a direct conflict with industries whose books, articles, photographs, music and other creative works form part of the material that AI companies seek to acquire. For the music industry, the dispute has implications beyond compensation. Publishers and songwriters are becoming more concerned that generative AI could become a competitor to the very creators whose work helped train the systems. The legal strategy also comes at a time when Anthropic is already facing significant financial exposure from copyright litigation. In September, the company agreed to pay more than $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by authors over the use of pirated books. Other major AI companies have faced similar lawsuits. OpenAI has been sued by publishers and content owners, including The New York Times and Encyclopedia Britannica, over allegations concerning the use of copyrighted material to train and operate its AI systems. The cases could ultimately help determine the economics of the AI industry. If courts require companies to obtain licenses for large quantities of copyrighted training material, the cost of developing and operating AI models could rise substantially. If courts allow broader use of copyrighted material under fair use or other legal doctrines, publishers, authors, musicians and other rights holders could face greater pressure to adapt their business models. The Anthropic case could be especially consequential because music is subject to multiple layers of copyright protection, including rights in compositions and, in many cases, separate rights in sound recordings. A ruling against Anthropic could therefore have implications for how AI companies collect, process, and reproduce musical content at scale.
Anthropic unveils standard linking AI agents to physical devices
Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said SAN FRANCISCO, California: Anthropic has unveiled a new framework that allows AI agents to operate physical equipment, including microscopes and robotic arms, for use in scientific research and advanced manufacturing. The company on August 27 rolled out a research preview of the "Model Hardware Standard," or MHS, which enables AI agents to operate laboratory and manufacturing instruments together and carry out complex tasks. Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said. By combining agentic AI capabilities with laboratory and manufacturing hardware, the Claude chatbot maker aims to help researchers and engineers carry out autonomous, round-the-clock workflows with minimal human intervention, helping speed up processes. Anthropic said the standard can work with any device that has a programmable interface and allows devices and AI agents to communicate across networks. The company is sharing an early version of MHS with partners to help develop safety evaluations before making the framework open source.
Anthropic unveils standard linking AI agents to physical devices
Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said SAN FRANCISCO, California: Anthropic has unveiled a new framework that allows AI agents to operate physical equipment, including microscopes and robotic arms, for use in scientific research and advanced manufacturing. The company on August 27 rolled out a research preview of the "Model Hardware Standard," or MHS, which enables AI agents to operate laboratory and manufacturing instruments together and carry out complex tasks. Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said. By combining agentic AI capabilities with laboratory and manufacturing hardware, the Claude chatbot maker aims to help researchers and engineers carry out autonomous, round-the-clock workflows with minimal human intervention, helping speed up processes. Anthropic said the standard can work with any device that has a programmable interface and allows devices and AI agents to communicate across networks. The company is sharing an early version of MHS with partners to help develop safety evaluations before making the framework open source.
Anthropic unveils standard linking AI agents to physical devices
Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said SAN FRANCISCO, California: Anthropic has unveiled a new framework that allows AI agents to operate physical equipment, including microscopes and robotic arms, for use in scientific research and advanced manufacturing. The company on August 27 rolled out a research preview of the "Model Hardware Standard," or MHS, which enables AI agents to operate laboratory and manufacturing instruments together and carry out complex tasks. Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said. By combining agentic AI capabilities with laboratory and manufacturing hardware, the Claude chatbot maker aims to help researchers and engineers carry out autonomous, round-the-clock workflows with minimal human intervention, helping speed up processes. Anthropic said the standard can work with any device that has a programmable interface and allows devices and AI agents to communicate across networks. The company is sharing an early version of MHS with partners to help develop safety evaluations before making the framework open source.
Anthropic unveils standard linking AI agents to physical devices
Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said SAN FRANCISCO, California: Anthropic has unveiled a new framework that allows AI agents to operate physical equipment, including microscopes and robotic arms, for use in scientific research and advanced manufacturing. The company on August 27 rolled out a research preview of the "Model Hardware Standard," or MHS, which enables AI agents to operate laboratory and manufacturing instruments together and carry out complex tasks. Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said. By combining agentic AI capabilities with laboratory and manufacturing hardware, the Claude chatbot maker aims to help researchers and engineers carry out autonomous, round-the-clock workflows with minimal human intervention, helping speed up processes. Anthropic said the standard can work with any device that has a programmable interface and allows devices and AI agents to communicate across networks. The company is sharing an early version of MHS with partners to help develop safety evaluations before making the framework open source.
Salesforce Stock Soars 23% on Real Agentforce Growth, Not Just Anthropic Gains - Startup Fortune
Salesforce shares jumped roughly 23% this week after a Q2 beat, but the real story isn't the one-time Anthropic windfall padding the headline number. It's Agentforce ARR growing 240% year over year. If you're asking why Salesforce stock jumped 23%, here's the answer: the company posted fiscal 2027 second-quarter revenue of $11.35 billion, edging past the $11.32 billion Wall Street expected, and non-GAAP earnings per share of $5.90 against a $3.27 estimate, according to CNBC. Shares surged 22.6% on August 27, the stock's second-best day ever, trailing only a roughly 26% jump in August 2020. Marc Benioff got his mojo back, and investors noticed. Here's the part that matters and the part that's a distraction, tangled together in the same earnings report. A big chunk of that EPS beat came from paper gains, not operations. Salesforce booked a $2.6 billion gain on its strategic investment in Anthropic, the maker of Claude, according to the Motley Fool. That single line item accounted for a large share of the $5.90 adjusted per-share profit. Strip it out and the beat looks a lot less dramatic. Investors who only read the headline EPS number are reading an accounting event, not a business trend. The timing wasn't a coincidence, either. Salesforce and Anthropic used the earnings window to unveil Claudeforce, a partnership that plugs Salesforce data directly into Anthropic's Claude chatbot for salespeople. Benioff and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei announced it together. That's a real product move, not just a portfolio markup, and it's fair to read the stock's move as investors betting on both at once: the AI stake paying off and the AI product roadmap deepening. Salesforce spends $3.6 billion on Fin to buy proof it could not build in time Salesforce is acquiring Fin, the AI customer service company formerly known as Intercom, for $3.6 billion in a deal that folds a proven autonomous support agent into Agentforce. Fin's core AI product resolves 76% of inbound support without human handoff and was generating $100 million in ARR growing at 350% annually, implying a 36x multiple on the... - Salesforce acquires Fin for artificial intelligence customer service - how much did Salesforce pay for Fin acquisition Agentforce is the number that should actually move you Frankly, the Anthropic gain is noise next to what's happening inside Agentforce, Salesforce's AI-agent platform. Agentforce annual recurring revenue passed $1.5 billion in the quarter, up more than 240% year over year. Combine that with Data 360, Salesforce's data platform, and total AI-related ARR hit nearly $3.9 billion, up over 210%. Agentic workflows processed 3.2 billion actions in the quarter, up 97% sequentially. That's usage, not just bookings. This is the clearest proof point yet that AI agents are converting into recurring revenue rather than staying a pilot-project talking point. Enterprise software has spent two years promising that agentic AI would eventually show up on an income statement. Salesforce just put a number on it, and it's a number that's growing faster than the core CRM business ever did at this scale. Salesforce also raised its full-year fiscal 2027 revenue guidance to $46.1 billion to $46.4 billion, up from $45.9 billion to $46.2 billion previously, split between organic strength in Agentforce, Data 360 and Slack, and the pending Contentful and Fin acquisitions. Current remaining performance obligations, a measure of contracted future revenue, grew 14% in constant currency to $33.5 billion, which the company described as its strongest quarter for net new order value in four years. None of that is an accounting artifact. It's actual contracts. For founders pitching agentic products to investors right now, this earnings report is about to become a stock slide in every pitch deck. It gives them something they haven't had before: a large public company showing AI agents converting into measured, recurring revenue at triple-digit growth rates, with usage data to back it up. That's a different pitch than Also read: A critical Gitea flaw is under active attack and 8,300 servers are still exposed * Sony Music and Warner Chappell Sue Anthropic Over Stolen Song Lyrics * A Russian Ransomware Gang Says It Broke Into the ATF's Investigation Files
Anthropic rolls out AI framework for labs and manufacturing
SAN FRANCISCO, California: Anthropic has unveiled a new framework that allows AI agents to operate physical equipment, including microscopes and robotic arms, for use in scientific research and advanced manufacturing. The company on August 27 rolled out a research preview of the "Model Hardware Standard," or MHS, which enables AI agents to operate laboratory and manufacturing instruments together and carry out complex tasks. Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said. By combining agentic AI capabilities with laboratory and manufacturing hardware, the Claude chatbot maker aims to help researchers and engineers carry out autonomous, round-the-clock workflows with minimal human intervention, helping speed up processes. Anthropic said the standard can work with any device that has a programmable interface and allows devices and AI agents to communicate across networks. The company is sharing an early version of MHS with partners to help develop safety evaluations before making the framework open source.
Anthropic unveils standard linking AI agents to physical devices
Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said SAN FRANCISCO, California: Anthropic has unveiled a new framework that allows AI agents to operate physical equipment, including microscopes and robotic arms, for use in scientific research and advanced manufacturing. The company on August 27 rolled out a research preview of the "Model Hardware Standard," or MHS, which enables AI agents to operate laboratory and manufacturing instruments together and carry out complex tasks. Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said. By combining agentic AI capabilities with laboratory and manufacturing hardware, the Claude chatbot maker aims to help researchers and engineers carry out autonomous, round-the-clock workflows with minimal human intervention, helping speed up processes. Anthropic said the standard can work with any device that has a programmable interface and allows devices and AI agents to communicate across networks. The company is sharing an early version of MHS with partners to help develop safety evaluations before making the framework open source.
Anthropic rolls out AI framework for labs and manufacturing
SAN FRANCISCO, California: Anthropic has unveiled a new framework that allows AI agents to operate physical equipment, including microscopes and robotic arms, for use in scientific research and advanced manufacturing. The company on August 27 rolled out a research preview of the "Model Hardware Standard," or MHS, which enables AI agents to operate laboratory and manufacturing instruments together and carry out complex tasks. Those tasks can range from routine drug discovery experiments to laser calibration on a quantum computer, Anthropic said. By combining agentic AI capabilities with laboratory and manufacturing hardware, the Claude chatbot maker aims to help researchers and engineers carry out autonomous, round-the-clock workflows with minimal human intervention, helping speed up processes. Anthropic said the standard can work with any device that has a programmable interface and allows devices and AI agents to communicate across networks. The company is sharing an early version of MHS with partners to help develop safety evaluations before making the framework open source.