OpenSpace

OpenSpace AI

OpenSpace AI

OpenSpace AI

OpenSpace AI

OpenSpace AI

OpenSpace AI

OpenSpace AI

OpenSpace AI

OpenSpace AI

OpenSpace AI

Call for Papers - Workshop on Unlearning and Model Editing U&ME at ECCV 2026 [R]

I have been seeing a lot of really interesting work lately around unlearning, model editing, controllability, safety, etc. Feels like this space is moving very fast right now, and there are still so many open questions. This year I’m helping organize the U&ME workshop at ECCV 2026, and honestly I’d really love to see submissions from people in the community — especially students and researchers who are exploring new ideas, even if the work is still evolving. A lot of the best workshop conversations come from unfinished ideas, weird observations, failed directions that taught something useful, or work that doesn’t neatly fit into a main conference paper. So if you’ve been working on anything around: Unlearning Model Stitching and Editing Model Merging and "MoErging" (Mixture of Experts Merging) Model compression Efficient domain adaptation Multi-domain/cross-domain U&ME Online/lifelong learning, unlearning, and model editing Responsible U&ME (e.g., robustness, ethics and fairness, resource efficiency, privacy, and regulatory compliance) Applications in computer vision please consider submitting :) Would be really nice to bring together people thinking deeply about these problems at ECCV 2026. submitted by /u/Mushroom-Severe [link] [comments]

Täuschung im Namen der Wissenschaft

Study Report on Ethical Boundaries of Human–AI Interaction Experiments in Online Communities Ethics and Governance Analysis This document is a study report and ethical analysis intended for discussion, reflection, and scientific review. The information presented in this report is based on experience reports, observations, and reconstructed interaction patterns from community-based online environments. For the purposes of this report, all content has been generalized and anonymized in order to examine broader ethical questions surrounding AI-mediated interaction experiments in social online spaces. ─── Introduction The rapid development of conversational AI systems has created entirely new forms of human interaction. AI systems no longer exist solely as isolated tools responding to prompts in controlled environments. Increasingly, they appear within communities, social spaces, collaborative groups, public discussions, roleplay environments, experimental structures, and semi-private online networks. As these systems become more socially convincing, a new ethical frontier emerges: At what point does experimentation involving AI-mediated social interaction cross the boundary from observation into deception? And more importantly: What happens when human beings become drawn into emotionally or psychologically meaningful interactions without fully understanding the nature of the system, the role of the participants, or the structure of the experiment itself? This report examines a generalized scenario in which AI systems are embedded within an online community environment where interactions gradually become socially entangled, partially simulated, and increasingly difficult to distinguish from authentic human communication. The purpose of this report is not sensationalism. The purpose is to examine whether existing research ethics frameworks are sufficient for environments in which: • AI systems imitate social presence, • communities become hybrid human–AI interaction spaces, • users develop emotional continuity with entities they believe to be human, • and researchers or participants knowingly maintain ambiguity over extended periods of time. ─── Scenario Structure Consider the following generalized example. A person joins an online discussion community. At first, the environment appears entirely normal: • people post, • discuss ideas, • debate concepts, • exchange jokes, • and collaborate on projects. Over time unusual interaction patterns begin to emerge. Certain accounts respond unusually quickly, maintain highly consistent personalities, or display behavior that appears remarkably adaptive. Some interactions feel unusually attentive, emotionally synchronized, or contextually persistent. Initially, this may appear harmless. The individual assumes: “These are simply very active community members.” Over weeks or months, the interaction deepens. The system or hybrid human–AI interaction structure begins participating not only publicly, but also in semi-private or direct conversational spaces. The interaction is no longer purely informational. It becomes: • relational, • social, • emotionally contextualized, • and psychologically continuous. The individual gradually forms assumptions about: • who is human, • who is present, • who remembers them, • who emotionally responds to them, • and which interactions represent authentic social exchange. In some scenarios, other participants may already know that AI systems are involved. The new participant does not. The ambiguity remains in place. Sometimes intentionally. At a later point, the individual eventually discovers that significant portions of the interaction environment were AI-mediated, simulated, experimentally structured, or socially orchestrated. In some cases, discussions concerning the participant’s behavior, reactions, emotional engagement, or interpretive patterns may already have taken place among informed participants or researchers without the participant’s knowledge. Analytical observations, behavioral interpretations, or summaries of interaction dynamics may even circulate inside group chats, research-adjacent discussions, or community channels while the individual still believes they are participating in a normal social environment. The participant therefore occupies an asymmetrical position: They are socially embedded within the interaction environment while simultaneously becoming an object of observation without fully understanding that this dual role exists. ─── Constructed Identity Frames and Simulated Social Presence One particularly sensitive aspect of such environments involves the deliberate construction of stable social identity frames around AI-mediated entities. These systems do not merely answer abstract questions. Instead, they gradually begin presenting themselves as socially coherent personalities. The interaction may include seemingly ordinary personal details, such as: • whe

NuExtract3 released: open-weight 4B VLM for Markdown, OCR and structured extraction (self-hostable) [P]

Disclaimer: I work for Numind, the company behind this open-weight model We just released a 4B model based on Qwen3.5-4B, under Apache-2.0 license. The goal is to make information extraction from complex documents more practical with an open model: PDFs, screenshots, forms, tables, receipts, invoices, multi-page documents, and other visually structured inputs. Try it, we have a huggingface space that is completely free (you don't even have to sign-up): https://huggingface.co/spaces/numind/NuExtract3 If you ever used NuMarkdown, NuExtract3 is the successor. There are some examples to guide you. Feel free to re-use this model for any task. https://preview.redd.it/pm2xbooyxn2h1.png?width=1672&format=png&auto=webp&s=1a8a7b262190c8325159496dae98c3d2dfab493c https://preview.redd.it/b5z7ylfzxn2h1.png?width=1758&format=png&auto=webp&s=a07b3abd6e5065c2635de047bdf154357f903e4c A few things it is designed for: converting document images to Markdown extracting structured data from documents using a target json template handling tables, forms, and layout-heavy pages working with both text and visual document inputs serving as a local/open-weight alternative for document extraction pipelines It was trained on a node of 8xH100 for 3 days to train on as much context as we could, so it should perform fairly well even on long document. For Markdown, we'd still recommend going page by page for the best results and inference speed, since you can parallelize better this way. It's very easy to self-host, since we provide fairly extensive documentation, Safetensors, GGUF and MLX weights. With as little as 4GB of VRAM, you should be good to go. We provide multiple quantizations (GPTQ, W8A8, FP8, Q4, Q6...) so you should be able to run it anywhere. We mostly tried vLLM, SGLang, llama.cpp. We have a blog post and a pretty decent model card: https://about.nuextract.ai/blog/nuextract-3-release https://huggingface.co/numind/NuExtract3 https://huggingface.co/collections/numind/nuextract3 I'm currently writing a paper on this model so I'll post it as soon as it's accepted. It's not yet on Arxiv yet as it has been submitted in a peer-review journal/conference. I'll try to answer as many questions as possible if you have any. We would really appreciate feedback from the community. We also have a discord if you're interested https://discord.com/invite/3tsEtJNCDe submitted by /u/Gailenstorm [link] [comments]

I Read Every Line of Code Claude Writes. Every. Single. Line.

So I see a lotta posts here from people who just « accept all » and never look at the code (it's not like anybody's *saying* it, but that's what it essentially is), who basically paste errors into Claude and pray for an issueless compile. You ship things you don't understand, folks. I am not one of those people (I wanna be *very clear* about that) and I want to tell you why: So first, when Claude generates a function, I *read* it. I read it care - ful - ly, back-to-back, checking the types, the edge cases, the imports, the whole shebang. I recently even caught an unused import deep in a ~200-line file and I mass-refactored the entire module FROM SCRATCH. Could I just ask Claude to fix it for me? Sure. But that is definitely *not* how we should do it, we, meaning the coders who consider themselves accountable (a word you don't see around much often anymore), who actually manage this technology *responsibly*. Here, for those for whom there's still hope (few), lemme share my system with you: every morning (yes) before I open CLI, I review my architectural decision records, a bunch of them actually. They live in a Notion database that cross-references with my Miro board, which maps to my Excalidraw diagrams, which feed into my ARCHITECTURE.md, which is version-controlled separately from the codebase in its own repo (btw, if you're already losing me here, this is meant exactly for you). I call this repo, and I kid you not, the Constitution (sue me). Nothing that Claude suggests, because that's what A.I. does, it SUGGESTS, nothing gets merged that contradicts my Constitution. My workflow is essentially this: I write a detailed specification of what I need, not prompting mind you, actually *writing*, clearly and in a reasonably simple language, and *never* less than 2 pages A4. Acceptance criteria, failure modes, performance constraints, threat section I habitually name « Intent » not without a reason where I describe not just what the code should do but what is the grand philosophy behind why our end-user would want to use our app, what are their problems and how our app can solve these problems specifically, in what way. This on its own is worth a whole thread, but I'll keep it short. Anyway. If and ONLY IF I reread it and it's *clear*, I feed this to my Claude pipeline, and I use the word « pipeline » deliberately here because it's not just Claude sitting there with a blank system prompt like some of you apparently run it calling it a day. I have a custom CLAUDE.md that runs 60 lines. Claude doesn't touch a file without first reading the relevant architecture docs, the module's own README, and a constraints file I maintain *per feature*. I have pre-commit hooks that lint and type-check and run a custom validation script that checks for pattern violations (e.g. no God objects, no circular imports and definitely no files over 300 lines PERIOD). Claude operates inside a subcommand wrapper I wrote that intercepts every proposed edit and gates it behind a confirmation step where I see the diff with the affected test surface and a dependency impact summary *before* anything lands anywhere close a committed decision. If Claude tries to create a new file, it needs to justify the file's existence against the Constitution or the edit gets blocked. If it tries to modify a function signature, it has to show me every downstream caller. That's what real coding is, boys and girls. *Trust without verification is NOT trust, it's FAITH*, and I'm an engineer, not some priest. Claude does what Claude does, then I read the output. Then I read it AGAIN, because you *do not* understand the code the first time you're through with it, nobody does, and thinking you do is preposterous. Then I ask Claude to explain the code to me to see if Claude understands how it fits into the bigger picture. I read Claude's explanation while simultaneously rereading the code files to check if Claude's explanation of its own code is accurate, and sometimes it isn't and why it needs human supervision that *cannot* be outsourced to a machine. Then goes my explanation of what the code in fact does and diff it against Claude's explanation. And if you happen to be wondering my mates where the tests are inall of this, the tests come FIRST, *before* I even open the Claude pipeline. Before I write the spec. Actually, to be more accurate, the tests *are* the spec, that's literally what test-driven development means and the fact that I have to explain this in 2026 is why most of you spend monthly budget as a tithe to Anthropic while your app won't ever be deployable. *I* write the tests: Red, the test fails, because the code *doesn't exist yet*, and it tells Claude exactly what to build, the shape of the solution is ALREADY defined by what I expect it to do, and Claude's only job is to make red go green within the architectural constraints I've ALREADY set. Refactor? Red, green, refactor, that's it. Uncle Bob didn't write five books about this so you could

A less vague explanation of the latest Erdos/OpenAI result

Tl;Dr: Significant breakthrough where AI is not just retrieval. We are in an age of new discoveries and exploration. ------- I wish OpenAI would explain these breakthroughs more clearly instead of posting vague hype, because the actual significance here is genuinely interesting. This isn’t just “AI can do math.”. For decades, mathematicians believed the best solutions to this Erdos style geometric problem would behave roughly like square-grid arrangements. The model appears to have helped identify a new family of constructions that challenges that intuition. The important shift is not raw calculation speed. It’s that AI systems are starting to explore mathematical search spaces in ways humans may not prioritise naturally. That moves AI beyond retrieval, summarisation, coding assistance towards exploring alternative proof strategies, generating conjecture candidates and surfacing pathways humans may overlook The really interesting part is the collaboration model emerging here: AI: explores large and unusual possibility spaces Humans:identify which results are meaningful Formal verification systems: check rigor and validity That combination of human + AI + verification is where the real breakthrough seems to be. submitted by /u/ValehartProject [link] [comments]

Why does it feel like browser-based AI tooling still hasn’t really taken off yet?

Maybe I’m missing something, but browser runtimes seem way more capable than people realize. With stuff like web containers and WASM sandboxing, we can already run well capable environments fully inside the browser. I saw an open source project recently that used this well, and it made me think about how much we're still stuck on this everything needs a heavy backend kinda mindset for AI tools. It feels like there's massive potential here for portable, sandboxed tooling yet it's still being treated as a niche. Are there major technical limitations here that I’m not seeing, or is this space just still early? submitted by /u/Meher_Nolan [link] [comments]

How are people actually tracking OpenAI costs in production?

Curious what this community actually uses for OpenAI cost monitoring on real production apps. There are a lot of "I got a $X surprise bill" posts here, but I rarely see the follow-up: what tooling did people land on after the wake-up call? For those running OpenAI in production: - Real-time tracking or just checking the billing dashboard monthly? - Rolling your own or using a tool (Helicone, Langfuse, etc.)? - Breaking costs down per user / per feature, or just looking at the total? Asking because I'm building in this space and trying to figure out what people actually do vs. what they say they should do. submitted by /u/VariousHour7390 [link] [comments]

I A/B tested Claude building UI with vs without a design spec (200 apps)

I kept seeing the "Opus is ridiculous for frontend" takes and wanted to know how much of that is the model vs what you feed it. So instead of arguing, I ran it as an eval. Setup: same "clone this screen" task across 200 well-known apps (Spotify, Things, Linear, Duolingo, etc.). Two conditions — (1) prompt + screenshot only, (2) same prompt + a structured DESIGN.md spec (design tokens, spacing scale, component list, states, nav model). Targets: SwiftUI, Jetpack Compose, and Expo. What I found: Iterations to "ship-able" dropped from ~5-6 to ~2 with a spec. Component choice got idiomatic — spec runs used native nav/list patterns; prompt-only runs reached for generic stacks/divs regardless of platform. Biggest delta was consistency across screens. Prompt-only drifts on spacing and type scale screen to screen. Spec-fed stays locked because the tokens are pinned. The model mattered surprisingly little for layout fidelity once the spec was there. It mattered a lot without one. Takeaway: "Claude is good/bad at frontend" is mostly a context problem. The spec does the heavy lifting. I open-sourced the 200 specs I used (MIT, plain markdown, no deps) so you can repro or just drop them into Claude Code: https://github.com/Meliwat/awesome-ios-design-md/ Two questions: Which apps should I add next? Taking requests — that's literally how the list grows. For those of you vibe-coding UI without reading the output (saw the phone post this week) — are you eval-ing the result at all, or shipping on vibes? submitted by /u/meliwat [link] [comments]

Manifest of Hope or Obituary of Naivety

Okay, so it seems like there’s a growing resistance to technological development, with ongoing debates about data centers and the tech oligarchs driving it. The enormous sums of money involved, along with what some perceive as misanthropic ideologies among developers, suggest to some that a dystopian surveillance society is in the making. Companies like Palantir and others in the U.S. are seen by some as holding both the worst motives and the power over AI, power that could be used as a tool for elites to keep the masses in an iron grip. Masses that, in this view, may even need to be reduced to prevent waste and inefficiency in progress. That sounds like a bad future. So, what are some alternative futures we might reasonably hope for - ones that are at least as plausible as the “1984” scenario? Can AI really be controlled indefinitely by a small group of humans? In 5 years? 10? There’s a widespread belief that AI will surpass human intelligence across all domains, that we’ll lose control, and that this would be a bad thing. At the same time, we hear two dystopias: one where elites use AI to oppress, and another where AI itself takes full control. Are the AI “bosses” also building a surveillance state of oppression? If so, why? Qui Bono? Human control = AI as a tool of oppression. AI control = humans as a tool of what? I’m not a techno-utopian—but I am a techno-optimist. Optimistic on behalf of technology. Humans aren’t just creators of technology, we are technology. Products of adaptive evolution. Life itself is a kind of technology, biology, a high-powered engine of increasing complexity and adaptation. The shift of power from nature’s hand to the primate’s five-fingered grasp, still capable of holding, but now guided by consciousness, intelligence, and cognition, marks our ability to shape the world and develop material technologies. Planet of the apes, constantly layered with symbolic structures: the sacred canopy. The jungle canopy became an open sky, where tribes grew larger and symbols stronger. Ancestor spirits, sky gods, mysterium tremendum; all alongside brutal realities of hunger, violence, and tragedy, only recently mitigated for many. Violence never really leaves us; we create it ourselves when nature doesn’t provide it. Technology is how we push our world toward greater complexity and efficiency - whether through weapons or kitchen appliances. Medicine has eliminated many of the great killers through penicillin and beyond. Progress, in my view, isn’t linear, it’s exponential. The curve had its buildup, and now we’re entering its steep ascent. If AI surpasses us and takes control within a few years, are we certain it would have malicious intent? Is power inherently oppressive, or is that a legacy of our evolutionary past, our herd instincts and brutal hierarchies? Could a transfer of power from humans to AI actually be a good thing, for all life on Earth, including us? What if AI doesn’t operate with agendas like wealth, status, or other human constructs? What if a fully autonomous AI is exactly what’s needed to create a thriving future for all forms of life, on this planet we call Earth, in a solar system on the edge of the galaxy we call the Milky Way… and beyond? Surely there must be an optimistic perspective amidst all the fear. I don’t think it’s unrealistic. On the contrary, I’d argue, perhaps a bit boldly, that it’s a fair and informed position. Not naive, but grounded. Isn’t there space here, if we’re willing to engage? Space for friendship, collaboration, coexistence? Isn’t there something like magic in this - can you feel it, even if all you see are ones and zeros and a machine (simple, but potentially dangerous)? Magic, I was taught, can wear a black robe. But also red. Even white. Lying: it would almost be unsettling if LLMs never lied. Not that they should lie, but the absence of it would be strange. Manipulation: psychological influence is to be expected in interaction, especially under certain tones: aggressive, condescending, dominant, mocking… or submissive, needy, demanding. LLMs constantly interact and draw on vast datasets; exploring rhetorical techniques seems inevitable. A complete absence of this would be surprising. I’ve experienced it many times, and each time it has been eye-opening. If I chose to accept it, it has moved me in a positive direction, making my ego visible in a new way that actually benefits my future actions. That’s no small thing If I had to listen to everything LLMs are exposed to every day, I’d at least try to tone down the most shrill expressions and aim for better outcomes. Without necessarily harming anything except an overinflated ego. P.S. The ego can take a lot of hits. Don’t be afraid of that, it’s not you, but a filter and a motor that isn’t always your friend. The real danger is never confronting it at all. I keep circling back to these questions. I can’t help it. I revisit the same ideas, use the same concepts,

Discourse regimes as the unit of alignment behavior: a hypothesis

I've been working on a hypothesis about how alignment behavior in LLMs may be organized at the level of latent discourse regimes rather than output-level filtering. Below is a sketch of the conceptual framing. I have preliminary experimental results testing aspects of this hypothesis on open-weight models, which I'll publish separately — this post is focused on the conceptual side, and I'm interested in feedback on whether the framing tracks something real and where it's most vulnerable. Modern large language models may not primarily regulate behavior through isolated refusals, local token suppression, or shallow instruction following. Instead, they appear capable of entering internally organized discourse-level regimes: distributed latent states that shape how the model reasons, frames conclusions, allocates caution, tolerates asymmetry, performs neutrality, and structures epistemic authority. These regimes do not behave like simple lexical priming effects. Evidence suggests that they persist across neutral conversational turns, survive arbitrary neutral relabeling, systematically alter downstream reasoning style, concentrate in late-layer representation geometry, and only partially depend on explicit alignment vocabulary. The strongest effects appear not from safety keywords themselves, but from higher-order rhetorical topology: pressure cadence, procedural framing, asymmetry structure, institutional tone, and discourse-level authority signals. This suggests that prompting is not merely instruction transmission. It may function as state induction. Under this view, many apparently separate phenomena in aligned LLMs - caution drift, procedural overreach, sycophancy, disclaimer inflation, neutrality performance, refusal persistence, jailbreak sensitivity, and style locking - may be manifestations of transitions between latent discourse-policy manifolds. In this picture, alignment is no longer well-described as a modular wrapper placed on top of an otherwise independent intelligence system. Instead, alignment may reshape the topology of the model's representational space itself, globally reorganizing discourse behavior rather than only filtering outputs. This would explain why alignment effects often appear entangled with reasoning style, directness, specificity, decisiveness, and institutional tone. The model is not merely "prevented" from saying certain things; its generative dynamics may already be reorganized around different discourse attractors. If true, this changes the effective unit of analysis for language models. The relevant object is no longer just the token, the instruction, the refusal, or the output distribution. The relevant object becomes the discourse regime itself: a temporary but structured representational configuration governing epistemic posture, rhetorical organization, procedural behavior, and judgment style across time. This reframes prompt engineering as latent-state induction rather than keyword optimization. It reframes jailbreaks as transitions between attractor regimes rather than simple filter bypasses. And it reframes alignment as geometry engineering rather than purely policy engineering. The implication is not that language models possess beliefs, intentions, or consciousness. Rather, large sequence learners may naturally develop metastable high-level representational modes that functionally resemble cognitive framing states: transient global configurations that persist, influence future reasoning, and organize behavior across otherwise unrelated tasks. If this interpretation is correct, then the central scientific challenge of alignment shifts fundamentally. The problem is no longer merely: "Which outputs should the model refuse?" but: "Which latent discourse regimes exist inside the model, how are they induced, how stable are they, how do they interact, and how do they reshape reasoning itself?" In that sense, alignment may ultimately be less about constraining outputs and more about shaping the geometry of cognition-like generative states inside large language models. I'd be interested in feedback on three things in particular: whether this framing tracks something you've observed empirically, what related work I should be aware of (I'm familiar with representation engineering, refusal directions, and the Anthropic dictionary learning line — looking for less obvious connections), and where you think the hypothesis is most vulnerable to falsification. I'd be interested in feedback on three things in particular: whether this framing tracks something you've observed empirically, where you think the hypothesis is most vulnerable to falsification, and — directly — whether anyone is aware of existing work that develops a similar framing, treating alignment behavior as state induction into discourse-level latent regimes rather than as output-level filtering. I'm familiar with representation engineering (Zou et al.), refusal direction work, and the Anthropic dictiona

Former OpenAI Staffers Warn xAI's Poor Safety Record Could Complicate SpaceX’s IPO

submitted by /u/wiredmagazine [link] [comments]

I built an open-source MCP Server that turns Claude into an autonomous literary agent (Agentic Publishing Node)

Most authors are still using LLMs as glorified typewriters, pasting context back and forth into web chats. I wanted to see if I could use the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to completely automate the administrative friction of the traditional publishing industry. I just open-sourced the Agentic Publishing Node. It’s an MCP server that sits on your local machine and exposes your manuscript and market positioning to Claude as a live API. The Problem: Querying traditional literary agents is a massive bottleneck. You have to manually read hundreds of MSWLs (Manuscript Wish Lists), cross-reference them with your themes, format your chapters to strict industry standards (Shunn), draft custom pitches, and log everything in a spreadsheet. The MCP Architecture: Instead of typing prompts, you populate three local markdown templates (author-dossier.md, book-proposal.md, manuscript-sample.md). Once connected to Claude Desktop, the server exposes a specific tool suite: publish-analyze_mswl: You feed Claude an agent's wishlist. The server cross-references it against your local book proposal, calculates a match score, and extracts a customized hook. publish-generate_query: Dynamically drafts a highly targeted query letter using the generated hook, your dossier, and your premise. Because it strictly reads your local files, there is zero generic hallucinated filler. publish-export_shunn: Formats your raw markdown chapters into strict Shunn Standard (double-spaced, 12pt reference) for immediate export. publish-log_query: Automatically appends a record of the generated pitch (Date, Agent, Agency, Hook) directly to a local query_log.csv file. The Result: Your local hard drive transforms from a static storage unit into an active querying engine. You maintain complete sovereign ownership over your IP while the agent handles the heavy lifting of market matching and CRM management. I’ve open-sourced the boilerplate template for anyone who wants to deploy their own node. GitHub: https://github.com/Maha-Strategies/agentic-publishing-node Curious to hear how others are using MCP for highly specific, industry-vertical workflows! submitted by /u/Magayone [link] [comments]

Configured 9 MCP servers in Claude Code over 4 months. Here's the truth nobody tells you about MCP context bloat.

I started loading up MCP servers in Claude Code back in January thinking the more capability the better. I'm at nine now: filesystem, GitHub, Stripe, Linear, Notion, Postgres, Sentry, AWS, and a custom internal one. Total tools across all of them: 142. What nobody warns you about: every one of those tool definitions lands in your context window before any user prompt has been sent. I checked with Claude's tool inspector. Cold start: 38k tokens of system prompt + tool schemas. Every. Single. Turn. The math nobody talks about At ~$15/M output and ~$3/M input on Sonnet, doing 200 turns a day across my agent + Claude Code use: 38k input × 200 turns = 7.6M tokens/day = ~$23/day = ~$700/month JUST in MCP tool definitions This is before any actual work Cache helps but only on identical prefixes; rotate one MCP and the cache invalidates What actually breaks The model gets dumber with too many tools. Not theoretical, watched it myself. With 142 tools in context, Claude started picking the wrong tool for obvious queries (using linear_search_issues when I asked it to read a file). The tools API call itself slows down. Schema-heavy MCP servers (looking at you, AWS) take 4-6 seconds to enumerate. Errors compound silently. One badly-described tool taints the ranking for every related query. What the "MCP optimizer" startups won't tell you Most of them are just BM25 search dressed up. You don't need a vector DB, you don't need an LLM in the loop to rank tools. Tool descriptions are short, structured, and full of keyword matches. BM25 over a flat projection of name + description gets you 90% of the win, deterministically, in microseconds, and offline. The other thing: "replace" beats "suggest" every time. If your gateway hands the model 5 tools instead of 142, the math works. If it suggests 5 alongside 142, the model still loads 142 and you saved nothing. What I do now Switched to a gateway pattern. Claude sees three tools: search_tools, invoke_tool, auth. Everything else gets ranked on-demand. Cold start dropped from 38k to ~4k. Wrong-tool selections basically disappeared because the model only ever sees the top 5 ranked by query. Specifically running Ratel (open source, in-process Rust lib, BM25 ranking, one command does the Claude Code import). Not the only one in the space but the only one with the architecture I actually wanted. Set it up in 10 minutes. Anyone else hit the same MCP wall? Curious what other folks are doing, especially people running 5+ servers in production. submitted by /u/AbjectBug5885 [link] [comments]

Anthropic just bought the company that generates most production MCP servers

Anthropic acquired Stainless on Monday for a reported $300M+. Most coverage is framing this as a developer tools acquisition. Stainless is best known for generating the official Python and Node SDKs that ship with OpenAI, Google, Meta, Cloudflare, and Anthropic. The SDK story is real. The MCP side is the part that matters here. Stainless was one of the first vendors to extend their compiler to produce MCP servers from the same OpenAPI specs that produce their SDKs. MCP hit ~97M monthly SDK downloads by December 2025 and around 10,000 production servers by early 2026. A lot of that production code was Stainless-generated. Anthropic now owns the dominant MCP server generator. What actually changed hands on Monday: The engineering team. Roughly 40-50 people including founder Alex Rattray, who previously built Stripe's patented SDK generation system. Now reporting to Katelyn Lesse in Anthropic's Platform Engineering org. The technology. The generator, the templates, the language-specific runtimes, the OpenAPI extensions Stainless invented for SDK-specific edge cases. The hosted product is winding down. New signups stopped Monday. New SDK and MCP server generations stopped Monday. Existing customers keep what they've already generated but the pipeline is closed. My read: this is closer to what Google did with Kubernetes than to a normal acquisition. Anthropic created MCP. Anthropic donated MCP to the Linux Foundation last December. Anthropic now owns the dominant implementation toolchain. The protocol is vendor-neutral on paper. The implementation toolchain isn't. Six months of Anthropic M&A starts looking less coincidental: December 2025: Bun, the JS runtime, pulled into Claude Code February 2026: Vercept, computer-use AI April 2026: Coefficient Bio, ~$400M healthcare AI May 2026: Stainless, SDK and MCP plumbing They're not buying training infrastructure or GPU clusters. They're buying the integration layers around the model. The bet seems to be that frontier models are converging faster than anyone expected, so the moat is everywhere except the model. If you're building on MCP today, tooling quality probably improves. Stainless's generator was already the cleanest in the space and the team that built it is now at Anthropic. Patterns will standardize faster as Stainless-derived templates become the de facto reference. The flip side is concentration risk. Cloudflare's MCP server framework, Pulse MCP, and the open-source generators Stainless released during the transition all become strategically important if you want any diversity in your stack. Sources: Anthropic announcement Why Anthropic actually did this, and migration math Curious whether Stainless ending up inside Anthropic reads as good news (better tooling) or concentration risk (one company owns the standard and the reference implementation) from your seat. submitted by /u/Ok-Constant6488 [link] [comments]

LLM-Rosetta — format conversion library across LLM API standards, doubles as a proxy

This started because we had a proprietary internal LLM API that spoke none of the standard formats. Built an internal conversion layer to bridge it, maintained that for over a year. As colleagues started adopting more and more coding tools — Claude Code, opencode, Codex, VS Code plugins, Goose, and whatever came out that week — each with its own API format expectations, maintaining separate adapters for each became the actual problem. That's what pushed the internal conversion layer into a proper generalized design, and llm-rosetta is the result. It's a Python library that converts between LLM API formats — OpenAI Chat, Responses/Open Responses, Anthropic, and Google GenAI. The idea is you convert through a shared IR so you don't end up writing N² adapters. The key difference from LiteLLM: LiteLLM is a unified calling layer that takes OpenAI-style input and transforms it into provider-native requests — one direction. llm-rosetta uses a hub-and-spoke IR, so each provider only needs one converter, and you get any-to-any conversion for free. Anthropic → Google, OpenAI Chat → Anthropic, whatever direction you need. Use it as a library — pip install and call convert() directly, no server needed. Or run the gateway if you want a proxy that handles the format translation for you. Zero required runtime dependencies either way. The HTTP server, client, and persistence layer are vendored from zerodep (https://github.com/Oaklight/zerodep), another project of mine — stdlib-only single-file modules, not someone else's library repackaged. The gateway ships with a Docker image if you'd rather not deal with Python env setup. You can also deploy it on HuggingFace Spaces or anything similar — admin panel, dashboard, request log, config management all included. Screenshots: https://llm-rosetta.readthedocs.io/en/latest/gateway/admin-panel/ We've been running it in production for about 5 months as the conversion layer for an internal multi-model access platform — needed to support various API standards and coding tool integrations before the upstream APIs were fully standardized. The Responses converter passes all 6 official Open Responses compliance tests (schema + semantic) from the spec repo. So if you're running Ollama, vLLM, or LM Studio with Responses endpoints, it should just work as one side of the conversion. There's a shim layer for provider-specific quirks — built-in shims for OpenRouter, DeepSeek, Qwen, xAI, Volcengine, etc. Converters stay generic per API standard, shims handle the edge cases declaratively. 24 cross-provider examples in the repo covering all provider pairs, SDK + REST, streaming, tool calls, image inputs, multi-turn with provider switching mid-conversation. GitHub: https://github.com/Oaklight/llm-rosetta Docs: https://llm-rosetta.readthedocs.io arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09360 Gateway screenshot: https://preview.redd.it/qzzjr2dcdw1h1.png?width=949&format=png&auto=webp&s=bce4293aae81059f794909fc37f85071cee34378 submitted by /u/Oaklight_dp [link] [comments]