论文研究

Following gold-medal-level performance from our AI models across five competitions in mathematics, physics, and chemistry, we asked a harder question: can AI contribute when a problem is genuinely open and without an existing solution path? Over the past several months, mathematicians worked with Muse Spark 1.1 and Muse Spark 1.2 in Thinking Mode through the regular http://meta.ai chat interface, with no custom research scaffold, to find solutions to such problems. Our goal wasn't to mass-produce papers, but empower researchers. Every collaboration followed the same principles: mathematicians guided the research, a second group of mathematicians then reviewed the work, each paper marks which passages were drafted primarily by humans or AI, and each credits the prior research it builds on. Where other teams independently announced solutions to the same problems, we acknowledge their work as well. Today, we're sharing six papers from that collaboration. 🧵👇

BIS (Bank for International Settlements) just published a report on circular financing among AI companies. > Over half the money flowing into AI companies comes from other AI companies: between 2021 and 2025, peers supplied 55.2% of AI firms' incoming investment value, while AI investors sent 28.7% of their own deal value to AI targets. > Circular deals are rare but big: only 16.1% of AI-to-AI deals involved firms that also buy from or sell to each other, yet they held 46.4% of the money. That figure is partly inflated, because an entire funding round counts as circular if just 1 of its AI investors also trades with the company. > Chip, cloud and infrastructure suppliers are the investor in 73% of circular ties, and in 64% of all such ties the investor also sells to the firm it funds. Data tool and model makers rarely invest this way, since their products are more interchangeable. > AI is unusually suited to these deals: suppliers can track customers' compute use, chips and data centres are custom-built, few firms make critical tools such as photolithography machines, and capital needs are too big for normal lenders. In AI compute and cloud, 15.2% of supplier-customer ties also involve financing, versus just 3.3% with equity stakes in a broad 2006 US study. > Some AI sales are paid for by the sellers themselves, because money a supplier invests in a customer partly returns as the supplier's revenue. Lucent and Nortel did this in the late 1990s, then lost money on the loans and lost the sales when the telecom firms they funded stalled. > A supplier that invests in its customer can lose twice: if the customer struggles, both the stake and the future orders shrink. Because these deals involve a few giant suppliers, 1 shock could spread through sales and finance at the same time. > Much of this risk is hidden: many AI firms are private, deals mix cash with long-term purchase promises, and pledges to cover any fall in the value of chips and data centre equipment stay off the books until a downturn forces payment. Because these firms span many sectors and countries, no single regulator sees the full picture, and the research names no companies or overall dollar total.

BIS (Bank for International Settlements) just published a report on circular financing among AI companies. > Over half the money flowing into AI companies comes from other AI companies: between 2021 and 2025, peers supplied 55.2% of AI firms' incoming investment value, while AI investors sent 28.7% of their own deal value to AI targets. > Circular deals are rare but big: only 16.1% of AI-to-AI deals involved firms that also buy from or sell to each other, yet they held 46.4% of the money. That figure is partly inflated, because an entire funding round counts as circular if just 1 of its AI investors also trades with the company. > Chip, cloud and infrastructure suppliers are the investor in 73% of circular ties, and in 64% of all such ties the investor also sells to the firm it funds. Data tool and model makers rarely invest this way, since their products are more interchangeable. > AI is unusually suited to these deals: suppliers can track customers' compute use, chips and data centres are custom-built, few firms make critical tools such as photolithography machines, and capital needs are too big for normal lenders. In AI compute and cloud, 15.2% of supplier-customer ties also involve financing, versus just 3.3% with equity stakes in a broad 2006 US study. > Some AI sales are paid for by the sellers themselves, because money a supplier invests in a customer partly returns as the supplier's revenue. Lucent and Nortel did this in the late 1990s, then lost money on the loans and lost the sales when the telecom firms they funded stalled. > A supplier that invests in its customer can lose twice: if the customer struggles, both the stake and the future orders shrink. Because these deals involve a few giant suppliers, 1 shock could spread through sales and finance at the same time. > Much of this risk is hidden: many AI firms are private, deals mix cash with long-term purchase promises, and pledges to cover any fall in the value of chips and data centre equipment stay off the books until a downturn forces payment. Because these firms span many sectors and countries, no single regulator sees the full picture, and the research names no companies or overall dollar total.

We're publishing our most detailed threat intelligence report to date. It covers how people tried to misuse Claude—for cyberattacks, influence operations, surveillance, biology, and building weapons—and how we found and stopped them. We disrupted every operation in the report, and used the lessons from them to strengthen our safeguards. Where appropriate, we also shared what we found with authorities and other AI companies. These cases are not typical: we’re highlighting some of the most sophisticated misuse we’ve seen. But they’re especially important to discuss, because they show us where AI misuse is headed, where our safeguards work, and where they need to improve. We’re publishing this report so others can spot the same activity on their own platforms, and so we can give the public a clearer view of how emerging threats develop. Read the report: https://t.co/0EJUnYEgfz

Anthropic’s Economics team is sharing a new model of how AI might affect economic growth, jobs, wages, and more by 2030. Explore the scenarios, tell us what you think will happen, and see how your answers compare to more than 10,000 Americans. https://t.co/AvQlEZNxR0