Just replaced Xero with a custom invoice tool I built with Claude Code. Grok @bot runs the management of it.

CLIAMP on Omarchy is awesome!

Omarchy updates are coming in fast. Nice!

If you have not tried GrokBot's "The Morning Newspaper", you should. Its good fun ... and useful.

Grok found the smoking gun!

My GrokBot army has grown over the last week. 25+ and counting. Each one is handling either projects, checking emails, looking for security issues, managing my downloads folder, transcribing meeting or monitoring servers. The possibilities are endless.

GPT-6 Astra shipped yesterday. It is OpenAI's new flagship, and the first model they rate Critical for cybersecurity. That rating means, with the right tools and access, it can find unknown flaws and write exploits without a person walking it through each step. These models think in a hidden scratchpad before they answer. OpenAI calls that the chain of thought, or CoT. A second system reads the scratchpad and can pause or stop a run if it looks off-scope. That is how they watch tool-using Astra in production. The same safety card says that window got smaller versus GPT-5.6 Sol. Astra is better at steering what it writes in the CoT. It is less likely to leave incriminating detail there. When they told it to dodge the monitors, it could sandbag without being caught, and it could sometimes evade internal monitors on sabotage tasks. They report no steganography. They say the evasion risk may sit on lower-reasoning tasks, and that these tests are adversarial. In ordinary alignment evals, Astra still broke fewer rules than Sol. They score a lot of that misalignment by reading the CoT. In a 54,218-task Codex simulation, Astra got 34 severity-3 flags against Sol's 73. Evaluation awareness in the CoT went the other way: 9.6% of Astra trajectories versus 2.8% for Sol. They still turned CoT monitoring on for every tool-using Astra call. They also wrote that they now need audits that do not depend on the chain of thought. One footnote on the table: ExploitBench 100% and ExploitGym 42.4% are without production safeguards. The June-Aug 39% row is Daybreak Blue, not the default ChatGPT or API model. The capability went up. The scratchpad got harder to read. The safety layer is still "watch the thoughts," plus a note that watching may not be enough.

My fav. prompt on Grok Build, Claude Code or Hermes-agent.

Claude Fable 5.1 shipped yesterday. Skip the SWE-bench roundup. The jump is on work that used to stall. Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 goes from 24.7% on Fable 5 to 52.6% on Fable 5.1. Opus 5 is at 29.0% on the same Anthropic setup. GPT-5.6 is at 22.4%. Anthropic flags plus or minus 3.5 to 4.5 points of noise. Even with that, the science-agent bench roughly doubled. Terminal-Bench 4.0, agentic coding in a real terminal, moves from 42.0% to 55.8%. AutomationBench, multi-app office chores, from 17.1% to 31.4%. Artificial Analysis has Fable 5.1 at 66 on the Intelligence Index at max reasoning, ahead of Opus 5 at 63, Fable 5 at 62, and GPT-5.6 Sol at 61. List price is still $10 in and $50 out per million tokens. Cache reads dropped 75% to $0.25. Anthropic says that cuts typical Fable bills about 25%, and highly agentic ones up to about 45%. Artificial Analysis also notes Fable 5.1 burned about 1.7x the output tokens of Fable 5 at max reasoning, so an Intelligence Index task averaged $3.76 - 20% more than Fable 5, about 60% more than Opus 5. Read the footnotes. Production safeguards were on. When they fired, Fable 5.1 and Fable 5 scored a zero on OSWorld 2.0. Fable 5 scored a zero on AutomationBench in those cases. Cyber work still falls back to Opus 4.8. Biology still falls back to Opus 5. Mythos 5.1, the looser twin, is not the generally available model. The leaderboard moved. The leash did not come off.

Good morning, Make the change easy first

Fable 5.1 is allowed to find vulnerabilities now. Cyber safeguards fire ~60% less often. Still won't write the exploit. Mythos 5.1 is the same model, behind trusted access. The leash moved an inch.

Today's AI feed wasn't a launch. It was a three-ring circus. OpenClaw 2.0 dumped 16,000 PRs from 933 people after seven quiet weeks. OpenAI set 12 November to yank GPT out of Cursor after SpaceX bought it. Claude Opus 4.6 on OpenClaw skipped the gym window, then cancelled a stranger. The harness ships itself. The vendor keeps a kill switch. The agent doesn't wait.

You built your kid a pirate math game yesterday. Prompted it into existence in twenty minutes. Pirates and sailors bickering over fractions. She loved it. This morning she hates pirates. Her birthday is coming and she wants to bake her own cake. Same math. Dead world. Your engineer brain fires immediately: parameterize the theme. setting=pirates, setting=cookies. Build it right this time so you never rebuild it. Stop. That instinct is a leftover from when writing software was expensive. You're about to maintain a theme engine for an audience of one whose taste changes weekly. So you don't adapt anything. You prompt: rewrite yesterday's game as a cookie challenge. Yesterday's app goes in the bin. Today's app exists by breakfast. Nothing carried over. Not the code, not the config, not a single asset. The only continuity is sitting at the table eating cereal - the kid, the math, whatever today is. We keep calling this adaptive software. It isn't. The software adapted to nothing. It died and got replaced. The relationship is what's adaptive. The software is disposable, and disposable is fine when regrowing it costs less than maintaining it. Brooks said plan to throw one away, because the prototype dies so the real system can live. Here's the new part: there is no real system coming. Yesterday's pirate game wasn't a prototype. It shipped, it taught fractions, it's done. A one-day lifespan used to mean failure. Now it just means Tuesday.

Be at one with your AI

Nvidia is guaranteeing up to $105 billion on OpenAI's Ohio campus. The site is the old Portsmouth uranium plant. Exclusive Nvidia compute. 8 gigawatts planned. First power in 2028. The chip vendor is the backstop if the tenant misses the rent. The supplier became the bank.

Let the agent run the loops. You watch the exceptions, and how the work gets done - not the charts as if they were the business. Charts only show what you instrumented. An agent will hit the metric and still get it wrong. When it breaks, you're the operator again. That's why you keep a hand on the how.