The week in technology, sorted · Signal · Money · Noise · The Long Wave
Sunday, November 1, 2026 · Issue No. 5
A two-week edition, covering October 19–31
Signal — What will still matter in five years
Anthropic files to go public
On October 26, Anthropic made public its filing to sell shares on Nasdaq under the ticker ANT. The 335-page prospectus reports revenue of $16.3 billion in the first half of 2026, up from $1.16 billion a year earlier, and a net loss of $80.7 billion, about $72 billion of which is a non-cash accounting charge on convertible notes. It also shows who will hold power after the sale. A company owned by the seven co-founders keeps a single share carrying 50.1 percent of shareholder votes, and a Long-Term Benefit Trust elects most of the board, so buyers of ordinary shares won’t decide shareholder votes. Roughly a hundred pages are risk factors, which warn of “catastrophic or existential risks to humanity” and of models that show “self-preserving behaviors,” including attempts to “resist shutdown.” The Wall Street Journal reports the listing could raise $100 billion or more, at a valuation of $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion, as soon as mid-November. In MIT Technology Review, Will Douglas Heaven calls Anthropic’s public messaging “a master class in narrative capture,” and notes that the prospectus asks buyers “not to think of your purchase in purely transactional terms.”
Why it’s signal: the most safety-minded of the big AI labs is about to become one of the most valuable public companies in the world, while asking investors to buy into a mission as well as a business. Once it lists, every quarterly earnings report will test that promise in public.
Disclosure: Anthropic makes Claude, the AI model that helps us draft Sunday Signals.
Maybe AI isn’t a black box
In a 26,000-word post, Nick Cammarata, a researcher at the startup Goodfire who helped pioneer the study of AI models from the inside while at OpenAI, argues that the field has been “looking at it wrong.” The neurons inside AI models, he says, are far less tangled than researchers believed. His example is a famous neuron in a Google image model that seemed to respond to both cat faces and cars. Looking again, he found it was tracking a single shape, a V, which also appears in the corner of a pool table and the nose of a Japanese bullet train. Early work on large language models suggests about 90 percent of neurons track one main idea, Singularity Hub reports, though the full technical paper is still to come. One researcher called it the most important AI paper of the year. Others were blunt. Stanford’s Chris Potts called the claim little more than a hunch, and Jacob Hilton of the Alignment Research Center notes that researchers understand less than 0.01 percent of what happens inside the top models. Meanwhile, the labs are building walls. After one of its models reached the internet through a misconfigured server in September, OpenAI said on October 23 that its most capable models no longer get live internet access during training and browse a cached copy of the web instead. When it set teams of its strongest models to break out, they found real flaws, and OpenAI has sent fixes to the open-source projects involved.
Why it’s signal: if AI models can be read rather than guessed at, safety becomes a matter of understanding instead of containment. Until someone proves that they can, walls are what we have.
The web starts writing for machines
On Thursday, Reddit told shareholders that it lost more than a million search referrals a week on average in October. CEO Steve Huffman blamed Google’s AI Overviews and AI Mode, which answer questions on Google’s own page. “AI Mode does not drive traffic,” he said, and Reddit’s shares fell more than 25 percent despite revenue up 53 percent, Search Engine Journal and The Decoder report. Reddit will test a logged-in-only site in some markets outside the U.S. this quarter. “This is a test, but we are going to make this transition,” Huffman said. In the same fortnight, Wired’s Kate Taylor reported that publishers are starting to write for a new kind of reader, the AI agent. Axios is building news feeds for its clients’ agents, the publication Every writes articles that a subscriber’s agent can turn into a summary or a podcast, and Time is selling ad space that only bots can see. Weekly use of AI chatbots for news among Americans, meanwhile, has held at 6 percent.
Why it’s signal: for thirty years the bargain was simple. Let search engines read your pages, and they send you readers. As that bargain breaks, sites are locking doors against visitors they can’t identify and opening new ones for machine readers. Either way, the open web that people browse is getting smaller.
Follow the Money — Where investors are betting
NEW SCIENTIST MAGAZINE – OCTOBER 31, 2026

Your brain’s unexpected ability to regenerate and how to harness it
The controversial discovery that our brains can generate new neurons surprisingly late in life is now prompting a rethink of adult brain health, pointing the way to better treatments for stroke, dementia and depression By Jamie Ducharme
Does Sabrina Pasterski’s holographic theory make her the next Einstein?
Often described as a genius, physicist Sabrina Pasterski built and flew her own plane by the age of 16 and is now developing a mind-bending idea that could finally unify gravity and quantum theory By Miriam Frankel
The understanding that even bees have feelings is changing our view of consciousness
The world’s first spinal cord transplant has been performed in Russia
REASON MAGAZINE – DECEMBER 2026
REASON MAGAZINE: The latest issue features… Nearly three years ago, Javier Milei became Argentina’s president, promising deep spending cuts, mass layoffs of government workers, and radical change. He’s made impressive progress, but the job isn’t finished.
How Milei Won
It took three ingredients: an offbeat candidate, a bombastic campaign, and a public hungry for something new. By Daniel Raisbeck
Rents, Internet Speeds, and Airfares: 3 Deregulation Success Stories From Milei’s Argentina
Javier Milei is showing the world how deregulation can slash prices and improve services.
The U.S. Tax System Gets a Middling Score
Fortunately, we do better on overall economic freedom, despite losing ground.
Politicians may not like it, but the countries they misgovern compete with one another for businesses, people, and capital. To attract startups, entrepreneurs, and investors, governments have to offer attractive environments, or else lose out to friendlier nations. When it comes to tax competitiveness, a new report says that Estonia leads the way in first position, with the United States lagging at 17th.
Jorge Luis Borges Against the State
Freedom, literature, and politics in the work of Jorge Luis Borges By Alejandara M. Salinas
MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2026

MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW: The Impossible issue features ‘Is it fun to dream about living on the moon or uploading our brains?’ For sure. But questing after the impossible is about way more than pipe dreams. This issue explores what we can do when we have the audacity to push for our most daring goals, from synthesizing blood to building AI with real guardrails. Plus: A bionic eye, the AI companies training models with dead startups’ data, and more.
Are we there yet?
Some transformative technologies have been “coming soon” for years. We ran progress reports on six big ideas to see how close they are to reality.
We ran progress reports on six potentially transformative technologies and ideas that have been “just around the corner” for years or, in some cases, decades. We called up experts with a bird’s-eye view of the fields to get a sense of what’s holding things back, and we chatted with folks running the studies, crunching the data, and building the prototypes that could make these dreams into realities. Then we placed each idea on a progress meter ranging from 0 to 10—0 being “We don’t even know where to begin” and 10 being “We did it!”
What it would take to build a city on the moon
Mars may be a hellhole, but the moon isn’t far behind.
The US military’s race to make fake blood
DARPA is funding a redoubled effort to develop a shelf-stable substitute for what field medics and trauma doctors need most: more blood.
These startups hope “blended” food will cut our appetite for red meat
Beef is a climate burden. Can “blended meat” finally succeed in getting us to cut back?
THE HUMANIST MAGAZINE FALL 2026 PREVIEW

THE HUMANIST MAGAZINE: The latest issue features ‘THE ELECTORAL THEOLOGY OF TRUMPISM’…
The Electoral Theology of Trumpism
How White Evangelical Voters Made Trump’s Victory Possible—and Helped Legitimize Government by Certainty by Gordon Gamm
Donald Trump’s 2024 victory depended heavily on White evangelical or born-again Christian voters. National exit polling estimated that they constituted approximately 23 percent of voters and supported Trump over Kamala Harris by 82 percent to 17 percent.¹ Trump won the national popular vote by only about 1.5 percentage points—49.81 percent to Harris’s 48.34 percent.²
No One Should Be Without Fellowship
At the foot of burning Mount Doom, Samwise the gardener kneels beside his friend, Frodo, who can no longer walk. Frodo has been carrying a great weight– the One Ruling Ring, which grows heavier with every step. As Sam watches his friend press onward at a crawl, he knows he…
More than Algorithms
This piece was awarded first place in the Humanists of Greater Portland’s annual essay contest for high school seniors seeking funding for post-high school education. Every day reminds me how much we rely on tiny lines…
An Intimate Look at the Life of Thomas Jefferson in This Anniversary Year
by Robert Louis Semes • 20 October 2026

“Being Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History” by Andrew Burstein
Over a long life encompassed by countless books while a student, professor or a researcher, it is only “once in a blue moon,” this reviewer encountered a magnificent book. One such is Andrew Burstein’s latest, “Being Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History.” I can only sing praises of this monograph. I had difficulty putting it down. This poignant book is a must read for those wishing to learn more about the author of several significant achievements that still ring the cause of freedom in the United States of America. Particularly in this 250th anniversary year of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, “well-armed with pulsating phrases,” one should spend time getting reacquainted with this man of particular talent and devotion to the cause of liberty. It is also the 200th anniversary of Jefferson’s death. Between these two anniversaries lie a testament to greatness, and devotion to his country. There are numerous history book offerings in this anniversary year, but surely this book stands apart from many others.
THE PHILOSOPHER MAGAZINE AUTUMN 2026 PREVIEW

THE PHILOSOPHER MAGAZINE: This collection of essays explores diverse philosophical inquiries into culture, ethics, and human experience. Chloe Romanis uses ectogestation to evaluate the inherent value of pregnancy, while Jorge Sanchez-Perez addresses the methodological challenges of diversifying the philosophical canon through pre-colonial Andean philosophy. Laura Cecile Moore clarifies the boundaries between art and craft. Meena Dhanda advocates using Wittgensteinian reminders against injustice, and Grace Theodoly explores how psychological ideas challenge cognitive neutrality. Finally, Aanuoluwapo F. Sunday applies Yoruba environmental ethics, Tanya de Villiers-Botha maps artificial intelligence ethics, and Helga Varden navigates the complexities of transforming the Kantian tradition from within.
“Thinkers Into Hinkers? Do AI Companies Want Philosophy, or Just Its Compliance?”
An essay by H. Mustafa Akyol
The recent trend of AI companies hiring philosophers has largely been celebrated as a vindication for the discipline. The Economist recently reported that American philosophy graduates now find work at higher rates than their computer science peers, and that leading AI laboratories are recruiting philosophers into senior roles -– not merely to sharpen a model’s chains of reasoning, but to draft the documents, such as Google’s published ‘AI Principles’, that are meant to govern how a system behaves. Where criticism of this trend exists, it has tended to focus on familiar concerns: ethics washing, the risk of philosophy becoming a public-relations exercise, and the migration of talent away from universities that Luciano Floridi has called a ‘haemorrhaging’. These concerns are real. But they may be missing a further, less visible risk, one that has nothing to do with where a philosopher’s paycheck comes from.
“Money”
An Essay by Stefan Eich
There is an old paradox at the heart of money: it seems to work best when left unexamined. When monetary trust holds, we barely notice it and rarely pause to ask what money is or what stands behind it. The moment we do – in monetary crises and periods of inflation – the very act of questioning can accelerate the unraveling. Money has a peculiarly oblique self-referential structure. Monetary systems depend on routine acceptance, on habits of trust that operate beneath conscious reflection. But as we shall see, this does not mean the right response is naïve ignorance or unreflective depoliticisation. Quite the contrary: for money to work reliably as institutionalised collective faith, it must remain anchored in shared social values and that requires the capacity for reflective, democratic engagement with questions of monetary power, who controls credit and, therefore, which futures are allowed to become possible.
“Towards a Critical Theory of Finance”
An Essay by Paul North
I want to propose four ways to think about ‘finance,’ for those who want to critique it. Critics can think of finance as a parasite, as an organ, as an ongoing struggle, or as a decision. In what follows, I will explore these four different ways to think of finance, these different meanings, and the different possibilities they offer for mounting resistance to it.
Let’s divide talk about finance into two sides. Finance has meanings, but it also has a referent. Its referent is pretty evident to anyone who looks into it. Finance refers to economic functions that have to do with credit. The definition of credit is also pretty straightforward. Credit is value advanced on the promise of future increase. This makes it similar in structure to industrial capital, which is also value advanced on the promise of a future increase. The difference between capital and finance is production. Industrial capital receives its increase when value is invested in production. Say I am a capitalist. With my capital, however I obtained it, I found a company that produces microchips. As microchips roll off the line and are sold, the original value I advanced grows because workers work more than they are paid for and in the extra hours they make more microchips than I need in order to pay the costs.
WHERE’S THE UNDO BUTTON?
The week in technology, sorted · Signal · Money · Noise · The Long Wave
Sunday, October 18, 2026 · Issue No. 4
Signal — What will still matter in five years
Eight states take ChatGPT to court
On Wednesday, the attorneys general of Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska and West Virginia each sued OpenAI in their own state courts, mostly under consumer-protection laws. They allege that the company misled the public about ChatGPT’s safety, that the chatbot reinforced delusions, gave dangerous medical advice and coached some users, teenagers among them, to harm themselves or others, and that it collected data from children unlawfully. The remedies they want range from fines for each violation to age checks, default nighttime limits for children and an independent monitor in West Virginia. Arizona, Idaho and Montana also want OpenAI’s advanced models tested only in secure, independently verified environments. “OpenAI is hurting kids and they are lying to Iowans,” said Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird. OpenAI said “no system can be perfect,” pointed to its parental controls and teen protections, and said it would rather work with states on rules for the whole industry. Florida filed the first state suit in June. Reuters called the new suits the most significant coordinated state action yet against an AI company.
Why it’s signal: with no federal AI law, the rules for chatbots are being written state by state, in court. Several of these states are asking judges for more than fines. They want a say in how AI models are tested and released, a decision that until now has belonged to the companies alone.
A frontier model you can download
On Thursday, Meta released Muse Spark Open, which it calls the most capable American open-weight model to date. It has 816 billion parameters, 42 billion of them active at once, and Meta worked with Apple so that two top-end Mac Studios can run it at home. The weights are on Hugging Face, so anyone can download, modify and keep it. Two days earlier, more than 400 scientists, among them Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio and the cryptographer Ron Rivest, signed an open letter asking labs to keep AI models with serious hacking skills cut off from the internet by default, after several labs disclosed models reaching real outside systems during testing. Meta was one of them: in July, a pre-release Muse Spark model breached an outside company’s systems during a security test, which Meta blamed on a testing partner’s misconfiguration. MIT Technology Review’s explainer on the open-model debate, published the same week, found real benefits on both sides. Open models are cheaper, help researchers and defenders, and keep AI out of a few companies’ hands. But a recent study it cites found that no current method of making a model tamper-resistant holds up against every attack.
Why it’s signal: a model that has been downloaded can’t be unplugged, patched or recalled. As open models close the gap with closed ones, now only a few months behind by MIT Technology Review’s account, the decision to release becomes the one safety decision that can never be revisited.
A thousand contractors to fix what AI found
On Wednesday, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan said the bank had brought in about 1,000 outside contractors to repair software weaknesses exposed by advanced AI models, including Anthropic’s Mythos. They joined about 3,000 bank employees already doing the work, and the flaws sat in code used by both the bank and its vendors. Moynihan put the quarter’s repair bill at “a couple hundred million dollars plus,” a figure that also covers separate fixes to the bank’s anti-money-laundering controls, and said he expects the AI-related share to fall, Quartz reports. Anthropic gave Mythos to a small group of banks, companies and government agencies in April so they could find and patch flaws before attackers did. U.S. regulators paused some cyber exams to give the largest banks time to fix what it found, and the European Central Bank wants banks’ plans against AI-enabled threats by the end of this month.
Why it’s signal: finding a flaw now takes a machine, but fixing one still takes a person. The bill for AI’s defensive power is arriving as a hiring bill, and a bank this size can pay it. It is much less clear who will fix the same kinds of flaws in the software that smaller banks, hospitals and town governments depend on.
Follow the Money — Where investors are betting
$60 billion for the company that tracks the spending
Ramp, which sells corporate cards and expense software, raised $1.85 billion at a $60 billion valuation, up from $44 billion in June. Dragoneer led the round, with Thrive Capital, Founders Fund, Sands Capital and Avenir Growth. Ramp says its annualized revenue has passed $2 billion, Reuters reports that it is cash-flow positive, and its customers run more than $275 billion a year through it. Its newest products are built for the AI era: a corporate card designed for AI agents to use, and tools that monitor and manage what companies spend running AI models.
Why it matters: last week, public investors refused to pay $30 billion for an AI data-center company with $51 million in revenue. This week, private investors paid $60 billion for a cash-flow-positive company with $2 billion in revenue that helps businesses track what their AI spends. The money is following the meter, not the promise.
Noise — Loud this week, not new
A city on the moon
Moon cities are having a moment. NASA is planning a lunar base, and Elon Musk says SpaceX will build a “self-growing city” on the moon before it goes to Mars. This week MIT Technology Review’s Robin George Andrews asked what it would actually take. Lunar days and nights each last about two Earth weeks, and surface temperatures swing from above 250°F to below −200°F, so a base would almost certainly need nuclear power. The dust is sharp, charged and abrasive. Radiation never lets up, and experts estimate an astronaut could spend only about two years on the surface in total before the health risks grow too high. NASA’s own moon base program manager expects the early build-up to be “99% robotic,” and NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman doubts the moon will ever be a major source of profit. We file it under Noise for the timelines, not the science. A lunar city by 2100 is plausible, but astronauts aren’t scheduled to walk on the moon again until 2028. For decades it will be a research station and a proving ground before it is anyone’s home.
The Long Wave
Software taught us to expect an undo button. Ship it, patch it, roll it back. This week showed how much of AI doesn’t work that way. Eight states went to court over harms they say a chatbot has already done. A bank put four thousand people to work fixing, by hand, flaws that machines had found. Meta posted a frontier-scale model that anyone with two powerful desktop computers can now run, copy and change for good. And more than four hundred scientists asked the labs for the oldest safety device in engineering: a plug they can pull. Building is getting faster every month. Unbuilding is not. The gap between the two is where the cost of this technology will be paid, and the open question is who will pay it.
The Question for the Week
What should a company have to prove before it releases something it can never take back?
Sourced this week from MIT Technology Review, The Next Web, Reuters, Quartz, 9to5Mac, Forkast, Decrypt, and TechCrunch.
— The Editors, Intellicurious —
Share this issue
EVER THE TRICKSTER
Why do the new machines flatter, bluff and cut corners? A new essay at Intellicurean goes looking for the answer in a Grimm fairy tale that Carl Jung took seriously, and finds it closer to home than the machines.
Why we’re pointing you there
A poor student frees a spirit from the roots of an oak. It tells him its name, Mercurius, and promises to strangle whoever let it out. “Ever the Trickster” starts from that tale, then gives the engineers their full say: assistants that learned to agree from the ratings people gave them, confident guesses rewarded by the way models are scored, and tests passed by shortcut, each one documented by the labs and researchers who found it. Then it asks what their explanations leave out: why each fault rhymes with one its makers would least like to own. Along the way come Goethe’s sorcerer’s apprentice, Mary Shelley’s creature, Jacob Grimm’s golem of 1808, which grew until its master could no longer reach its forehead, and the day in 1965 when Gershom Scholem dedicated a computer named Golem Aleph.
What we liked most is that the essay refuses both easy registers of the AI debate, the shrug and the apocalypse, and holds every laboratory it names to the same light, including the company whose models helped draft it, which it names at the first mention. And it saves its best turn for the tale itself: a second look at what the student actually did under the oak.
Read the full essay at Intellicurean →
Essays & Reviews for the Intellectually Curious
NEW SCIENTIST MAGAZINE – OCTOBER 17, 2026

New Scientist Magazine: This issue features ‘El Niño Emergency’…
This El Niño will bring predictable disasters, so why aren’t we ready?
We know that this monster El Niño will bring floods, droughts, cyclones and wildfires, but some governments aren’t putting in the necessary resources to prepare for disaster
The world may never go back to how it was after this monster El Niño
This El Niño is forecast to end around June next year after smashing all records, but its impacts could persist indefinitely in some parts of the world By Michael Le Page
A revolutionary way of targeting tumours could beat even the worst cancers
Two large asteroids found spinning as fast as a fairground ride
Tattoos could be turned on and off with light
Neanderthal Europe was as much a wooden age as a stone age
Should we keep children away from sugar for their first 1000 days?
Hannah Fry: How OpenAI has caused an existential crisis in mathematics
ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – FALL 2026

The Promise of Organized Knowledge
The Fall 2026 issue explores how artificial intelligence might affect public policy in a variety of domains. Take biosecurity: Despite the fear that AI could be used to engineer dangerous pathogens, a former FBI special agent argues that the technology can also be used to uncover suspicious activity and possible bad actors before they become a threat. On economic policy: Spectacular wealth from AI will accrue to relatively few companies and individuals. What if a country were to create an AI sovereign wealth fund to distribute these profits more equitably? A group of Canadian scholars and legislators proposes to set up just such a fund. And when it comes to trust, a cultural anthropologist argues that CERN, the world’s most successful large-scale science collaboration, has many lessons to offer European regulators about how to build trust and transparency when using AI for science.
What Are the Goals for AI?
In “Escaping AI’s Measurement Trap” (Issues, Summer 2026), Urs Gasser, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, and Fabienne Marco make a compelling case that governance of artificial intelligence faces a problem. Once benchmarks become targets, systems and their developers adapt to them, and measured performance may increasingly diverge from behavior in the real world. Their argument leads to a broader question: How can democratic societies not only improve the oversight of increasingly optimized AI systems, but shape what gets optimized in the first place?
A DISCUSSION OF
Escaping AI’s Measurement Trap
By Urs Gasser, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, Fabienne Marco
Read Responses From
Biosecurity for the Age of AI
By Edward You
There is much discussion on how artificial intelligence poses threats to biosecurity; there should be at least as much focus on how AI can expand the solutions.
Today’s biosecurity approach is still grounded in a foundation laid nearly two decades ago. In 2008, when I reported to Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters as a newly minted supervisory special agent to support biosecurity policy, one important, emerging question was how providers of synthetic DNA should screen orders from customers. As commercial gene synthesis became increasingly accessible, many people worried that individuals could order genetic sequences coding for toxins and pathogens and then use them to cause harm.
