Simon WillisonModify

2025-09-18 07:53:38

Anthropic: A postmortem of three recent issues

Between August and early September, three infrastructure bugs intermittently degraded Claude's response quality. We've now resolved these issues and want to explain what happened. [...]

To state it plainly: We never reduce model quality due to demand, time of day, or server load. The problems our users reported were due to infrastructure bugs alone. [...]

We don't typically share this level of technical detail about our infrastructure, but the scope and complexity of these issues justified a more comprehensive explanation.

I'm really glad Anthropic are publishing this in so much detail. Their reputation for serving their models reliably has taken a notable hit.

I hadn't appreciated the additional complexity caused by their mixture of different serving platforms:

We deploy Claude across multiple hardware platforms, namely AWS Trainium, NVIDIA GPUs, and Google TPUs. [...] Each hardware platform has different characteristics and requires specific optimizations.

It sounds like the problems came down to three separate bugs which unfortunately came along very close to each other.

Anthropic also note that their privacy practices made investigating the issues particularly difficult:

The evaluations we ran simply didn't capture the degradation users were reporting, in part because Claude often recovers well from isolated mistakes. Our own privacy practices also created challenges in investigating reports. Our internal privacy and security controls limit how and when engineers can access user interactions with Claude, in particular when those interactions are not reported to us as feedback. This protects user privacy but prevents engineers from examining the problematic interactions needed to identify or reproduce bugs.

The code examples they provide to illustrate a TPU-specific bug show that they use Python and JAX as part of their serving layer.

Tags: python, ai, postmortem, generative-ai, llms, anthropic, claude

2025-09-18 06:52:10

In July it was the International Math Olympiad (OpenAI, Gemini), today it's the International Collegiate Programming Contest (ICPC). Once again, both OpenAI and Gemini competed with models that achieved Gold medal performance.

OpenAI's Mostafa Rohaninejad:

We received the problems in the exact same PDF form, and the reasoning system selected which answers to submit with no bespoke test-time harness whatsoever. For 11 of the 12 problems, the system’s first answer was correct. For the hardest problem, it succeeded on the 9th submission. Notably, the best human team achieved 11/12.

We competed with an ensemble of general-purpose reasoning models; we did not train any model specifically for the ICPC. We had both GPT-5 and an experimental reasoning model generating solutions, and the experimental reasoning model selecting which solutions to submit. GPT-5 answered 11 correctly, and the last (and most difficult problem) was solved by the experimental reasoning model.

And here's the blog post by Google DeepMind's Hanzhao (Maggie) Lin and Heng-Tze Cheng:

An advanced version of Gemini 2.5 Deep Think competed live in a remote online environment following ICPC rules, under the guidance of the competition organizers. It started 10 minutes after the human contestants and correctly solved 10 out of 12 problems, achieving gold-medal level performance under the same five-hour time constraint. See our solutions here.

I'm still trying to confirm if the models had access to tools in order to execute the code they were writing. The IMO results in July were both achieved without tools.

Tags: gemini, llm-reasoning, google, generative-ai, openai, ai, llms

2025-09-17 04:39:41

Announcing the 2025 PSF Board Election Results!

Jannis Leidel was also re-elected and Abigail Dogbe and Sheena O’Connell will be joining the board for the first time.

Tags: python, psf

2025-09-16 05:03:33

I thought I had an verbal agreement with them, that “Varnish Cache” was the FOSS project and “Varnish Software” was the commercial entitity, but the current position of Varnish Software’s IP-lawyers is that nobody can use “Varnish Cache” in any context, without their explicit permission. [...]

We have tried to negotiatiate with Varnish Software for many months about this issue, but their IP-Lawyers still insist that Varnish Software owns the Varnish Cache name, and at most we have being offered a strictly limited, subject to their veto, permission for the FOSS project to use the “Varnish Cache” name.

We cannot live with that: We are independent FOSS project with our own name.

So we will change the name of the project.

The new association and the new project will be named “The Vinyl Cache Project”, and this release 8.0.0, will be the last under the “Varnish Cache” name.

— Poul-Henning Kamp, Varnish 8.0.0 release notes

Tags: open-source, varnish, copyright

2025-09-16 02:55:35

GPT‑5-Codex and upgrades to Codex

Update: OpenAI call it a "version of GPT-5", they don't explicitly describe it as a fine-tuned model. Calling it a fine-tune was my mistake here.

I say half-released because it's not yet available via their API, but they "plan to make GPT‑5-Codex available in the API soon".

I wrote about the confusing array of OpenAI products that share the name Codex a few months ago. This new model adds yet another, though at least "GPT-5-Codex" (using two hyphens) is unambiguous enough not to add to much more to the confusion.

At this point it's best to think of Codex as OpenAI's brand name for their coding family of models and tools.

The new model is already integrated into their VS Code extension, the Codex CLI and their Codex Cloud asynchronous coding agent. I'd been calling that last one "Codex Web" but I think Codex Cloud is a better name since it can also be accessed directly from their iPhone app.

Codex Cloud also has a new feature: you can configure it to automatically run code review against specific GitHub repositories (I found that option on chatgpt.com/codex/settings/code-review) and it will create a temporary container to use as part of those reviews. Here's the relevant documentation.

Some documented features of the new GPT-5-Codex model:

• Specifically trained for code review, which directly supports their new code review feature.
• "GPT‑5-Codex adapts how much time it spends thinking more dynamically based on the complexity of the task." Simple tasks (like "list files in this directory") should run faster. Large, complex tasks should use run for much longer - OpenAI report Codex crunching for seven hours in some cases!
• Increased score on their proprietary "code refactoring evaluation" from 33.9% for GPT-5 (high) to 51.3% for GPT-5-Codex (high). It's hard to evaluate this without seeing the details of the eval but it does at least illustrate that refactoring performance is something they've focused on here.
• "GPT‑5-Codex also shows significant improvements in human preference evaluations when creating mobile websites" - in the past I've habitually prompted models to "make it mobile-friendly", maybe I don't need to do that any more.
• "We find that comments by GPT‑5-Codex are less likely to be incorrect or unimportant" - I originally misinterpreted this as referring to comments in code but it's actually about comments left on code reviews.

The system prompt for GPT-5-Codex in Codex CLI is worth a read. It's notably shorter than the system prompt for other models - here's a diff.

Here's the section of the updated system prompt that talks about comments:

Add succinct code comments that explain what is going on if code is not self-explanatory. You should not add comments like "Assigns the value to the variable", but a brief comment might be useful ahead of a complex code block that the user would otherwise have to spend time parsing out. Usage of these comments should be rare.

Theo Browne has a video review of the model and accompanying features. He was generally impressed but noted that it was surprisingly bad at using the Codex CLI search tool to navigate code. Hopefully that's something that can fix with a system prompt update.

Finally, can it drew a pelican riding a bicycle? Without API access I instead got Codex Cloud to have a go by prompting:

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle, save as pelican.svg

Here's the result:

Tags: ai, openai, generative-ai, llms, ai-assisted-programming, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release, coding-agents, gpt-5, codex-cli

2025-09-15 04:25:21

Here's an interesting example of models incrementally improving over time: I am finding that today's leading models are competent at writing prompts for themselves and each other.

A year ago I was quite skeptical of the pattern where models are used to help build prompts. Prompt engineering was still a young enough discipline that I did not expect the models to have enough training data to be able to prompt themselves better than a moderately experienced human.

The Claude 4 and GPT-5 families both have training cut-off dates within the past year - recent enough that they've seen a decent volume of good prompting examples.

I expect they have also been deliberately trained for this. Anthropic make extensive use of sub-agent patterns in Claude Code, and published a fascinating article on that pattern (my notes on that).

I don't have anything solid to back this up - it's more of a hunch based on anecdotal evidence where various of my requests for a model to write a prompt have returned useful results over the last few months.

Tags: prompt-engineering, llms, ai, generative-ai, gpt-5, anthropic, claude, claude-code, claude-4