Most experimentation teams I talk to are more worried about concurrent tests than they should be. They treat isolation as the default, queue up experiments sequentially, and then wonder why velocity is low. The interaction effect problem is real in theory. In practice, it barely shows up. What Interaction Effects Are (and Why People Panic) When two A/B tests run simultaneously on the same user population, there's a risk that they interfere with each other. Test A changes the header. Test B changes the checkout button. A user sees both. The concern is that the combined effect is different from what you'd expect by adding the individual effects together. In statistics, this is called a qualitative interaction: the direction of one test's result reverses depending on the state of another. That's the scary version. What actually happens is almost never that dramatic. What the Data Actually Shows Microsoft's experimentation team ran a rigorous analysis across four...
On July 28, Anthropic published research showing that Claude Mythos Preview, their unreleased frontier model, found two previously unknown cryptographic attacks in roughly 60 hours of autonomous work. One of them helped take down a NIST post-quantum signature candidate that had survived two rounds of expert human review spanning two years. That is not a prompt engineering trick. That is AI doing original mathematics. To be clear about what this is and is not: the production systems you depend on are not at immediate risk. Full AES-256 is fine. The attacks target weakened or candidate schemes. But the more important story is how fast this happened, and what it tells us about where AI fits in the research pipeline going forward. What Claude Mythos Actually Did Claude Mythos Preview ran for approximately 60 hours on cryptanalysis work targeting two algorithms: HAWK, a lattice-based post-quantum signature scheme that was in NIST's additional standardization process, and a weakened...