Subscribe

Five minutes.
AI, made clearer.

What changed, what holds up, and why it matters. A short edition you can actually finish.

Read the briefing

Start with two full samples. Sign in for this edition’s free story. Sources and corrections stay open.

GPT-6 Sol costs less. Its benchmark score barely moved.

OpenAI released GPT-6 Sol and Luna priced at $2 and $10 per million input and output tokens for Sol, and $0.10 and $0.50 for Luna, about half of GPT-5.6 pricing. The launch leaned on a cost-and-mistakes pitch the same week Anthropic and Google both cut prices on their own models.

The reality check

Artificial Analysis found the price claim real: Sol's cost per task fell from $1.99 to $1.06 while its Intelligence Index score barely moved, 47 to 48. The fewer-mistakes claim also holds on hallucinations, which fell from 92% to 60% for Sol and 93% to 77% for Luna, even as some knowledge-work scores regressed.

Why care? The reported savings and lower hallucination rate are useful. A small change on one intelligence benchmark does not establish how either model will perform on your own tasks.

Take this with youBefore switching models, compare the cost of completing your own task, including checking and rework.

Open the evidence2 source pages

The claim we checked

GPT-6 Sol and Luna offer lower cost and fewer mistakes than GPT-5.6 Sol and Luna

These are quoted receipts, not a count of independent investigations. Several reports may rely on the same original source.

OfficeChai ↗
GPT-6 Sol’s hallucination rate falls from 92% to 60%, and GPT-6 Luna’s from 93% to 77%.
OfficeChai ↗
running GPT-6 Sol at max effort through the full Intelligence Index costs $1.06 per task, about 50% less than GPT-5.6 Sol’s $1.99
OfficeChai ↗
GPT-6 Sol at maximum effort scores 48, essentially level with GPT-5.6 Sol’s 47
THE DECODER ↗
GPT-6 Sol now costs $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens, while Luna comes in at $0.10 for input and $0.50 for output.
Open this check in the full collection →
Correction · 24 Sept 2026

One benchmark cannot establish a universal intelligence claim, and hallucination is not evidence of deliberate deception.
Previously: The headline said the model was not smarter, and the takeaway said it lies less.
Corrected: The headline now describes the small reported benchmark change, and the takeaway limits the conclusion to the tested measures.

Next: The phishing trick behind the AI headline.
The idea, illustrated01

Cost per benchmark task (USD)

GPT-5.6 Sol1.99GPT-6 Sol1.06

Intelligence Index (points)

GPT-5.6 Sol47GPT-6 Sol48

Price is only half the question.

  1. 01What does it cost?
  2. 02Does it do your job?
  3. 03What needs checking?
Artificial Analysis results, reported by OfficeChai. Each metric uses its own scale; receipts in the story.

EvilTokens used an old sign-in trick, amplified by AI.

Microsoft's Digital Crimes Unit disrupted EvilTokens, a subscription phishing kit sold on Telegram that stole Microsoft sign-in tokens through device-code phishing. Since launching in February, the service had compromised more than 12,000 email inboxes across over 10,000 organizations, and Microsoft seized 50 websites tied to the operation.

The reality check

Microsoft describes AI helping tailor phishing lures as well as analyze compromised inboxes and choose fraud targets. The account-access mechanism was device-code phishing, an existing sign-in abuse; describing that mechanism does not make AI's role in the wider attack disappear.

Why care? An AI-assisted attack can still exploit a familiar sign-in flow. Understanding how access was granted is more useful for choosing defenses than the AI label alone.

Take this with youTreat unexpected requests to enter a sign-in code as something to verify through a separate, trusted channel.

Open the evidence3 source pages

The claim we checked

Microsoft disrupts AI-assisted platform that compromised 12,000 accounts

These are quoted receipts, not a count of independent investigations. Several reports may rely on the same original source.

Microsoft Security Blog ↗
providing cybercriminals with AI capabilities for tailoring phishing lures and analyzing compromised inboxes to identify high-value targets.
Microsoft Security Blog ↗
This AI-powered cybercrime platform facilitated sophisticated business email compromise (BEC) campaigns that compromised more than 12,000 inboxes in over 10,000 organizations worldwide.
Microsoft On the Issues ↗
In short, AI was not simply helping attackers write more convincing messages. It helped them decide who to target, who to impersonate, and how to most effectively exploit the relationship to extract as much money as possible.
Microsoft On the Issues ↗
Microsoft seized 50 websites used to operate the service and disabled more than 150 additional domains tied to its supporting infrastructure.
Cryovex ↗
Microsoft disrupted EvilTokens, an AI-powered platform used to compromise 12,000 Microsoft accounts through automated phishing and credential theft.
Open this check in the full collection →
Correction · 24 Sept 2026

We drew an unsupported boundary between the phishing stage and later fraud. The actual claim says AI-assisted, which Microsoft's account supports.
Previously: The ruling was True, but. The headline and check said AI ran the fraud but did not assist the break-in.
Corrected: The ruling is Holds up. The check now includes Microsoft's description of AI tailoring the phishing lures as well as analyzing stolen inboxes.

Next: An AI discovery with an open question.
The idea, illustrated02

Follow the attack, not the buzzword.

  1. 01A convincing lure
  2. 02A stolen sign-in token
  3. 03AI-assisted inbox analysis
Conceptual illustration · not a data chart

Claude flagged an enzyme system. Its function is still unknown.

Anthropic opened a life sciences lab and said roughly 950 Claude agents spent 21 hours combing DNA databases before one flagged a repeat pattern beside a reverse transcriptase gene. The company calls the find a new enzyme system it named ART, with CRISPR-like repeats, and released it as a pre-print rather than a peer-reviewed paper.

Free with your account

Sign in for this free check.

This edition’s selected free story opens after sign-in.

Open the evidence2 source pages

The claim we checked

Claude autonomously discovered a novel enzyme system that is associated with an array of DNA repeats, a pattern reminiscent of CRISPR

These are quoted receipts, not a count of independent investigations. Several reports may rely on the same original source.

Anthropic ↗
After 21 hours spent searching this data by roughly 950 agents using 210 million tokens, one of the agents spotted something remarkable
Anthropic ↗
Although we don't yet know its function, the system that Claude discovered has a set of characteristics that have only ever been found together in a handful of other systems
Anthropic ↗
This is an exciting example of how AI agents can contribute to biological discovery. The identification of RNA-repeat arrays associated with reverse transcriptases is genuinely intriguing and merits further investigation
Unite.AI ↗
The system's function is not yet known
Open this check in the full collection →
Correction · 24 Sept 2026

Corrected the publication date and kept the explanation within what the primary source establishes.
Previously: The Anthropic source receipts were dated September 22, and the copy was unclear about the unknown function and the status of Feng Zhang's comment.
Corrected: The source receipts are dated September 23. The check distinguishes an unknown function, a preprint and a researcher's positive comment from an established application.

Next: AI glasses without the camera.
The idea, illustrated03

Go inside the check.

    The full explanation appears when your reading access is confirmed.

    Meta's new audio glasses have no camera. Other privacy questions remain.

    Meta unveiled the Ray-Ban Meta Audio Glasses at Connect 2026, audio-only smart glasses with Meta AI, calls and music but no camera, weighing 43 grams and starting at $349. The launch responds to criticism that camera-equipped AI glasses let wearers secretly record people, a habit that earned them the nickname "pervert glasses."

    The full story

    Keep reading with Membership.

    Membership opens all currently available member reading. The source receipts and corrections stay open below.

    First membership: 30 days free, then A$89 a year. One introductory trial per customer. Card required; renews annually until cancelled. Cancel before the trial ends to avoid the first charge.

    Open the evidence3 source pages

    The claim we checked

    the Ray-Ban Meta Audio Glasses ship with no camera, weigh 43 grams and start at $349, addressing the backlash against camera-equipped AI glasses

    These are quoted receipts, not a count of independent investigations. Several reports may rely on the same original source.

    The Verge ↗
    Plus, the camera-less glasses are lighter.
    TechCrunch ↗
    Because they don't have to house cameras, the glasses are slimmer than Meta's other models and weigh only 43 grams.
    TechCrunch ↗
    The glasses are designed by Meta's partner in its AI hardware efforts, EssilorLuxottica, and will start at $349.
    Business Standard ↗
    That is $100 cheaper than the latest version of its Ray-Ban glasses, which have cameras and will come in two new styles
    Open this check in the full collection →
    Correction · 24 Sept 2026

    The cited hardware specifications support a camera claim, not a blanket privacy guarantee.
    Previously: The takeaway described removing the camera as the fix for the privacy complaint.
    Corrected: The takeaway distinguishes camera recording from the separate questions around audio and data handling.

    Next: A training bill with a missing subtotal.
    The idea, illustrated04

    Go inside the check.

      The full explanation appears when your reading access is confirmed.

      Xiaomi's '$3M' top open model traces to one hedged tweet at $2.6M.

      Xiaomi released MiMo-V2.6-Pro, a 1.02-trillion-parameter open-weights model that Artificial Analysis scored 46 on its Intelligence Index, the top mark among open models, alongside a smaller Flash version. A widely shared newsletter headlined the release as "trained for $3M," but the only sourced cost figure in that same report is $2.6 million, and it covers the reinforcement-learning run alone.

      The full story

      Keep reading with Membership.

      Membership opens all currently available member reading. The source receipts and corrections stay open below.

      First membership: 30 days free, then A$89 a year. One introductory trial per customer. Card required; renews annually until cancelled. Cancel before the trial ends to avoid the first charge.

      Open the evidence2 source pages

      The claim we checked

      MiMo-V2.6-Pro is Xiaomi's new top open-weights model, trained for $3M

      These are quoted receipts, not a count of independent investigations. Several reports may rely on the same original source.

      Latent Space ↗
      Artificial Analysis says MiMo-V2.6-Pro debuts as the top open-weights model on its Intelligence Index (46), with 1.02T total / 42B active parameters and strong cost efficiency at $0.435/M input and $0.87/M output tokens.
      Latent Space ↗
      @zephyr_z9 cites 130 hours, 75B tokens, and $2.6M for the RL run behind the result
      Latent Space ↗
      If these numbers hold up, the implication is that post-training/RL is becoming a far cheaper route to frontier-adjacent gains than many assumed.
      i-SCOOP ↗
      Pro and Flash each completed 30 large RL steps covering roughly 750,000 trajectories in under six days, at reported costs of about $2.62 million for Pro and $850,000 for Flash.
      Open this check in the full collection →
      Correction · 24 Sept 2026

      Different websites do not necessarily provide independent validation. Our source set cannot prove that no confirmation exists anywhere.
      Previously: The check called the second write-up independent reporting, and the takeaway said nobody had confirmed the narrower cost.
      Corrected: The check identifies two reports and states what these particular receipts do not establish.

      The finish line
      The idea, illustrated05

      Go inside the check.

        The full explanation appears when your reading access is confirmed.

        Edition complete

        You’re up to speed.

        That’s the 24 Sept 2026 briefing. Keep the useful bits. Leave the noise.

        Reading estimate: 880 words at 200 words per minute. Source quotes and the optional sections below add reading time.

        Have another 3 minutes? · Learn one thing

        Tokens: the pieces AI reads

        Two words can be two tokens. One word can be six. See what changes. A beginner lesson with a visual you can play.

        Try the free lesson →

        Keep exploring

        All research

        A curated directory. Check each entry’s date and sources.

        Make a little room for clarity.

        Get the next checked edition in your inbox.

        Free email updates. Unsubscribe any time.