Google’s Antigravity 2.0 apparently used 96 agents running in parallel to write an operating system from scratch in 12 hours for under a thousand US dollars in token costs. And it runs Doom.

That’s the claim, anyway.

The Doom thing has become a genuine benchmark meme at this point. Someone ran Doom on a pregnancy test display a few years back. Doom runs on ESP32 microcontrollers. Doom runs on graphing calculators. If your new piece of technology can’t run Doom, that’s probably the more interesting story. So let’s hold that particular detail lightly.

There’s a pattern emerging in the AI world that I find equal parts fascinating and exhausting, and the buzz around Anthropic’s upcoming Claude Opus 4.7 release has me thinking about it again over my morning batch brew.

According to The Information — which apparently is the tech journalism equivalent of the Oracle at Delphi — Anthropic is about to drop Opus 4.7 along with a new AI design tool aimed squarely at the presentation and website-building market. Tools like Gamma and Google Stitch are apparently in the crosshairs. And somewhere above all of this sits “Claude Mythos,” the mysterious flagship model currently being whispered about in hushed tones, apparently so powerful it’s being used to find security vulnerabilities by a select group of early partners. Very dramatic stuff.

I’ve been watching the AI tools landscape explode over the past couple of years, and honestly, it’s been both exhilarating and exhausting. Every week there’s a new “game-changing” platform that promises to revolutionize how we work. But here’s the thing that’s been bugging me: we’re still talking about these tools the wrong way.

Someone recently shared a project that maps 137 AI tools and their actual connections – not just another directory, but a visual graph showing how these tools integrate with each other in real workflows. Twenty-five complete workflows, from podcast production to SEO content pipelines, showing exactly which tools feed into which at each stage. The whole thing runs in your browser, no login required, completely free.

The tech world is buzzing with another bold claim about AI coding assistants. This time, it’s about Cursor apparently churning out a billion lines of “accepted” code daily. Reading this while working on a legacy codebase migration project at my desk in South Melbourne, I had to pause and reflect on what this really means.

Numbers can be deceiving, especially in software development. Back in my early career days, I remember the misguided pride I took in writing hundreds of lines of code daily. Now, with decades of experience under my belt, I take far more satisfaction in deleting unnecessary code than adding new lines.