I’m Matt Burns, Chief Content Officer at Insight Media Group. Each week, I round up the most important AI developments, explaining what they mean for people and organizations putting this technology to work. The thesis is simple: workers who learn to use AI will define the next era of their industries, and this newsletter is here to help you be one of them.

---

OpenAI launched Dots at DevDay on Tuesday. Each Dot is an always-on agent with its own cloud computer and browser, hooked into the 4,000-plus apps that already connect to ChatGPT. In OpenAI’s own example, a Dot sees a bug alert land in Slack and starts digging in on its own. Cool.

And before Dots, Meta launched Muse, and it’s crushing the mobile install numbers previously set by ChatGPT. And before Muse, xAI shipped its version, Grok Bot, in August. 

Anthropic’s version, though different in a couple of ways, arrived two weeks ago as an update to Claude, and without a cute name or fuzzy mascot. This update folds Cowork, which has worked since July to run scheduled jobs after a user closes their laptop without being asked, into the main Claude app.

Anthropic made the right call with Cowork, whether or not it ever matches Muse’s downloads. Always-on agents are too young to have a winner, and the moats are shallow. A feature one lab ships tends to show up at its rivals within weeks or months. Meta needs Muse to be a blockbuster. Anthropic needs the people already building with Claude to hand it real, recurring work and keep coming back. Repeat use and finished jobs matter more than a flashy launch.

Always-on agents are too early to have a winner

This wave of always-on personal agents took off less than a year ago. Peter Steinberger pushed a weekend project called Clawdbot to GitHub last November. It lived on a spare computer, took prompts over WhatsApp or Telegram, and relied mostly on Claude. Anthropic sent the lawyers in January, so it became Moltbot, then OpenClaw a couple of days later. It turned into a security headache, and in February Steinberger joined OpenAI. On Tuesday, the foundation that runs the project released an early, pre-1.0 version of OpenClaw Enterprise for companies to try internally.

Ten months, three names, one OpenAI hire and an enterprise edition. Ideas move between these products faster than ever. Meta’s Nat Friedman said Muse was heavily inspired by OpenClaw, and users digging through Muse found a SOUL.md personality file nearly identical to OpenClaw’s.

Anthropic’s September merge is on the list above as a copier, two months behind OpenAI’s Work mode — though Cowork’s cloud and scheduled-task features shipped July 7, two days before Work mode. Jessica Wachtel tested both on our site across three developer tasks and found them tied on accuracy, with ChatGPT faster and Claude more thorough. When a product is this young, a me-too launch is how a lab gets its own users in the room to see what they do with it.

Meta needs Muse to be huge. The others need paying users.

Muse is a hit. Counting only iOS, Apptopia estimated 359,000 daily U.S. users in Muse’s first 12 days, compared with 231,000 for ChatGPT’s iOS app at the same point. Sensor Tower estimated more than 3.4 million downloads as of September 24, though other firms’ counts vary.

Meta needs this. Its Reality Labs division spent tens of billions of dollars on the metaverse without a mainstream product to show for it. Llama 4 landed so flat last year that Zuckerberg rebuilt his AI division around a new superintelligence lab, notably taking a 49% stake in Scale AI and hiring its founder Alexandr Wang. 

Muse is the first product from that rebuild to break through, and it got there on Meta’s user base: Apptopia found that more than 95% of Muse users also use Facebook. Muse has a free tier, paid plans at $20 and $100 a month, and connectors to Shopify and Stripe checkout, enabling agents to buy things. Meta’s route runs through scale. Scale has a downside, too. Janakiram MSV explains for TNS why Amazon started blocking Muse two weeks after launch, and it’s well worth your time because this is a new wedge in ecommerce.

OpenAI and xAI started at the paid end. The price of entry for Dots? A ChatGPT Pro plan at $100 to $500 a month, or a Business Premium or Enterprise account. Sam Altman called Dots a premium product because each one needs so much compute. Grok Bot reached 418,000 weekly users by mid-September, per Bloomberg, and xAI just launched Team Bots on Monday.

Neither company needs Meta’s install base to learn something useful. Paying customers already spend money on AI, and retention will show whether they keep using the agent once the novelty wears off. 

Anthropic shipped its version to the people already building with Claude

Anthropic did what I’d expect from labs right now. It shipped fast, shipped to paying subs, and put the agent inside the app those people already use. The merged Claude hit Pro and Max customers, with Team and Free plans coming soon. Teams have had Claude Tag in Slack since June, a proactive teammate with its own identity and audit trail. Cat Wu said an internal version accounts for about 65% of the product teams’ code changes. Developers have had Managed Agents for hosted, long-running agents since April.

What Anthropic hasn’t done is put Claude where Muse lives. Muse works inside Meta-owned WhatsApp, but Claude still asks you to open the Claude app or tag it in Slack. That workflow might matter for mainstream consumers. Teams wiring an agent into their code care more about what it can touch. Jani laid out the difference on our site in August: Grok Bots share one cloud computer and one set of logins across the whole roster, while Claude Tag joins a Slack workspace with its own service identity and channel-scoped access. Before handing agents your logins, know what you’re getting into.

Those are the users Anthropic should want. Writers on Towards Data Science have spent the year showing what builders do with always-on agents. Samir Saci put a team of OpenClaw agents on a supply chain simulation to chase down late shipments. Eivind Kjosbakken’s guide to running a fleet of OpenClaw bots walks through nightly QA bots that test an app and report bugs, plus agents that check invoices. Both ran their agents on OpenAI’s Codex. OpenAI runs its own OpenClaw agent, Androidclaw, that traces broken builds and, in some cases, merges the fix, VentureBeat reported. Anthropic needs that kind of work running on Claude.

I set up OpenClaw on an old Mac Mini this spring, and I had so many questions (and breakthroughs). That’s why builders, coders, and developers are critical to product development: They ask these questions out loud in GitHub issues and Discord threads, and the answers end up in the product.

The obvious objection is trust. It’s fair. An always-on agent holds credentials and acts while nobody is watching. xAI’s own documentation tells users not to treat Grok Bots as a security boundary, and the OpenClaw Foundation says most IT departments ban agent platforms outright. Anthropic’s defaults lean cautious: Claude asks before it acts unless you tell it otherwise, and Tag keeps its own audit trail. If builders don’t come back, or each finished task takes more supervision than doing it themselves, the experiment hasn’t worked. But if they keep finding useful work to hand off, their questions and breakthroughs become the roadmap.

That’s the race that matters for Claude, Dots and Muse: becoming the agent people trust with the next job.

The post Anthropic’s answer to Dots and Muse is already inside Claude appeared first on The New Stack.

Q.ANT, a startup out of Stuttgart, Germany, builds processors that use light instead of electricity to do some of the math behind AI. The company pitches them as a way to run AI on a fraction of the power today’s chips need.

Now developers can start writing software for those chips without owning one. Q.ANT pushed a free, open-source software kit to GitHub this week that lets developers build and test programs on a normal computer, then run them on the real chips once they get access.

This is a move out of Nvidia’s playbook. Nvidia owes its lead in AI as much to CUDA, the software developers use to program its GPUs, as it does to the chips themselves. 

But with Q.ANT, the catch is the hardware. Q.ANT’s chips are running at a few research computing centers, and everyone else has to wait “the coming months” for cloud access through German provider IONOS or an on-site server from Q.ANT.

The kit, called the Q.ANT Native Computing Toolkit, is free on GitHub under a license that allows commercial use. Developers can work in Python or C. The key piece is a simulator that mimics the chip on a regular computer, with no Q.ANT drivers required.

What can it do today? The AI tools in this first version focus on running models that have already been trained. The examples read handwritten numbers, identify objects in photos and outline shapes in images. Training still happens on regular CPUs and GPUs.

The pitch for photonic computing is power. AI chips burn a lot of energy moving data back and forth between memory and the processor. Q.ANT’s chips do part of the math with light, specifically wave-shaped functions similar to a cosine, which regular chips calculate digitally. Q.ANT says AI models built around those functions get better results with fewer parameters, the settings a model learns during training. Fewer parameters means a smaller model, less data to move and less power. The kit includes examples comparing a standard model with one built Q.ANT’s way. Those comparisons are the company’s own.

“An ecosystem isn’t created by hardware alone. It emerges when the software layer is open and others can build on it,” said Michael Förtsch, Q.ANT’s founder and CEO. He calls the release the “Linux moment” of photonic computing.

Q.ANT is betting light can do the math itself. Lightmatter, one of the best-known companies in the field, now puts its focus on Passage, which uses light to move data between chips. The idea of light-based AI isn’t new, either. TNS covered MIT’s photonic processor for building optical neural networks back in 2017.

Q.ANT raised €62 million in July 2025 in a round led by Cherry Ventures, UVC Partners and imec.xpand. In March, it said its second-generation chips were running at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre near Munich. The results it published from there compare the new chip with its old one: more than 50 times faster at the kind of math that does most of the work in AI models, and six times less energy on typical jobs, by the company’s numbers. Its bigger claims, like up to 30 times better energy efficiency, don’t say what they’re measured against.

Good software alone won’t carry a new chip. Nvidia has been building CUDA for nearly 20 years and is still adding to it, including deeper native Python support last year. Graphcore, the British AI chip startup, had its own software kit and still ended up being sold to SoftBank in 2024.

Q.ANT calls this the first openly available software kit for programming a photonic processor. That depends on how you count. Xanadu has offered free, open software for its light-based quantum computers since 2018. For now, developers can play with the simulator. What they can’t do yet is test Q.ANT’s power-saving claims on their own models. That has to wait until the chips open up.

The post Q.ANT gives away the software for its light-powered AI chips in a CUDA-style bet on developers appeared first on The New Stack.

I’m Matt Burns, Chief Content Officer at Insight Media Group. Each week, I round up the most important AI developments, explaining what they mean for people and organizations putting this technology to work. The thesis is simple: workers who learn to use AI will define the next era of their industries, and this newsletter is here to help you be one of them.

---

Model triage is becoming one of the most important skills for the AI-native developer. I’ve argued all summer that the people getting the most out of frontier models are the ones disciplined enough not to run the best model by default. On Wednesday, Stripe and Ramp validated that idea 70 minutes apart: Stripe bought OpenRouter, and Ramp released its internal router.

Bloomberg puts the OpenRouter price tag above $7 billion, and Axios says it’s more than $8 billion in cash and stock. Stripe has not released the terms, so the details remain fuzzy.

While the acquisition made headlines, the architecture is the story. For the last couple of years, picking a model was something written into an application, a string in a config file, and swapping models took some work. A router changes that workflow. Stripe bought the layer, and Ramp built it. Both are betting their existing relationships give them a unique wedge to own this critical layer in the new AI stack.

Picking a model is becoming a runtime decision

OpenRouter is an endpoint serving more than 400 models from over 80 providers, processing more than 10 trillion tokens a day. Andrej Karpathy calls it the transfer switch for AI. Ramp’s Router does the same job on a smaller catalog and claims roughly 40% lower cost for the same output.

Both are betting the model name in a codebase is a liability. They’re mostly right. Back in June, I pointed to Mitchell Hashimoto, who found a standard coding task that cost about $1.50 on GPT-5.5 and roughly $9 on Claude Fable, with both producing equally acceptable results. A router automates that triage, making decisions on every request rather than only on those a developer explicitly configures.

This is becoming a large problem and a large opportunity. Our own Amanda Caswell reported this week that Anthropic’s /claude-api skill was burning about 200,000 tokens before answering a single question, and that loading its reference docs on demand instead of up front cut that to roughly 25,000. Hafiz Hassan wrote for us last week about why AI pipelines cost 10x more than the demo, and every culprit on his list is an engineering decision: system prompts resent every turn, whole conversation histories appended, oversized RAG chunks, raw JSON dumped into context. It’s a great practical guide, and none of the items Hassan identifies are procurement problems.

The token bill is generated by your code, which is why the tools to control it are arriving there as well.

Stripe and Ramp want the same layer for opposite reasons

Stripe is attacking the problem from the bottom up, through developers. The company’s investor letter, leaked Wednesday by Eric Newcomer, makes the argument directly: “Up until now, every developer has needed a straightforward and reliable way to manage their revenue pipeline, and serving this need gave rise to Stripe. Going forward, however, every developer will also need a straightforward and reliable way to manage their intelligence pipeline.”

Stripe wants to control AI spending through the long tail of developers. Ramp wants to control it through its existing relationship with finance.

Stripe has built this product before. Its payments business hides dozens of local payment methods behind a single API, routing each transaction to the payment method most likely to convert. The AI version is the same idea applied to models instead of payment networks.

Ramp is attacking it from the top down, through finance. The company bought the router.com domain and says its customers already buy quadrillions of tokens a month through Ramp. Founder Veeral Patel’s launch post pitches the service simply: “Monitor and control your AI bill across every provider.” Adam Wazzan sums up Ramp’s strategy better than I can: “when a CFO ships a product for CTOs.”

Stripe wants to control AI spending through the long tail of developers. Ramp wants to control it through its existing relationship with finance. Both are chasing what is rapidly becoming one of the largest line items in corporate technology budgets: tokens.

On X, Kabir Goel pushes back on Stripe’s framing. Routing tokens is a way to spend less, while Stripe’s other products are designed to help businesses make more. 

“Stripe is just not where teams go to understand how much they’re spending,” he writes. “That’s pretty squarely Ramp territory.” 

He has a point about where teams look today. Whether that’s still true three years from now is exactly what Stripe just spent billions betting against.

The router worth pointing at is the one with no model to sell

Whichever router you point at decides which model writes your code, and not every router is disinterested. Our own Paul Sawers flagged the problem in July when he covered the first wave of Cursor’s, Ramp’s, and Meta’s routers. Cursor backs Grok and Composer. Meta is building Muse Spark. Both have reasons to send work to their own models, and Paul quoted developer Elvis Saravia asking whether routing logic ought to be open source rather than a vendor’s private judgment call.

Stripe and Ramp do not sell models. OpenRouter CEO Alex Atallah says as much in Stripe’s own announcement: Developers “need a neutral layer to orchestrate and manage them all.” Investor Gavin Baker frames the opportunity the same way, arguing that Stripe can become the neutral infrastructure layer for AI, just as it became the neutral infrastructure layer for payments. 

Neutrality isn’t free, though. Stripe takes a percentage of token spend, and Ramp wants your spending relationship, so “free through 2026” is a customer acquisition strategy with an expiration date.

The obvious objection is that vendor motives are the wrong thing to worry about, and routing quality is what really matters. That’s fair, and Towards Data Science published one of the best practical examples I’ve read. Pratik Rupareliya describes a routing layer that cut a support agent’s inference bill by 40% but also broke the product. A classifier sent “simple” queries to a cheaper model, but some of those “simple” queries were actually fraud investigations. 

The cheaper model answered them confidently and incorrectly. Customers stopped using the agent, churn rose above baseline in month four, and retention costs were four to five times higher than the savings. It took three months to surface and another month to identify the cause. His fix was per-tier quality monitoring combined with an uncertainty-routed cascade, which ultimately settled at 35% savings without sacrificing quality. It’s an excellent article to read before diving into model routing.

So instrument the routing. Log what the router picks on every request and break out your quality metrics by the model that served them. Ramp Router reportedly records the model, provider, tier, tokens, latency, cost, and fallback attempts for every call. Stripe OpenRouter rankings have been a public version of that telemetry for years. You can get similar visibility with either approach.

Right now, the model is becoming an implementation detail. The competition is shifting to the layer that decides which model gets the job. Stripe and Ramp are betting that developers won’t care what sits behind the endpoint, so long as the bill is lower and the results are good enough. 

The post Forget the model wars, Stripe and Ramp just started the router wars appeared first on The New Stack.