Ryan McDonough

We're reaching the point where describing a law firm as "using AI" doesn't tell us very much. Most large firms now have access to some combination of general-purpose models, legal AI products, internal tools and increasingly agentic workflows. I read recently some Thomson

I’ve seen a few versions of the same argument since GPT-6/5/4/3.5 arrived: frontier models are now so capable that legal work is, for practical purposes, solved. I can see why people say it. Give a strong model a contract and ask it to

A few weeks ago, OpenAI disclosed an unusual security incident involving one of its internal AI evaluations. Agents running cybersecurity tasks had found ways beyond the environment they were supposed to be operating within, compromised OpenAI infrastructure and ultimately reached systems belonging to Hugging Face. It attracted plenty of attention

Somewhere inside an organisation, someone has been told they are responsible for an AI system they cannot stop. They may receive alerts, monitor a dashboard and see their name beside the word owner, yet be unable to inspect the evidence behind an action, change what the system is allowed

Yesterday OpenAI disclosed one of the more extraordinary AI security incidents we’ve seen so far. Its researchers were evaluating GPT-5.6 Sol and another, more capable pre-release model against ExploitGym, a benchmark designed to test advanced cybersecurity capabilities. The models were operating with reduced cyber safeguards