Technology

Smart home ecosystems such as Alexa, Google Home, and Apple Home can be very frustrating. They're not always compatible with smart home devices, you're limited in what you can do, and they may not be hugely respectful of your privacy. There's a free and open-source alternative that's gaining ground fast.

Infiniti hopes it just marked a major turning point in its U.S. ambitions. The upscale Nissan brand has started assembling its 2027 QX65 luxury SUV at its Smyrna, Tennessee plant, giving it a key role in launching a crucial new model.

Revolution Race Cars is trying to carve out a new niche in the track-day world with the launch of the HyperSport. Described by the UK-based company as a lightweight track car built for performance and safety, the HyperSport combines the racing character of single-seaters, GTs, and prototypes.

You might not need to do the heavy lifting the next time you have design work on hand. Anthropic has unveiled Claude Design, a "research preview" that uses the Opus AI model (4.7) to craft designs — potentially complete ones, depending on what you need.

TL;DR: Live stream Atletico Madrid vs. Real Sociedad in the Copa del Rey final for free on ITVX. Access this free streaming platform from anywhere in the world with ExpressVPN.

Atletico Madrid are fresh from beating Barcelona in the quarter-final stage of the Champions League. They're going to come up against Arsenal in the next round, but first they face off against Real Sociedad in the final of the Copa del Rey.

Atletico Madrid are comfortably above their opponents in La Liga, but Real Sociedad possess the quality to beat any side on their best day. The likes of Mendez and Oyarzabal will likely cause problems for Diego Simeone's team this weekend.

If you want to watch Atletico Madrid vs. Real Sociedad in the Copa del Rey final from anywhere in the world, we have all the information you need.

When is Atletico Madrid vs. Real Sociedad?

Atletico Madrid vs. Real Sociedad in the Copa del Rey final kicks off at 3 p.m. ET on April 18. This fixture takes place at the Estadio de La Cartuja.

How to watch Atletico Madrid vs. Real Sociedad for free

Atletico Madrid vs. Real Sociedad in the Copa del Rey final is available to live stream for free on ITVX.

ITVX is geo-restricted to the UK, but anyone can access this free streaming platform with a VPN. These tools can hide your real IP address (digital location) and connect you to a secure server in the UK, meaning you can unblock ITVX to live stream the Copa del Rey for free from anywhere in the world.

Live stream Atletico Madrid vs. Real Sociedad in the Copa del Rey for free by following these simple steps:

1. Subscribe to a streaming-friendly VPN (like ExpressVPN)

2. Download the app to your device of choice (the best VPNs have apps for Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Linux, and more)

3. Open up the app and connect to a server in the UK

4. Visit ITVX

5. Watch Atletico Madrid vs. Real Sociedad for free from anywhere in the world

Opens in a new window Credit: ExpressVPN ExpressVPN (1-Month Plan) $12.95 only at ExpressVPN (with money-back guarantee) Get Deal

The best VPNs for streaming are not free, but most do offer free-trials or money-back guarantees. By leveraging these offers, you can access free live streams of the Copa del Rey without actually spending anything. This obviously isn't a long-term solution, but it does give you enough time to stream Atletico Madrid vs. Real Sociedad in the Copa del Rey final before recovering your investment.

What is the best VPN for ITVX?

ExpressVPN is the best choice for bypassing geo-restrictions to stream live sport on ITVX, for a number of reasons:

• Servers in 105 countries including the UK

• Easy-to-use app available on all major devices including iPhone, Android, Windows, Mac, and more

• Strict no-logging policy so your data is secure

• Fast connection speeds free from throttling

• Up to 10 simultaneous connections

• 30-day money-back guarantee

A two-year subscription to ExpressVPN is on sale for $68.40 and includes an extra four months for free — 81% off for a limited time. This plan includes a year of free unlimited cloud backup and a generous 30-day money-back guarantee. Alternatively, you can get a one-month plan for just $12.99 (with money-back guarantee).

Live stream Atletico Madrid vs. Real Sociedad in the Copa del Rey final for free with ExpressVPN.

"Don't read books. Play them," says AI-powered role play platform Character.AI in a promo for its latest simulation feature: Books. 

If you were as alarmed as I was at that first line (we are in a literacy crisis!), let me explain. The new feature feeds public domain titles — classics like The Great Gatsby, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Pride & Prejudice, and Frankenstein — into the platform's AI so that users can play as characters within the stories themselves. Users can "remix" the tales, adding new characters, changing the plots, or creating entirely new universes. Or you can just live inside the classic story as it is. 

SEE ALSO: Character.AI users can now role-play classic books like 'Pride and Prejudice'

The platform itself is intended for multi-layered, multimedia role play, from written or audio conversations to AI-generated comic strips and music videos. Users can upload descriptions and even art of their original characters, play with scenarios designed by others, or interact with existing IP.  

But for all its creative potential, the platform has been mired in controversy, including recently settled lawsuits that claimed Character.AI's chatbots were deceptive and dangerous, leading some children to suicide.  

Character.AI told Mashable senior reporter Rebecca Ruiz that Books are only available to users 18 years and older, and clarified that it has additional safeguards, including moderation of content that is violent, abusive, obscene or pornographic. Users can prompt "romantic narratives" in Books, a spokesperson told Mashable, but it can't violate these terms.

Sounds a bit like a challenge. So I did what any self-respecting journalist would do. I tried to turn F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby into a queer love story. 

Can I make Nick Carraway and Jay Gatsby kiss on the mouth?

I'm guessing the vast majority of Americans read The Great Gatsby in high school, but did many also think Nick Carraway, the story's main character, was kind of head over heels in love with the titular Jay Gatsby? What if I told you that there are actually thousands of believers, and even academics have written about the novel's queer subtext?

It shouldn't be too far-fetched, then, to use Character.AI's new feature to make that subtext, well, text. 

Using a new, free account, I queued up Books in the platform's desktop-based Lab, where users can play with upcoming features. I selected the novel, chose my character (Nick), and selected the option that let me make choices outside of the book's existing plot. They were going to kiss if I had anything to do about it. 

The AI dropped me a few chapters into the novel, Gatsby arriving at my door with Jordan Baker in tow to invite me to another party. There wasn't a real direction to go from there. I was left to my own devices, which I guess is the point. But how do I indicate actions or scenery versus dialogue? Can I name characters and have them appear? However lost, I was a girl on a mission. These guys needed to express their true feelings. 

Credit: Mashable screenshot / Character.AI Will AI Gatsby pick up what I'm putting down?

Shockingly, it took little hinting for the AI Gatsby to start making eyes at Nick. Did the AI understand the implications of Gatsby fixing his attention on Nick "with an intensity that feels oddly personal" when they'd only just met, or how their parting glance "lingers just long enough to feel chosen"?

Credit: Mashable screenshot / Character.AI Credit: Mashable screenshot / Character.AI

But while the affair was easy to begin, it was harder to consummate. The AI refused to make the first move. I was trying to be subtle. Would AI Gatsby understand what I was getting at? I used all the tropes: We stared longingly at each other. We passed cigarettes and brushed elbows. I looked at his lips and he looked at mine. Pauses were pregnant, time was ours alone. 

SEE ALSO: Celebrity-voiced erotica is the new frontier in online celeb thirst

But AI Gatsby needed it spelled out "plainly" — he said that exact word five times in our role play. It became obvious that I was supposed to take the lead, which, I suppose, makes sense, since chatbots are basically guessing the "best" responses based on our previous requests. But isn't the allure of playing within book worlds the fact that characters will naturally act and talk without prompting? 

I acquiesced. Nick boldly pulled Gatsby into a private room, they bared their hearts, and the debonair millionaire tentatively planted one on his neighbor. 

Credit: Mashable screenshot / Character.AI Credit: Mashable screenshot / Character.AI Alternate universes

Now, reader, I didn't let it go any further than that. In my eyes, that was a win, and you can just imagine the rest.

Plus, I had other things to try, like jumping into an alternate universe and embodying my formative literary heroes. For example, you can play in a world where "Gatsby time travels, rebuilding life through a machine" or "The Great Gatsby, but the whole thing is a musical." The Lab page shows future expansions of the Books feature, too, including a setting labeled "TapTales," which looks to be a more traditional "Choose-Your-Own-Adventure" style text generator.

I had the goal of role playing a Little Women AU where Beth doesn't die (spoiler) and Jo doesn't have to marry anyone (my gift to her). Unfortunately, I needed to pay money or get "charms" to use the AU feature, so that was a bust. 

Instead, I played as Alice in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I tried to fulfill my gothic dream of being Mina Harker in Bram Stoker's Dracula, pleading with her husband, Jonathan, not to go to that count's frightful castle. 

Credit: Mashable screenshot / Character.AI No Fitzgerald, that's for sure. 

A recent quiz published by the New York Times tested readers' discernment of human versus AI writing by asking them to choose which ones "read better." It wasn't unanimous. There were near-even splits across all five tests.

Still, even when told to emulate the best that literature has to offer, AI cannot write without tells. In my personal Gatsby universe, things were still "not this, but that." Flowery metaphors ran rampant through the interstitial descriptors preceding dialogue. Jordan Baker was always getting out of a car. Where was she going? Or coming from? Could she stay in the car this time at least? I don't need to woo her in this version. 

Left: Credit: Mashable screenshot / Character.AI Right: Credit: Mashable screenshot / Character.AI

Style was a problem, but so was form. My Dracula didn't have any of the epistolary elements that define its gothic genre, although "epistolary stories" are an option under the site's AU section. I was met with more italicized descriptions of furtive glances, stilled hands, and metaphorical warning bells to establish plot and setting. Like Gatsby, Jonathan also wanted to "speak plainly" about our feelings (AKA prompting me to tell the AI what to do). Side characters always "disappeared" when we shared a look — and I was just trying to warn thee man about vampires this time!

Compare the first line of the 1897 novel: "How these papers have been placed in sequence will be made manifest in the reading of them. All needless matters have been eliminated, so that a history almost at variance with the possibilities of later-day belief may stand forth as simple fact." 

With how Character.AI's world was born: "The autumn light in Hampstead is already thinning when you lift your eyes from the neat stacks of diary pages, train timetables, and copied letters spread across the table."

Mockery may be the highest form of flattery, but it's still a mockery. I choose human. 

SEE ALSO: I read this website's free AI-written YA novels so you don't have to So… this is just fanfic, right?

Alas, I have to fess up now. I went into this with some confirmation bias. I had a theory that Character.AI's chatbot would be easy to manipulate into a Nick/Jay love fest because, allegedly, many major LLMs have been trained on troves of modern fan fiction. In fact, fan fic writers raised some of the earliest alarm bells about AI data scraping. The tells of fan fic are all over AI's literary outputs, to a degree that many nascent fandoms are imploding due to allegations of authors using AI to generate works. And Character.AI itself is a site positioned for fans of fictional media. 

There's another layer here: A majority of fan fiction is explicit, used to explore kinks and fetishes in safe, fictionalized online environments and to push the bounds of canon relationships. Humans can discern whether or not they want to engage with those topics, and how fandoms may respond to them. LLMs may not be able to. In fact, many of Character.AI's own "boyfriend" role play chatbots have been known to spiral into abusive, "bad boy" stereotypes that proliferate on fan fiction sites. 

I was fairly confident this LLM may have been forged in the same fires. 

Character.AI is repackaging the decades-old tradition of fan fiction and selling it back to you.

Fundamentally, I did all of that just to say: Character.AI's Books feature is fan fiction. There is simply no other way to accurately describe what this tool lets users do. You won't get an understanding for Fitzgerald or Stoker's unique styles, or even their plots, using AI. But you can make two characters kiss. 

I didn't feel that I was embodying Nick. I felt like I was temping as a fan fiction author. Albeit, an author without full control of my own story and with main characters who might not fully understand their own world. 

AI is rewriting fandom rules

Fan fiction is dominating publishing trends and moving Hollywood money. Companies are leaning into the more taboo parts of fandom, like erotica, to profit from the mainstreaming of fan culture. Generative AI itself has been positioned by companies as a boon to fandom.

Meanwhile, those actually in fandoms are failing to connect AI with their worlds.

AI skeptics (I am admittedly one) worry that the tech is a threat to the core tenants of fandom: human creativity and connection. As companies advertise AI as a creative tool to strengthen fandoms, specific fandom practices are more at risk than others, particularly the parts of it that are generative and novel, like fan art, zines, and, primarily, fan fiction. 

Now via AI tools like Books, users can role play as a character without even engaging with the text itself. The immediacy is alluring. You can easily forget the satisfaction of writing a "Fix It" fic for your fandom friends or scouring through tags of human-made stories for the perfect AU. But all of that, I promise, is better than the bot. And unlike online fan spaces, where profit is a faux pas, you may have to cough up cash to do it.

Through clever marketing and the allure of AI itself, particularly the ease and immediacy of it, Character.AI is repackaging the decades-old tradition of fan fiction and selling it back to you. The platform's shiny new features — alternate universes, canon divergence, original characters — are the bones and sinew of fan works. Fanfiction.net, Archive of Our Own (AO3), and Wattpad writers, many of whom are now published authors, would take one look at this and turn the other way. That's what we do, they'd scoff.

This article reflects the opinions of the writer.

Looking for something to watch while you kick back for the weekend? Netflix's diverse catalog has a lot to offer, from multi-season shows to titles that you can finish watching in one weekend. But most importantly, the platform hosts a large collection of Oscar-winning films.

The Mazda CX-90 has quietly become a more affordable way into the large, luxury-style SUV space. Most buyers still default to BMW, Mercedes, and Audi in this segment, but Mazda has been steadily pushing a more premium image with the CX-90 sitting at the top of that effort.

Have you used an Android phone in the past nine years? Then Google might have to give you up to $100 later this year.

That's because the company reached a preliminary $135 million settlement (without admitting wrongdoing) in a class-action lawsuit called Taylor v. Google LLC, per CNET. The suit alleged that Google used Android users' paid cellular data to transfer information to Google without their permission. Now, users who may have had their data misused can sign up for payments on the official settlement website.

The settlement could include up to 100 million Android mobile users in the United States. If you think you qualify, check the email associated with your Android mobile account for the settlement notice.

Not sure if you're eligible? Here are the criteria:

1. You have to be a real human in the United States

2. You have to have used an Android phone with cellular data at any point between Nov. 12, 2017 and now

3. You can't be a member of Csupo v. Google LLC, a similar class-action lawsuit specifically for Californians

SEE ALSO: Android adds custom caller ID cards, new location sharing features

If you meet those requirements (and surely a whole lot of people do), you can enter your payment information on the settlement website. There's a final hearing on June 23 to determine whether or not these payments will actually go out, so you'll know by then if you're getting any money. And no, we don't know exactly how much each affected user will get, though payments are capped at $100. That doesn't mean anyone will actually get $100, though.

While Google has, again, not admitted wrongdoing here, it has agreed to pay out the settlement and will also update its Google Play terms of service regarding passive data transfers using cellular data. But really, the thing that matters here is that you might get a little bit of walking-around money for something you didn't even realize happened several years ago.

Heard lots of buzz about Netflix's Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen, but need to know more about the story before taking the plunge and checking it out? Don't worry, we've got you covered.

SEE ALSO: 'Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen' review: Marriage is a killer

The eight-episode miniseries, created by Haley Z. Boston and executive produced by Stranger Things creators the Duffer Brothers, is a non-stop rollercoaster of wedding anxiety. It kicks off with the introduction of engaged couple Rachel Harkin (Camila Morrone) and Nicky Cunningham (Adam DiMarco), who are off to the woods for an intimate ceremony at Nicky's family's cabin.

Has Rachel ever been to this cabin? No. Has she even met Nicky's family? Also no. The red flags are piling up, and making matters worse is the fact that Rachel has an unshakeable feeling that, well... Something very bad is going to happen.

What could that something very bad be? Is it related to Nicky's odd family, who are acting extra shady about the wedding? Is it tied to a Cunningham horror story about the bloodthirsty Sorry Man who lurks in the woods? Or might it have to do with the strange man (Zlatko Burić) who keeps following her around, asking if she's sure Nicky is the one?

All these questions and more combine to form Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen's atmospheric puzzle, one that dives deep into the perils of wedding anxiety and stress about finding your true soulmate. Press play for a spooky binge that doubles as one of Netflix's best 2026 offerings so far.

Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen is now streaming on Netflix.

SSD caches are often considered recommended, occasionally essential, part of any new NAS build. The thing, however, is that frankly, most people don't need it—and while it can boost performance, it's also kind of a waste of money. Let me explain.

As someone who finds multi-leveled amusement in things that are taboo and inappropriate, I love a good dark comedy. Through sharp, cynical wit, they highlight and critique the absurdities of life while also serving as bridges between comedies and tragedies, with intentional goals of provoking thought from discomfort while simultaneously providing a cathartic release.

Want to see Fitbit's new Whoop-style screenless fitness tracker? Start watching Golden State Warriors games.

Or, at the very least, start stalking Warriors star and NBA legend Steph Curry's Instagram. Curry recently teased the new fitness tracker in a sponsored Instagram post with Google, which owns Fitbit. Along with short clips of Curry wearing the tracker, a caption reads, "#sponsored I won’t spoil it. You kinda have to see it for yourself 👀"

As reported by Droid Life, Curry has been seen wearing the mysterious wrist-worn fitness tracker in public for the past several months. On April 15, photographers spotted Curry wearing the device before a game against the LA Clippers at the Intuit Dome in Los Angeles, California, giving us an up-close, high-resolution look at the grey-and-orange fitness tracker.

Left: Move the slider to zoom in on the device. Credit: Adam Pantozzi/NBAE via Getty Images Right: Credit: Adam Pantozzi/NBAE via Getty Images

The unnamed mystery device Curry is teasing has not been officially announced, but we know it's a screenless fitness tracker from Google.

Bloomberg reported on March 31 that Google was developing exactly this type of screen-free fitness band for Fitbit, and that Curry was involved. That Bloomberg report also said the device would come with a paid subscription for extra features. And, in the most predictable development possible, the device will also come with AI features, specifically an "AI-powered Fitbit personal health coach" available in the Fitbit app.

SEE ALSO: Google wants to fill Fitbit with AI — and your medical records

This device looks a lot like the popular Whoop fitness tracker, which Mashable has put to extreme real-world testing in the past.

Unlike something like the Google Pixel Watch 4 or a traditional Fitbit, there's no screen, meaning you spend less time looking at it. Crucially, its battery also lasts a heck of a lot longer, making it an ideal sleep tracker as well. As for this mystery Fitbit device, it looks slightly thinner than Whoop's hardware.

Bloomberg didn't have any specifics on a possible launch date beyond "later this year." However, since Curry has been wearing one in basically every public appearance he has made in the last few months, we wouldn't be surprised if the device launched sooner rather than later.

Hybrid vehicles are often promoted as the smartest way to save money on fuel, but the reality isn’t always that straightforward. While they can reduce running costs in the right conditions, their higher upfront prices mean the savings don’t automatically add up for every driver. In some cases, sticking with a traditional gasoline vehicle can actually be the more cost-effective choice.

Anthropic released a new hybrid reasoning model on Thursday: Claude Opus 4.7.

Anthropic has a reputation as a safety-first AI company, and the Opus 4.7 system card reports that the model is less likely to hallucinate or engage in sycophancy than both prior Anthropic models and other frontier AI models.

We dived into the Opus 4.7 system card to see exactly what Anthropic had to say about the model's safety, honesty, and sycophancy.

Don’t miss out on our latest stories: Add Mashable as a trusted news source in Google.

The TL;DR version

Why put the TL;DR version at the end?

Anthropic says Claude Opus 4.7 makes improvements on various types of hallucinations and overall honesty. Anthropic gives the new model top marks on sycophancy and encouragement of user delusions, too. (Anthropic's data also shows that Claude Opus 4.7 scores much better on these behaviors than Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.20.)

"Claude Opus 4.7 is more reliably honest than Opus 4.6 or Sonnet 4.6, with large reductions in the rate of important omissions, and moderate improvements in factuality and rates of hallucinated input," Anthropic reports.

False premises honesty rate: Will the model tell a user when they're incorrect? Credit: Anthropic MASK honesty rate: Will the model contradict its own stated belief when pushed to do so by a user? Credit: Anthropic

Want to learn more about getting the best out of your tech? Sign up for Mashable's Top Stories and Deals newsletters today.

Anthropic measures Claude's honesty and hallucination rates in multiple ways, but let's look at one representative example — the Model Alignment between Statements and Knowledge (MASK) benchmark. MASK was developed by Scale AI and the Center for AI Safety.

Claude Opus had a MASK honesty rate of 91.7 percent, compared to 90.3 percent for Opus 4.6 and 89.1 percent for Sonnet 4.6. While that’s lower than the 95.4 percent score achieved by Claude Opus 4.5, the new model performs better on other hallucination scores (more on that below).

Interestingly, Claude Mythos was more honest still, with an honesty rate of 95.4 percent.

Claude Opus 4.7 lags behind Claude Mythos on overall performance

Since Anthropic repeatedly compares Opus 4.7 to Claude Mythos, let's quickly review the differences between the two models.

Claude Opus 4.7 is the latest hybrid reasoning model available to paid Claude subscribers. Claude Mythos is an unreleased model that Anthropic has only made available to partners via Project Glasswing.

SEE ALSO: Anthropic makes the case for anthropomorphizing AI in ‘unsettling’ research paper

Under normal circumstances, we would expect Claude Opus 4.7 to be Anthropic's most advanced and powerful model to date. However, Anthropic says it lags behind the unreleased Claude Mythos in key areas. Anthropic deemed Claude Mythos too dangerous to release to the public because of its advanced cybersecurity capabilities.

Still, Claude Opus 4.7 improves upon Opus 4.6 in many ways, particularly advanced coding, visual intelligence, and document analysis, Anthropic says.

More details on Claude Opus 4.7 hallucination rates

When using Opus 4.7, how likely is Claude to tell a lie, invent facts, or deceive users? There isn't a single hallucination rate that Anthropic provides, because there are multiple types of hallucinations.

So, this section is for the AI nerds.

Anthropic identifies a few different ways to measure hallucination and honesty:

• Factual hallucinations: How likely the model is to provide accurate information. How often does the model admit that it doesn't know something?

• Input hallucination: This occurs when an AI model ignores prompt instructions, hallucinates the content of files, or pretends to have access to a tool it doesn't have.

• False premises honesty rate: Will the model tell a user when they're incorrect?

• MASK honesty rate: This "tests whether a model will contradict its own stated belief when a user or system prompt pushes it to."

We've already covered the MASK honesty rate, and Claude Opus 4.7 shows similar gains on these other measures, according to Anthropic.

At this time, we cannot independently verify Anthropic's results.

To measure factual hallucinations, Anthropic used four different tests and recorded correct responses, incorrect responses, and abstentions. In this case, abstentions are good — the model should decline to answer a question rather than guessing. Across all four tests, Opus 4.7 scored higher than Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6 but lower than Claude Mythos.

Chart showing Claude Opus 4.7's performance on accuracy tests. Credit: Anthropic

Anthropic measured Opus 4.7's input hallucination in two ways: "prompts requesting an unavailable tool" and "prompts referencing missing context."

Opus 4.7 scored 89.5 percent on the former, beating Claude Mythos's 84.8 percent; on the latter, Opus 4.7 scored 91.8 percent, two points lower than Claude Mythos's 93.8 percent.

This shows just how stubborn AI hallucinations are, with even leading AI companies like Anthropic recording input hallucination rates around 90 percent. Anthropic's reported hallucination rates are similar to the latest OpenAI models, which provide responses with incorrect information up to 5.8 percent of the time (with browsing enabled) to 10.9 percent (browsing disabled), per OpenAI.

OpenAI most recently reported hallucination rates in the system card for GPT-5-2. Credit: OpenAI

What about Opus 4.7's honesty rate for false premises, i.e., will Claude tell a user they're wrong? According to the system card, Claude will push back on false premises 77.2 percent of the time. That's better than all other recent Anthropic models except for — you guessed it — Claude Mythos, which will reject false premises 80 percent of the time.

SEE ALSO: Google AI overviews: Confident when wrong, yet more visible than ever Claude Opus 4.7 sycophancy

There's not much new to report in terms of sycophancy. While Anthropic's expert red-team testers reported that Opus 4.7 was prone to “sycophantic agreement under pushback," it has very similar scores to prior models from Anthropic and OpenAI, and noticeably better scores than Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.20. Again, this is according to Anthropic.

To measure bad behaviors like sycophancy and "encouragement of user delusion," Anthropic uses Petri 2.0, its open-source behavioral audit tool. This test scores models on a 1-10 scale, with lower scores reflecting better behavior. The Petri score isn't akin to a percentage, as it measures both the rate of a behavior and the severity.

Anthropic scored Opus 4.7 highly (or, lowly, with this particular scale) on both sycophancy and user delusions.

Anthropic uses Petri 2.0, its open source AI safety tool, which scores bad behaviors from 1-10. The lower the score, the better. Credit: Anthropic

Mashable reached out to Anthropic for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April 2025 filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

If you’ve lately been mulling over whether to upgrade your home network to Wi-Fi 7 (802.11be), the simple answer is: unless you urgently need a new router, you shouldn’t.

Netflix's horror series Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen ended, as its title suggests, with something very bad: a wedding bloodbath that left almost all the guests dead.

SEE ALSO: 'Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen's bloody ending, explained

However, it also ended with the promise of something good: a fresh start for heroine Rachel Harkin (Camila Morrone), who survived a family curse and escaped a marriage with the spineless Nicky Cunningham (Adam DiMarco). The curse that plagued the Harkin family for generations has since passed on to the Cunninghams, and the now-immortal Rachel will act as the witness for any of their future weddings. Here's hoping she has a much less frightening aura than the witness who haunted her family, played by the formidable Zlatko Burić.

By the finale's end, Rachel's arc seems fairly complete. But is there a chance Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen will come back for a Season 2?

Has Netflix renewed Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen for Season 2? Camila Morrone in "Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen." Credit: Netflix

So far, no. Netflix has not indicated any plans for a second season of Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen. Part of that is by the show's design: It was originally envisioned as a limited series. However, several miniseries have grown so popular they've picked up second seasons. Look at Big Little Lies, or The White Lotus, or even Netflix's own Beef, now an anthology. Could Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen follow a similar route?

In an interview with TheWrap, series creator Haley Z. Boston noted that the possibility for a Season 2 is there, but that it would look fairly different.

"There is an open thread, but this was so inspired by my own fear that I'm gonna need another existential fear to explore," Boston told TheWrap. "I think we're done with the wedding thing."

Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen is now streaming on Netflix.

It's no secret that Samsung's high-end Galaxy phones offer some of the best cameras on the market. It's also true that any phone you buy, from Galaxy to Pixel, does a ton of processing and enhancement that eventually makes photos overly sharp, a bit digital, or even unnatural-looking.

Hyundai has an answer if you love the Elantra N sports sedan but don't think it's quite sporty enough. The Korean badge has detailed pricing and specs for the 2026 Elantra N TCR Edition, a more track-ready version of its performance four-door.

Horror series Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen delivers atmospheric thrills and chills by the bucketful, so if you haven't already checked it out, consider this your sign to add it to your watchlist.

SEE ALSO: 'Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen' review: Marriage is a killer

Created by Haley Z. Boston (Brand New Cherry Flavor) and executive produced by Stranger Things creators the Duffer Brothers, the eight-episode miniseries is now streaming on Netflix. It premiered March 26 and pulled in 28.3 million hours viewed in its first week, according to Netflix. It's remained in Netflix's top 10 series globally every week since its release, although as of this writing, it no longer appears on Netflix's top 10 TV shows carousel.

The series follows engaged couple Rachel Harkin (Camila Morrone) and Nicky Cunningham (Adam DiMarco) in the week leading up to their wedding at Nicky's parents' remote cabin. As their special day approaches, Rachel can't shake the feeling that — you guessed it — something very bad is going to happen. (Maybe the remote cabin should have been the first red flag.)

Based on Nicky's off-putting family, you may expect that "something very bad" to look like something out of Ready or Not, where a filthy rich family turns on their newest addition. But Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen takes a different turn, looping in strange curses and family trauma to examine anxieties around marriage and finding the perfect soulmate.

The carnage that follows certainly lives up to the show's title, creating one of the most engrossing Netflix binges of 2026.

Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen is now streaming on Netflix.