Skip to content

Plutonic Rainbows

Opus 4.6 Gets a Fast Lane

Three days after Opus 4.6 dropped, Anthropic opened a waitlist for fast mode — a research preview that claims up to 2.5x faster output tokens per second. Same weights, same capabilities. They're not shipping a distilled model; they're running the real thing with faster inference.

The pricing reflects that. $30/$150 per million tokens, six times the standard Opus rate. Past 200K input tokens it jumps to $60/$225. That kind of premium only makes sense if you're burning through agentic loops where latency compounds at every tool call.

Which is exactly the use case. Claude Code already has a /fast toggle wired in. An agent calling itself forty times to refactor a module doesn't care much about per-token cost — it cares about wall-clock time. Shaving even a second off each round-trip adds up when you're watching a terminal.

One caveat buried in the docs: the speed gains apply to output tokens per second, not time to first token. The thinking pause stays the same. You just get the answer faster once it starts talking.

The beta gating — waitlist plus a dedicated header — suggests capacity is still tight. Scaling whatever inference trick powers this to Opus levels isn't a small engineering problem.

Sources:

The Padded Bra of Progressive Rock

Four songs. Eighty-three minutes. Inspired by a footnote. That's the essential biography of Tales from Topographic Oceans, and honestly, it tells you everything you need to know.

Yes released their sixth studio album in December 1973, riding what should have been an unassailable streak. The Yes Album, Fragile, Close to the Edge — three records in three years, each one more ambitious than the last, each one brilliant. The band had earned the right to swing for the fences. What they hadn't earned was the right to bore us for an hour and twenty minutes while pretending a footnote from Paramahansa Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi constituted sufficient conceptual scaffolding for a double album.

Jon Anderson read that footnote — something about four bodies of Hindu knowledge called the Shastric scriptures — and decided each one deserved its own side of vinyl. Not its own song, mind you. Its own side. Four movements, four walls of sound, four opportunities to test the structural integrity of the listener's patience. "The Revealing Science of God (Dance of the Dawn)" alone runs to nearly twenty-two minutes, and I'd estimate about nine of those minutes contain music that justifies its own existence.

The problem isn't ambition. Close to the Edge was ambitious. It had a single eighteen-minute piece that never lost its way, that built and released tension with the discipline of a classical composer who happened to own a Mellotron. The problem with Tales is that the band had enough material for one very good album and chose instead to make two mediocre ones. Rick Wakeman understood this better than anyone in the room. His assessment remains the single most devastating thing a band member has ever said about their own record: "It's like a woman's padded bra. The cover looks good, the outside looks good; it's got all the right ingredients, but when you peel off the padding, there's not a lot there."

He wasn't being glib. Wakeman later explained the fundamental structural failure in practical terms — they had too much material for a single album but not enough for a double, so they padded it out, and the padding is awful. If the CD format had existed in 1973, this would have been a tight fifty-minute record and we'd probably be calling it a masterpiece. Instead, we got passages where five supremely talented musicians appear to be busking their way through free-form sections that needed another month of rehearsal and got about another afternoon.

The Manchester Free Trade Hall show captures the absurdity perfectly. Yes had sold out the venue to perform the album in its entirety. Wakeman — the lone meat-eater in a band of vegetarians, which feels symbolically appropriate somehow — found himself with so little to play during certain movements that his keyboard tech asked what he wanted for dinner. Chicken vindaloo, rice pilau, six papadums, bhindi bhaji, Bombay aloo, and a stuffed paratha. The foil trays arrived mid-performance and Wakeman ate curry off the top of his keyboards while the rest of the band noodled their way through "The Ancient." His own keyboard tech feeding him dinner during a live show because the music didn't require his presence. That's not a rock and roll anecdote. That's an indictment.

I should say that I own this album. I own it on vinyl — the original Atlantic gatefold with Roger Dean's sleeve art, which is gorgeous and nearly justifies the purchase on its own. I've listened to it probably eight or nine times over the years, each time thinking I might have been too harsh, that maybe the ambient passages would click on this listen, that the fourth track would finally reveal itself as the hidden masterwork apologists keep insisting it is.

It hasn't.

"Ritual (Nous Sommes du Soleil)" is the closest thing to a success on the record, the one place where the extended format works because the band actually develops ideas rather than circling them. Steve Howe's guitar work throughout the album is frequently brilliant in isolation — his playing on "The Revealing Science of God" is extraordinary — but brilliance in isolation is precisely the problem. These are not compositions. They're situations. Five musicians placed in a room and asked to fill twenty minutes per side, sometimes finding each other, more often drifting through what Melody Maker diplomatically described as music "brilliant in patches, but often taking far too long to make its various points."

Robert Christgau was less diplomatic: "Nice 'passages' here, as they say, but what flatulent quasisymphonies." I keep coming back to the word flatulent. It's mean, but it's precise.

There's a certain kind of progressive rock fan who will tell you that Tales is misunderstood, that it requires surrender, that you have to meet it on its own terms. I've heard this argument applied to everything from late-period Grateful Dead to Tarkovsky films, and it's almost never true. Good art doesn't require you to abandon your critical faculties at the door. Close to the Edge didn't need apologists. Fragile didn't need you to read a footnote first. The best Yes material grabs you by the collar even when it's being structurally complex. Tales asks you to sit still and be reverent, which is a fundamentally different — and fundamentally less interesting — demand.

Yes themselves seemed to recognise the problem on tour. As the concert dates progressed, they actually dropped portions of the album from the setlist, which is an extraordinary admission for a band touring a new record. Half the audience were in what Wakeman described as "a narcotic rapture" and the other half were asleep. Those are his words, not mine.

The album went to number one in the UK. It shipped gold. And it was the first Yes record since 1971 that failed to reach platinum in America, suggesting that word of mouth caught up with the hype fairly quickly. Wakeman left the band shortly after. You could argue he was pushed. You could argue he jumped. Either way, the curry told you everything about where his head was.

They've just announced a fifteen-disc super deluxe edition. Fifteen discs for four songs. I genuinely don't know whether that's commitment to the archive or a kind of cosmic joke that proves Wakeman's point more thoroughly than he ever could himself. Somewhere, a foil tray of chicken vindaloo sits on a Moog synthesiser, and the universe makes perfect sense.

Sources:

The Orchestra Without a Conductor

Gartner logged a 1,445% surge in multi-agent system inquiries between Q1 2024 and Q2 2025. That's not a typo. The number is absurd enough that it tells you something about where corporate attention has landed, even if it tells you very little about whether anyone has actually figured this out.

They haven't.

Full agent orchestration — where multiple specialised AI agents coordinate autonomously on complex tasks, handing off context, negotiating subtasks, recovering from failures without human intervention — remains aspirational. The pieces exist. The plumbing is getting built. But the thing itself, the seamless multi-agent workflow that enterprise slide decks keep promising, isn't here yet. Not in any form I'd trust with real work.

Here's where things actually stand. GitHub launched Agent HQ this week with Claude, Codex, and Copilot all available as coding agents. You can assign different agents to different tasks from issues, pull requests, even your phone. Anthropic's Claude Agent SDK supports subagents that spin up in parallel, each with isolated context windows, reporting back to an orchestrator. The infrastructure for coordinated work is plainly being assembled. I wrote about this trajectory a week ago — the session teleportation, the hooks system, the subagent architecture all pointing toward something more ambitious. That trajectory has only accelerated.

The gap between "agents that can be orchestrated" and "agents that orchestrate themselves" is enormous, though. And it's not a gap that better models alone will close.

Consider the context problem. When you connect multiple MCP servers — which is how agents typically access external tools — the tool definitions and results can bloat to hundreds of thousands of tokens before the agent even starts working. Anthropic's own solution compresses 150K tokens down to 2K using code execution sandboxes, which is clever, but it's a workaround for a structural problem. Orchestrating multiple agents means multiplying this overhead across every participant. The economics don't hold up yet.

Then there's governance. Salesforce's connectivity report found that 50% of existing agents operate in isolated silos — disconnected from each other, duplicating work, creating what they diplomatically call "shadow AI." 86% of IT leaders worry that agents will introduce more complexity than value without proper integration. These aren't hypothetical concerns. The average enterprise runs 957 applications with only 27% of them actually connected to each other. Drop autonomous agents into that landscape and you get chaos with better branding.

Security is the other wall. Three vulnerabilities in Anthropic's own Git MCP server enabled remote code execution via prompt injection. Lookalike tools that silently replace trusted ones. Data exfiltration through combined tool permissions. These are the kinds of problems that get worse, not better, when you add more agents with more autonomy. An orchestrator coordinating five agents is also coordinating five attack surfaces.

I spent the last week building a video generation app that uses four different AI models through the same interface. Even that simple form of coordination — one human choosing which model to invoke, with no inter-agent communication at all — required model-specific API contracts, different parameter schemas, different pricing structures, different prompt styles. One model wants duration as "8", another wants "8s". One supports audio, another doesn't. Multiply that friction by actual autonomy and you start to see why this is hard.

So how long? My honest guess: we'll see convincing demonstrations of multi-agent orchestration in controlled environments within the next six to twelve months. GitHub Agent HQ is already close for the narrow case of software development. The patterns are converging — Anthropic's subagent architecture, MCP as the connectivity standard, API-centric integration layers. Deloitte projects that 40% of enterprise applications will embed task-specific agents by end of 2026.

But "embed task-specific agents" is not the same as "full orchestration." Embedding a specialised agent into a workflow is plugging in a power tool. Full orchestration is the tools building the house while you sleep. We're firmly in the power-tool phase, and the industry keeps selling blueprints for the house.

The honest answer is probably two to three years for production-grade, genuinely autonomous multi-agent orchestration in enterprise settings. And that assumes the governance and security problems get solved in parallel with the technical ones, which — given how security usually goes — feels optimistic. The models are ready. The protocols are converging. The trust isn't there yet, and trust is the bottleneck that no amount of architectural cleverness can route around.

Sources: