Podcasts about ai engineer

Faiza has gone from Student to AI Engineer, developing valuable solutions for MicroYES and Finely Fettled clients. Her skills include AWS, Linux, and DevOps. She hails from Southern India and will complete her MSc in International Management at York St John University in early 2026. She is currently developing lead generation AI solutions for Finely Fettled and MicroYES clients.Summary of PodcastKey TakeawaysFaiza Khan's career progressed from student to AI Engineer via a structured path: internship → placement → full-time hire.Her role involves building AI agents (e.g., "Phone to Agent") and Answer Engine Optimisation (AEO) to help clients get found in LLM answers, a critical shift from traditional SEO.The hiring process used Handshake, a university student-focused job platform, and video interviews, where key advice for students is to speak up, slow down, smile, and make eye contact.AI is shifting the workforce from manual research to higher-value roles like AI architecture, with low-code/no-code tools enabling non-technical entry.Faiza's Career ProgressionBackground: From Kadapa, Southern India, with a Bachelor of Commerce.Early Skill-Building: Completed a 6-month course in AWS, Linux, and DevOps in Bangalore while working in inside sales.UK Education: Choose York St John University for its placement year option, which Manchester Metropolitan lacks.Hiring Process:Platform: Found via Handshake, a university job platform.Video Interview: A key step where students answer AI-generated questions on camera.Career Path:Internship: Initial role at Finely Fettled and its brand MicroYES.Placement: Extended 9-month contract.Full-Time: Hired as an AI Engineer/Architect and Marketing Manager.AI in Business & MarketingMeclabsAI Platform: Faiza's work on this AI solutions platform includes:AI Agent Delivery Systems: Personalised agents, not generic chatbots.AI Workflows: Self-service tools, like a database query workflow on the https://finelyfettled.co.uk website."Phone to Agent": A new service for small businesses.An AI agent answers calls using the client's specific policies and pricing.Designed for natural conversation (e.g., "mm-hmm" confirmations, background noise).Rationale: Provides cost-effective, consistent phone support for busy professionals and small businesses.Answer Engine Optimisation (AEO):Rationale: Anticipates ChatGPT providing more answers than Google by early 2028, making AEO a critical marketing strategy.Goal: Structure website content to be found and cited in LLM answers.Execution: An AI agent guides clients through the process.The Value of Diversity: Kevin noted Faiza's value comes from her diverse perspective (age, gender, culture), which provides fresh insights.Advice for StudentsSet a Clear Goal: Define a career path and stay focused.Use University Resources: Actively leverage career services and platforms like...

Happy New Year! You may have noticed that in 2025 we had moved toward YouTube as our primary podcasting platform. As we'll explain in the next State of Latent Space post, we'll be doubling down on Substack again and improving the experience for the over 100,000 of you who look out for our emails and website updates!We first mentioned Artificial Analysis in 2024, when it was still a side project in a Sydney basement. They then were one of the few Nat Friedman and Daniel Gross' AIGrant companies to raise a full seed round from them and have now become the independent gold standard for AI benchmarking—trusted by developers, enterprises, and every major lab to navigate the exploding landscape of models, providers, and capabilities.We have chatted with both Clementine Fourrier of HuggingFace's OpenLLM Leaderboard and (the freshly valued at $1.7B) Anastasios Angelopoulos of LMArena on their approaches to LLM evals and trendspotting, but Artificial Analysis have staked out an enduring and important place in the toolkit of the modern AI Engineer by doing the best job of independently running the most comprehensive set of evals across the widest range of open and closed models, and charting their progress for broad industry analyst use.George Cameron and Micah-Hill Smith have spent two years building Artificial Analysis into the platform that answers the questions no one else will: Which model is actually best for your use case? What are the real speed-cost trade-offs? And how open is “open” really?We discuss:* The origin story: built as a side project in 2023 while Micah was building a legal AI assistant, launched publicly in January 2024, and went viral after Swyx's retweet* Why they run evals themselves: labs prompt models differently, cherry-pick chain-of-thought examples (Google Gemini 1.0 Ultra used 32-shot prompts to beat GPT-4 on MMLU), and self-report inflated numbers* The mystery shopper policy: they register accounts not on their own domain and run intelligence + performance benchmarks incognito to prevent labs from serving different models on private endpoints* How they make money: enterprise benchmarking insights subscription (standardized reports on model deployment, serverless vs. managed vs. leasing chips) and private custom benchmarking for AI companies (no one pays to be on the public leaderboard)* The Intelligence Index (V3): synthesizes 10 eval datasets (MMLU, GPQA, agentic benchmarks, long-context reasoning) into a single score, with 95% confidence intervals via repeated runs* Omissions Index (hallucination rate): scores models from -100 to +100 (penalizing incorrect answers, rewarding ”I don't know”), and Claude models lead with the lowest hallucination rates despite not always being the smartest* GDP Val AA: their version of OpenAI's GDP-bench (44 white-collar tasks with spreadsheets, PDFs, PowerPoints), run through their Stirrup agent harness (up to 100 turns, code execution, web search, file system), graded by Gemini 3 Pro as an LLM judge (tested extensively, no self-preference bias)* The Openness Index: scores models 0-18 on transparency of pre-training data, post-training data, methodology, training code, and licensing (AI2 OLMo 2 leads, followed by Nous Hermes and NVIDIA Nemotron)* The smiling curve of AI costs: GPT-4-level intelligence is 100-1000x cheaper than at launch (thanks to smaller models like Amazon Nova), but frontier reasoning models in agentic workflows cost more than ever (sparsity, long context, multi-turn agents)* Why sparsity might go way lower than 5%: GPT-4.5 is ~5% active, Gemini models might be ~3%, and Omissions Index accuracy correlates with total parameters (not active), suggesting massive sparse models are the future* Token efficiency vs. turn efficiency: GPT-5 costs more per token but solves Tau-bench in fewer turns (cheaper overall), and models are getting better at using more tokens only when needed (5.1 Codex has tighter token distributions)* V4 of the Intelligence Index coming soon: adding GDP Val AA, Critical Point, hallucination rate, and dropping some saturated benchmarks (human-eval-style coding is now trivial for small models)Links to Artificial Analysis* Website: https://artificialanalysis.ai* George Cameron on X: https://x.com/georgecameron* Micah-Hill Smith on X: https://x.com/micahhsmithFull Episode on YouTubeTimestamps* 00:00 Introduction: Full Circle Moment and Artificial Analysis Origins* 01:19 Business Model: Independence and Revenue Streams* 04:33 Origin Story: From Legal AI to Benchmarking Need* 16:22 AI Grant and Moving to San Francisco* 19:21 Intelligence Index Evolution: From V1 to V3* 11:47 Benchmarking Challenges: Variance, Contamination, and Methodology* 13:52 Mystery Shopper Policy and Maintaining Independence* 28:01 New Benchmarks: Omissions Index for Hallucination Detection* 33:36 Critical Point: Hard Physics Problems and Research-Level Reasoning* 23:01 GDP Val AA: Agentic Benchmark for Real Work Tasks* 50:19 Stirrup Agent Harness: Open Source Agentic Framework* 52:43 Openness Index: Measuring Model Transparency Beyond Licenses* 58:25 The Smiling Curve: Cost Falling While Spend Rising* 1:02:32 Hardware Efficiency: Blackwell Gains and Sparsity Limits* 1:06:23 Reasoning Models and Token Efficiency: The Spectrum Emerges* 1:11:00 Multimodal Benchmarking: Image, Video, and Speech Arenas* 1:15:05 Looking Ahead: Intelligence Index V4 and Future Directions* 1:16:50 Closing: The Insatiable Demand for IntelligenceTranscriptMicah [00:00:06]: This is kind of a full circle moment for us in a way, because the first time artificial analysis got mentioned on a podcast was you and Alessio on Latent Space. Amazing.swyx [00:00:17]: Which was January 2024. I don't even remember doing that, but yeah, it was very influential to me. Yeah, I'm looking at AI News for Jan 17, or Jan 16, 2024. I said, this gem of a models and host comparison site was just launched. And then I put in a few screenshots, and I said, it's an independent third party. It clearly outlines the quality versus throughput trade-off, and it breaks out by model and hosting provider. I did give you s**t for missing fireworks, and how do you have a model benchmarking thing without fireworks? But you had together, you had perplexity, and I think we just started chatting there. Welcome, George and Micah, to Latent Space. I've been following your progress. Congrats on... It's been an amazing year. You guys have really come together to be the presumptive new gardener of AI, right? Which is something that...George [00:01:09]: Yeah, but you can't pay us for better results.swyx [00:01:12]: Yes, exactly.George [00:01:13]: Very important.Micah [00:01:14]: Start off with a spicy take.swyx [00:01:18]: Okay, how do I pay you?Micah [00:01:20]: Let's get right into that.swyx [00:01:21]: How do you make money?Micah [00:01:24]: Well, very happy to talk about that. So it's been a big journey the last couple of years. Artificial analysis is going to be two years old in January 2026. Which is pretty soon now. We first run the website for free, obviously, and give away a ton of data to help developers and companies navigate AI and make decisions about models, providers, technologies across the AI stack for building stuff. We're very committed to doing that and tend to keep doing that. We have, along the way, built a business that is working out pretty sustainably. We've got just over 20 people now and two main customer groups. So we want to be... We want to be who enterprise look to for data and insights on AI, so we want to help them with their decisions about models and technologies for building stuff. And then on the other side, we do private benchmarking for companies throughout the AI stack who build AI stuff. So no one pays to be on the website. We've been very clear about that from the very start because there's no use doing what we do unless it's independent AI benchmarking. Yeah. But turns out a bunch of our stuff can be pretty useful to companies building AI stuff.swyx [00:02:38]: And is it like, I am a Fortune 500, I need advisors on objective analysis, and I call you guys and you pull up a custom report for me, you come into my office and give me a workshop? What kind of engagement is that?George [00:02:53]: So we have a benchmarking and insight subscription, which looks like standardized reports that cover key topics or key challenges enterprises face when looking to understand AI and choose between all the technologies. And so, for instance, one of the report is a model deployment report, how to think about choosing between serverless inference, managed deployment solutions, or leasing chips. And running inference yourself is an example kind of decision that big enterprises face, and it's hard to reason through, like this AI stuff is really new to everybody. And so we try and help with our reports and insight subscription. Companies navigate that. We also do custom private benchmarking. And so that's very different from the public benchmarking that we publicize, and there's no commercial model around that. For private benchmarking, we'll at times create benchmarks, run benchmarks to specs that enterprises want. And we'll also do that sometimes for AI companies who have built things, and we help them understand what they've built with private benchmarking. Yeah. So that's a piece mainly that we've developed through trying to support everybody publicly with our public benchmarks. Yeah.swyx [00:04:09]: Let's talk about TechStack behind that. But okay, I'm going to rewind all the way to when you guys started this project. You were all the way in Sydney? Yeah. Well, Sydney, Australia for me.Micah [00:04:19]: George was an SF, but he's Australian, but he moved here already. Yeah.swyx [00:04:22]: And I remember I had the Zoom call with you. What was the impetus for starting artificial analysis in the first place? You know, you started with public benchmarks. And so let's start there. We'll go to the private benchmark. Yeah.George [00:04:33]: Why don't we even go back a little bit to like why we, you know, thought that it was needed? Yeah.Micah [00:04:40]: The story kind of begins like in 2022, 2023, like both George and I have been into AI stuff for quite a while. In 2023 specifically, I was trying to build a legal AI research assistant. So it actually worked pretty well for its era, I would say. Yeah. Yeah. So I was finding that the more you go into building something using LLMs, the more each bit of what you're doing ends up being a benchmarking problem. So had like this multistage algorithm thing, trying to figure out what the minimum viable model for each bit was, trying to optimize every bit of it as you build that out, right? Like you're trying to think about accuracy, a bunch of other metrics and performance and cost. And mostly just no one was doing anything to independently evaluate all the models. And certainly not to look at the trade-offs for speed and cost. So we basically set out just to build a thing that developers could look at to see the trade-offs between all of those things measured independently across all the models and providers. Honestly, it was probably meant to be a side project when we first started doing it.swyx [00:05:49]: Like we didn't like get together and say like, Hey, like we're going to stop working on all this stuff. I'm like, this is going to be our main thing. When I first called you, I think you hadn't decided on starting a company yet.Micah [00:05:58]: That's actually true. I don't even think we'd pause like, like George had an acquittance job. I didn't quit working on my legal AI thing. Like it was genuinely a side project.George [00:06:05]: We built it because we needed it as people building in the space and thought, Oh, other people might find it useful too. So we'll buy domain and link it to the Vercel deployment that we had and tweet about it. And, but very quickly it started getting attention. Thank you, Swyx for, I think doing an initial retweet and spotlighting it there. This project that we released. And then very quickly though, it was useful to others, but very quickly it became more useful as the number of models released accelerated. We had Mixtrel 8x7B and it was a key. That's a fun one. Yeah. Like a open source model that really changed the landscape and opened up people's eyes to other serverless inference providers and thinking about speed, thinking about cost. And so that was a key. And so it became more useful quite quickly. Yeah.swyx [00:07:02]: What I love talking to people like you who sit across the ecosystem is, well, I have theories about what people want, but you have data and that's obviously more relevant. But I want to stay on the origin story a little bit more. When you started out, I would say, I think the status quo at the time was every paper would come out and they would report their numbers versus competitor numbers. And that's basically it. And I remember I did the legwork. I think everyone has some knowledge. I think there's some version of Excel sheet or a Google sheet where you just like copy and paste the numbers from every paper and just post it up there. And then sometimes they don't line up because they're independently run. And so your numbers are going to look better than... Your reproductions of other people's numbers are going to look worse because you don't hold their models correctly or whatever the excuse is. I think then Stanford Helm, Percy Liang's project would also have some of these numbers. And I don't know if there's any other source that you can cite. The way that if I were to start artificial analysis at the same time you guys started, I would have used the Luther AI's eval framework harness. Yup.Micah [00:08:06]: Yup. That was some cool stuff. At the end of the day, running these evals, it's like if it's a simple Q&A eval, all you're doing is asking a list of questions and checking if the answers are right, which shouldn't be that crazy. But it turns out there are an enormous number of things that you've got control for. And I mean, back when we started the website. Yeah. Yeah. Like one of the reasons why we realized that we had to run the evals ourselves and couldn't just take rules from the labs was just that they would all prompt the models differently. And when you're competing over a few points, then you can pretty easily get- You can put the answer into the model. Yeah. That in the extreme. And like you get crazy cases like back when I'm Googled a Gemini 1.0 Ultra and needed a number that would say it was better than GPT-4 and like constructed, I think never published like chain of thought examples. 32 of them in every topic in MLU to run it, to get the score, like there are so many things that you- They never shipped Ultra, right? That's the one that never made it up. Not widely. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure it existed, but yeah. So we were pretty sure that we needed to run them ourselves and just run them in the same way across all the models. Yeah. And we were, we also did certain from the start that you couldn't look at those in isolation. You needed to look at them alongside the cost and performance stuff. Yeah.swyx [00:09:24]: Okay. A couple of technical questions. I mean, so obviously I also thought about this and I didn't do it because of cost. Yep. Did you not worry about costs? Were you funded already? Clearly not, but you know. No. Well, we definitely weren't at the start.Micah [00:09:36]: So like, I mean, we're paying for it personally at the start. There's a lot of money. Well, the numbers weren't nearly as bad a couple of years ago. So we certainly incurred some costs, but we were probably in the order of like hundreds of dollars of spend across all the benchmarking that we were doing. Yeah. So nothing. Yeah. It was like kind of fine. Yeah. Yeah. These days that's gone up an enormous amount for a bunch of reasons that we can talk about. But yeah, it wasn't that bad because you can also remember that like the number of models we were dealing with was hardly any and the complexity of the stuff that we wanted to do to evaluate them was a lot less. Like we were just asking some Q&A type questions and then one specific thing was for a lot of evals initially, we were just like sampling an answer. You know, like, what's the answer for this? Like, we didn't want to go into the answer directly without letting the models think. We weren't even doing chain of thought stuff initially. And that was the most useful way to get some results initially. Yeah.swyx [00:10:33]: And so for people who haven't done this work, literally parsing the responses is a whole thing, right? Like because sometimes the models, the models can answer any way they feel fit and sometimes they actually do have the right answer, but they just returned the wrong format and they will get a zero for that unless you work it into your parser. And that involves more work. And so, I mean, but there's an open question whether you should give it points for not following your instructions on the format.Micah [00:11:00]: It depends what you're looking at, right? Because you can, if you're trying to see whether or not it can solve a particular type of reasoning problem, and you don't want to test it on its ability to do answer formatting at the same time, then you might want to use an LLM as answer extractor approach to make sure that you get the answer out no matter how unanswered. But these days, it's mostly less of a problem. Like, if you instruct a model and give it examples of what the answers should look like, it can get the answers in your format, and then you can do, like, a simple regex.swyx [00:11:28]: Yeah, yeah. And then there's other questions around, I guess, sometimes if you have a multiple choice question, sometimes there's a bias towards the first answer, so you have to randomize the responses. All these nuances, like, once you dig into benchmarks, you're like, I don't know how anyone believes the numbers on all these things. It's so dark magic.Micah [00:11:47]: You've also got, like… You've got, like, the different degrees of variance in different benchmarks, right? Yeah. So, if you run four-question multi-choice on a modern reasoning model at the temperatures suggested by the labs for their own models, the variance that you can see on a four-question multi-choice eval is pretty enormous if you only do a single run of it and it has a small number of questions, especially. So, like, one of the things that we do is run an enormous number of all of our evals when we're developing new ones and doing upgrades to our intelligence index to bring in new things. Yeah. So, that we can dial in the right number of repeats so that we can get to the 95% confidence intervals that we're comfortable with so that when we pull that together, we can be confident in intelligence index to at least as tight as, like, a plus or minus one at a 95% confidence. Yeah.swyx [00:12:32]: And, again, that just adds a straight multiple to the cost. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah.George [00:12:37]: So, that's one of many reasons that cost has gone up a lot more than linearly over the last couple of years. We report a cost to run the artificial analysis. We report a cost to run the artificial analysis intelligence index on our website, and currently that's assuming one repeat in terms of how we report it because we want to reflect a bit about the weighting of the index. But our cost is actually a lot higher than what we report there because of the repeats.swyx [00:13:03]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And probably this is true, but just checking, you don't have any special deals with the labs. They don't discount it. You just pay out of pocket or out of your sort of customer funds. Oh, there is a mix. So, the issue is that sometimes they may give you a special end point, which is… Ah, 100%.Micah [00:13:21]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly. So, we laser focus, like, on everything we do on having the best independent metrics and making sure that no one can manipulate them in any way. There are quite a lot of processes we've developed over the last couple of years to make that true for, like, the one you bring up, like, right here of the fact that if we're working with a lab, if they're giving us a private endpoint to evaluate a model, that it is totally possible. That what's sitting behind that black box is not the same as they serve on a public endpoint. We're very aware of that. We have what we call a mystery shopper policy. And so, and we're totally transparent with all the labs we work with about this, that we will register accounts not on our own domain and run both intelligence evals and performance benchmarks… Yeah, that's the job. …without them being able to identify it. And no one's ever had a problem with that. Because, like, a thing that turns out to actually be quite a good… …good factor in the industry is that they all want to believe that none of their competitors could manipulate what we're doing either.swyx [00:14:23]: That's true. I never thought about that. I've been in the database data industry prior, and there's a lot of shenanigans around benchmarking, right? So I'm just kind of going through the mental laundry list. Did I miss anything else in this category of shenanigans? Oh, potential shenanigans.Micah [00:14:36]: I mean, okay, the biggest one, like, that I'll bring up, like, is more of a conceptual one, actually, than, like, direct shenanigans. It's that the things that get measured become things that get targeted by labs that they're trying to build, right? Exactly. So that doesn't mean anything that we should really call shenanigans. Like, I'm not talking about training on test set. But if you know that you're going to be great at another particular thing, if you're a researcher, there are a whole bunch of things that you can do to try to get better at that thing that preferably are going to be helpful for a wide range of how actual users want to use the thing that you're building. But will not necessarily work. Will not necessarily do that. So, for instance, the models are exceptional now at answering competition maths problems. There is some relevance of that type of reasoning, that type of work, to, like, how we might use modern coding agents and stuff. But it's clearly not one for one. So the thing that we have to be aware of is that once an eval becomes the thing that everyone's looking at, scores can get better on it without there being a reflection of overall generalized intelligence of these models. Getting better. That has been true for the last couple of years. It'll be true for the next couple of years. There's no silver bullet to defeat that other than building new stuff to stay relevant and measure the capabilities that matter most to real users. Yeah.swyx [00:15:58]: And we'll cover some of the new stuff that you guys are building as well, which is cool. Like, you used to just run other people's evals, but now you're coming up with your own. And I think, obviously, that is a necessary path once you're at the frontier. You've exhausted all the existing evals. I think the next point in history that I have for you is AI Grant that you guys decided to join and move here. What was it like? I think you were in, like, batch two? Batch four. Batch four. Okay.Micah [00:16:26]: I mean, it was great. Nat and Daniel are obviously great. And it's a really cool group of companies that we were in AI Grant alongside. It was really great to get Nat and Daniel on board. Obviously, they've done a whole lot of great work in the space with a lot of leading companies and were extremely aligned. With the mission of what we were trying to do. Like, we're not quite typical of, like, a lot of the other AI startups that they've invested in.swyx [00:16:53]: And they were very much here for the mission of what we want to do. Did they say any advice that really affected you in some way or, like, were one of the events very impactful? That's an interesting question.Micah [00:17:03]: I mean, I remember fondly a bunch of the speakers who came and did fireside chats at AI Grant.swyx [00:17:09]: Which is also, like, a crazy list. Yeah.George [00:17:11]: Oh, totally. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There was something about, you know, speaking to Nat and Daniel about the challenges of working through a startup and just working through the questions that don't have, like, clear answers and how to work through those kind of methodically and just, like, work through the hard decisions. And they've been great mentors to us as we've built artificial analysis. Another benefit for us was that other companies in the batch and other companies in AI Grant are pushing the capabilities. Yeah. And I think that's a big part of what AI can do at this time. And so being in contact with them, making sure that artificial analysis is useful to them has been fantastic for supporting us in working out how should we build out artificial analysis to continue to being useful to those, like, you know, building on AI.swyx [00:17:59]: I think to some extent, I'm mixed opinion on that one because to some extent, your target audience is not people in AI Grants who are obviously at the frontier. Yeah. Do you disagree?Micah [00:18:09]: To some extent. To some extent. But then, so a lot of what the AI Grant companies are doing is taking capabilities coming out of the labs and trying to push the limits of what they can do across the entire stack for building great applications, which actually makes some of them pretty archetypical power users of artificial analysis. Some of the people with the strongest opinions about what we're doing well and what we're not doing well and what they want to see next from us. Yeah. Yeah. Because when you're building any kind of AI application now, chances are you're using a whole bunch of different models. You're maybe switching reasonably frequently for different models and different parts of your application to optimize what you're able to do with them at an accuracy level and to get better speed and cost characteristics. So for many of them, no, they're like not commercial customers of ours, like we don't charge for all our data on the website. Yeah. They are absolutely some of our power users.swyx [00:19:07]: So let's talk about just the evals as well. So you start out from the general like MMU and GPQA stuff. What's next? How do you sort of build up to the overall index? What was in V1 and how did you evolve it? Okay.Micah [00:19:22]: So first, just like background, like we're talking about the artificial analysis intelligence index, which is our synthesis metric that we pulled together currently from 10 different eval data sets to give what? We're pretty much the same as that. Pretty confident is the best single number to look at for how smart the models are. Obviously, it doesn't tell the whole story. That's why we published the whole website of all the charts to dive into every part of it and look at the trade-offs. But best single number. So right now, it's got a bunch of Q&A type data sets that have been very important to the industry, like a couple that you just mentioned. It's also got a couple of agentic data sets. It's got our own long context reasoning data set and some other use case focused stuff. As time goes on. The things that we're most interested in that are going to be important to the capabilities that are becoming more important for AI, what developers are caring about, are going to be first around agentic capabilities. So surprise, surprise. We're all loving our coding agents and how the model is going to perform like that and then do similar things for different types of work are really important to us. The linking to use cases to economically valuable use cases are extremely important to us. And then we've got some of the. Yeah. These things that the models still struggle with, like working really well over long contexts that are not going to go away as specific capabilities and use cases that we need to keep evaluating.swyx [00:20:46]: But I guess one thing I was driving was like the V1 versus the V2 and how bad it was over time.Micah [00:20:53]: Like how we've changed the index to where we are.swyx [00:20:55]: And I think that reflects on the change in the industry. Right. So that's a nice way to tell that story.Micah [00:21:00]: Well, V1 would be completely saturated right now. Almost every model coming out because doing things like writing the Python functions and human evil is now pretty trivial. It's easy to forget, actually, I think how much progress has been made in the last two years. Like we obviously play the game constantly of like the today's version versus last week's version and the week before and all of the small changes in the horse race between the current frontier and who has the best like smaller than 10B model like right now this week. Right. And that's very important to a lot of developers and people and especially in this particular city of San Francisco. But when you zoom out a couple of years ago, literally most of what we were doing to evaluate the models then would all be 100% solved by even pretty small models today. And that's been one of the key things, by the way, that's driven down the cost of intelligence at every tier of intelligence. We can talk about more in a bit. So V1, V2, V3, we made things harder. We covered a wider range of use cases. And we tried to get closer to things developers care about as opposed to like just the Q&A type stuff that MMLU and GPQA represented. Yeah.swyx [00:22:12]: I don't know if you have anything to add there. Or we could just go right into showing people the benchmark and like looking around and asking questions about it. Yeah.Micah [00:22:21]: Let's do it. Okay. This would be a pretty good way to chat about a few of the new things we've launched recently. Yeah.George [00:22:26]: And I think a little bit about the direction that we want to take it. And we want to push benchmarks. Currently, the intelligence index and evals focus a lot on kind of raw intelligence. But we kind of want to diversify how we think about intelligence. And we can talk about it. But kind of new evals that we've kind of built and partnered on focus on topics like hallucination. And we've got a lot of topics that I think are not covered by the current eval set that should be. And so we want to bring that forth. But before we get into that.swyx [00:23:01]: And so for listeners, just as a timestamp, right now, number one is Gemini 3 Pro High. Then followed by Cloud Opus at 70. Just 5.1 high. You don't have 5.2 yet. And Kimi K2 Thinking. Wow. Still hanging in there. So those are the top four. That will date this podcast quickly. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I love it. I love it. No, no. 100%. Look back this time next year and go, how cute. Yep.George [00:23:25]: Totally. A quick view of that is, okay, there's a lot. I love it. I love this chart. Yeah.Micah [00:23:30]: This is such a favorite, right? Yeah. And almost every talk that George or I give at conferences and stuff, we always put this one up first to just talk about situating where we are in this moment in history. This, I think, is the visual version of what I was saying before about the zooming out and remembering how much progress there's been. If we go back to just over a year ago, before 01, before Cloud Sonnet 3.5, we didn't have reasoning models or coding agents as a thing. And the game was very, very different. If we go back even a little bit before then, we're in the era where, when you look at this chart, open AI was untouchable for well over a year. And, I mean, you would remember that time period well of there being very open questions about whether or not AI was going to be competitive, like full stop, whether or not open AI would just run away with it, whether we would have a few frontier labs and no one else would really be able to do anything other than consume their APIs. I am quite happy overall that the world that we have ended up in is one where... Multi-model. Absolutely. And strictly more competitive every quarter over the last few years. Yeah. This year has been insane. Yeah.George [00:24:42]: You can see it. This chart with everything added is hard to read currently. There's so many dots on it, but I think it reflects a little bit what we felt, like how crazy it's been.swyx [00:24:54]: Why 14 as the default? Is that a manual choice? Because you've got service now in there that are less traditional names. Yeah.George [00:25:01]: It's models that we're kind of highlighting by default in our charts, in our intelligence index. Okay.swyx [00:25:07]: You just have a manually curated list of stuff.George [00:25:10]: Yeah, that's right. But something that I actually don't think every artificial analysis user knows is that you can customize our charts and choose what models are highlighted. Yeah. And so if we take off a few names, it gets a little easier to read.swyx [00:25:25]: Yeah, yeah. A little easier to read. Totally. Yeah. But I love that you can see the all one jump. Look at that. September 2024. And the DeepSeek jump. Yeah.George [00:25:34]: Which got close to OpenAI's leadership. They were so close. I think, yeah, we remember that moment. Around this time last year, actually.Micah [00:25:44]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I agree. Yeah, well, a couple of weeks. It was Boxing Day in New Zealand when DeepSeek v3 came out. And we'd been tracking DeepSeek and a bunch of the other global players that were less known over the second half of 2024 and had run evals on the earlier ones and stuff. I very distinctly remember Boxing Day in New Zealand, because I was with family for Christmas and stuff, running the evals and getting back result by result on DeepSeek v3. So this was the first of their v3 architecture, the 671b MOE.Micah [00:26:19]: And we were very, very impressed. That was the moment where we were sure that DeepSeek was no longer just one of many players, but had jumped up to be a thing. The world really noticed when they followed that up with the RL working on top of v3 and R1 succeeding a few weeks later. But the groundwork for that absolutely was laid with just extremely strong base model, completely open weights that we had as the best open weights model. So, yeah, that's the thing that you really see in the game. But I think that we got a lot of good feedback on Boxing Day. us on Boxing Day last year.George [00:26:48]: Boxing Day is the day after Christmas for those not familiar.George [00:26:54]: I'm from Singapore.swyx [00:26:55]: A lot of us remember Boxing Day for a different reason, for the tsunami that happened. Oh, of course. Yeah, but that was a long time ago. So yeah. So this is the rough pitch of AAQI. Is it A-A-Q-I or A-A-I-I? I-I. Okay. Good memory, though.Micah [00:27:11]: I don't know. I'm not used to it. Once upon a time, we did call it Quality Index, and we would talk about quality, performance, and price, but we changed it to intelligence.George [00:27:20]: There's been a few naming changes. We added hardware benchmarking to the site, and so benchmarks at a kind of system level. And so then we changed our throughput metric to, we now call it output speed, and thenswyx [00:27:32]: throughput makes sense at a system level, so we took that name. Take me through more charts. What should people know? Obviously, the way you look at the site is probably different than how a beginner might look at it.Micah [00:27:42]: Yeah, that's fair. There's a lot of fun stuff to dive into. Maybe so we can hit past all the, like, we have lots and lots of emails and stuff. The interesting ones to talk about today that would be great to bring up are a few of our recent things, I think, that probably not many people will be familiar with yet. So first one of those is our omniscience index. So this one is a little bit different to most of the intelligence evils that we've run. We built it specifically to look at the embedded knowledge in the models and to test hallucination by looking at when the model doesn't know the answer, so not able to get it correct, what's its probability of saying, I don't know, or giving an incorrect answer. So the metric that we use for omniscience goes from negative 100 to positive 100. Because we're simply taking off a point if you give an incorrect answer to the question. We're pretty convinced that this is an example of where it makes most sense to do that, because it's strictly more helpful to say, I don't know, instead of giving a wrong answer to factual knowledge question. And one of our goals is to shift the incentive that evils create for models and the labs creating them to get higher scores. And almost every evil across all of AI up until this point, it's been graded by simple percentage correct as the main metric, the main thing that gets hyped. And so you should take a shot at everything. There's no incentive to say, I don't know. So we did that for this one here.swyx [00:29:22]: I think there's a general field of calibration as well, like the confidence in your answer versus the rightness of the answer. Yeah, we completely agree. Yeah. Yeah.George [00:29:31]: On that. And one reason that we didn't do that is because. Or put that into this index is that we think that the, the way to do that is not to ask the models how confident they are.swyx [00:29:43]: I don't know. Maybe it might be though. You put it like a JSON field, say, say confidence and maybe it spits out something. Yeah. You know, we have done a few evils podcasts over the, over the years. And when we did one with Clementine of hugging face, who maintains the open source leaderboard, and this was one of her top requests, which is some kind of hallucination slash lack of confidence calibration thing. And so, Hey, this is one of them.Micah [00:30:05]: And I mean, like anything that we do, it's not a perfect metric or the whole story of everything that you think about as hallucination. But yeah, it's pretty useful and has some interesting results. Like one of the things that we saw in the hallucination rate is that anthropics Claude models at the, the, the very left-hand side here with the lowest hallucination rates out of the models that we've evaluated amnesty is on. That is an interesting fact. I think it probably correlates with a lot of the previously, not really measured vibes stuff that people like about some of the Claude models. Is the dataset public or what's is it, is there a held out set? There's a hell of a set for this one. So we, we have published a public test set, but we we've only published 10% of it. The reason is that for this one here specifically, it would be very, very easy to like have data contamination because it is just factual knowledge questions. We would. We'll update it at a time to also prevent that, but with yeah, kept most of it held out so that we can keep it reliable for a long time. It leads us to a bunch of really cool things, including breakdown quite granularly by topic. And so we've got some of that disclosed on the website publicly right now, and there's lots more coming in terms of our ability to break out very specific topics. Yeah.swyx [00:31:23]: I would be interested. Let's, let's dwell a little bit on this hallucination one. I noticed that Haiku hallucinates less than Sonnet hallucinates less than Opus. And yeah. Would that be the other way around in a normal capability environments? I don't know. What's, what do you make of that?George [00:31:37]: One interesting aspect is that we've found that there's not really a, not a strong correlation between intelligence and hallucination, right? That's to say that the smarter the models are in a general sense, isn't correlated with their ability to, when they don't know something, say that they don't know. It's interesting that Gemini three pro preview was a big leap over here. Gemini 2.5. Flash and, and, and 2.5 pro, but, and if I add pro quickly here.swyx [00:32:07]: I bet pro's really good. Uh, actually no, I meant, I meant, uh, the GPT pros.George [00:32:12]: Oh yeah.swyx [00:32:13]: Cause GPT pros are rumored. We don't know for a fact that it's like eight runs and then with the LM judge on top. Yeah.George [00:32:20]: So we saw a big jump in, this is accuracy. So this is just percent that they get, uh, correct and Gemini three pro knew a lot more than the other models. And so big jump in accuracy. But relatively no change between the Google Gemini models, between releases. And the hallucination rate. Exactly. And so it's likely due to just kind of different post-training recipe, between the, the Claude models. Yeah.Micah [00:32:45]: Um, there's, there's driven this. Yeah. You can, uh, you can partially blame us and how we define intelligence having until now not defined hallucination as a negative in the way that we think about intelligence.swyx [00:32:56]: And so that's what we're changing. Uh, I know many smart people who are confidently incorrect.George [00:33:02]: Uh, look, look at that. That, that, that is very humans. Very true. And there's times and a place for that. I think our view is that hallucination rate makes sense in this context where it's around knowledge, but in many cases, people want the models to hallucinate, to have a go. Often that's the case in coding or when you're trying to generate newer ideas. One eval that we added to artificial analysis is, is, is critical point and it's really hard, uh, physics problems. Okay.swyx [00:33:32]: And is it sort of like a human eval type or something different or like a frontier math type?George [00:33:37]: It's not dissimilar to frontier frontier math. So these are kind of research questions that kind of academics in the physics physics world would be able to answer, but models really struggled to answer. So the top score here is not 9%.swyx [00:33:51]: And when the people that, that created this like Minway and, and, and actually off via who was kind of behind sweep and what organization is this? Oh, is this, it's Princeton.George [00:34:01]: Kind of range of academics from, from, uh, different academic institutions, really smart people. They talked about how they turn the models up in terms of the temperature as high temperature as they can, where they're trying to explore kind of new ideas in physics as a, as a thought partner, just because they, they want the models to hallucinate. Um, yeah, sometimes it's something new. Yeah, exactly.swyx [00:34:21]: Um, so not right in every situation, but, um, I think it makes sense, you know, to test hallucination in scenarios where it makes sense. Also, the obvious question is, uh, this is one of. Many that there is there, every lab has a system card that shows some kind of hallucination number, and you've chosen to not, uh, endorse that and you've made your own. And I think that's a, that's a choice. Um, totally in some sense, the rest of artificial analysis is public benchmarks that other people can independently rerun. You provide it as a service here. You have to fight the, well, who are we to, to like do this? And your, your answer is that we have a lot of customers and, you know, but like, I guess, how do you converge the individual?Micah [00:35:08]: I mean, I think, I think for hallucinations specifically, there are a bunch of different things that you might care about reasonably, and that you'd measure quite differently, like we've called this a amnesty and solutionation rate, not trying to declare the, like, it's humanity's last hallucination. You could, uh, you could have some interesting naming conventions and all this stuff. Um, the biggest picture answer to that. It's something that I actually wanted to mention. Just as George was explaining, critical point as well is, so as we go forward, we are building evals internally. We're partnering with academia and partnering with AI companies to build great evals. We have pretty strong views on, in various ways for different parts of the AI stack, where there are things that are not being measured well, or things that developers care about that should be measured more and better. And we intend to be doing that. We're not obsessed necessarily with that. Everything we do, we have to do entirely within our own team. Critical point. As a cool example of where we were a launch partner for it, working with academia, we've got some partnerships coming up with a couple of leading companies. Those ones, obviously we have to be careful with on some of the independent stuff, but with the right disclosure, like we're completely comfortable with that. A lot of the labs have released great data sets in the past that we've used to great success independently. And so it's between all of those techniques, we're going to be releasing more stuff in the future. Cool.swyx [00:36:26]: Let's cover the last couple. And then we'll, I want to talk about your trends analysis stuff, you know? Totally.Micah [00:36:31]: So that actually, I have one like little factoid on omniscience. If you go back up to accuracy on omniscience, an interesting thing about this accuracy metric is that it tracks more closely than anything else that we measure. The total parameter count of models makes a lot of sense intuitively, right? Because this is a knowledge eval. This is the pure knowledge metric. We're not looking at the index and the hallucination rate stuff that we think is much more about how the models are trained. This is just what facts did they recall? And yeah, it tracks parameter count extremely closely. Okay.swyx [00:37:05]: What's the rumored size of GPT-3 Pro? And to be clear, not confirmed for any official source, just rumors. But rumors do fly around. Rumors. I get, I hear all sorts of numbers. I don't know what to trust.Micah [00:37:17]: So if you, if you draw the line on omniscience accuracy versus total parameters, we've got all the open ways models, you can squint and see that likely the leading frontier models right now are quite a lot bigger than the ones that we're seeing right now. And the one trillion parameters that the open weights models cap out at, and the ones that we're looking at here, there's an interesting extra data point that Elon Musk revealed recently about XAI that for three trillion parameters for GROK 3 and 4, 6 trillion for GROK 5, but that's not out yet. Take those together, have a look. You might reasonably form a view that there's a pretty good chance that Gemini 3 Pro is bigger than that, that it could be in the 5 to 10 trillion parameters. To be clear, I have absolutely no idea, but just based on this chart, like that's where you would, you would land if you have a look at it. Yeah.swyx [00:38:07]: And to some extent, I actually kind of discourage people from guessing too much because what does it really matter? Like as long as they can serve it as a sustainable cost, that's about it. Like, yeah, totally.George [00:38:17]: They've also got different incentives in play compared to like open weights models who are thinking to supporting others in self-deployment for the labs who are doing inference at scale. It's I think less about total parameters in many cases. When thinking about inference costs and more around number of active parameters. And so there's a bit of an incentive towards larger sparser models. Agreed.Micah [00:38:38]: Understood. Yeah. Great. I mean, obviously if you're a developer or company using these things, not exactly as you say, it doesn't matter. You should be looking at all the different ways that we measure intelligence. You should be looking at cost to run index number and the different ways of thinking about token efficiency and cost efficiency based on the list prices, because that's all it matters.swyx [00:38:56]: It's not as good for the content creator rumor mill where I can say. Oh, GPT-4 is this small circle. Look at GPT-5 is this big circle. And then there used to be a thing for a while. Yeah.Micah [00:39:07]: But that is like on its own, actually a very interesting one, right? That is it just purely that chances are the last couple of years haven't seen a dramatic scaling up in the total size of these models. And so there's a lot of room to go up properly in total size of the models, especially with the upcoming hardware generations. Yes.swyx [00:39:29]: So, you know. Taking off my shitposting face for a minute. Yes. Yes. At the same time, I do feel like, you know, especially coming back from Europe, people do feel like Ilya is probably right that the paradigm is doesn't have many more orders of magnitude to scale out more. And therefore we need to start exploring at least a different path. GDPVal, I think it's like only like a month or so old. I was also very positive when it first came out. I actually talked to Tejo, who was the lead researcher on that. Oh, cool. And you have your own version.George [00:39:59]: It's a fantastic. It's a fantastic data set. Yeah.swyx [00:40:01]: And maybe it will recap for people who are still out of it. It's like 44 tasks based on some kind of GDP cutoff that's like meant to represent broad white collar work that is not just coding. Yeah.Micah [00:40:12]: Each of the tasks have a whole bunch of detailed instructions, some input files for a lot of them. It's within the 44 is divided into like two hundred and twenty two to five, maybe subtasks that are the level of that we run through the agenda. And yeah, they're really interesting. I will say that it doesn't. It doesn't necessarily capture like all the stuff that people do at work. No avail is perfect is always going to be more things to look at, largely because in order to make the tasks well enough to find that you can run them, they need to only have a handful of input files and very specific instructions for that task. And so I think the easiest way to think about them are that they're like quite hard take home exam tasks that you might do in an interview process.swyx [00:40:56]: Yeah, for listeners, it is not no longer like a long prompt. It is like, well, here's a zip file with like a spreadsheet or a PowerPoint deck or a PDF and go nuts and answer this question.George [00:41:06]: OpenAI released a great data set and they released a good paper which looks at performance across the different web chat bots on the data set. It's a great paper, encourage people to read it. What we've done is taken that data set and turned it into an eval that can be run on any model. So we created a reference agentic harness that can run. Run the models on the data set, and then we developed evaluator approach to compare outputs. That's kind of AI enabled, so it uses Gemini 3 Pro Preview to compare results, which we tested pretty comprehensively to ensure that it's aligned to human preferences. One data point there is that even as an evaluator, Gemini 3 Pro, interestingly, doesn't do actually that well. So that's kind of a good example of what we've done in GDPVal AA.swyx [00:42:01]: Yeah, the thing that you have to watch out for with LLM judge is self-preference that models usually prefer their own output, and in this case, it was not. Totally.Micah [00:42:08]: I think the way that we're thinking about the places where it makes sense to use an LLM as judge approach now, like quite different to some of the early LLM as judge stuff a couple of years ago, because some of that and MTV was a great project that was a good example of some of this a while ago was about judging conversations and like a lot of style type stuff. Here, we've got the task that the grader and grading model is doing is quite different to the task of taking the test. When you're taking the test, you've got all of the agentic tools you're working with, the code interpreter and web search, the file system to go through many, many turns to try to create the documents. Then on the other side, when we're grading it, we're running it through a pipeline to extract visual and text versions of the files and be able to provide that to Gemini, and we're providing the criteria for the task and getting it to pick which one more effectively meets the criteria of the task. Yeah. So we've got the task out of two potential outcomes. It turns out that we proved that it's just very, very good at getting that right, matched with human preference a lot of the time, because I think it's got the raw intelligence, but it's combined with the correct representation of the outputs, the fact that the outputs were created with an agentic task that is quite different to the way the grading model works, and we're comparing it against criteria, not just kind of zero shot trying to ask the model to pick which one is better.swyx [00:43:26]: Got it. Why is this an ELO? And not a percentage, like GDP-VAL?George [00:43:31]: So the outputs look like documents, and there's video outputs or audio outputs from some of the tasks. It has to make a video? Yeah, for some of the tasks. Some of the tasks.swyx [00:43:43]: What task is that?George [00:43:45]: I mean, it's in the data set. Like be a YouTuber? It's a marketing video.Micah [00:43:49]: Oh, wow. What? Like model has to go find clips on the internet and try to put it together. The models are not that good at doing that one, for now, to be clear. It's pretty hard to do that with a code editor. I mean, the computer stuff doesn't work quite well enough and so on and so on, but yeah.George [00:44:02]: And so there's no kind of ground truth, necessarily, to compare against, to work out percentage correct. It's hard to come up with correct or incorrect there. And so it's on a relative basis. And so we use an ELO approach to compare outputs from each of the models between the task.swyx [00:44:23]: You know what you should do? You should pay a contractor, a human, to do the same task. And then give it an ELO and then so you have, you have human there. It's just, I think what's helpful about GDPVal, the OpenAI one, is that 50% is meant to be normal human and maybe Domain Expert is higher than that, but 50% was the bar for like, well, if you've crossed 50, you are superhuman. Yeah.Micah [00:44:47]: So we like, haven't grounded this score in that exactly. I agree that it can be helpful, but we wanted to generalize this to a very large number. It's one of the reasons that presenting it as ELO is quite helpful and allows us to add models and it'll stay relevant for quite a long time. I also think it, it can be tricky looking at these exact tasks compared to the human performance, because the way that you would go about it as a human is quite different to how the models would go about it. Yeah.swyx [00:45:15]: I also liked that you included Lama 4 Maverick in there. Is that like just one last, like...Micah [00:45:20]: Well, no, no, no, no, no, no, it is the, it is the best model released by Meta. And... So it makes it into the homepage default set, still for now.George [00:45:31]: Other inclusion that's quite interesting is we also ran it across the latest versions of the web chatbots. And so we have...swyx [00:45:39]: Oh, that's right.George [00:45:40]: Oh, sorry.swyx [00:45:41]: I, yeah, I completely missed that. Okay.George [00:45:43]: No, not at all. So that, which has a checkered pattern. So that is their harness, not yours, is what you're saying. Exactly. And what's really interesting is that if you compare, for instance, Claude 4.5 Opus using the Claude web chatbot, it performs worse than the model in our agentic harness. And so in every case, the model performs better in our agentic harness than its web chatbot counterpart, the harness that they created.swyx [00:46:13]: Oh, my backwards explanation for that would be that, well, it's meant for consumer use cases and here you're pushing it for something.Micah [00:46:19]: The constraints are different and the amount of freedom that you can give the model is different. Also, you like have a cost goal. We let the models work as long as they want, basically. Yeah. Do you copy paste manually into the chatbot? Yeah. Yeah. That's, that was how we got the chatbot reference. We're not going to be keeping those updated at like quite the same scale as hundreds of models.swyx [00:46:38]: Well, so I don't know, talk to a browser base. They'll, they'll automate it for you. You know, like I have thought about like, well, we should turn these chatbot versions into an API because they are legitimately different agents in themselves. Yes. Right. Yeah.Micah [00:46:53]: And that's grown a huge amount of the last year, right? Like the tools. The tools that are available have actually diverged in my opinion, a fair bit across the major chatbot apps and the amount of data sources that you can connect them to have gone up a lot, meaning that your experience and the way you're using the model is more different than ever.swyx [00:47:10]: What tools and what data connections come to mind when you say what's interesting, what's notable work that people have done?Micah [00:47:15]: Oh, okay. So my favorite example on this is that until very recently, I would argue that it was basically impossible to get an LLM to draft an email for me in any useful way. Because most times that you're sending an email, you're not just writing something for the sake of writing it. Chances are context required is a whole bunch of historical emails. Maybe it's notes that you've made, maybe it's meeting notes, maybe it's, um, pulling something from your, um, any of like wherever you at work store stuff. So for me, like Google drive, one drive, um, in our super base databases, if we need to do some analysis or some data or something, preferably model can be plugged into all of those things and can go do some useful work based on it. The things that like I find most impressive currently that I am somewhat surprised work really well in late 2025, uh, that I can have models use super base MCP to query read only, of course, run a whole bunch of SQL queries to do pretty significant data analysis. And. And make charts and stuff and can read my Gmail and my notion. And okay. You actually use that. That's good. That's, that's, that's good. Is that a cloud thing? To various degrees of order, but chat GPD and Claude right now, I would say that this stuff like barely works in fairness right now. Like.George [00:48:33]: Because people are actually going to try this after they hear it. If you get an email from Micah, odds are it wasn't written by a chatbot.Micah [00:48:38]: So, yeah, I think it is true that I have never actually sent anyone an email drafted by a chatbot. Yet.swyx [00:48:46]: Um, and so you can, you can feel it right. And yeah, this time, this time next year, we'll come back and see where it's going. Totally. Um, super base shout out another famous Kiwi. Uh, I don't know if you've, you've any conversations with him about anything in particular on AI building and AI infra.George [00:49:03]: We have had, uh, Twitter DMS, um, with, with him because we're quite big, uh, super base users and power users. And we probably do some things more manually than we should in. In, in super base support line because you're, you're a little bit being super friendly. One extra, um, point regarding, um, GDP Val AA is that on the basis of the overperformance of the models compared to the chatbots turns out, we realized that, oh, like our reference harness that we built actually white works quite well on like gen generalist agentic tasks. This proves it in a sense. And so the agent harness is very. Minimalist. I think it follows some of the ideas that are in Claude code and we, all that we give it is context management capabilities, a web search, web browsing, uh, tool, uh, code execution, uh, environment. Anything else?Micah [00:50:02]: I mean, we can equip it with more tools, but like by default, yeah, that's it. We, we, we give it for GDP, a tool to, uh, view an image specifically, um, because the models, you know, can just use a terminal to pull stuff in text form into context. But to pull visual stuff into context, we had to give them a custom tool, but yeah, exactly. Um, you, you can explain an expert. No.George [00:50:21]: So it's, it, we turned out that we created a good generalist agentic harness. And so we, um, released that on, on GitHub yesterday. It's called stirrup. So if people want to check it out and, and it's a great, um, you know, base for, you know, generalist, uh, building a generalist agent for more specific tasks.Micah [00:50:39]: I'd say the best way to use it is get clone and then have your favorite coding. Agent make changes to it, to do whatever you want, because it's not that many lines of code and the coding agents can work with it. Super well.swyx [00:50:51]: Well, that's nice for the community to explore and share and hack on it. I think maybe in, in, in other similar environments, the terminal bench guys have done, uh, sort of the Harbor. Uh, and so it's, it's a, it's a bundle of, well, we need our minimal harness, which for them is terminus and we also need the RL environments or Docker deployment thing to, to run independently. So I don't know if you've looked at it. I don't know if you've looked at the harbor at all, is that, is that like a, a standard that people want to adopt?George [00:51:19]: Yeah, we've looked at it from a evals perspective and we love terminal bench and, and host benchmarks of, of, of terminal mention on artificial analysis. Um, we've looked at it from a, from a coding agent perspective, but could see it being a great, um, basis for any kind of agents. I think where we're getting to is that these models have gotten smart enough. They've gotten better, better tools that they can perform better when just given a minimalist. Set of tools and, and let them run, let the model control the, the agentic workflow rather than using another framework that's a bit more built out that tries to dictate the, dictate the flow. Awesome.swyx [00:51:56]: Let's cover the openness index and then let's go into the report stuff. Uh, so that's the, that's the last of the proprietary art numbers, I guess. I don't know how you sort of classify all these. Yeah.Micah [00:52:07]: Or call it, call it, let's call it the last of like the, the three new things that we're talking about from like the last few weeks. Um, cause I mean, there's a, we do a mix of stuff that. Where we're using open source, where we open source and what we do and, um, proprietary stuff that we don't always open source, like long context reasoning data set last year, we did open source. Um, and then all of the work on performance benchmarks across the site, some of them, we looking to open source, but some of them, like we're constantly iterating on and so on and so on and so on. So there's a huge mix, I would say, just of like stuff that is open source and not across the side. So that's a LCR for people. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.swyx [00:52:41]: Uh, but let's, let's, let's talk about open.Micah [00:52:42]: Let's talk about openness index. This. Here is call it like a new way to think about how open models are. We, for a long time, have tracked where the models are open weights and what the licenses on them are. And that's like pretty useful. That tells you what you're allowed to do with the weights of a model, but there is this whole other dimension to how open models are. That is pretty important that we haven't tracked until now. And that's how much is disclosed about how it was made. So transparency about data, pre-training data and post-training data. And whether you're allowed to use that data and transparency about methodology and training code. So basically, those are the components. We bring them together to score an openness index for models so that you can in one place get this full picture of how open models are.swyx [00:53:32]: I feel like I've seen a couple other people try to do this, but they're not maintained. I do think this does matter. I don't know what the numbers mean apart from is there a max number? Is this out of 20?George [00:53:44]: It's out of 18 currently, and so we've got an openness index page, but essentially these are points, you get points for being more open across these different categories and the maximum you can achieve is 18. So AI2 with their extremely open OMO3 32B think model is the leader in a sense.swyx [00:54:04]: It's hooking face.George [00:54:05]: Oh, with their smaller model. It's coming soon. I think we need to run, we need to get the intelligence benchmarks right to get it on the site.swyx [00:54:12]: You can't have it open in the next. We can not include hooking face. We love hooking face. We'll have that, we'll have that up very soon. I mean, you know, the refined web and all that stuff. It's, it's amazing. Or is it called fine web? Fine web. Fine web.Micah [00:54:23]: Yeah, yeah, no, totally. Yep. One of the reasons this is cool, right, is that if you're trying to understand the holistic picture of the models and what you can do with all the stuff the company's contributing, this gives you that picture. And so we are going to keep it up to date alongside all the models that we do intelligence index on, on the site. And it's just an extra view to understand.swyx [00:54:43]: Can you scroll down to this? The, the, the, the trade-offs chart. Yeah, yeah. That one. Yeah. This, this really matters, right? Obviously, because you can b

Hey all, Happy new year! This is Alex, writing to you for the very fresh start of this year, it's 2026 already, can you believe it? There was no live stream today, I figured the cohosts deserve a break and honestly it was a very slow week. Even the chinese labs who don't really celebrate X-mas and new years didn't come out with a banger AFAIK. ThursdAI - AI moves fast, we're here to make sure you never miss a thing! Subscribe :) Tho I thought it was an incredible opportunity to finally post the Will Brow interview I recorded in November during the AI Engineer conference. Will is a researcher at Prime Intellect (big fans on WandB btw!) and is very known on X as a hot takes ML person, often going viral for tons of memes! Will is the creator and maintainer of the Verifiers library (Github) and his talk at AI Engineer was all about RL Environments (what they are, you can hear in the interview, I asked him!) TL;DR last week of 2025 in AIBesides this, my job here is to keep you up to date, and honestly this was very easy this week, as… almost nothing has happened, but here we go: Meta buys ManusThe year ended with 2 huge acquisitions / aquihires. First we got the news from Alex Wang that Meta has bought Manus.ai which is an agentic AI startup we covered back in March for an undisclosed amount (folks claim $2-3B) The most interesting thing here is that Manus is a Chinese company, and this deal requires very specific severance from Chinese operations.Jensen goes on a new years spending spree, Nvidia buys Groq (not GROK) for $20BGroq which we covered often here, and are great friends, is going to NVIDIA, in a… very interesting acqui-hire, which is a “non binding license” + most of Groq top employees apparently are going to NVIDIA. Jonathan Ross the CEO of Groq, was the co-creator of the TPU chips at Google before founding Groq, so this seems like a very strategic aquihire for NVIDIA! Congrats to our friends from Groq on this amazing news for the new year! Tencent open-sources HY-MT1.5 translation models with 1.8B edge-deployable and 7B cloud variants supporting 33 languages (X, HF, HF, GitHub)It seems that everyone's is trying to de-throne whisper and this latest attempt from Tencent is a interesting one. a 1.8B and 7B translation models with very interesting stats. Alibaba's Qwen-Image-2512 drops on New Year's Eve as strongest open-source text-to-image model, topping AI Arena with photorealistic humans and sharper textures (X, HF, Arxiv)Our friends in Tongyi decided to give is a new years present in the form of an updated Qwen-image, with much improved realismThat's it folks, this was a quick one, hopefully you all had an amazing new year celebration, and are gearing up to an eventful and crazy 2026. I wish you all happiness, excitement and energy to keep up with everything in the new year, and will make sure that we're here to keep you up to date as always! P.S - I got a little news of my own this yesterday, not related to AI. She said yes

Ari Zilka, founder of MyDecisive.ai and former Hortonworks CPO, argues that most observability vendors now offer essentially identical, reactive dashboards that highlight problems only after systems are already broken. After speaking with all 23 observability vendors at KubeCon + CloudNativeCon North America 2025, Zilka said these tools fail to meaningfully reduce mean time to resolution (MTTR), a long-standing demand he heard repeatedly from thousands of CIOs during his time at New Relic.Zilka believes observability must shift from reactive monitoring to proactive operations, where systems automatically respond to telemetry in real time. MyDecisive.ai is his attempt to solve this, acting as a “bump in the wire” that intercepts telemetry and uses AI-driven logic to trigger actions like rolling back faulty releases.He also criticized the rising cost and complexity of OpenTelemetry adoption, noting that many companies now require large, specialized teams just to maintain OTel stacks. MyDecisive aims to turn OpenTelemetry into an enterprise-ready service that reduces human intervention and operational overhead.Learn more from The New Stack about OpenTelemetry:Observability Is Stuck in the Past. Your Users Aren't. Setting Up OpenTelemetry on the Frontend Because I Hate MyselfHow to Make OpenTelemetry Better in the BrowserJoin our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In questo episodio analizziamo mese per mese i rilasci chiave dell'anno: da DeepSeek-R1 a Gemini 3. Ne sono successe di cose!

Guest Name: Ben Burke, Senior Data Scientist, SlalomGuest Social: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-burke-data/Guest Bio: Ben is a Sr. Data Scientist and AI Engineer consultant developing Generative AI solutions for Fortune 1000 companies. He's known for his practical, human-centered approach to AI adoption, and for teaching professionals how to partner with AI to improve clarity, collaboration, and decision-making. His business, Between The Data, helps teams using AI 'build the right things'. You can find him on LinkedIn where he posts about AI, team formation, project management, and his family. - - - -Connect With Our Host:Mallory Willsea https://www.linkedin.com/in/mallorywillsea/https://twitter.com/mallorywillseaAbout The Enrollify Podcast Network:The Higher Ed Pulse is a part of the Enrollify Podcast Network. If you like this podcast, chances are you'll like other Enrollify shows too!Enrollify is made possible by Element451 — The AI Workforce Platform for Higher Ed. Learn more at element451.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

GPUs dominate today's AI landscape, but Google argues they are not necessary for every workload. As AI adoption has grown, customers have increasingly demanded compute options that deliver high performance with lower cost and power consumption. Drawing on its long history of custom silicon, Google introduced Axion CPUs in 2024 to meet needs for massive scale, flexibility, and general-purpose computing alongside AI workloads. The Axion-based C4A instance is generally available, while the newer N4A virtual machines promise up to 2x price performance.In this episode, Andrei Gueletii, a technical solutions consultant for Google Cloud joined Gari Singh, a product manager for Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE), and Pranay Bakre, a principal solutions engineer at Arm for this episode, recorded at KubeCon + CloudNativeCon North America, in Atlanta. Built on Arm Neoverse V2 cores, Axion processors emphasize energy efficiency and customization, including flexible machine shapes that let users tailor memory and CPU resources. These features are particularly valuable for platform engineering teams, which must optimize centralized infrastructure for cost, FinOps goals, and price performance as they scale.Importantly, many AI tasks—such as inference for smaller models or batch-oriented jobs—do not require GPUs. CPUs can be more efficient when GPU memory is underutilized or latency demands are low. By decoupling workloads and choosing the right compute for each task, organizations can significantly reduce AI compute costs.Learn more from The New Stack about the Axion-based C4A: Beyond Speed: Why Your Next App Must Be Multi-ArchitectureArm: See a Demo About Migrating a x86-Based App to ARM64Join our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Enterprises are racing to deploy AI services, but the teams responsible for running them in production are seeing familiar problems reemerge—most notably, silos between data scientists and operations teams, reminiscent of the old DevOps divide. In a discussion recorded at AWS re:Invent 2025, IBM's Thanos Matzanas and Martin Fuentes argue that the challenge isn't new technology but repeating organizational patterns. As data teams move from internal projects to revenue-critical, customer-facing applications, they face new pressures around reliability, observability, and accountability.The speakers stress that many existing observability and governance practices still apply. Standard metrics, KPIs, SLOs, access controls, and audit logs remain essential foundations, even as AI introduces non-determinism and a heavier reliance on human feedback to assess quality. Tools like OpenTelemetry provide common ground, but culture matters more than tooling.Both emphasize starting with business value and breaking down silos early by involving data teams in production discussions. Rather than replacing observability professionals, AI should augment human expertise, especially in critical systems where trust, safety, and compliance are paramount.Learn more from The New Stack about enabling AI with silos: Are Your AI Co-Pilots Trapping Data in Isolated Silos?Break the AI Gridlock at the Intersection of Velocity and TrustTaming AI Observability: Control Is the Key to SuccessJoin our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Rob Whiteley, CEO of Coder, argues that the biggest winners in today's AI boom resemble the “picks and shovels” sellers of the California Gold Rush: companies that provide tools enabling others to build with AI. Speaking onThe New Stack Makersat AWS re:Invent, Whiteley described the current AI moment as the fastest-moving shift he's seen in 25 years of tech. Developers are rapidly adopting AI tools, while platform teams face pressure to approve them, as saying “no” is no longer viable. Whiteley warns of a widening gap between organizations that extract real value from AI and those that don't, driven by skills shortages and insufficient investment in training. He sees parallels with the cloud-native transition and predicts the rise of “AI-native” companies. As agentic AI grows, developers increasingly act as managers overseeing many parallel AI agents, creating new challenges around governance, security, and state management. To address this, Coder introduced Mux, an open source coding agent multiplexer designed to help developers manage and evaluate large volumes of AI-generated code efficiently.Learn more from The New Stack about AI Parallelization The Production Generative AI Stack: Architecture and ComponentsEnable ParallelFrontend/Backend Development to Unlock VelocityJoin our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Nvidia Distinguished Engineer Kevin Klues noted that low-level systems work is invisible when done well and highly visible when it fails — a dynamic that frames current Kubernetes innovations for AI. At KubeCon + CloudNativeCon North America 2025, Klues and AWS product manager Jesse Butler discussed two emerging capabilities: dynamic resource allocation (DRA) and a new workload abstraction designed for sophisticated AI scheduling.DRA, now generally available in Kubernetes 1.34, fixes long-standing limitations in GPU requests. Instead of simply asking for a number of GPUs, users can specify types and configurations. Modeled after persistent volumes, DRA allows any specialized hardware to be exposed through standardized interfaces, enabling vendors to deliver custom device drivers cleanly. Butler called it one of the most elegant designs in Kubernetes.Yet complex AI workloads require more coordination. A forthcoming workload abstraction, debuting in Kubernetes 1.35, will let users define pod groups with strict scheduling and topology rules — ensuring multi-node jobs start fully or not at all. Klues emphasized that this abstraction will shape Kubernetes' AI trajectory for the next decade and encouraged community involvement.Learn more from The New Stack about dynamic resource allocation: Kubernetes Primer: Dynamic Resource Allocation (DRA) for GPU WorkloadsKubernetes v1.34 Introduces Benefits but Also New Blind SpotsJoin our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Chris and Daniel talk with returning guest, Ramin Mohammadi, about how those seeking to get into AI Engineer/ Data Science jobs are expected to come in a mid level engineers (not entry level). They explore this growing gap along with what should (or could) be done in academia to focus on real world skills vs. theoretical knowledge. Featuring:Ramin Mohammadi – LinkedInChris Benson – Website, LinkedIn, Bluesky, GitHub, XDaniel Whitenack – Website, GitHub, XSponsors:Shopify – The commerce platform trusted by millions. From idea to checkout, Shopify gives you everything you need to launch and scale your business—no matter your level of experience. Build beautiful storefronts, market with built-in AI tools, and tap into the platform powering 10% of all U.S. eCommerce. Start your one-dollar trial at shopify.com/practicalaiUpcoming Events: Register for upcoming webinars here!

At KubeCon North America 2025, GitLab's Emilio Salvador outlined how developers are shifting from individual coders to leaders of hybrid human–AI teams. He envisions developers evolving into “cognitive architects,” responsible for breaking down large, complex problems and distributing work across both AI agents and humans. Complementing this is the emerging role of the “AI guardian,” reflecting growing skepticism around AI-generated code. Even as AI produces more code, humans remain accountable for reviewing quality, security, and compliance.Salvador also described GitLab's “AI paradox”: developers may code faster with AI, but overall productivity stalls because testing, security, and compliance processes haven't kept pace. To fix this, he argues organizations must apply AI across the entire development lifecycle, not just in coding. GitLab's Duo Agent Platform aims to support that end-to-end transformation.Looking ahead, Salvador predicts the rise of a proactive “meta agent” that functions like a full team member. Still, he warns that enterprise adoption remains slow and advises organizations to start small, build skills, and scale gradually.Learn more from The New Stack about the evolving role of "cognitive architects":The Engineer in the AI Age: The Orchestrator and ArchitectThe New Role of Enterprise Architecture in the AI EraThe Architect's Guide to Understanding Agentic AIJoin our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jonathan Bryce, the new CNCF executive director, argues that inference—not model training—will define the next decade of computing. Speaking at KubeCon North America 2025, he emphasized that while the industry obsesses over massive LLM training runs, the real opportunity lies in efficiently serving these models at scale. Cloud-native infrastructure, he says, is uniquely suited to this shift because inference requires real-time deployment, security, scaling, and observability—strengths of the CNCF ecosystem. Bryce believes Kubernetes is already central to modern inference stacks, with projects like Ray, KServe, and emerging GPU-oriented tooling enabling teams to deploy and operationalize models. To bring consistency to this fast-moving space, the CNCF launched a Kubernetes AI Conformance Program, ensuring environments support GPU workloads and Dynamic Resource Allocation. With AI agents poised to multiply inference demand by executing parallel, multi-step tasks, efficiency becomes essential. Bryce predicts that smaller, task-specific models and cloud-native routing optimizations will drive major performance gains. Ultimately, he sees CNCF technologies forming the foundation for what he calls “the biggest workload mankind will ever have.” Learn more from The New Stack about inference: Confronting AI's Next Big Challenge: Inference Compute Deep Infra Is Building an AI Inference Cloud for Developers Join our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation has introduced the Certified Kubernetes AI Conformance Program to bring consistency to an increasingly fragmented AI ecosystem. Announced at KubeCon + CloudNativeCon North America 2025, the program establishes open, community-driven standards to ensure AI applications run reliably and portably across different Kubernetes platforms. VMware by Broadcom's vSphere Kubernetes Service (VKS) is among the first platforms to achieve certification.In an interview with The New Stack, Broadcom leaders Dilpreet Bindra and Himanshu Singh explained that the program applies lessons from Kubernetes' early evolution, aiming to reduce the “muddiness” in AI tooling and improve cross-platform interoperability. They emphasized portability as a core value: organizations should be able to move AI workloads between public and private clouds with minimal friction.VKS integrates tightly with vSphere, using Kubernetes APIs directly to manage infrastructure components declaratively. This approach, along with new add-on management capabilities, reflects Kubernetes' growing maturity. According to Bindra and Singh, this stability now enables enterprises to trust Kubernetes as a foundation for production-grade AI. Learn more from The New Stack about Broadcom's latest updates with Kubernetes: Has VMware Finally Caught Up with Kubernetes?VMware VCF 9.0 Finally Unifies Container and VM ManagementJoin our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Aydin sits down with Mike Potter, CEO and co-founder of Rewind, to talk about how AI is changing both the risk and opportunity landscape for SaaS companies. They cover how AI agents are now deleting real customer data, why backup is more critical than ever, and how Rewind became an AI-native org with dedicated AI ownership, monthly Lunch & Learns, and real internal workflows.Mike walks through the exact N8N workflows he uses to:Auto-triage his Gmail into multiple inboxes using AIGenerate a daily AI brief based on tasks, calendar events, and past email contextAnalyze churn, win/loss, and internal product data using Claude and MCPThey close with Mike's “dream automation”: a full AI-generated business review that looks across financials, CRM data, and benchmarks.Timestamps:0:00 — Welcome to the show0:31 — Mike's intro & what Rewind backs up across SaaS ecosystems1:40 — AI agents as a new failure mode and how Rewind “saves you from your AI”4:05 — Turning Rewind into an AI-native company early on4:53 — First attempt at AI-built integrations (why it failed then, why it might work now)7:23 — Developers trading tedious integration maintenance for more interesting AI work9:45 — Code vs architecture: the Shopify webhooks story and handling 1.1B+ events14:03 — Hiring an AI Engineer: scope, responsibilities, and why background mattered15:33 — How Rewind drove AI adoption: Lunch & Learns, “use it in your personal life,” experimentation20:53 — How AI Lunch & Learns actually run across multiple offices and remote folks23:10 — Examples: CS tools, Alloy prototypes, AI video voiceovers, end-to-end workflows25:13 — Churn workflows: combining uninstall reasons from multiple marketplaces into Claude27:06 — Win/loss and internal analytics using Claude Projects + MCP server into an internal DB29:14 — Choosing between Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini depending on the task (and re-testing every few months)31:23 — Mike's Gmail system: multiple inboxes + N8N + AI classification36:07 — Inside the email-classifier prompt and AI-powered spam that beats Gmail filters41:34 — The “Daily AI Brief”: pulling tasks, meetings, and prior email threads into a single morning email45:02 — Letting AI write and debug N8N workflows (and how assistants in tools are getting better)48:58 — Wishlist: automated AI business review across finance, Salesforce, and SaaS benchmarks51:23 — Closing thoughts: so many useful tools are possible, but GTM is the hard partTools & Technologies MentionedRewind – Backup and restore for mission-critical SaaS applications.Claude – LLM used for analysis, projects, agents, and internal tools.ChatGPT / OpenAI (GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini) – LLMs used for code, prompts, and workflow JSON.N8N – Automation platform used to build email and daily-brief workflows.Gmail – Email client where AI-powered labels drive multiple inboxes.Google Calendar – Calendar data powering the daily AI agenda.Google Tasks – Task list feeding into the morning brief email.MCP (Model Context Protocol) – Connects Claude to Rewind's internal databases.Alloy – Tool for building interactive product UI prototypes.Salesforce – CRM used for pipeline, churn, and win/loss analysis.Gumloop – Workflow tool with an embedded AI assistant.Zapier – Automation platform referenced for plain-English workflow creation.Fellow – AI meeting assistant for summaries, action items, and insights.Subscribe at⁠ thisnewway.com⁠ to get the step-by-step playbooks, tools, and workflows.

A carreira de AI Engineer se consolidou como uma das mais disputadas do mercado de tecnologia. Mas afinal, o que realmente é esperado desse profissional na prática?Neste episódio do Data Hackers, discutimos em profundidade o caminho para se tornar um AI Engineer, analisando as principais habilidades técnicas, as diferenças em relação a outros cargos da área de dados e engenharia, a formação acadêmica versus experiência prática, a rotina nas empresas e o impacto da IA Generativa, RAG e AI Agents no dia a dia da função.Para enriquecer o debate, utilizamos dados da pesquisa State of Data Brazil como base para entender o cenário atual do mercado brasileiro, identificar tendências de demanda por habilidades, perfis profissionais mais buscados e os principais desafios enfrentados por quem deseja ingressar ou evoluir nessa carreira.Se você quer migrar para IA, se preparar para oportunidades reais ou entender se esse é o próximo passo profissional em dados, este episódio é para você. Não se esqueça de preencher a pesquisa State of Data Brazil: https://www.stateofdata.com.br/Nossa Bancada Data Hackers:Paulo Vasconcellos — Co-founder da Data Hackers e Principal Data Scientist na Hotmart.Gabriel Lages — Co-founder da Data Hacker e Diretor de Dados & AI da Hotmart

Helm — originally a hackathon project called Kate's Place — turned 10 in 2025, marking the milestone with the release of Helm 4, its first major update in six years. Created by Matt Butcher and colleagues as a playful take on “K8s,” the early project won a small prize but quickly grew into a serious effort when Deus leadership recognized the need for a Kubernetes package manager. Renamed Helm, it rapidly expanded with community contributors and became one of the first CNCF graduating projects.Helm 4 reflects years of accumulated design debt and evolving use cases. After the rapid iterations of Helm 1, 2, and 3, the latest version modernizes logging, improves dependency management, and introduces WebAssembly-based plugins for cross-platform portability—addressing the growing diversity of operating systems and architectures. Beyond headline features, maintainers emphasize that mature projects increasingly deliver “boring” but essential improvements, such as better logging, which simplify workflows and integrate more cleanly with other tools. Helm's re-architected internals also lay the foundation for new chart and package capabilities in upcoming 4.x releases. Learn more from The New Stack about Helm: The Super Helm Chart: To Deploy or Not To Deploy?Kubernetes Gets a New Resource Orchestrator in the Form of KroJoin our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Kubernetes has relied on role-based access control (RBAC) since 2017, but its simplicity limits what developers can express, said Micah Hausler, principal engineer at AWS, on The New Stack Makers. RBAC only allows actions; it can't enforce conditions, denials, or attribute-based rules. Seeking a more expressive authorization model for Kubernetes, Hausler explored Cedar, an authorization engine and policy language created at AWS in 2022 and later open-sourced. Although not designed specifically for Kubernetes, Cedar proved capable of modeling its authorization needs in a concise, readable way. Hausler highlighted Cedar's clarity—nontechnical users can often understand policies at a glance—as well as its schema validation, autocomplete support, and formal verification, which ensures policies are correct and produce only allow or deny outcomes.Now onboarding to the CNCF sandbox, Cedar is used by companies like Cloudflare and MongoDB and offers language-agnostic tooling, including a Go implementation donated by StrongDM. The project is actively seeking contributors, especially to expand bindings for languages like TypeScript, JavaScript, and Python.Learn more from The New Stack about Cedar:Ceph: 20 Years of Cutting-Edge Storage at the Edge The Cedar Programming Language: Authorization SimplifiedJoin our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hey, Alex here, I recorded these conversations just in front of the AI Engineer auditorium, back to back, after these great folks gave their talks, and at the epitome of the most epic AI week we've seen since I started recording ThursdAI.This is less our traditional live recording, and more a real podcast-y conversation with great folks, inspired by Latent.Space. I hope you enjoy this format as much as I've enjoyed recording and editing it. AntiGravity with KevinKevin Hou and team just launched Antigravity, Google's brand new Agentic IDE based on VSCode, and Kevin (second timer on ThursdAI) was awesome enough to hop on and talk about some of the product decisions they made, what makes Antigravity special and highlighted Artifacts as a completely new primitive. Gemini 3 in AI StudioIf you aren't using Google's AI Studio (ai.dev) then you're missing out! We talk about AI Studio all the time on the show, and I'm a daily user! I generate most of my images with Nano Banana Pro in there, most of my Gemini conversations are happening there as well! Ammaar and Kat were so fun to talk to, as they covered the newly shipped “build mode” which allows you to vibe code full apps and experiences inside AI Studio, and we also covered Gemini 3's features, multimodality understanding, UI capabilities. These folks gave a LOT of Gemini 3 demo's so they know everything there is to know about this model's capabilities! Tried new things with this one, multi camera angels, conversation with great folks, if you found this content valuable, please subscribe :) Topics Covered:* Inside Google's new “AntiGravity” IDE* How the “Agent Manager” changes coding workflows* Gemini 3's new multimodal capabilities* The power of “Artifacts” and dynamic memory* Deep dive into AI Studio updates & Vibe Coding* Generating 4K assets with Nano Banana ProTimestamps for your viewing convenience. 00:00 - Introduction and Overview01:13 - Conversation with Kevin Hou: Anti-Gravity IDE01:58 - Gemini 3 and Nano Banana Pro Launch Insights03:06 - Innovations in Anti-Gravity IDE06:56 - Artifacts and Dynamic Memory09:48 - Agent Manager and Multimodal Capabilities11:32 - Chrome Integration and Future Prospects20:11 - Conversation with Ammar and Kat: AI Studio Team21:21 - Introduction to AI Studio21:51 - What is AI Studio?22:52 - Ease of Use and User Feedback24:06 - Live Demos and Launch Week26:00 - Design Innovations in AI Studio30:54 - Generative UIs and Vibe Coding33:53 - Nano Banana Pro and Image Generation39:45 - Voice Interaction and Future Roadmap44:41 - Conclusion and Final ThoughtsLooking forward to seeing you on Thursday

AWS's approach to Elastic Kubernetes Service has evolved significantly since its 2018 launch. According to Mike Stefanik, Senior Manager of Product Management for EKS and ECR, today's users increasingly represent the late majority—teams that want Kubernetes without managing every component themselves. In a conversation onThe New Stack Makers, Stefanik described how AI workloads are reshaping Kubernetes operations and why AWS open-sourced an MCP server for EKS. Early feedback showed that meaningful, task-oriented tool names—not simple API mirrors—made MCP servers more effective for LLMs, prompting AWS to design tools focused on troubleshooting, runbooks, and full application workflows. AWS also introduced a hosted knowledge base built from years of support cases to power more capable agents.While “agentic AI” gets plenty of buzz, most customers still rely on human-in-the-loop workflows. Stefanik expects that to shift, predicting 2026 as the year agentic workloads move into production. For experimentation, he recommends the open-source Strands SDK. Internally, he has already seen major productivity gains from BI agents that automate complex data analysis tasks.Learn more from The New Stack about Amazon Web Services' approach to Elastic Kubernetes ServiceHow Amazon EKS Auto Mode Simplifies Kubernetes Cluster Management (Part 1)A Deep Dive Into Amazon EKS Auto (Part 2)Join our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

AWS re:Invent has long featured CTO Werner Vogels' closing keynote, but this year he signaled it may be his last, emphasizing it's time for “younger voices” at Amazon. After 21 years with the company, Vogels reflected on arriving as an academic and being stunned by Amazon's technical scale—an energy that still drives him today. He released his annual predictions ahead of re:Invent, with this year's five themes focused heavily on AI and broader societal impacts.Vogels highlights technology's growing role in addressing loneliness, noting how devices like Alexa can offer comfort to those who feel isolated. He foresees a “Renaissance developer,” where engineers must pair deep expertise with broad business and creative awareness. He warns quantum-safe encryption is becoming urgent as data harvested today may be decrypted within five years. Military innovations, he notes, continue to influence civilian tech, for better and worse. Finally, he argues personalized learning can preserve children's curiosity and better support teachers, which he views as essential for future education.Learn more from The New Stack about evolving role of technology systems from past to future: Werner Vogels' 6 Lessons for Keeping Systems Simple50 Years Later: Remembering How the Future Looked in 1974Join our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hey everyone, Alex here

In this episode, Kristina McMillan, Executive in Residence at Scale Venture Partners, shares what she's seeing across Scale's portfolio when it comes to AI adoption in revenue teams. From the rise of the go-to-market engineer to the three levels of AI maturity, Kristina breaks down what's working, what's hype, and why RevOps needs to lead with strategy, not just tools. We also get into AI's real impact on metrics like ARR per employee, the role of internal AI hackathons, and how top teams are choosing between building and buying. If you're feeling overwhelmed by the pace of change, this episode will give you clarity and a tactical playbook.

Ryan is a current student at Parsity who build an app for his employer, Smoothie King, to suggest drinks in a chat interface using a powerful and lesser-known AI technology: RAG.RAG stands for retrieval augmented generation. Basically, providing information (like smoothie recipes) to an AI model so it can return a highly specific response.Ryan breaks down how he finds the time to build side projects like this and how he built this app.Want to build your own AI-powered app? Check out this project: parsity.io/ai-with-ragConnect with Ryan here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rhardin378/Send us a textShameless Plugs

AI-assisteret softwareudvikling er rykket fra eksperiment til virkelighed. Men hvad virker – og hvad er bare hype?Kasper Junge og Christian Bech Nørhave tager dig med ind i maskinrummet, hvor AI allerede er en del af udviklingsteamets hverdag. De deler erfaringer med AI i praksis.Det handler ikke om hype, men om hvad der virker i praksis.Hvad AI faktisk kan (og ikke kan) i softwareudviklingFælles sprog og processer: gør AI til en kollega, ikke en gadgetFart kræver retning: klare mål, kodekvalitet og ansvarBrug AI som kraftforstærker – uden at miste kontrollenMedvirkende:Christian Bech Nørhave+20 års erfaring med Digitaliseringsrådgivning+200 foredrag omkring AIBygger nordisk MSP i samarbejde med DevoteamKasper JungeAI Engineer hos DineroVært på Verbos PodcastNordic AI Influencer DAIR Award WinnerLink:vibe-coding.dk

Building Career Resilience in the Age of Generative AI Every week, we explore how AI and technology are changing the way we work and learn. This episode dives into the question I get asked the most, How is Generative AI changing every career? Let's unpack why it matters, how it's shifting roles and skills, and what you can do to lead this change instead of chasing it In this solo episode of Open Tech Talks, host Kashif Manzoor, AI Engineer and Strategiest, and author of AI Tech Circle, dives deep into one of the biggest career questions of our time: How is Generative AI reshaping every profession? Whether you're a developer, analyst, marketer, finance expert, or operations lead, the rise of Gen AI is transforming how work gets done. Kashif combines real-world enterprise experience, current research from McKinsey and Goldman Sachs, and his personal journey building the Gen AI Maturity Framework and Portal to uncover how you can stay relevant, resilient, and ready for AI-driven change. He shares first-hand stories from his own AI adoption journey, how enterprise teams are shifting from cloud architecture to AI architecture, from isolated use-cases to full-scale agentic AI strategies and the lessons learned while guiding organizations through transformation. This episode is both a roadmap and a reflection: how to experiment weekly, build your portfolio, upskill smartly, reposition your role, and teach and share as you grow. Episode # 173 What You'll Learn Why Generative AI matters now and how it differs from traditional AI How tasks, roles, and careers are evolving across industries Real-world examples from finance, marketing, and software engineering The five practical steps to future-proof your career with Gen AI Insights from McKinsey, ResearchGate, and Goldman Sachs on AI productivity impact How to move from "knowing AI tools" to using AI strategically in daily work A behind-the-scenes look at the creation of the Gen AI Maturity Framework Why the future of work is not about jobs lost but roles transformed   External References   McKinsey Global Institute – Generative AI and the Future of Work  Deloitte – Generative AI and the Future of Work  Goldman Sachs – How Will AI Affect the Global Workforce  Robert Half – How GenAI Is Changing Creative Careers Mäkelä & Stephany (2024) – Complement or Substitute?

Welcome back to The Multifamily Podcast with Ronn and Martin, powered by ApartmentSEO.com. Today, we're diving into a topic that's moving faster than almost anything in history—artificial intelligence. Our guest is Ben, an AI Engineer with Apartment SEO, who's been right in the thick of these changes. From the big bang ChatGPT moment to the new era of GPT-5, agent mode, and the future of work, we'll unpack what all of this means not just for tech, but for industries like multifamily real estate. Welcome to The Multifamily Podcast, Ben!

Asai さんをゲストにお呼びしました。Asaiさんの近況についてキャッチアップしました。前半では第二子出産、ジュネーブとロンドンの保育園事情についてお話しました。その後、AsaiさんのSREからAI Engineerへの転身について決断した背景等をお伺いしました。SREからAI Engineerへ - 初週の感想経営戦略を問いなおすご意見・ご感想など、お便りはこちらの⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠Google Form⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ で募集しています。

On this episode of DGTL Voices, Ed interviews Eduardo Conrado, the incoming CEO of Ascension, discussing his journey from engineering to healthcare leadership. They explore the role of data-driven insights, and strategies for career growth. Eduardo shares his experiences and insights on how CIOs and technology leaders can effectively connect with operations to drive transformation in the healthcare sector.

Is there a defined pathway to becoming an AI engineer? While school curriculums are still inchoate, must-have skills have been, more or less, identified; the major ones, we tackle in this segment.Find out more at https://interviewcamp.ai/ interviewcamp.ai City: New York Address: 430 Park Ave Website: https://interviewcamp.ai

The European Union's upcoming Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) goes into effect in  October 2026, with the remainder of the requirements going into effect in December 2027, and introduces significant cybersecurity compliance requirements for software vendors, including those who rely heavily on open source components. At the Open Source Summit Europe, Christopher "CRob" Robinson of the Open Source Security Foundation highlighted concerns about how these regulations could impact open source maintainers. Many open source projects begin as personal solutions to shared problems and grow in popularity, often ending up embedded in critical systems across industries like automotive and energy. Despite this widespread use—Robinson noted up to 97% of commercial software contains open source—these projects are frequently maintained by individuals or small teams with limited resources.Developers often have no visibility into how their code is used, yet they're increasingly burdened by legal and compliance demands from downstream users, such as requests for Software Bills of Materials (SBOMs) and conformity assessments. The CRA raises the stakes, with potential penalties in the billions for noncompliance, putting immense pressure on the open source ecosystem. Learn more from The New Stack about Open Source Security:Open Source Propels the Fall of Security by ObscurityThere Is Just One Way To Do Open Source Security: TogetherJoin our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game. 

Send us a textAs a security researcher who specializes in application security and AI, Joseph Thacker shares his knowledge on the growing influence of AI in various aspects of our culture. He's the principal AI Engineer at AppOmni and has helped multiple Fortune 500 companies find vulnerablities that could have cost them millions. He is incredibly knowledgable and offers great insight into this growing industry._______________________________Find Joseph Thacker onLinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/josephthacker?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2FHis New website and course for parents:https://aisafetyforparents.com/X:@rez0__Instagram:@thackandforthWebsite:https://josephthacker.com/_______________________________Show hosted by Landry Fieldshttps://www.x.com/landryfieldz'https://www.linkedin.com/in/landryfields/https://www.instagram.com/landryfields_https://www.youtube.com/@landryfields_www.novainsurancegroup.com859-687-2004

As AI accelerates development, many companies are halting junior hiring, believing AI tools can replace them. Shahin Shahkarami, Director of Data & AI at Ikea Retail, argues this is a massive mistake and that now is actually the best time to invest in new talent.In this episode/video, we cover:Why companies should hire junior talent despite the rise of AI.How the role of a data scientist is evolving with generative AI.The most valuable business use cases for AI beyond chatbots.This conversation is for tech leaders, hiring managers, and aspiring developers looking to understand how to build and grow their careers in the age of AI.Connect with Shahin:https://www.linkedin.com/in/shahin-shahkaramiFull episode on YouTube ▶️https://youtu.be/Jui-8Lx6kvkBeyond Coding Podcast with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Is the AI industry an unsustainable bubble built on burning billions in cash? We break down the AI hype cycle, the tough job market for developers, and whether a crash is on the horizon. In this panel discussion with Josh Goldberg, Paige Niedringhaus, Paul Mikulskis, and Noel Minchow, we tackle the biggest questions in tech today. * We debate if AI is just another Web3-style hype cycle * Why the "10x AI engineer" is a myth that ignores the reality of software development * The ethical controversy around AI crawlers and data scraping, highlighted by Cloudflare's recent actions Plus, we cover the latest industry news, including Vercel's powerful new AI SDK V5 and what GitHub's leadership shakeup means for the future of developers. Resources Anthropic Is Bleeding Out: https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropic-is-bleeding-out The Hater's Guide To The AI Bubble: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-haters-gui No, AI is not Making Engineers 10x as Productive: https://colton.dev/blog/curing-your-ai-10x-engineer-imposter-syndrome Cloudflare Is Blocking AI Crawlers by Default: https://www.wired.com/story/cloudflare-blocks-ai-crawlers-default Perplexity is using stealth, undeclared crawlers to evade website no-crawl directives: https://blog.cloudflare.com/perplexity-is-using-stealth-undeclared-crawlers-to-evade-website-no-crawl-directives GitHub just got less independent at Microsoft after CEO resignation: https://www.theverge.com/news/757461/microsoft-github-thomas-dohmke-resignation-coreai-team-transition Chapters 0:00 Is the AI Industry Burning Cash Unsustainably? 01:06 Anthropic and the "AI Bubble Euphoria" 04:42 How the AI Hype Cycle is Different from Web3 & VR 08:24 The Problem with "Slapping AI" on Every App 11:54 The "10x AI Engineer" is a Myth and Why 17:55 Real-World AI Success Stories 21:26 Cloudflare vs. AI Crawlers: The Ethics of Data Scraping 30:05 Vercel's New AI SDK V5: What's Changed? 33:45 GitHub's CEO Steps Down: What It Means for Developers 38:54 Hot Takes: The Future of AI Startups, the Job Market, and More We want to hear from you! How did you find us? Did you see us on Twitter? In a newsletter? Or maybe we were recommended by a friend? Fill out our listener survey (https://t.co/oKVAEXipxu)! Let us know by sending an email to our producer, Em, at emily.kochanek@logrocket.com (mailto:emily.kochanek@logrocket.com), or tweet at us at PodRocketPod (https://twitter.com/PodRocketpod). Follow us. Get free stickers. Follow us on Apple Podcasts, fill out this form (https://podrocket.logrocket.com/get-podrocket-stickers), and we'll send you free PodRocket stickers! What does LogRocket do? LogRocket provides AI-first session replay and analytics that surfaces the UX and technical issues impacting user experiences. Start understanding where your users are struggling by trying it for free at LogRocket.com. Try LogRocket for free today. (https://logrocket.com/signup/?pdr)

Enterprise AI is still in its infancy, with less than 1% of enterprise data currently used to fuel AI, according to Raj Verma, CEO of SingleStore. While consumer AI is slightly more advanced, most organizations are only beginning to understand the scale of infrastructure needed for true AI adoption. Verma predicts AI will evolve in three phases: first, the easy tasks will be automated; next, complex tasks will become easier; and finally, the seemingly impossible will become achievable—likely within three years. However, to reach that point, enterprises must align their data strategies with their AI ambitions. Many have rushed into AI fearing obsolescence, but without preparing their data infrastructure, they're at risk of failure. Current legacy systems are not designed for the massive concurrency demands of agentic AI, potentially leading to underperformance. Verma emphasizes the need to move beyond siloed or "swim lane" databases toward unified, high-performance data platforms tailored for the scale and complexity of the AI era.Learn more from The New Stack about the latest evolution in AI infrastructure: How To Use AI To Design Intelligent, Adaptable InfrastructureHow to Support Developers in Building AI Workloads Join our community of newsletter subscribers to stay on top of the news and at the top of your game. 

What does it actually mean to be an “AI Engineer”? Honestly—not much. The title is overloaded and vague. But what is meaningful right now is knowing how to build real projects with AI that go beyond toy chatbots and portfolio fluff.In this episode, I walk you through the exact project I've been building at two different AI startups: a Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) app. You'll learn how to:Scrape and store content in a vector databaseUse embeddings to turn your text into something a model can understandStream responses back to your frontend with Next.js + TypeScriptReduce hallucinations and add structured, reliable outputsUnderstand why this is the skillset employers are actually hiring for right now

Новое исследование Stack Overflow 2025 Developer Survey, в котором приняли участие более 49,000 разработчиков из 177 стран, выявило парадоксальную проблему: 45% программистов сообщают, что отладка ИИ-сгенерированного кода занимает больше времени, чем ожидалось 84% of developers use AI, yet most don't trust it!. https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2025/ai#2-accuracy-of-ai-toolsОсновная причина — "ИИ-решения, которые почти правильные, но не совсем", с которыми сталкиваются 66% разработчиков. Такой код выглядит работоспособным, но требует тщательной проверки и исправления скрытых ошибок, что превращает обещанную экономию времени в дополнительную нагрузку.Эти данные контрастируют с недавними заявлениями CEO OpenAI Сэма Альтмана, который в своем последнем блог-посте "The Gentle Singularity" утверждает, что "2025 год ознаменовался появлением агентов, которые могут выполнять настоящую когнитивную работу; написание компьютерного кода уже никогда не будет прежним". Однако в том же посте Альтман признает постепенность изменений, отмечая что "мир не изменится сразу" и люди найдут "новые способы быть полезными друг другу", хотя эти способы "могут не очень походить на сегодняшние рабочие места". https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularityПока что реальность показывает обратное — ИИ создает дополнительную работу вместо её сокращения, заставляя разработчиков тратить время на верификацию и исправление "почти правильного" кода.Евгений Волчков, Engineering Manager в iManage (ex-Bank of America и Verizon).LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/valchkou/ Эпизоды по теме:- AI Engineer - это будущее или модный хайп? Какие программисты будут в спросе, а какие за бортом? Евгений Волчков https://youtube.com/live/5T6be4jjzrY- Калифорнийский парадокс: почему местные AI-таланты с дипломом Berkeley не нужны? Савва Вяткин https://youtu.be/PAJ_R2hBie8- Новая эра: AI, работа и профессии будущего. Как ИИ меняет правила игры на рынке труда. Ник Береза https://youtube.com/live/eO9PghMknOY- Тренды IT 2025: венчур, стартапы, искусственный интеллект. Алексей Моисеенков. https://youtube.com/live/1d7hRZrJTkM- Что нас ждет в 2025? Кризис, массовые увольнения, крах стартапов. Где искать работу? Денис Калышкин https://youtube.com/live/ZbYm10zrfEA***Записаться на карьерную консультацию (резюме, LinkedIn, карьерная стратегия, поиск работы в США) https://annanaumova.comКоучинг (синдром самозванца, прокрастинация, неуверенность в себе, страхи, лень) https://annanaumova.notion.site/3f6ea5ce89694c93afb1156df3c903abВидео курс по составлению резюме для международных компаний "Идеальное американское резюме": https://go.mbastrategy.com/resumecoursemainГайд "Идеальное американское резюме" https://go.mbastrategy.com/usresumeПодписывайтесь на мой Телеграм канал: https://t.me/prodcastUSAПодписывайтесь на мой Инстаграм https://www.instagram.com/prodcast.us Гайд "Как оформить профиль в LinkedIn, чтобы рекрутеры не смогли пройти мимо" https://go.mbastrategy.com/linkedinguide⏰ Timecodes ⏰00:00 Начало15:12 Парадокс ИИ. Заменит ли он разработчиков?30:50 Изменятся ли финансовые рынки?41:08 Рынок IT в кризисе?54:59 Как найти удаленку в ИИ в США?1:01:26 Заменит ли ИИ дата-саентистов?1:11:07 Куда вывозят из США? 1:12:27 Как изменятся зарплаты специалистов?1:17:14 Про лейоффы и кризисы1:21:28 Что ждёт QA специалистов?1:30:18 AI Action Plan 1:34:25 Что посоветуешь тем кто боится Ai?

On this episode of Unsupervised Learning, in the wake of Elon Musk's xAI Grok chatbot turning anti-Semitic following a recent update, Razib catches up with Nikolai Yakovenko about the state of AI in the summer of 2025. Nearly three years after their first conversations on the topic, the catch up, covering ChatGPT's release and the anticipation of massive macroeconomic transformations driven by automation of knowledge-work. Yakovenko is a former professional poker player and research scientist at Google, Twitter (now X) and Nvidia (now the first $4 trillion company). With more than a decade on the leading edge computer science, Yakovenko has been at the forefront of the large-language-model revolution that was a necessary precursor to the rise of companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and Perplexity, as well as hundreds of smaller startups. Currently, he is the CEO of DeepNewz, an AI-driven news startup that leverages the latest models to retrieve the ground-truth on news-stories. Disclosure: Razib actively uses and recommends the service and is an advisor to the company. Razib and Yakovenko first tackle why Mark Zuckerberg's Meta is offering individual pay packages north of $200 million, poaching some of OpenAI's top individual contributors. Yakovenko observes that it seems Meta is giving up on its open-source Llama project, their competitor to the models that underpin OpenAI and ChatGPT (he also comments that it seems that engineers at xAI are disappointed in the latest version of Grok). Overall, though the pay-packages of AI engineers and researchers are high; there is now a big shakeout as massive companies with the money and engineering researchers pull away from their competitors. Additionally, in terms of cutting-edge models, the US and China are the only two international players (Yakovenko notes parenthetically that Chinese engineers are also the primary labor base of American AI firms). They also discuss how it is notable that almost three years after the beginning of the current booming repeated hype-cycles of artificial intelligence began to crest, we are still no closer to “artificial general intelligence” and the “intelligence super-explosion” that Ray Kurzweil has been predicting for generations. AI is partially behind the rise of companies like Waymo that are on the verge of transforming the economy, but overall, even though AI is still casting around for its killer app, big-tech has fully bought in and believes that the next decade will determine who wins the future.

Как очистить резюме от цифрового мусора и привлечь HR-ботов?Действительно ли удаленка умерла и теперь правит гибрид?Превратился ли LinkedIn в Tinder для программистов?Почему $200k стали новыми $100k в IT-зарплатах?Выбирают ли стартапы теперь vibe важнее технических скиллов?Нужно ли фронтендеру знать DevOps или это просто способ сэкономить на зарплате?Маша (Мария) Подоляк (Marsha Podolyak)Автор Телеграм канала "

Find out more about Jashan on Instagram @Jashan_KalekaYou + Happy podcast on Instagram @YouPlusHappy Host @Selena_MarshaeFuture of AI: Job Impact, Career Success, and More with AI Engineer & Comedian Jashan Kaleka

Заменит ли AI всех разработчиков или создаст миллионы новых рабочих мест? Какие навыки программиста станут бесполезными уже через два года? Почему получить диплом в 30 лет стало нормой в IT? Почему junior с тремя языками программирования - это красный флаг? Что важнее в 2025 году - диплом или реальный опыт в IT? Какие AI скилы стоит изучать прямо сейчас, чтобы не остаться за бортом? Что делать продактам, проджектам, маркетологам: QA? Повторится ли история доткомов с AI стартапами или это разные времена?Евгений Волчков, Engineering Manager в iManage (ex-Bank of America и Verizon).LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/valchkou/ Видео по теме:- Найм сломан. Тысячи кандидатов, а подходящих нет? Почему так сложно найти программиста в 2025? Юлия Тарасова https://youtube.com/live/6uVCZsF4aQE- Новая эра: AI, работа и профессии будущего. Как ИИ меняет правила игры на рынке труда. Ник Береза. https://youtube.com/live/eO9PghMknOY- Тренды IT 2025: венчур, стартапы, искусственный интеллект. Алексей Моисеенков. https://youtube.com/live/1d7hRZrJTkM- Аутсорсинг в IT. Дешевый код - это новая реальность? Кто кого вытеснит с рынка разработки? Валерий Широков и Евгений Волчков https://youtube.com/live/LVrEzC3zai4 ***Записаться на карьерную консультацию (резюме, LinkedIn, карьерная стратегия, поиск работы в США) https://annanaumova.comКоучинг (синдром самозванца, прокрастинация, неуверенность в себе, страхи, лень) https://annanaumova.notion.site/3f6ea5ce89694c93afb1156df3c903abВидео курс по составлению резюме для международных компаний "Идеальное американское резюме": https://go.mbastrategy.com/resumecoursemainГайд "Идеальное американское резюме" https://go.mbastrategy.com/usresumeПодписывайтесь на мой Телеграм канал: https://t.me/prodcastUSAПодписывайтесь на мой Инстаграм https://www.instagram.com/prodcast.us Гайд "Как оформить профиль в LinkedIn, чтобы рекрутеры не смогли пройти мимо" https://go.mbastrategy.com/linkedinguide⏰ Timecodes ⏰00:00 Начало9:10 Что изменилось на рынке найма в США?24:20 Вопросы из чата31:12 Что нужно учить в AI сейчас?1:12:56 Кого заменит AI?

The AI Engineer World's Fair highlighted key AI and agent world shifts. Top themes: evals, tiny teams, agent swarms, and the rise of coding agents. NLW breaks down the key trends and the alpha that exists in the program. Get Ad Free AI Daily Brief: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://patreon.com/AIDailyBrief⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Brought to you by:KPMG – Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kpmg.com/ai⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to learn more about how KPMG can help you drive value with our AI solutions.Blitzy.com - Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://blitzy.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to build enterprise software in days, not months AGNTCY - The AGNTCY is an open-source collective dedicated to building the Internet of Agents, enabling AI agents to communicate and collaborate seamlessly across frameworks. Join a community of engineers focused on high-quality multi-agent software and support the initiative at ⁠⁠⁠⁠agntcy.org ⁠⁠⁠⁠ -  ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://agntcy.org/?utm_campaign=fy25q4_agntcy_amer_paid-media_agntcy-aidailybrief_podcast&utm_channel=podcast&utm_source=podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠ Vanta - Simplify compliance - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://vanta.com/nlw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Plumb - The automation platform for AI experts and consultants ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://useplumb.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠The Agent Readiness Audit from Superintelligent - Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://besuper.ai/ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠to request your company's agent readiness score.The AI Daily Brief helps you understand the most important news and discussions in AI. Subscribe to the podcast version of The AI Daily Brief wherever you listen: https://pod.link/1680633614Subscribe to the newsletter: https://aidailybrief.beehiiv.com/Join our Discord: https://bit.ly/aibreakdownInterested in sponsoring the show? nlw@breakdown.network

 It's been a while since I've released an episode. I'm heading to the AI Engineer World's Fair tomorrowv If you're going to be there, I am going to be wearing a Superman shirt, so come say hi! I would love to talk to listeners and hear how your prompting journey has been going.I'm also planning on restarting the podcast, with one of a couple different directions: agents, vibe coding, or using reasoning models. Which one would you find most useful? Poll here: https://forms.gle/fLqiKeouDPazuU3s5Stay in touch on:Youtube: youtube.com/@PromptEngineeringPodcastTelegram: https://t.me/PromptEngineeringMastermindLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/14231334/Support the show

One of the new tracks at next week's AI Engineer conference in SF is a new focus on LLMs + Robotics, ft. household names like Waymo and Physical Intelligence. However there are many other companies applying LLMs and VLMs in the real world! CloudChef, the first industrial-scale kitchen robotics company with one-shot demonstration learning and an incredibly simple business model, will be serving tasty treats all day with Zippy (https://www.cloudchef.co/zippy ) their AI Chef platform. This is a lightning pod with CEO Nikhil Abraham to preview what Zippy is capable of! https://www.cloudchef.co/platform See a real chef comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INDhZ7LwSeo&t=64s See it in the AI Engineer Expo at SF next week: https://ai.engineer Chapters 00:00 Welcome and Introductions 00:58 What is Cloud Chef? 01:36 How the Robots Work: Culinary Intelligence 05:57 Commercial Applications and Early Success 07:02 The Software-First Approach 10:09 Business Model and Pricing 13:10 Demonstration Learning: Training the Robots 16:03 Call to Action and Engineering Opportunities 18:45 Final Thoughts and Technical Details

AI, Marketing, and Human Decision Making // MLOps Podcast #313 with Fausto Albers, AI Engineer & Community Lead at AI Builders Club.Join the Community: https://go.mlops.community/YTJoinIn Get the newsletter: https://go.mlops.community/YTNewsletter // AbstractDemetrios and Fausto Albers explore how generative AI transforms creative work, decision-making, and human connection, highlighting both the promise of automation and the risks of losing critical thinking and social nuance.// BioFausto Albers is a relentless explorer of the unconventional—a techno-optimist with a foundation in sociology and behavioral economics, always connecting seemingly absurd ideas that, upon closer inspection, turn out to be the missing pieces of a bigger puzzle. He thrives in paradox: he overcomplicates the simple, oversimplifies the complex, and yet somehow lands on solutions that feel inevitable in hindsight. He believes that true innovation exists in the tension between chaos and structure—too much of either, and you're stuck.His career has been anything but linear. He's owned and operated successful restaurants, served high-stakes cocktails while juggling bottles on London's bar tops, and later traded spirits for code—designing digital waiters, recommender systems, and AI-driven accounting tools. Now, he leads the AI Builders Club Amsterdam, a fast-growing community where AI engineers, researchers, and founders push the boundaries of intelligent systems.Ask him about RAG, and he'll insist on specificity—because, as he puts it, discussing retrieval-augmented generation without clear definitions is as useful as declaring that “AI will have an impact on the world.” An engaging communicator, a sharp systems thinker, and a builder of both technology and communities, Fausto is here to challenge perspectives, deconstruct assumptions, and remix the future of AI.// Related LinksWebsite: aibuilders.clubMoravec's paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox?utm_source=chatgpt.comBehavior Modeling, Secondary AI Effects, Bias Reduction & Synthetic Data // Devansh Devansh // #311: https://youtu.be/jJXee5rMtHI~~~~~~~~ ✌️Connect With Us ✌️ ~~~~~~~Catch all episodes, blogs, newsletters, and more: https://go.mlops.community/TYExploreJoin our Slack community [https://go.mlops.community/slack]Follow us on X/Twitter [@mlopscommunity](https://x.com/mlopscommunity) or [LinkedIn](https://go.mlops.community/linkedin)] Sign up for the next meetup: [https://go.mlops.community/register]MLOps Swag/Merch: [https://shop.mlops.community/]Connect with Demetrios on LinkedIn: /dpbrinkmConnect with Fausto on LinkedIn: /stepintoliquidTimestamps:[00:00] Fausto's preferred coffee[00:26] Takeaways[01:18] Automated Ad Creative Generation[07:14] AI in Marketing Workflows[13:23] MCP and System Bottlenecks[21:45] Forward Compatibility vs Optimization[29:57] Unlocking Workflow Speed[33:48] AI Dependency vs Critical Thinking[37:44] AI Realism and Paradoxes[42:30] Outsourcing Decision-Making Risks[46:22] Human Value in Automation[49:02] Wrap up

AI, Marketing, and Human Decision Making // MLOps Podcast #313 with Fausto Albers, AI Engineer & Community Lead at AI Builders Club.Join the Community: https://go.mlops.community/YTJoinIn Get the newsletter: https://go.mlops.community/YTNewsletter // AbstractDemetrios and Fausto Albers explore how generative AI transforms creative work, decision-making, and human connection, highlighting both the promise of automation and the risks of losing critical thinking and social nuance.// BioFausto Albers is a relentless explorer of the unconventional—a techno-optimist with a foundation in sociology and behavioral economics, always connecting seemingly absurd ideas that, upon closer inspection, turn out to be the missing pieces of a bigger puzzle. He thrives in paradox: he overcomplicates the simple, oversimplifies the complex, and yet somehow lands on solutions that feel inevitable in hindsight. He believes that true innovation exists in the tension between chaos and structure—too much of either, and you're stuck.His career has been anything but linear. He's owned and operated successful restaurants, served high-stakes cocktails while juggling bottles on London's bar tops, and later traded spirits for code—designing digital waiters, recommender systems, and AI-driven accounting tools. Now, he leads the AI Builders Club Amsterdam, a fast-growing community where AI engineers, researchers, and founders push the boundaries of intelligent systems.Ask him about RAG, and he'll insist on specificity—because, as he puts it, discussing retrieval-augmented generation without clear definitions is as useful as declaring that “AI will have an impact on the world.” An engaging communicator, a sharp systems thinker, and a builder of both technology and communities, Fausto is here to challenge perspectives, deconstruct assumptions, and remix the future of AI.// Related LinksWebsite: aibuilders.clubMoravec's paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox?utm_source=chatgpt.comBehavior Modeling, Secondary AI Effects, Bias Reduction & Synthetic Data // Devansh Devansh // #311: https://youtu.be/jJXee5rMtHI~~~~~~~~ ✌️Connect With Us ✌️ ~~~~~~~Catch all episodes, blogs, newsletters, and more: https://go.mlops.community/TYExploreJoin our slack community [https://go.mlops.community/slack]Follow us on X/Twitter [@mlopscommunity](https://x.com/mlopscommunity) or [LinkedIn](https://go.mlops.community/linkedin)] Sign up for the next meetup: [https://go.mlops.community/register]MLOps Swag/Merch: [https://shop.mlops.community/]Connect with Demetrios on LinkedIn: /dpbrinkmConnect with Fausto on LinkedIn: /stepintoliquid

Scott Wu is the co-founder and CEO of Cognition, the company behind Devin—the world's first autonomous AI software engineer. Unlike other AI coding tools, Devin works like an autonomous engineer that you can interact with through Slack, Linear, and GitHub, just like with a remote engineer. With Scott's background in competitive programming and a previous AI-powered startup, Lunchclub, teaching AI to code has become his ultimate passion.What you'll learn:1. How a team of “Devins” are already producing 25% of Cognition's pull requests, and they are on track to hit 50% by year's end2. How each engineer on Cognition's 15-person engineering team works with about five Devins each3. How Devin has evolved from a “high school CS student” to a “junior engineer” over the past year4. Why engineering will shift from “bricklayers” to “architects”5. Why AI tools will lead to more engineering jobs rather than fewer6. How Devin creates its own wiki to understand and document complex codebases7. The eight pivots Cognition went through before landing on their current approach8. The cultural shifts required to successfully adopt AI engineers—Brought to you by:Enterpret—Transform customer feedback into product growthParagon—Ship every SaaS integration your customers wantAttio—The powerful, flexible CRM for fast-growing startups—Where to find Scott Wu:• X: https://x.com/scottwu46• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-wu-8b94ab96/—Where to find Lenny:• Newsletter: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com• X: https://twitter.com/lennysan• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lennyrachitsky/—In this episode, we cover:(00:00) Introduction to Scott Wu and Devin(09:13) Scaling and future prospects(10:23) Devin's origin story(17:26) The idea of Devin as a person(22:19) How a team of “Devins” are already producing 25% of Cognition's pull requests(25:17) Important skills in the AI era(30:21) How Cognition's engineering team works with Devin's(34:37) Live demo(42:20) Devin's codebase integration(44:50) Automation with Linear(46:53) What Devin does best(52:56) The future of AI in software engineering(57:13) Moats and stickiness in AI(01:01:57) The tech that enables Devin(01:04:14) AI will be the biggest technology shift of our lives(01:07:25) Adopting Devin in your company(01:15:13) Startup wisdom and hiring practices(01:22:32) Lightning round and final thoughts—Referenced:• Devin: https://devin.ai/• GitHub: https://github.com/• Linear: https://linear.app/• Waymo: https://waymo.com/• GitHub Copilot: https://github.com/features/copilot• Cursor: https://www.cursor.com/• Anysphere: https://anysphere.inc/• Bolt: https://bolt.new/• StackBlitz: https://stackblitz.com/• Cognition: https://cognition.ai/• v0: https://v0.dev/• Vercel: https://vercel.com/• Everyone's an engineer now: Inside v0's mission to create a hundred million builders | Guillermo Rauch (founder and CEO of Vercel, creators of v0 and Next.js): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/everyones-an-engineer-now-guillermo-rauch• Inside Bolt: From near-death to ~$40m ARR in 5 months—one of the fastest-growing products in history | Eric Simons (founder and CEO of StackBlitz): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/inside-bolt-eric-simons• Assembly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_language• Pascal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(programming_language)• Python: https://www.python.org/• Jevons paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox• Datadog: https://www.datadoghq.com/• Bending the universe in your favor | Claire Vo (LaunchDarkly, Color, Optimizely, ChatPRD): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/bending-the-universe-in-your-favor• OpenAI's CPO on how AI changes must-have skills, moats, coding, startup playbooks, more | Kevin Weil (CPO at OpenAI, ex-Instagram, Twitter): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/kevin-weil-open-ai• Behind the product: Replit | Amjad Masad (co-founder and CEO): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/behind-the-product-replit-amjad-masad• Windsurf: https://windsurf.com/• COBOL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL• Fortran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran• Magic the Gathering: https://magic.wizards.com/en• Aura frames: https://auraframes.com/• AirPods: https://www.apple.com/airpods/• Steven Hao on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-hao-160b9638/• Walden Yan on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/waldenyan/—Recommended books:• How to Win Friends & Influence People: https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034• The Power Law: Venture Capital and the Making of the New Future: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Law-Venture-Capital-Making/dp/052555999X• The Great Gatsby: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Gatsby-F-Scott-Fitzgerald/dp/0743273567—Production and marketing by https://penname.co/. For inquiries about sponsoring the podcast, email podcast@lennyrachitsky.com.—Lenny may be an investor in the companies discussed. Get full access to Lenny's Newsletter at www.lennysnewsletter.com/subscribe

We are calling for the world's best AI Engineer talks for AI Architects, /r/localLlama, Model Context Protocol (MCP), GraphRAG, AI in Action, Evals, Agent Reliability, Reasoning and RL, Retrieval/Search/RecSys , Security, Infrastructure, Generative Media, AI Design & Novel AI UX, AI Product Management, Autonomy, Robotics, and Embodied Agents, Computer-Using Agents (CUA), SWE Agents, Vibe Coding, Voice, Sales/Support Agents at AIEWF 2025! Fill out the 2025 State of AI Eng survey for $250 in Amazon cards and see you from Jun 3-5 in SF!Coreweave's now-successful IPO has led to a lot of questions about the GPU Neocloud market, which Dylan Patel has written extensively about on SemiAnalysis. Understanding markets requires an interesting mix of technical and financial expertise, so this will be a different kind of episode than our usual LS domain.When we first published $2 H100s: How the GPU Rental Bubble Burst, we got 2 kinds of reactions on Hacker News:* “Ah, now the AI bubble is imploding!”* “Duh, this is how it works in every GPU cycle, are you new here?”We don't think either reaction is quite right. Specifically, it is not normal for the prices of one of the world's most important resources right now to swing from $1 to $8 per hour based on drastically inelastic demand AND supply curves - from 3 year lock-in contracts to stupendously competitive over-ordering dynamics for NVIDIA allocations — especially with increasing baseline compute needed for even the simplest academic ML research and for new AI startups getting off the ground.We're fortunate today to have Evan Conrad, CEO of SFCompute, one of the most exciting GPU marketplace startups, talk us through his theory of the economics of GPU markets, and why he thinks CoreWeave and Modal are well positioned, but Digital Ocean and Together are not.However, more broadly, the entire point of SFC is creating liquidity between GPU owners and consumers and making it broadly tradable, even programmable:As we explore, these are the primitives that you can then use to create your own, high quality, custom GPU availability for your time and money budget, similar to how Amazon Spot Instances automated the selective buying of unused compute.The ultimate end state of where all this is going is GPU that trade like other perishable, staple commodities of the world - oil, soybeans, milk. Because the contracts and markets are so well established, the price swings also are not nearly as drastic, and people can also start hedging and managing the risk of one of the biggest costs of their business, just like we have risk-managed commodities risks of all other sorts for centuries. As a former derivatives trader, you can bet that swyx doubleclicked on that…Show Notes* SF Compute* Evan Conrad* Ethan Anderson* John Phamous* The Curve talk* CoreWeave* Andromeda ClusterFull Video PodLike and subscribe!Timestamps* [00:00:05] Introductions* [00:00:12] Introduction of guest Evan Conrad from SF Compute* [00:00:12] CoreWeave Business Model Discussion* [00:05:37] CoreWeave as a Real Estate Business* [00:08:59] Interest Rate Risk and GPU Market Strategy Framework* [00:16:33] Why Together and DigitalOcean will lose money on their clusters* [00:20:37] SF Compute's AI Lab Origins* [00:25:49] Utilization Rates and Benefits of SF Compute Market Model* [00:30:00] H100 GPU Glut, Supply Chain Issues, and Future Demand Forecast* [00:34:00] P2P GPU networks* [00:36:50] Customer stories* [00:38:23] VC-Provided GPU Clusters and Credit Risk Arbitrage* [00:41:58] Market Pricing Dynamics and Preemptible GPU Pricing Model* [00:48:00] Future Plans for Financialization?* [00:52:59] Cluster auditing and quality control* [00:58:00] Futures Contracts for GPUs* [01:01:20] Branding and Aesthetic Choices Behind SF Compute* [01:06:30] Lessons from Previous Startups* [01:09:07] Hiring at SF ComputeTranscriptAlessio [00:00:05]: Hey everyone, welcome to the Latent Space podcast. This is Alessio, partner and CTO at Decibel, and I'm joined by my co-host Swyx, founder of Smol AI.Swyx [00:00:12]: Hey, and today we're so excited to be finally in the studio with Evan Conrad from SF Compute. Welcome. I've been fortunate enough to be your friend before you were famous, and also we've hung out at various social things. So it's really cool to see that SF Compute is coming into its own thing, and it's a significant presence, at least in the San Francisco community, which of course, it's in the name, so you couldn't help but be. Evan: Indeed, indeed. I think we have a long way to go, but yeah, thanks. Swyx: Of course, yeah. One way I was thinking about kicking on this conversation is we will likely release this right after CoreWeave IPO. And I was watching, I was looking, doing some research on you. You did a talk at The Curve. I think I may have been viewer number 70. It was a great talk. More people should go see it, Evan Conrad at The Curve. But we have like three orders of magnitude more people. And I just wanted to, to highlight, like, what is your analysis of what CoreWeave did that went so right for them? Evan: Sell locked-in long-term contracts and don't really do much short-term at all. I think like a lot of people had this assumption that GPUs would work a lot like CPUs and the like standard business model of any sort of CPU cloud is you buy commodity hardware, then you lay on services that are mostly software, and that gives you high margins and pretty much all your value comes from those services. Not really the underlying. Compute in any capacity and because it's commodity hardware and it's not actually that expensive, most of that can be sort of on-demand compute. And while you do want locked-in contracts for folks, it's mostly just a sort of de-risk situation. It helps you plan revenue because you don't know if people are going to scale up or down. But fundamentally, people are like buying hourly and that's how your business is structured and you make 50 percent margins or higher. This like doesn't really work in GPUs. And the reason why it doesn't work is because you end up with like super price sensitive customers. And that isn't because necessarily it's just way more expensive, though that's totally the case. So in a CPU cloud, you might have like, you know, let's say if you had a million dollars of hardware in GPUs, you have a billion dollars of hardware. And so your customers are buying at much higher volumes than you otherwise expect. And it's also smaller customers who are buying at higher amounts of volume. So relative to what they're spending in general. But in GPUs in particular, your customer cares about the scaling law. So if you take like Gusto, for example, or Rippling or an HR service like this, when they're buying from an AWS or a GCP, they're buying CPUs and they're running web servers, those web servers, they kind of buy up to the capacity that they need, they buy enough, like CPUs, and then they don't buy any more, like, they don't buy any more at all. Yeah, you have a chart that goes like this and then flat. Correct. And it's like a complete flat. It's not even like an incremental tiny amount. It's not like you could just like turn on some more nodes. Yeah. And then suddenly, you know, they would make an incremental amount of money more, like Gusto isn't going to make like, you know, 5% more money, they're gonna make zero, like literally zero money from every incremental GPU or CPU after a certain point. This is not the case for anyone who is training models. And it's not the case for anyone who's doing test time inference or like inference that has scales at test time. Because like you, your scaling laws mean that you may have some diminishing returns, but there's always returns. Adding GPUs always means your model does actually get. And that actually does translate into revenue for you. And then for test time inference, you actually can just like run the inference longer and get a better performance. Or maybe you can run more customers faster and then charge for that. It actually does translate into revenue. Every incremental GPU translates to revenue. And what that means from the customer's perspective is you've got like a flat budget and you're trying to max the amount of GPUs you have for that budget. And it's very distinctly different than like where Augusto or Rippling might think, where they think, oh, we need this amount of CPUs. How do we, you know, reduce that? How do we reduce our amount of money that we're spending on this to get the same amount of CPUs? What that translates to is customers who are spending in really high volume, but also customers who are super price sensitive, who don't give a s**t. Can I swear on this? Can I swear? Yeah. Who don't give a s**t at all about your software. Because a 10% difference in a billion dollars of hardware is like $100 million of value for you. So if you have a 10% margin increase because you have great software, on your billion, the customers are that price sensitive. They will immediately switch off if they can. Because why wouldn't you? You would just take that $100 million. You'd spend $50 million on hiring a software engineering team to replicate anything that you possibly did. So that means that the best way to make money in GPUs was to do basically exactly what CoreWeave did, which is go out and sign only long-term contracts, pretty much ignore the bottom end of the market completely, and then maximize your long-term contracts. With customers who don't have credit risk, who won't sue you, or are unlikely to sue you for frivolous reasons. And then because they don't have credit risk and they won't sue you for frivolous reasons, you can go back to your lender and you can say, look, this is a really low risk situation for us to do. You should give me prime, prime interest rate. You should give me the lowest cost of capital you possibly can. And when you do that, you just make tons of money. The problem that I think lots of people are going to talk about with CoreWeave is it doesn't really look like a cloud platform. It doesn't really look like a cloud provider financially. It also doesn't really look like a software company financially.Swyx [00:05:37]: It's a bank.Evan [00:05:38]: It's a bank. It's a real estate company. And it's very hard to not be that. The problem of that that people have tricked themselves into is thinking that CoreWeave is a bad business. I don't think CoreWeave is explicitly a bad business. There's a bunch of people, there's kind of like two versions of the CoreWeave take at the moment. There's, oh my God, CoreWeave, amazing. CoreWeave is this great new cloud provider competitive with the hyperscalers. And to some extent, this is true from a structural perspective. Like, they are indeed a real sort of thing against the cloud providers in this particular category. And the other take is, oh my gosh, CoreWeave is this horrible business and so on and blah, blah, blah. And I think it's just like a set of perception or perspective. If you think CoreWeave's business is supposed to look like the traditional cloud providers, you're going to be really upset to learn that GPUs don't look like that at all. And in fact, for the hyperscalers, it doesn't look like this either. My intuition is that the hyperscalers are probably going to lose a lot of money, and they know they're going to lose a lot of money on reselling NVIDIA GPUs, at least. Hyperscalers, but I want to, Microsoft, AWS, Google. Correct, yeah. The Microsoft, AWS, and Google. Does Google resell? I mean, Google has TPUs. Google has TPUs, but I think you can also get H100s and so on. But there are like two ways they can make money. One is by selling to small customers who aren't actually buying in any serious volume. They're testing around, they're playing around. And if they get big, they're immediately going to do one of two things. They're going to ask you for a discount. Because they're not going to pay your crazy sort of margin that you have locked into your business. Because for CPUs, you need that. They're going to pay your massive per hour price. And so they want you to sign a long-term contract. And so that's your other way that you can make money, is you can basically do exactly what CoreWeave does, which is have them pay as much as possible upfront and lock in the contract for a long time. Or you can have small customers. But the problem is that for a hyperscaler, the GPUs to... To sell on the low margins relative to what your other business, your CPUs are, is a worse business than what you are currently doing. Because you could have spent the same money on those GPUs. And you could have trained model and you could have made a model on top of it and then turn that into a product and had high margins from your product. Or you could have taken that same money and you could have competed with NVIDIA. And you could have cut into their margin instead. But just simply reselling NVIDIA GPUs doesn't work like your CPU business. Where you're able to capture high margins from big customers and so on. And then they never leave you because your customers aren't actually price sensitive. And so they won't switch off if your prices are a little higher. You actually had a really nice chart, again, on that talk of this two by two. Sure. Of like where you want to be. And you also had some hot takes on who's making money and who isn't. Swyx: So CoreUv locked up long-term contracts. Get that. Yes. Maybe share your mental framework. Just verbally describe it because we're trying to help the audio listeners as well. Sure. People can look up the chart if they want to. Evan: Sure. Okay. So this is a graph of interest rates. And on the y-axis, it's a probability you're able to sell your GPUs from zero to one. And on the x-axis, it's how much they'll depreciate in cost from zero to one. And then you had ISO cost curves or ISO interest rate curves. Yeah. So they kind of shape in a sort of concave fashion. Yeah. The lowest interest rates enable the most aggressive. form of this cost curve. And the higher interest rates go, the more you have to push out to the top right. Yeah. And then you had some analysis of where every player sits in this, including CoreUv, but also Together and Modal and all these other guys. I thought that was super insightful. So I just wanted to elaborate. Basically, it's like a graph of risk and the genres of places where you can be and what the risk is associated with that. The optimal thing for you to do, if you can, is to lock in long-term contracts that are paid all up front or in with a situation in which you trust the other party to pay you over time. So if you're, you know, selling to Microsoft or something or OpenAI. Which are together 77% of the revenue of CoreUv. Yeah. So if you're doing that, that's a great business to be in because your interest rate that you can pitch for is really low because no one thinks Microsoft is going to default. And like maybe OpenAI will default, but the backing by Microsoft kind of doesn't. And I think there's enough, like, generally, it looks like OpenAI is winning that you can make it's just a much better case than if you're selling to the pre-seed startup that just raised $30 million or something pre-revenue. It's like way easier to make the case that the OpenAI is not going to default than the pre-seed startup. And so the optimal place to be is selling to the maximally low risk customer for as long as possible. And then you never have to worry about depreciation and you make lots of money. The less. Good. Good place to be is you could sell long-term contracts to people who might default on you. And then if you're not bringing it to the present, so you're not like saying, hey, you have to pay us all up front, then you're in this like more risky territory. So is it top left of the chart? If I have the chart right, maybe. Large contracts paid over time. Yeah. Large contracts paid over time is like top left. So it's more risky, but you could still probably get away with it. And then the other opportunity is that you could sell short-term contracts for really high prices. And so lots of people tried that too, because this is actually closer to the original business model that people thought would work in cloud providers for CPUs. It works for CPUs, but it doesn't really work for GPUs. And I don't think people were trying this because they were thinking about the risk associated with it. I think a lot of people are just come from a software background, have not really thought about like cogs or margins or inventory risk or things that you have to worry about in the physical world. And I think they were just like copy pasting the same business model onto CPUs. And also, I remember fundraising like a few years ago. And I know based on. Like what we knew other people were saying who were in a very similar business to us versus what we were saying. And we know that our pitch was way worse at the time, because in the beginning of SF Compute, we looked very similar to pretty much every other GPU cloud, not on purpose, but sort of accidentally. And I know that the correct pitch to give to an investor was we will look like a traditional CPU cloud with high margins and we'll sell to everyone. And that is a bad business model because your customers are price sensitive. And so what happens is if you. Sell at high prices, which is the price that you would need to sell it in order to de-risk your loss on the depreciation curve, and specifically what I mean by that is like, let's say you're selling it like $5 an hour and you're paying $1.50 an hour for the GPU under the hood. It's a little bit different than that, but you know, nice numbers, $5 an hour, $1.50 an hour. Great. Excellent. Well, you're charging a really high price per GPU hour because over time the price will go down and you'll get competed out. And what you need is to make sure that you never go under, or if you do go under your underlying cost. You've made so much money in the first part of it that the later end of it, like doesn't matter because from the whole structure of the deal, you've made money. The problem is that just, you think that you're going to be able to retain your customers with software. And actually what happens is your customers are super price sensitive and push you down and push you down and push you down and push you down, um, that they don't care about your software at all. And then the other problem that you have is you have, um, really big players like the hyperscalers who are looking to win the market and they have way more money than you, and they can push down on margin. Much better than you can. And so if they have to, and they don't, they don't necessarily all the time, um, I think they actually keep pride of higher margin, but if they needed to, they could totally just like wreck your margin at any point, um, and push you down, which meant that that quadrant over there where you're charging a high price, um, and just to make up for the risk completely got destroyed, like did not work at all for many places because of the price sensitivity, because people could just shove you down instead that pushed everybody up to the top right-hand corner of that, which is selling short-term. Contracts for low prices paid over time, which is the worst place to be in, um, the worst financial place to be in because it has the highest interest rate, um, which means that your, um, your costs go up at the same time, your, uh, your incoming cash goes down and squeezes your margins and squeezes your margins. The nice thing for like a core weave is that most of their business is over on the, on the other sides of those quadrants that the ones that survive. The only remaining question I have with core weave, and I promise I get to ask if I can compute, and I promise this is relevant to SOF Compute in general, because the framework is important, right? Sure. To understand the company. So why didn't NVIDIA or Microsoft, both of which have more money than core weave, do core weave, right? Why didn't they do core weave? Why have this middleman when either NVIDIA or Microsoft have more money than God, and they could have done an internal core weave, which is effectively like a self-funding vehicle, like a financial instrument. Why does there have to be a third party? Your question is like... Why didn't Microsoft, or why didn't NVIDIA just do core weave? Why didn't they just set up their own cloud provider? I think, and I don't know, and so correct me if I'm wrong, and lots of people will have different opinions here, or I mean, not opinions, they'll have actual facts that differ from my facts. Those aren't opinions. Those are actually indeed differences of reality, is that NVIDIA doesn't want to compete with their customers. They make a large amount of money by selling to existing clouds. If they launched their own core weave, then it would be a lot more money. It'd make it much harder for them to sell to the hyperscalers, and so they have a complex relationship with there. So not great for them. Second is that, at least for a while, I think they were dealing with antitrust concerns or fears that if they're going through, if they own too much layers of the stack, I could imagine that could be a problem for them. I don't know if that's actually true, but that's where my mind would go, I guess. Mostly, I think it's the first one. It's that they would be competing directly with their primary customers. Then Microsoft could have done it, right? That's the other question. Yeah, so Microsoft didn't do it. And my guess is that... NVIDIA doesn't want Microsoft to do it, and so they would limit the capacity because from NVIDIA's perspective, both they don't want to necessarily launch their own cloud provider because it's competing with their customers, but also they don't want only one customer or only a few customers. It's really bad for NVIDIA if you have customer concentration, and Microsoft and Google and Amazon, like Oracle, to buy up your entire supply, and then you have four or five customers or so who pretty much get to set prices. Monopsony. Yeah, monopsony. And so the optimal thing for you is a diverse set of customers who all are willing to pay at whatever price, because if you don't, somebody else will. And so it's really optimal for NVIDIA to have lots of other customers who are all competing against each other. Great. Just wanted to establish that. It's unintuitive for people who have never thought about it, and you think about it all day long. Yeah. Swyx: The last thing I'll call out from the talk, which is kind of cool, and then I promise we'll get to SF Compute, is why will DigitalOcean and Together lose money on their clusters? Why will DigitalOcean and Together lose money on their clusters?Evan [00:16:33]: I'm going to start by clarifying that all of these businesses are excellent and fantastic. That Together and DigitalOcean and Lambda, I think, are wonderful businesses who build excellent products. But my general intuition is that if you try to couple the software and the hardware together, you're going to lose money. That if you go out and you buy a long-term contract from someone and then you layer on services, or you buy the hardware yourself and you spin it up and you get a bunch of debt, you're going to run into the same problem that everybody else did, the same problem we did, same problem the hyperscalers did. And that's exactly what the hyperscalers are doing, which is you cannot add software and make high margins like a cloud provider can. You can pitch that into investors and it will totally make sense, and it's like the correct play in CPUs, but there isn't software you could make to make this occur. If you're spending a billion dollars on hardware, you need to make a billion dollars of software. There isn't a billion dollars of software that you can realistically make, and if you do, you're going to look like SAP. And that's not a knock on SAP. SAP makes a f**k ton of money, right? Right. Right. Right. Right. There aren't that many pieces of software that you could make, that you can realistically sell, like a billion dollars of software, and you're probably not going to do it to price-sensitive customers who are spending their entire budget already on compute. They don't have any more money to give you. It's a very hard proposition to do. And so many parties have been trying to do this, like, buy their own compute, because that's what a traditional cloud does. It doesn't really work for them. You know that meme where there's, like, the Grim Reaper? And he's, like, knocking on the door, and then he keeps knocking on the next door? We have just seen door after door after door of the Grim Reeker comes by, and the economic realities of the compute market come knocking. And so the thing we encourage folks to do is if you are thinking about buying a big GPU cluster and you are going to layer on software on top, don't. There are so many dead bodies in the wake there. We would recommend not doing that. And we, as SF Compute, our entire business is structured to help you not do that. It's helped disintegrate these. The GPU clouds are fantastic real estate businesses. If you treat them like real estate businesses, you will make a lot of money. The cloud services you can make on that, all the software you want to make on that, you can do that fantastically. If you don't own the underlying hardware, if you mix these businesses together, you get shot in the head. But if you combine, if you split them, and that's what the market does, it helps you split them, it allows you to buy, like, layer on services, but just buy from the market, you can make lots of money. So companies like Modal, who don't own the underlying compute, like they don't own it, lots of money, fantastic product. And then companies like Corbeave, who are functionally like really, really good real estate businesses, lots of money, fantastic product. But if you combine them, you die. That's the economic reality of compute. I think it also splits into trading versus inference, which are different kinds of workloads. Yeah. And then, yeah, one comment about the price sensitivity thing before we leave this. This topic, I want to credit Martin Casado for coining or naming this thing, which is like, you know, you said, you said this thing about like, you don't have room for a 10% margin on GPUs for software. Yep. And Martin actually played it out further. It's his first one I ever saw doing this at large enough runs. So let's say GPT-4 and O1 both had a total trading cost of like a $500 billion is the rough estimate. When you get the $5 billion runs, when you get the $50 billion runs, it is actually makes sense to build your own. You're going to have to get into chips, like for OpenEI to get into chip design, which is so funny. I would make an ASIC for this run. Yeah, maybe. I think a caveat of that that is not super well thought about is that only works if you're really confident. It only works if you really know which chip you're going to do. If you don't, then it's a little harder. So it makes in my head, it makes more sense for inference where you've already established it. But for training there's so much like experimentation. Any generality, yeah. Yeah. The generality is much more useful. Yeah. In some sense, you know, Google's like six generations into the CPUs. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, cool. Maybe we should go into SF Compute now. Sure. Yeah.Alessio [00:20:37]: Yeah. So you kind of talked about the different providers. Why did you decide to go with this approach and maybe talk a bit about how the market dynamics have evolved since you started a company?Evan [00:20:47]: So originally we were not doing this at all. We were definitely like forced into this to some extent. And SF Compute started because we wanted to go train models for music and audio in general. We were going to do a sort of generic audio model at some points, and then we were going to do a music model at some points. It was an early company. We didn't really spec down on a particular thing. But yeah, we were going to do a music model and audio model. First thing that you do when you start any AI lab is you go out and you buy a big cluster. The thing we had seen everybody else do was they went out and they raised a really big round and then they would get stuck. Because if you raise the amount of money that you need to train a model initially, like, you know, the $50 million pre-seed, pre-revenue, your valuation is so high or you get diluted so much that you can't raise the next round. And that's a very big ask to make. And also, I don't know, I felt like we just felt like we couldn't do it. We probably could have in retrospect, but I think one, we didn't really feel like we could do it. Two, it felt like if we did, we would have been stuck later on. We didn't want to raise the big round. And so instead, we thought, surely by now, we would be able to just go out. To any provider and buy like a traditional CPU cloud would sell offer you and just buy like on demand or buy like a month or so on. And this worked for like small incremental things. And I think this is where we were basing it off. We just like assumed we could go to like Lambda or something and like buy thousands of at the time A100s. And this just like was not at all the case. So we started doing all the sales calls with people and we said, OK, well, can we just get like month to month? Can we get like one month of compute or so on? Everyone told us at the time, no. You need to have a year long contract or longer or you're out of luck. Sorry. And at the time, we were just like pissed off. Like, why won't nobody sell us a month at a time? Nowadays, we totally understand why, because it's the same economic reason. Because if you if they had sold us the month to month or so on and we canceled or so on, they would have massive risk on that. And so the optimal thing to do was to only to just completely abandon the section of the market. We didn't like that. So our plan was we were going to buy a year long contract anyway. We would use a month. And then we would. At least the other 11 months. And we were locked in for a year, but we only had to pay on every individual month. And so we did this. But then immediately we said, oh, s**t, now we have a cloud provider, not a like training models company, not an AI lab, because every 30 days we owed about five hundred thousand dollars or so and we had about five hundred thousand dollars in the bank. So that meant that every single month, if we did not sell out our cluster, we would just go bankrupt. So that's what we did for the first year of the company. And when you're in that position. You try to think how in the world you get out of that position, what that transition to is, OK, well, we tend to be pretty good at like selling this cluster every month because we haven't died yet. And so what we should do is we should go basically be like this broker for other people and we will be more like a GPU real estate or like a GPU realtor. And so we started doing that for a while where we would go to other people who had who was trying to sell like a year long contract with somebody and we'd go to another person who like maybe this person wanted six months and somebody else on six months or something and we'd like combine all these people. Together to make the deal happen and we'd organize these like one off bespoke deals that looked like basically it ended up with us taking a bunch of customers, us signing with a vendor, taking some cut and then us operating the cluster for people typically with bare metal. And so we were doing this, but this was definitely like a oh, s**t, oh, s**t, oh, s**t. How do we get out of our current situation and less of a like a strategic plan of any sort? But while we were doing this, since like the beginning of the company, we had been thinking about how to buy GPU clusters, how to sell them effectively, because we'd seen every part of it. And what we ended up with was like a book of everybody who's trying to buy and everyone is trying to sell because we were these like GPU brokers. And so that turned into what is today SF Compute, which is a compute market, which we think we are the functionally the most liquid GPU market of any capacity. Honestly, I think we're the only thing that actually is like a real market that there's like bids and asks and there's like a like a trading engine that combines everything. And so. I think we're the only place where you can do things that a market should be able to do. Like you can go on SF Compute today and you get thousands of H100s for an hour if you want. And that's because there is a price for thousands of GPUs for an hour. That is like not a thing you can reasonably do on kind of any other cloud provider because nobody should realistically sell you thousands of GPUs for an hour. They should sell it to you for a year or so on. But one of the nice things about a market is that you can buy the year on SF Compute. But then if you need to sell. Back, you can sell back as well. And that opens up all these little pockets of liquidity where somebody who's just trying to buy for a little bit of time, some burst capacity. So people don't normally buy for an hour. That's not like actually a realistic thing, but it's like the range somebody who wants, who is like us, who needed to buy for a month can actually buy for a month. They can like place the order and there is actually a price for that. And it typically comes from somebody else who's selling back. Somebody who bought a longer term contract and is like they bought for some period of time, their code doesn't work, and now they need to like sell off a little bit.Alessio [00:25:49]: What are the utilization rates at which a market? What are the utilization rates at which a market? Like this works, what do you see the usual GPU utilization rate and like at what point does the market get saturated?Evan [00:26:00]: Assuming there are not like hardware problems or software problems, the utilization rate is like near 100 percent because the price dips until the utilization is 100 percent. So the price actually has to dip quite a lot in order for the utilization not to be. That's not always the case because you just have logistical problems like you get a cluster and parts of the InfiniBand fabric are broken. And there's like some issue with some switch somewhere and so you have to take some portion of the cluster offline or, you know, stuff like this, like there's just underlying physical realities of the clusters, but nominally we have better utilization than basically anybody because, but that's on utilization of the cluster, like that doesn't necessarily translate into, I mean, I actually do think we have much better overall money made for our underlying vendors than kind of anybody else. We work with the other GPU clouds and the basic pitch to the other GPU clouds is one. So we can sell your broker so we can we can find you the long term contracts that are at the prices that you want, but meanwhile, your cluster is idle and for that we can increase your utilization and get you more money because we can sell that idle cluster for you and then the moment we find the longer, the bigger customer and they come on, you can kick off those people and then go to the other ones. You get kind of the mix of like sell your cluster at whatever price you can get on the market and then sell your cluster at the big price that you want to do for long term contract, which is your ideal business model. And then the benefit of the whole thing being on the market. Is you can pitch your customer that they can cancel their long term contract, which is not a thing that you can reasonably do if you are just the GPU cloud, if you're just the GPU cloud, you can never cancel your contract, because that introduces so much risk that you would otherwise, like not get your cheap cost of capital or whatever. But if you're selling it through the market, or you're selling it with us, then you can say, hey, look, you can cancel for a fee. And that fee is the difference between the price of the market and then the price that they paid at, which means that they canceled and you have the ability to offer that flexibility. But you don't. You don't have to take the risk of it. The money's already there and like you got paid, but it's just being sold to somebody else. One of our top pieces from last year was talking about the H100 glut from all the long term contracts that were not being fully utilized and being put under the market. You have on here dollar a dollar per hour contracts as well as it goes up to two. Actually, I think you were involved. You were obliquely quoted in that article. I think you remember. I remember because this was hidden. Well, we hid your name, but then you were like, yeah, it's us. Yeah. Could you talk about the supply and demand of H100s? Was that just a normal cycle? Was that like a super cycle because of all the VC funding that went in in 2003? What was that like? GPU prices have come down. Yeah, GPU prices have come down. And there's some part that has normal depreciation cycle. Some part of that is just there were a lot of startups that bought GPUs and never used them. And now they're lending it out and therefore you exist. There's a lot of like various theories as to why. This happened. I dislike all of them because they're all kind of like they're often said with really high confidence. And I think just the market's much more complicated than that. Of course. And so everything I'm going to say is like very hedged. But there was a series of like places where a bunch of the orders were placed and people were pitching to their customers and their investors and just the broader market that they would arrive on time. And that is not how the world works. And because there was such a really quick build out of things, you would end up with bottlenecks in the supply chain somewhere that has nothing to do with necessarily the chip. It's like the InfiniBand cables or the NICs or like whatever. Or you need a bunch of like generators or you don't have data center space or like there's always some bottleneck somewhere else. And so a lot of the clusters didn't come online within the period of time. But then all the bottlenecks got sorted out and then they all came online all at the same time. So I think you saw a short. There was a shortage because supply chain hard. And then you saw a increase or like a glut because supply chain eventually figure itself out. And specifically people overordered in order to get the allocation that they wanted. Then they got the allocations and then they went under. Yeah, whatever. Right. There was just a lot of shenanigans. A caveat of this is every time you see somebody like overordered, there is this assumption that the problem was like the demand went down. I don't think that's the case at all. And so I want to clarify that. It definitely seems like a shortage. Like there's more demand for GPUs than there ever was. It's just that there was also more supply. So at the moment, I think there is still functionally a glut. But the difference that I think is happening is mostly the test time inference stuff that you just need way more chips for that than you did before. And so whenever you make a statement about the current market, people sort of take your words and then they assume that you're making a statement about the future market. And so if you say there's a glut now, people will continue to think there's a glut. But I think what is happening at the moment. My general prediction is that like by the winter, we will be back towards shortage. But then also, this very much depends on the rollout of future chips. And that comes with its own. I think I'm trying to give you like a good here's Evan's forecast. Okay. But I don't know if my forecast is right. You don't have to. Nobody is going to hold you to it. But like I think people want to know what's true and what's not. And there's a lot of vague speculations from people who are not that close to the market actually. And you are. I think I'm a closer. Close to the market, but also a vague speculator. Like I think there are a lot of really highly confident speculators and I am indeed a vague speculator. I think I have more information than a lot of other people. And this makes me more vague of a spectator because I feel less certain or less confident than I think a lot of other people do. The thing I do feel reasonably confident about saying is that the test time inference is probably going to quite significantly expand the amount of compute that was used for inference. So a caveat. This is like pretty much all the inference demand is in a few companies. A good example is like lots of bio and pharma was using H100s training sort of the bio models of sorts. And they would come along and they would buy, you know, thousands of H100s for training and then just like not a lot of stuff for inference. Not in any, not relative to like an opening iron anthropic or something because they like don't have a consumer product. Their inference event, if they can do it right. There's really like only one inference event that matters. And obviously I think they're going to run into it. And Batch and they're not going to literally just run one inference event. But like the one that produces the drug is the important one. Right. And I'm dumb and I don't know anything about biology, so I could be completely wrong here. But my understanding is that's kind of the gist. I can check that for you. You can check that for me. Check that for me. But my understanding is like the one that produces the sequence that is the drug that, you know, cures cancer or whatever. That's the important deal. But like a lot of models look like this where they're sort of more enterprising use cases or they're so prior to something that looks like test time inference. You got lots and lots of demand for training and then pretty much entirely fell off for inference. And I think like we looked at like Open Router, for example, the entirety of Open Router that was not anthropic or like Gemini or OpenAI or something. It was like 10 H100 nodes or something like that. It's just like not that much. It's like not that many GPUs actually to service that entire demand. But that's like a really sizable portion of the sort of open source market. But the actual amount of compute needed for it was not that much. But if you imagine like what an OpenAI needs for like GPT-4, it's like tremendously big. But that's because it's a consumer product that has almost all the inference demand. Yeah, that's a message we've had. Roughly open source AI compared to closed AI is like 5%. Yeah, it's like super small. Super small. It's super small. Super small. But test time inference changes that quite significantly. So I will... I will expect that to increase our overall demand. But my question on whether or not that actually affects your compute price is entirely based on how quickly do we roll out the next chips. The way that you burst is different for test time.Alessio [00:34:01]: Any thoughts on the third part of the market, which is the more peer-to-peer distributed, some are like crypto-enabled, like Hyperbolic, Prime Intellect, and all of that. Where do those fit? Like, do you see a lot of people will want to participate in a peer-to-peer market? Or just because of the capital requirements at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter?Evan [00:34:20]: I'm like wildly skeptical of these, to be frankly. The dream is like steady at home, right? I got this $15.90. Nobody has $15.90. $14.90 sitting at home. I can rent it out. Yeah. Like, I just don't really think this is going to ever be more efficient than a fully interconnected cluster with InfiniBand or, you know, whatever the sort of next spec might be. Like, I could be completely wrong. But speaking of... I mean, like, SpeedoLite is really hard to beat. And regardless of whatever you're using, you just like can't get around that physical limitation. And so you could like imagine a decentralized market that still has a lot of places where there's like co-location. But then you would get something that looks like SF Compute. And so that's what we do. That's why we take our general take is like on SF Compute, you're not buying from like random people. You're buying from the other GPU clouds, functionally. You're buying from data centers that are the same genre of people that you would work with already. And you can specify, oh, I want all these nodes to be co-located. And I don't think you're really going to get around that. And I think I buy crypto for the purposes of like transferring money. Like the financial system is like quite painful and so on. I can understand the uses of it to sort of incentivize an initial market or try to get around the cold start problem. We've been able to get around the cold start problem just fine. So it didn't actually need that at all. What I do think is totally possible is you could launch a token and then you could like subsidize the crypto. You could compute prices for a bit, but like maybe that will help you. I think that's what Nuus is doing. Yeah, I think there's lots of people who are trying to do things like this, but at some point that runs out. So I would, I think generally agree. I think the only thread in that model is very fine grained mixture of experts that can be like algorithms can shift to adapt to hardware realities. And the hardware reality is like, okay, it's annoying to do large co-located clusters. Then we'll just redesign attention or whatever in our architecture to distribute it more. There was a little bit buzz of block attention last year that Strong Compute made a big push on. But I think like, you know, in a world where we have 200 experts in MOE model, it starts to be a little bit better. Like, I don't disagree with this. I can imagine the world in which you have like, in which you've redesigned it to be more parallelizable, like across space.Evan [00:36:43]: But assuming without that, your hardware limitation is your speed of light limitation. And that's a very hard one to get around.Alessio [00:36:50]: Any customers or like stories that you want to shout out of like maybe things that wouldn't have been economically viable like others? I know there's some sensitivity on that.Evan [00:37:00]: My favorites are grad students, are folks who are trying to do things that would normally otherwise require the scale of a big lab. And the grad students are like the worst pilots. They're like the worst possible customer for the traditional GPU clouds because they will immediately turn if you sell them a thing because they're going to graduate and they're not going to go anywhere. They're not going to like, that project isn't continuing to spend lots of money. Like sometimes it does, but not if you're like working with the university or you're working with the lab of some sort. But a lot of times it's just like the ability for us to offer like big burst capacity, I think is lovely and wonderful. And it's like one of my favorite things to do because all those folks look like we did. And I have a special place in my heart for that. I have a special place in my heart for young hackers and young grad students and researchers who are trying to do the same genre of thing that we are doing. For the same reason, I have a special place in my heart for like the startups, the people who are just actively trying to compete on the same scale, but can't afford it time-wise, but can afford it spike-wise. Yeah, I liked your example of like, I have a grant of 100K and it's expiring. I got to spend it on that. That's really beautiful. Yeah. Interesting. Has there been interesting work coming out of that? Anything you want to mention? Yeah. So from like a startup perspective, like Standard Intelligence and Find, P-H-I-N-D. We've had them on the pod.Swyx [00:38:23]: Yeah. Yeah.Evan [00:38:23]: That was great. And then from grad students' perspective, we worked a lot with like the Schmidt Futures grantees of various sorts. My fear is if I talk about their research, I will be completely wrong to a sort of almost insulting degree because I am very dumb. But yeah. I think one thing that's maybe also relevant startups and GPUs-wise. Yeah. Is there was a brief moment where it kind of made sense that VCs provided GPU clusters. And obviously you worked at AI Grants, which set up Andromeda, which is supposedly a $100 million cluster. Yeah. I can explain why that's the case or why anybody would think that would be smart. Because I remember before any of that happened, we were asking for it to happen. Yeah. And the general reason is credit risk. Again, it's a bank. Yeah. I have lower risk than you due to credit transformation. I take your risk onto my balance sheet. Correct. Exactly. If you wanted to go for a while, if you wanted to go set up a GPU cluster, you had to be the one that actually bought the hardware and racked it and stacked it, like co-located it somewhere with someone. Functionally, it was like on your balance sheet, which means you had to get a loan. And you cannot get a loan for like $50 million as a startup. Like not really. You can get like venture debt and stuff, but like it's like very, very difficult to get a loan of any serious price for that. But it's like not that difficult to get a loan for $50 million. If you already have a fund or you already have like a million dollars under your assets somewhere or like you personally can like do a personal guarantee for it or something like this. If you have a lot of money, it is way easier for you to get a loan than if you don't have a lot of money. And so the hack of a VC or some capital partner offering equity for compute is always some arbitrage on the credit risk. That's amazing. Yeah. That's a hack. You should do that. I don't think people should do it right now. I think the market has like, I think it made sense at the time and it was helpful and useful for the people who did it at the time. But I think it was a one-time arbitrage because now there are lots of other sources that can do it. And also I think like it made sense when no one else was doing it and you were the only person who was doing it. But now it's like it's an arbitrage that gets competed down. Sure. So it's like super effective. I wouldn't totally recommend it. Like it's great that Andromeda did it. But the marginal increase of somebody else doing it is like not super helpful. I don't think that many people have followed in their footsteps. I think maybe Andreessen did it. Yeah. That's it. I think just because pretty much all the value like flows through Andromeda. What? That cannot be true. How many companies are in the air, Grant? Like 50? My understanding of Andromeda is it works with all the NFTG companies or like several of the NFTG companies. But I might be wrong about that. Again, you know, something something. Nat, don't kill me. I could be completely wrong. But the but you know, I think Andromeda was like an excellent idea to do at the right time in which it occurred. Perfect. His timing is impeccable. Timing. Yeah. Nat and Daniel are like, I mean, there's lots of people who are like... Sears? Yeah. Sears. Like S-E-E-R. Oh, Sears. Like Sears of the Valley. Yeah. They for years and years before any of the like ChatGPT moment or anything, they had fully understood what was going to happen. Like way, way before. Like. AI Grant is like, like five years old, six years old or something like that. Seven years old. When I, when it like first launched or something. Depends where you start. The nonprofit version. Yeah. The nonprofit version was like, like happening for a while, I think. It's going on for quite a bit of time. And then like Nat and Daniel are like the early investors in a lot of the sort of early AI labs of various sorts. They've been doing this for a bit.Alessio [00:41:58]: I was looking at your pricing yesterday. We're kind of talking about it before. And there's this weird thing where one week is more expensive of both one day and one month. Yeah. What are like some of the market pricing dynamics? What are things that like this to somebody that is not in the business? This looks really weird. But I'm curious, like if you have an explanation for it, if that looks normal to you. Yeah.Evan [00:42:18]: So the simple answer is preemptible pricing is cheaper than non-preemptible pricing. And the same economic principle is the reason why that's the case right now. That's not entirely true on SF Compute. SF Compute doesn't really have the concept of preemptible. Instead, what it has is very short reservations. So, you know, you go to a traditional cloud provider and you can say, hey, I want to reserve contract for a year. We will let you do a reserve contract for one hour, which is the part of SFC. But what you can do is you can just buy every single hour continuously. And you're reserving just for that hour. And then the next hour you reserve just for that next hour. And this is obviously like a built in. This is like an automation that you can do. But what you're seeing when you see the cheap price is you're seeing somebody who's buying the next hour, but maybe not necessarily buying an hour after that. So if the price goes up. Up too much. They might not get that next hour. And the underlying part of this of where that's coming from the market is you can imagine like day old milk or like milk that's about to be old. It might drop its price until it's expired because nobody wants to buy the milk that's in the past. Or maybe you can't legally sell it. Compute is the same way. No, you can't sell a block of compute that is not that is in the past. And so what you should do in the market and what people do do is they take. They take a block. A block of compute. And then they drop it and drop it and drop it and drop into a floor price right before it's about to expire. And they keep dropping it until it clears. And so anything that is idle drops until some point. So if you go and use on the website and you set that that chart to like a week from now, what you'll see is much more normal looking sort of curves. But if you say, oh, I want to start right now, that immediate instant, here's the compute that I want right now is the is functionally the preemptible price. It's where most people are getting the best compute or like the best compute prices from. The caveat of that is you can do really fun stuff on SFC if you want. So because it's not actually preemptible, it's it's reserved, but only reserved for an hour, which means that the optimal way to use as of compute is to just buy on the market price, but set a limit price that is much higher. So you can set a limit price for like four dollars and say, oh, if the market ever happens to spike up to four dollars, then don't buy. I don't want to buy that at that price for that price. I don't want to buy that at that price for that price for an hour. But otherwise, just buy at the cheapest price. And if you're comfortable with that of the volatility of it, you're actually going to get like really good prices, like close to a dollar an hour or so on, sometimes down to like 80 cents or whatever. You said four, though. Yeah. So that's the thing. You want to lower the limit. So four is your max price. Four is like where you basically want to like pull the plug and say don't do it because the actual average price is not or like the, you know, the preemptible price doesn't actually look like that. So what you're doing when you're saying four is always, always, always give me this compute. Like continue to buy every hour. Don't preempt me. Don't kick me off. And I want this compute and just buy at the preemptible price, but never kick me off. The only times in which you get kicked off is if there is a big price spike. And, you know, let's say one day out of the year, there's like a four dollar an hour price because of some weird fluke or something. If there are other periods of time, you're actually getting a much lower price than you. It makes sense. Your your average cost that you're actually paying is way better. And your trade off here is you don't literally know what price you're going to get. So it's volatile. But your actual average historically has been like everyone who's done this has gotten wildly better prices. And this is like one of the clever things you can do with the market. If you're willing to make those trade offs, you can get a lot of really good prices. You can also do other things like you can only buy at night, for example. So the price goes down at night. And so you can say, oh, I want to only buy, you know, if the price is lower than 90 cents. And so if you have some long running job, you can make it only run on 90 cents and then you recover back and so on. Yeah. So what you can kind of create as like a spot inst is what other the CPU world has. Yes. But you've created a system where you can kind of manufacture the exact profile that you want. Exactly. That is not just whatever the hyperscalers offer you, which is usually just one thing. Correct. SF Compute is like the power tool. The underlying primitives of like hourly compute is there. Correct. Yeah, it's pretty interesting. I've often asked OpenAI. So like, you know, all these guys. Cloud as well. They do batch APIs. So it's half off of whatever your thing is. Yeah. And the only contract is we'll return in 24 hours. Sure. Right. And I was like, 24 hours is good. But sometimes I want one hour. I want four hours. I want something. And so based off of SF Compute's system, you can actually kind of create that kind of guarantee. Totally. That would be like, you know, not 24, but within eight hours, within four hours, like the work half of a workday. Yes. I can return your results to you. And then I can return it to you. And if your latency requirements are like that low, actually it's fine. Yes. Correct. Yeah. You can carve out that. You can financially engineer that on SFC. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think to me that unlocks a lot of agent use cases that I want, which is like, yeah, I worked in a background, but I don't want you to take a day. Yeah. Correct. Take a couple hours or something. Yeah. This touches a lot of my like background because I used to be a derivatives trader. Yeah. And this is a forward market. Yeah. A futures forward market, whatever you call it. Not a future. Very explicitly not a future. Not yet a futures. Yes. But I don't know if you have any other points to talk about. So you recognize that you are a, you know, a marketplace and you've hired, I met Alex Epstein at your launch event and you're like, you're, you're building out the financialization of GPUs. Yeah. So part of that's legal. Mm-hmm. Totally. Part of that is like listing on an exchange. Yep. Maybe you're the exchange. I don't know how that works, but just like, talk to me about that. Like from the legal, the standardization, the like, where is this all headed? You know, is this like a full listed on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or whatever? What we're trying to do is create an underlying spot market that gives you an index price that you can use. And then with that index price, you can create a cash settled future. And with a cash settled future, you can go back to the data centers and you can say, lock in your price now and de-risk your entire position, which lets you get cheaper cost of capital and so on. And that we think will improve the entire industry because the marginal cost of compute is the risk. It's risk as shown by that graph and basically every part of this conversation. It's risk that causes the price to be all sorts of funky. And we think a future is the correct solution to this. So that's the eventual goal. Right now you have to make the underlying spot market in order to make this occur. And then to make the spot market work, you actually have to solve a lot of technology problems. You really cannot make a spot market work if you don't run the clusters, if you don't have control over them, if you don't know how to audit them, because these are super computers, not soybeans. They have to work. In a way that like, it's just a lot simpler to deliver a soybean than it is to deliver it. I don't know. Talk to the soybean guys. Sure. You know? Yeah. But you have to have a delivery mechanism. Your delivery mechanism, like somebody somewhere has to actually get the compute at some point and it actually has to work. And it is really complicated. And so that is the other part of our business that we go and we build a bare metal infrastructure stack that goes. And then also we do auditing of all the clusters. You sort of de-risk the technical perspective and that allows you to eventually de-risk the financial perspective. And that is kind of the pitch of SF Compute. Yeah. I'll double click on the auditing on the clusters. This is something I've had conversations with Vitae on. He started Rika and I think he had a blog post which kind of shone the light a little bit on how unreliable some clusters are versus others. Correct. Yeah. And sometimes you kind of have to season them and age them a little bit to find the bad cards. You have to burn them in. Yeah. So what do you do to audit them? There's like a burn-in process, a suite of tests, and then active checking and passive checking. Burn-in process is where you typically run LINPACK. LINPACK is this thing that like a bunch of linear algebra equations that you're stress testing the GPUs. This is a proprietary thing that you wrote? No, no, no. LINPACK is like the most common form of burn-in. If you just type in burn-in, typically when people say burn-in, they literally just mean LINPACK. It's like an NVIDIA reference version of this. Again, NVIDIA could run this before they ship, but now the customers have to do it. It's annoying. You're not just checking for the GPU itself. You're checking like the whole component, all the hardware. And it's a lot of work. It's an integration test. It's an integration test. Yeah. So what you're doing when you're running LINPACK or burn-in in general is you're stress testing the GPUs for some period of time, 48 hours, for example, maybe seven days or so on. And you're just trying to kill all the dead GPUs or any components in the system that are broken. And we've had experiences where we ran LINPACK on a cluster and it rounds out, sort of comes offline when you run LINPACK. This is a pretty good sign that maybe there is a problem with this cluster. Yeah. So LINPACK is like the most common sort of standard test. But then beyond that, what you do is we have like a series of performance tests that replicate a much more realistic environment as well that we run just assuming if LINPACK works at all, then you run the next set of tests. And then while the GPUs are in operation, you're also going through and you're doing active tests and passive tests. Passive tests are things that are running in the background while somebody else is running, while like some other workload is running. And active tests are during like idle periods. You're running some sort of check that would otherwise sort of interrupt something. And then the active tests will take something offline, basically. Or a passive check might mark it to get taken offline later and so on. And then the thing that we are working on that we have working partially but not entirely is automated refunds, which is basically like, is the case that the hardware breaks so much. And there's only so much that we can do and it is the effect of pretty much the entire industry. So a pretty common thing that I think happens to kind of everybody in the space is a customer comes online, they experience your cluster, and your cluster has the same problem that like any cluster has, or it's I mean, a different problem every time, but they experience one of the problems of HPC. And then their experience is bad. And you have to like negotiate a refund or some other thing like this. It's always case by case. And like, yeah, a lot of people just eat the cost. Correct. So one of the nice things about a market that we can do as we get bigger and have been doing as we can bigger is we can immediately give you something else. And then also we can automatically refund you. And you're still gonna experience it like the hardware problems aren't going away until the underlying vendors fix things. But honestly, I don't think that's likely because you're always pushing the limits of HPC. This is the case of trying to build a supercomputer. that's one of the nice things that we can do is we can switch you out for somebody else somewhere, and then automatically refund you or prorate or whatever the correct move is. One of the things that you say in this conversation with me was like, you know, you know, a provider is good when they guarantee automatic refunds. Which doesn't happen. But yeah, that's, that's in our contact with all the underlying cloud providers. You built it in already. Yeah. So we have a quite strict SLA that we pass on to you. The reason why

Beyond the Matrix: AI and the Future of Human Creativity // MLOps Podcast #300 with Fausto Albers, AI Engineer & Community Lead at AI Builders Club.Join the Community: https://go.mlops.community/YTJoinIn Get the newsletter: https://go.mlops.community/YTNewsletter // AbstractFausto Albers discusses the intersection of AI and human creativity. He explores AI's role in job interviews, personalized AI assistants, and the evolving nature of human-computer interaction. Key topics include AI-driven self-analysis, context-aware AI systems, and the impact of AI on optimizing human decision-making. The conversation highlights how AI can enhance creativity, collaboration, and efficiency by reducing cognitive load and making intelligent suggestions in real time.// BioFausto Albers is a relentless explorer of the unconventional—a techno-optimist with a foundation in sociology and behavioral economics, always connecting seemingly absurd ideas that, upon closer inspection, turn out to be the missing pieces of a bigger puzzle. He thrives in paradox: he overcomplicates the simple, oversimplifies the complex, and yet somehow lands on solutions that feel inevitable in hindsight. He believes that true innovation exists in the tension between chaos and structure—too much of either, and you're stuck.His career has been anything but linear. He's owned and operated successful restaurants, served high-stakes cocktails while juggling bottles on London's bar tops, and later traded spirits for code—designing digital waiters, recommender systems, and AI-driven accounting tools. Now, he leads the AI Builders Club Amsterdam, a fast-growing community where AI engineers, researchers, and founders push the boundaries of intelligent systems.Ask him about RAG, and he'll insist on specificity—because, as he puts it, discussing retrieval-augmented generation without clear definitions is as useful as declaring that “AI will have an impact on the world.” An engaging communicator, a sharp systems thinker, and a builder of both technology and communities, Fausto is here to challenge perspectives, deconstruct assumptions, and remix the future of AI.// Related LinksWebsite: aibuilders.club~~~~~~~~ ✌️Connect With Us ✌️ ~~~~~~~Catch all episodes, blogs, newsletters, and more: https://go.mlops.community/TYExploreJoin our slack community [https://go.mlops.community/slack]Follow us on X/Twitter [@mlopscommunity](https://x.com/mlopscommunity) or [LinkedIn](https://go.mlops.community/linkedin)] Sign up for the next meetup: [https://go.mlops.community/register]MLOps Swag/Merch: [https://shop.mlops.community/]Connect with Demetrios on LinkedIn: /dpbrinkmConnect with Fausto on LinkedIn: /stepintoliquid

Zara Hajihashemi, AI Engineer and Founder of Cybele Health, joins the podcast to share her journey from Apple tech lead to femtech entrepreneur, driven by a mission to revolutionize women's health with AI-driven insights. With a PhD in machine learning, Zara spent six years at Apple leading cross-functional AI projects before founding Cybele Health to address the inefficiencies in healthcare for professional women and working mothers.In this episode, you'll discover:The Evolution from AI Engineer to Founder: Learn how Zara's experience at Apple, coupled with her PhD research, shaped her vision for Cybele Health and the need for AI-powered, personalized healthcare solutions.Bridging the Healthcare Gap with AI: Zara discusses how Cybele Health is leveraging AI to provide 360-degree visibility into women's health, improving communication between patients and providers to create personalized wellness strategies.The Importance of Personalized Health: Discover how diet, mental health, and physical activity should be aligned with a woman's biological cycle to optimize well-being and productivity.The Role of Functional Medicine and Preventative Care: Zara explains why being proactive rather than reactive in healthcare is crucial, and how AI can assist in creating sustainable, individualized health plans.The Future of AI in Femtech: Explore how AI is revolutionizing the health industry by acting as a 24/7 health assistant, providing predictive insights, and closing gaps in traditional medical care.Building a Health-Tech Startup: Zara shares her journey of founding Cybele Health, securing early users, and the marketing strategies she is employing to drive adoption among both providers and consumers.Zara's Top Health and Wellness Tips:Read labels and avoid processed foods with unrecognizable ingredients.Sync your diet, workouts, and daily habits with your biological cycle for optimal results.Prioritize functional medicine approaches for proactive rather than reactive health management.Connect with Zara and Learn More:Website join the waitlist: Cybele Health LinkedIn: Zara Hajihashemi