Podcasts about Ides

Popcorn Blizzard – HelloThe Polvos! - Going DownPainted Faces - I lost you in my mindSafari Inn - The Sun Sets Slowly In The WestH.P. Lovecraft - The White ShipThe Grateful Dead - Passenger - 2/26/81Organ Fairchild - Glad You're HereThe Good Humour Band - The ManElectric Forgiveness - Rose Is On The AirCreme Soda - Keep It HeavyMovie Club - GalapagosJerry Garcia - Mississippi MoonThe American Standard - Just About DeadThe Wig - Crackin' upChildren Of the Mushroom - You can't erase a mirrorThe Cross Bloods - Orange SunshineThe Yellow Payges - vanilla on my mindThe Grateful Dead - Wharf Rat - 7/29/74Yesterday's Obsession - The PhycleSounds Synonymous - BabylonFriar Tuck And His Psychedelic Guitar - Where Did Your Mind Go?The Ides of March - Tie-Dye PrincessProcol Harum - In Held 'Twas in ISupport the showSubscribe and Support this program with a monthly donation:https://www.buzzsprout.com/1427200/supporters/new

Jim Peterik is a musical force. Vocalist, keyboard player, guitarist, and a prolific songwriter. Jim's career goes back to 1964. At the age of 14, his band The Ides Of March was formed with his schoolmates in Berwyn, Illinois. The Ides would go on to eventually have a million selling, Billboard number 2 hit song called Vehicle. In the mid seventies, The Ides Of March went on hiatus. Jim didn't slow down. He put together the Jim Peterik Band which released an album called Don't Fight The Feeling in 1976. Next came the band Survivor, who scored a number one hit single in 1982. That song was Eye Of The Tiger, co-written by Jim with Frankie Sullivan. Survivor would go on to have several hit singles. Jim has also written hit songs for other artists and to this day continues to share his musical gifts with the world. Next up is an album called Roots & Shoots, Vol 1 coming out on January 12, 2024. We get together with Jim to discuss this new record, and of course we touch on his legacy. Jim also announces a big show being planned to celebrate The Ides Of March 60th anniversary as a band, on March 15, 2024. Jim has his guitar in hand too, so there is a little live music here as well!

Christian has two great musician interviews to share. First up, Jim Peterik of Ides of March and Survivor talks about his new album "Roots & Shoots Vol. 1". Then, Jeff Keith of Tesla talks about their latest album "Full Throttle Live" which includes a cover of the Aerosmith classic "SOS (Too Bad)".

Shannon Koehler is the drummer and singer for The Stone Foxes, the great San Francisco based rock band. They have employed a brilliant music licensing strategy which placed their songs in TV shows like “Sons Of Anarchy”, films like “Free Solo” and commercials for brands like Jack Daniels. This helped them to build a huge following. And they were profiled in Forbes Magazine.My featured song is “The Fall Of Winter”, my collaboration with Jim Peterik of the Ides of March and formerly with Survivor. Spotify link. ---------------------------------------------The Follow Your Dream Podcast:Top 1% of all podcasts with Listeners in 200 countries!For more information and other episodes of the podcast click here. To subscribe to the podcast click here.To subscribe to our weekly Follow Your Dream Podcast email click here.To Rate and Review the podcast click here.“Dream With Robert”. Click here.—----------------------------------------‘THE SINGLES PROJECT” is Robert's new EP, featuring five of his new songs. The songs speak to the ups and downs of life. From the blissful, joyous “Saturday Morning” to the darker commentary of “Like Never Before” and “The Ship”. “This is Robert at his most vulnerable” (Pop Icon Magazine)Reviews: “Amazing!” (Top Buzz Magazine)“Magical…A Sonic Tour De Force!” (IndiePulse Music)“Fabulously Enticing!” (Pop Icon Magazine)“A Home Run!” (Hollywood Digest)Listener Reviews:Saturday Morning:”A neat and simply happy song!””It's so cute and fun. It's describing a world I wish I lived in every day!”Like Never Before:”Great message!””Great song, very perceptive lyrics!” Click here for all links.“IT'S ALIVE!” is Robert's latest Project Grand Slam album. Featuring 13 of the band's Greatest Hits performed “live” at festivals in Pennsylvania and Serbia.Reviews:"An instant classic!" (Melody Maker)"Amazing record...Another win for the one and only Robert Miller!" (Hollywood Digest)"Close to perfect!" (Pop Icon)"A Masterpiece!" (Big Celebrity Buzz)"Sterling effort!" (Indie Pulse)"Another fusion wonder for Project Grand Slam!" (MobYorkCity)Click here for all links.Click here for song videos—-----------------------------------------Audio production:Jimmy RavenscroftKymera Films Connect with Shannon:www.thestonefoxes.com Connect with the Follow Your Dream Podcast:Website - www.followyourdreampodcast.comEmail Robert - robert@followyourdreampodcast.com Follow Robert's band, Project Grand Slam, and his music:Website - www.projectgrandslam.comPGS Store - www.thePGSstore.comYouTubeSpotify MusicApple MusicEmail - pgs@projectgrandslam.com

durée : 00:52:27 - Bienvenue chez vous en Lorraine - Chaque jour des idées pour la cuisine. Avec les meilleurs chefs de la région on parle des produits du moment et on les cuisine ensemble. Aujourd'hui, Morgan nous parle des brocolis.

#154 O que é são os asteróides? Ciência na Rádio - Programa "5 minutos de Ciência no seu dia a dia, com Dr. Delton Mendes"

Join Justin as he chats with musician Jim Peterik about the secret sauce behind songwriting, The Ides of March, writing Eye of the Tiger, forming the band Survivor, TV jingles, and more!Monsters, Madness and Magic Official Website. Monsters, Madness and Magic on Linktree.Monsters, Madness and Magic on Instagram.Monsters, Madness and Magic on Facebook.Monsters, Madness and Magic on Twitter.Monsters, Madness and Magic on YouTube.

Für einen nicht ganz so tiefen Deep Dive haben sich heute Jan und Fabi im Studio zusammengefunden.Weil ihr eigentlicher Gast kurzfristig ausgefallen war, präsentieren die beiden eben alleine ihre Picks of the Day – bevor sich die programmier.bar ins Wochenende verabschiedet.Picks of the Day: Fabi: Visual Studio Code: Text-Transformation – Niemand refactored Code gerne von Hand! Das weiß natürlich auch Visual Studio Code. Deshalb gibt es dort die äußerst hilfreiche Funktion, euren Text in ein beliebiges Format umzuwandeln – egal ob camelCase, snake_case, kebap-case, UPPERCASE, etc. Jan Gregor: BetterChatGPT – Für alle, die gerne ChatGPT nutzen, aber mit dem UI von OpenAI nicht zufrieden sind, gibt es BetterChatGPT. Die kleine Webanwendung muss lediglich mit eurem OpenAI API Key versorgt werden und schon könnt ihr loslegen. Neben den üblichen Chat-Funktionen bietet euch BetterChatGPT ein Prompt Library, Ordner-basierte Organisation, anpassbare API Parameter, Token-Zähler samt Bepreisung und vieles mehr. Schreibt uns! Schickt uns eure Themenwünsche und euer Feedback: podcast@programmier.barFolgt uns! Bleibt auf dem Laufenden über zukünftige Folgen und virtuelle Meetups und beteiligt euch an Community-Diskussionen. TwitterInstagramFacebookMeetupYouTube

durée : 00:50:50 - Bienvenue chez vous en Lorraine - Elle a beaucoup augmenté au niveau des prix, mais c'est tellement bon une bonne huile d'olive. Laurent nous a expliqué pourquoi les prix ont augmenté

Harlly, Jeaun, and Lawson know what Hammerstein is paying you. They will double the amount for just one night's work. ALSO DISCUSSED * Coupled Up for Christmas (2023) * Haunted Mansion (2023) * Holy Flying Circus (2011) * The Ides of March (2011) * The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall (2011) * V/H/S/85 (2023) PITH TAKE * The Appleton Ladies' Potato Race (play, 2019) Reach us on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/IDontKnowWhyWe1 Read Harlly and Jeaun's Blog at https://onthebrightsidemedia.home.blog/ Read Lawson's Blog at https://exitthroughthecandycounter.wordpress.com/

At the AI Pioneers Summit we announced Latent Space Launchpad, an AI-focused accelerator in partnership with Decibel. If you're an AI founder of enterprise early adopter, fill out this form and we'll be in touch with more details. We also have a lot of events coming up as we wrap up the year, so make sure to check out our community events page and come say hi!We previously interviewed the founders of many developer productivity startups embedded in the IDE, like Codium AI, Cursor, and Codeium. We also covered Replit's (former) SOTA model, replit-code-v1-3b and most recently had Amjad and Michele announce replit-code-v1_5-3b at the AI Engineer Summit.Much has been speculated about the StackOverflow traffic drop since ChatGPT release, but the experience is still not perfect. There's now a new player in the “search for developers” arena: Phind.Phind's goal is to help you find answers to your technical questions, and then help you implement them. For example “What should I use to create a frontend for a Python script?” returns a list of frameworks as well as links to the sources. You can then ask follow up questions on specific implementation details, having it write some code for you, etc. They have both a web version and a VS Code integrationThey recently were top of Hacker News with the announcement of their latest model, which is now the #1 rated model on the BigCode Leaderboard, beating their previous version:TLDR Cheat Sheet:* Based on CodeLlama-34B, which is trained on 500B tokens* Further fine-tuned on 70B+ high quality code and reasoning tokens* Expanded context window to 16k tokens* 5x faster than GPT-4 (100 tok/s vs 20 tok/s on single stream)* 74.7% HumanEval vs 45% for the base modelWe've talked before about HumanEval being limited in a lot of cases and how it needs to be complemented with “vibe based” evals. Phind thinks of evals alongside two axis: * Context quality: when asking the model to generate code, was the context high quality? Did we put outdated examples in it? Did we retrieve the wrong files?* Result quality: was the code generated correct? Did it follow the instructions I gave it or did it misunderstand some of it?If you have bad results with bad context, you might get to a good result by working on better RAG. If you have good context and bad result you might either need to work on your prompting or you have hit the limits of the model, which leads you to fine tuning (like they did). Michael was really early to this space and started working on CommonCrawl filtering and indexing back in 2020, which led to a lot of the insights that now power Phind. We talked about that evolution, his experience at YC, how he got Paul Graham to invest in Phind and invite him to dinner at his house, and how Ron Conway connected him with Jensen Huang to get access to more GPUs!Show Notes* Phind* BigScience T0* InstructGPT Paper* Inception-V3* LMQL* Marginalia Nu* Mistral AI* People:* Paul Graham (pg)* Ron Conway* Yacine Jernite from HuggingFace* Jeff DelaneyTimestamps* [00:00:00] Intros & Michael's early interest in computer vision* [00:03:14] Pivoting to NLP and natural language question answering models* [00:07:20] Building a search engine index of Common Crawl and web pages* [00:11:26] Releasing the first version of Hello based on the search index and BigScience T0 model* [00:14:02] Deciding to focus the search engine specifically for programmers* [00:17:39] Overview of Phind's current product and focus on code reasoning* [00:21:51] The future vision for Phind to go from idea to complete code* [00:24:03] Transitioning to using the GPT-4 model and the impact it had* [00:29:43] Developing the Phind model based on CodeLlama and additional training* [00:32:28] Plans to continue improving the Phind model with open source technologies* [00:43:59] The story of meeting Paul Graham and Ron Conway and how that impacted the company* [00:53:02] How Ron Conway helped them get GPUs from Nvidia* [00:57:12] Tips on how Michael learns complex AI topics* [01:01:12] Lightning RoundTranscriptAlessio: Hey everyone, welcome to the Latent Space Podcast. This is Alessio, partner and CTO of Residence and Decibel Partners, and I'm joined by my co-host Swyx, founder of Smol AI. [00:00:19]Swyx: Hey, and today we have in the studio Michael Royzen from Phind. Welcome. [00:00:23]Michael: Thank you so much. [00:00:24]Alessio: It's great to be here. [00:00:25]Swyx: Yeah, we are recording this in a surprisingly hot October in San Francisco. And sometimes the studio works, but the blue angels are flying by right now, so sorry about the noise. So welcome. I've seen Phind blow up this year, mostly, I think since your launch in Feb and V2 and then your Hacker News posts. We tend to like to introduce our guests, but then obviously you can fill in the blanks with the origin story. You actually were a high school entrepreneur. You started SmartLens, which is a computer vision startup in 2017. [00:00:59]Michael: That's right. I remember when like TensorFlow came out and people started talking about, obviously at the time after AlexNet, the deep learning revolution was already in flow. Good computer vision models were a thing. And what really made me interested in deep learning was I got invited to go to Apple's WWDC conference as a student scholar because I was really into making iOS apps at the time. So I go there and I go to this talk where they added an API that let people run computer vision models on the device using far more efficient GPU primitives. After seeing that, I was like, oh, this is cool. This is going to have a big explosion of different computer vision models running locally on the iPhone. And so I had this crazy idea where it was like, what if I could just make this model that could recognize just about anything and have it run on the device? And that was the genesis for what eventually became SmartLens. I took this data set called ImageNet 22K. So most people, when they think of ImageNet, think of ImageNet 1K. But the full ImageNet actually has, I think, 22,000 different categories. So I took that, filtered it, pre-processed it, and then did a massive fine tune on Inception V3, which was, I think, the state of the art deep convolutional computer vision model at the time. And to my surprise, it actually worked insanely well. I had no idea what would happen if I give a single model. I think it ended up being 17,000 categories approximately that I collapsed them into. It worked so well that it actually worked better than Google Lens, which released its V1 around the same time. And on top of this, the model ran on the device. So it didn't need an internet connection. A big part of the issue with Google Lens at the time was that connections were slower. 4G was around, but it wasn't nearly as fast. So there was a noticeable lag having to upload an image to a server and get it back. But just processing it locally, even on the iPhones of the day in 2017, much faster. It was a cool little project. It got some traction. TechCrunch wrote about it. There was kind of like one big spike in usage, and then over time it tapered off. But people still pay for it, which is wild. [00:03:14]Swyx: That's awesome. Oh, it's like a monthly or annual subscription? [00:03:16]Michael: Yeah, it's like a monthly subscription. [00:03:18]Swyx: Even though you don't actually have any servers? [00:03:19]Michael: Even though we don't have any servers. That's right. I was in high school. I had a little bit of money. I was like, yeah. [00:03:25]Swyx: That's awesome. I always wonder what the modern equivalents kind of "Be my eyes". And it would be actually disclosed in the GPT-4 Vision system card recently that the usage was surprisingly not that frequent. The extent to which all three of us have our sense of sight. I would think that if I lost my sense of sight, I would use Be My Eyes all the time. The average usage of Be My Eyes per day is 1.5 times. [00:03:49]Michael: Exactly. I was thinking about this as well, where I was also looking into image captioning, where you give a model an image and then it tells you what's in the image. But it turns out that what people want is the exact opposite. People want to give a description of an image and then have the AI generate the image. [00:04:04]Alessio: Oh, the other way. [00:04:06]Michael: Exactly. And so at the time, I think there were some GANs, NVIDIA was working on this back in 2019, 2020. They had some impressive, I think, face GANs where they had this model that would produce these really high quality portraits, but it wasn't able to take a natural language description the way Midjourney or DALL-E 3 can and just generate you an image with exactly what you described in it. [00:04:32]Swyx: And how did that get into NLP? [00:04:35]Michael: Yeah, I released the SmartLens app and that was around the time I was a senior in high school. I was applying to college. College rolls around. I'm still sort of working on updating the app in college. But I start thinking like, hey, what if I make an enterprise version of this as well? At the time, there was Clarify that provided some computer vision APIs, but I thought this massive classification model works so well and it's so small and so fast, might as well build an enterprise product. And I didn't even talk to users or do any of those things that you're supposed to do. I was just mainly interested in building a type of backend I've never built before. So I was mainly just doing it for myself just to learn. I built this enterprise classification product and as part of it, I'm also building an invoice processing product where using some of the aspects that I built previously, although obviously it's very different from classification, I wanted to be able to just extract a bunch of structured data from an unstructured invoice through our API. And that's what led me to Hugnyface for the first time because that involves some natural language components. And so I go to Hugnyface and with various encoder models that were around at the time, I used the standard BERT and also Longformer, which came out around the same time. And Longformer was interesting because it had a much bigger context window than those models at the time, like BERT, all of the first gen encoder only models, they only had a context window of 512 tokens and it's fixed. There's none of this alibi or ROPE that we have now where we can basically massage it to be longer. They're fixed, 512 absolute encodings. Longformer at the time was the only way that you can fit, say, like a sequence length or ask a question about like 4,000 tokens worth of text. Implemented Longformer, it worked super well, but like nobody really kind of used the enterprise product and that's kind of what I expected because at the end of the day, it was COVID. I was building this kind of mostly for me, mostly just kind of to learn. And so nobody really used it and my heart wasn't in it and I kind of just shelved it. But a little later, I went back to HugMeFace and I saw this demo that they had, and this is in the summer of 2020. They had this demo made by this researcher, Yacine Jernite, and he called it long form question answering. And basically, it was this self-contained notebook demo where you can ask a question the way that we do now with ChatGPT. It would do a lookup into some database and it would give you an answer. And it absolutely blew my mind. The demo itself, it used, I think, BART as the model and in the notebook, it had support for both an Elasticsearch index of Wikipedia, as well as a dense index powered by Facebook's FAISS. I think that's how you pronounce it. It was very iffy, but when it worked, I think the question in the demo was, why are all boats white? When it worked, it blew my mind that instead of doing this few shot thing, like people were doing with GPT-3 at the time, which is all the rage, you could just ask a model a question, provide no extra context, and it would know what to do and just give you the answer. It blew my mind to such an extent that I couldn't stop thinking about that. When I started thinking about ways to make it better, I tried training, doing the fine tune with a larger BART model. And this BART model, yeah, it was fine tuned on this Reddit data set called Eli5. So basically... [00:08:02]Alessio: Subreddit. [00:08:03]Swyx: Yeah, subreddit. [00:08:04]Alessio: Yeah. [00:08:05]Michael: And put it into like a well-formatted, relatively clean data set of like human questions and human answers. And that was a really great bootstrap for that model to be able to answer these types of questions. And so Eli5 actually turned out to be a good data set for training these types of question answering models, because the question is written by a human, the answer is written by a human, and at least helps the model get the format right, even if the model is still very small and it can't really think super well, at least it gets the format right. And so it ends up acting as kind of a glorified summarization model, where if it's fed in high quality context from the retrieval system, it's able to have a reasonably high quality output. And so once I made the model as big as I can, just fine tuning on BART large, I started looking for ways to improve the index. So in the demo, in the notebook, there were instructions for how to make an Elasticsearch index just for Wikipedia. And I was like, why not do all of Common Crawl? So I downloaded Common Crawl, and thankfully, I had like 10 or $15,000 worth of AWS credits left over from the SmartLens project. And that's what really allowed me to do this, because there's no other funding. I was still in college, not a lot of money, and so I was able to spin up a bunch of instances and just process all of Common Crawl, which is massive. So it's roughly like, it's terabytes of text. I went to Alexa to get the top 1,000 websites or 10,000 websites in the world, then filtered only by those websites, and then indexed those websites, because the web pages were already included in Dump. [00:09:38]Swyx: You mean to supplement Common Crawl or to filter Common Crawl? [00:09:41]Michael: Filter Common Crawl. [00:09:42]Alessio: Oh, okay. [00:09:43]Michael: Yeah, sorry. So we filtered Common Crawl just by the top, I think, 10,000, just to limit this, because obviously there's this massive long tail of small sites that are really cool, actually. There's other projects like, shout out to Marginalia Nu, which is a search engine specialized on the long tail. I think they actually exclude the top 10,000. [00:10:03]Swyx: That's what they do. [00:10:04]Alessio: Yeah. [00:10:05]Swyx: I've seen them around, I just don't really know what their pitch is. Okay, that makes sense. [00:10:08]Michael: So they exclude all the top stuff. So the long tail is cool, but for this, that was kind of out of the question, and that was most of the data anyway. So we've removed that. And then I indexed the remaining approximately 350 million webpages through Elasticsearch. So I built this index running on AWS with these webpages, and it actually worked quite well. You can ask it general common knowledge, history, politics, current events, questions, and it would be able to do a fast lookup in the index, feed it into the model, and it would give a surprisingly good result. And so when I saw that, I thought that this is definitely doable. And it kind of shocked me that no one else was doing this. And so this was now the fall of 2020. And yeah, I was kind of shocked no one was doing this, but it costs a lot of money to keep it up. I was still in college. There are things going on. I got bogged down by classes. And so I ended up shelving this for almost a full year, actually. When I returned to it in fall of 2021, when BigScience released T0, when BigScience released the T0 models, that was a massive jump in the reasoning ability of the model. And it was better at reasoning, it was better at summarization, it was still a glorified summarizer basically. [00:11:26]Swyx: Was this a precursor to Bloom? Because Bloom's the one that I know. [00:11:29]Alessio: Yeah. [00:11:30]Michael: Actually coming out in 2022. But Bloom had other problems where for whatever reason, the Bloom models just were never really that good, which is so sad because I really wanted to use them. But I think they didn't turn on that much data. I think they used like the original, they were trying to replicate GPT-3. So they just use those numbers, which we now know are like far below Chinchilla Optimal and even Chinchilla Optimal, which we can like talk about later, like what we're currently doing with MIMO goes, yeah, it goes way beyond that. But they weren't trying enough data. I'm not sure how that data was clean, but it probably wasn't super clean. And then they didn't really do any fine tuning until much later. So T0 worked well because they took the T5 models, which were closer to Chinchilla Optimal because I think they were trained on also like 300 something billion tokens, similar to GPT-3, but the models were much smaller. I think T0 is the first model that did large scale instruction tuning from diverse data sources in the fall of 2021. This is before Instruct GPT. This is before Flan T5, which came out in 2022. This is the very, very first, at least well-known example of that. And so it came out and then I did, on top of T0, I also did the Reddit Eli5 fine tune. And that was the first model and system that actually worked well enough to where I didn't get discouraged like I did previously, because the failure cases of the BART based system was so egregious. Sometimes it would just miss a question so horribly that it was just extremely discouraging. But for the first time, it was working reasonably well. Also using a much bigger model. I think the BART model is like 800 million parameters, but T0, we were using 3B. So it was T0, 3B, bigger model. And that was the very first iteration of Hello. So I ended up doing a show HN on Hacker News in January 2022 of that system. Our fine tune T0 model connected to our Elasticsearch index of those 350 million top 10,000 common crawl websites. And to the best of my knowledge, I think that's the first example that I'm aware of a LLM search engine model that's effectively connected to like a large enough index that I consider like an internet scale. So I think we were the first to release like an internet scale LLM powered rag search system In January 2022, around the time me and my future co-founder, Justin, we were like, this seems like the future. [00:14:02]Alessio: This is really cool. [00:14:03]Michael: I couldn't really sleep even like I was going to bed and I was like, I was thinking about it. Like I would say up until like 2.30 AM, like reading papers on my phone in bed, go to sleep, wake up the next morning at like eight and just be super excited to keep working. And I was also doing my thesis at the same time, my senior honors thesis at UT Austin about something very similar. We were researching factuality in abstractive question answering systems. So a lot of overlap with this project and the conclusions of my research actually kind of helped guide the development path of Hello. In the research, we found that LLMs, they don't know what they don't know. So the conclusion was, is that you always have to do a search to ensure that the model actually knows what it's talking about. And my favorite example of this even today is kind of with chat GPT browsing, where you can ask chat GPT browsing, how do I run llama.cpp? And chat GPT browsing will think that llama.cpp is some file on your computer that you can just compile with GCC and you're all good. It won't even bother doing a lookup, even though I'm sure somewhere in their internal prompts they have something like, if you're not sure, do a lookup. [00:15:13]Alessio: That's not good enough. So models don't know what they don't know. [00:15:15]Michael: You always have to do a search. And so we approached LLM powered question answering from the search angle. We pivoted to make this for programmers in June of 2022, around the time that we were getting into YC. We realized that what we're really interested in is the case where the models actually have to think. Because up until then, the models were kind of more glorified summarization models. We really thought of them like the Google featured snippets, but on steroids. And so we saw a future where the simpler questions would get commoditized. And I still think that's going to happen with like Google SGE and like it's nowadays, it's really not that hard to answer the more basic kind of like summarization, like current events questions with lightweight models that'll only continue to get cheaper over time. And so we kind of started thinking about this trade off where LLM models are going to get both better and cheaper over time. And that's going to force people who run them to make a choice. Either you can run a model of the same intelligence that you could previously for cheaper, or you can run a better model for the same price. So someone like Google, once the price kind of falls low enough, they're going to deploy and they're already doing this with SGE, they're going to deploy a relatively basic glorified summarizer model that can answer very basic questions about like current events, who won the Super Bowl, like, you know, what's going on on Capitol Hill, like those types of things. The flip side of that is like more complex questions where like you have to reason and you have to solve problems and like debug code. And we realized like we're much more interested in kind of going along the bleeding edge of that frontier case. And so we've optimized everything that we do for that. And that's a big reason of why we've built Phind specifically for programmers, as opposed to saying like, you know, we're kind of a search engine for everyone because as these models get more capable, we're very interested in seeing kind of what the emergent properties are in terms of reasoning, in terms of being able to solve complex multi-step problems. And I think that some of those emerging capabilities like we're starting to see, but we don't even fully understand. So I think there's always an opportunity for us to become more general if we wanted, but we've been along this path of like, what is the best, most advanced reasoning engine that's connected to your code base, that's connected to the internet that we can just provide. [00:17:39]Alessio: What is Phind today, pragmatically, from a product perspective, how do people interact with it? Yeah. Or does it plug into your workflow? [00:17:46]Michael: Yeah. [00:17:47]Alessio: So Phind is really a system. [00:17:48]Michael: Phind is a system for programmers when they have a question or when they're frustrated or when something's not working. [00:17:54]Swyx: When they're frustrated. [00:17:55]Alessio: Yeah. [00:17:56]Michael: For them to get on block. I think like the single, the most abstract page for Phind is like, if you're experiencing really any kind of issue as a programmer, we'll solve that issue for you in 15 seconds as opposed to 15 minutes or longer. Phind has an interface on the web. It has an interface in VS code and more IDEs to come, but ultimately it's just a system where a developer can paste in a question or paste in code that's not working and Phind will do a search on the internet or they will find other code in your code base perhaps that's relevant. And then we'll find the context that it needs to answer your question and then feed it to a reasoning engine powerful enough to actually answer it. So that's really the philosophy behind Phind. It's a system for getting developers the answers that they're looking for. And so right now from a product perspective, this means that we're really all about getting the right context. So the VS code extension that we launched recently is a big part of this because you can just ask a question and it knows where to find the right code context in your code. It can do an internet search as well. So it's up to date and it's not just reliant on what the model knows and it's able to figure out what it needs by itself and answer your question based on that. If it needs some help, you can also get yourself kind of just, there's opportunities for you yourself to put in all that context in. But the issue is also like not everyone wants these VS code. Some people like are real Neovim sticklers or they're using like PyCharm or other IDEs, JetBrains. And so for those people, they're actually like okay with switching tabs, at least for now, if it means them getting their answer. Because really like there's been an explosion of all these like startups doing code, doing search, etc. But really who everyone's competing with is ChatGPT, which only has like that one web interface. Like ChatGPT is really the bar. And so that's what we're up against. [00:19:50]Alessio: And so your idea, you know, we have Amman from Cursor on the podcast and they've gone through the we need to own the IDE thing. Yours is more like in order to get the right answer, people are happy to like go somewhere else basically. They're happy to get out of their IDE. [00:20:05]Michael: That was a great podcast, by the way. But yeah, so part of it is that people sometimes perhaps aren't even in an IDE. So like the whole task of software engineering goes way beyond just running code, right? There's also like a design stage. There's a planning stage. A lot of this happens like on whiteboards. It happens in notebooks. And so the web part also exists for that where you're not even coding it and you're just trying to get like a more conceptual understanding of what you're trying to build first. The podcast with Amman was great, but somewhere where I disagree with him is that you need to own the IDE. I think like he made some good points about not having platform risk in the long term. But some of the features that were mentioned like suggesting diffs, for example, those are all doable with an extension. We haven't yet seen with VS Code in particular any functionality that we'd like to do yet in the IDE that we can't either do through directly supported VS Code functionality or something that we kind of hack into there, which we've also done a fair bit of. And so I think it remains to be seen where that goes. But I think what we're looking to be is like we're not trying to just be in an IDE or be an IDE. Like Phind is a system that goes beyond the IDE and like is really meant to cover the entire lifecycle of a developer's thought process in going about like, hey, like I have this idea and I want to get from that idea to a working product. And so then that's what the long term vision of Phind is really about is starting with that. In the future, I think programming is just going to be really just the problem solving. Like you come up with an idea, you come up with like the basic design for the algorithm in your head, and you just tell the AI, hey, just like just do it, just make it work. And that's what we're building towards. [00:21:51]Swyx: I think we might want to give people an impression about like type of traffic that you have, because when you present it with a text box, you could type in anything. And I don't know if you have some mental categorization of like what are like the top three use cases that people tend to coalesce around. [00:22:08]Alessio: Yeah, that's a great question. [00:22:09]Michael: The two main types of searches that we see are how-to questions, like how to do X using Y tool. And this historically has been our bread and butter, because with our embeddings, like we're really, really good at just going over a bunch of developer documentation and figuring out exactly the part that's relevant and just telling you, OK, like you can use this method. But as LLMs have gotten better, and as we've really transitioned to using GPT-4 a lot in our product, people organically just started pasting in code that's not working and just said, fix it for me. [00:22:42]Swyx: Fix this. [00:22:43]Alessio: Yeah. [00:22:44]Michael: And what really shocks us is that a lot of the people who do that, they're coming from chat GPT. So they tried it in chat GPT with chat GPT-4. It didn't work. Maybe it required like some multi-step reasoning. Maybe it required some internet context or something found in either a Stack Overflow post or some documentation to solve it. And so then they paste it into find and then find works. So those are really those two different cases. Like, how can I build this conceptually or like remind me of this one detail that I need to build this thing? Or just like, here's this code. Fix it. And so that's what a big part of our VS Code extension is, is like enabling a much smoother here just like fix it for me type of workflow. That's really its main benefits. Like it's in your code base. It's in the IDE. It knows how to find the relevant context to answer that question. But at the end of the day, like I said previously, that's still a relatively, not to say it's a small part, but it's a limited part of the entire mental life cycle of a programmer. [00:23:47]Swyx: Yep. So you launched in Feb and then you launched V2 in August. You had a couple other pretty impactful posts slash feature launches. The web search one was massive. So you were mostly a GPT-4 wrapper. We were for a long time. [00:24:03]Michael: For a long time until recently. Yeah. [00:24:05]Alessio: Until recently. [00:24:06]Swyx: So like people coming over from ChatGPT were saying, we're going to say model with your version of web search. Would that be the primary value proposition? [00:24:13]Michael: Basically yeah. And so what we've seen is that any model plus web search is just significantly better than [00:24:18]Alessio: that model itself. Do you think that's what you got right in April? [00:24:21]Swyx: Like so you got 1500 points on Hacking News in April, which is like, if you live on Hacking News a lot, that is unheard of for someone so early on in your journey. [00:24:31]Alessio: Yeah. [00:24:32]Michael: We're super, super grateful for that. Definitely was not expecting it. So what we've done with Hacker News is we've just kept launching. [00:24:38]Alessio: Yeah. [00:24:39]Michael: Like what they don't tell you is that you can just keep launching. That's what we've been doing. So we launched the very first version of Find in its current incarnation after like the previous demo connected to our own index. Like once we got into YC, we scrapped our own index because it was too cumbersome at the time. So we moved over to using Bing as kind of just the raw source data. We launched as Hello Cognition. Over time, every time we like added some intelligence to the product, a better model, we just keep launching. And every additional time we launched, we got way more traffic. So we actually silently rebranded to Find in late December of last year. But like we didn't have that much traffic. Nobody really knew who we were. [00:25:18]Swyx: How'd you pick the name out of it? [00:25:19]Michael: Paul Graham actually picked it for us. [00:25:21]Swyx: All right. [00:25:22]Alessio: Tell the story. Yeah. So, oh boy. [00:25:25]Michael: So this is the biggest side. Should we go for like the full Paul Graham story or just the name? [00:25:29]Swyx: Do you want to do it now? Or do you want to do it later? I'll give you a choice. [00:25:32]Alessio: Hmm. [00:25:33]Michael: I think, okay, let's just start with the name for now and then we can do the full Paul Graham story later. But basically, Paul Graham, when we were lucky enough to meet him, he saw our name and our domain was at the time, sayhello.so and he's just like, guys, like, come on, like, what is this? You know? And we were like, yeah, but like when we bought it, you know, we just kind of broke college students. Like we didn't have that much money. And like, we really liked hello as a name because it was the first like conversational search engine. And that's kind of, that's the angle that we were approaching it from. And so we had sayhello.so and he's like, there's so many problems with that. Like, like, like the say hello, like, what does that even mean? And like .so, like, it's gotta be like a .com. And so we did some time just like with Paul Graham in the room. We just like looked at different domain names, like different things that like popped into our head. And one of the things that popped into like Paul Graham said was fine with the Phind spelling in particular. [00:26:33]Swyx: Yeah. Which is not typical naming advice, right? Yes. Because it's not when people hear it, they don't spell it that way. [00:26:38]Michael: Exactly. It's hard to spell. And also it's like very 90s. And so at first, like, we didn't like, I was like, like, ah, like, I don't know. But over time it kept growing on us. And eventually we're like, okay, we like the name. It's owned by this elderly Canadian gentleman who we got to know, and he was willing to sell it to us. [00:26:57]Michael: And so we bought it and we changed the name. Yeah. [00:27:01]Swyx: Anyways, where were you? [00:27:02]Alessio: I had to ask. [00:27:03]Swyx: I mean, you know, everyone who looks at you is wondering. [00:27:06]Michael: And a lot of people actually pronounce it Phind, which, you know, by now it's part of the game. But eventually we want to buy Phind.com and then just have that redirect to Phind. So Phind is like definitely the right spelling. But like, we'll just, yeah, we'll have all the cases addressed. [00:27:23]Swyx: Cool. So Bing web search, and then August you launched V2. Is V2 the Phind as a system pitch? Or have you moved, evolved since then? [00:27:31]Michael: Yeah, so I don't, like the V2 moniker, like, I don't really think of it that way in my mind. There's like, there's the version we launched during, last summer during YC, which was the Bing version directed towards programmers. And that's kind of like, that's why I call it like the first incarnation of what we currently are. Because it was already directed towards programmers. We had like a code snippet search built in as well, because at the time, you know, the models we were using weren't good enough to generate code snippets. Even GPT, like the text DaVinci 2 was available at the time, wasn't that good at generating code and it would generate like very, very short, very incomplete code snippets. And so we launched that last summer, got some traction, but really like we were only doing like, I don't know, maybe like 10,000 searches a day. [00:28:15]Alessio: Some people knew about it. [00:28:16]Michael: Some people used it, which is impressive because looking back, the product like was not that good. And every time we've like made an improvement to the way that we retrieve context through better embeddings, more intelligent, like HTML parsers, and importantly, like better underlying models. Every major version after that was when we introduced a better underlying answering model. Like in February, we had to swallow a bit of our pride when we were like, okay, our own models aren't good enough. We have to go to open AI. And actually that did lead to kind of like our first decent bump of traffic in February. And people kept using it, like our attention was way better too. But we were still kind of running into problems of like more advanced reasoning. Some people tried it, but people were leaving because even like GPT 3.5, both turbo and non-turbo, like still not that great at doing like code related reasoning beyond the how do you do X, like documentation search type of use case. And so it was really only when GPT 4 came around in April that we were like, okay, like this is like our first real opportunity to really make this thing like the way that it should have been all along. And having GPT 4 as the brain is what led to that Hacker News post. And so what we did was we just let anyone use GPT 4 on Fyne for free without a login, [00:29:43]Alessio: which I actually don't regret. [00:29:45]Michael: So it was very expensive, obviously. But like at that stage, all we needed to do was show like, we just needed to like show people here's what Fyne can do. That was the main thing. And so that worked. That worked. [00:29:58]Alessio: Like we got a lot of users. [00:29:59]Michael: Do you know Fireship? [00:30:01]Swyx: Yeah. YouTube, Jeff Delaney. [00:30:03]Michael: Yeah. He made a short about Fyne. [00:30:06]Alessio: Oh. [00:30:07]Michael: And that's on top of the Hacker News post. And that's what like really, really made it blow up. It got millions of views in days. And he's just funny. Like what I love about Fireship is like he like you guys, yeah, like humor goes a long a long way towards like really grabbing people's attention. And so that blew up. [00:30:25]Swyx: Something I would be anxious about as a founder during that period, so obviously we all remember that pretty closely. So there were a couple of people who had access to the GPT-4 API doing this, which is unrestricted access to GPT-4. And I have to imagine OpenAI wasn't that happy about that because it was like kind of de facto access to GPT-4 before they released it. [00:30:46]Alessio: No, no. [00:30:47]Michael: GPT-4 was in chat GPT from day one. I think. OpenAI actually came to our support because what happened was we had people building unofficial APIs around to try to get free access to it. And I think OpenAI actually has the right perspective on this where they're like, OK, people can do whatever they want with the API if they're paying for it, like they can do whatever they want, but it's like not OK if, you know, paying customers are being exploite by these other actors. They actually got in touch with us and they helped us like set up better Cloudflare bot monitoring controls to effectively like crack down on those unofficial APIs, which we're very happy about. But yeah, so we launched GPT-4. A lot of people come to the product and yeah, for a long time, we're just we're figuring out like what do we make of this, right? How do we a make it better, but also deal with like our costs, which have just like massively, massively ballooned. Over time, it's become more clear with the release of Llama 2 and Llama 3 on the horizon that we will once again see a return to vertical applications running their own models. As was true last year and before, I think that GPT-4, my hypothesis is that the jump from 4 to 4.5 or 4 to 5 will be smaller than the jump from 3 to 4. And the reason why is because there were a lot of different things. Like there was two plus, effectively two, two and a half years of research that went into going from 3 to 4. Like more data, bigger model, all of the instruction tuning techniques, RLHF, all of that is known. And like Meta, for example, and now there's all these other startups like Mistral too, like there's a bunch of very well-funded open source players that are now working on just like taking the recipe that's now known and scaling it up. So I think that even if a delta exists, the delta between in 2024, the delta between proprietary and open source won't be large enough that a startup like us with a lot of data that we've collected can take the data that we have, fine tune an open source model, and like be able to have it be better than whatever the proprietary model is at the time. That's my hypothesis.Michael: But we'll once again see a return to these verticalized models. And that's something that we're super excited about because, yeah, that brings us to kind of the fine model because the plan from kind of the start was to be able to return to that if that makes sense. And I think now we're definitely at a point where it does make sense because we have requests from users who like, they want longer context in the model, basically, like they want to be able to ask questions about their entire code base without, you know, context and retrieval and taking a chance of that. Like, I think it's generally been shown that if you have the space to just put the raw files inside of a big context window, that is still better than chunking and retrieval. So there's various things that we could do with longer context, faster speed, lower cost. Super excited about that. And that's the direction that we're going with the fine model. And our big hypothesis there is precisely that we can take a really good open source model and then just train it on absolutely all of the high quality data that we can find. And there's a lot of various, you know, interesting ideas for this. We have our own techniques that we're kind of playing with internally. One of the very interesting ideas that I've seen, I think it's called Octopack from BigCode. I don't think that it made that big waves when it came out, I think in August. But the idea is that they have this data set that maps GitHub commits to a change. So basically there's all this really high quality, like human made, human written diff data out there on every time someone makes a commit in some repo. And you can use that to train models. Take the file state before and like given a commit message, what should that code look like in the future? [00:34:52]Swyx: Got it. [00:34:53]Alessio: Do you think your HumanEval is any good?Michael: So we ran this experiment. We trained the Phind model. And if you go to the BigCode leaderboard, as of today, October 5th, all of our models are at the top of the BigCode leaderboard by far. It's not close, particularly in languages other than Python. We have a 10 point gap between us and the next best model on JavaScript. I think C sharp, multilingual. And what we kind of learned from that whole experience releasing those models is that human eval doesn't really matter. Not just that, but GPT-4 itself has been trained on human eval. And we know this because GPT-4 is able to predict the exact docstring in many of the problems. I've seen it predict like the specific example values in the docstring, which is extremely improbable. So I think there's a lot of dataset contamination and it only captures a very limited subset of what programmers are actually doing. What we do internally for evaluations are we have GPT-4 score answers. GPT-4 is a really good evaluator. I mean, obviously it's by really good, I mean, it's the best that we have. I'm sure that, you know, a couple of months from now, next year, we'll be like, oh, you know, like GPT-4.5, GPT-5, it's so much better. Like GPT-4 is terrible, but like right now it's the best that we have short of humans. And what we found is that when doing like temperature zero evals, it's actually mostly deterministic GPT-4 across runs in assigning scores to two different answers. So we found it to be a very useful tool in comparing our model to say, GPT-4, but yeah, on our like internal real world, here's what people will be asking this model dataset. And the other thing that we're running is just like releasing the model to our users and just seeing what they think. Because that's like the only thing that really matters is like releasing it for the application that it's intended for, and then seeing how people react. And for the most part, the incredible thing is, is that people don't notice a difference between our model and GPT-4 for the vast majority of searches. There's some reasoning problems that GPT-4 can still do better. We're working on addressing that. But in terms of like the types of questions that people are asking on find, there's not that much difference. And in fact, I've been running my own kind of side by side comparisons, shout out to GodMode, by the way. [00:37:16]Michael: And I've like myself, I've kind of confirmed this to be the case. And even sometimes it gives a better answer, perhaps like more concise or just like better implementation than GPT-4, which that's what surprises me. And by now we kind of have like this reasoning is all you need kind of hypothesis where we've seen emerging capabilities in the find model, whereby training it on high quality code, it can actually like reason better. It went from not being able to solve world problems, where riddles were like with like temporal placement of objects and moving and stuff like that, that GPT-4 can do pretty well. We went from not being able to do those at all to being able to do them just by training on more code, which is wild. So we're already like starting to see like these emerging capabilities. [00:37:59]Swyx: So I just wanted to make sure that we have the, I guess, like the model card in our heads. So you started from Code Llama? [00:38:07]Alessio: Yes. [00:38:08]Swyx: 65, 34? 34. [00:38:10]Michael: So unfortunately, there's no Code Llama 70b. If there was, that would be super cool. But there's not. [00:38:15]Swyx: 34. And then, which in itself was Llama 2, which is on 2 trillion tokens and the added 500 billion code tokens. Yes. [00:38:22]Michael: And you just added a bunch more. [00:38:23]Alessio: Yeah. [00:38:24]Michael: And they also did a couple of things. So they did, I think they did 500 billion, like general pre-training and then they did an extra 20 billion long context pre-training. So they actually increased the like max position tokens to 16k up from 8k. And then they changed the theta parameter for the ROPE embeddings as well to give it theoretically better long context support up to 100k tokens. But yeah, but otherwise it's like basically Llama 2. [00:38:50]Swyx: And so you just took that and just added data. [00:38:52]Michael: Exactly. [00:38:53]Swyx: You didn't do any other fundamental. [00:38:54]Michael: Yeah. So we didn't actually, we haven't yet done anything with the model architecture and we just trained it on like many, many more billions of tokens on our own infrastructure. And something else that we're taking a look at now is using reinforcement learning for correctness. One of the interesting pitfalls that we've noticed with the Phind model is that in cases where it gets stuff wrong, it sometimes is capable of getting the right answer. It's just, there's a big variance problem. It's wildly inconsistent. There are cases when it is able to get the right chain of thought and able to arrive [00:39:25]Alessio: at the right answer, but not always. [00:39:27]Michael: And so like one of our hypotheses is something that we're going to try is that like we can actually do reinforcement learning on, for a given problem, generate a bunch of completions and then like use the correct answer as like a loss basically to try to get it to be more correct. And I think there's a high chance I think of this working because it's very similar to the like RLHF method where you basically show pairs of completions for a given question except the criteria is like which one is like less harmful. But here we have a different criteria. But if the model is already capable of getting the right answer, which it is, we're just, we just need to cajole it into being more consistent. [00:40:06]Alessio: There were a couple of things that I noticed in the product that were not strange but unique. So first of all, the model can talk multiple times in a row, like most other applications is like human model, human model. And then you had outside of the thumbs up, thumbs down, you have things like have DLLM prioritize this message and its answers or then continue from this message to like go back. How does that change the flow of the user and like in terms of like prompting it, yeah, what are like some tricks or learnings you've had? [00:40:37]Michael: So yeah, that's specifically in our pair programmer mode, which is a more conversational mode that also like asks you clarifying questions back if it doesn't fully understand what you're doing and it kind of it holds your hand a bit more. And so from user feedback, we had requests to make more of an auto GPT where you can kind of give it this problem that might take multiple searches or multiple different steps like multiple reasoning steps to solve. And so that's the impetus behind building that product. Being able to do multiple steps and also be able to handle really long conversations. Like people are really trying to use the pair programmer to go from like sometimes really from like basic idea to like complete working code. And so we noticed was is that we were having like these very, very long threads, sometimes with like 60 messages, like 100 messages. And like those become really, really challenging to manage the appropriate context window of what should go inside of the context and how to preserve the context so that the model can continue or the product can continue giving good responses, even if you're like 60 messages deep in a conversation. So that's where the prioritized user messages like comes from. It's like people have asked us to just like let them pin messages that they want to be left in the conversation. And yeah, and then that seems to have like really gone a long way towards solving that problem, yeah. [00:41:54]Alessio: And then you have a run on Replit thing. Are you planning to build your own repl? Like learning some people trying to run the wrong code, unsafe code? [00:42:03]Michael: Yes. Yes. So I think like in the long term vision of like being a place where people can go from like idea to like fully working code, having a code sandbox, like a natively integrated code sandbox makes a lot of sense. And replit is great and people use that feature. But yeah, I think there's more we can do in terms of like having something a bit closer to code interpreter where it's able to run the code and then like recursively iterate on it. Exactly. [00:42:31]Swyx: So you're working on APIs to enable you to do that? Yep. So Amjad has specifically told me in person that he wants to enable that for people at the same time. He's also working on his own models, and Ghostwriter and you know, all the other stuff. So it's going to get interesting. Like he wants to power you, but also compete with you. Yeah. [00:42:47]Michael: And like, and we love replit. I think that a lot of the companies in our space, like we're all going to converge to solving a very similar problem, but from a different angle. So like replit approaches this problem from the IDE side. Like they started as like this IDE that you can run in the browser. And they started from that side, making coding just like more accessible. And we're approaching it from the side of like an LLM that's just like connected to everything that it needs to be connected to, which includes your code context. So that's why we're kind of making inroads into IDEs, but we're kind of, we're approaching this problem from different sides. And I think it'll be interesting to see where things end up. But I think that in the long, long term, we have an opportunity to also just have like this general technical reasoning engine product that's potentially also not just for, not just for programmers. It's also powered in this web interface, like where there's potential, I think other things that we will build that eventually might go beyond like our current scope. [00:43:49]Swyx: Exciting. We'll look forward to that. We're going to zoom out a little bit into sort of AI ecosystem stories, but first we got to get the Paul Graham, Ron Conway story. [00:43:59]Alessio: Yeah. [00:44:00]Michael: So flashback to last summer, we're in the YC batch. We're doing the summer batch, summer 22. So the summer batch runs from June to September, approximately. And so this was late July, early August, right around the time that many like YC startups start like going out, like during up, here's how we're going to pitch investors and everything. And at the same time, me and my co-founder, Justin, we were planning on moving to New York. So for a long time, actually, we were thinking about building this company in New York, mainly for personal reasons, actually, because like during the pandemic, pre-ChatGPT, pre last year, pre the AI boom, SF unfortunately really kind of, you know, like lost its luster. Yeah. Like no one was here. It was far from clear, like if there would be an AI boom, if like SF would be like... [00:44:49]Alessio: Back. [00:44:50]Michael: Yeah, exactly. Back. As everyone is saying these days, it was far from clear. And so, and all of our friends, we were graduating college because like we happened to just graduate college and immediately start YC, like we didn't even have, I think we had a week in between. [00:45:06]Swyx: You didn't bother looking for jobs. You were just like, this is what we want to do. [00:45:08]Michael: Well, actually both me and my co-founder, we had jobs that we secured in 2021 from previous internships, but we both, funny enough, when I spoke to my boss's boss at the company at where I reneged my offer, I told him we got into YC, they actually said, yeah, you should do YC. [00:45:27]Swyx: Wow. [00:45:28]Alessio: That's very selfless. [00:45:29]Swyx: That was really great that they did that. But in San Francisco, they would have offered to invest as well. [00:45:33]Michael: Yes, they would have. But yeah, but we were both planning to be in New York and all of our friends were there from college at this point, like we have this whole plan where like on August 1st, we're going to move to New York and we had like this Airbnb for the month of New York. We're going to stay there and we're going to work and like all of that. The day before we go to New York, I called Justin and I just, I tell him like, why are we doing this? Because in our batch, by the time August 1st rolled around, all of our mentors at YC were saying like, hey, like you should really consider staying in SF. [00:46:03]Swyx: It's the hybrid batch, right? [00:46:04]Michael: Yeah, it was the hybrid batch, but like there were already signs that like something was kind of like afoot in SF, even if like we didn't fully want to admit it yet. And so we were like, I don't know, I don't know. Something kind of clicked when the rubber met the road and it was time to go to New York. We're like, why are we doing this? And like, we didn't have any good reasons for staying in New York at that point beyond like our friends are there. So we still go to New York because like we have the Airbnb, like we don't have any other kind of place to go for the next few weeks. We're in New York and New York is just unfortunately too much fun. Like all of my other friends from college who are just, you know, basically starting their jobs, starting their lives as adults. They just stepped into these jobs, they're making all this money and they're like partying and like all these things are happening. And like, yeah, it's just a very distracting place to be. And so we were just like sitting in this like small, you know, like cramped apartment, terrible posture, trying to get as much work done as we can, too many distractions. And then we get this email from YC saying that Paul Graham is in town in SF and he is doing office hours with a certain number of startups in the current batch. And whoever signs up first gets it. And I happen to be super lucky. I was about to go for a run, but I just, I saw the email notification come across the street. I immediately clicked on the link and like immediately, like half the spots were gone, but somehow the very last spot was still available. And so I picked the very, very last time slot at 7 p.m. semi-strategically, you know, so we would have like time to go over. And also because I didn't really know how we're going to get to SF yet. And so we made a plan that we're going to fly from New York to SF and back to New York in one day and do like the full round trip. And we're going to meet with PG at the YC Mountain View office. And so we go there, we do that, we meet PG, we tell him about the startup. And one thing I love about PG is that he gets like, he gets so excited. Like when he gets excited about something, like you can see his eyes like really light up. And he'll just start asking you questions. In fact, it's a little challenging sometimes to like finish kind of like the rest of like the description of your pitch because like, he'll just like asking all these questions about how it works. And I'm like, you know, what's going on? [00:48:19]Swyx: What was the most challenging question that he asked you? [00:48:21]Michael: I think that like really how it worked. Because like as soon as like we told him like, hey, like we think that the future of search is answers, not links. Like we could really see like the gears turning in his head. I think we were like the first demo of that. [00:48:35]Swyx: And you're like 10 minutes with him, right? [00:48:37]Michael: We had like 45, yeah, we had a decent chunk of time. And so we tell him how it works. Like he's very excited about it. And I just like, I just blurted out, I just like asked him to invest and he hasn't even seen the product yet. We just asked him to invest and he says, yeah. And like, we're super excited about that. [00:48:55]Swyx: You haven't started your batch. [00:48:56]Michael: No, no, no. This is about halfway through the batch or two, two, no, two thirds of the batch. [00:49:02]Swyx: And you're like not technically fundraising yet. We're about to start fundraising. Yeah. [00:49:06]Michael: So we have like this demo and like we showed him and like there was still a lot of issues with the product, but I think like it must have like still kind of like blown his mind in some way. So like we're having fun. He's having fun. We have this dinner planned with this other friend that we had in SF because we were only there for that one day. So we thought, okay, you know, after an hour we'll be done, you know, we'll grab dinner with our friend and we'll fly back to New York. But PG was like, like, I'm having so much fun. Do you want to have dinner? Yeah. Come to my house. Or he's like, I gotta go have dinner with my wife, Jessica, who's also awesome, by the way. [00:49:40]Swyx: She's like the heart of YC. Yeah. [00:49:42]Michael: Jessica does not get enough credit as an aside for her role. [00:49:46]Swyx: He tries. [00:49:47]Michael: He understands like the technical side and she understands people and together they're just like a phenomenal team. But he's like, yeah, I got to go see Jessica, but you guys are welcome to come with. Do you want to come with? And we're like, we have this friend who's like right now outside of like literally outside the door who like we also promised to get dinner with. It's like, we'd love to, but like, I don't know if we can. He's like, oh, he's welcome to come too. So all of us just like hop in his car and we go to his house and we just like have this like we have dinner and we have this just chat about the future of search. Like I remember him telling Jessica distinctly, like our kids as kids are not going to know what like a search result is. Like they're just going to like have answers. That was really like a mind blowing, like inflection point moment for sure. [00:50:34]Swyx: Wow, that email changed your life. [00:50:35]Michael: Absolutely. [00:50:36]Swyx: And you also just spoiled the booking system for PG because now everyone's just going to go after the last slot. Oh man. [00:50:42]Michael: Yeah. But like, I don't know if he even does that anymore. [00:50:46]Swyx: He does. He does. Yeah. I've met other founders that he did it this year. [00:50:49]Michael: This year. Gotcha. But when we told him about how we did it, he was like, I am like frankly shocked that YC just did like a random like scheduling system. [00:50:55]Alessio: They didn't like do anything else. But, um. [00:50:58]Swyx: Okay. And then he introduces Duron Conway. Yes. Who is one of the most legendary angels in Silicon Valley. [00:51:04]Michael: Yes.So after PG invested, the rest of our round came together pretty quickly. [00:51:10]Swyx: I'm, by the way, I'm surprised. Like it's, it might feel like playing favorites right within the current batch to be like, yo, PG invested in this one. Right. [00:51:17]Alessio: Too bad for the others. [00:51:18]Swyx: Too bad for the others, I guess. [00:51:19]Michael: I think this is a bigger point about YC and like these accelerators in general is like YC gets like a lot of criticism from founders who feel like they didn't get value out of it. But like, in my view, YC is what you make of it. And YC tells you this. They're like, you really got to grab this opportunity, like buy the balls and make the most of it. And if you do, then it could be the best thing in the world. And if you don't, and if you're just kind of like a passive, even like an average founder in YC, you're still going to fail. And they tell you that. They're like, if you're average in your batch, you're going to fail. Like you have to just be exceptional in every way. With that in mind, perhaps that's even part of the reason why we asked PG to invest. And so yeah, after PG invested, the rest of our round came together pretty quickly, which I'm very fortunate for. And yeah, he introduced us to Ron. And after he did, I get a call from Ron. And then Ron says like, hey, like PG tells me what you're working on. I'd love to come meet you guys. And I'm like, wait, no way. And then we're just holed up in this like little house in San Mateo, which is a little small, but you know, it had a nice patio. In fact, we had like a monitor set up outside on the deck out there. And so Ron Conway comes over, we go over to the patio where like our workstation is. And Ron Conway, he's known for having like this notebook that he goes around with where he like sits down with the notebook and like takes very, very detailed notes. So he never like forgets anything. So he sits down with his notebook and he asks us like, hey guys, like, what do you need? And we're like, oh, we need GPUs. Back then, the GPU shortage wasn't even nearly as bad as it is now. But like even then, it was still challenging to get like the quota that we needed. And he's like, okay, no problem. And then like he leaves a couple hours later, we get an email and we're CC'd on an email that Ron wrote to Jensen, the CEO of Nvidia, saying like, hey, these guys need GPUs. [00:53:02]Swyx: You didn't say how much? It was just like, just give them GPUs. [00:53:04]Alessio: Basically, yeah. [00:53:05]Michael: Ron is known for writing these like one-liner emails that are like very short, but very to the point. And I think that's why like everyone responds to Ron. Everyone loves Ron. And so Jensen responds. He responds quickly, like tagging this VP of AI at Nvidia. And we start working with Nvidia, which is great. And something that I love about Nvidia, by the way, is that after that intro, we got matched with like a dedicated team. And at Nvidia, they know that they're going to win regardless. So they don't care where you get the GPUs from. They're like, they're truly neutral, unlike various sales reps that you might encounter at various like clouds and, you know, hardware companies, et cetera. They actually just want to help you because they know they don't care. Like regardless, they know that if you're getting Nvidia GPUs, they're still winning. So I guess that's a tip is that like if you're looking for GPUs like Nvidia, they'll help you do it. [00:53:54]Swyx: So just to tie up this thing, because so first of all, that's a fantastic story. And I just wanted to let you tell that because it's special. That is a strategic shift, right? That you already decided to make by the time you met Ron, which is we are going to have our own hardware. We're going to rack him in a data center somewhere. [00:54:11]Michael: Well, not even that we need our own hardware because actually we don't. Right. But we just we just need GPUs, period. And like every cloud loves like they have their own sales tactics and like they want to make you commit to long terms and like very non-flexible terms. And like there's a web of different things that you kind of have to navigate. Nvidia will kind of be to the point like, OK, you can do this on this cloud, this on this cloud. Like this is your budget. Maybe you want to consider buying as well. Like they'll help you walk through what the options are. And the reason why they're helpful is because like they look at the full picture. So they'll help you with the hardware. And in terms of software, they actually implemented a custom feature for us in Faster Transformer, which is one of their libraries.Swyx: For you? [00:54:53]Michael: For us. Yeah. Which is wild. I don't think they would have done it otherwise. They implemented streaming generation for T5 based models, which we were running at the time up until we switched to GPT in February, March of this year. So they implemented that just for us, actually, in Faster Transformer. And so like they'll help you like look at the complete picture and then just help you get done what you need to get done. I know one of your interests is also local models, open source models and hardware kind of goes hand in hand.Alessio: Any fun projects, explorations in the space that you want to share with local llamas and stuff? [00:55:27]Michael: Yeah, it's something that we're very interested in because something that kind of we're hearing a lot about is like people want something like find, especially comp

This week, the Elixir Wizards are joined by Yohana Tesfazgi and Wes Bos to compare notes on the experience of learning Elixir vs. JavaScript as your first programming language. Yohana recently completed an Elixir apprenticeship, and Wes Bos is a renowned JavaScript educator with popular courses for beginner software developers. They discuss a variety of media and resources and how people with different learning styles benefit from video courses, articles, or more hands-on projects. They also discuss the current atmosphere for those looking to transition into an engineering career and how to stick out among the crowd when new to the scene. Topics Discussed in this Episode Pros and cons of learning Elixir as your first programming language Materials and resources for beginners to JavaScript and Elixir Projects and methods for learning Elixir with no prior knowledge Recommendations for sharpening and showcasing skills How to become a standout candidate for potential employers Soft skills like communication translate well from other careers to programming work Learning subsequent languages becomes more intuitive once you learn your first How to decide which library to use for a project How to build an online presence and why it's important Open-source contributions are a way to learn from the community Ship early and often, just deploying a default Phoenix app teaches deployment skills Attend local meetups and conferences for mentoring and potential job opportunities Links Mentioned https://syntax.fm/ https://fly.io/ https://elixirschool.com/en Syntax.fm: Supper Club × How To Get Your First Dev Job With Stuart Bloxham (https://syntax.fm/show/667/supper-club-how-to-get-your-first-dev-job-with-stuart-bloxham) Quinnwilton.com (https://quinnwilton.com/) https://github.com/pallets/flask https://wesbos.com/courses https://beginnerjavascript.com/ Free course: https://javascript30.com/ https://pragmaticstudio.com/ https://elixircasts.io/ https://grox.io/ LiveView Mastery YouTube Channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7T19hPLqQ-Od3Rb3T2OX1g) Contact Yohana: yytesfazgi@gmail.com

durée : 00:11:59 - C'est bon ça, c'est fait en Isère ? - La bloggeuse iséroise LouLou Gourmet ne manque pas d'idées gourmandes, simples et rapides, pour fêter Halloween dans l'assiette.

Sonar Vulnerability Researchers Thomas Chauchefoin and Paul Gerste conducted research on the security of Visual Studio Code — the most popular code editor out there — which was presented at DEF CON 31 in August. The pair uncovered a few ways for attackers to gain code execution on a victim's computer if they clicked on a specially crafted link or opened a malicious folder in Visual Studio Code, bypassing existing mitigations like Workspace Trust. Developers tend to trust their IDEs and do not expect such security issues to exist. As developers have access to source code and production systems, they make for very interesting targets for threat actors. Important to note is that the security concepts that the two are able to demonstrate apply not just to Visual Studio Code, but to most other code editors. This is also the story of how the researchers got an unexpected $30,000 bounty from Microsoft for these bugs, by mistake! Segment Resources: BLOG POSTS Securing Developer Tools: Argument Injection in Visual Studio Code (https://www.sonarsource.com/blog/securing-developer-tools-argument-injection-in-vscode/) Securing Developer Tools: Git Integrations (https://www.sonarsource.com/blog/securing-developer-tools-git-integrations/) CVEs CVE-2023-36742 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2023-36742) CVE-2022-30129 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/en-US/advisory/CVE-2022-30129) CVE-2021-43891 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/en-US/advisory/CVE-2021-43891) Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/psw-804

Sonar Vulnerability Researchers Thomas Chauchefoin and Paul Gerste conducted research on the security of Visual Studio Code — the most popular code editor out there — which was presented at DEF CON 31 in August. The pair uncovered a few ways for attackers to gain code execution on a victim's computer if they clicked on a specially crafted link or opened a malicious folder in Visual Studio Code, bypassing existing mitigations like Workspace Trust. Developers tend to trust their IDEs and do not expect such security issues to exist. As developers have access to source code and production systems, they make for very interesting targets for threat actors. Important to note is that the security concepts that the two are able to demonstrate apply not just to Visual Studio Code, but to most other code editors. This is also the story of how the researchers got an unexpected $30,000 bounty from Microsoft for these bugs, by mistake! Segment Resources: BLOG POSTS Securing Developer Tools: Argument Injection in Visual Studio Code (https://www.sonarsource.com/blog/securing-developer-tools-argument-injection-in-vscode/) Securing Developer Tools: Git Integrations (https://www.sonarsource.com/blog/securing-developer-tools-git-integrations/) CVEs CVE-2023-36742 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2023-36742) CVE-2022-30129 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/en-US/advisory/CVE-2022-30129) CVE-2021-43891 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/en-US/advisory/CVE-2021-43891) Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/psw-804

For the Security News, we officially welcome Bill Swearingen to our expert panel of PSW hosts, and discuss the news including hacking shenanigans, QNAP, recovering crypto currency, Android malware, and more! Then in a pre-recorded segment: Sonar Vulnerability Researchers Thomas Chauchefoin and Paul Gerste conducted research on the security of Visual Studio Code — the most popular code editor out there — which was presented at DEF CON 31 in August. The pair uncovered a few ways for attackers to gain code execution on a victim's computer if they clicked on a specially crafted link or opened a malicious folder in Visual Studio Code, bypassing existing mitigations like Workspace Trust. Developers tend to trust their IDEs and do not expect such security issues to exist. As developers have access to source code and production systems, they make for very interesting targets for threat actors. Important to note is that the security concepts that the two are able to demonstrate apply not just to Visual Studio Code, but to most other code editors. This is also the story of how the researchers got an unexpected $30,000 bounty from Microsoft for these bugs, by mistake! Segment Resources: BLOG POSTS Securing Developer Tools: Argument Injection in Visual Studio Code (https://www.sonarsource.com/blog/securing-developer-tools-argument-injection-in-vscode/) Securing Developer Tools: Git Integrations (https://www.sonarsource.com/blog/securing-developer-tools-git-integrations/) CVEs CVE-2023-36742 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2023-36742) CVE-2022-30129 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/en-US/advisory/CVE-2022-30129) CVE-2021-43891 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/en-US/advisory/CVE-2021-43891)   Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/psw for all the latest episodes! Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/securityweekly Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/secweekly Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/psw-804

For the Security News, we officially welcome Bill Swearingen to our expert panel of PSW hosts, and discuss the news including hacking shenanigans, QNAP, recovering crypto currency, Android malware, and more! Then in a pre-recorded segment: Sonar Vulnerability Researchers Thomas Chauchefoin and Paul Gerste conducted research on the security of Visual Studio Code — the most popular code editor out there — which was presented at DEF CON 31 in August. The pair uncovered a few ways for attackers to gain code execution on a victim's computer if they clicked on a specially crafted link or opened a malicious folder in Visual Studio Code, bypassing existing mitigations like Workspace Trust. Developers tend to trust their IDEs and do not expect such security issues to exist. As developers have access to source code and production systems, they make for very interesting targets for threat actors. Important to note is that the security concepts that the two are able to demonstrate apply not just to Visual Studio Code, but to most other code editors. This is also the story of how the researchers got an unexpected $30,000 bounty from Microsoft for these bugs, by mistake! Segment Resources: BLOG POSTS Securing Developer Tools: Argument Injection in Visual Studio Code (https://www.sonarsource.com/blog/securing-developer-tools-argument-injection-in-vscode/) Securing Developer Tools: Git Integrations (https://www.sonarsource.com/blog/securing-developer-tools-git-integrations/) CVEs CVE-2023-36742 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2023-36742) CVE-2022-30129 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/en-US/advisory/CVE-2022-30129) CVE-2021-43891 (https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/en-US/advisory/CVE-2021-43891)   Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/psw for all the latest episodes! Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/securityweekly Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/secweekly Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/psw-804

O mítico Théâtre du Soleil, de Ariane Mnouchkine, acolhe até o dia 29 de outubro a peça “Héroïdes” (“Heróides”), baseada na obra do poeta romano Ovídio. A direção e a dramaturgia são da brasileira Flavia Lorenzi, da cia de teatro Brutaflor. O público lota o Théâtre du Soleil de Paris desde a estreia de “Heróides”, no dia 11 de outubro. A peça reescreve as narrativas imaginadas por Ovídio. O poeta romano escreveu, provavelmente entre os anos 20 e 16 a.C, um conjunto de 21 cartas de amor enviadas por mulheres mitológicas (Penélope, Ariane, Medeia, Dido...) a seus amantes e maridos ausentes.A ideia de Flavia Lorenzi foi criar um diálogo entre as vozes antigas e as vozes contemporâneas para dar uma existência moderna a esses mitos. “Eu pensei que seria uma forma de rever essas narrativas femininas e dar a elas uma nova forma de existência, colocando a mulher realmente no centro”, salientou a diretora em entrevista à RFI, no momento da criação da peça, em 2021.Criação coletiva“Heróides” é uma criação coletiva. A obra de Ovídio foi apenas o ponto de partida. A versão em cartaz em Paris também traz textos de Hélène Cixous, Ana Maria Martins Marques e Niki de Saint-Phalle.A adaptação e interpretação dessas narrativas de Ovidio é quase 100% feminina. São seis mulheres em cena, entre elas a atriz brasileira Rita Grillo. Apenas um homem integra a equipe, o diretor musical Baptiste Lopez.A montagem multidisciplinar, cruzando teatro, dança e música, é baseada no conceito de coralidade que é uma marca da cia Brutaflor, fundada por Flavia Lorenzi na França em 2012. “Heróides” é a sexta produção da companhia.Antes da temporada no Théatre du Soleil, Flavia Lorenzi apresentou a peça em 2021 no Festival Fragments, um evento que abre espaço para companhias de teatro mostrarem a primeira etapa de suas novas montagens.

We are joined by Marcin Kulik – the creator and maintainer of asciinema. We talk about the project itself, developing on Linux, IDEs, targetting a technical audience, the advantages of writing for a command line interface, why -R is always wrong for the recursive flag, and more. Marcin on Mastodon asciinema on Mastodon asciinema on... Read More

We are joined by Marcin Kulik – the creator and maintainer of asciinema. We talk about the project itself, developing on Linux, IDEs, targetting a technical audience, the advantages of writing for a command line interface, why -R is always wrong for the recursive flag, and more. Marcin on Mastodon asciinema on Mastodon asciinema on... Read More

A constant throughout history from Ancient Rome to today is the rich and powerful seek ever more wealth and control. If a popular leader innovates reforms that help the poor they come under sustained attack or worse they are killed. Go back to Caesar in Rome. The standard view is he was a power-hungry tyrant who was slain by the “noble” Brutus and his cohorts to save the Roman Republic. These were some of the measures Caesar implemented which so infuriated his enemies. He distributed land to thousands of veterans and poor Roman families. He began a program of public works. He pushed through rent reductions, reduced debt burdens, and granted Jews the right to practice their religion. These reforms, Michael Parenti says, were unacceptable to the ruling class. Thus, Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March 44 B.C.

202º AD – O terror das lavouras, NEMATÓIDES    Os Nematóides são um problema em todo o território nacional, inclusive na Região Sul, onde não ouvimos tanto sobre o problema generalizado como no restante do Brasil.  Porém, será que o nematoide também não é um problema na região Sul do Brasil e apenas não está sendo negligenciado por técnicos e agricultores?  Pensando em entender mais sobre este assunto e como conviver cm este problema, convidamos o Eng. Agrônomo e Nematologista Dr. Cristiano Bellé, para conversar conosco e dividir um pouco de seus conhecimentos sobre NEMATÓIDES!    Host:   Cassiano Decker @cassianocsd                Eduardo Sebastiany @eduardo_sebastiany        Links do Convidado:    Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/crbelle/details/education/  Instagram: @agrocrbelle    Para contribuir com o podcast Agro Depende, indique esse podcast para um amigo que precisa saber mais sobre o Agro.   

Thanks to the over 11,000 people who joined us for the first AI Engineer Summit! A full recap is coming, but you can 1) catch up on the fun and videos on Twitter and YouTube, 2) help us reach 1000 people for the first comprehensive State of AI Engineering survey and 3) submit projects for the new AI Engineer Foundation.See our Community page for upcoming meetups in SF, Paris, NYC, and Singapore. This episode had good interest on Twitter.Last month, Imbue was crowned as AI's newest unicorn foundation model lab, raising a $200m Series B at a >$1 billion valuation. As “stealth” foundation model companies go, Imbue (f.k.a. Generally Intelligent) has stood as an enigmatic group given they have no publicly released models to try out. However, ever since their $20m Series A last year their goal has been to “develop generally capable AI agents with human-like intelligence in order to solve problems in the real world”.From RL to Reasoning LLMsAlong with their Series A, they announced Avalon, “A Benchmark for RL Generalization Using Procedurally Generated Worlds”. Avalon is built on top of the open source Godot game engine, and is ~100x faster than Minecraft to enable fast RL benchmarking and a clear reward with adjustable game difficulty.After a while, they realized that pure RL isn't a good path to teach reasoning and planning. The agents were able to learn mechanical things like opening complex doors, climbing, but couldn't go to higher level tasks. A pure RL world also doesn't include a language explanation of the agent reasoning, which made it hard to understand why it made certain decisions. That pushed the team more towards the “models for reasoning” path:“The second thing we learned is that pure reinforcement learning is not a good vehicle for planning and reasoning. So these agents were able to learn all sorts of crazy things: They could learn to climb like hand over hand in VR climbing, they could learn to open doors like very complicated, like multiple switches and a lever open the door, but they couldn't do any higher level things. And they couldn't do those lower level things consistently necessarily. And as a user, I do not want to interact with a pure reinforcement learning end to end RL agent. As a user, like I need much more control over what that agent is doing.”Inspired by Chelsea Finn's work on SayCan at Stanford, the team pivoted to have their agents do the reasoning in natural language instead. This development parallels the large leaps in reasoning that humans have developed as the scientific method:“We are better at reasoning now than we were 3000 years ago. An example of a reasoning strategy is noticing you're confused. Then when I notice I'm confused, I should ask:* What was the original claim that was made? * What evidence is there for this claim? * Does the evidence support the claim? * Is the claim correct? This is like a reasoning strategy that was developed in like the 1600s, you know, with like the advent of science. So that's an example of a reasoning strategy. There are tons of them. We employ all the time, lots of heuristics that help us be better at reasoning. And we can generate data that's much more specific to them.“The Full Stack Model LabOne year later, it would seem that the pivot to reasoning has had tremendous success, and Imbue has now reached a >$1B valuation, with participation from Astera Institute, NVIDIA, Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt, Notion co-founder Simon Last, and others. Imbue tackles their work with a “full stack” approach:* Models. Pretraining very large (>100B parameter) models, optimized to perform well on internal reasoning benchmarks, with a ~10,000 Nvidia H100 GPU cluster lets us iterate rapidly on everything from training data to architecture and reasoning mechanisms.* Tools and Agents. Building internal productivity tools from coding agents for fixing type checking and linting errors, to sophisticated systems like CARBS (for hyperparameter tuning and network architecture search).* Interface Invention. Solving agent trust and collaboration (not merely communication) with humans by creating better abstractions and interfaces — IDEs for users to program computers in natural language.* Theory. Publishing research about the theoretical underpinnings of self-supervised learning, as well as scaling laws for machine learning research.Kanjun believes we are still in the “bare metal phase” of agent development, and they want to take a holistic approach to building the “operating system for agents”. We loved diving deep into the Imbue approach toward solving the AI Holy Grail of reliable agents, and are excited to share our conversation with you today!Timestamps* [00:00:00] Introductions* [00:06:07] The origin story of Imbue* [00:09:39] Imbue's approach to training large foundation models optimized for reasoning* [00:12:18] Imbue's goals to build an "operating system" for reliable, inspectable AI agents* [00:15:37] Imbue's process of developing internal tools and interfaces to collaborate with AI agents* [00:17:27] Imbue's focus on improving reasoning capabilities in models, using code and other data* [00:19:50] The value of using both public benchmarks and internal metrics to evaluate progress* [00:21:43] Lessons learned from developing the Avalon research environment* [00:23:31] The limitations of pure reinforcement learning for general intelligence* [00:28:36] Imbue's vision for building better abstractions and interfaces for reliable agents* [00:31:36] Interface design for collaborating with, rather than just communicating with, AI agents* [00:37:40] The future potential of an agent-to-agent protocol* [00:39:29] Leveraging approaches like critiquing between models and chain of thought* [00:45:49] Kanjun's philosophy on enabling team members as creative agents at Imbue* [00:53:51] Kanjun's experience co-founding the communal co-living space The Archive* [01:00:22] Lightning RoundShow Notes* Imbue* Avalon* CARBS (hyperparameter optimizer)* Series B announcement* Kanjun/Imbue's Podcast* MIT Media Lab* Research mentioned:* Momentum Contrast* SimClr* Chelsea Finn - SayCan* Agent Protocol - part of the AI Engineer Foundation* Xerox PARC* Michael Nielsen* Jason Benn* Outset Capital* Scenius - Kevin Kelly* South Park Commons* The Archive* Thursday Nights in AITranscriptAlessio: Hey everyone, welcome to the Latent Space Podcast. This is Alessio, Partner and CTO at Residence at Decibel Partners, and I'm joined by my co-host Swyx, founder of Smol.ai. [00:00:19]Swyx: Hey, and today in the studio we have Kanjun from Imbue. Welcome. So you and I have, I guess, crossed paths a number of times. You're formerly named Generally Intelligent and you've just announced your rename, rebrand in huge, humongous ways. So congrats on all of that. And we're here to dive in into deeper detail on Imbue. We like to introduce you on a high level basis, but then have you go into a little bit more of your personal side. So you graduated your BS at MIT and you also spent some time at the MIT Media Lab, one of the most famous, I guess, computer hacking labs in the world. Then you graduated MIT and you went straight into BizOps at Dropbox, where you're eventually chief of staff, which is a pretty interesting role we can dive into later. And then it seems like the founder bug hit you. You were basically a three times founder at Ember, Sorceress, and now at Generally Intelligent slash Imbue. What should people know about you on the personal side that's not on your LinkedIn? That's something you're very passionate about outside of work. [00:01:12]Kanjun: Yeah. I think if you ask any of my friends, they would tell you that I'm obsessed with agency, like human agency and human potential. [00:01:19]Swyx: That's work. Come on.Kanjun: It's not work. What are you talking about?Swyx: So what's an example of human agency that you try to promote? [00:01:27]Kanjun: With all of my friends, I have a lot of conversations with them that's kind of helping figure out what's blocking them. I guess I do this with a team kind of automatically too. And I think about it for myself often, like building systems. I have a lot of systems to help myself be more effective. At Dropbox, I used to give this onboarding talk called How to Be Effective, which people liked. I think like a thousand people heard this onboarding talk, and I think maybe Dropbox was more effective. I think I just really believe that as humans, we can be a lot more than we are. And it's what drives everything. I guess completely outside of work, I do dance. I do partner dance. [00:02:03]Swyx: Yeah. Lots of interest in that stuff, especially in the sort of group living houses in San Francisco, which I've been a little bit part of, and you've also run one of those. [00:02:12]Kanjun: That's right. Yeah. I started the archive with two friends, with Josh, my co-founder, and a couple of other folks in 2015. That's right. And GPT-3, our housemates built. [00:02:22]Swyx: Was that the, I guess, the precursor to Generally Intelligent, that you started doing more things with Josh? Is that how that relationship started? Yeah. [00:02:30]Kanjun: This is our third company together. Our first company, Josh poached me from Dropbox for Ember. And there we built a really interesting technology, laser raster projector, VR headset. And then we were like, VR is not the thing we're most passionate about. And actually it was kind of early days when we both realized we really do believe that in our lifetimes, like computers that are intelligent are going to be able to allow us to do much more than we can do today as people and be much more as people than we can be today. And at that time, we actually, after Ember, we were like, work on AI research or start an AI lab. A bunch of our housemates were joining OpenAI, and we actually decided to do something more pragmatic to apply AI to recruiting and to try to understand like, okay, if we are actually trying to deploy these systems in the real world, what's required? And that was Sorceress. That taught us so much about maybe an AI agent in a lot of ways, like what does it actually take to make a product that people can trust and rely on? I think we never really fully got there. And it's taught me a lot about what's required. And it's kind of like, I think informed some of our approach and some of the way that we think about how these systems will actually get used by people in the real world. [00:03:42]Swyx: Just to go one step deeper on that, you're building AI agents in 2016 before it was cool. You got some muscle and you raised $30 million. Something was working. What do you think you succeeded in doing and then what did you try to do that did not pan out? [00:03:56]Kanjun: Yeah. So the product worked quite well. So Sorceress was an AI system that basically looked for candidates that could be a good fit and then helped you reach out to them. And this was a little bit early. We didn't have language models to help you reach out. So we actually had a team of writers that like, you know, customized emails and we automated a lot of the customization. But the product was pretty magical. Like candidates would just be interested and land in your inbox and then you can talk to them. As a hiring manager, that's such a good experience. I think there were a lot of learnings, both on the product and market side. On the market side, recruiting is a market that is endogenously high churn, which means because people start hiring and then we hire the role for them and they stop hiring. So the more we succeed, the more they... [00:04:39]Swyx: It's like the whole dating business. [00:04:40]Kanjun: It's the dating business. Exactly. Exactly. And I think that's the same problem as the dating business. And I was really passionate about like, can we help people find work that is more exciting for them? A lot of people are not excited about their jobs and a lot of companies are doing exciting things and the matching could be a lot better. But the dating business phenomenon like put a damper on that, like it's actually a pretty good business. But as with any business with like relatively high churn, the bigger it gets, the more revenue we have, the slower growth becomes because if 30% of that revenue you lose year over year, then it becomes a worse business. So that was the dynamic we noticed quite early on after our Series A. I think the other really interesting thing about it is we realized what was required for people to trust that these candidates were like well vetted and had been selected for a reason. And it's what actually led us, you know, a lot of what we do at Imbue is working on interfaces to figure out how do we get to a situation where when you're building and using agents, these agents are trustworthy to the end user. That's actually one of the biggest issues with agents that, you know, go off and do longer range goals is that I have to trust, like, did they actually think through this situation? And that really informed a lot of our work today. [00:05:52]Alessio: Let's jump into GI now, Imbue. When did you decide recruiting was done for you and you were ready for the next challenge? And how did you pick the agent space? I feel like in 2021, it wasn't as mainstream. Yeah. [00:06:07]Kanjun: So the LinkedIn says that it started in 2021, but actually we started thinking very seriously about it in early 2020, late 2019, early 2020. So what we were seeing is that scale is starting to work and language models probably will actually get to a point where like with hacks, they're actually going to be quite powerful. And it was hard to see that at the time, actually, because GPT-3, the early versions of it, there are all sorts of issues. We're like, oh, that's not that useful, but we could kind of see like, okay, you keep improving it in all of these different ways and it'll get better. What Josh and I were really interested in is how can we get computers that help us do bigger things? Like, you know, there's this kind of future where I think a lot about, you know, if I were born in 1900 as a woman, like my life would not be that fun. I'd spend most of my time like carrying water and literally like getting wood to put in the stove to cook food and like cleaning and scrubbing the dishes and, you know, getting food every day because there's no refrigerator, like all of these things, very physical labor. And what's happened over the last 150 years since the industrial revolution is we've kind of gotten free energy, like energy is way more free than it was 150 years ago. And so as a result, we've built all these technologies like the stove and the dishwasher and the refrigerator, and we have electricity and we have infrastructure, running water, all of these things that have totally freed me up to do what I can do now. And I think the same thing is true for intellectual energy. We don't really see it today, but because we're so in it, but our computers have to be micromanaged. You know, part of why people are like, oh, you're stuck to your screen all day. Well, we're stuck to our screen all day because literally nothing happens unless I'm doing something in front of my screen. I don't, you know, I can't send my computer off to do a bunch of stuff for me. And there is a future where that's not the case, where, you know, I can actually go off and do stuff and trust that my computer will pay my bills and figure out my travel plans and do the detailed work that I am not that excited to do so that I can like be much more creative and able to do things that I as a human, I'm very excited about and collaborate with other people. And there are things that people are uniquely suited for. So that's kind of always been the thing that has been really exciting to me. Like Josh and I have known for a long time, I think that, you know, whatever AI is, it would happen in our lifetimes. And the personal computer kind of started giving us a bit of free intellectual energy. And this is like really the explosion of free intellectual energy. So in early 2020, we were thinking about this and what happened was self-supervised learning basically started working across everything. So worked in language, SimClear came out, I think MoCo had come out, Momentum Contrast had come out earlier in 2019, SimClear came out in early 2020. And we're like, okay, for the first time, self-supervised learning is working really well across images and text and suspect that like, okay, actually it's the case that machines can learn things the way that humans do. And if that's true, if they can learn things in a fully self-supervised way, because like as people, we are not supervised. We like go Google things and try to figure things out. So if that's true, then like what the computer could be is much bigger than what it is today. And so we started exploring ideas around like, how do we actually go? We didn't think about the fact that we could actually just build a research lab. So we were like, okay, what kind of startup could we build to like leverage self-supervised learning? So that eventually becomes something that allows computers to become much more able to do bigger things for us. But that became General Intelligence, which started as a research lab. [00:09:39]Alessio: So your mission is you aim to rekindle the dream of the personal computer. So when did it go wrong and what are like your first products and user facing things that you're building to rekindle it? [00:09:53]Kanjun: Yeah. So what we do at Imbue is we train large foundation models optimized for reasoning. And the reason for that is because reasoning is actually, we believe the biggest blocker to agents or systems that can do these larger goals. If we think about something that writes an essay, like when we write an essay, we like write it. We put it and then we're done. We like write it and then we look at it and we're like, oh, I need to do more research on that area. I'm going to go do some research and figure it out and come back and, oh, actually it's not quite right. The structure of the outline. So I'm going to rearrange the outline, rewrite it. It's this very iterative process and it requires thinking through like, okay, what am I trying to do? Is the goal correct? Also like, has the goal changed as I've learned more? So as a tool, like when should I ask the user questions? I shouldn't ask them questions all the time, but I should ask them questions in higher risk situations. How certain am I about the like flight I'm about to book? There are all of these notions of like risk certainty, playing out scenarios, figuring out how to make a plan that makes sense, how to change the plan, what the goal should be. That are things that we lump under the bucket of reasoning and models today, they're not optimized for reasoning. It turns out that there's not actually that much explicit reasoning data on the internet as you would expect. And so we get a lot of mileage out of optimizing our models for reasoning in pre-training. And then on top of that, we build agents ourselves and we, I can get into, we really believe in serious use, like really seriously using the systems and trying to get to an agent that we can use every single day, tons of agents that we can use every single day. And then we experiment with interfaces that help us better interact with the agents. So those are some set of things that we do on the kind of model training and agent side. And then the initial agents that we build, a lot of them are trying to help us write code better because code is most of what we do every day. And then on the infrastructure and theory side, we actually do a fair amount of theory work to understand like, how do these systems learn? And then also like, what are the right abstractions for us to build good agents with, which we can get more into. And if you look at our website, we build a lot of tools internally. We have a like really nice automated hyperparameter optimizer. We have a lot of really nice infrastructure and it's all part of the belief of like, okay, let's try to make it so that the humans are doing the things humans are good at as much as possible. So out of our very small team, we get a lot of leverage. [00:12:18]Swyx: And so would you still categorize yourself as a research lab now, or are you now in startup mode? Is that a transition that is conscious at all? [00:12:26]Kanjun: That's a really interesting question. I think we've always intended to build, you know, to try to build the next version of the computer, enable the next version of the computer. The way I think about it is there's a right time to bring a technology to market. So Apple does this really well. Actually, iPhone was under development for 10 years, AirPods for five years. And Apple has a story where iPhone, the first multi-touch screen was created. They actually were like, oh wow, this is cool. Let's like productionize iPhone. They actually brought, they like did some work trying to productionize it and realized this is not good enough. And they put it back into research to try to figure out like, how do we make it better? What are the interface pieces that are needed? And then they brought it back into production. So I think of production and research as kind of like these two separate phases. And internally we have that concept as well, where like things need to be done in order to get to something that's usable. And then when it's usable, like eventually we figure out how to productize it. [00:13:20]Alessio: What's the culture like to make that happen, to have both like kind of like product oriented, research oriented. And as you think about building the team, I mean, you just raised 200 million. I'm sure you want to hire more people. What are like the right archetypes of people that work at Imbue? [00:13:35]Kanjun: I would say we have a very unique culture in a lot of ways. I think a lot about social process design. So how do you design social processes that enable people to be effective? I like to think about team members as creative agents, because most companies, they think of their people as assets and they're very proud of this. And I think about like, okay, what is an asset? It's something you own that provides you value that you can discard at any time. This is a very low bar for people. This is not what people are. And so we try to enable everyone to be a creative agent and to really unlock their superpowers. So a lot of the work I do, you know, I was mentioning earlier, I'm like obsessed with agency. A lot of the work I do with team members is try to figure out like, you know, what are you really good at? What really gives you energy and where can we put you such that, how can I help you unlock that and grow that? So much of our work, you know, in terms of team structure, like much of our work actually comes from people. Carbs, our hyperparameter optimizer came from Abe trying to automate his own research process doing hyperparameter optimization. And he actually pulled some ideas from plasma physics. He's a plasma physicist to make the local search work. A lot of our work on evaluations comes from a couple of members of our team who are like obsessed with evaluations. We do a lot of work trying to figure out like, how do you actually evaluate if the model is getting better? Is the model making better agents? Is the agent actually reliable? A lot of things kind of like, I think of people as making the like them shaped blob inside imbue and I think, you know, yeah, that's the kind of person that we're, we're hiring for. We're hiring product engineers and data engineers and research engineers and all these roles. We have projects, not teams. We have a project around data, data collection and data engineering. That's actually one of the key things that improve the model performance. We have a pre-training kind of project with some fine tuning as part of that. And then we have an agent's project that's like trying to build on top of our models as well as use other models in the outside world to try to make agents then we actually use as programmers every day. So all sorts of different, different projects. [00:15:37]Swyx: As a founder, you're now sort of a capital allocator among all of these different investments effectively at different projects. And I was interested in how you mentioned that you were optimizing for improving reasoning and specifically inside of your pre-training, which I assume is just a lot of data collection. [00:15:55]Kanjun: We are optimizing reasoning inside of our pre-trained models. And a lot of that is about data. And I can talk more about like what, you know, what exactly does it involve? But actually big, maybe 50% plus of the work is figuring out even if you do have models that reason well, like the models are still stochastic. The way you prompt them still makes, is kind of random, like makes them do random things. And so how do we get to something that is actually robust and reliable as a user? How can I, as a user, trust it? We have all sorts of cool things on the, like, you know, I was mentioning earlier when I talked to other people building agents, they have to do so much work, like to try to get to something that they can actually productize and it takes a long time and agents haven't been productized yet for, partly for this reason is that like the abstractions are very leaky. We can get like 80% of the way there, but like self-driving cars, like the remaining 20% is actually really difficult. We believe that, and we have internally, I think some things that like an interface, for example, that lets me really easily like see what the agent execution is, fork it, try out different things, modify the prompt, modify like the plan that it is making. This type of interface, it makes it so that I feel more like I'm collaborating with the agent as it's executing, as opposed to it's just like doing something as a black box. That's an example of a type of thing that's like beyond just the model pre-training, but on the model pre-training side, like reasoning is a thing that we optimize for. And a lot of that is about what data do we put in. [00:17:27]Swyx: It's interesting just because I always think like, you know, out of the levers that you have, the resources that you have, I think a lot of people think that running foundation model company or a research lab is going to be primarily compute. And I think the share of compute has gone down a lot over the past three years. It used to be the main story, like the main way you scale is you just throw more compute at it. And now it's like, Flops is not all you need. You need better data, you need better algorithms. And I wonder where that shift has gone. This is a very vague question, but is it like 30-30-30 now? Is it like maybe even higher? So one way I'll put this is people estimate that Llama2 maybe took about three to $4 million of compute, but probably 20 to $25 million worth of labeling data. And I'm like, okay, well that's a very different story than all these other foundation model labs raising hundreds of millions of dollars and spending it on GPUs. [00:18:20]Kanjun: Data is really expensive. We generate a lot of data. And so that does help. The generated data is close to actually good, as good as human labeled data. [00:18:34]Swyx: So generated data from other models? [00:18:36]Kanjun: From our own models. From your own models. Or other models, yeah. [00:18:39]Swyx: Do you feel like there's certain variations of this? There's the sort of the constitutional AI approach from Anthropic and basically models sampling training on data from other models. I feel like there's a little bit of like contamination in there, or to put it in a statistical form, you're resampling a distribution that you already have that you already know doesn't match human distributions. How do you feel about that basically, just philosophically? [00:19:04]Kanjun: So when we're optimizing models for reasoning, we are actually trying to like make a part of the distribution really spiky. So in a sense, like that's actually what we want. We want to, because the internet is a sample of the human distribution that's also skewed in all sorts of ways. That is not the data that we necessarily want these models to be trained on. And so when we're generating data, we're not really randomly generating data. We generate very specific things that are like reasoning traces and that help optimize reasoning. Code also is a big piece of improving reasoning. So generated code is not that much worse than like regular human written code. You might even say it can be better in a lot of ways. So yeah. So we are trying to already do that. [00:19:50]Alessio: What are some of the tools that you thought were not a good fit? So you built Avalon, which is your own simulated world. And when you first started, the metagame was like using games to simulate things using, you know, Minecraft and then OpenAI is like the gym thing and all these things. And I think in one of your other podcasts, you mentioned like Minecraft is like way too slow to actually do any serious work. Is that true? Yeah. I didn't say it. [00:20:17]Swyx: I don't know. [00:20:18]Alessio: That's above my pay grade. But Avalon is like a hundred times faster than Minecraft for simulation. When did you figure that out that you needed to just like build your own thing? Was it kind of like your engineering team was like, Hey, this is too slow. Was it more a long-term investment? [00:20:34]Kanjun: Yeah. At that time we built Avalon as a research environment to help us learn particular things. And one thing we were trying to learn is like, how do you get an agent that is able to do many different tasks? Like RL agents at that time and environments at that time. What we heard from other RL researchers was the like biggest thing keeping holding the field back is lack of benchmarks that let us explore things like planning and curiosity and things like that and have the agent actually perform better if the agent has curiosity. And so we were trying to figure out in a situation where, how can we have agents that are able to handle lots of different types of tasks without the reward being pretty handcrafted? That's a lot of what we had seen is that like these very handcrafted rewards. And so Avalon has like a single reward it's across all tasks. And it also allowed us to create a curriculum so we could make the level more or less difficult. And it taught us a lot, maybe two primary things. One is with no curriculum, RL algorithms don't work at all. So that's actually really interesting. [00:21:43]Swyx: For the non RL specialists, what is a curriculum in your terminology? [00:21:46]Kanjun: So a curriculum in this particular case is basically the environment Avalon lets us generate simpler environments and harder environments for a given tasks. What's interesting is that the simpler environments, what you'd expect is the agent succeeds more often. So it gets more reward. And so, you know, kind of my intuitive way of thinking about it is, okay, the reason why it learns much faster with a curriculum is it's just getting a lot more signal. And that's actually an interesting general intuition to have about training these things as like, what kind of signal are they getting? And like, how can you help it get a lot more signal? The second thing we learned is that reinforcement learning is not a good vehicle, like pure reinforcement learning is not a good vehicle for planning and reasoning. So these agents were not able to, they were able to learn all sorts of crazy things. They could learn to climb like hand over hand in VR climbing, they could learn to open doors like very complicated, like multiple switches and a lever open the door, but they couldn't do any higher level things. And they couldn't do those lower level things consistently necessarily. And as a user, I do not want to interact with a pure reinforcement learning end to end RL agent. As a user, like I need much more control over what that agent is doing. And so that actually started to get us on the track of thinking about, okay, how do we do the reasoning part in language? And we were pretty inspired by our friend Chelsea Finn at Stanford was I think working on SACAN at the time where it's basically an experiment where they have robots kind of trying to do different tasks and actually do the reasoning for the robot in natural language. And it worked quite well. And that led us to start experimenting very seriously with reasoning. [00:23:31]Alessio: How important is the language part for the agent versus for you to inspect the agent? You know, like is it the interface to kind of the human on the loop really important or? [00:23:43]Kanjun: Yeah, I personally think of it as it's much more important for us, the human user. So I think you probably could get end to end agents that work and are fairly general at some point in the future. But I think you don't want that. Like we actually want agents that we can like perturb while they're trying to figure out what to do. Because, you know, even a very simple example, internally we have like a type error fixing agent and we have like a test generation agent. Test generation agent goes off rails all the time. I want to know, like, why did it generate this particular test? [00:24:19]Swyx: What was it thinking? [00:24:20]Kanjun: Did it consider, you know, the fact that this is calling out to this other function? And the formatter agent, if it ever comes up with anything weird, I want to be able to debug like what happened with RL end to end stuff. Like we couldn't do that. Yeah. [00:24:36]Swyx: It sounds like you have a bunch of agents operating internally within the company. What's your most, I guess, successful agent and what's your least successful one? [00:24:44]Kanjun: The agents don't work. All of them? I think the only successful agents are the ones that do really small things. So very specific, small things like fix the color of this button on the website or like change the color of this button. [00:24:57]Swyx: Which is now sweep.dev is doing that. Exactly. [00:25:00]Kanjun: Perfect. Okay. [00:25:02]Swyx: Well, we should just use sweep.dev. Well, I mean, okay. I don't know how often you have to fix the color of a button, right? Because all of them raise money on the idea that they can go further. And my fear when encountering something like that is that there's some kind of unknown asymptote ceiling that's going to prevent them, that they're going to run head on into that you've already run into. [00:25:21]Kanjun: We've definitely run into such a ceiling. But what is the ceiling? [00:25:24]Swyx: Is there a name for it? Like what? [00:25:26]Kanjun: I mean, for us, we think of it as reasoning plus these tools. So reasoning plus abstractions, basically. I think actually you can get really far with current models and that's why it's so compelling. Like we can pile debugging tools on top of these current models, have them critique each other and critique themselves and do all of these, like spend more computer inference time, context hack, retrieve augmented generation, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Like the pile of hacks actually does get us really far. And a way to think about it is like the underlying language model is kind of like a noisy channel. Actually I don't want to use this analogy. It's actually a really bad analogy, but you kind of like trying to get more signal out of the channel. We don't like to think about it that way. It's what the default approach is, is like trying to get more signal out of this noising channel. But the issue with agents is as a user, I want it to be mostly reliable. It's kind of like self-driving in that way. Like it's not as bad as self-driving, like in self-driving, you know, you're like hurtling at 70 miles an hour. It's like the hardest agent problem. But one thing we learned from Sorceress and one thing we learned by using these things internally is we actually have a pretty high bar for these agents to work. You know, it's actually really annoying if they only work 50% of the time and we can make interfaces to make it slightly less annoying. But yeah, there's a ceiling that we've encountered so far and we need to make the models better. We also need to make the kind of like interface to the user better. And also a lot of the like critiquing. I hope what we can do is help people who are building agents actually like be able to deploy them. I think, you know, that's the gap that we see a lot of today is everyone who's trying to build agents to get to the point where it's robust enough to be deployable. It just, it's like an unknown amount of time. Okay. [00:27:12]Swyx: So this goes back into what Embu is going to offer as a product or a platform. How are you going to actually help people deploy those agents? Yeah. [00:27:21]Kanjun: So our current hypothesis, I don't know if this is actually going to end up being the case. We've built a lot of tools for ourselves internally around like debugging, around abstractions or techniques after the model generation happens. Like after the language model generates the text and like interfaces for the user and the underlying model itself, like models talking to each other, maybe some set of those things kind of like an operating system. Some set of those things will be helpful for other people. And we'll figure out what set of those things is helpful for us to make our agents. Like what we want to do is get to a point where we can like start making an agent, deploy it, it's reliable, like very quickly. And there's a similar analog to software engineering, like in the early days, in the seventies and the sixties, like to program a computer, like you have to go all the way down to the registers and write things and eventually we had assembly. That was like an improvement. But then we wrote programming languages with these higher levels of abstraction and that allowed a lot more people to do this and much faster. And the software created is much less expensive. And I think it's basically a similar route here where we're like in the like bare metal phase of agent building. And we will eventually get to something with much nicer abstractions. [00:28:36]Alessio: We had this conversation with George Hotz and we were like, there's not a lot of reasoning data out there. And can the models really understand? And his take was like, look, with enough compute, you're not that complicated as a human. Like the model can figure out eventually why certain decisions are made. What's been your experience? Like as you think about reasoning data, like do you have to do a lot of like manual work or like is there a way to prompt models to extract the reasoning from actions that they [00:29:03]Swyx: see? [00:29:03]Kanjun: So we don't think of it as, oh, throw enough data at it and then it will figure out what the plan should be. I think we're much more explicit. You know, a way to think about it is as humans, we've learned a lot of reasoning strategies over time. We are better at reasoning now than we were 3000 years ago. An example of a reasoning strategy is noticing you're confused. Then when I notice I'm confused, I should ask like, huh, what was the original claim that was made? What evidence is there for this claim? Does the evidence support the claim? Is the claim correct? This is like a reasoning strategy that was developed in like the 1600s, you know, with like the advent of science. So that's an example of a reasoning strategy. There are tons of them. We employ all the time, lots of heuristics that help us be better at reasoning. And we didn't always have them. And because they're invented, like we can generate data that's much more specific to them. So I think internally, yeah, we have a lot of thoughts on what reasoning is and we generate a lot more specific data. We're not just like, oh, it'll figure out reasoning from this black box or like it'll figure out reasoning from the data that exists. Yeah. [00:30:04]Alessio: I mean, the scientific method is like a good example. If you think about hallucination, right, people are thinking, how do we use these models to do net new, like scientific research? And if you go back in time and the model is like, well, the earth revolves around the sun and people are like, man, this model is crap. It's like, what are you talking about? Like the sun revolves around the earth. It's like, how do you see the future? Like if the models are actually good enough, but we don't believe them, it's like, how do we make the two live together? So you're like, you use Inbu as a scientist to do a lot of your research and Inbu tells you, hey, I think this is like a serious path you should go down. And you're like, no, that sounds impossible. Like how is that trust going to be built? And like, what are some of the tools that maybe are going to be there to inspect it? [00:30:51]Kanjun: Really there are two answers to this. One element of it is as a person, like I need to basically get information out of the model such that I can try to understand what's going on with the model. Then the second question is like, okay, how do you do that? And that's kind of some of our debugging tools, they're not necessarily just for debugging. They're also for like interfacing with and interacting with the model. So like if I go back in this reasoning trace and like change a bunch of things, what's going to happen? Like, what does it conclude instead? So that kind of helps me understand like, what are its assumptions? And, you know, we think of these things as tools. And so it's really about like, as a user, how do I use this tool effectively? I need to be willing to be convinced as well. It's like, how do I use this tool effectively? And what can it help me with? [00:31:36]Swyx: And what can it tell me? There's a lot of mention of code in your process. And I was hoping to dive in even deeper. I think we might run the risk of giving people the impression that you view code or you use code just as like a tool within InView just for coding assistance. But I think you actually train code models. And I think there's a lot of informal understanding about how adding code to language models improves their reasoning capabilities. I wonder if there's any research or findings that you have to share that talks about the intersection of code and reasoning. Hmm. Yeah. [00:32:08]Kanjun: So the way I think about it intuitively is like code is the most explicit example of reasoning data on the internet. [00:32:15]Swyx: Yeah. [00:32:15]Kanjun: And it's not only structured, it's actually very explicit, which is nice. You know, it says this variable means this, and then it uses this variable. And then the function does this. As people, when we talk in language, it takes a lot more to extract that explicit structure out of our language. And so that's one thing that's really nice about code is I see it as almost like a curriculum for reasoning. I think we use code in all sorts of ways. The coding agents are really helpful for us to understand what are the limitations of the agents. The code is really helpful for the reasoning itself. But also code is a way for models to act. So by generating code, it can act on my computer. And, you know, when we talk about rekindling the dream of the personal computer, kind of where I see computers going is, you know, like computers will eventually become these much more malleable things where I, as a user today, I have to know how to write software code, like in order to make my computer do exactly what I want it to do. But in the future, if the computer is able to generate its own code, then I can actually interface with it in natural language. And so one way we think about agents is kind of like a natural language programming language. It's a way to program my computer in natural language that's much more intuitive to me as a user. And these interfaces that we're building are essentially IDEs for users to program our computers in natural language. Maybe I should say what we're doing that way. Maybe it's clearer. [00:33:47]Swyx: I don't know. [00:33:47]Alessio: That's a good pitch. What do you think about the different approaches people have, kind of like text first, browser first, like multi-on? What do you think the best interface will be? Or like, what is your, you know, thinking today? [00:33:59]Kanjun: In a lot of ways, like chat as an interface, I think Linus, Linus Lee, you had on this. I really like how he put it. Chat as an interface is skeuomorphic. So in the early days, when we made word processors on our computers, they had notepad lines because that's what we understood these like objects to be. Chat, like texting someone is something we understand. So texting our AI is something that we understand. But today's word documents don't have notepad lines. And similarly, the way we want to interact with agents, like chat is a very primitive way of interacting with agents. What we want is to be able to inspect their state and to be able to modify them and fork them and all of these other things. And we internally have, think about what are the right representations for that? Like architecturally, like what are the right representations? What kind of abstractions do we need to build? And how do we build abstractions that are not leaky? Because if the abstractions are leaky, which they are today, like, you know, this stochastic generation of text is like a leaky abstraction. I cannot depend on it. And that means it's actually really hard to build on top of. But our experience and belief is actually by building better abstractions and better tooling, we can actually make these things non-leaky. And now you can build like whole things on top of them. So these other interfaces, because of where we are, we don't think that much about them. [00:35:17]Swyx: Yeah. [00:35:17]Alessio: I mean, you mentioned, this is kind of like the Xerox Spark moment for AI. And we had a lot of stuff come out of Parc, like the, what you see is what you got editors and like MVC and all this stuff. But yeah, but then we didn't have the iPhone at Parc. We didn't have all these like higher things. What do you think it's reasonable to expect in like this era of AI, you know, call it like five years or so? Like what are like the things we'll build today and what are things that maybe we'll see in kind of like the second wave of products? [00:35:46]Kanjun: That's interesting. I think the waves will be much faster than before. Like what we're seeing right now is basically like a continuous wave. Let me zoom a little bit earlier. So people like the Xerox Parc analogy I give, but I think there are many different analogies. Like one is the like analog to digital computer is kind of an example, like another analogy to where we are today. The analog computer Vannevar Bush built in the 1930s, I think, and it's like a system of pulleys and it can only calculate one function. Like it can calculate like an integral. And that was so magical at the time because you actually did need to calculate this integral bunch, but it had a bunch of issues like in analog errors compound. And so there was actually a set of breakthroughs necessary in order to get to the digital computer, like Turing's decidability, Shannon. I think the like whole like relay circuits can be thought of as can be mapped to Boolean operators and a set of other like theoretical breakthroughs, which essentially were abstractions. They were like creating abstractions for these like very like lossy circuits. They were creating abstractions for these like very analog circuits and digital had this nice property of like being error correcting. And so when I talk about like less leaky abstractions, that's what I mean. That's what I'm kind of pointing a little bit to. It's not going to look exactly the same way. And then the Xerox PARC piece, a lot of that is about like, how do we get to computers that as a person, I can actually use well. And the interface actually helps it unlock so much more power. So the sets of things we're working on, like the sets of abstractions and the interfaces, like hopefully that like help us unlock a lot more power in these systems. Like hopefully that'll come not too far in the future. I could see a next version, maybe a little bit farther out. It's like an agent protocol. So a way for different agents to talk to each other and call each other. Kind of like HTTP. [00:37:40]Swyx: Do you know it exists already? [00:37:41]Kanjun: Yeah, there is a nonprofit that's working on one. I think it's a bit early, but it's interesting to think about right now. Part of why I think it's early is because the issue with agents, it's not quite like the internet where you could like make a website and the website would appear. The issue with agents is that they don't work. And so it may be a bit early to figure out what the protocol is before we really understand how these agents get constructed. But, you know, I think that's, I think it's a really interesting question. [00:38:09]Swyx: While we're talking on this agent to agent thing, there's been a bit of research recently on some of these approaches. I tend to just call them extremely complicated chain of thoughting, but any perspectives on kind of meta-GPT, I think it's the name of the paper. I don't know if you care about at the level of individual papers coming out, but I did read that recently and TLDR, it beat GPT-4 and human eval by role-playing software agent development agency, instead of having sort of single shot or single role, you have multiple roles and how having all of them criticize each other as agents communicating with other agents. [00:38:45]Kanjun: Yeah, I think this is an example of an interesting abstraction of like, okay, can I just plop in this like multi-role critiquing and see how it improves my agent? And can I just plop in chain of thought, tree of thought, plop in these other things and see how they improve my agent? One issue with this kind of prompting is that it's still not very reliable. It's like, there's one lens, which is like, okay, if you do enough of these techniques, you'll get to high reliability. And I think actually that's a pretty reasonable lens. We take that lens often. And then there's another lens that's like, okay, but it's starting to get really messy what's in the prompt and like, how do we deal with that messiness? And so maybe you need like cleaner ways of thinking about and constructing these systems. And we also take that lens. So yeah, I think both are necessary. Yeah. [00:39:29]Swyx: Side question, because I feel like this also brought up another question I had for you. I noticed that you work a lot with your own benchmarks, your own evaluations of what is valuable. I would say I would contrast your approach with OpenAI as OpenAI tends to just lean on, hey, we played StarCraft or hey, we ran it on the SAT or the, you know, the AP bio test and that did results. Basically, is benchmark culture ruining AI? [00:39:55]Swyx: Or is that actually a good thing? Because everyone knows what an SAT is and that's fine. [00:40:04]Kanjun: I think it's important to use both public and internal benchmarks. Part of why we build our own benchmarks is that there are not very many good benchmarks for agents, actually. And to evaluate these things, you actually need to think about it in a slightly different way. But we also do use a lot of public benchmarks for like, is the reasoning capability in this particular way improving? So yeah, it's good to use both. [00:40:26]Swyx: So for example, the Voyager paper coming out of NVIDIA played Minecraft and set their own benchmarks on getting the Diamond X or whatever and exploring as much of the territory as possible. And I don't know how that's received. That's obviously fun and novel for the rest of the engineer, the people who are new to the scene. But for people like yourselves, you build Avalon just because you already found deficiencies with using Minecraft. Is that valuable as an approach? Oh, yeah. I love Voyager. [00:40:57]Kanjun: I mean, Jim, I think is awesome. And I really like the Voyager paper and I think it has a lot of really interesting ideas, which is like the agent can create tools for itself and then use those tools. [00:41:06]Swyx: He had the idea of the curriculum as well, which is something that we talked about earlier. Exactly. [00:41:09]Kanjun: And that's like a lot of what we do. We built Avalon mostly because we couldn't use Minecraft very well to like learn the things we wanted. And so it's like not that much work to build our own. [00:41:19]Swyx: It took us, I don't know. [00:41:22]Kanjun: We had like eight engineers at the time, took about eight weeks. So six weeks. [00:41:27]Swyx: And OpenAI built their own as well, right? Yeah, exactly. [00:41:30]Kanjun: It's just nice to have control over our environment. But if you're doing our own sandbox to really trying to inspect our own research questions. But if you're doing something like experimenting with agents and trying to get them to do things like Minecraft is a really interesting environment. And so Voyager has a lot of really interesting ideas in it. [00:41:47]Swyx: Yeah. Cool. One more element that we had on this list, which is context and memory. I think that's kind of like the foundational, quote unquote, RAM of our era. I think Andrej Karpathy has already made this comparison. So there's nothing new here. And that's just the amount of working knowledge that we can fit into one of these agents. And it's not a lot, right? Especially if you need to get them to do long running tasks. If they need to self-correct from errors that they observe while operating in their environment. Do you see this as a problem? Do you think we're going to just trend to infinite context and that'll go away? Or how do you think we're going to deal with it? [00:42:22]Kanjun: I think when you talked about what's going to happen in the first wave and then in the second wave, I think what we'll see is we'll get like relatively simplistic agents pretty soon. And they will get more and more complex. And there's like a future wave in which they are able to do these like really difficult, really long running tasks. And the blocker to that future, one of the blockers is memory. And that was true of computers too. You know, I think when von Neumann made the von Neumann architecture, he was like, the biggest blocker will be like, we need this amount of memory, which is like, I don't remember exactly like 32 kilobytes or something to store programs. And that will allow us to write software. He didn't say it this way because he didn't have these terms, but that only really was like happened in the seventies with the microchip revolution. It may be the case that we're waiting for some research breakthroughs or some other breakthroughs in order for us to have like really good long running memory. And then in the meantime, agents will be able to do all sorts of things that are a little bit smaller than that. I do think with the pace of the field, we'll probably come up with all sorts of interesting things like, you know, RAG is already very helpful. [00:43:26]Swyx: Good enough, you think? [00:43:27]Kanjun: Maybe good enough for some things. [00:43:29]Swyx: How is it not good enough? I don't know. [00:43:31]Kanjun: I just think about a situation where you want something that's like an AI scientist. As a scientist, I have learned so much about my fields and a lot of that data is maybe hard to fine tune or on, or maybe hard to like put into pre-training. Like a lot of that data, I don't have a lot of like repeats of the data that I'm seeing. You know, like if I'm a scientist, I've like accumulated so many little data points. And ideally I'd want to store those somehow, or like use those to fine tune myself as a model somehow, or like have better memory somehow. I don't think RAG is enough for that kind of thing. But RAG is certainly enough for like user preferences and things like that. Like what should I do in this situation? What should I do in that situation? That's a lot of tasks. We don't have to be a scientist right away. Awesome. [00:44:21]Swyx: I have a hard question, if you don't mind me being bold. Yeah. I think the most comparable lab to InView is Adept. You know, a research lab with like some amount of product situation on the horizon, but not just yet, right? Why should people work for InView over Adept? And we can cut this if it's too like... Yeah. [00:44:40]Kanjun: The way I think about it is I believe in our approach. The type of thing that we're doing is we're trying to like build something that enables other people to build agents and build something that really can be maybe something like an operating system for agents. I know that that's what we're doing. I don't really know what everyone else is doing. You know, I can kind of like talk to people and have some sense of what they're doing. And I think it's a mistake to focus too much on what other people are doing, because extremely focused execution on the right thing is what matters. To the question of like, why us? I think like strong focus on reasoning, which we believe is the biggest blocker, on inspectability, which we believe is really important for user experience and also for the power and capability of these systems. Building non-leaky, good abstractions, which we believe is solving the core issue of agents, which is around reliability and being able to make them deployable. And then really seriously trying to use these things ourselves, like every single day, and getting to something that we can actually ship to other people that becomes something that is a platform. Like, it feels like it could be Mac or Windows. I love the dogfooding approach. [00:45:49]Swyx: That's extremely important. And you will not be surprised how many agent companies I talk to that don't use their own agent. Oh no, that's not good. That's a big surprise. [00:45:59]Kanjun: Yeah, I think if we didn't use our own agents, then we would have all of these beliefs about how good they are. Wait, did you have any other hard questions you wanted to ask? [00:46:08]Swyx: Yeah, mine was just the only other follow-up that you had based on the answer you just gave was, do you see yourself releasing models or do you see yourself, what is the artifacts that you want to produce that lead up to the general operating system that you want to have people use, right? And so a lot of people just as a byproduct of their work, just to say like, hey, I'm still shipping, is like, here's a model along the way. Adept took, I don't know, three years, but they released Persimmon recently, right? Like, do you think that kind of approach is something on your horizon? Or do you think there's something else that you can release that can show people, here's kind of the idea, not the end products, but here's the byproducts of what we're doing? [00:46:51]Kanjun: Yeah, I don't really believe in releasing things to show people like, oh, here's what we're doing that much. I think as a philosophy, we believe in releasing things that will be helpful to other people. [00:47:02]Swyx: Yeah. [00:47:02]Kanjun: And so I think we may release models or we may release tools that we think will help agent builders. Ideally, we would be able to do something like that, but I'm not sure exactly what they look like yet. [00:47:14]Swyx: I think more companies should get into the releasing evals and benchmarks game. Yeah. [00:47:20]Kanjun: Something that we have been talking to agent builders about is co-building evals. So we build a lot of our own evals and every agent builder tells me, basically evals are their biggest issue. And so, yeah, we're exploring right now. And if you are building agents, please reach out to me because I would love to, like, figure out how we can be helpful based on what we've seen. Cool. [00:47:40]Swyx: That's a good call to action. I know a bunch of people that I can send your way. Cool. Great. [00:47:43]Kanjun: Awesome. [00:47:44]Swyx: Yeah. We can zoom out to other interests now. [00:47:46]Alessio: We got a lot of stuff. So we have Sherif from Lexicon, the podcast. He had a lot of interesting questions on his website. You similarly have a lot of them. Yeah. [00:47:55]Swyx: I need to do this. I'm very jealous of people with personal websites right there. Like, here's the high level questions of goals of humanity that I want to set people on. And I don't have that. [00:48:04]Alessio: It's never too late, Sean. [00:48:05]Swyx: Yeah. [00:48:05]Alessio: It's never too late. [00:48:06]Kanjun: Exactly. [00:48:07]Alessio: There were a few that stuck out as related to your work that maybe you're kind of learning [00:48:12]Swyx: more about it. [00:48:12]Alessio: So one is why are curiosity and goal orientation often at odds? And from a human perspective, I get it. It's like, you know, would you want to like go explore things or kind of like focus on your career? How do you think about that from like an agent perspective? Where it's like, should you just stick to the task and try and solve it as in the guardrails as possible? Or like, should you look for alternative solutions? [00:48:34]Swyx: Yeah. [00:48:34]Kanjun: I think one thing that's really interesting about agents actually is that they can be forked. Like, you know, we can take an agent that's executed to a certain place and said, okay, here, like fork this and do a bunch of different things. I try a bunch of different things. Some of those agents can be goal oriented and some of them can be like more curiosity driven. You can prompt them in slightly different ways. And something I'm really curious about, like what would happen if in the future, you know, we were able to actually go down both paths. As a person, why I have this question on my website is I really find that like I really can only take one mode at a time and I don't understand why. And like, is it inherent in like the kind of context that needs to be held? That's why I think from an agent perspective, like forking it is really interesting. Like I can't fork myself to do both, but I maybe could fork an agent to like add a certain point in a task. [00:49:26]Swyx: Yeah. Explore both. Yeah. [00:49:28]Alessio: How has the thinking changed for you as the funding of the company changed? That's one thing that I think a lot of people in the space think is like, oh, should I raise venture capital? Like, how should I get money? How do you feel your options to be curious versus like goal oriented has changed as you raise more money and kind of like the company has grown? [00:49:50]Kanjun: Oh, that's really funny. Actually, things have not changed that much. So we raised our Series A $20 million in late 2021. And our entire philosophy at that time was, and still kind of is, is like, how do we figure out the stepping stones, like collect stepping stones that eventually let us build agents, kind of these new computers that help us do bigger things. And there was a lot of curiosity in that. And there was a lot of goal orientation in that. Like the curiosity led us to build CARBS, for example, this hyperparameter optimizer. Great name, by the way. [00:50:28]Swyx: Thank you. [00:50:29]Kanjun: Is there a story behind that name? [00:50:30]Swyx: Yeah. [00:50:31]Kanjun: Abe loves CARBS. It's also cost aware. So as soon as he came up with cost aware, he was like, I need to figure out how to make this work. But the cost awareness of it was really important. So that curiosity led us to this really cool hyperparameter optimizer. That's actually a big part of how we do our research. It lets us experiment on smaller models. And for those experiment results to carry to larger ones. [00:50:56]Swyx: Which you also published a scaling laws, which is great. I think the scaling laws paper from OpenAI was like the biggest. And from Google, I think, was the greatest public service to machine learning that any research lab can do. Yeah, totally. [00:51:10]Kanjun: What was nice about CARBS is it gave us scaling laws for all sorts of hyperparameters. So yeah, that's cool. It basically hasn't changed very much. So there's some curiosity. And then there's some goal oriented parts. Like Avalon, it was like a six to eight week sprint for all of us. And we got this thing out. And then now different projects do like more curiosity or more goal orientation at different times. Cool. [00:51:36]Swyx: Another one of your questions that we highlighted was, how can we enable artificial agents to permanently learn new abstractions and processes? I think this is might be called online learning. [00:51:45]Kanjun: Yeah. So I struggle with this because, you know, that scientist example I gave. As a scientist, I've like permanently learned a lot of new things. And I've updated and created new abstractions and learned them pretty reliably. And you were talking about like, okay, we have this RAM that we can store learnings in. But how well does online learning actually work? And the answer right now seems to be like, as models get bigger, they fine tune faster. So they're more sample efficient as they get bigger. [00

durée : 00:03:38 - Les P'tits Bateaux - par : Noëlle Bréham - Aujourd'hui, Arnaud, 5 ans, se demande où le cerveau met les idées dans la tête. Jean-Philippe Lachaux, directeur de recherche à l'Inserm en neurosciences cognitives, lui répond.

Over the last seven days singers Jimmy Buffett and Steve Harwell passed away, a music festival called Electric Zoo spiraled into chaos after reaching capacity, and the Burning Man festival was inundated with rain and mud. Buffet died September 1st and Harwell on the 4th; Electric Zoo and Burning Man deteriorated over Saturday the 2nd and Sunday the 3rd. Last Tuesday was also the anniversary of Princess Diana's death - August 31, 1997. What makes this all peculiar and perhaps more than just the algorithmic cycle of parallel news stories is that Princess Diana's death on the 31st, all those years ago, took place on a day considered by many to be an inverted, or Satanic, version of what is normally celebrated on August 13th. On the Ides of August the ancient Romans celebrated the FESTIVAL OF TORCHES or Nemoralia in honor of Diana. It usually took place on a LAKE. But on August 31 Diana becomes Hecate in the underworld when her light is extinguished and her waters dry up. The inversion of the torches themselves also do not extinguish them, as they go on to illuminate the infernal. How interesting is it then that Burning Man, which culminates with the burning of an effigy of the ‘man', takes place on a dried up ancient lakebed between August 27 and September 4, when attendees leave. This means that Burning Man is essentially a seven day festival and that August 31 falls dead in the center of the event. The festival location itself is called Black Rock City, in northwestern Nevada, a name which has incredible occult significance, but particularly in relation to Hecate because her ‘color' and stone are black obsidian - black rock. This year the dried up lakebed was refilled with flood waters that prevented 70,000 people from leaving. The flooding began on Saturday, the day of Saturn or Hecate. But this still didn't stop festival goers from burning the man under the moon on Monday, or moon-day, night, the day of Diana. All of this may therefore sound far more than just a fun ritual of music, camping, and some fireworks. Instead, it sounds like the death of major celebrities at the start and finish of a weekend of disaster and chaos, which just so happens to have very strong connections to ancient festivals of fire, lakes, the underworld, black rocks, and sacrifice. Even more disturbing is the reported and then scrubbed supposed case of ebola at Burning Man this year, a condition in which the person has black vomit. With the excessive trash left behind by festival participants, the famous use of drugs and sexual debauchery, and the like, Burning Man is nothing more than a ritual honoring of the sacred black stone and the witch-goddess Hecate. Travis Scott also announced this weekend, on September 1, his first world tour since the Astroworld disaster. The tour is called Utopia and aims to open up a New World.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5328407/advertisement

Courir fragilise les articulations. La musculation rend les athlètes plus lents. Les étirements ne servent à rien, ou presque. Nous avons tous un plafond de verre. Courir avec une chaussure à gros amorti limite les blessures. Toutes ces phrases sont souvent prononcées dans le milieu de la course à pied. RMC Running a donc décidé de partir combattre ces idées reçues dans cet épisode thématique. Benoît Boutron et Yohan Durand reçoivent pour cela un homme à la tête bien remplie, Blaise Dubois, notamment fondateur de La Clinique du Coureur.Un bon plan dossard exceptionnel est mis en jeu cette semaine : vous pouvez remporter un dossard pour le Treg Algeria Trail, une course au cœur du désert, dans l'une des plus belles oasis du Sahara en bordure du Grand Erg Occidental. Les dates ? Du 25 novembre au 2 décembre. Avec trois formats de courses différents, il y en a pour tous les goûts ! RMC Running s'occupe du voyage, de l'hôtel et du visa ! Restez attentifs et à l'écoute du podcast !

In this emotional episode, award-winning actress Evan Rachel Wood reveals how she survived years of abuse by Brian Warner, best known as controversial rocker Marilyn Manson, and the painful decisions she's had to face in order to heal. Watch and Subscribe to our YouTube Channel @NavigatingNarcissismPod Follow me on social:  Instagram - @doctorramani Pod Instagram - @navigatingnarcissismpod Facebook - @doctorramani Twitter - @DoctorRamani YouTube: Dr. Ramani's YT - DoctorRamani I want to hear from you, too. Have a toxic topic you want me to explore? Email me at askdrramani@redtabletalk.com. I just might answer your questions on air. Guest Bio: Evan Rachel Wood is an American actress and musician. She has starred in a variety of film and television projects, including HBO's hit series "Westworld," for which she received an Emmy nomination. She has also appeared in films such as "The Ides of March," "Into the Forest," and "Frozen 2." In addition to her acting career, Wood has released several albums and singles over the years. She is also an outspoken advocate for various causes, including LGBTQ rights, mental health awareness, and survivors of sexual assault. Wood has shared her own experiences with trauma and uses her platform to raise awareness and promote change. Wood has been recognized for her work both on and off screen. In 2017, she was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people. She continues to be an active voice in promoting social justice and using her talent to make a positive impact on the world. Guest Information: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/evanrachelwood  This podcast should not be used as a substitute for medical or mental health advice. Individuals are advised to seek independent medical advice, counseling, and/or therapy from a healthcare professional with respect to any medical condition, mental health issue, or health inquiry, including matters discussed on this podcast. EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS Jada Pinkett Smith, Ellen Rakieten, Dr. Ramani Durvasula, Meghan Hoffman VP PRODUCTION OPERATIONS Martha Chaput CREATIVE DIRECTOR Jason Nguyen LINE PRODUCER Lee Pearce PRODUCER Matthew Jones, Aidan Tanner ASSOCIATE PRODUCER Mara De La Rosa ASSOCIATE CREATIVE PRODUCER Keenon Rush HAIR AND MAKEUP ARTIST Samantha Pack AUDIO ENGINEER Calvin Bailiff EXEC ASST Rachel Miller PRODUCTION OPS ASST Jesse Clayton EDITOR Eugene Gordon POST MEDIA MANAGER Luis E. Ackerman POST PROD ASST Moe Alvarez AUDIO EDITORS & MIXERS Matt Wellentin, Geneva Wellentin, VP, HEAD OF PARTNER STRATEGY Jae Trevits Digital MARKETING DIRECTOR Sophia Hunter VP, POST PRODUCTION Jonathan Goldberg SVP, HEAD OF CONTENT Lukas Kaiser HEAD OF CURRENT Christie Dishner VP, PRODUCTION OPERATIONS Jacob Moncrief EXECUTIVE IN CHARGE OF PRODUCTION Dawn ManningSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

durée : 00:02:47 - Net Plus Ultra - par : Julien Baldacchino - Cette semaine, alors que Google fêtait ses 25 ans, l'entreprise a annoncé la fin prochaine de son application Google Podcasts. Ce n'est que la 289e innovation à rejoindre ce que le monde des Internets appelle le "cimetière de Google", aussi insolite qu'important pour la marche de l'entreprise.

SummaryAndy Gocke, lead of the native AOT and app model team at Microsoft answers listener's questions about native AOT.DetailsFuture of Native AOT. Trimming support in third party libraries. Why .NET prefers its own JIT compiler over the LLVM MSIL backend. How much bigger with AOT be over MSIL and JIT. Where to follow libraries supporting AOT. Using AOT and GPUs. WASM performance. Can Native AOT replace Mono AOT. Plan for using dependency injection with AOT. When will the IDEs support for Native AOT. How to get in touch.Support this podcastFull show notes@andygockeNative AOT deploymentNative AOT on GitHubOther C# Podcast Episodes

This Week in Startups is brought to you by… LinkedIn Jobs. A business is only as strong as its people, and every hire matters. Go to https://LinkedIn.com/TWIST to post your first job for free. Terms and conditions apply. .Tech Domains has a new program called startups.tech, where you can get your startup featured on This Week in Startups. Go to https://startups.tech/jason to find out how! Supergut is the only nutrition brand clinically-proven to improve digestion, balance blood sugar, sustain energy, and manage weight. Save 25% on their delicious shakes, bars, and prebiotic mix at https://Supergut.com with code TWIST. * Today's show: Replit CEO Amjad Masad joins Jason to discuss the latest developments in IDEs (3:04), leveraging AI for coding (11:48), Replit's Ghostwriter (23:40), and much more! * Time stamps: (00:00) Replit CEO Amjad Masad joins Jason (3:04) The origin of integrated development environments (IDEs) uses and importance for developers (6:44) IntelliSense, Replit's Ghostwriter and other debugging tools (10:28) LinkedIn Jobs - Post your first job for free at https://linkedin.com/twist (11:48) Leveraging AI in suggestion tools and coding platforms (14:17) The role of autonomous agents in startup development (19:20) Replit's Bounties platform and Replit's mission to build artificial developer intelligence (ADI) (22:25) .Tech Domains - Apply to get your startup featured on This Week in Startups at https://startups.tech/jason (23:40) Amjad Masad demos Replit's Ghostwriter and other apps (31:46) Getting more people to become developers and low-code platforms (36:35) Supergut - Get 25% off with code TWIST at https://supergut.com (38:06) “Make Something Wonderful” Steve Jobs in his own words (43:56) The human mind and the origin of Amjad's passion for computers (48:22) Embracing AI and the resulting changes at Replit (55:27) Paradigm shifts in Hollywood and tech (1:03:06) thebrain.com * Check out Replit: https://replit.com Follow Amjad: https://twitter.com/amasad * Read LAUNCH Fund 4 Deal Memo: https://www.launch.co/four Apply for Funding: https://www.launch.co/apply Buy ANGEL: https://www.angelthebook.com Great recent interviews: Steve Huffman, Brian Chesky, Aaron Levie, Sophia Amoruso, Reid Hoffman, Frank Slootman, Billy McFarland, PrayingForExits, Jenny Lefcourt Check out Jason's suite of newsletters: https://substack.com/@calacanis * Follow Jason: Twitter: https://twitter.com/jason Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jason LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasoncalacanis * Follow TWiST: Substack: https://twistartups.substack.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/TWiStartups YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thisweekin * Subscribe to the Founder University Podcast: https://www.founder.university/podcast

Scott May has a long history in comedy (The Funny Firm, Caroline's Comedy Hour), radio and television (Kevin Matthews show, Mort Downey Jr.), and is the organist for the Ides of March, but he also has a new solo album. Rick and Dave discuss it all with Scott. [Ep140]

Today could be construed as the Ides of September, but that construction could turn out to be faulty. A little research might help with this foundational first line of this edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement, but that work is usually reserved for the body and not this header which likely did not make a goal. I'm Sean Tubbs, and it turns out September 13 was the Ides of September. On today's program:* The Charlottesville Planning Commission specifies why they feel roads to be built as part of 0 East High Street doesn't comply with Comprehensive Plan* The Charlottesville Police Department is using license plate readers to assist with investigations but insists the use is limited and data is not retained* Charlottesville is one of several Fifth District localities using federal funds to modernize infrastructure* Albemarle and Charlottesville are launching an effort to plan for climate adaptation together* The Virginia Department of Education has released the lasted school quality profiles* The Charlottesville Planning Commission takes action on a special use permit at 1709 JPA  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

This week's show, after a 1979 Damned dirge: brand new New Model Army & Sinfonia Zeipzig, Plush Machine, Dewey Defeats Truman, Laughing Chimes, Feelies, Joy Formidable, and Bobby Sutliff, plus Buddy Holly, Ides of March, Kinks, Buck Owens, Joe Higgs, G...

Welcome to a new episode of The React Native Podcast Show's Coffee Talk! Join us as we explore Vim, the legendary and controversial text editor. Discover the origins of Vim, its standout features, and how it can elevate your coding efficiency (no jokes here). In this episode, Kuba (@bionanek), Burak (@_atlj), Jan (@jaworek3211), and Lucas share their personal experiences with Vim, detailing what sparked their interest and how they navigated the initial learning curve. They also highlight Vim's powerful motion commands, command-line editing, and integration across major IDEs, as well as discuss the pros and cons of using Vim, exploring specific use cases where it excels (including React Native and Open Source projects). Whether you're a seasoned Vim user or new to this legendary text editor, this episode provides valuable insights and practical tips to help you harness the power of Vim effectively. You can find the resources mentioned in the episode on our website ➡️ https://hubs.li/Q021LCqL0

Over the last seven days singers Jimmy Buffett and Steve Harwell passed away, a music festival called Electric Zoo spiraled into chaos after reaching capacity, and the Burning Man festival was inundated with rain and mud. Buffet died September 1st and Harwell on the 4th; Electric Zoo and Burning Man deteriorated over Saturday the 2nd and Sunday the 3rd. Last Tuesday was also the anniversary of Princess Diana's death - August 31, 1997. What makes this all peculiar and perhaps more than just the algorithmic cycle of parallel news stories is that Princess Diana's death on the 31st, all those years ago, took place on a day considered by many to be an inverted, or Satanic, version of what is normally celebrated on August 13th. On the Ides of August the ancient Romans celebrated the FESTIVAL OF TORCHES or Nemoralia in honor of Diana. It usually took place on a LAKE. But on August 31 Diana becomes Hecate in the underworld when her light is extinguished and her waters dry up. The inversion of the torches themselves also do not extinguish them, as they go on to illuminate the infernal. How interesting is it then that Burning Man, which culminates with the burning of an effigy of the ‘man', takes place on a dried up ancient lakebed between August 27 and September 4, when attendees leave. This means that Burning Man is essentially a seven day festival and that August 31 falls dead in the center of the event. The festival location itself is called Black Rock City, in northwestern Nevada, a name which has incredible occult significance, but particularly in relation to Hecate because her ‘color' and stone are black obsidian - black rock. This year the dried up lakebed was refilled with flood waters that prevented 70,000 people from leaving. The flooding began on Saturday, the day of Saturn or Hecate. But this still didn't stop festival goers from burning the man under the moon on Monday, or moon-day, night, the day of Diana. All of this may therefore sound far more than just a fun ritual of music, camping, and some fireworks. Instead, it sounds like the death of major celebrities at the start and finish of a weekend of disaster and chaos, which just so happens to have very strong connections to ancient festivals of fire, lakes, the underworld, black rocks, and sacrifice. Even more disturbing is the reported and then scrubbed supposed case of ebola at Burning Man this year, a condition in which the person has black vomit. With the excessive trash left behind by festival participants, the famous use of drugs and sexual debauchery, and the like, Burning Man is nothing more than a ritual honoring of the sacred black stone and the witch-goddess Hecate. Travis Scott also announced this weekend, on September 1, his first world tour since the Astroworld disaster. The tour is called Utopia and aims to open up a New World.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5328407/advertisement

durée : 00:59:58 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Philippe Garbit - "Croyez-vous que l'angoisse du temps présent a des caractères spécifiques ?" C'est la question à laquelle tentait de répondre Paul Ricœur dans sa première apparition radiophonique. Dans une seconde occasion, dix ans plus tard, c'est sur le rapport entre Freud et l'art qu'il s'exprime.

Movie reviews, please come to the white courtesy phone. Movie reviews, please pickup. If you're not going to use the white courtesy phone, please head over to the beige discourtesy phone and let the operator know. For all cancellations, please head to the green motherly guilt phone. You know, if you're not too important and can remember to call. We start off with Ides of March[2012]. Ryan Gosling is an assistant campaign manager. He's working for a guy he really really believes in, played by George Clooney. Clooeny is a lock to win if he can secure enough delegates but to get the delegates Gosling is asked to make a … Continue reading "Popcorn Pulse 203: Replicant March"

Today, we're talking about George Clooney's The Ides of March, a fantastic political thriller from 2011. The cast, led by Ryan Gosling, is amazing!

Este episódio do Podcast traz um papo com os lambdas Ivan Maia e Samuel Duarte e o convidado Otávio Santana sobre IDEs e seus benefícios, desafios e tendências.

Another season of rumors are upon us; Lockdowns, fires from the skies. The weather is our greatest enemy (or so they say). President Puppetto makes another embarrassing public appearance in Maui while the locals tell them just how they feel. And there's chatter of September and the ten days of darkness. We're here to get into all of it.

Thanks to the almost 30k people who tuned in to the last episode!Your podcast cohosts have been busy shipping:* Alessio open sourced smol-podcaster, which makes the show notes here! * swyx launched GodMode. Maybe someday the Cursor of browsers?* We're also helping organize a Llama Finetuning Hackameetup this Saturday in anticipation of the CodeLlama release. Lastly, more speakers were announced at AI Engineer Summit!