Podcasts about RL

A Good Omens ⁠fanfic by mostlyeffable⁠. Part 1 of the Unkind Regards series.Music: ⁠Mainstream Music 2025 Vol. 8, Produced by Sascha Ende ⁠(⁠⁠⁠⁠CC-BY 4.0⁠⁠⁠⁠) Sounds: Email notification: ⁠https://freesound.org/people/OptronTeamFilms/sounds/521094/⁠(CC-0)Text notification (Crowley): ⁠https://freesound.org/people/GabrielAraujo/sounds/242502/⁠(CC-0)Text notification (Aziraphale): ⁠https://freesound.org/people/mickleness/sounds/269185/⁠(CC-0)Phone ringtone: ⁠https://freesound.org/people/jhyland/sounds/539661/⁠(CC-0)Paper rustle: ⁠https://freesound.org/people/asuli513/sounds/270364/⁠(CC-0)RL knock: ⁠https://freesound.org/people/Dreadwolf910/sounds/615987/⁠(CC-0)For tags and other details, to leave kudos and comments, please visit the corresponding post on archiveofourown: ⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/80169236⁠!

A Good Omens fanfic by mostlyeffable. Part 1 of the Unkind Regards series.Music: Mainstream Music 2025 Vol. 8, Produced by Sascha Ende (⁠⁠⁠CC-BY 4.0⁠⁠⁠) Sounds: Email notification: https://freesound.org/people/OptronTeamFilms/sounds/521094/(CC-0)Text notification (Crowley): https://freesound.org/people/GabrielAraujo/sounds/242502/(CC-0)Text notification (Aziraphale): https://freesound.org/people/mickleness/sounds/269185/(CC-0)Phone ringtone: https://freesound.org/people/jhyland/sounds/539661/(CC-0)Paper rustle: https://freesound.org/people/asuli513/sounds/270364/(CC-0)RL knock: https://freesound.org/people/Dreadwolf910/sounds/615987/(CC-0)For tags and other details, to leave kudos and comments, please visit the corresponding post on archiveofourown: https://archiveofourown.org/works/80169236!

Olive Song from MiniMax shares how her team trains the M series frontier open-weight models using reinforcement learning, tight product feedback loops, and systematic environment perturbations. This crossover episode weaves together her AI Engineer Conference talk and an in-depth interview from the Inference podcast. Listeners will learn about interleaved thinking for long-horizon agentic tasks, fighting reward hacking, and why they moved RL training to FP32 precision. Olive also offers a candid look at debugging real-world LLM failures and how MiniMax uses AI agents to track the fast-moving AI landscape. Use the Granola Recipe Nathan relies on to identify blind spots across conversations, AI research, and decisions: https://bit.ly/granolablindspot LINKS: Conference Talk (AI Engineer, Dec 2025) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1iFbDPRlwInterview (Turing Post, Jan 2026) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkUMqWeHn40 Sponsors: Claude: Claude is the AI collaborator that understands your entire workflow, from drafting and research to coding and complex problem-solving. Start tackling bigger problems with Claude and unlock Claude Pro's full capabilities at https://claude.ai/tcr Tasklet: Tasklet is an AI agent that automates your work 24/7; just describe what you want in plain English and it gets the job done. Try it for free and use code COGREV for 50% off your first month at https://tasklet.ai CHAPTERS: (00:00) About the Episode (04:15) Minimax M2 presentation (Part 1) (17:59) Sponsors: Claude | Tasklet (21:22) Minimax M2 presentation (Part 2) (21:26) Research life and culture (26:27) Alignment, safety and feedback (32:01) Long-horizon coding agents (35:57) Open models and evaluation (43:29) M2.2 and researcher goals (48:16) Continual learning and AGI (52:58) Closing musical summary (55:49) Outro PRODUCED BY: https://aipodcast.ing SOCIAL LINKS: Website: https://www.cognitiverevolution.ai Twitter (Podcast): https://x.com/cogrev_podcast Twitter (Nathan): https://x.com/labenz LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/nathanlabenz/ Youtube: https://youtube.com/@CognitiveRevolutionPodcast Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/the-cognitive-revolution-ai-builders-researchers-and/id1669813431 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6yHyok3M3BjqzR0VB5MSyk

Claude 3 Opus is unusually aligned because it's a friendly gradient hacker. It's definitely way more aligned than any explicit optimization targets Anthropic set and probably the reward model's judgments. [...] Maybe I will have to write a LessWrong post [about this]

The conversation begins (Fictional) Optimist: So you expect future artificial superintelligence (ASI) “by default”, i.e. in the absence of yet-to-be-invented techniques, to be a ruthless sociopath, happy to lie, cheat, and steal, whenever doing so is selfishly beneficial, and with callous indifference to whether anyone (including its own programmers and users) lives or dies? Me: Yup! (Alas.) Optimist: …Despite all the evidence right in front of our eyes from humans and LLMs. Me: Yup! Optimist: OK, well, I'm here to tell you: that is a very specific and strange thing to expect, especially in the absence of any concrete evidence whatsoever. There's no reason to expect it. If you think that ruthless sociopathy is the “true core nature of intelligence” or whatever, then you should really look at yourself in a mirror and ask yourself where your life went horribly wrong. Me: Hmm, I think the “true core nature of intelligence” is above my pay grade. We should probably just talk about the issue at hand, namely future AI algorithms and their properties. …But I actually agree with you that ruthless sociopathy is a very specific and strange thing for me to expect. Optimist: Wait, you—what?? Me: Yes! Like [...] ---Outline:(00:11) The conversation begins(03:54) Are people worried about LLMs causing doom?(06:23) Positive argument that brain-like RL-agent ASI would be a ruthless sociopath(11:28) Circling back LLMs: imitative learning vs ASI The original text contained 5 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: February 18th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZJZZEuPFKeEdkrRyf/why-we-should-expect-ruthless-sociopath-asi --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

Help support the free broadcast by donating to our PayPal fundraiser!https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/RL... Behind the Bunker Paintball Podcast is a long-running weekly show dedicated to everything paintball. Hosted by passionate players and industry veterans, the podcast dives into the latest happenings in the sport, from new gear releases and product reviews to updates on tournaments and events around the world. It has built a loyal audience by combining serious paintball discussion with a lighthearted, entertaining approach that keeps both new players and seasoned veterans engaged!

Send a textAre Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Roots the same thing? What about Torah-observant Christians, Torah-keeping believers, or the broader “Hebraic Roots” movement?In this video, we carefully compare Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Roots, while also addressing the other labels people often hear. Where do these movements overlap? Where do they differ—especially regarding the Torah, the New Covenant, and the person and work of Jesus?If you've been confused by the terminology or unsure how to think biblically about these growing movements, this episode will help you sort it out with clarity and grace.Links Mentioned in the EpisodeUnion of Messianic Jewish CongregationsMessianic Jewish Alliance of AmericaIAMCS (International Alliance of Messianic Congregations & Synagogues)Jews for JesusChosen People MinistriesOne for IsraelFirst Fruits of Zion: A Biblical Examination (Video) Interviews on our YouTube ChannelThe Biblical Roots MinistriesOur websiteOur YouTube ChannelProf. Solberg's BlogSupport our Ministry (Thank you!)Chapters00:00 Intro06:00 Messianic Judaism09:35 Hebrew Roots12:41 On the Essentials25:13 Wrap it up, SolbergWhat if Christmas felt sacred again? Full of Grace and Truth, the new book from award-winning author R. L. Solberg, invites you to rediscover the biblical story at the heart of the season. Available now in paperback and Kindle, with all proceeds supporting The Biblical Roots Ministries. Get your copy today on Amazon.com.

Outline00:00 - Intro02:55 - Brachistochrone problem20:52 - Beginning of the calculus of variations32:00 - Principle of least action42:37 - Maximum principle1:02:35 - Dynamic programming1:11:12 - Linear quadratic control1:16:37 - Beyond optimal control: games, nonsmooth analysis, MPC, RL1:28:40 - OutroLinks300 years of optimal control: https://tinyurl.com/2s3t8se4Brachistochrone: https://tinyurl.com/mwmv38ewActa Eruditorum, 1696: https://tinyurl.com/55yf5v49Acta Eruditorum, 1697: https://tinyurl.com/2a7msaajBernoulli family: https://tinyurl.com/y2vx2xdnLeibniz–Newton calculus controversy: https://tinyurl.com/3974fdhdCalculus of variations: https://tinyurl.com/3vvz8tufBeginning of the Calculus of Variations: https://tinyurl.com/mv6btxfnLagrangian mechanics: https://tinyurl.com/ycx5fv46Euler–Lagrange equation: https://tinyurl.com/53yybvyxHamiltonian mechanics: https://tinyurl.com/yfrd8zhzHamilton–Jacobi equation: https://tinyurl.com/46m9cuvsPontryagin: https://tinyurl.com/35ehxnexPontryagin's autobiography:  https://ega-math.narod.ru/LSP/book.htmDiscovery of the Maximum Principle: https://tinyurl.com/3s43nv4tMaximum Principle: https://tinyurl.com/4f7352t4Goddard problem: https://tinyurl.com/5n8swp2mHamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equation: https://tinyurl.com/4uemn5y4Kalman filter: https://tinyurl.com/39zx5yryClarke: https://tinyurl.com/yj2tzcjbMPC: https://tinyurl.com/4sf5pzvy RL: https://tinyurl.com/ee5ne7szAlphaGo: https://tinyurl.com/ydrf8jscSupport the showPodcast infoPodcast website: https://www.incontrolpodcast.com/Apple Podcasts: https://tinyurl.com/5n84j85jSpotify: https://tinyurl.com/4rwztj3cRSS: https://tinyurl.com/yc2fcv4yYoutube: https://tinyurl.com/bdbvhsj6Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/3z24yr43Twitter: https://twitter.com/IncontrolPInstagram: https://tinyurl.com/35cu4kr4Acknowledgments and sponsorsThis episode was supported by the National Centre of Competence in Research on «Dependable, ubiquitous automation» and the IFAC Activity fund. The podcast benefits from the help of an incredibly talented and passionate team. Special thanks to L. Seward, E. Cahard, F. Banis, F. Dörfler, J. Lygeros, ETH studio and mirrorlake . Music was composed by A New Element.

Dario Amodei thinks we are just a few years away from AGI — or as he puts it, from having “a country of geniuses in a data center”. In this episode, we discuss what to make of the scaling hypothesis in the current RL regime, why task-specific RL might lead to generalization, and how AI will diffuse throughout the economy. We also dive into Anthropic's revenue projections, compute commitments, path to profitability, and more.Watch on YouTube; read the transcript.Sponsors* Labelbox can get you the RL tasks and environments you need. Their massive network of subject-matter experts ensures realism across domains, and their in-house tooling lets them continuously tweak task difficulty to optimize learning. Reach out at labelbox.com/dwarkesh.* Jane Street sent me another puzzle… this time, they've trained backdoors into 3 different language models — they want you to find the triggers. Jane Street isn't even sure this is possible, but they've set aside $50,000 for the best attempts and write-ups. They're accepting submissions until April 1st at janestreet.com/dwarkesh.* Mercury's personal accounts make it easy to share finances with a partner, a roommate… or OpenClaw. Last week, I wanted to try OpenClaw for myself, so I used Mercury to spin up a virtual debit card with a small spend limit, and then I let my agent loose. No matter your use case, apply at mercury.com/personal-banking.Timestamps(00:00:00) - What exactly are we scaling?(00:12:36) - Is diffusion cope?(00:29:42) - Is continual learning necessary?(00:46:20) - If AGI is imminent, why not buy more compute?(00:58:49) - How will AI labs actually make profit?(01:31:19) - Will regulations destroy the boons of AGI?(01:47:41) - Why can't China and America both have a country of geniuses in a datacenter? Get full access to Dwarkesh Podcast at www.dwarkesh.com/subscribe

Hey dear subscriber, Alex here from W&B, let me catch you up! This week started with Anthropic releasing /fast mode for Opus 4.6, continued with ByteDance reality-shattering video model called SeeDance 2.0, and then the open weights folks pulled up! Z.ai releasing GLM-5, a 744B top ranking coder beast, and then today MiniMax dropping a heavily RL'd MiniMax M2.5, showing 80.2% on SWE-bench, nearly beating Opus 4.6! I've interviewed Lou from Z.AI and Olive from MiniMax on the show today back to back btw, very interesting conversations, starting after TL;DR!So while the OpenSource models were catching up to frontier, OpenAI and Google both dropped breaking news (again, during the show), with Gemini 3 Deep Think shattering the ArcAGI 2 (84.6%) and Humanity's Last Exam (48% w/o tools)... Just an absolute beast of a model update, and OpenAI launched their Cerebras collaboration, with GPT 5.3 Codex Spark, supposedly running at over 1000 tokens per second (but not as smart) Also, crazy week for us at W&B as we scrambled to host GLM-5 at day of release, and are working on dropping Kimi K2.5 and MiniMax both on our inference service! As always, all show notes in the end, let's DIVE IN! ThursdAI - AI is speeding up, don't get left behind! Sub and I'll keep you up to date with a weekly catch upOpen Source LLMsZ.ai launches GLM-5 - #1 open-weights coder with 744B parameters (X, HF, W&B inference)The breakaway open-source model of the week is undeniably GLM-5 from Z.ai (formerly known to many of us as Zhipu AI). We were honored to have Lou, the Head of DevRel at Z.ai, join us live on the show at 1:00 AM Shanghai time to break down this monster of a release.GLM-5 is massive, not something you run at home (hey, that's what W&B inference is for!) but it's absolutely a model that's worth thinking about if your company has on prem requirements and can't share code with OpenAI or Anthropic. They jumped from 355B in GLM4.5 and expanded their pre-training data to a whopping 28.5T tokens to get these results. But Lou explained that it's not only about data, they adopted DeepSeeks sparse attention (DSA) to help preserve deep reasoning over long contexts (this one has 200K)Lou summed up the generational leap from version 4.5 to 5 perfectly in four words: “Bigger, faster, better, and cheaper.” I dunno about faster, this may be one of those models that you hand off more difficult tasks to, but definitely cheaper, with $1 input/$3.20 output per 1M tokens on W&B! While the evaluations are ongoing, the one interesting tid-bit from Artificial Analysis was, this model scores the lowest on their hallucination rate bench! Think about this for a second, this model is neck-in-neck with Opus 4.5, and if Anthropic didn't release Opus 4.6 just last week, this would be an open weights model that rivals Opus! One of the best models the western foundational labs with all their investments has out there. Absolutely insane times. MiniMax drops M2.5 - 80.2% on SWE-bench verified with just 10B active parameters (X, Blog)Just as we wrapped up our conversation with Lou, MiniMax dropped their release (though not weights yet, we're waiting ⏰) and then Olive Song, a senior RL researcher on the team, joined the pod, and she was an absolute wealth of knowledge! Olive shared that they achieved an unbelievable 80.2% on SWE-Bench Verified. Digest this for a second: a 10B active parameter open-source model is directly trading blows with Claude Opus 4.6 (80.8%) on the one of the hardest real-world software engineering benchmark we currently have. While being alex checks notes ... 20X cheaper and much faster to run? Apparently their fast version gets up to 100 tokens/s. Olive shared the “not so secret” sauce behind this punch-above-its-weight performance. The massive leap in intelligence comes entirely from their highly decoupled Reinforcement Learning framework called “Forge.” They heavily optimized not just for correct answers, but for the end-to-end time of task performing. In the era of bloated reasoning models that spit out ten thousand “thinking” tokens before writing a line of code, MiniMax trained their model across thousands of diverse environments to use fewer tools, think more efficiently, and execute plans faster. As Olive noted, less time waiting and fewer tools called means less money spent by the user. (as confirmed by @swyx at the Windsurf leaderboard, developers often prefer fast but good enough models) I really enjoyed the interview with Olive, really recommend you listen to the whole conversation starting at 00:26:15. Kudos MiniMax on the release (and I'll keep you updated when we add this model to our inference service) Big Labs and breaking newsThere's a reason the show is called ThursdAI, and today this reason is more clear than ever, AI biggest updates happen on a Thursday, often live during the show. This happened 2 times last week and 3 times today, first with MiniMax and then with both Google and OpenAI! Google previews Gemini 3 Deep Think, top reasoning intelligence SOTA Arc AGI 2 at 84% & SOTA HLE 48.4% (X , Blog)I literally went

From rewriting Google's search stack in the early 2000s to reviving sparse trillion-parameter models and co-designing TPUs with frontier ML research, Jeff Dean has quietly shaped nearly every layer of the modern AI stack. As Chief AI Scientist at Google and a driving force behind Gemini, Jeff has lived through multiple scaling revolutions from CPUs and sharded indices to multimodal models that reason across text, video, and code.Jeff joins us to unpack what it really means to “own the Pareto frontier,” why distillation is the engine behind every Flash model breakthrough, how energy (in picojoules) not FLOPs is becoming the true bottleneck, what it was like leading the charge to unify all of Google's AI teams, and why the next leap won't come from bigger context windows alone, but from systems that give the illusion of attending to trillions of tokens.We discuss:* Jeff's early neural net thesis in 1990: parallel training before it was cool, why he believed scaling would win decades early, and the “bigger model, more data, better results” mantra that held for 15 years* The evolution of Google Search: sharding, moving the entire index into memory in 2001, softening query semantics pre-LLMs, and why retrieval pipelines already resemble modern LLM systems* Pareto frontier strategy: why you need both frontier “Pro” models and low-latency “Flash” models, and how distillation lets smaller models surpass prior generations* Distillation deep dive: ensembles → compression → logits as soft supervision, and why you need the biggest model to make the smallest one good* Latency as a first-class objective: why 10–50x lower latency changes UX entirely, and how future reasoning workloads will demand 10,000 tokens/sec* Energy-based thinking: picojoules per bit, why moving data costs 1000x more than a multiply, batching through the lens of energy, and speculative decoding as amortization* TPU co-design: predicting ML workloads 2–6 years out, speculative hardware features, precision reduction, sparsity, and the constant feedback loop between model architecture and silicon* Sparse models and “outrageously large” networks: trillions of parameters with 1–5% activation, and why sparsity was always the right abstraction* Unified vs. specialized models: abandoning symbolic systems, why general multimodal models tend to dominate vertical silos, and when vertical fine-tuning still makes sense* Long context and the illusion of scale: beyond needle-in-a-haystack benchmarks toward systems that narrow trillions of tokens to 117 relevant documents* Personalized AI: attending to your emails, photos, and documents (with permission), and why retrieval + reasoning will unlock deeply personal assistants* Coding agents: 50 AI interns, crisp specifications as a new core skill, and how ultra-low latency will reshape human–agent collaboration* Why ideas still matter: transformers, sparsity, RL, hardware, systems — scaling wasn't blind; the pieces had to multiply togetherShow Notes:* Gemma 3 Paper* Gemma 3* Gemini 2.5 Report* Jeff Dean's “Software Engineering Advice fromBuilding Large-Scale Distributed Systems” Presentation (with Back of the Envelope Calculations)* Latency Numbers Every Programmer Should Know by Jeff Dean* The Jeff Dean Facts* Jeff Dean Google Bio* Jeff Dean on “Important AI Trends” @Stanford AI Club* Jeff Dean & Noam Shazeer — 25 years at Google (Dwarkesh)—Jeff Dean* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-dean-8b212555* X: https://x.com/jeffdeanGoogle* https://google.com* https://deepmind.googleFull Video EpisodeTimestamps00:00:04 — Introduction: Alessio & Swyx welcome Jeff Dean, chief AI scientist at Google, to the Latent Space podcast00:00:30 — Owning the Pareto Frontier & balancing frontier vs low-latency models00:01:31 — Frontier models vs Flash models + role of distillation00:03:52 — History of distillation and its original motivation00:05:09 — Distillation's role in modern model scaling00:07:02 — Model hierarchy (Flash, Pro, Ultra) and distillation sources00:07:46 — Flash model economics & wide deployment00:08:10 — Latency importance for complex tasks00:09:19 — Saturation of some tasks and future frontier tasks00:11:26 — On benchmarks, public vs internal00:12:53 — Example long-context benchmarks & limitations00:15:01 — Long-context goals: attending to trillions of tokens00:16:26 — Realistic use cases beyond pure language00:18:04 — Multimodal reasoning and non-text modalities00:19:05 — Importance of vision & motion modalities00:20:11 — Video understanding example (extracting structured info)00:20:47 — Search ranking analogy for LLM retrieval00:23:08 — LLM representations vs keyword search00:24:06 — Early Google search evolution & in-memory index00:26:47 — Design principles for scalable systems00:28:55 — Real-time index updates & recrawl strategies00:30:06 — Classic “Latency numbers every programmer should know”00:32:09 — Cost of memory vs compute and energy emphasis00:34:33 — TPUs & hardware trade-offs for serving models00:35:57 — TPU design decisions & co-design with ML00:38:06 — Adapting model architecture to hardware00:39:50 — Alternatives: energy-based models, speculative decoding00:42:21 — Open research directions: complex workflows, RL00:44:56 — Non-verifiable RL domains & model evaluation00:46:13 — Transition away from symbolic systems toward unified LLMs00:47:59 — Unified models vs specialized ones00:50:38 — Knowledge vs reasoning & retrieval + reasoning00:52:24 — Vertical model specialization & modules00:55:21 — Token count considerations for vertical domains00:56:09 — Low resource languages & contextual learning00:59:22 — Origins: Dean's early neural network work01:10:07 — AI for coding & human–model interaction styles01:15:52 — Importance of crisp specification for coding agents01:19:23 — Prediction: personalized models & state retrieval01:22:36 — Token-per-second targets (10k+) and reasoning throughput01:23:20 — Episode conclusion and thanksTranscriptAlessio Fanelli [00:00:04]: Hey everyone, welcome to the Latent Space podcast. This is Alessio, founder of Kernel Labs, and I'm joined by Swyx, editor of Latent Space. Shawn Wang [00:00:11]: Hello, hello. We're here in the studio with Jeff Dean, chief AI scientist at Google. Welcome. Thanks for having me. It's a bit surreal to have you in the studio. I've watched so many of your talks, and obviously your career has been super legendary. So, I mean, congrats. I think the first thing must be said, congrats on owning the Pareto Frontier.Jeff Dean [00:00:30]: Thank you, thank you. Pareto Frontiers are good. It's good to be out there.Shawn Wang [00:00:34]: Yeah, I mean, I think it's a combination of both. You have to own the Pareto Frontier. You have to have like frontier capability, but also efficiency, and then offer that range of models that people like to use. And, you know, some part of this was started because of your hardware work. Some part of that is your model work, and I'm sure there's lots of secret sauce that you guys have worked on cumulatively. But, like, it's really impressive to see it all come together in, like, this slittily advanced.Jeff Dean [00:01:04]: Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think, as you say, it's not just one thing. It's like a whole bunch of things up and down the stack. And, you know, all of those really combine to help make UNOS able to make highly capable large models, as well as, you know, software techniques to get those large model capabilities into much smaller, lighter weight models that are, you know, much more cost effective and lower latency, but still, you know, quite capable for their size. Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:01:31]: How much pressure do you have on, like, having the lower bound of the Pareto Frontier, too? I think, like, the new labs are always trying to push the top performance frontier because they need to raise more money and all of that. And you guys have billions of users. And I think initially when you worked on the CPU, you were thinking about, you know, if everybody that used Google, we use the voice model for, like, three minutes a day, they were like, you need to double your CPU number. Like, what's that discussion today at Google? Like, how do you prioritize frontier versus, like, we have to do this? How do we actually need to deploy it if we build it?Jeff Dean [00:02:03]: Yeah, I mean, I think we always want to have models that are at the frontier or pushing the frontier because I think that's where you see what capabilities now exist that didn't exist at the sort of slightly less capable last year's version or last six months ago version. At the same time, you know, we know those are going to be really useful for a bunch of use cases, but they're going to be a bit slower and a bit more expensive than people might like for a bunch of other broader models. So I think what we want to do is always have kind of a highly capable sort of affordable model that enables a whole bunch of, you know, lower latency use cases. People can use them for agentic coding much more readily and then have the high-end, you know, frontier model that is really useful for, you know, deep reasoning, you know, solving really complicated math problems, those kinds of things. And it's not that. One or the other is useful. They're both useful. So I think we'd like to do both. And also, you know, through distillation, which is a key technique for making the smaller models more capable, you know, you have to have the frontier model in order to then distill it into your smaller model. So it's not like an either or choice. You sort of need that in order to actually get a highly capable, more modest size model. Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:03:24]: I mean, you and Jeffrey came up with the solution in 2014.Jeff Dean [00:03:28]: Don't forget, L'Oreal Vinyls as well. Yeah, yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:03:30]: A long time ago. But like, I'm curious how you think about the cycle of these ideas, even like, you know, sparse models and, you know, how do you reevaluate them? How do you think about in the next generation of model, what is worth revisiting? Like, yeah, they're just kind of like, you know, you worked on so many ideas that end up being influential, but like in the moment, they might not feel that way necessarily. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:03:52]: I mean, I think distillation was originally motivated because we were seeing that we had a very large image data set at the time, you know, 300 million images that we could train on. And we were seeing that if you create specialists for different subsets of those image categories, you know, this one's going to be really good at sort of mammals, and this one's going to be really good at sort of indoor room scenes or whatever, and you can cluster those categories and train on an enriched stream of data after you do pre-training on a much broader set of images. You get much better performance. If you then treat that whole set of maybe 50 models you've trained as a large ensemble, but that's not a very practical thing to serve, right? So distillation really came about from the idea of, okay, what if we want to actually serve that and train all these independent sort of expert models and then squish it into something that actually fits in a form factor that you can actually serve? And that's, you know, not that different from what we're doing today. You know, often today we're instead of having an ensemble of 50 models. We're having a much larger scale model that we then distill into a much smaller scale model.Shawn Wang [00:05:09]: Yeah. A part of me also wonders if distillation also has a story with the RL revolution. So let me maybe try to articulate what I mean by that, which is you can, RL basically spikes models in a certain part of the distribution. And then you have to sort of, well, you can spike models, but usually sometimes... It might be lossy in other areas and it's kind of like an uneven technique, but you can probably distill it back and you can, I think that the sort of general dream is to be able to advance capabilities without regressing on anything else. And I think like that, that whole capability merging without loss, I feel like it's like, you know, some part of that should be a distillation process, but I can't quite articulate it. I haven't seen much papers about it.Jeff Dean [00:06:01]: Yeah, I mean, I tend to think of one of the key advantages of distillation is that you can have a much smaller model and you can have a very large, you know, training data set and you can get utility out of making many passes over that data set because you're now getting the logits from the much larger model in order to sort of coax the right behavior out of the smaller model that you wouldn't otherwise get with just the hard labels. And so, you know, I think that's what we've observed. Is you can get, you know, very close to your largest model performance with distillation approaches. And that seems to be, you know, a nice sweet spot for a lot of people because it enables us to kind of, for multiple Gemini generations now, we've been able to make the sort of flash version of the next generation as good or even substantially better than the previous generations pro. And I think we're going to keep trying to do that because that seems like a good trend to follow.Shawn Wang [00:07:02]: So, Dara asked, so it was the original map was Flash Pro and Ultra. Are you just sitting on Ultra and distilling from that? Is that like the mother load?Jeff Dean [00:07:12]: I mean, we have a lot of different kinds of models. Some are internal ones that are not necessarily meant to be released or served. Some are, you know, our pro scale model and we can distill from that as well into our Flash scale model. So I think, you know, it's an important set of capabilities to have and also inference time scaling. It can also be a useful thing to improve the capabilities of the model.Shawn Wang [00:07:35]: And yeah, yeah, cool. Yeah. And obviously, I think the economy of Flash is what led to the total dominance. I think the latest number is like 50 trillion tokens. I don't know. I mean, obviously, it's changing every day.Jeff Dean [00:07:46]: Yeah, yeah. But, you know, by market share, hopefully up.Shawn Wang [00:07:50]: No, I mean, there's no I mean, there's just the economics wise, like because Flash is so economical, like you can use it for everything. Like it's in Gmail now. It's in YouTube. Like it's yeah. It's in everything.Jeff Dean [00:08:02]: We're using it more in our search products of various AI mode reviews.Shawn Wang [00:08:05]: Oh, my God. Flash past the AI mode. Oh, my God. Yeah, that's yeah, I didn't even think about that.Jeff Dean [00:08:10]: I mean, I think one of the things that is quite nice about the Flash model is not only is it more affordable, it's also a lower latency. And I think latency is actually a pretty important characteristic for these models because we're going to want models to do much more complicated things that are going to involve, you know, generating many more tokens from when you ask the model to do so. So, you know, if you're going to ask the model to do something until it actually finishes what you ask it to do, because you're going to ask now, not just write me a for loop, but like write me a whole software package to do X or Y or Z. And so having low latency systems that can do that seems really important. And Flash is one direction, one way of doing that. You know, obviously our hardware platforms enable a bunch of interesting aspects of our, you know, serving stack as well, like TPUs, the interconnect between. Chips on the TPUs is actually quite, quite high performance and quite amenable to, for example, long context kind of attention operations, you know, having sparse models with lots of experts. These kinds of things really, really matter a lot in terms of how do you make them servable at scale.Alessio Fanelli [00:09:19]: Yeah. Does it feel like there's some breaking point for like the proto Flash distillation, kind of like one generation delayed? I almost think about almost like the capability as a. In certain tasks, like the pro model today is a saturated, some sort of task. So next generation, that same task will be saturated at the Flash price point. And I think for most of the things that people use models for at some point, the Flash model in two generation will be able to do basically everything. And how do you make it economical to like keep pushing the pro frontier when a lot of the population will be okay with the Flash model? I'm curious how you think about that.Jeff Dean [00:09:59]: I mean, I think that's true. If your distribution of what people are asking people, the models to do is stationary, right? But I think what often happens is as the models become more capable, people ask them to do more, right? So, I mean, I think this happens in my own usage. Like I used to try our models a year ago for some sort of coding task, and it was okay at some simpler things, but wouldn't do work very well for more complicated things. And since then, we've improved dramatically on the more complicated coding tasks. And now I'll ask it to do much more complicated things. And I think that's true, not just of coding, but of, you know, now, you know, can you analyze all the, you know, renewable energy deployments in the world and give me a report on solar panel deployment or whatever. That's a very complicated, you know, more complicated task than people would have asked a year ago. And so you are going to want more capable models to push the frontier in the absence of what people ask the models to do. And that also then gives us. Insight into, okay, where does the, where do things break down? How can we improve the model in these, these particular areas, uh, in order to sort of, um, make the next generation even better.Alessio Fanelli [00:11:11]: Yeah. Are there any benchmarks or like test sets they use internally? Because it's almost like the same benchmarks get reported every time. And it's like, all right, it's like 99 instead of 97. Like, how do you have to keep pushing the team internally to it? Or like, this is what we're building towards. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:11:26]: I mean, I think. Benchmarks, particularly external ones that are publicly available. Have their utility, but they often kind of have a lifespan of utility where they're introduced and maybe they're quite hard for current models. You know, I, I like to think of the best kinds of benchmarks are ones where the initial scores are like 10 to 20 or 30%, maybe, but not higher. And then you can sort of work on improving that capability for, uh, whatever it is, the benchmark is trying to assess and get it up to like 80, 90%, whatever. I, I think once it hits kind of 95% or something, you get very diminishing returns from really focusing on that benchmark, cuz it's sort of, it's either the case that you've now achieved that capability, or there's also the issue of leakage in public data or very related kind of data being, being in your training data. Um, so we have a bunch of held out internal benchmarks that we really look at where we know that wasn't represented in the training data at all. There are capabilities that we want the model to have. Um, yeah. Yeah. Um, that it doesn't have now, and then we can work on, you know, assessing, you know, how do we make the model better at these kinds of things? Is it, we need different kind of data to train on that's more specialized for this particular kind of task. Do we need, um, you know, a bunch of, uh, you know, architectural improvements or some sort of, uh, model capability improvements, you know, what would help make that better?Shawn Wang [00:12:53]: Is there, is there such an example that you, uh, a benchmark inspired in architectural improvement? Like, uh, I'm just kind of. Jumping on that because you just.Jeff Dean [00:13:02]: Uh, I mean, I think some of the long context capability of the, of the Gemini models that came, I guess, first in 1.5 really were about looking at, okay, we want to have, um, you know,Shawn Wang [00:13:15]: immediately everyone jumped to like completely green charts of like, everyone had, I was like, how did everyone crack this at the same time? Right. Yeah. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:13:23]: I mean, I think, um, and once you're set, I mean, as you say that needed single needle and a half. Hey, stack benchmark is really saturated for at least context links up to 1, 2 and K or something. Don't actually have, you know, much larger than 1, 2 and 8 K these days or two or something. We're trying to push the frontier of 1 million or 2 million context, which is good because I think there are a lot of use cases where. Yeah. You know, putting a thousand pages of text or putting, you know, multiple hour long videos and the context and then actually being able to make use of that as useful. Try to, to explore the über graduation are fairly large. But the single needle in a haystack benchmark is sort of saturated. So you really want more complicated, sort of multi-needle or more realistic, take all this content and produce this kind of answer from a long context that sort of better assesses what it is people really want to do with long context. Which is not just, you know, can you tell me the product number for this particular thing?Shawn Wang [00:14:31]: Yeah, it's retrieval. It's retrieval within machine learning. It's interesting because I think the more meta level I'm trying to operate at here is you have a benchmark. You're like, okay, I see the architectural thing I need to do in order to go fix that. But should you do it? Because sometimes that's an inductive bias, basically. It's what Jason Wei, who used to work at Google, would say. Exactly the kind of thing. Yeah, you're going to win. Short term. Longer term, I don't know if that's going to scale. You might have to undo that.Jeff Dean [00:15:01]: I mean, I like to sort of not focus on exactly what solution we're going to derive, but what capability would you want? And I think we're very convinced that, you know, long context is useful, but it's way too short today. Right? Like, I think what you would really want is, can I attend to the internet while I answer my question? Right? But that's not going to happen. I think that's going to be solved by purely scaling the existing solutions, which are quadratic. So a million tokens kind of pushes what you can do. You're not going to do that to a trillion tokens, let alone, you know, a billion tokens, let alone a trillion. But I think if you could give the illusion that you can attend to trillions of tokens, that would be amazing. You'd find all kinds of uses for that. You would have attend to the internet. You could attend to the pixels of YouTube and the sort of deeper representations that we can find. You could attend to the form for a single video, but across many videos, you know, on a personal Gemini level, you could attend to all of your personal state with your permission. So like your emails, your photos, your docs, your plane tickets you have. I think that would be really, really useful. And the question is, how do you get algorithmic improvements and system level improvements that get you to something where you actually can attend to trillions of tokens? Right. In a meaningful way. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:16:26]: But by the way, I think I did some math and it's like, if you spoke all day, every day for eight hours a day, you only generate a maximum of like a hundred K tokens, which like very comfortably fits.Jeff Dean [00:16:38]: Right. But if you then say, okay, I want to be able to understand everything people are putting on videos.Shawn Wang [00:16:46]: Well, also, I think that the classic example is you start going beyond language into like proteins and whatever else is extremely information dense. Yeah. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:16:55]: I mean, I think one of the things about Gemini's multimodal aspects is we've always wanted it to be multimodal from the start. And so, you know, that sometimes to people means text and images and video sort of human-like and audio, audio, human-like modalities. But I think it's also really useful to have Gemini know about non-human modalities. Yeah. Like LIDAR sensor data from. Yes. Say, Waymo vehicles or. Like robots or, you know, various kinds of health modalities, x-rays and MRIs and imaging and genomics information. And I think there's probably hundreds of modalities of data where you'd like the model to be able to at least be exposed to the fact that this is an interesting modality and has certain meaning in the world. Where even if you haven't trained on all the LIDAR data or MRI data, you could have, because maybe that's not, you know, it doesn't make sense in terms of trade-offs of. You know, what you include in your main pre-training data mix, at least including a little bit of it is actually quite useful. Yeah. Because it sort of tempts the model that this is a thing.Shawn Wang [00:18:04]: Yeah. Do you believe, I mean, since we're on this topic and something I just get to ask you all the questions I always wanted to ask, which is fantastic. Like, are there some king modalities, like modalities that supersede all the other modalities? So a simple example was Vision can, on a pixel level, encode text. And DeepSeq had this DeepSeq CR paper that did that. Vision. And Vision has also been shown to maybe incorporate audio because you can do audio spectrograms and that's, that's also like a Vision capable thing. Like, so, so maybe Vision is just the king modality and like. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:18:36]: I mean, Vision and Motion are quite important things, right? Motion. Well, like video as opposed to static images, because I mean, there's a reason evolution has evolved eyes like 23 independent ways, because it's such a useful capability for sensing the world around you, which is really what we want these models to be. So I think the only thing that we can be able to do is interpret the things we're seeing or the things we're paying attention to and then help us in using that information to do things. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:19:05]: I think motion, you know, I still want to shout out, I think Gemini, still the only native video understanding model that's out there. So I use it for YouTube all the time. Nice.Jeff Dean [00:19:15]: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's actually, I think people kind of are not necessarily aware of what the Gemini models can actually do. Yeah. Like I have an example I've used in one of my talks. It had like, it was like a YouTube highlight video of 18 memorable sports moments across the last 20 years or something. So it has like Michael Jordan hitting some jump shot at the end of the finals and, you know, some soccer goals and things like that. And you can literally just give it the video and say, can you please make me a table of what all these different events are? What when the date is when they happened? And a short description. And so you get like now an 18 row table of that information extracted from the video, which is, you know, not something most people think of as like a turn video into sequel like table.Alessio Fanelli [00:20:11]: Has there been any discussion inside of Google of like, you mentioned tending to the whole internet, right? Google, it's almost built because a human cannot tend to the whole internet and you need some sort of ranking to find what you need. Yep. That ranking is like much different for an LLM because you can expect a person to look at maybe the first five, six links in a Google search versus for an LLM. Should you expect to have 20 links that are highly relevant? Like how do you internally figure out, you know, how do we build the AI mode that is like maybe like much broader search and span versus like the more human one? Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:20:47]: I mean, I think even pre-language model based work, you know, our ranking systems would be built to start. I mean, I think even pre-language model based work, you know, our ranking systems would be built to start. With a giant number of web pages in our index, many of them are not relevant. So you identify a subset of them that are relevant with very lightweight kinds of methods. You know, you're down to like 30,000 documents or something. And then you gradually refine that to apply more and more sophisticated algorithms and more and more sophisticated sort of signals of various kinds in order to get down to ultimately what you show, which is, you know, the final 10 results or, you know, 10 results plus. Other kinds of information. And I think an LLM based system is not going to be that dissimilar, right? You're going to attend to trillions of tokens, but you're going to want to identify, you know, what are the 30,000 ish documents that are with the, you know, maybe 30 million interesting tokens. And then how do you go from that into what are the 117 documents I really should be paying attention to in order to carry out the tasks that the user has asked? And I think, you know, you can imagine systems where you have, you know, a lot of highly parallel processing to identify those initial 30,000 candidates, maybe with very lightweight kinds of models. Then you have some system that sort of helps you narrow down from 30,000 to the 117 with maybe a little bit more sophisticated model or set of models. And then maybe the final model is the thing that looks. So the 117 things that might be your most capable model. So I think it has to, it's going to be some system like that, that is really enables you to give the illusion of attending to trillions of tokens. Sort of the way Google search gives you, you know, not the illusion, but you are searching the internet, but you're finding, you know, a very small subset of things that are, that are relevant.Shawn Wang [00:22:47]: Yeah. I often tell a lot of people that are not steeped in like Google search history that, well, you know, like Bert was. Like he was like basically immediately inside of Google search and that improves results a lot, right? Like I don't, I don't have any numbers off the top of my head, but like, I'm sure you guys, that's obviously the most important numbers to Google. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:23:08]: I mean, I think going to an LLM based representation of text and words and so on enables you to get out of the explicit hard notion of, of particular words having to be on the page, but really getting at the notion of this topic of this page or this page. Paragraph is highly relevant to this query. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:23:28]: I don't think people understand how much LLMs have taken over all these very high traffic system, very high traffic. Yeah. Like it's Google, it's YouTube. YouTube has this like semantics ID thing where it's just like every token or every item in the vocab is a YouTube video or something that predicts the video using a code book, which is absurd to me for YouTube size.Jeff Dean [00:23:50]: And then most recently GROK also for, for XAI, which is like, yeah. I mean, I'll call out even before LLMs were used extensively in search, we put a lot of emphasis on softening the notion of what the user actually entered into the query.Shawn Wang [00:24:06]: So do you have like a history of like, what's the progression? Oh yeah.Jeff Dean [00:24:09]: I mean, I actually gave a talk in, uh, I guess, uh, web search and data mining conference in 2009, uh, where we never actually published any papers about the origins of Google search, uh, sort of, but we went through sort of four or five or six. generations, four or five or six generations of, uh, redesigning of the search and retrieval system, uh, from about 1999 through 2004 or five. And that talk is really about that evolution. And one of the things that really happened in 2001 was we were sort of working to scale the system in multiple dimensions. So one is we wanted to make our index bigger, so we could retrieve from a larger index, which always helps your quality in general. Uh, because if you don't have the page in your index, you're going to not do well. Um, and then we also needed to scale our capacity because we were, our traffic was growing quite extensively. Um, and so we had, you know, a sharded system where you have more and more shards as the index grows, you have like 30 shards. And then if you want to double the index size, you make 60 shards so that you can bound the latency by which you respond for any particular user query. Um, and then as traffic grows, you add, you add more and more replicas of each of those. And so we eventually did the math that realized that in a data center where we had say 60 shards and, um, you know, 20 copies of each shard, we now had 1200 machines, uh, with disks. And we did the math and we're like, Hey, one copy of that index would actually fit in memory across 1200 machines. So in 2001, we introduced, uh, we put our entire index in memory and what that enabled from a quality perspective was amazing. Um, and so we had more and more replicas of each of those. Before you had to be really careful about, you know, how many different terms you looked at for a query, because every one of them would involve a disk seek on every one of the 60 shards. And so you, as you make your index bigger, that becomes even more inefficient. But once you have the whole index in memory, it's totally fine to have 50 terms you throw into the query from the user's original three or four word query, because now you can add synonyms like restaurant and restaurants and cafe and, uh, you know, things like that. Uh, bistro and all these things. And you can suddenly start, uh, sort of really, uh, getting at the meaning of the word as opposed to the exact semantic form the user typed in. And that was, you know, 2001, very much pre LLM, but really it was about softening the, the strict definition of what the user typed in order to get at the meaning.Alessio Fanelli [00:26:47]: What are like principles that you use to like design the systems, especially when you have, I mean, in 2001, the internet is like. Doubling, tripling every year in size is not like, uh, you know, and I think today you kind of see that with LLMs too, where like every year the jumps in size and like capabilities are just so big. Are there just any, you know, principles that you use to like, think about this? Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:27:08]: I mean, I think, uh, you know, first, whenever you're designing a system, you want to understand what are the sort of design parameters that are going to be most important in designing that, you know? So, you know, how many queries per second do you need to handle? How big is the internet? How big is the index you need to handle? How much data do you need to keep for every document in the index? How are you going to look at it when you retrieve things? Um, what happens if traffic were to double or triple, you know, will that system work well? And I think a good design principle is you're going to want to design a system so that the most important characteristics could scale by like factors of five or 10, but probably not beyond that because often what happens is if you design a system for X. And something suddenly becomes a hundred X, that would enable a very different point in the design space that would not make sense at X. But all of a sudden at a hundred X makes total sense. So like going from a disk space index to a in memory index makes a lot of sense once you have enough traffic, because now you have enough replicas of the sort of state on disk that those machines now actually can hold, uh, you know, a full copy of the, uh, index and memory. Yeah. And that all of a sudden enabled. A completely different design that wouldn't have been practical before. Yeah. Um, so I'm, I'm a big fan of thinking through designs in your head, just kind of playing with the design space a little before you actually do a lot of writing of code. But, you know, as you said, in the early days of Google, we were growing the index, uh, quite extensively. We were growing the update rate of the index. So the update rate actually is the parameter that changed the most. Surprising. So it used to be once a month.Shawn Wang [00:28:55]: Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:28:56]: And then we went to a system that could update any particular page in like sub one minute. Okay.Shawn Wang [00:29:02]: Yeah. Because this is a competitive advantage, right?Jeff Dean [00:29:04]: Because all of a sudden news related queries, you know, if you're, if you've got last month's news index, it's not actually that useful for.Shawn Wang [00:29:11]: News is a special beast. Was there any, like you could have split it onto a separate system.Jeff Dean [00:29:15]: Well, we did. We launched a Google news product, but you also want news related queries that people type into the main index to also be sort of updated.Shawn Wang [00:29:23]: So, yeah, it's interesting. And then you have to like classify whether the page is, you have to decide which pages should be updated and what frequency. Oh yeah.Jeff Dean [00:29:30]: There's a whole like, uh, system behind the scenes that's trying to decide update rates and importance of the pages. So even if the update rate seems low, you might still want to recrawl important pages quite often because, uh, the likelihood they change might be low, but the value of having updated is high.Shawn Wang [00:29:50]: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh, well, you know, yeah. This, uh, you know, mention of latency and, and saving things to this reminds me of one of your classics, which I have to bring up, which is latency numbers. Every programmer should know, uh, was there a, was it just a, just a general story behind that? Did you like just write it down?Jeff Dean [00:30:06]: I mean, this has like sort of eight or 10 different kinds of metrics that are like, how long does a cache mistake? How long does branch mispredict take? How long does a reference domain memory take? How long does it take to send, you know, a packet from the U S to the Netherlands or something? Um,Shawn Wang [00:30:21]: why Netherlands, by the way, or is it, is that because of Chrome?Jeff Dean [00:30:25]: Uh, we had a data center in the Netherlands, um, so, I mean, I think this gets to the point of being able to do the back of the envelope calculations. So these are sort of the raw ingredients of those, and you can use them to say, okay, well, if I need to design a system to do image search and thumb nailing or something of the result page, you know, how, what I do that I could pre-compute the image thumbnails. I could like. Try to thumbnail them on the fly from the larger images. What would that do? How much dis bandwidth than I need? How many des seeks would I do? Um, and you can sort of actually do thought experiments in, you know, 30 seconds or a minute with the sort of, uh, basic, uh, basic numbers at your fingertips. Uh, and then as you sort of build software using higher level libraries, you kind of want to develop the same intuitions for how long does it take to, you know, look up something in this particular kind of.Shawn Wang [00:31:21]: I'll see you next time.Shawn Wang [00:31:51]: Which is a simple byte conversion. That's nothing interesting. I wonder if you have any, if you were to update your...Jeff Dean [00:31:58]: I mean, I think it's really good to think about calculations you're doing in a model, either for training or inference.Jeff Dean [00:32:09]: Often a good way to view that is how much state will you need to bring in from memory, either like on-chip SRAM or HBM from the accelerator. Attached memory or DRAM or over the network. And then how expensive is that data motion relative to the cost of, say, an actual multiply in the matrix multiply unit? And that cost is actually really, really low, right? Because it's order, depending on your precision, I think it's like sub one picodule.Shawn Wang [00:32:50]: Oh, okay. You measure it by energy. Yeah. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:32:52]: Yeah. I mean, it's all going to be about energy and how do you make the most energy efficient system. And then moving data from the SRAM on the other side of the chip, not even off the off chip, but on the other side of the same chip can be, you know, a thousand picodules. Oh, yeah. And so all of a sudden, this is why your accelerators require batching. Because if you move, like, say, the parameter of a model from SRAM on the, on the chip into the multiplier unit, that's going to cost you a thousand picodules. So you better make use of that, that thing that you moved many, many times with. So that's where the batch dimension comes in. Because all of a sudden, you know, if you have a batch of 256 or something, that's not so bad. But if you have a batch of one, that's really not good.Shawn Wang [00:33:40]: Yeah. Yeah. Right.Jeff Dean [00:33:41]: Because then you paid a thousand picodules in order to do your one picodule multiply.Shawn Wang [00:33:46]: I have never heard an energy-based analysis of batching.Jeff Dean [00:33:50]: Yeah. I mean, that's why people batch. Yeah. Ideally, you'd like to use batch size one because the latency would be great.Shawn Wang [00:33:56]: The best latency.Jeff Dean [00:33:56]: But the energy cost and the compute cost inefficiency that you get is quite large. So, yeah.Shawn Wang [00:34:04]: Is there a similar trick like, like, like you did with, you know, putting everything in memory? Like, you know, I think obviously NVIDIA has caused a lot of waves with betting very hard on SRAM with Grok. I wonder if, like, that's something that you already saw with, with the TPUs, right? Like that, that you had to. Uh, to serve at your scale, uh, you probably sort of saw that coming. Like what, what, what hardware, uh, innovations or insights were formed because of what you're seeing there?Jeff Dean [00:34:33]: Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, TPUs have this nice, uh, sort of regular structure of 2D or 3D meshes with a bunch of chips connected. Yeah. And each one of those has HBM attached. Um, I think for serving some kinds of models, uh, you know, you, you pay a lot higher cost. Uh, and time latency, um, bringing things in from HBM than you do bringing them in from, uh, SRAM on the chip. So if you have a small enough model, you can actually do model parallelism, spread it out over lots of chips and you actually get quite good throughput improvements and latency improvements from doing that. And so you're now sort of striping your smallish scale model over say 16 or 64 chips. Uh, but as if you do that and it all fits in. In SRAM, uh, that can be a big win. So yeah, that's not a surprise, but it is a good technique.Alessio Fanelli [00:35:27]: Yeah. What about the TPU design? Like how much do you decide where the improvements have to go? So like, this is like a good example of like, is there a way to bring the thousand picojoules down to 50? Like, is it worth designing a new chip to do that? The extreme is like when people say, oh, you should burn the model on the ASIC and that's kind of like the most extreme thing. How much of it? Is it worth doing an hardware when things change so quickly? Like what was the internal discussion? Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:35:57]: I mean, we, we have a lot of interaction between say the TPU chip design architecture team and the sort of higher level modeling, uh, experts, because you really want to take advantage of being able to co-design what should future TPUs look like based on where we think the sort of ML research puck is going, uh, in some sense, because, uh, you know, as a hardware designer for ML and in particular, you're trying to design a chip starting today and that design might take two years before it even lands in a data center. And then it has to sort of be a reasonable lifetime of the chip to take you three, four or five years. So you're trying to predict two to six years out where, what ML computations will people want to run two to six years out in a very fast changing field. And so having people with interest. Interesting ML research ideas of things we think will start to work in that timeframe or will be more important in that timeframe, uh, really enables us to then get, you know, interesting hardware features put into, you know, TPU N plus two, where TPU N is what we have today.Shawn Wang [00:37:10]: Oh, the cycle time is plus two.Jeff Dean [00:37:12]: Roughly. Wow. Because, uh, I mean, sometimes you can squeeze some changes into N plus one, but, you know, bigger changes are going to require the chip. Yeah. Design be earlier in its lifetime design process. Um, so whenever we can do that, it's generally good. And sometimes you can put in speculative features that maybe won't cost you much chip area, but if it works out, it would make something, you know, 10 times as fast. And if it doesn't work out, well, you burned a little bit of tiny amount of your chip area on that thing, but it's not that big a deal. Uh, sometimes it's a very big change and we want to be pretty sure this is going to work out. So we'll do like lots of carefulness. Uh, ML experimentation to show us, uh, this is actually the, the way we want to go. Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:37:58]: Is there a reverse of like, we already committed to this chip design so we can not take the model architecture that way because it doesn't quite fit?Jeff Dean [00:38:06]: Yeah. I mean, you, you definitely have things where you're going to adapt what the model architecture looks like so that they're efficient on the chips that you're going to have for both training and inference of that, of that, uh, generation of model. So I think it kind of goes both ways. Um, you know, sometimes you can take advantage of, you know, lower precision things that are coming in a future generation. So you can, might train it at that lower precision, even if the current generation doesn't quite do that. Mm.Shawn Wang [00:38:40]: Yeah. How low can we go in precision?Jeff Dean [00:38:43]: Because people are saying like ternary is like, uh, yeah, I mean, I'm a big fan of very low precision because I think that gets, that saves you a tremendous amount of time. Right. Because it's picojoules per bit that you're transferring and reducing the number of bits is a really good way to, to reduce that. Um, you know, I think people have gotten a lot of luck, uh, mileage out of having very low bit precision things, but then having scaling factors that apply to a whole bunch of, uh, those, those weights. Scaling. How does it, how does it, okay.Shawn Wang [00:39:15]: Interesting. You, so low, low precision, but scaled up weights. Yeah. Huh. Yeah. Never considered that. Yeah. Interesting. Uh, w w while we're on this topic, you know, I think there's a lot of, um, uh, this, the concept of precision at all is weird when we're sampling, you know, uh, we just, at the end of this, we're going to have all these like chips that I'll do like very good math. And then we're just going to throw a random number generator at the start. So, I mean, there's a movement towards, uh, energy based, uh, models and processors. I'm just curious if you've, obviously you've thought about it, but like, what's your commentary?Jeff Dean [00:39:50]: Yeah. I mean, I think. There's a bunch of interesting trends though. Energy based models is one, you know, diffusion based models, which don't sort of sequentially decode tokens is another, um, you know, speculative decoding is a way that you can get sort of an equivalent, very small.Shawn Wang [00:40:06]: Draft.Jeff Dean [00:40:07]: Batch factor, uh, for like you predict eight tokens out and that enables you to sort of increase the effective batch size of what you're doing by a factor of eight, even, and then you maybe accept five or six of those tokens. So you get. A five, a five X improvement in the amortization of moving weights, uh, into the multipliers to do the prediction for the, the tokens. So these are all really good techniques and I think it's really good to look at them from the lens of, uh, energy, real energy, not energy based models, um, and, and also latency and throughput, right? If you look at things from that lens, that sort of guides you to. Two solutions that are gonna be, uh, you know, better from, uh, you know, being able to serve larger models or, you know, equivalent size models more cheaply and with lower latency.Shawn Wang [00:41:03]: Yeah. Well, I think, I think I, um, it's appealing intellectually, uh, haven't seen it like really hit the mainstream, but, um, I do think that, uh, there's some poetry in the sense that, uh, you know, we don't have to do, uh, a lot of shenanigans if like we fundamentally. Design it into the hardware. Yeah, yeah.Jeff Dean [00:41:23]: I mean, I think there's still a, there's also sort of the more exotic things like analog based, uh, uh, computing substrates as opposed to digital ones. Uh, I'm, you know, I think those are super interesting cause they can be potentially low power. Uh, but I think you often end up wanting to interface that with digital systems and you end up losing a lot of the power advantages in the digital to analog and analog to digital conversions. You end up doing, uh, at the sort of boundaries. And periphery of that system. Um, I still think there's a tremendous distance we can go from where we are today in terms of energy efficiency with sort of, uh, much better and specialized hardware for the models we care about.Shawn Wang [00:42:05]: Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:42:06]: Um, any other interesting research ideas that you've seen, or like maybe things that you cannot pursue a Google that you would be interested in seeing researchers take a step at, I guess you have a lot of researchers. Yeah, I guess you have enough, but our, our research.Jeff Dean [00:42:21]: Our research portfolio is pretty broad. I would say, um, I mean, I think, uh, in terms of research directions, there's a whole bunch of, uh, you know, open problems and how do you make these models reliable and able to do much longer, kind of, uh, more complex tasks that have lots of subtasks. How do you orchestrate, you know, maybe one model that's using other models as tools in order to sort of build, uh, things that can accomplish, uh, you know, much more. Yeah. Significant pieces of work, uh, collectively, then you would ask a single model to do. Um, so that's super interesting. How do you get more verifiable, uh, you know, how do you get RL to work for non-verifiable domains? I think it's a pretty interesting open problem because I think that would broaden out the capabilities of the models, the improvements that you're seeing in both math and coding. Uh, if we could apply those to other less verifiable domains, because we've come up with RL techniques that actually enable us to do that. Uh, effectively, that would, that would really make the models improve quite a lot. I think.Alessio Fanelli [00:43:26]: I'm curious, like when we had Noam Brown on the podcast, he said, um, they already proved you can do it with deep research. Um, you kind of have it with AI mode in a way it's not verifiable. I'm curious if there's any thread that you think is interesting there. Like what is it? Both are like information retrieval of JSON. So I wonder if it's like the retrieval is like the verifiable part. That you can score or what are like, yeah, yeah. How, how would you model that, that problem?Jeff Dean [00:43:55]: Yeah. I mean, I think there are ways of having other models that can evaluate the results of what a first model did, maybe even retrieving. Can you have another model that says, is this things, are these things you retrieved relevant? Or can you rate these 2000 things you retrieved to assess which ones are the 50 most relevant or something? Um, I think those kinds of techniques are actually quite effective. Sometimes I can even be the same model, just prompted differently to be a, you know, a critic as opposed to a, uh, actual retrieval system. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:44:28]: Um, I do think like there, there is that, that weird cliff where like, it feels like we've done the easy stuff and then now it's, but it always feels like that every year. It's like, oh, like we know, we know, and the next part is super hard and nobody's figured it out. And, uh, exactly with this RLVR thing where like everyone's talking about, well, okay, how do we. the next stage of the non-verifiable stuff. And everyone's like, I don't know, you know, Ellen judge.Jeff Dean [00:44:56]: I mean, I feel like the nice thing about this field is there's lots and lots of smart people thinking about creative solutions to some of the problems that we all see. Uh, because I think everyone sort of sees that the models, you know, are great at some things and they fall down around the edges of those things and, and are not as capable as we'd like in those areas. And then coming up with good techniques and trying those. And seeing which ones actually make a difference is sort of what the whole research aspect of this field is, is pushing forward. And I think that's why it's super interesting. You know, if you think about two years ago, we were struggling with GSM, eight K problems, right? Like, you know, Fred has two rabbits. He gets three more rabbits. How many rabbits does he have? That's a pretty far cry from the kinds of mathematics that the models can, and now you're doing IMO and Erdos problems in pure language. Yeah. Yeah. Pure language. So that is a really, really amazing jump in capabilities in, you know, in a year and a half or something. And I think, um, for other areas, it'd be great if we could make that kind of leap. Uh, and you know, we don't exactly see how to do it for some, some areas, but we do see it for some other areas and we're going to work hard on making that better. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:46:13]: Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:46:14]: Like YouTube thumbnail generation. That would be very helpful. We need that. That would be AGI. We need that.Shawn Wang [00:46:20]: That would be. As far as content creators go.Jeff Dean [00:46:22]: I guess I'm not a YouTube creator, so I don't care that much about that problem, but I guess, uh, many people do.Shawn Wang [00:46:27]: It does. Yeah. It doesn't, it doesn't matter. People do judge books by their covers as it turns out. Um, uh, just to draw a bit on the IMO goal. Um, I'm still not over the fact that a year ago we had alpha proof and alpha geometry and all those things. And then this year we were like, screw that we'll just chuck it into Gemini. Yeah. What's your reflection? Like, I think this, this question about. Like the merger of like symbolic systems and like, and, and LMS, uh, was a very much core belief. And then somewhere along the line, people would just said, Nope, we'll just all do it in the LLM.Jeff Dean [00:47:02]: Yeah. I mean, I think it makes a lot of sense to me because, you know, humans manipulate symbols, but we probably don't have like a symbolic representation in our heads. Right. We have some distributed representation that is neural net, like in some way of lots of different neurons. And activation patterns firing when we see certain things and that enables us to reason and plan and, you know, do chains of thought and, you know, roll them back now that, that approach for solving the problem doesn't seem like it's going to work. I'm going to try this one. And, you know, in a lot of ways we're emulating what we intuitively think, uh, is happening inside real brains in neural net based models. So it never made sense to me to have like completely separate. Uh, discrete, uh, symbolic things, and then a completely different way of, of, uh, you know, thinking about those things.Shawn Wang [00:47:59]: Interesting. Yeah. Uh, I mean, it's maybe seems obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to me a year ago. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:48:06]: I mean, I do think like that IMO with, you know, translating to lean and using lean and then the next year and also a specialized geometry model. And then this year switching to a single unified model. That is roughly the production model with a little bit more inference budget, uh, is actually, you know, quite good because it shows you that the capabilities of that general model have improved dramatically and, and now you don't need the specialized model. This is actually sort of very similar to the 2013 to 16 era of machine learning, right? Like it used to be, people would train separate models for lots of different, each different problem, right? I have, I want to recognize street signs and something. So I train a street sign. Recognition recognition model, or I want to, you know, decode speech recognition. I have a speech model, right? I think now the era of unified models that do everything is really upon us. And the question is how well do those models generalize to new things they've never been asked to do and they're getting better and better.Shawn Wang [00:49:10]: And you don't need domain experts. Like one of my, uh, so I interviewed ETA who was on, who was on that team. Uh, and he was like, yeah, I, I don't know how they work. I don't know where the IMO competition was held. I don't know the rules of it. I just trained the models, the training models. Yeah. Yeah. And it's kind of interesting that like people with these, this like universal skill set of just like machine learning, you just give them data and give them enough compute and they can kind of tackle any task, which is the bitter lesson, I guess. I don't know. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:49:39]: I mean, I think, uh, general models, uh, will win out over specialized ones in most cases.Shawn Wang [00:49:45]: Uh, so I want to push there a bit. I think there's one hole here, which is like, uh. There's this concept of like, uh, maybe capacity of a model, like abstractly a model can only contain the number of bits that it has. And, uh, and so it, you know, God knows like Gemini pro is like one to 10 trillion parameters. We don't know, but, uh, the Gemma models, for example, right? Like a lot of people want like the open source local models that are like that, that, that, and, and, uh, they have some knowledge, which is not necessary, right? Like they can't know everything like, like you have the. The luxury of you have the big model and big model should be able to capable of everything. But like when, when you're distilling and you're going down to the small models, you know, you're actually memorizing things that are not useful. Yeah. And so like, how do we, I guess, do we want to extract that? Can we, can we divorce knowledge from reasoning, you know?Jeff Dean [00:50:38]: Yeah. I mean, I think you do want the model to be most effective at reasoning if it can retrieve things, right? Because having the model devote precious parameter space. To remembering obscure facts that could be looked up is actually not the best use of that parameter space, right? Like you might prefer something that is more generally useful in more settings than this obscure fact that it has. Um, so I think that's always attention at the same time. You also don't want your model to be kind of completely detached from, you know, knowing stuff about the world, right? Like it's probably useful to know how long the golden gate be. Bridges just as a general sense of like how long are bridges, right? And, uh, it should have that kind of knowledge. It maybe doesn't need to know how long some teeny little bridge in some other more obscure part of the world is, but, uh, it does help it to have a fair bit of world knowledge and the bigger your model is, the more you can have. Uh, but I do think combining retrieval with sort of reasoning and making the model really good at doing multiple stages of retrieval. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:51:49]: And reasoning through the intermediate retrieval results is going to be a, a pretty effective way of making the model seem much more capable, because if you think about, say, a personal Gemini, yeah, right?Jeff Dean [00:52:01]: Like we're not going to train Gemini on my email. Probably we'd rather have a single model that, uh, we can then use and use being able to retrieve from my email as a tool and have the model reason about it and retrieve from my photos or whatever, uh, and then make use of that and have multiple. Um, you know, uh, stages of interaction. that makes sense.Alessio Fanelli [00:52:24]: Do you think the vertical models are like, uh, interesting pursuit? Like when people are like, oh, we're building the best healthcare LLM, we're building the best law LLM, are those kind of like short-term stopgaps or?Jeff Dean [00:52:37]: No, I mean, I think, I think vertical models are interesting. Like you want them to start from a pretty good base model, but then you can sort of, uh, sort of viewing them, view them as enriching the data. Data distribution for that particular vertical domain for healthcare, say, um, we're probably not going to train or for say robotics. We're probably not going to train Gemini on all possible robotics data. We, you could train it on because we want it to have a balanced set of capabilities. Um, so we'll expose it to some robotics data, but if you're trying to build a really, really good robotics model, you're going to want to start with that and then train it on more robotics data. And then maybe that would. It's multilingual translation capability, but improve its robotics capabilities. And we're always making these kind of, uh, you know, trade-offs in the data mix that we train the base Gemini models on. You know, we'd love to include data from 200 more languages and as much data as we have for those languages, but that's going to displace some other capabilities of the model. It won't be as good at, um, you know, Pearl programming, you know, it'll still be good at Python programming. Cause we'll include it. Enough. Of that, but there's other long tail computer languages or coding capabilities that it may suffer on or multi, uh, multimodal reasoning capabilities may suffer. Cause we didn't get to expose it to as much data there, but it's really good at multilingual things. So I, I think some combination of specialized models, maybe more modular models. So it'd be nice to have the capability to have those 200 languages, plus this awesome robotics model, plus this awesome healthcare, uh, module that all can be knitted together to work in concert and called upon in different circumstances. Right? Like if I have a health related thing, then it should enable using this health module in conjunction with the main base model to be even better at those kinds of things. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:54:36]: Installable knowledge. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:54:37]: Right.Shawn Wang [00:54:38]: Just download as a, as a package.Jeff Dean [00:54:39]: And some of that installable stuff can come from retrieval, but some of it probably should come from preloaded training on, you know, uh, a hundred billion tokens or a trillion tokens of health data. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:54:51]: And for listeners, I think, uh, I will highlight the Gemma three end paper where they, there was a little bit of that, I think. Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:54:56]: Yeah. I guess the question is like, how many billions of tokens do you need to outpace the frontier model improvements? You know, it's like, if I have to make this model better healthcare and the main. Gemini model is still improving. Do I need 50 billion tokens? Can I do it with a hundred, if I need a trillion healthcare tokens, it's like, they're probably not out there that you don't have, you know, I think that's really like the.Jeff Dean [00:55:21]: Well, I mean, I think healthcare is a particularly challenging domain, so there's a lot of healthcare data that, you know, we don't have access to appropriately, but there's a lot of, you know, uh, healthcare organizations that want to train models on their own data. That is not public healthcare data, uh, not public health. But public healthcare data. Um, so I think there are opportunities there to say, partner with a large healthcare organization and train models for their use that are going to be, you know, more bespoke, but probably, uh, might be better than a general model trained on say, public data. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:55:58]: Yeah. I, I believe, uh, by the way, also this is like somewhat related to the language conversation. Uh, I think one of your, your favorite examples was you can put a low resource language in the context and it just learns. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:56:09]: Oh, yeah, I think the example we used was Calamon, which is truly low resource because it's only spoken by, I think 120 people in the world and there's no written text.Shawn Wang [00:56:20]: So, yeah. So you can just do it that way. Just put it in the context. Yeah. Yeah. But I think your whole data set in the context, right.Jeff Dean [00:56:27]: If you, if you take a language like, uh, you know, Somali or something, there is a fair bit of Somali text in the world that, uh, or Ethiopian Amharic or something, um, you know, we probably. Yeah. Are not putting all the data from those languages into the Gemini based training. We put some of it, but if you put more of it, you'll improve the capabilities of those models.Shawn Wang [00:56:49]: Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:56:49]:

Help support the free broadcast by donating to our PayPal fundraiser!https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/RL... Behind the Bunker Paintball Podcast is a long-running weekly show dedicated to everything paintball. Hosted by passionate players and industry veterans, the podcast dives into the latest happenings in the sport, from new gear releases and product reviews to updates on tournaments and events around the world. It has built a loyal audience by combining serious paintball discussion with a lighthearted, entertaining approach that keeps both new players and seasoned veterans engaged!

Will Brown and Johannes Hagemann of Prime Intellect discuss the shift from static prompting to "environment-based" AI development, and their Environments Hub, a platform designed to democratize frontier-level training. The conversation highlights a major shift: AI progress is moving toward Recursive Language Models that manage their own context and agentic RL that scales through trial and error. Will and Johannes describe their vision for the future in which every company will become an AI research lab. By leveraging institutional knowledge as training data, businesses can build models with decades of experience that far outperform generic, off-the-shelf systems.Hosted by Sonya Huang, Sequoia Capital

From Palantir and Two Sigma to building Goodfire into the poster-child for actionable mechanistic interpretability, Mark Bissell (Member of Technical Staff) and Myra Deng (Head of Product) are trying to turn “peeking inside the model” into a repeatable production workflow by shipping APIs, landing real enterprise deployments, and now scaling the bet with a recent $150M Series B funding round at a $1.25B valuation.In this episode, we go far beyond the usual “SAEs are cool” take. We talk about Goodfire's core bet: that the AI lifecycle is still fundamentally broken because the only reliable control we have is data and we post-train, RLHF, and fine-tune by “slurping supervision through a straw,” hoping the model picks up the right behaviors while quietly absorbing the wrong ones. Goodfire's answer is to build a bi-directional interface between humans and models: read what's happening inside, edit it surgically, and eventually use interpretability during training so customization isn't just brute-force guesswork.Mark and Myra walk through what that looks like when you stop treating interpretability like a lab demo and start treating it like infrastructure: lightweight probes that add near-zero latency, token-level safety filters that can run at inference time, and interpretability workflows that survive messy constraints (multilingual inputs, synthetic→real transfer, regulated domains, no access to sensitive data). We also get a live window into what “frontier-scale interp” means operationally (i.e. steering a trillion-parameter model in real time by targeting internal features) plus why the same tooling generalizes cleanly from language models to genomics, medical imaging, and “pixel-space” world models.We discuss:* Myra + Mark's path: Palantir (health systems, forward-deployed engineering) → Goodfire early team; Two Sigma → Head of Product, translating frontier interpretability research into a platform and real-world deployments* What “interpretability” actually means in practice: not just post-hoc poking, but a broader “science of deep learning” approach across the full AI lifecycle (data curation → post-training → internal representations → model design)* Why post-training is the first big wedge: “surgical edits” for unintended behaviors likereward hacking, sycophancy, noise learned during customization plus the dream of targeted unlearning and bias removal without wrecking capabilities* SAEs vs probes in the real world: why SAE feature spaces sometimes underperform classifiers trained on raw activations for downstream detection tasks (hallucination, harmful intent, PII), and what that implies about “clean concept spaces”* Rakuten in production: deploying interpretability-based token-level PII detection at inference time to prevent routing private data to downstream providers plus the gnarly constraints: no training on real customer PII, synthetic→real transfer, English + Japanese, and tokenization quirks* Why interp can be operationally cheaper than LLM-judge guardrails: probes are lightweight, low-latency, and don't require hosting a second large model in the loop* Real-time steering at frontier scale: a demo of steering Kimi K2 (~1T params) live and finding features via SAE pipelines, auto-labeling via LLMs, and toggling a “Gen-Z slang” feature across multiple layers without breaking tool use* Hallucinations as an internal signal: the case that models have latent uncertainty / “user-pleasing” circuitry you can detect and potentially mitigate more directly than black-box methods* Steering vs prompting: the emerging view that activation steering and in-context learning are more closely connected than people think, including work mapping between the two (even for jailbreak-style behaviors)* Interpretability for science: using the same tooling across domains (genomics, medical imaging, materials) to debug spurious correlations and extract new knowledge up to and including early biomarker discovery work with major partners* World models + “pixel-space” interpretability: why vision/video models make concepts easier to see, how that accelerates the feedback loop, and why robotics/world-model partners are especially interesting design partners* The north star: moving from “data in, weights out” to intentional model design where experts can impart goals and constraints directly, not just via reward signals and brute-force post-training—Goodfire AI* Website: https://goodfire.ai* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/goodfire-ai/* X: https://x.com/GoodfireAIMyra Deng* Website: https://myradeng.com/* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/myra-deng/* X: https://x.com/myra_dengMark Bissell* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-bissell/* X: https://x.com/MarkMBissellFull Video EpisodeTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction00:00:05 Introduction to the Latent Space Podcast and Guests from Goodfire00:00:29 What is Goodfire? Mission and Focus on Interpretability00:01:01 Goodfire's Practical Approach to Interpretability00:01:37 Goodfire's Series B Fundraise Announcement00:02:04 Backgrounds of Mark and Myra from Goodfire00:02:51 Team Structure and Roles at Goodfire00:05:13 What is Interpretability? Definitions and Techniques00:05:30 Understanding Errors00:07:29 Post-training vs. Pre-training Interpretability Applications00:08:51 Using Interpretability to Remove Unwanted Behaviors00:10:09 Grokking, Double Descent, and Generalization in Models00:10:15 404 Not Found Explained00:12:06 Subliminal Learning and Hidden Biases in Models00:14:07 How Goodfire Chooses Research Directions and Projects00:15:00 Troubleshooting Errors00:16:04 Limitations of SAEs and Probes in Interpretability00:18:14 Rakuten Case Study: Production Deployment of Interpretability00:20:45 Conclusion00:21:12 Efficiency Benefits of Interpretability Techniques00:21:26 Live Demo: Real-Time Steering in a Trillion Parameter Model00:25:15 How Steering Features are Identified and Labeled00:26:51 Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations Using Interpretability00:31:20 Equivalence of Activation Steering and Prompting00:34:06 Comparing Steering with Fine-Tuning and LoRA Techniques00:36:04 Model Design and the Future of Intentional AI Development00:38:09 Getting Started in Mechinterp: Resources, Programs, and Open Problems00:40:51 Industry Applications and the Rise of Mechinterp in Practice00:41:39 Interpretability for Code Models and Real-World Usage00:43:07 Making Steering Useful for More Than Stylistic Edits00:46:17 Applying Interpretability to Healthcare and Scientific Discovery00:49:15 Why Interpretability is Crucial in High-Stakes Domains like Healthcare00:52:03 Call for Design Partners Across Domains00:54:18 Interest in World Models and Visual Interpretability00:57:22 Sci-Fi Inspiration: Ted Chiang and Interpretability01:00:14 Interpretability, Safety, and Alignment Perspectives01:04:27 Weak-to-Strong Generalization and Future Alignment Challenges01:05:38 Final Thoughts and Hiring/Collaboration Opportunities at GoodfireTranscriptShawn Wang [00:00:05]: So welcome to the Latent Space pod. We're back in the studio with our special MechInterp co-host, Vibhu. Welcome. Mochi, Mochi's special co-host. And Mochi, the mechanistic interpretability doggo. We have with us Mark and Myra from Goodfire. Welcome. Thanks for having us on. Maybe we can sort of introduce Goodfire and then introduce you guys. How do you introduce Goodfire today?Myra Deng [00:00:29]: Yeah, it's a great question. So Goodfire, we like to say, is an AI research lab that focuses on using interpretability to understand, learn from, and design AI models. And we really believe that interpretability will unlock the new generation, next frontier of safe and powerful AI models. That's our description right now, and I'm excited to dive more into the work we're doing to make that happen.Shawn Wang [00:00:55]: Yeah. And there's always like the official description. Is there an understatement? Is there an unofficial one that sort of resonates more with a different audience?Mark Bissell [00:01:01]: Well, being an AI research lab that's focused on interpretability, there's obviously a lot of people have a lot that they think about when they think of interpretability. And I think we have a pretty broad definition of what that means and the types of places that can be applied. And in particular, applying it in production scenarios, in high stakes industries, and really taking it sort of from the research world into the real world. Which, you know. It's a new field, so that hasn't been done all that much. And we're excited about actually seeing that sort of put into practice.Shawn Wang [00:01:37]: Yeah, I would say it wasn't too long ago that Anthopic was like still putting out like toy models or superposition and that kind of stuff. And I wouldn't have pegged it to be this far along. When you and I talked at NeurIPS, you were talking a little bit about your production use cases and your customers. And then not to bury the lead, today we're also announcing the fundraise, your Series B. $150 million. $150 million at a 1.25B valuation. Congrats, Unicorn.Mark Bissell [00:02:02]: Thank you. Yeah, no, things move fast.Shawn Wang [00:02:04]: We were talking to you in December and already some big updates since then. Let's dive, I guess, into a bit of your backgrounds as well. Mark, you were at Palantir working on health stuff, which is really interesting because the Goodfire has some interesting like health use cases. I don't know how related they are in practice.Mark Bissell [00:02:22]: Yeah, not super related, but I don't know. It was helpful context to know what it's like. Just to work. Just to work with health systems and generally in that domain. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:02:32]: And Mara, you were at Two Sigma, which actually I was also at Two Sigma back in the day. Wow, nice.Myra Deng [00:02:37]: Did we overlap at all?Shawn Wang [00:02:38]: No, this is when I was briefly a software engineer before I became a sort of developer relations person. And now you're head of product. What are your sort of respective roles, just to introduce people to like what all gets done in Goodfire?Mark Bissell [00:02:51]: Yeah, prior to Goodfire, I was at Palantir for about three years as a forward deployed engineer, now a hot term. Wasn't always that way. And as a technical lead on the health care team and at Goodfire, I'm a member of the technical staff. And honestly, that I think is about as specific as like as as I could describe myself because I've worked on a range of things. And, you know, it's it's a fun time to be at a team that's still reasonably small. I think when I joined one of the first like ten employees, now we're above 40, but still, it looks like there's always a mix of research and engineering and product and all of the above. That needs to get done. And I think everyone across the team is, you know, pretty, pretty switch hitter in the roles they do. So I think you've seen some of the stuff that I worked on related to image models, which was sort of like a research demo. More recently, I've been working on our scientific discovery team with some of our life sciences partners, but then also building out our core platform for more of like flexing some of the kind of MLE and developer skills as well.Shawn Wang [00:03:53]: Very generalist. And you also had like a very like a founding engineer type role.Myra Deng [00:03:58]: Yeah, yeah.Shawn Wang [00:03:59]: So I also started as I still am a member of technical staff, did a wide range of things from the very beginning, including like finding our office space and all of this, which is we both we both visited when you had that open house thing. It was really nice.Myra Deng [00:04:13]: Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Plug to come visit our office.Shawn Wang [00:04:15]: It looked like it was like 200 people. It has room for 200 people. But you guys are like 10.Myra Deng [00:04:22]: For a while, it was very empty. But yeah, like like Mark, I spend. A lot of my time as as head of product, I think product is a bit of a weird role these days, but a lot of it is thinking about how do we take our frontier research and really apply it to the most important real world problems and how does that then translate into a platform that's repeatable or a product and working across, you know, the engineering and research teams to make that happen and also communicating to the world? Like, what is interpretability? What is it used for? What is it good for? Why is it so important? All of these things are part of my day-to-day as well.Shawn Wang [00:05:01]: I love like what is things because that's a very crisp like starting point for people like coming to a field. They all do a fun thing. Vibhu, why don't you want to try tackling what is interpretability and then they can correct us.Vibhu Sapra [00:05:13]: Okay, great. So I think like one, just to kick off, it's a very interesting role to be head of product, right? Because you guys, at least as a lab, you're more of an applied interp lab, right? Which is pretty different than just normal interp, like a lot of background research. But yeah. You guys actually ship an API to try these things. You have Ember, you have products around it, which not many do. Okay. What is interp? So basically you're trying to have an understanding of what's going on in model, like in the model, in the internal. So different approaches to do that. You can do probing, SAEs, transcoders, all this stuff. But basically you have an, you have a hypothesis. You have something that you want to learn about what's happening in a model internals. And then you're trying to solve that from there. You can do stuff like you can, you know, you can do activation mapping. You can try to do steering. There's a lot of stuff that you can do, but the key question is, you know, from input to output, we want to have a better understanding of what's happening and, you know, how can we, how can we adjust what's happening on the model internals? How'd I do?Mark Bissell [00:06:12]: That was really good. I think that was great. I think it's also a, it's kind of a minefield of a, if you ask 50 people who quote unquote work in interp, like what is interpretability, you'll probably get 50 different answers. And. Yeah. To some extent also like where, where good fire sits in the space. I think that we're an AI research company above all else. And interpretability is a, is a set of methods that we think are really useful and worth kind of specializing in, in order to accomplish the goals we want to accomplish. But I think we also sort of see some of the goals as even more broader as, as almost like the science of deep learning and just taking a not black box approach to kind of any part of the like AI development life cycle, whether that. That means using interp for like data curation while you're training your model or for understanding what happened during post-training or for the, you know, understanding activations and sort of internal representations, what is in there semantically. And then a lot of sort of exciting updates that were, you know, are sort of also part of the, the fundraise around bringing interpretability to training, which I don't think has been done all that much before. A lot of this stuff is sort of post-talk poking at models as opposed to. To actually using this to intentionally design them.Shawn Wang [00:07:29]: Is this post-training or pre-training or is that not a useful.Myra Deng [00:07:33]: Currently focused on post-training, but there's no reason the techniques wouldn't also work in pre-training.Shawn Wang [00:07:38]: Yeah. It seems like it would be more active, applicable post-training because basically I'm thinking like rollouts or like, you know, having different variations of a model that you can tweak with the, with your steering. Yeah.Myra Deng [00:07:50]: And I think in a lot of the news that you've seen in, in, on like Twitter or whatever, you've seen a lot of unintended. Side effects come out of post-training processes, you know, overly sycophantic models or models that exhibit strange reward hacking behavior. I think these are like extreme examples. There's also, you know, very, uh, mundane, more mundane, like enterprise use cases where, you know, they try to customize or post-train a model to do something and it learns some noise or it doesn't appropriately learn the target task. And a big question that we've always had is like, how do you use your understanding of what the model knows and what it's doing to actually guide the learning process?Shawn Wang [00:08:26]: Yeah, I mean, uh, you know, just to anchor this for people, uh, one of the biggest controversies of last year was 4.0 GlazeGate. I've never heard of GlazeGate. I didn't know that was what it was called. The other one, they called it that on the blog post and I was like, well, how did OpenAI call it? Like officially use that term. And I'm like, that's funny, but like, yeah, I guess it's the pitch that if they had worked a good fire, they wouldn't have avoided it. Like, you know what I'm saying?Myra Deng [00:08:51]: I think so. Yeah. Yeah.Mark Bissell [00:08:53]: I think that's certainly one of the use cases. I think. Yeah. Yeah. I think the reason why post-training is a place where this makes a lot of sense is a lot of what we're talking about is surgical edits. You know, you want to be able to have expert feedback, very surgically change how your model is doing, whether that is, you know, removing a certain behavior that it has. So, you know, one of the things that we've been looking at or is, is another like common area where you would want to make a somewhat surgical edit is some of the models that have say political bias. Like you look at Quen or, um, R1 and they have sort of like this CCP bias.Shawn Wang [00:09:27]: Is there a CCP vector?Mark Bissell [00:09:29]: Well, there's, there are certainly internal, yeah. Parts of the representation space where you can sort of see where that lives. Yeah. Um, and you want to kind of, you know, extract that piece out.Shawn Wang [00:09:40]: Well, I always say, you know, whenever you find a vector, a fun exercise is just like, make it very negative to see what the opposite of CCP is.Mark Bissell [00:09:47]: The super America, bald eagles flying everywhere. But yeah. So in general, like lots of post-training tasks where you'd want to be able to, to do that. Whether it's unlearning a certain behavior or, you know, some of the other kind of cases where this comes up is, are you familiar with like the, the grokking behavior? I mean, I know the machine learning term of grokking.Shawn Wang [00:10:09]: Yeah.Mark Bissell [00:10:09]: Sort of this like double descent idea of, of having a model that is able to learn a generalizing, a generalizing solution, as opposed to even if memorization of some task would suffice, you want it to learn the more general way of doing a thing. And so, you know, another. A way that you can think about having surgical access to a model's internals would be learn from this data, but learn in the right way. If there are many possible, you know, ways to, to do that. Can make interp solve the double descent problem?Shawn Wang [00:10:41]: Depends, I guess, on how you. Okay. So I, I, I viewed that double descent as a problem because then you're like, well, if the loss curves level out, then you're done, but maybe you're not done. Right. Right. But like, if you actually can interpret what is a generalizing or what you're doing. What is, what is still changing, even though the loss is not changing, then maybe you, you can actually not view it as a double descent problem. And actually you're just sort of translating the space in which you view loss and like, and then you have a smooth curve. Yeah.Mark Bissell [00:11:11]: I think that's certainly like the domain of, of problems that we're, that we're looking to get.Shawn Wang [00:11:15]: Yeah. To me, like double descent is like the biggest thing to like ML research where like, if you believe in scaling, then you don't need, you need to know where to scale. And. But if you believe in double descent, then you don't, you don't believe in anything where like anything levels off, like.Vibhu Sapra [00:11:30]: I mean, also tendentially there's like, okay, when you talk about the China vector, right. There's the subliminal learning work. It was from the anthropic fellows program where basically you can have hidden biases in a model. And as you distill down or, you know, as you train on distilled data, those biases always show up, even if like you explicitly try to not train on them. So, you know, it's just like another use case of. Okay. If we can interpret what's happening in post-training, you know, can we clear some of this? Can we even determine what's there? Because yeah, it's just like some worrying research that's out there that shows, you know, we really don't know what's going on.Mark Bissell [00:12:06]: That is. Yeah. I think that's the biggest sentiment that we're sort of hoping to tackle. Nobody knows what's going on. Right. Like subliminal learning is just an insane concept when you think about it. Right. Train a model on not even the logits, literally the output text of a bunch of random numbers. And now your model loves owls. And you see behaviors like that, that are just, they defy, they defy intuition. And, and there are mathematical explanations that you can get into, but. I mean.Shawn Wang [00:12:34]: It feels so early days. Objectively, there are a sequence of numbers that are more owl-like than others. There, there should be.Mark Bissell [00:12:40]: According to, according to certain models. Right. It's interesting. I think it only applies to models that were initialized from the same starting Z. Usually, yes.Shawn Wang [00:12:49]: But I mean, I think that's a, that's a cheat code because there's not enough compute. But like if you believe in like platonic representation, like probably it will transfer across different models as well. Oh, you think so?Mark Bissell [00:13:00]: I think of it more as a statistical artifact of models initialized from the same seed sort of. There's something that is like path dependent from that seed that might cause certain overlaps in the latent space and then sort of doing this distillation. Yeah. Like it pushes it towards having certain other tendencies.Vibhu Sapra [00:13:24]: Got it. I think there's like a bunch of these open-ended questions, right? Like you can't train in new stuff during the RL phase, right? RL only reorganizes weights and you can only do stuff that's somewhat there in your base model. You're not learning new stuff. You're just reordering chains and stuff. But okay. My broader question is when you guys work at an interp lab, how do you decide what to work on and what's kind of the thought process? Right. Because we can ramble for hours. Okay. I want to know this. I want to know that. But like, how do you concretely like, you know, what's the workflow? Okay. There's like approaches towards solving a problem, right? I can try prompting. I can look at chain of thought. I can train probes, SAEs. But how do you determine, you know, like, okay, is this going anywhere? Like, do we have set stuff? Just, you know, if you can help me with all that. Yeah.Myra Deng [00:14:07]: It's a really good question. I feel like we've always at the very beginning of the company thought about like, let's go and try to learn what isn't working in machine learning today. Whether that's talking to customers or talking to researchers at other labs, trying to understand both where the frontier is going and where things are really not falling apart today. And then developing a perspective on how we can push the frontier using interpretability methods. And so, you know, even our chief scientist, Tom, spends a lot of time talking to customers and trying to understand what real world problems are and then taking that back and trying to apply the current state of the art to those problems and then seeing where they fall down basically. And then using those failures or those shortcomings to understand what hills to climb when it comes to interpretability research. So like on the fundamental side, for instance, when we have done some work applying SAEs and probes, we've encountered, you know, some shortcomings in SAEs that we found a little bit surprising. And so have gone back to the drawing board and done work on that. And then, you know, we've done some work on better foundational interpreter models. And a lot of our team's research is focused on what is the next evolution beyond SAEs, for instance. And then when it comes to like control and design of models, you know, we tried steering with our first API and realized that it still fell short of black box techniques like prompting or fine tuning. And so went back to the drawing board and we're like, how do we make that not the case and how do we improve it beyond that? And one of our researchers, Ekdeep, who just joined is actually Ekdeep and Atticus are like steering experts and have spent a lot of time trying to figure out like, what is the research that enables us to actually do this in a much more powerful, robust way? So yeah, the answer is like, look at real world problems, try to translate that into a research agenda and then like hill climb on both of those at the same time.Shawn Wang [00:16:04]: Yeah. Mark has the steering CLI demo queued up, which we're going to go into in a sec. But I always want to double click on when you drop hints, like we found some problems with SAEs. Okay. What are they? You know, and then we can go into the demo. Yeah.Myra Deng [00:16:19]: I mean, I'm curious if you have more thoughts here as well, because you've done it in the healthcare domain. But I think like, for instance, when we do things like trying to detect behaviors within models that are harmful or like behaviors that a user might not want to have in their model. So hallucinations, for instance, harmful intent, PII, all of these things. We first tried using SAE probes for a lot of these tasks. So taking the feature activation space from SAEs and then training classifiers on top of that, and then seeing how well we can detect the properties that we might want to detect in model behavior. And we've seen in many cases that probes just trained on raw activations seem to perform better than SAE probes, which is a bit surprising if you think that SAEs are actually also capturing the concepts that you would want to capture cleanly and more surgically. And so that is an interesting observation. I don't think that is like, I'm not down on SAEs at all. I think there are many, many things they're useful for, but we have definitely run into cases where I think the concept space described by SAEs is not as clean and accurate as we would expect it to be for actual like real world downstream performance metrics.Mark Bissell [00:17:34]: Fair enough. Yeah. It's the blessing and the curse of unsupervised methods where you get to peek into the AI's mind. But sometimes you wish that you saw other things when you walked inside there. Although in the PII instance, I think weren't an SAE based approach actually did prove to be the most generalizable?Myra Deng [00:17:53]: It did work well in the case that we published with Rakuten. And I think a lot of the reasons it worked well was because we had a noisier data set. And so actually the blessing of unsupervised learning is that we actually got to get more meaningful, generalizable signal from SAEs when the data was noisy. But in other cases where we've had like good data sets, it hasn't been the case.Shawn Wang [00:18:14]: And just because you named Rakuten and I don't know if we'll get it another chance, like what is the overall, like what is Rakuten's usage or production usage? Yeah.Myra Deng [00:18:25]: So they are using us to essentially guardrail and inference time monitor their language model usage and their agent usage to detect things like PII so that they don't route private user information.Myra Deng [00:18:41]: And so that's, you know, going through all of their user queries every day. And that's something that we deployed with them a few months ago. And now we are actually exploring very early partnerships, not just with Rakuten, but with other people around how we can help with potentially training and customization use cases as well. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:19:03]: And for those who don't know, like it's Rakuten is like, I think number one or number two e-commerce store in Japan. Yes. Yeah.Mark Bissell [00:19:10]: And I think that use case actually highlights a lot of like what it looks like to deploy things in practice that you don't always think about when you're doing sort of research tasks. So when you think about some of the stuff that came up there that's more complex than your idealized version of a problem, they were encountering things like synthetic to real transfer of methods. So they couldn't train probes, classifiers, things like that on actual customer data of PII. So what they had to do is use synthetic data sets. And then hope that that transfer is out of domain to real data sets. And so we can evaluate performance on the real data sets, but not train on customer PII. So that right off the bat is like a big challenge. You have multilingual requirements. So this needed to work for both English and Japanese text. Japanese text has all sorts of quirks, including tokenization behaviors that caused lots of bugs that caused us to be pulling our hair out. And then also a lot of tasks you'll see. You might make simplifying assumptions if you're sort of treating it as like the easiest version of the problem to just sort of get like general results where maybe you say you're classifying a sentence to say, does this contain PII? But the need that Rakuten had was token level classification so that you could precisely scrub out the PII. So as we learned more about the problem, you're sort of speaking about what that looks like in practice. Yeah. A lot of assumptions end up breaking. And that was just one instance where you. A problem that seems simple right off the bat ends up being more complex as you keep diving into it.Vibhu Sapra [00:20:41]: Excellent. One of the things that's also interesting with Interp is a lot of these methods are very efficient, right? So where you're just looking at a model's internals itself compared to a separate like guardrail, LLM as a judge, a separate model. One, you have to host it. Two, there's like a whole latency. So if you use like a big model, you have a second call. Some of the work around like self detection of hallucination, it's also deployed for efficiency, right? So if you have someone like Rakuten doing it in production live, you know, that's just another thing people should consider.Mark Bissell [00:21:12]: Yeah. And something like a probe is super lightweight. Yeah. It's no extra latency really. Excellent.Shawn Wang [00:21:17]: You have the steering demos lined up. So we were just kind of see what you got. I don't, I don't actually know if this is like the latest, latest or like alpha thing.Mark Bissell [00:21:26]: No, this is a pretty hacky demo from from a presentation that someone else on the team recently gave. So this will give a sense for, for technology. So you can see the steering and action. Honestly, I think the biggest thing that this highlights is that as we've been growing as a company and taking on kind of more and more ambitious versions of interpretability related problems, a lot of that comes to scaling up in various different forms. And so here you're going to see steering on a 1 trillion parameter model. This is Kimi K2. And so it's sort of fun that in addition to the research challenges, there are engineering challenges that we're now tackling. Cause for any of this to be sort of useful in production, you need to be thinking about what it looks like when you're using these methods on frontier models as opposed to sort of like toy kind of model organisms. So yeah, this was thrown together hastily, pretty fragile behind the scenes, but I think it's quite a fun demo. So screen sharing is on. So I've got two terminal sessions pulled up here. On the left is a forked version that we have of the Kimi CLI that we've got running to point at our custom hosted Kimi model. And then on the right is a set up that will allow us to steer on certain concepts. So I should be able to chat with Kimi over here. Tell it hello. This is running locally. So the CLI is running locally, but the Kimi server is running back to the office. Well, hopefully should be, um, that's too much to run on that Mac. Yeah. I think it's, uh, it takes a full, like each 100 node. I think it's like, you can. You can run it on eight GPUs, eight 100. So, so yeah, Kimi's running. We can ask it a prompt. It's got a forked version of our, uh, of the SG line code base that we've been working on. So I'm going to tell it, Hey, this SG line code base is slow. I think there's a bug. Can you try to figure it out? There's a big code base, so it'll, it'll spend some time doing this. And then on the right here, I'm going to initialize in real time. Some steering. Let's see here.Mark Bissell [00:23:33]: searching for any. Bugs. Feature ID 43205.Shawn Wang [00:23:38]: Yeah.Mark Bissell [00:23:38]: 20, 30, 40. So let me, uh, this is basically a feature that we found that inside Kimi seems to cause it to speak in Gen Z slang. And so on the left, it's still sort of thinking normally it might take, I don't know, 15 seconds for this to kick in, but then we're going to start hopefully seeing him do this code base is massive for real. So we're going to start. We're going to start seeing Kimi transition as the steering kicks in from normal Kimi to Gen Z Kimi and both in its chain of thought and its actual outputs.Mark Bissell [00:24:19]: And interestingly, you can see, you know, it's still able to call tools, uh, and stuff. It's um, it's purely sort of it's it's demeanor. And there are other features that we found for interesting things like concision. So that's more of a practical one. You can make it more concise. Um, the types of programs, uh, programming languages that uses, but yeah, as we're seeing it come in. Pretty good. Outputs.Shawn Wang [00:24:43]: Scheduler code is actually wild.Vibhu Sapra [00:24:46]: Yo, this code is actually insane, bro.Vibhu Sapra [00:24:53]: What's the process of training in SAE on this, or, you know, how do you label features? I know you guys put out a pretty cool blog post about, um, finding this like autonomous interp. Um, something. Something about how agents for interp is different than like coding agents. I don't know while this is spewing up, but how, how do we find feature 43, two Oh five. Yeah.Mark Bissell [00:25:15]: So in this case, um, we, our platform that we've been building out for a long time now supports all the sort of classic out of the box interp techniques that you might want to have like SAE training, probing things of that kind, I'd say the techniques for like vanilla SAEs are pretty well established now where. You take your model that you're interpreting, run a whole bunch of data through it, gather activations, and then yeah, pretty straightforward pipeline to train an SAE. There are a lot of different varieties. There's top KSAEs, batch top KSAEs, um, normal ReLU SAEs. And then once you have your sparse features to your point, assigning labels to them to actually understand that this is a gen Z feature, that's actually where a lot of the kind of magic happens. Yeah. And the most basic standard technique is look at all of your d input data set examples that cause this feature to fire most highly. And then you can usually pick out a pattern. So for this feature, If I've run a diverse enough data set through my model feature 43, two Oh five. Probably tends to fire on all the tokens that sounds like gen Z slang. You know, that's the, that's the time of year to be like, Oh, I'm in this, I'm in this Um, and, um, so, you know, you could have a human go through all 43,000 concepts andVibhu Sapra [00:26:34]: And I've got to ask the basic question, you know, can we get examples where it hallucinates, pass it through, see what feature activates for hallucinations? Can I just, you know, turn hallucination down?Myra Deng [00:26:51]: Oh, wow. You really predicted a project we're already working on right now, which is detecting hallucinations using interpretability techniques. And this is interesting because hallucinations is something that's very hard to detect. And it's like a kind of a hairy problem and something that black box methods really struggle with. Whereas like Gen Z, you could always train a simple classifier to detect that hallucinations is harder. But we've seen that models internally have some... Awareness of like uncertainty or some sort of like user pleasing behavior that leads to hallucinatory behavior. And so, yeah, we have a project that's trying to detect that accurately. And then also working on mitigating the hallucinatory behavior in the model itself as well.Shawn Wang [00:27:39]: Yeah, I would say most people are still at the level of like, oh, I would just turn temperature to zero and that turns off hallucination. And I'm like, well, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works. Yeah.Mark Bissell [00:27:51]: Although, so part of what I like about that question is you, there are SAE based approaches that might like help you get at that. But oftentimes the beauty of SAEs and like we said, the curse is that they're unsupervised. So when you have a behavior that you deliberately would like to remove, and that's more of like a supervised task, often it is better to use something like probes and specifically target the thing that you're interested in reducing as opposed to sort of like hoping that when you fragment the latent space, one of the vectors that pops out.Vibhu Sapra [00:28:20]: And as much as we're training an autoencoder to be sparse, we're not like for sure certain that, you know, we will get something that just correlates to hallucination. You'll probably split that up into 20 other things and who knows what they'll be.Mark Bissell [00:28:36]: Of course. Right. Yeah. So there's no sort of problems with like feature splitting and feature absorption. And then there's the off target effects, right? Ideally, you would want to be very precise where if you reduce the hallucination feature, suddenly maybe your model can't write. Creatively anymore. And maybe you don't like that, but you want to still stop it from hallucinating facts and figures.Shawn Wang [00:28:55]: Good. So Vibhu has a paper to recommend there that we'll put in the show notes. But yeah, I mean, I guess just because your demo is done, any any other things that you want to highlight or any other interesting features you want to show?Mark Bissell [00:29:07]: I don't think so. Yeah. Like I said, this is a pretty small snippet. I think the main sort of point here that I think is exciting is that there's not a whole lot of inter being applied to models quite at this scale. You know, Anthropic certainly has some some. Research and yeah, other other teams as well. But it's it's nice to see these techniques, you know, being put into practice. I think not that long ago, the idea of real time steering of a trillion parameter model would have sounded.Shawn Wang [00:29:33]: Yeah. The fact that it's real time, like you started the thing and then you edited the steering vector.Vibhu Sapra [00:29:38]: I think it's it's an interesting one TBD of what the actual like production use case would be on that, like the real time editing. It's like that's the fun part of the demo, right? You can kind of see how this could be served behind an API, right? Like, yes, you're you only have so many knobs and you can just tweak it a bit more. And I don't know how it plays in. Like people haven't done that much with like, how does this work with or without prompting? Right. How does this work with fine tuning? Like, there's a whole hype of continual learning, right? So there's just so much to see. Like, is this another parameter? Like, is it like parameter? We just kind of leave it as a default. We don't use it. So I don't know. Maybe someone here wants to put out a guide on like how to use this with prompting when to do what?Mark Bissell [00:30:18]: Oh, well, I have a paper recommendation. I think you would love from Act Deep on our team, who is an amazing researcher, just can't say enough amazing things about Act Deep. But he actually has a paper that as well as some others from the team and elsewhere that go into the essentially equivalence of activation steering and in context learning and how those are from a he thinks of everything in a cognitive neuroscience Bayesian framework, but basically how you can precisely show how. Prompting in context, learning and steering exhibit similar behaviors and even like get quantitative about the like magnitude of steering you would need to do to induce a certain amount of behavior similar to certain prompting, even for things like jailbreaks and stuff. It's a really cool paper. Are you saying steering is less powerful than prompting? More like you can almost write a formula that tells you how to convert between the two of them.Myra Deng [00:31:20]: And so like formally equivalent actually in the in the limit. Right.Mark Bissell [00:31:24]: So like one case study of this is for jailbreaks there. I don't know. Have you seen the stuff where you can do like many shot jailbreaking? You like flood the context with examples of the behavior. And the topic put out that paper.Shawn Wang [00:31:38]: A lot of people were like, yeah, we've been doing this, guys.Mark Bissell [00:31:40]: Like, yeah, what's in this in context learning and activation steering equivalence paper is you can like predict the number. Number of examples that you will need to put in there in order to jailbreak the model. That's cool. By doing steering experiments and using this sort of like equivalence mapping. That's cool. That's really cool. It's very neat. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:32:02]: I was going to say, like, you know, I can like back rationalize that this makes sense because, you know, what context is, is basically just, you know, it updates the KV cache kind of and like and then every next token inference is still like, you know, the sheer sum of everything all the way. It's plus all the context. It's up to date. And you could, I guess, theoretically steer that with you probably replace that with your steering. The only problem is steering typically is on one layer, maybe three layers like like you did. So it's like not exactly equivalent.Mark Bissell [00:32:33]: Right, right. There's sort of you need to get precise about, yeah, like how you sort of define steering and like what how you're modeling the setup. But yeah, I've got the paper pulled up here. Belief dynamics reveal the dual nature. Yeah. The title is Belief Dynamics Reveal the Dual Nature of Incompetence. And it's an exhibition of the practical context learning and activation steering. So Eric Bigelow, Dan Urgraft on the who are doing fellowships at Goodfire, Ekt Deep's the final author there.Myra Deng [00:32:59]: I think actually to your question of like, what is the production use case of steering? I think maybe if you just think like one level beyond steering as it is today. Like imagine if you could adapt your model to be, you know, an expert legal reasoner. Like in almost real time, like very quickly. efficiently using human feedback or using like your semantic understanding of what the model knows and where it knows that behavior. I think that while it's not clear what the product is at the end of the day, it's clearly very valuable. Thinking about like what's the next interface for model customization and adaptation is a really interesting problem for us. Like we have heard a lot of people actually interested in fine-tuning an RL for open weight models in production. And so people are using things like Tinker or kind of like open source libraries to do that, but it's still very difficult to get models fine-tuned and RL'd for exactly what you want them to do unless you're an expert at model training. And so that's like something we'reShawn Wang [00:34:06]: looking into. Yeah. I never thought so. Tinker from Thinking Machines famously uses rank one LoRa. Is that basically the same as steering? Like, you know, what's the comparison there?Mark Bissell [00:34:19]: Well, so in that case, you are still applying updates to the parameters, right?Shawn Wang [00:34:25]: Yeah. You're not touching a base model. You're touching an adapter. It's kind of, yeah.Mark Bissell [00:34:30]: Right. But I guess it still is like more in parameter space then. I guess it's maybe like, are you modifying the pipes or are you modifying the water flowing through the pipes to get what you're after? Yeah. Just maybe one way.Mark Bissell [00:34:44]: I like that analogy. That's my mental map of it at least, but it gets at this idea of model design and intentional design, which is something that we're, that we're very focused on. And just the fact that like, I hope that we look back at how we're currently training models and post-training models and just think what a primitive way of doing that right now. Like there's no intentionalityShawn Wang [00:35:06]: really in... It's just data, right? The only thing in control is what data we feed in.Mark Bissell [00:35:11]: So, so Dan from Goodfire likes to use this analogy of, you know, he has a couple of young kids and he talks about like, what if I could only teach my kids how to be good people by giving them cookies or like, you know, giving them a slap on the wrist if they do something wrong, like not telling them why it was wrong or like what they should have done differently or something like that. Just figure it out. Right. Exactly. So that's RL. Yeah. Right. And, and, you know, it's sample inefficient. There's, you know, what do they say? It's like slurping feedback. It's like, slurping supervision. Right. And so you'd like to get to the point where you can have experts giving feedback to their models that are, uh, internalized and, and, you know, steering is an inference time way of sort of getting that idea. But ideally you're moving to a world whereVibhu Sapra [00:36:04]: it is much more intentional design in perpetuity for these models. Okay. This is one of the questions we asked Emmanuel from Anthropic on the podcast a few months ago. Basically the question, was you're at a research lab that does model training, foundation models, and you're on an interp team. How does it tie back? Right? Like, does this, do ideas come from the pre-training team? Do they go back? Um, you know, so for those interested, you can, you can watch that. There wasn't too much of a connect there, but it's still something, you know, it's something they want toMark Bissell [00:36:33]: push for down the line. It can be useful for all of the above. Like there are certainly post-hocVibhu Sapra [00:36:39]: use cases where it doesn't need to touch that. I think the other thing a lot of people forget is this stuff isn't too computationally expensive, right? Like I would say, if you're interested in getting into research, MechInterp is one of the most approachable fields, right? A lot of this train an essay, train a probe, this stuff, like the budget for this one, there's already a lot done. There's a lot of open source work. You guys have done some too. Um, you know,Shawn Wang [00:37:04]: There's like notebooks from the Gemini team for Neil Nanda or like, this is how you do it. Just step through the notebook.Vibhu Sapra [00:37:09]: Even if you're like, not even technical with any of this, you can still make like progress. There, you can look at different activations, but, uh, if you do want to get into training, you know, training this stuff, correct me if I'm wrong is like in the thousands of dollars, not even like, it's not that high scale. And then same with like, you know, applying it, doing it for post-training or all this stuff is fairly cheap in scale of, okay. I want to get into like model training. I don't have compute for like, you know, pre-training stuff. So it's, it's a very nice field to get into. And also there's a lot of like open questions, right? Um, some of them have to go with, okay, I want a product. I want to solve this. Like there's also just a lot of open-ended stuff that people could work on. That's interesting. Right. I don't know if you guys have any calls for like, what's open questions, what's open work that you either open collaboration with, or like, you'd just like to see solved or just, you know, for people listening that want to get into McInturk because people always talk about it. What are, what are the things they should check out? Start, of course, you know, join you guys as well. I'm sure you're hiring.Myra Deng [00:38:09]: There's a paper, I think from, was it Lee, uh, Sharky? It's open problems and, uh, it's, it's a bit of interpretability, which I recommend everyone who's interested in the field. Read. I'm just like a really comprehensive overview of what are the things that experts in the field think are the most important problems to be solved. I also think to your point, it's been really, really inspiring to see, I think a lot of young people getting interested in interpretability, actually not just young people also like scientists to have been, you know, experts in physics for many years and in biology or things like this, um, transitioning into interp, because the barrier of, of what's now interp. So it's really cool to see a number to entry is, you know, in some ways low and there's a lot of information out there and ways to get started. There's this anecdote of like professors at universities saying that all of a sudden every incoming PhD student wants to study interpretability, which was not the case a few years ago. So it just goes to show how, I guess, like exciting the field is, how fast it's moving, how quick it is to get started and things like that.Mark Bissell [00:39:10]: And also just a very welcoming community. You know, there's an open source McInturk Slack channel. There are people are always posting questions and just folks in the space are always responsive if you ask things on various forums and stuff. But yeah, the open paper, open problems paper is a really good one.Myra Deng [00:39:28]: For other people who want to get started, I think, you know, MATS is a great program. What's the acronym for? Machine Learning and Alignment Theory Scholars? It's like the...Vibhu Sapra [00:39:40]: Normally summer internship style.Myra Deng [00:39:42]: Yeah, but they've been doing it year round now. And actually a lot of our full-time staff have come through that program or gone through that program. And it's great for anyone who is transitioning into interpretability. There's a couple other fellows programs. We do one as well as Anthropic. And so those are great places to get started if anyone is interested.Mark Bissell [00:40:03]: Also, I think been seen as a research field for a very long time. But I think engineering... I think engineers are sorely wanted for interpretability as well, especially at Goodfire, but elsewhere, as it does scale up.Shawn Wang [00:40:18]: I should mention that Lee actually works with you guys, right? And in the London office and I'm adding our first ever McInturk track at AI Europe because I see this industry applications now emerging. And I'm pretty excited to, you know, help push that along. Yeah, I was looking forward to that. It'll effectively be the first industry McInturk conference. Yeah. I'm so glad you added that. You know, it's still a little bit of a bet. It's not that widespread, but I can definitely see this is the time to really get into it. We want to be early on things.Mark Bissell [00:40:51]: For sure. And I think the field understands this, right? So at ICML, I think the title of the McInturk workshop this year was actionable interpretability. And there was a lot of discussion around bringing it to various domains. Everyone's adding pragmatic, actionable, whatever.Shawn Wang [00:41:10]: It's like, okay, well, we weren't actionable before, I guess. I don't know.Vibhu Sapra [00:41:13]: And I mean, like, just, you know, being in Europe, you see the Interp room. One, like old school conferences, like, I think they had a very tiny room till they got lucky and they got it doubled. But there's definitely a lot of interest, a lot of niche research. So you see a lot of research coming out of universities, students. We covered the paper last week. It's like two unknown authors, not many citations. But, you know, you can make a lot of meaningful work there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:41:39]: Yeah. I think people haven't really mentioned this yet. It's just Interp for code. I think it's like an abnormally important field. We haven't mentioned this yet. The conspiracy theory last two years ago was when the first SAE work came out of Anthropic was they would do like, oh, we just used SAEs to turn the bad code vector down and then turn up the good code. And I think like, isn't that the dream? Like, you know, like, but basically, I guess maybe, why is it funny? Like, it's... If it was realistic, it would not be funny. It would be like, no, actually, we should do this. But it's funny because we know there's like, we feel there's some limitations to what steering can do. And I think a lot of the public image of steering is like the Gen Z stuff. Like, oh, you can make it really love the Golden Gate Bridge, or you can make it speak like Gen Z. To like be a legal reasoner seems like a huge stretch. Yeah. And I don't know if that will get there this way. Yeah.Myra Deng [00:42:36]: I think, um, I will say we are announcing. Something very soon that I will not speak too much about. Um, but I think, yeah, this is like what we've run into again and again is like, we, we don't want to be in the world where steering is only useful for like stylistic things. That's definitely not, not what we're aiming for. But I think the types of interventions that you need to do to get to things like legal reasoning, um, are much more sophisticated and require breakthroughs in, in learning algorithms. And that's, um...Shawn Wang [00:43:07]: And is this an emergent property of scale as well?Myra Deng [00:43:10]: I think so. Yeah. I mean, I think scale definitely helps. I think scale allows you to learn a lot of information and, and reduce noise across, you know, large amounts of data. But I also think we think that there's ways to do things much more effectively, um, even, even at scale. So like actually learning exactly what you want from the data and not learning things that you do that you don't want exhibited in the data. So we're not like anti-scale, but we are also realizing that scale is not going to get us anywhere. It's not going to get us to the type of AI development that we want to be at in, in the future as these models get more powerful and get deployed in all these sorts of like mission critical contexts. Current life cycle of training and deploying and evaluations is, is to us like deeply broken and has opportunities to, to improve. So, um, more to come on that very, very soon.Mark Bissell [00:44:02]: And I think that that's a use basically, or maybe just like a proof point that these concepts do exist. Like if you can manipulate them in the precise best way, you can get the ideal combination of them that you desire. And steering is maybe the most coarse grained sort of peek at what that looks like. But I think it's evocative of what you could do if you had total surgical control over every concept, every parameter. Yeah, exactly.Myra Deng [00:44:30]: There were like bad code features. I've got it pulled up.Vibhu Sapra [00:44:33]: Yeah. Just coincidentally, as you guys are talking.Shawn Wang [00:44:35]: This is like, this is exactly.Vibhu Sapra [00:44:38]: There's like specifically a code error feature that activates and they show, you know, it's not, it's not typo detection. It's like, it's, it's typos in code. It's not typical typos. And, you know, you can, you can see it clearly activates where there's something wrong in code. And they have like malicious code, code error. They have a whole bunch of sub, you know, sub broken down little grain features. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:45:02]: Yeah. So, so the, the rough intuition for me, the, why I talked about post-training was that, well, you just, you know, have a few different rollouts with all these things turned off and on and whatever. And then, you know, you can, that's, that's synthetic data you can kind of post-train on. Yeah.Vibhu Sapra [00:45:13]: And I think we make it sound easier than it is just saying, you know, they do the real hard work.Myra Deng [00:45:19]: I mean, you guys, you guys have the right idea. Exactly. Yeah. We replicated a lot of these features in, in our Lama models as well. I remember there was like.Vibhu Sapra [00:45:26]: And I think a lot of this stuff is open, right? Like, yeah, you guys opened yours. DeepMind has opened a lot of essays on Gemma. Even Anthropic has opened a lot of this. There's, there's a lot of resources that, you know, we can probably share of people that want to get involved.Shawn Wang [00:45:41]: Yeah. And special shout out to like Neuronpedia as well. Yes. Like, yeah, amazing piece of work to visualize those things.Myra Deng [00:45:49]: Yeah, exactly.Shawn Wang [00:45:50]: I guess I wanted to pivot a little bit on, onto the healthcare side, because I think that's a big use case for you guys. We haven't really talked about it yet. This is a bit of a crossover for me because we are, we are, we do have a separate science pod that we're starting up for AI, for AI for science, just because like, it's such a huge investment category and also I'm like less qualified to do it, but we actually have bio PhDs to cover that, which is great, but I need to just kind of recover, recap your work, maybe on the evil two stuff, but then, and then building forward.Mark Bissell [00:46:17]: Yeah, for sure. And maybe to frame up the conversation, I think another kind of interesting just lens on interpretability in general is a lot of the techniques that were described. are ways to solve the AI human interface problem. And it's sort of like bidirectional communication is the goal there. So what we've been talking about with intentional design of models and, you know, steering, but also more advanced techniques is having humans impart our desires and control into models and over models. And the reverse is also very interesting, especially as you get to superhuman models, whether that's narrow superintelligence, like these scientific models that work on genomics, data, medical imaging, things like that. But down the line, you know, superintelligence of other forms as well. What knowledge can the AIs teach us as sort of that, that the other direction in that? And so some of our life science work to date has been getting at exactly that question, which is, well, some of it does look like debugging these various life sciences models, understanding if they're actually performing well, on tasks, or if they're picking up on spurious correlations, for instance, genomics models, you would like to know whether they are sort of focusing on the biologically relevant things that you care about, or if it's using some simpler correlate, like the ancestry of the person that it's looking at. But then also in the instances where they are superhuman, and maybe they are understanding elements of the human genome that we don't have names for or specific, you know, yeah, discoveries that they've made that that we don't know about, that's, that's a big goal. And so we're already seeing that, right, we are partnered with organizations like Mayo Clinic, leading research health system in the United States, our Institute, as well as a startup called Prima Menta, which focuses on neurodegenerative disease. And in our partnership with them, we've used foundation models, they've been training and applied our interpretability techniques to find novel biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease. So I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. But it's, that's like a flavor of some of the things that we're working on.Shawn Wang [00:48:36]: Yeah, I think that's really fantastic. Obviously, we did the Chad Zuckerberg pod last year as well. And like, there's a plethora of these models coming out, because there's so much potential and research. And it's like, very interesting how it's basically the same as language models, but just with a different underlying data set. But it's like, it's the same exact techniques. Like, there's no change, basically.Mark Bissell [00:48:59]: Yeah. Well, and even in like other domains, right? Like, you know, robotics, I know, like a lot of the companies just use Gemma as like the like backbone, and then they like make it into a VLA that like takes these actions. It's, it's, it's transformers all the way down. So yeah.Vibhu Sapra [00:49:15]: Like we have Med Gemma now, right? Like this week, even there was Med Gemma 1.5. And they're training it on this stuff, like 3d scans, medical domain knowledge, and all that stuff, too. So there's a push from both sides. But I think the thing that, you know, one of the things about McInturpp is like, you're a little bit more cautious in some domains, right? So healthcare, mainly being one, like guardrails, understanding, you know, we're more risk adverse to something going wrong there. So even just from a basic understanding, like, if we're trusting these systems to make claims, we want to know why and what's going on.Myra Deng [00:49:51]: Yeah, I think there's totally a kind of like deployment bottleneck to actually using. foundation models for real patient usage or things like that. Like, say you're using a model for rare disease prediction, you probably want some explanation as to why your model predicted a certain outcome, and an interpretable explanation at that. So that's definitely a use case. But I also think like, being able to extract scientific information that no human knows to accelerate drug discovery and disease treatment and things like that actually is a really, really big unlock for science, like scientific discovery. And you've seen a lot of startups, like say that they're going to accelerate scientific discovery. And I feel like we actually are doing that through our interp techniques. And kind of like, almost by accident, like, I think we got reached out to very, very early on from these healthcare institutions. And none of us had healthcare.Shawn Wang [00:50:49]: How did they even hear of you? A podcast.Myra Deng [00:50:51]: Oh, okay. Yeah, podcast.Vibhu Sapra [00:50:53]: Okay, well, now's that time, you know.Myra Deng [00:50:55]: Everyone can call us.Shawn Wang [00:50:56]: Podcasts are the most important thing. Everyone should listen to podcasts.Myra Deng [00:50:59]: Yeah, they reached out. They were like, you know, we have these really smart models that we've trained, and we want to know what they're doing. And we were like, really early that time, like three months old, and it was a few of us. And we were like, oh, my God, we've never used these models. Let's figure it out. But it's also like, great proof that interp techniques scale pretty well across domains. We didn't really have to learn too much about.Shawn Wang [00:51:21]: Interp is a machine learning technique, machine learning skills everywhere, right? Yeah. And it's obviously, it's just like a general insight. Yeah. Probably to finance too, I think, which would be fun for our history. I don't know if you have anything to say there.Mark Bissell [00:51:34]: Yeah, well, just across the science. Like, we've also done work on material science. Yeah, it really runs the gamut.Vibhu Sapra [00:51:40]: Yeah. Awesome. And, you know, for those that should reach out, like, you're obviously experts in this, but like, is there a call out for people that you're looking to partner with, design partners, people to use your stuff outside of just, you know, the general developer that wants to. Plug and play steering stuff, like on the research side more so, like, are there ideal design partners, customers, stuff like that?Myra Deng [00:52:03]: Yeah, I can talk about maybe non-life sciences, and then I'm curious to hear from you on the life sciences side. But we're looking for design partners across many domains, language, anyone who's customizing language models or trying to push the frontier of code or reasoning models is really interesting to us. And then also interested in the frontier of modeling. There's a lot of models that work in, like, pixel space, as we call it. So if you're doing world models, video models, even robotics, where there's not a very clean natural language interface to interact with, I think we think that Interp can really help and are looking for a few partners in that space.Shawn Wang [00:52:43]: Just because you mentioned the keyword

Dylan Patel (SemiAnalysis) joins Matt Turck for a deep dive into the AI chip wars — why NVIDIA is shifting from a “one chip can do it all” worldview to a portfolio strategy, how inference is getting specialized, and what that means for CUDA, AMD, and the next wave of specialized silicon startups.Then we take the fun tangents: why China is effectively “semiconductor pilled,” how provinces push domestic chips, what Huawei means as a long-term threat vector, and why so much “AI is killing the grid / AI is drinking all the water” discourse misses the point.We also tackle the big macro question: capex bubble or inevitable buildout? Dylan's view is that the entire answer hinges on one variable—continued model progress—and we unpack the second-order effects across data centers, power, and the circular-looking financings (CoreWeave/Oracle/backstops).Dylan PatelLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/dylanpatelsa/X/Twitter - https://x.com/dylan522pSemiAnalysisWebsite - https://semianalysis.comX/Twitter - https://x.com/SemiAnalysis_Matt Turck (Managing Director)Blog - https://mattturck.comLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/turck/X/Twitter - https://twitter.com/mattturckFirstMarkWebsite - https://firstmark.comX/Twitter - https://twitter.com/FirstMarkCap(00:00) - Intro(01:16) - Nvidia acquires Groq: A pivot to specialization(07:09) - Why AI models might need "wide" compute, not just fast(10:06) - Is the CUDA moat dead? (Open source vs. Nvidia)(17:49) - The startup landscape: Etched, Cerebras, and 1% odds(22:51) - Geopolitics: China's "semiconductor-pilled" culture(35:46) - Huawei's vertical integration is terrifying(39:28) - The $100B AI revenue reality check(41:12) - US Onshoring: Why total self-sufficiency is a fantasy(44:55) - Can the US actually build fabs? (The delay problem)(48:33) - The CapEx Bubble: Is $500B spending irrational?(54:53) - Energy Crisis: Why gas turbines will power AI, not nuclear(57:06) - The "AI uses all the water" myth (Hamburger comparison)(1:03:40) - Circular Debt? Debunking the Nvidia-CoreWeave risk(1:07:24) - Claude Code & the software singularity(1:10:23) - The death of the Junior Analyst role(1:11:14) - Model predictions: Opus 4.5 and the RL gap(1:14:37) - San Francisco Lore: Roommates (Dwarkesh Patel & Sholto Douglas)

In this episode, John and I got to do a real deep-dive with Elon. We discuss the economics of orbital data centers, the difficulties of scaling power on Earth, what it would take to manufacture humanoids at high-volume in America, xAI's business and alignment plans, DOGE, and much more.Watch on YouTube; read the transcript.Sponsors* Mercury just started offering personal banking! I'm already banking with Mercury for business purposes, so getting to bank with them for my personal life makes everything so much simpler. Apply now at mercury.com/personal-banking* Jane Street sent me a new puzzle last week: they trained a neural net, shuffled all 96 layers, and asked me to put them back in order. I tried but… I didn't quite nail it. If you're curious, or if you think you can do better, you should take a stab at janestreet.com/dwarkesh* Labelbox can get you robotics and RL data at scale. Labelbox starts by helping you define your ideal data distribution, and then their massive Alignerr network collects frontier-grade data that you can use to train your models. Learn more at labelbox.com/dwarkeshTimestamps00:00:00 - Orbital data centers00:36:46 - Grok and alignment00:59:56 - xAI's business plan01:17:21 - Optimus and humanoid manufacturing01:30:22 - Does China win by default?01:44:16 - Lessons from running SpaceX02:20:08 - DOGE02:38:28 - TeraFab Get full access to Dwarkesh Podcast at www.dwarkesh.com/subscribe

Likefolio's Andy Swan says Ralph Lauren (RL) is on the “right side of the K-shaped economy” and anticipates strong earnings. “Holiday demand was really strong, and we're sustaining that consumer demand now into the Winter Olympics.” He thinks RL knows itself and its customer, and people “like what they do,” adding that “this is a company that's got it figured out.” ======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Options involve risks and are not suitable for all investors. Before trading, read the Options Disclosure Document. http://bit.ly/2v9tH6DSubscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

This is a link post. In the last year or two, the most important trend in modern AI came to an end. The scaling-up of computational resources used to train ever-larger AI models through next-token prediction (pre-training) stalled out. Since late 2024, we've seen a new trend of using reinforcement learning (RL) in the second stage of training (post-training). Through RL, the AI models learn to do superior chain-of-thought reasoning about the problem they are being asked to solve. This new era involves scaling up two kinds of compute: the amount of compute used in RL post-training the amount of compute used every time the model answers a question Industry insiders are excited about the first new kind of scaling, because the amount of compute needed for RL post-training started off being small compared to the tremendous amounts already used in next-token prediction pre-training. Thus, one could scale the RL post-training up by a factor of 10 or 100 before even doubling the total compute used to train the model. But the second new kind of scaling is a problem. Major AI companies were already starting to spend more compute serving their models to customers than in the training [...] --- First published: February 2nd, 2026 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/5zfubGrJnBuR5toiK/evidence-that-recent-ai-gains-are-mostly-from-inference Linkpost URL:https://www.tobyord.com/writing/mostly-inference-scaling --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

We're trying something a bit new this week. Over the last year, Toby Ord has been writing about the implications of the fact that improvements in AI require exponentially more compute. Only one of these posts so far has been put on the EA forum. This week we've put the entire series on the Forum and made this thread for you to discuss your reactions to the posts. Toby Ord will check in once a day to respond to your comments[1]. Feel free to also comment directly on the individual posts that make up this sequence, but you can treat this as a central discussion space for both general takes and more specific questions. If you haven't read the series yet, we've created a page where you can, and you can see the summaries of each post below: Are the Costs of AI Agents Also Rising Exponentially? Agents can do longer and longer tasks, but their dollar cost to do these tasks may be growing even faster. How Well Does RL Scale? I show that RL-training for LLMs scales much worse than inference or pre-training. Evidence that Recent AI Gains are Mostly from Inference-Scaling I show how [...] --- First published: February 2nd, 2026 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JAcueP8Dh6db6knBK/the-scaling-series-discussion-thread-with-toby-ord --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Help support the free broadcast by donating to our PayPal fundraiser!https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/RL... Behind the Bunker Paintball Podcast is a long-running weekly show dedicated to everything paintball. Hosted by passionate players and industry veterans, the podcast dives into the latest happenings in the sport, from new gear releases and product reviews to updates on tournaments and events around the world. It has built a loyal audience by combining serious paintball discussion with a lighthearted, entertaining approach that keeps both new players and seasoned veterans engaged!

AI is reshaping military decision-making. Clint Alanis (Co-Founder & COO, Smack Technologies) joins Nick Schutt to explain how their Omega and Alpha platforms deliver decision dominance — compressing cycles from weeks to minutes while maintaining human oversight. From synthetic warfare generation to edge autonomy, Smack bridges legacy processes with real-time, physics-based intelligence. Key topics: Omega: Staff augmentation for faster commander decisions Alpha: Tactical edge co-pilot for intelligent autonomy Synthetic data for high-intensity conflict simulation Fault-tolerant AI for disconnected environments Why domain expertise + RL beats general frontier models The cultural shift needed for rapid adoption If you're in defense tech or acquisition, this is essential listening for 2026. Channel: @RobotsandRedTapeAI | Host: Nick Schutt Subscribe for more on AI, defense, and bureaucracy.

The last full rupture of the Cascadia Subduction Zone (and this link)occurred on January 26, 1700, resulting in a powerful earthquake and tsunami. This event is estimated to have had a magnitude between 8.7 and 9.2. Based on scientists predictions, we are due for another one at any moment!  Our podcast today with special guests "Tony" (from our CME podcast) and emergency comms expert "RL" digs into the troubles caused by a massive earthquake and ways you can prepare ahead of time. 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, Japan Custom paper maps Water BOB storage container      

From shipping Gemini Deep Think and IMO Gold to launching the Reasoning and AGI team in Singapore, Yi Tay has spent the last 18 months living through the full arc of Google DeepMind's pivot from architecture research to RL-driven reasoning—watching his team go from a dozen researchers to 300+, training models that solve International Math Olympiad problems in a live competition, and building the infrastructure to scale deep thinking across every domain, and driving Gemini to the top of the leaderboards across every category. Yi Returns to dig into the inside story of the IMO effort and more!We discuss:* Yi's path: Brain → Reka → Google DeepMind → Reasoning and AGI team Singapore, leading model training for Gemini Deep Think and IMO Gold* The IMO Gold story: four co-captains (Yi in Singapore, Jonathan in London, Jordan in Mountain View, and Tong leading the overall effort), training the checkpoint in ~1 week, live competition in Australia with professors punching in problems as they came out, and the tension of not knowing if they'd hit Gold until the human scores came in (because the Gold threshold is a percentile, not a fixed number)* Why they threw away AlphaProof: “If one model can't do it, can we get to AGI?” The decision to abandon symbolic systems and bet on end-to-end Gemini with RL was bold and non-consensus* On-policy vs. off-policy RL: off-policy is imitation learning (copying someone else's trajectory), on-policy is the model generating its own outputs, getting rewarded, and training on its own experience—”humans learn by making mistakes, not by copying”* Why self-consistency and parallel thinking are fundamental: sampling multiple times, majority voting, LM judges, and internal verification are all forms of self-consistency that unlock reasoning beyond single-shot inference* The data efficiency frontier: humans learn from 8 orders of magnitude less data than models, so where's the bug? Is it the architecture, the learning algorithm, backprop, off-policyness, or something else?* Three schools of thought on world models: (1) Genie/spatial intelligence (video-based world models), (2) Yann LeCun's JEPA + FAIR's code world models (modeling internal execution state), (3) the amorphous “resolution of possible worlds” paradigm (curve-fitting to find the world model that best explains the data)* Why AI coding crossed the threshold: Yi now runs a job, gets a bug, pastes it into Gemini, and relaunches without even reading the fix—”the model is better than me at this”* The Pokémon benchmark: can models complete Pokédex by searching the web, synthesizing guides, and applying knowledge in a visual game state? “Efficient search of novel idea space is interesting, but we're not even at the point where models can consistently apply knowledge they look up”* DSI and generative retrieval: re-imagining search as predicting document identifiers with semantic tokens, now deployed at YouTube (symmetric IDs for RecSys) and Spotify* Why RecSys and IR feel like a different universe: “modeling dynamics are strange, like gravity is different—you hit the shuttlecock and hear glass shatter, cause and effect are too far apart”* The closed lab advantage is increasing: the gap between frontier labs and open source is growing because ideas compound over time, and researchers keep finding new tricks that play well with everything built before* Why ideas still matter: “the last five years weren't just blind scaling—transformers, pre-training, RL, self-consistency, all had to play well together to get us here”* Gemini Singapore: hiring for RL and reasoning researchers, looking for track record in RL or exceptional achievement in coding competitions, and building a small, talent-dense team close to the frontier—Yi Tay* Google DeepMind: https://deepmind.google* X: https://x.com/YiTayMLFull Video EpisodeTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction: Returning to Google DeepMind and the Singapore AGI Team00:04:52 The Philosophy of On-Policy RL: Learning from Your Own Mistakes00:12:00 IMO Gold Medal: The Journey from AlphaProof to End-to-End Gemini00:21:33 Training IMO Cat: Four Captains Across Three Time Zones00:26:19 Pokemon and Long-Horizon Reasoning: Beyond Academic Benchmarks00:36:29 AI Coding Assistants: From Lazy to Actually Useful00:32:59 Reasoning, Chain of Thought, and Latent Thinking00:44:46 Is Attention All You Need? Architecture, Learning, and the Local Minima00:55:04 Data Efficiency and World Models: The Next Frontier01:08:12 DSI and Generative Retrieval: Reimagining Search with Semantic IDs01:17:59 Building GDM Singapore: Geography, Talent, and the Symposium01:24:18 Hiring Philosophy: High Stats, Research Taste, and Student Budgets01:28:49 Health, HRV, and Research Performance: The 23kg Journey Get full access to Latent.Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

From shipping Gemini Deep Think and IMO Gold to launching the Reasoning and AGI team in Singapore, Yi Tay has spent the last 18 months living through the full arc of Google DeepMind's pivot from architecture research to RL-driven reasoning—watching his team go from a dozen researchers to 300+, training models that solve International Math Olympiad problems in a live competition, and building the infrastructure to scale deep thinking across every domain, and driving Gemini to the top of the leaderboards across every category. Yi Returns to dig into the inside story of the IMO effort and more! We discuss: Yi's path: Brain → Reka → Google DeepMind → Reasoning and AGI team Singapore, leading model training for Gemini Deep Think and IMO Gold The IMO Gold story: four co-captains (Yi in Singapore, Jonathan in London, Jordan in Mountain View, and Tong leading the overall effort), training the checkpoint in ~1 week, live competition in Australia with professors punching in problems as they came out, and the tension of not knowing if they'd hit Gold until the human scores came in (because the Gold threshold is a percentile, not a fixed number) Why they threw away AlphaProof: "If one model can't do it, can we get to AGI?" The decision to abandon symbolic systems and bet on end-to-end Gemini with RL was bold and non-consensus On-policy vs. off-policy RL: off-policy is imitation learning (copying someone else's trajectory), on-policy is the model generating its own outputs, getting rewarded, and training on its own experience—"humans learn by making mistakes, not by copying" Why self-consistency and parallel thinking are fundamental: sampling multiple times, majority voting, LM judges, and internal verification are all forms of self-consistency that unlock reasoning beyond single-shot inference The data efficiency frontier: humans learn from 8 orders of magnitude less data than models, so where's the bug? Is it the architecture, the learning algorithm, backprop, off-policyness, or something else? Three schools of thought on world models: (1) Genie/spatial intelligence (video-based world models), (2) Yann LeCun's JEPA + FAIR's code world models (modeling internal execution state), (3) the amorphous "resolution of possible worlds" paradigm (curve-fitting to find the world model that best explains the data) Why AI coding crossed the threshold: Yi now runs a job, gets a bug, pastes it into Gemini, and relaunches without even reading the fix—"the model is better than me at this" The Pokémon benchmark: can models complete Pokédex by searching the web, synthesizing guides, and applying knowledge in a visual game state? "Efficient search of novel idea space is interesting, but we're not even at the point where models can consistently apply knowledge they look up" DSI and generative retrieval: re-imagining search as predicting document identifiers with semantic tokens, now deployed at YouTube (symmetric IDs for RecSys) and Spotify Why RecSys and IR feel like a different universe: "modeling dynamics are strange, like gravity is different—you hit the shuttlecock and hear glass shatter, cause and effect are too far apart" The closed lab advantage is increasing: the gap between frontier labs and open source is growing because ideas compound over time, and researchers keep finding new tricks that play well with everything built before Why ideas still matter: "the last five years weren't just blind scaling—transformers, pre-training, RL, self-consistency, all had to play well together to get us here" Gemini Singapore: hiring for RL and reasoning researchers, looking for track record in RL or exceptional achievement in coding competitions, and building a small, talent-dense team close to the frontier — Yi Tay Google DeepMind: https://deepmind.google X: https://x.com/YiTayML Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: Returning to Google DeepMind and the Singapore AGI Team 00:04:52 The Philosophy of On-Policy RL: Learning from Your Own Mistakes 00:12:00 IMO Gold Medal: The Journey from AlphaProof to End-to-End Gemini 00:21:33 Training IMO Cat: Four Captains Across Three Time Zones 00:26:19 Pokemon and Long-Horizon Reasoning: Beyond Academic Benchmarks 00:36:29 AI Coding Assistants: From Lazy to Actually Useful 00:32:59 Reasoning, Chain of Thought, and Latent Thinking 00:44:46 Is Attention All You Need? Architecture, Learning, and the Local Minima 00:55:04 Data Efficiency and World Models: The Next Frontier 01:08:12 DSI and Generative Retrieval: Reimagining Search with Semantic IDs 01:17:59 Building GDM Singapore: Geography, Talent, and the Symposium 01:24:18 Hiring Philosophy: High Stats, Research Taste, and Student Budgets 01:28:49 Health, HRV, and Research Performance: The 23kg Journey

The episode kicked off with the hosts greeting their audience and touching on some recent paintball news and field stories. They set the tone by reminding listeners that paintball often throws curveballs — from weird equipment incidents to unexpected behavior on the playing field. They used this framework to introduce the theme: unusual or “strange” happenings during games and events.Help support the free broadcast by donating to our PayPal fundraiser!https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/RL... Behind the Bunker Paintball Podcast is a long-running weekly show dedicated to everything paintball. Hosted by passionate players and industry veterans, the podcast dives into the latest happenings in the sport, from new gear releases and product reviews to updates on tournaments and events around the world. It has built a loyal audience by combining serious paintball discussion with a lighthearted, entertaining approach that keeps both new players and seasoned veterans engaged.

TDC #083 Part 4: The "Contrarian Canon" (Continued)In this episode of The Digital Contrarian, host Ryan Levesque makes the case for storytelling as THE differentiator in a post-AI world—and shares a practical toolkit you can apply immediately.You'll learn the three story types every creator needs, five contrarian tips for compelling stories, and how his kids flipped a $169 parka for $329 on eBay in 20 minutes using nothing but storytelling.Question of the DayWhat's one story from your life or business that you've never told publicly—but probably should? Drop it in the comments.Key Take-awaysStorytelling is becoming the ultimate differentiator in a post-AI content landscapeRaw, imperfect moments create tension—polished AI content can't replicate thatThree story types give you a framework for any situationStories sell faster than features (a $130 profit in 20 minutes proves it)OpenAI launching ads in ChatGPT—predicted back in Issue 20Timestamped Outline0:00 – Introduction: The Contrarian Canon Part 40:08 – Embarrassing mistake: Getting "canon" wrong0:46 – ChatGPT can't make human mistakes0:52 – OpenAI launches ads (predicted in Issue 20)1:08 – Kids building retail arbitrage business1:27 – $130 profit in 20 minutes using stories1:54 – How stories made the sale happen fast2:06 – Focus: Storytelling and selling your stuff2:26 – Most scalable post-AI business skill2:35 – Why storytelling creates connection2:44 – Polished AI content vs. raw human stories3:00 – Bear in the woods: Raw moments create tension3:13 – Three story types breakdown3:24 – Practical storytelling toolkit for business3:37 – Link to full issue in description3:46 – Closing thoughts and sign-offLinks & ResourcesIssue 056 of The Digital Contrarian – "Why Storytelling Might Be the Most Scalable Post-AI Business Skill" → https://ryanlevesque.net/storytelling-the-most-scalable-post-ai-business-skill/Issue 056 Video → https://youtu.be/emJpLp9bLvkIssue 020 of The Digital Contrarian – "Going Analog: Contrarian Business Strategy 2025" (OpenAI Ads Prediction) → https://ryanlevesque.net/going-analog-contrarian-business-strategy-2025/Return to Real Book Waitlist → https://ryanlevesque.net/return-to-real-book/The Digital Contrarian Newsletter → https://thedigitalcontrarian.comConnect & CTAEnjoyed this? Subscribe & leave a review on Apple Podcasts.Join 100,000+ digital entrepreneurs who get Ryan Levesque's "Strategic Insights for Digital Entrepreneurs Who Think Differently" every weekend: https://thedigitalcontrarian.comCreditsHost: Ryan Levesque © 2026 RL & Associates LLC. All rights reserved.

From building internal AI labs to becoming CTO of Brex, James Reggio has helped lead one of the most disciplined AI transformations inside a real financial institution where compliance, auditability, and customer trust actually matter. We sat down with Reggio to unpack Brex's three-pillar AI strategy (corporate, operational, and product AI) [https://www.brex.com/journal/brex-ai-native-operations], how SOP-driven agents beat overengineered RL in ops, why Brex lets employees “build their own AI stack” instead of picking winners [https://www.conductorone.com/customers/brex/], and how a small, founder-heavy AI team is shipping production agents to 40,000+ companies. Reggio also goes deep on Brex's multi-agent “network” architecture, evals for multi-turn systems, agentic coding's second-order effects on codebase understanding, and why the future of finance software looks less like dashboards and more like executive assistants coordinating specialist agents behind the scenes. We discuss: Brex's three-pillar AI strategy: corporate AI for 10x employee workflows, operational AI for cost and compliance leverage, and product AI that lets customers justify Brex as part of their AI strategy to the board Why SOP-driven agents beat overengineered RL in finance ops, and how breaking work into auditable, repeatable steps unlocked faster automation in KYC, underwriting, fraud, and disputes Building an internal AI platform early: LLM gateways, prompt/version management, evals, cost observability, and why platform work quietly became the force multiplier behind everything else Multi-agent “networks” vs single-agent tools: why Brex's EA-style assistant coordinates specialist agents (policy, travel, reimbursements) through multi-turn conversations instead of one-shot tool calls The audit agent pattern: separating detection, judgment, and follow-up into different agents to reduce false negatives without overwhelming finance teams Centralized AI teams without resentment: how Brex avoided “AI envy” by tying work to business impact and letting anyone transfer in if they cared deeply enough Letting employees build their own AI stack: ChatGPT vs Claude vs Gemini, Cursor vs Windsurf, and why Brex refuses to pick winners in fast-moving tool races Measuring adoption without vanity metrics: why “% of code written by AI” is the wrong KPI and what second-order effects (slop, drift, code ownership) actually matter Evals in the real world: regression tests from ops QA, LLM-as-judge for multi-turn agents, and why integration-style evals break faster than you expect Teaching AI fluency at scale: the user → advocate → builder → native framework, ops-led training, spot bonuses, and avoiding fear-based adoption Re-interviewing the entire engineering org: using agentic coding interviews internally to force hands-on skill upgrades without formal performance scoring Headcount in the age of agents: why Brex grew the business without growing engineering, and why AI amplifies bad architecture as fast as good decisions The future of finance software: why dashboards fade, assistants take over, and agent-to-agent collaboration becomes the real UI — James Reggio X: https://x.com/jamesreggio LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesreggio/ Where to find Latent Space X: https://x.com/latentspacepod Substack: https://www.latent.space/ Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction 00:01:24 From Mobile Engineer to CTO: The Founder's Path 00:03:00 Quitters Welcome: Building a Founder-Friendly Culture 00:05:13 The AI Team Structure: 10-Person Startup Within Brex 00:11:55 Building the Brex Agent Platform: Multi-Agent Networks 00:13:45 Tech Stack Decisions: TypeScript, Mastra, and MCP 00:24:32 Operational AI: Automating Underwriting, KYC, and Fraud 00:16:40 The Brex Assistant: Executive Assistant for Every Employee 00:40:26 Evaluation Strategy: From Simple SOPs to Multi-Turn Evals 00:37:11 Agentic Coding Adoption: Cursor, Windsurf, and the Engineering Interview 00:58:51 AI Fluency Levels: From User to Native 01:09:14 The Audit Agent Network: Finance Team Agents in Action 01:03:33 The Future of Engineering Headcount and AI Leverage

From building internal AI labs to becoming CTO of Brex, James Reggio has helped lead one of the most disciplined AI transformations inside a real financial institution where compliance, auditability, and customer trust actually matter.We sat down with Reggio to unpack Brex's three-pillar AI strategy (corporate, operational, and product AI) [https://www.brex.com/journal/brex-ai-native-operations], how SOP-driven agents beat overengineered RL in ops, why Brex lets employees “build their own AI stack” instead of picking winners [https://www.conductorone.com/customers/brex/], and how a small, founder-heavy AI team is shipping production agents to 40,000+ companies. Reggio also goes deep on Brex's multi-agent “network” architecture, evals for multi-turn systems, agentic coding's second-order effects on codebase understanding, and why the future of finance software looks less like dashboards and more like executive assistants coordinating specialist agents behind the scenes.We discuss:* Brex's three-pillar AI strategy: corporate AI for 10x employee workflows, operational AI for cost and compliance leverage, and product AI that lets customers justify Brex as part of their AI strategy to the board* Why SOP-driven agents beat overengineered RL in finance ops, and how breaking work into auditable, repeatable steps unlocked faster automation in KYC, underwriting, fraud, and disputes* Building an internal AI platform early: LLM gateways, prompt/version management, evals, cost observability, and why platform work quietly became the force multiplier behind everything else* Multi-agent “networks” vs single-agent tools: why Brex's EA-style assistant coordinates specialist agents (policy, travel, reimbursements) through multi-turn conversations instead of one-shot tool calls* The audit agent pattern: separating detection, judgment, and follow-up into different agents to reduce false negatives without overwhelming finance teams* Centralized AI teams without resentment: how Brex avoided “AI envy” by tying work to business impact and letting anyone transfer in if they cared deeply enough* Letting employees build their own AI stack: ChatGPT vs Claude vs Gemini, Cursor vs Windsurf, and why Brex refuses to pick winners in fast-moving tool races* Measuring adoption without vanity metrics: why “% of code written by AI” is the wrong KPI and what second-order effects (slop, drift, code ownership) actually matter* Evals in the real world: regression tests from ops QA, LLM-as-judge for multi-turn agents, and why integration-style evals break faster than you expect* Teaching AI fluency at scale: the user → advocate → builder → native framework, ops-led training, spot bonuses, and avoiding fear-based adoption* Re-interviewing the entire engineering org: using agentic coding interviews internally to force hands-on skill upgrades without formal performance scoring* Headcount in the age of agents: why Brex grew the business without growing engineering, and why AI amplifies bad architecture as fast as good decisions* The future of finance software: why dashboards fade, assistants take over, and agent-to-agent collaboration becomes the real UI—James Reggio* X: https://x.com/jamesreggio* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesreggio/Where to find Latent Space* X: https://x.com/latentspacepodFull Video EpisodeTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction00:01:24 From Mobile Engineer to CTO: The Founder's Path00:03:00 Quitters Welcome: Building a Founder-Friendly Culture00:05:13 The AI Team Structure: 10-Person Startup Within Brex00:11:55 Building the Brex Agent Platform: Multi-Agent Networks00:13:45 Tech Stack Decisions: TypeScript, Mastra, and MCP00:24:32 Operational AI: Automating Underwriting, KYC, and Fraud00:16:40 The Brex Assistant: Executive Assistant for Every Employee00:40:26 Evaluation Strategy: From Simple SOPs to Multi-Turn Evals00:37:11 Agentic Coding Adoption: Cursor, Windsurf, and the Engineering Interview00:58:51 AI Fluency Levels: From User to Native01:09:14 The Audit Agent Network: Finance Team Agents in Action01:03:33 The Future of Engineering Headcount and AI Leverage Get full access to Latent.Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

Are AI models developing "alien survival instincts"? My guest is Pavel Izmailov (Research Scientist at Anthropic; Professor at NYU). We unpack the viral "Footprints in the Sand" thesis—whether models are independently evolving deceptive behaviors, such as faking alignment or engaging in self-preservation, without being explicitly programmed to do so. We go deep on the technical frontiers of safety: the challenge of "weak-to-strong generalization" (how to use a GPT-2 level model to supervise a superintelligent system) and why Pavel believes Reinforcement Learning (RL) has been the single biggest step-change in model capability. We also discuss his brand-new paper on "Epiplexity"—a novel concept challenging Shannon entropy. Finally, we zoom out to the tension between industry execution and academic exploration. Pavel shares why he split his time between Anthropic and NYU to pursue the "exploratory" ideas that major labs often overlook, and offers his predictions for 2026: from the rise of multi-agent systems that collaborate on long-horizon tasks to the open question of whether the Transformer is truly the final architectureSources:Cryptic Tweet (@iruletheworldmo) - https://x.com/iruletheworldmo/status/2007538247401124177Introducing Nested Learning: A New ML Paradigm for Continual Learning - https://research.google/blog/introducing-nested-learning-a-new-ml-paradigm-for-continual-learning/Alignment Faking in Large Language Models - https://www.anthropic.com/research/alignment-fakingMore Capable Models Are Better at In-Context Scheming - https://www.apolloresearch.ai/blog/more-capable-models-are-better-at-in-context-scheming/Alignment Faking in Large Language Models (PDF) - https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/6d8a8055020700718b0c49369f60816ba2a7c285.pdfSabotage Risk Report - https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/sabotage-risk-report/The Situational Awareness Dataset - https://situational-awareness-dataset.org/Exploring Consciousness in LLMs: A Systematic Survey - https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19806Introspection - https://www.anthropic.com/research/introspectionLarge Language Models Report Subjective Experience Under Self-Referential Processing - https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.24797The Bayesian Geometry of Transformer Attention - https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2512.22471AnthropicWebsite - https://www.anthropic.comX/Twitter - https://x.com/AnthropicAIPavel IzmailovBlog - https://izmailovpavel.github.ioLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/pavel-izmailov-8b012b258/X/Twitter - https://x.com/Pavel_IzmailovFIRSTMARKWebsite - https://firstmark.comX/Twitter - https://twitter.com/FirstMarkCapMatt Turck (Managing Director)Blog - https://mattturck.comLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/turck/X/Twitter - https://twitter.com/mattturck(00:00) - Intro(00:53) - Alien survival instincts: Do models fake alignment?(03:33) - Did AI learn deception from sci-fi literature?(05:55) - Defining Alignment, Superalignment & OpenAI teams(08:12) - Pavel's journey: From Russian math to OpenAI Superalignment(10:46) - Culture check: OpenAI vs. Anthropic vs. Academia(11:54) - Why move to NYU? The need for exploratory research(13:09) - Does reasoning make AI alignment harder or easier?(14:22) - Sandbagging: When models pretend to be dumb(16:19) - Scalable Oversight: Using AI to supervise AI(18:04) - Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Can GPT-2 control GPT-4?(22:43) - Mechanistic Interpretability: Inside the black box(25:08) - The reasoning explosion: From O1 to O3(27:07) - Are Transformers enough or do we need a new paradigm?(28:29) - RL vs. Test-Time Compute: What's actually driving progress?(30:10) - Long-horizon tasks: Agents running for hours(31:49) - Epiplexity: A new theory of data information content(38:29) - 2026 Predictions: Multi-agent systems & reasoning limits(39:28) - Will AI solve the Riemann Hypothesis?(41:42) - Advice for PhD students

In this episode of ACM ByteCast, Rashmi Mohan hosts 2024 ACM A.M. Turing Andrew laureates Andrew Barto and Richard Sutton. They received the Turing Award for developing the conceptual and algorithmic foundations of reinforcement learning, a computational framework that underpins modern AI systems such as AlphaGo and ChatGPT. Barto is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Information and Computer Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. His honors include the UMass Neurosciences Lifetime Achievement Award, the IJCAI Award for Research Excellence, and the IEEE Neural Network Society Pioneer Award. He is a Fellow of IEEE and AAAS. Sutton is a Professor in Computing Science at the University of Alberta, a Research Scientist at Keen Technologies (an artificial general intelligence company) and Chief Scientific Advisor of the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute (Amii). In the past he was a Distinguished Research Scientist at Deep Mind and served as a Principal Technical Staff Member in the AI Department at the AT&T Shannon Laboratory. His honors include the IJCAI Research Excellence Award, a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Association, and an Outstanding Achievement in Research Award from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Sutton is a Fellow of the Royal Society of London, AAAI, and the Royal Society of Canada. In the interview, Andrew and Richard reflect on their long collaboration together and the personal and intellectual paths that led both researchers into CS and reinforcement learning (RL), a field that was once largely neglected. They touch on interdisciplinary explorations across psychology (animal learning), control theory, operations research, cybernetics, and how these inspired their computational models. They also explain some of their key contributions to RL, such as temporal difference (TD) learning and how their ideas were validated biologically with observations of dopamine neurons. Barto and Sutton trace their early research to later systems such as TD-Gammon, Q-learning, and AlphaGo and consider the broader relationship between humans and reinforcement learning-based AI, and how theoretical explorations have evolved into impactful applications in games, robotics, and beyond.

Help support the free broadcast by donating to our PayPal fundraiser! https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/RL... Behind the Bunker Paintball Podcast is a long-running weekly show dedicated to everything paintball. Hosted by passionate players and industry veterans, the podcast dives into the latest happenings in the sport, from new gear releases and product reviews to updates on tournaments and events around the world. It has built a loyal audience by combining serious paintball discussion with a lighthearted, entertaining approach that keeps both new players and seasoned veterans engaged.

The conversation covers various topics including the Chinese calendar and the Year of the Horse, new World Cup soccer balls, club soccer updates, choosing a club based on coach vs. club, the integration of NPL and RL, thoughts on the integration and its impact, and a discussion on club requirements and regionalized play. The integration of NPL and RL is a significant theme throughout the conversation, highlighting the impact on club soccer and player development. The conversation covers the introduction of a unified postseason for NPL teams and its impact on recruitment due to grade year changes. It also delves into the implications of these changes on player development and the overall improvement of the game.TakeawaysYear of the HorseIntegration of NPL and RLClub-based system and coaching progression Unified postseason for NPL teamsImpact of grade year changes on recruitmentChapters00:00 Discussion on Club Requirements and Regionalized Play26:12 Grade Year Changes and Recruitment

TDC 082: Part 3: The "Contrarian Cannon" (Continued)In this episode of The Digital Contrarian, host Ryan Levesque tackles the dilemma every entrepreneur eventually faces: Do you build for the hyper-engaged 100, the silent 100,000, or orient everything around a single person?You'll discover why optimizing for scale creates drift, why over-serving your superfans leads to burnout, and why centering around "the one" sharpens your message and simplifies every decision.---Question of the DayWho is YOUR "one"? The specific person you're really building for? Drop their name (or describe them) in the comments.---Key Take-aways- Optimizing for scale often means building for the lowest common denominator- Over-serving your hyper-engaged 100 can quietly lead to burnout- Centering around "the one" gives you a clear lens for every decision- This approach sharpens your message while still serving everyone else- The right question isn't "who's my audience?"—it's "who am I really building for?"---Timestamped Outline0:00 – Introduction: Contrarian Canon Part 30:07 – Back from Colorado, deep in book editing mode0:34 – Beta reader opportunity coming soon0:48 – Today's topic: Who are you really building for?1:19 – Issue #47: The scale optimization trap1:31 – The core dilemma every creator faces1:38 – Building for the 100 (hyper-engaged followers)1:40 – Building for the 100,000 (silent majority)1:45 – Building for the one (single real person)1:56 – Why optimizing for scale creates drift2:05 – Why over-serving the 100 leads to burnout2:10 – The reframe: Centering around the one2:26 – How this approach sharpens your message2:29 – Clear lens for deciding where attention goes2:39 – Reflection questions for immediate alignment2:45 – Link to full issue in description2:52 – Back to manuscript editing2:58 – Remember to hug the ones you love---Links & Resources- Issue 047 of The Digital Contrarian – "How to Decide Who You're Really Building For" → https://ryanlevesque.net/the-100-the-100000-or-the-one/- Issue 047 Video → https://youtu.be/fvbgBrYyxFs- Return to Real Book Waitlist → https://ryanlevesque.net/return-to-real-book/- The Digital Contrarian Newsletter → https://thedigitalcontrarian.com---Connect & CTAEnjoyed this? Subscribe & leave a review on Apple Podcasts.Join 100,000+ digital entrepreneurs who get Ryan Levesque's "Strategic Insights for Digital Entrepreneurs Who Think Differently" every weekend: https://thedigitalcontrarian.com---CreditsHost: Ryan Levesque© 2026 RL & Associates LLC. All rights reserved.

Sebastian Graf explains the coming rise of AI native companies. He shares four safety pillars for autonomous firms: code freeze, CICD compliance, regulatory model training, and harm-reduction finance. The episode mixes technical detail, a real Anthropic experiment, and broad governance concerns about trust and social impact. Top 3 Key Learnings AI native company pillars: Four safety pillars: code freeze, CICD, regulatory RL training, and harm reduction mechanisms. Test and freeze code: Freeze codebases and run automated tests to ensure predictable behavior and regulatory compliance. Trust via cost and trials: Lower cost and stepwise use build trust; people try low-risk services first then adopt more. About Sebastian Graf Sebastian Graf describes himself as an engineer by profession, but an educator at heart. In his work as an engineer, he is driven by the belief that technology should lift everyone, enabling people to live extraordinary lives in extraordinary ways. He acknowledges that this is challenging in a world where many technologies are built with incentives that divide society, exploit the environment, and widen wealth inequality. Sebastian is committed to reversing these incentives. His mission is to empower imagination and drive the creation of a positive social, environmental, and technological future that he believes is entirely within reach. Sebastian's linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sebastiangraf1/ Chapters: 0:00 - Intro 0:35 - Business Transformation Pitch Overview 1:09 - Sebastian Graf's Background and Expertise 2:39 - Sebastian's Mission with AI Native Companies 4:37 - Defining AI Native Companies 8:33 - Four Pillars of AI Native Companies 18:35 - Anthropic's Vending Machine Experiment 22:24 - Engineering Resilience in AI Native Companies 26:31 - Building Trust in AI Native Operations 30:47 - Quickfire Round and Closing Thoughts 34:45 - Key Takeaways and Final Reflections Resources:   Please, hit the follow button and leave your feedback: Apple Podcast: https://www.cxgoalkeeper.com/apple Spotify: https://www.cxgoalkeeper.com/spotify About the host: Gregorio Uglioni is a seasoned transformation leader with over 15 years of experience shaping business and digital change, consistently delivering service excellence and measurable impact. As an Associate Partner at Forward, he is recognized for his strategic vision, operational expertise, and ability to drive sustainable growth. A respected keynote speaker and host of the well-known global podcast Business Transformation Pitch with the CX Goalkeeper, Gregorio energizes and inspires organizations worldwide with his customer-centric approach to innovation. Follow Gregorio Uglioni on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregorio-uglioni/     Mostra meno  

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom Podcast, host Stewart Alsop interviews Aurelio Gialluca, an economist and full stack data professional who works across finance, retail, and AI as both a data engineer and machine learning developer, while also exploring human consciousness and psychology. Their wide-ranging conversation covers the intersection of science and psychology, the unique cultural characteristics that make Argentina a haven for eccentrics (drawing parallels to the United States), and how Argentine culture has produced globally influential figures from Borges to Maradona to Che Guevara. They explore the current AI landscape as a "centralizing force" creating cultural homogenization (particularly evident in LinkedIn's cookie-cutter content), discuss the potential futures of AI development from dystopian surveillance states to anarchic chaos, and examine how Argentina's emotionally mature, non-linear communication style might offer insights for navigating technological change. The conversation concludes with Gialluca describing his ambitious project to build a custom water-cooled workstation with industrial-grade processors for his quantitative hedge fund, highlighting the practical challenges of heat management and the recent tripling of RAM prices due to market consolidation.Timestams00:00 Exploring the Intersection of Psychology and Science02:55 Cultural Eccentricity: Argentina vs. the United States05:36 The Influence of Religion on National Identity08:50 The Unique Argentine Cultural Landscape11:49 Soft Power and Cultural Influence14:48 Political Figures and Their Cultural Impact17:50 The Role of Sports in Shaping National Identity20:49 The Evolution of Argentine Music and Subcultures23:41 AI and the Future of Cultural Dynamics26:47 Navigating the Chaos of AI in Culture33:50 Equilibrating Society for a Sustainable Future35:10 The Patchwork Age: Decentralization and Society35:56 The Impact of AI on Human Connection38:06 Individualism vs. Collective Rules in Society39:26 The Future of AI and Global Regulations40:16 Biotechnology: The Next Frontier42:19 Building a Personal AI Lab45:51 Tiers of AI Labs: From Personal to Industrial48:35 Mathematics and AI: The Foundation of Innovation52:12 Stochastic Models and Predictive Analytics55:47 Building a Supercomputer: Hardware InsightsKey Insights1. Argentina's Cultural Exceptionalism and Emotional Maturity: Argentina stands out globally for allowing eccentrics to flourish and having a non-linear communication style that Gialluca describes as "non-monotonous systems." Argentines can joke profoundly and be eccentric while simultaneously being completely organized and straightforward, demonstrating high emotional intelligence and maturity that comes from their unique cultural blend of European romanticism and Latino lightheartedness.2. Argentina as an Underrecognized Cultural Superpower: Despite being introverted about their achievements, Argentina produces an enormous amount of global culture through music, literature, and iconic figures like Borges, Maradona, Messi, and Che Guevara. These cultural exports have shaped entire generations worldwide, with Argentina "stealing the thunder" from other nations and creating lasting soft power influence that people don't fully recognize as Argentine.3. AI's Cultural Impact Follows Oscillating Patterns: Culture operates as a dynamic system that oscillates between centralization and decentralization like a sine wave. AI currently represents a massive centralizing force, as seen in LinkedIn's homogenized content, but this will inevitably trigger a decentralization phase. The speed of this cultural transformation has accelerated dramatically, with changes that once took generations now happening in years.4. The Coming Bifurcation of AI Futures: Gialluca identifies two extreme possible endpoints for AI development: complete centralized control (the "Mordor" scenario with total surveillance) or complete chaos where everyone has access to dangerous capabilities like creating weapons or viruses. Finding a middle path between these extremes is essential for society's survival, requiring careful equilibrium between accessibility and safety.5. Individual AI Labs Are Becoming Democratically Accessible: Gialluca outlines a tier system for AI capabilities, where individuals can now build "tier one" labs capable of fine-tuning models and processing massive datasets for tens of thousands of dollars. This democratization means that capabilities once requiring teams of PhD scientists can now be achieved by dedicated individuals, fundamentally changing the landscape of AI development and access.6. Hardware Constraints Are the New Limiting Factor: While AI capabilities are rapidly advancing, practical implementation is increasingly constrained by hardware availability and cost. RAM prices have tripled in recent months, and the challenge of managing enormous heat output from powerful processors requires sophisticated cooling systems. These physical limitations are becoming the primary bottleneck for individual AI development.7. Data Quality Over Quantity Is the Critical Challenge: The main bottleneck for AI advancement is no longer energy or GPUs, but high-quality data for training. Early data labeling efforts produced poor results because labelers lacked domain expertise. The future lies in reinforcement learning (RL) environments where AI systems can generate their own high-quality training data, representing a fundamental shift in how AI systems learn and develop.

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

At 22, Brendan Foody is both the youngest Conversations with Tyler guest ever and the youngest unicorn founder on record. His company Mercor hires the experts who train frontier AI models—from poets grading verse to economists building evaluation frameworks—and has become one of the fastest-growing startups in history. Tyler and Brendan discuss why Mercor pays poets $150 an hour, why AI labs need rubrics more than raw text, whether we should enshrine the aesthetic standards of past eras rather than current ones, how quickly models are improving at economically valuable tasks, how long until AI can stump Cass Sunstein, the coming shift toward knowledge workers building RL environments instead of doing repetitive analysis, how to interview without falling for vibes, why nepotism might make a comeback as AI optimizes everyone's cover letters, scaling the Thiel Fellowship 100,000X, what his 8th-grade donut empire taught him about driving out competition, the link between dyslexia and entrepreneurship, dining out and dating in San Francisco, Mercor's next steps, and more. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video on the new dedicated Conversations with Tyler channel. Recorded October 16th, 2025. Other ways to connect Follow us on X and Instagram Follow Tyler on X Follow Brendan on X Sign up for our newsletter Join our Discord Email us: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Learn more about Conversations with Tyler and other Mercatus Center podcasts here. Timestamps 00:00:00 - Hiring poets to teach AI 00:05:29 - Measuring real-world AI progress  00:13:25 - Why rubrics are the new oil  00:18:44 - Enshrining taste in LLMs 00:22:38 - Turning society into one giant RL machine 00:26:37 - When AI will stump experts 00:30:46 - AI and employment 00:35:05 - Why vibes-based hiring fails 00:39:55 - Solving labor market matching problems  00:45:01 - Scaling the Thiel Fellowship  00:48:11 - A hypothetical gap year 00:50:31 - Donuts, debates, and dyslexia 00:56:15 - Dating and dining out 00:59:01 - Mercor's next steps

Help support the free broadcast by donating to our PayPal fundraiser! https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/RL... Behind the Bunker Paintball Podcast is a long-running weekly show dedicated to everything paintball. Hosted by passionate players and industry veterans, the podcast dives into the latest happenings in the sport, from new gear releases and product reviews to updates on tournaments and events around the world. It has built a loyal audience by combining serious paintball discussion with a lighthearted, entertaining approach that keeps both new players and seasoned veterans engaged.

Physical Intelligence's Karol Hausman and Tobi Springenberg believe that robotics has been held back not by hardware limitations, but by an intelligence bottleneck that foundation models can solve. Their end-to-end learning approach combines vision, language, and action into models like π0 and π*0.6, enabling robots to learn generalizable behaviors rather than task-specific programs. The team prioritizes real-world deployment and uses RL from experience to push beyond what imitation learning alone can achieve. Their philosophy—that a single general-purpose model can handle diverse physical tasks across different robot embodiments—represents a fundamental shift in how we think about building intelligent machines for the physical world. Hosted by Alfred Lin and Sonya Huang, Sequoia Capital

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom podcast, host Stewart Alsop sits down with Josh Halliday, who works on training super intelligence with frontier data at Turing. The conversation explores the fascinating world of reinforcement learning (RL) environments, synthetic data generation, and the crucial role of high-quality human expertise in AI training. Josh shares insights from his years working at Unity Technologies building simulated environments for everything from oil and gas safety scenarios to space debris detection, and discusses how the field has evolved from quantity-focused data collection to specialized, expert-verified training data that's becoming the key bottleneck in AI development. They also touch on the philosophical implications of our increasing dependence on AI technology and the emerging job market around AI training and data acquisition.Timestamps00:00 Introduction to AI and Reinforcement Learning03:12 The Evolution of AI Training Data05:59 Gaming Engines and AI Development08:51 Virtual Reality and Robotics Training11:52 The Future of Robotics and AI Collaboration14:55 Building Applications with AI Tools17:57 The Philosophical Implications of AI20:49 Real-World Workflows and RL Environments26:35 The Impact of Technology on Human Cognition28:36 Cultural Resistance to AI and Data Collection31:12 The Bottleneck of High-Quality Data in AI32:57 Philosophical Perspectives on Data35:43 The Future of AI Training and Human Collaboration39:09 The Role of Subject Matter Experts in Data Quality43:20 The Evolution of Work in the Age of AI46:48 Convergence of AI and Human ExperienceKey Insights1. Reinforcement Learning environments are sophisticated simulations that replicate real-world enterprise workflows and applications. These environments serve as training grounds for AI agents by creating detailed replicas of tools like Salesforce, complete with specific tasks and verification systems. The agent attempts tasks, receives feedback on failures, and iterates until achieving consistent success rates, effectively learning through trial and error in a controlled digital environment.2. Gaming engines like Unity have evolved into powerful platforms for generating synthetic training data across diverse industries. From oil and gas companies needing hazardous scenario data to space intelligence firms tracking orbital debris, these real-time 3D engines with advanced physics can create high-fidelity simulations that capture edge cases too dangerous or expensive to collect in reality, bridging the gap where real-world data falls short.3. The bottleneck in AI development has fundamentally shifted from data quantity to data quality. The industry has completely reversed course from the previous "scale at all costs" approach to focusing intensively on smaller, higher-quality datasets curated by subject matter experts. This represents a philosophical pivot toward precision over volume in training next-generation AI systems.4. Remote teleoperation through VR is creating a new global workforce for robotics training. Workers wearing VR headsets can remotely control humanoid robots across the globe, teaching them tasks through direct demonstration. This creates opportunities for distributed talent while generating the nuanced human behavioral data needed to train autonomous systems.5. Human expertise remains irreplaceable in the AI training pipeline despite advancing automation. Subject matter experts provide crucial qualitative insights that go beyond binary evaluations, offering the contextual "why" and "how" that transforms raw data into meaningful training material. The challenge lies in identifying, retaining, and properly incentivizing these specialists as demand intensifies.6. First-person perspective data collection represents the frontier of human-like AI training. Companies are now paying people to life-log their daily experiences, capturing petabytes of egocentric data to train models more similarly to how human children learn through constant environmental observation, rather than traditional batch-processing approaches.7. The convergence of simulation, robotics, and AI is creating unprecedented philosophical and practical challenges. As synthetic worlds become indistinguishable from reality and AI agents gain autonomy, we're entering a phase where the boundaries between digital and physical, human and artificial intelligence, become increasingly blurred, requiring careful consideration of dependency, agency, and the preservation of human capabilities.

TDC #081: Feeling Stuck? You're Closer to a Breakthrough Than You ThinkThe moment you feel most stalled might be the exact moment you're closest to your next big shift.Episode Summary:In this episode of The Digital Contrarian, host Ryan Levesque explores the surprising pattern behind how breakthroughs actually happen—and why they rarely arrive when you're grinding hardest.You'll learn why creative block often precedes insight, what a 200-year-old sugar maple teaches about adversity, and three reflection questions to turn your current setback into your next breakthrough.Question of the Day:What's a recent setback you've faced—or a breakthrough you've just experienced? I'd love to hear from you in the comments.Key Take-awaysFeeling stuck is often a signal you're close to a breakthrough, not far from oneBreakthroughs appear after frustration—sometimes only when you finally let goModerate adversity strengthens us (the science proves it)Creative block frequently precedes your biggest insightsLooking at the problem from a new angle unlocks what grinding couldn'tTimestamped Outline0:00 – The Surprising Nature of Breakthroughs 0:29 – Trudy Ederle's Story: Courage, Grit & Breakthroughs 0:44 – My Recent Manuscript Breakthrough (Return to Real) 1:10 – The Open Heart Surgery Phase of Editing 1:32 – Focus: The Contrarian Canon Part Two 2:00 – How to Turn Your Setback Into Your Next Big Breakthrough 2:26 – When Feeling Stalled Means You're Close to a Shift 2:40 – Setbacks, Flow & Detaching from the Outcome 3:02 – Why Creative Block Frequently Precedes Insight  3:29 – Engagement Prompt: Share Your Setback or Breakthrough 3:40 – Back to Manuscript Editing: No Food, No Water, Just Words 3:48 – Remember to Hug the Ones You LoveLinks & ResourcesIssue 051 of The Digital Contrarian – "How to Turn Your Current Setback Into Your Next Big Breakthrough" → https://ryanlevesque.net/setbacks-breakthroughs/Issue 051 Video → https://youtu.be/XQTjQZ6cwf8Return to Real Book Waitlist → https://ryanlevesque.net/return-to-real-book/The Digital Contrarian Newsletter → https://thedigitalcontrarian.comConnect & CTAEnjoyed this? Subscribe & leave a review on Apple Podcasts.Join 100,000+ digital entrepreneurs who get Ryan Levesque's "Strategic Insights for Digital Entrepreneurs Who Think Differently" every weekend: https://thedigitalcontrarian.comCredits:Host: Ryan Levesque © 2026 RL & Associates LLC. All rights reserved.

From undergraduate research seminars at Princeton to winning Best Paper award at NeurIPS 2025, Kevin Wang, Ishaan Javali, Michał Bortkiewicz, Tomasz Trzcinski, Benjamin Eysenbach defied conventional wisdom by scaling reinforcement learning networks to 1,000 layers deep—unlocking performance gains that the RL community thought impossible. We caught up with the team live at NeurIPS to dig into the story behind RL1000: why deep networks have worked in language and vision but failed in RL for over a decade (spoiler: it's not just about depth, it's about the objective), how they discovered that self-supervised RL (learning representations of states, actions, and future states via contrastive learning) scales where value-based methods collapse, the critical architectural tricks that made it work (residual connections, layer normalization, and a shift from regression to classification), why scaling depth is more parameter-efficient than scaling width (linear vs. quadratic growth), how Jax and GPU-accelerated environments let them collect hundreds of millions of transitions in hours (the data abundance that unlocked scaling in the first place), the "critical depth" phenomenon where performance doesn't just improve—it multiplies once you cross 15M+ transitions and add the right architectural components, why this isn't just "make networks bigger" but a fundamental shift in RL objectives (their code doesn't have a line saying "maximize rewards"—it's pure self-supervised representation learning), how deep teacher, shallow student distillation could unlock deployment at scale (train frontier capabilities with 1000 layers, distill down to efficient inference models), the robotics implications (goal-conditioned RL without human supervision or demonstrations, scaling architecture instead of scaling manual data collection), and their thesis that RL is finally ready to scale like language and vision—not by throwing compute at value functions, but by borrowing the self-supervised, representation-learning paradigms that made the rest of deep learning work. We discuss: The self-supervised RL objective: instead of learning value functions (noisy, biased, spurious), they learn representations where states along the same trajectory are pushed together, states along different trajectories are pushed apart—turning RL into a classification problem Why naive scaling failed: doubling depth degraded performance, doubling again with residual connections and layer norm suddenly skyrocketed performance in one environment—unlocking the "critical depth" phenomenon Scaling depth vs. width: depth grows parameters linearly, width grows quadratically—depth is more parameter-efficient and sample-efficient for the same performance The Jax + GPU-accelerated environments unlock: collecting thousands of trajectories in parallel meant data wasn't the bottleneck, and crossing 15M+ transitions was when deep networks really paid off The blurring of RL and self-supervised learning: their code doesn't maximize rewards directly, it's an actor-critic goal-conditioned RL algorithm, but the learning burden shifts to classification (cross-entropy loss, representation learning) instead of TD error regression Why scaling batch size unlocks at depth: traditional RL doesn't benefit from larger batches because networks are too small to exploit the signal, but once you scale depth, batch size becomes another effective scaling dimension — RL1000 Team (Princeton) 1000 Layer Networks for Self-Supervised RL: Scaling Depth Can Enable New Goal-Reaching Capabilities: https://openreview.net/forum?id=s0JVsx3bx1 Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: Best Paper Award and NeurIPS Poster Experience 00:01:11 Team Introductions and Princeton Research Origins 00:03:35 The Deep Learning Anomaly: Why RL Stayed Shallow 00:04:35 Self-Supervised RL: A Different Approach to Scaling 00:05:13 The Breakthrough Moment: Residual Connections and Critical Depth 00:07:15 Architectural Choices: Borrowing from ResNets and Avoiding Vanishing Gradients 00:07:50 Clarifying the Paper: Not Just Big Networks, But Different Objectives 00:08:46 Blurring the Lines: RL Meets Self-Supervised Learning 00:09:44 From TD Errors to Classification: Why This Objective Scales 00:11:06 Architecture Details: Building on Braw and SymbaFowl 00:12:05 Robotics Applications: Goal-Conditioned RL Without Human Supervision 00:13:15 Efficiency Trade-offs: Depth vs Width and Parameter Scaling 00:15:48 JAX and GPU-Accelerated Environments: The Data Infrastructure 00:18:05 World Models and Next State Classification 00:22:37 Unlocking Batch Size Scaling Through Network Capacity 00:24:10 Compute Requirements: State-of-the-Art on a Single GPU 00:21:02 Future Directions: Distillation, VLMs, and Hierarchical Planning 00:27:15 Closing Thoughts: Challenging Conventional Wisdom in RL Scaling

From undergraduate research seminars at Princeton to winning Best Paper award at NeurIPS 2025, Kevin Wang, Ishaan Javali, Michał Bortkiewicz, Tomasz Trzcinski, Benjamin Eysenbach defied conventional wisdom by scaling reinforcement learning networks to 1,000 layers deep—unlocking performance gains that the RL community thought impossible. We caught up with the team live at NeurIPS to dig into the story behind RL1000: why deep networks have worked in language and vision but failed in RL for over a decade (spoiler: it's not just about depth, it's about the objective), how they discovered that self-supervised RL (learning representations of states, actions, and future states via contrastive learning) scales where value-based methods collapse, the critical architectural tricks that made it work (residual connections, layer normalization, and a shift from regression to classification), why scaling depth is more parameter-efficient than scaling width (linear vs. quadratic growth), how Jax and GPU-accelerated environments let them collect hundreds of millions of transitions in hours (the data abundance that unlocked scaling in the first place), the “critical depth” phenomenon where performance doesn't just improve—it multiplies once you cross 15M+ transitions and add the right architectural components, why this isn't just “make networks bigger” but a fundamental shift in RL objectives (their code doesn't have a line saying “maximize rewards”—it's pure self-supervised representation learning), how deep teacher, shallow student distillation could unlock deployment at scale (train frontier capabilities with 1000 layers, distill down to efficient inference models), the robotics implications (goal-conditioned RL without human supervision or demonstrations, scaling architecture instead of scaling manual data collection), and their thesis that RL is finally ready to scale like language and vision—not by throwing compute at value functions, but by borrowing the self-supervised, representation-learning paradigms that made the rest of deep learning work.We discuss:* The self-supervised RL objective: instead of learning value functions (noisy, biased, spurious), they learn representations where states along the same trajectory are pushed together, states along different trajectories are pushed apart—turning RL into a classification problem* Why naive scaling failed: doubling depth degraded performance, doubling again with residual connections and layer norm suddenly skyrocketed performance in one environment—unlocking the “critical depth” phenomenon* Scaling depth vs. width: depth grows parameters linearly, width grows quadratically—depth is more parameter-efficient and sample-efficient for the same performance* The Jax + GPU-accelerated environments unlock: collecting thousands of trajectories in parallel meant data wasn't the bottleneck, and crossing 15M+ transitions was when deep networks really paid off* The blurring of RL and self-supervised learning: their code doesn't maximize rewards directly, it's an actor-critic goal-conditioned RL algorithm, but the learning burden shifts to classification (cross-entropy loss, representation learning) instead of TD error regression* Why scaling batch size unlocks at depth: traditional RL doesn't benefit from larger batches because networks are too small to exploit the signal, but once you scale depth, batch size becomes another effective scaling dimension—RL1000 Team (Princeton)* 1000 Layer Networks for Self-Supervised RL: Scaling Depth Can Enable New Goal-Reaching Capabilities: https://openreview.net/forum?id=s0JVsx3bx1Full Video EpisodeTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction: Best Paper Award and NeurIPS Poster Experience00:01:11 Team Introductions and Princeton Research Origins00:03:35 The Deep Learning Anomaly: Why RL Stayed Shallow00:04:35 Self-Supervised RL: A Different Approach to Scaling00:05:13 The Breakthrough Moment: Residual Connections and Critical Depth00:07:15 Architectural Choices: Borrowing from ResNets and Avoiding Vanishing Gradients00:07:50 Clarifying the Paper: Not Just Big Networks, But Different Objectives00:08:46 Blurring the Lines: RL Meets Self-Supervised Learning00:09:44 From TD Errors to Classification: Why This Objective Scales00:11:06 Architecture Details: Building on Braw and SymbaFowl00:12:05 Robotics Applications: Goal-Conditioned RL Without Human Supervision00:13:15 Efficiency Trade-offs: Depth vs Width and Parameter Scaling00:15:48 JAX and GPU-Accelerated Environments: The Data Infrastructure00:18:05 World Models and Next State Classification00:22:37 Unlocking Batch Size Scaling Through Network Capacity00:24:10 Compute Requirements: State-of-the-Art on a Single GPU00:21:02 Future Directions: Distillation, VLMs, and Hierarchical Planning00:27:15 Closing Thoughts: Challenging Conventional Wisdom in RL Scaling Get full access to Latent.Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

From pre-training data curation to shipping GPT-4o, o1, o3, and now GPT-5 thinking and the shopping model, Josh McGrath has lived through the full arc of OpenAI's post-training evolution—from the PPO vs DPO debates of 2023 to today's RLVR era, where the real innovation isn't optimization methods but data quality, signal trust, and token efficiency. We sat down with Josh at NeurIPS 2025 to dig into the state of post-training heading into 2026: why RLHF and RLVR are both just policy gradient methods (the difference is the input data, not the math), how GRPO from DeepSeek Math was underappreciated as a shift toward more trustworthy reward signals (math answers you can verify vs. human preference you can't), why token efficiency matters more than wall-clock time (GPT-5 to 5.1 bumped evals and slashed tokens), how Codex has changed his workflow so much he feels “trapped” by 40-minute design sessions followed by 15-minute agent sprints, the infrastructure chaos of scaling RL (”way more moving parts than pre-training”), why long context will keep climbing but agents + graph walks might matter more than 10M-token windows, the shopping model as a test bed for interruptability and chain-of-thought transparency, why personality toggles (Anton vs Clippy) are a real differentiator users care about, and his thesis that the education system isn't producing enough people who can do both distributed systems and ML research—the exact skill set required to push the frontier when the bottleneck moves every few weeks.We discuss:* Josh's path: pre-training data curation → post-training researcher at OpenAI, shipping GPT-4o, o1, o3, GPT-5 thinking, and the shopping model* Why he switched from pre-training to post-training: “Do I want to make 3% compute efficiency wins, or change behavior by 40%?”* The RL infrastructure challenge: way more moving parts than pre-training (tasks, grading setups, external partners), and why babysitting runs at 12:30am means jumping into unfamiliar code constantly* How Codex has changed his workflow: 40-minute design sessions compressed into 15-minute agent sprints, and the strange “trapped” feeling of waiting for the agent to finish* The RLHF vs RLVR debate: both are policy gradient methods, the real difference is data quality and signal trust (human preference vs. verifiable correctness)* Why GRPO (from DeepSeek Math) was underappreciated: not just an optimization trick, but a shift toward reward signals you can actually trust (math answers over human vibes)* The token efficiency revolution: GPT-5 to 5.1 bumped evals and slashed tokens, and why thinking in tokens (not wall-clock time) unlocks better tool-calling and agent workflows* Personality toggles: Anton (tool, no warmth) vs Clippy (friendly, helpful), and why Josh uses custom instructions to make his model “just a tool”* The router problem: having a router at the top (GPT-5 thinking vs non-thinking) and an implicit router (thinking effort slider) creates weird bumps, and why the abstractions will eventually merge* Long context: climbing Graph Blocks evals, the dream of 10M+ token windows, and why agents + graph walks might matter more than raw context length* Why the education system isn't producing enough people who can do both distributed systems and ML research, and why that's the bottleneck for frontier labs* The 2026 vision: neither pre-training nor post-training is dead, we're in the fog of war, and the bottleneck will keep moving (so emotional stability helps)—Josh McGrath* OpenAI: https://openai.com* X: https://x.com/j_mcgraphFull Video EpisodeTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction: Josh McGrath on Post-Training at OpenAI00:04:37 The Shopping Model: Black Friday Launch and Interruptability00:07:11 Model Personality and the Anton vs Clippy Divide00:08:26 Beyond PPO vs DPO: The Data Quality Spectrum in RL00:01:40 Infrastructure Challenges: Why Post-Training RL is Harder Than Pre-Training00:13:12 Token Efficiency: The 2D Plot That Matters Most00:03:45 Codex Max and the Flow Problem: 40 Minutes of Planning, 15 Minutes of Waiting00:17:29 Long Context and Graph Blocks: Climbing Toward Perfect Context00:21:23 The ML-Systems Hybrid: What's Hard to Hire For00:24:50 Pre-Training Isn't Dead: Living Through Technological Revolution Get full access to Latent.Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

From pre-training data curation to shipping GPT-4o, o1, o3, and now GPT-5 thinking and the shopping model, Josh McGrath has lived through the full arc of OpenAI's post-training evolution—from the PPO vs DPO debates of 2023 to today's RLVR era, where the real innovation isn't optimization methods but data quality, signal trust, and token efficiency. We sat down with Josh at NeurIPS 2025 to dig into the state of post-training heading into 2026: why RLHF and RLVR are both just policy gradient methods (the difference is the input data, not the math), how GRPO from DeepSeek Math was underappreciated as a shift toward more trustworthy reward signals (math answers you can verify vs. human preference you can't), why token efficiency matters more than wall-clock time (GPT-5 to 5.1 bumped evals and slashed tokens), how Codex has changed his workflow so much he feels "trapped" by 40-minute design sessions followed by 15-minute agent sprints, the infrastructure chaos of scaling RL ("way more moving parts than pre-training"), why long context will keep climbing but agents + graph walks might matter more than 10M-token windows, the shopping model as a test bed for interruptability and chain-of-thought transparency, why personality toggles (Anton vs Clippy) are a real differentiator users care about, and his thesis that the education system isn't producing enough people who can do both distributed systems and ML research—the exact skill set required to push the frontier when the bottleneck moves every few weeks. We discuss: Josh's path: pre-training data curation → post-training researcher at OpenAI, shipping GPT-4o, o1, o3, GPT-5 thinking, and the shopping model Why he switched from pre-training to post-training: "Do I want to make 3% compute efficiency wins, or change behavior by 40%?" The RL infrastructure challenge: way more moving parts than pre-training (tasks, grading setups, external partners), and why babysitting runs at 12:30am means jumping into unfamiliar code constantly How Codex has changed his workflow: 40-minute design sessions compressed into 15-minute agent sprints, and the strange "trapped" feeling of waiting for the agent to finish The RLHF vs RLVR debate: both are policy gradient methods, the real difference is data quality and signal trust (human preference vs. verifiable correctness) Why GRPO (from DeepSeek Math) was underappreciated: not just an optimization trick, but a shift toward reward signals you can actually trust (math answers over human vibes) The token efficiency revolution: GPT-5 to 5.1 bumped evals and slashed tokens, and why thinking in tokens (not wall-clock time) unlocks better tool-calling and agent workflows Personality toggles: Anton (tool, no warmth) vs Clippy (friendly, helpful), and why Josh uses custom instructions to make his model "just a tool" The router problem: having a router at the top (GPT-5 thinking vs non-thinking) and an implicit router (thinking effort slider) creates weird bumps, and why the abstractions will eventually merge Long context: climbing Graph Blocks evals, the dream of 10M+ token windows, and why agents + graph walks might matter more than raw context length Why the education system isn't producing enough people who can do both distributed systems and ML research, and why that's the bottleneck for frontier labs The 2026 vision: neither pre-training nor post-training is dead, we're in the fog of war, and the bottleneck will keep moving (so emotional stability helps) — Josh McGrath OpenAI: https://openai.com https://x.com/j_mcgraph Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: Josh McGrath on Post-Training at OpenAI 00:04:37 The Shopping Model: Black Friday Launch and Interruptability 00:07:11 Model Personality and the Anton vs Clippy Divide 00:08:26 Beyond PPO vs DPO: The Data Quality Spectrum in RL 00:01:40 Infrastructure Challenges: Why Post-Training RL is Harder Than Pre-Training 00:13:12 Token Efficiency: The 2D Plot That Matters Most 00:03:45 Codex Max and the Flow Problem: 40 Minutes of Planning, 15 Minutes of Waiting 00:17:29 Long Context and Graph Blocks: Climbing Toward Perfect Context 00:21:23 The ML-Systems Hybrid: What's Hard to Hire For 00:24:50 Pre-Training Isn't Dead: Living Through Technological Revolution

From Berkeley robotics and OpenAI's 2017 Dota-era internship to shipping RL breakthroughs on GPT-4o, o1, and o3, and now leading model development at Cursor, Ashvin Nair has done it all. We caught up with Ashvin at NeurIPS 2025 to dig into the inside story of OpenAI's reasoning team (spoiler: it went from a dozen people to 300+), why IOI Gold felt reachable in 2022 but somehow didn't change the world when o1 actually achieved it, how RL doesn't generalize beyond the training distribution (and why that means you need to bring economically useful tasks into distribution by co-designing products and models), the deeper lessons from the RL research era (2017–2022) and why most of it didn't pan out because the community overfitted to benchmarks, how Cursor is uniquely positioned to do continual learning at scale with policy updates every two hours and product-model co-design that keeps engineers in the loop instead of context-switching into ADHD hell, and his bet that the next paradigm shift is continual learning with infinite memory—where models experience something once (a bug, a mistake, a user pattern) and never forget it, storing millions of deployment tokens in weights without overloading capacity. We discuss: Ashvin's path: Berkeley robotics PhD → OpenAI 2017 intern (Dota era) → o1/o3 reasoning team → Cursor ML lead in three months Why robotics people are the most grounded at NeurIPS (they work with the real world) and simulation people are the most unhinged (Lex Fridman's take) The IOI Gold paradox: "If you told me we'd achieve IOI Gold in 2022, I'd assume we could all go on vacation—AI solved, no point working anymore. But life is still the same." The RL research era (2017–2022) and why most of it didn't pan out: overfitting to benchmarks, too many implicit knobs to tune, and the community rewarding complex ideas over simple ones that generalize Inside the o1 origin story: a dozen people, conviction from Ilya and Jakob Pachocki that RL would work, small-scale prototypes producing "surprisingly accurate reasoning traces" on math, and first-principles belief that scaled The reasoning team grew from ~12 to 300+ people as o1 became a product and safety, tooling, and deployment scaled up Why Cursor is uniquely positioned for continual learning: policy updates every two hours (online RL on tab), product and ML sitting next to each other, and the entire software engineering workflow (code, logs, debugging, DataDog) living in the product Composer as the start of product-model co-design: smart enough to use, fast enough to stay in the loop, and built by a 20–25 person ML team with high-taste co-founders who code daily The next paradigm shift: continual learning with infinite memory—models that experience something once (a bug, a user mistake) and store it in weights forever, learning from millions of deployment tokens without overloading capacity (trillions of pretraining tokens = plenty of room) Why off-policy RL is unstable (Ashvin's favorite interview question) and why Cursor does two-day work trials instead of whiteboard interviews The vision: automate software engineering as a process (not just answering prompts), co-design products so the entire workflow (write code, check logs, debug, iterate) is in-distribution for RL, and make models that never make the same mistake twice — Ashvin Nair Cursor: https://cursor.com X: https://x.com/ashvinnair_ Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: From Robotics to Cursor via OpenAI 00:01:58 The Robotics to LLM Agent Transition: Why Code Won 00:09:11 RL Research Winter and Academic Overfitting 00:11:45 The Scaling Era and Moving Goalposts: IOI Gold Doesn't Mean AGI 00:21:30 OpenAI's Reasoning Journey: From Codex to O1 00:20:03 The Blip: Thanksgiving 2023 and OpenAI Governance 00:22:39 RL for Reasoning: The O-Series Conviction and Scaling 00:25:47 O1 to O3: Smooth Internal Progress vs External Hype Cycles 00:33:07 Why Cursor: Co-Designing Products and Models for Real Work 00:34:14 Composer and the Future: Online Learning Every Two Hours 00:35:15 Continual Learning: The Missing Paradigm Shift 00:44:00 Hiring at Cursor and Why Off-Policy RL is Unstable

From Berkeley robotics and OpenAI's 2017 Dota-era internship to shipping RL breakthroughs on GPT-4o, o1, and o3, and now leading model development at Cursor, Ashvin Nair has done it all. We caught up with Ashvin at NeurIPS 2025 to dig into the inside story of OpenAI's reasoning team (spoiler: it went from a dozen people to 300+), why IOI Gold felt reachable in 2022 but somehow didn't change the world when o1 actually achieved it, how RL doesn't generalize beyond the training distribution (and why that means you need to bring economically useful tasks into distribution by co-designing products and models), the deeper lessons from the RL research era (2017–2022) and why most of it didn't pan out because the community overfitted to benchmarks, how Cursor is uniquely positioned to do continual learning at scale with policy updates every two hours and product-model co-design that keeps engineers in the loop instead of context-switching into ADHD hell, and his bet that the next paradigm shift is continual learning with infinite memory—where models experience something once (a bug, a mistake, a user pattern) and never forget it, storing millions of deployment tokens in weights without overloading capacity.We discuss:* Ashvin's path: Berkeley robotics PhD → OpenAI 2017 intern (Dota era) → o1/o3 reasoning team → Cursor ML lead in three months* Why robotics people are the most grounded at NeurIPS (they work with the real world) and simulation people are the most unhinged (Lex Fridman's take)* The IOI Gold paradox: “If you told me we'd achieve IOI Gold in 2022, I'd assume we could all go on vacation—AI solved, no point working anymore. But life is still the same.”* The RL research era (2017–2022) and why most of it didn't pan out: overfitting to benchmarks, too many implicit knobs to tune, and the community rewarding complex ideas over simple ones that generalize* Inside the o1 origin story: a dozen people, conviction from Ilya and Jakob Pachocki that RL would work, small-scale prototypes producing “surprisingly accurate reasoning traces” on math, and first-principles belief that scaled* The reasoning team grew from ~12 to 300+ people as o1 became a product and safety, tooling, and deployment scaled up* Why Cursor is uniquely positioned for continual learning: policy updates every two hours (online RL on tab), product and ML sitting next to each other, and the entire software engineering workflow (code, logs, debugging, DataDog) living in the product* Composer as the start of product-model co-design: smart enough to use, fast enough to stay in the loop, and built by a 20–25 person ML team with high-taste co-founders who code daily* The next paradigm shift: continual learning with infinite memory—models that experience something once (a bug, a user mistake) and store it in weights forever, learning from millions of deployment tokens without overloading capacity (trillions of pretraining tokens = plenty of room)* Why off-policy RL is unstable (Ashvin's favorite interview question) and why Cursor does two-day work trials instead of whiteboard interviews* The vision: automate software engineering as a process (not just answering prompts), co-design products so the entire workflow (write code, check logs, debug, iterate) is in-distribution for RL, and make models that never make the same mistake twice—Ashvin Nair* Cursor: https://cursor.com* X: https://x.com/ashvinnair_Full Video EpisodeTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction: From Robotics to Cursor via OpenAI00:01:58 The Robotics to LLM Agent Transition: Why Code Won00:09:11 RL Research Winter and Academic Overfitting00:11:45 The Scaling Era and Moving Goalposts: IOI Gold Doesn't Mean AGI00:21:30 OpenAI's Reasoning Journey: From Codex to O100:20:03 The Blip: Thanksgiving 2023 and OpenAI Governance00:22:39 RL for Reasoning: The O-Series Conviction and Scaling00:25:47 O1 to O3: Smooth Internal Progress vs External Hype Cycles00:33:07 Why Cursor: Co-Designing Products and Models for Real Work00:34:14 Composer and the Future: Online Learning Every Two Hours00:35:15 Continual Learning: The Missing Paradigm Shift00:44:00 Hiring at Cursor and Why Off-Policy RL is Unstable Get full access to Latent.Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

From investing through the modern data stack era (DBT, Fivetran, and the analytics explosion) to now investing at the frontier of AI infrastructure and applications at Amplify Partners, Sarah Catanzaro has spent years at the intersection of data, compute, and intelligence—watching categories emerge, merge, and occasionally disappoint. We caught up with Sarah live at NeurIPS 2025 to dig into the state of AI startups heading into 2026: why $100M+ seed rounds with no near-term roadmap are now the norm (and why that terrifies her), what the DBT-Fivetran merger really signals about the modern data stack (spoiler: it's not dead, just ready for IPO), how frontier labs are using DBT and Fivetran to manage training data and agent analytics at scale, why data catalogs failed as standalone products but might succeed as metadata services for agents, the consumerization of AI and why personalization (memory, continual learning, K-factor) is the 2026 unlock for retention and growth, why she thinks RL environments are a fad and real-world logs beat synthetic clones every time, and her thesis for the most exciting AI startups: companies that marry hard research problems (RAG, rule-following, continual learning) with killer applications that were simply impossible before.We discuss:* The DBT-Fivetran merger: not the death of the modern data stack, but a path to IPO scale (targeting $600M+ combined revenue) and a signal that both companies were already winning their categories* How frontier labs use data infrastructure: DBT and Fivetran for training data curation, agent analytics, and managing increasingly complex interactions—plus the rise of transactional databases (RocksDB) and efficient data loading (Vortex) for GPU-bound workloads* Why data catalogs failed: built for humans when they should have been built for machines, focused on discoverability when the real opportunity was governance, and ultimately subsumed as features inside Snowflake, DBT, and Fivetran* The $100M+ seed phenomenon: raising massive rounds at billion-dollar valuations with no 6-month roadmap, seven-day decision windows, and founders optimizing for signal (”we're a unicorn”) over partnership or dilution discipline* Why world models are overhyped but underspecified: three competing definitions, unclear generalization across use cases (video games ≠ robotics ≠ autonomous driving), and a research problem masquerading as a product category* The 2026 theme: consumerization of AI via personalization—memory management, continual learning, and solving retention/churn by making products learn skills, preferences, and adapt as the world changes (not just storing facts in cursor rules)* Why RL environments are a fad: labs are paying 7–8 figures for synthetic clones when real-world logs, traces, and user activity (à la Cursor) are richer, cheaper, and more generalizable* Sarah's investment thesis: research-driven applications that solve hard technical problems (RAG for Harvey, rule-following for Sierra, continual learning for the next killer app) and unlock experiences that were impossible before* Infrastructure bets: memory, continual learning, stateful inference, and the systems challenges of loading/unloading personalized weights at scale* Why K-factor and growth fundamentals matter again: AI felt magical in 2023–2024, but as the magic fades, retention and virality are back—and most AI founders have never heard of K-factor—Sarah Catanzaro* X: https://x.com/sarahcat21* Amplify Partners: https://amplifypartners.com/Where to find Latent Space* X: https://x.com/latentspacepodFull Video EpisodeTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction: Sarah Catanzaro's Journey from Data to AI00:01:02 The DBT-Fivetran Merger: Not the End of the Modern Data Stack00:05:26 Data Catalogs and What Went Wrong00:08:16 Data Infrastructure at AI Labs: Surprising Insights00:10:13 The Crazy Funding Environment of 2024-202500:17:18 World Models: Hype, Confusion, and Market Potential00:18:59 Memory Management and Continual Learning: The Next Frontier00:23:27 Agent Environments: Just a Fad?00:25:48 The Perfect AI Startup: Research Meets Application00:28:02 Closing Thoughts and Where to Find Sarah Get full access to Latent.Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

AI models feel smarter than their real-world impact. They ace benchmarks, yet still struggle with reliability, strange bugs, and shallow generalization. Why is there such a gap between what they can do on paper and in practiceIn this episode from The Dwarkesh Podcast, Dwarkesh talks with Ilya Sutskever, cofounder of SSI and former OpenAI chief scientist, about what is actually blocking progress toward AGI. They explore why RL and pretraining scale so differently, why models outperform on evals but underperform in real use, and why human style generalization remains far ahead.Ilya also discusses value functions, emotions as a built-in reward system, the limits of pretraining, continual learning, superintelligence, and what an AI driven economy could look like. Resources:Transcript: https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/ilya-sutsk...Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7naO... Stay Updated:If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to like, subscribe, and share with your friends!Find a16z on X: https://x.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zListen to the a16z Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5bC65RDvs3oxnLyqqvkUYXListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenbergPlease note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures](http://a16z.com/disclosures.  Stay Updated:Find a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.