信息流

Tired of not winning Republicans against Trump@RpsAgainstTrump Donald Trump “erupted” during a meeting with his top national security team last week, reportedly yelling expletives at those present, according to NBC News. The report says Trump is “exasperated” by the lack of progress in ending the Iran war and the lack of a clear strategy. One Trump ally said, “The president is exasperated. I don’t think he believed it was going to be this difficult to get the Iranians to agree to a deal.” 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

New course on serving LLMs efficiently -- how do you serve models to many concurrent users at low latency and reasonable cost? This short course is built with @RedHat and taught by @cedricclyburn . Efficient LLM serving requires efficient memory management. A 70B-parameter model takes ~140 GB just to load the weights. On top of that, every active request needs its own chunk of GPU memory, the KV cache, to store the token context it has built up so far. In this course, you'll learn to reduce a model's memory footprint with quantization and serve it using vLLM, which handles many concurrent requests efficiently through smart memory management. Skills you'll gain: - Quantize a model and measure the accuracy tradeoff - Serve a model with vLLM and watch it handle concurrent requests efficiently - Benchmark your deployment and make informed tradeoffs between speed, cost, and accuracy Join and learn to serve LLMs efficiently: deeplearning.ai/courses/fast-a… Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter

x.com/i/article/2104…

There are two ways AI progress could go very badly and that we must avoid. First, we could lose control of the future to AI. This is unacceptable; we are unapologetically on Team Humanity, and AI must always serve people. To ensure that, we need ways to ensure that alignment and safety techniques stay ahead of progress in model capabilities. Second, we could end up in a world with too much concentration of power. If an extraordinarily powerful AI is used by one person or company to impress their worldview onto everyone else, the results could be extremely dystopian. Avoiding these two threats requires walking a narrow middle path; for example, one country could gain too much power. Another example is one lab ending up with too much power. Sam Altman@sama The world deserves confidence that American companies developing increasingly capable AI will act responsibly, especially as the trajectory of progress has steepened. Every frontier lab must deliver on this, and there is no reason any of us should come to work if we cannot. We welcome a federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements for frontier AI. But we do not believe we need to wait for an anti-trust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence. Consistent rules to manage frontier risk so that we can maximize the benefits are a good idea (and we are excited by ideas like independent auditors). Years ago, companies like ours developed things like Responsible Scaling Policies and Preparedness Frameworks. Those were good for that moment, and focused primarily on the deployment of completed models, not what happens during their development process. Today's shift to focusing on safe development and evaluation will need new tools. For example, at OpenAI we now formulate explicit safety cases in advance of frontier reinforcement learning runs we expect to significantly increase capability, in addition to the safety work we have long done in advance of model releases. We hope that other companies will learn from our approaches and propose their own; we think shared standards for misalignment, monitoring, and safety will lead to better outcomes. We look forward to collaborating with our colleagues across the industry to formulate the best version of these. When we talk about “pacing”, we do not mean “stopping”. Progress has been rapid and will continue to be. But it should be slower than it otherwise could be; interventions like safety cases and monitoring have significant costs. Pacing will be well worth this cost; no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness, or let capabilities get ahead of alignment and monitoring. Where we will need the help of our government is for international coordination. But first we should do what we can ourselves. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

Incredible opportunity for robotic learning researchers/engineers to join @theworldlabs ! ❤️‍🔥 Yunzhu Li@YunzhuLiYZ We're hiring in robot learning at @theworldlabs ! Join me, @drfeifei , and the team to define and scale the next generation of world models for robot learning! Atlas for Robotics: worldlabs.ai/blog/atlas#rob… Real-to-Sim-to-Real: worldlabs.ai/blog/real-to-s… Apply: jobs.ashbyhq.com/worldlabs/8599… Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

I would try to figure out why LLMs can write my essays but not clean my bedroom. Then I would study topics in college and grad school that could help solve that problem. I'll figure out a set of methods and architectures beyond LLMs that can quickly learn to perform physical tasks as efficiently as humans and animals. That last item is also what I would if I were 30, 40, 50, or 66 years old 😉

It’s a real honor to receive an honorary doctorate of science from @BrownUniversity . 😍 Brown University@BrownUniversity At its 258th Commencement on Sunday, Brown conferred honorary doctorates on six candidates who have achieved great distinction in a variety of fields, including economics, civil rights, artificial intelligence, national security, business and community leadership. buff.ly/cSP89Ff 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

@jack_w_rae It’s going to feel so weird that historically you couldn’t just talk to your computer like you’d talk to any other person

The creativity and imagination is out of the world! So grateful that @theworldlabs got to partner with the amazing talents @withloreco to translate their incredible ideas into an interactive experiences for users to enjoy!🤩 World Labs@theworldlabs We turned dreams into worlds. Then filled them with history's greatest minds. Not a video. A world, running directly in your browser. Step inside ↓ Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

Glasswing is just the first step: patching and securing the world’s software infrastructure will be the work of months and years, and will require even broader cooperation across AI companies, cyberdefenders, software providers, governments, and more.

Only in America. Tired of winning? Reginald@ginald87 Giving birth in Europe vs in America 😂 Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

Next view prediction is the key to Atlas, enabling us to unify pixel-level generation and reconstruction. @jcjohnss @BenMildenhall @martin_casado and I had a deeper discussion on some of the most exciting technical innovations of Atlas, our newly released world model for spatial intelligence! a16z@a16z World Labs co-founders Fei-Fei Li, Justin Johnson, Ben Mildenhall, and a16z's Martin Casado on Atlas, a world model for spatial intelligence: LLMs are built on next token prediction. Video models are built on next frame prediction. Atlas is built on new view prediction, and it's the first model to unify pixel generation and pixel reconstruction, two problems computer vision has kept in separate tracks for half a century. The practical result is a 50 to 100x reduction in what it takes to digitally capture a 3D representation of a space. Previously, you needed 100 to 300 photos of a single room. Atlas can work from just three. In this conversation, they get into the slow motion shot from The Matrix that took hundreds of cameras and now takes three iPhones, the overnight Slack message that made them bet the company in five seconds, why robotics is bottlenecked on data rather than chips, and the case that new view prediction is AI-complete. 00:00 Intro 01:50 The Matrix slow motion scene now takes three iPhones 02:48 Why new view prediction is the primitive 07:10 Unifying generation and reconstruction 11:15 Gaussian splats became the bottleneck 14:17 Dense capture used to mean 300 photos 17:30 Why reconstruction needs generation to fill the gaps 18:44 The LLM lesson image models missed 23:39 The video that made them go all in 28:04 3D design is 95% revisions 30:50 The problem in robotics is data, not chips 32:48 Why a robot policy can't be trained like an image model 34:44 When the simulator becomes the planner 36:45 Frozen time required footage full of movement 40:57 Why new view prediction is AI-complete 42:43 Nature gave animals eyes but not trees YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=qn1QDD… @drfeifei @jcjohnss @BenMildenhall @theworldlabs @martin_casado Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

New: A map of the most important skills in AI Engineering. x.com/i/article/2088…

I've been working on this essay for a while, and it is mainly about AI and about the future. But given the horror we're seeing in Minnesota, its emphasis on the importance of preserving democratic values and rights at home is particularly relevant.

This is a super exciting release - Claude Fable 5 is the same underlying model as Mythos but with added safeguards. The benchmarks are great and it's SOTA on everything by a margin but I'll add that *qualitatively* also, this is a major-version-bump-deserving step change forward (imo of the same order as Claude 4.5 was in November), peaking especially for long problem-solving sessions on very difficult problems. You can give it a lot more ambitious tasks than what you're used to, the model "gets it" and it will just go, and it's never felt this tempting to stop looking at the code at all (but don't do this in prod!). The model still has quirks that people will run into and the safeguards are configured to be a little too trigger happy for launch, which can hopefully be tuned over time. I feel a lot of things changing as working software increasingly comes out on a tap. The Jevon's paradox kicks in and I feel my own demand for software growing substantially. You can ask for anything - explainers, visualizers, dashboards, bespoke single-use apps (e.g. a full wandb that is hyper-specific just for your project), you can 10X your test suite, auto-optimize code, run giant research projects with custom HTML for the results, anything! "Free your mind" (Matrix ref). Really looking forward to all the things people build! Claude@claudeai Fable 5 is state-of-the-art on nearly all tested benchmarks, with exceptional performance in software engineering, knowledge work, scientific research, and vision. The longer and more complex the task, the larger Fable 5’s lead over our other models. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

@RagavanThurair Same... I had to bring it down (RIP) because it was just too much work to maintain, it would have been a lot easier today. But today there's also alphaxiv.org , which I like & use and is in the same spirit.

@raphaelmilliere Sure, but when it turns out the leak was caused by the plumber who neglected to tighten a pipe fitting, or perhaps poked a hole in one of the pipes, you shouldn't question the entire plumbing industry. You should question the plumber's compétence and/or motivations.

1/N Long horizon, complex tasks that truly matter in everyday life are not solved problems by today’s robotics, requiring planning, object detection, object manipulation, and failure recovery. That's why Stanford's BEHAVIOR Challenge is back for year 2! Last year, the winning solution reached only 12.4% full task success. This year, the BEHAVIOR challenge has more tasks, better evaluation, and is easier to use. 🚨 ⏰ Submission deadline: 10/16/2026 📣 Winners announced: 11/04/2026 🏆 Prize pool: $11,000 Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter

With the help of generative world models, a real-to-sim-to-real (R2S2R) simulation engine turns one physical task into many controllable, reusable worlds, helping robotics teams train policy models and test changes faster, uncover failures earlier, and reduce costly experimentation on hardware.

One of the most amazing moments for me in OpenAI history was watching this happen over the past week: OpenAI@OpenAI We’re sharing a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, one of the deepest problems at the frontier of mathematics. The proof was produced by a group of agents, using an OpenAI next-generation model significantly more capable than GPT-6 Astra. The problem concerns whether the description of smooth three-dimensional fluid motion modeled by the Navier-Stokes equations can break down. It has remained unresolved for roughly 90 years. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

Agents can be AI, but agency is human. It is every individual’s responsibility to empower our own agency, with the help of tools. But the North Star should always remain human centered.

@JitendraMalikCV Exactly. We also should not confuse world models, as per your definition, with video prediction or video generation models. Understanding the dynamics of a system in order to control it is not the same as producing cute videos.

Alongside it, Anthropic is releasing a proposal for how governments can address the risks posed by frontier AI and a policy framework for job displacement, for which we intend to provide substantial financial backing. anthropic.com/policy-on-the-…

One pattern I find useful for working with LLMs is a nice long ramble session. Sometimes the LLM needs more bits to understand what you're trying to achieve, but you're too lazy to type them. In these cases I like to lean back, switch to /voice and just ramble for like 10 minutes, total mess, anything goes, full stream of consciousness. Sometimes I declare it up top, something like "switching to speech recognition sorry for any typos...". Sometimes I turn it into a small interview of a few turns. But I find that the LLMs are somehow very good at reconstructing long incoherent rambles and often their echo of your own tangle of thoughts comes out quite a bit cleaner than what you started with. The result is that you improve the mind meld and have to correct things less from that point on.

With AI Engineering skills, you actively shape the build: You influence what gets built, and drive the build loop. Here're key skills to do this. x.com/i/article/2098…

Your thoughtful reflection is so inspiring and encouraging @smallfly ! As everyone talks about AI and automation, human creativity, story telling and productivity are even more important and essential to our society. @theworldlabs is founded on the premise of empowering human ingenuity and productivity. We are very grateful to be able to work with people like you! 🙏🌐 Hugues Bruyère@smallfly @FastCompany just published a great piece on @theworldlabs , @drfeifei , Marble, and the idea that spatial intelligence / world models may be one of the next big shifts in AI. I was happy to be quoted in the article, but I also wanted to share more context about my own experience with World Labs and Marble, and why this direction is especially interesting to me. fastcompany.com/91549046/fei-f… My starting point: volumetric capture — For the past few years I’ve been exploring and using volumetric capture and reconstruction (photogrammetry, NeRFs, 3D Gaussian Splats) mostly capturing locations around Montreal. Alleys, museums, urban interiors. I love every step of it: the capture itself, the pipeline, and what can be done with the output. Turning real spaces into real-time explorable systems. I do this personally, sharing explorations here, and professionally as chief technologist, and co-founder of Dpt. Physical reality + generative manipulation — In my work I’m especially drawn to mixing physical reality with generative and digital manipulation: using physical interfaces (light, clay, ink, ... ) to drive generative AI pipelines, building mixed reality prototypes that reshape your surroundings, or starting from real captured spaces and transforming them using tools like Marble. Like many people, I saw the World Labs announcement on Twitter in September 2024, and Marble when it surfaced in early December. But by then, I already had a sense something was coming. The first conversation — As someone deep into volumetric capture and radiance fields, I obviously knew about @BenMildenhall and his pioneering work on NeRF. To my surprise, Ben reached out to me in late June 2024. He’d been following some of my experiments and wanted to chat about my process and workflows and how I was using this “stuff” creatively. At that point he didn’t share what he was building, but we had a genuinely great conversation about radiance fields, AI, and my work. He was curious about the creative perspective, not just the technical one. When the World Labs announcement dropped a few months later, it all made sense. I understood what Ben had been working on, and why the creative angle mattered to them. Then in August 2025, he invited me to try the Marble beta, and I’ve been experimenting with it since. Experimenting with Marble — The first thing I used Marble for was materializing scene and world concepts during ideation at the studio, and seeing if and how it could fit into our production pipeline. In parallel, I dove into a series of experiments focused on world manipulation: starting from real captured spaces and transforming them using Marble. I’d already been exploring that idea using img2img diffusion with ControlNet on NeRF renders, real-time video streams, and even mixed reality using headset camera feeds. But Marble brings something different. It generates persistent, spatially cohesive 3D worlds that can be rendered in real time across a wide range of devices. That’s a real shift. Experiment 01: Parallel Realities — The first experiment, Parallel Realities, starts from a volumetr

Okay, so it's just compressed air. Easier. But crappy specific impulse (less than 50 seconds). Even assuming that 50% of the mass of the car is the compressed air, that gives you less than 10s of useful thrust (with thrust-to-weight ratio larger than 1.0). Probably more like 5 seconds, actually. So the car must be an empty, lightweight shell containing big compressed air tanks. Cute demo, but totally impractical. But of course, you knew that.

The most important skills in Building and Deploying AI Applications. x.com/i/article/2090…

The dangers of getting this wrong are obvious, but if we get it right, there is a real opportunity to create a fundamentally more secure internet and world than we had before the advent of AI-powered cyber capabilities.

But there is a 1 hour talk, with results and evidence, that leads to these conclusions. Also, I am not saying that LLM-based AI tools are useless. They are very useful. We all use them. But, by themselves, they are not a path to human-level AI. Architectures that understand the real world are not LLMs. The architectural components that enable current LLM-based AI systems to interpret images, videos, and other real-world signals are not LLMs.

2/2 Second, on the messaging around AI. I do not agree that my messaging has been disproportionately negative. In fact it has been about equally balanced between risks and benefits: I’ve written one major essay about each, and even in interviews where I discuss the risks, I make sure to frequently mention the incredible benefits as well as proposing possible solutions to the risks (short clips from my interviews that end up on social media tend to be disproportionately negative, as that gets clicks). In fact, I wrote Machines of Loving Grace because I didn’t feel the AI industry was painting an inspiring enough picture of how the technology could radically transform the world for the better. The bulk of the essay is devoted to refuting skepticism of AI’s potential in health and biology, and showing why I think it will actually be possible to cure most human disease in ~5-10 years, as crazy as it may sound to ordinary people and frankly to biologists as well (I used to be one!). And, if you read my most recent essay (Policy on the AI Exponential), I discuss concrete proposals for how to streamline the FDA process to make sure the deluge of AI-accelerated drugs isn’t slowed down by the regulatory process. I feel the urgency here: I lost my father to Hepatitis C only a few years before the development of direct-acting antivirals (sofosbuvir), which cure 95% of patients and probably would have cured him. I do agree that the public has a negative view of AI (and that this is a big problem), but I don’t think it is primarily caused by me or any other AI leader warning about AI’s risks. I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. The causes of this go back decades and AI is just the latest iteration of it. I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is more a cliche than it is inspiring, and most people think it is deceptive. The thing that will work is *actually curing cancer*. I think by far the most accurate criticism of AI companies including Anthropic is that we haven’t yet delivered on our big promises to benefit the world. That is totally on us, and I think it’s the criticism you should be making, instead of all this stuff about messaging and marketing. We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months. When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that. But until then I don’t want to make empty promises, and in the meantime I feel compelled to speak honestly about the very real risks of AI and how to address them. Honesty is the right thing on the merits, and in terms of public credibility and trust it is no worse than, and may in fact be better than, an approach that ignores or distracts from risks which people instinctively understand are real.

The world of R&D is forking into two paths: the token-abundant research, and the token-starved research. The future is in the former - evidentially, the progress by today's top AI industry teams and neolabs is breathtaking, where researchers’ human brilliance is super charged by AI’s assistance. Every research university president should be reading this report and reflecting on what the future of higher education research should be. openai.com/index/research…

This is a new paradigm for interacting with Claude that is significantly more "inline" with all the other human activity org-wide. Once you do all of the under the hood engineering work to make this "just work" (e.g. across tools, integrations, compute environments, memory, security, etc.), Claude basically joins the team in a seamless way - you can talk to it as you would talk to a person and it can help with a very large variety of workloads. Imo this is the 3rd major redesign of LLM UIUX. The first paradigm was that the LLM is a website you go to, the second was that it is an app you download to your computer. This third one is that it is a self-contained, persistent, asynchronous entity with org-wide tools and context, working alongside teams of humans. It really takes a while to wrap your head around it, but it works and it is awesome. Claude@claudeai Introducing Claude Tag, a new way for teams to work with Claude. In Slack, Claude joins as a team member with access to the channels and tools you choose. Tag Claude in and delegate tasks to it while you focus on other work. Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

@BrianRoemmele @elonmusk The Medal of Science is for scientists. Scientists publish their works in peer-reviewed venues so they can be scrutinized, verified, and reproduced.

Toutes les formes d'IA sont de "belles saloperies" ? Vraiment ? Même celles qui dépistent les tumeurs dans les mammographies ? Même celles qui détectent et évitent les obstacles sur la route et sauvent des vies en réduisant les collisions de 40% ? Même celles qui aident à filtrer les spams et les tentatives d'escroquerie par email, messages, ou réseaux sociaux ? Même celles qui détectent et bloquent les tentatives d'influence étrangères sur le processus démocratique ? Même celles qui permettent aux non-voyant d'entendre une description de leur environnement visuel ? Même celles qui connectent les cultures par la traduction automatique des langues ? Même celles qui assistent dans leurs métiers les médecins, les chercheurs, les journalistes ? Il faut toujours éviter de jeter le bébé avec l'eau du bain.

@abuchanlife - training frontier models is expensive - distilling a frontier model is cheap - this market force alone tells us that frontier foundation models will be free/open. - there are others. thealliance.ai/projects/tapes…

That video is 2 years old. Two years later, we are still far from human-level AI. Sure, AI has superhuman performance in a number of tasks (particularly in mathematics and coding and answering questions with known answers). But where is my Level-5 self-driving car? (Before you ask, Tesla FSD is rated Level 2, Waymo is Level 4). Where is the self-driving car that can teach itself to drive in 20 hours of practice like any 17 year old? (Before you ask, we have billions of hours of training data and still can't successfully train a self-driving system by imitation learning) Where is my domestic robot? Where is the robot that can do what any 8 year-old child can do? Where is the robot that can learn a new task as quickly as an 8 year old? AI still has a hard time with the complexity and messiness of the physical world.

ocarina of time remake is the best news in a long time. i will be unavailable november 5 and 6; need to find a case of mountain dew.

People outside the AI labs should have a real say in how this technology develops, and a clear way to judge if it's happening safely. Standards should help prevent the concentration of power, including by making sure new companies and open-model companies can compete. They should also help countries and companies compare evidence and learn from failures. We think the US should lead this effort. Here is our proposal: openai.com/index/building…

How have software engineering fundamentals changed with agentic coding? Here is our AI Engineering Skills map for software engineering fundamentals. x.com/i/article/2093…

New course: Build AI agents that generate images and videos -- an under-explored frontier. A key to performance is having the agent evaluate its own output, and iterate to improve quality. This short course is built together with @googlecloudtech and taught by Katie Nguyen and Wafae Bakkali. You'll learn three evaluation techniques and combine them in an agent: image-text similarity scoring to check the output matches the prompt, an LLM judge that scores against custom criteria like brand consistency, and structured rubrics that break a prompt into verifiable yes/no questions like "is the subject in the frame?" and "does the camera motion match?" Skills you'll gain: - Learn image and video prompt engineering - Build an image agent that turns brand guidelines into UI mockups - Build a video agent that plans multi-scene explainers and animates reference frames with synchronized audio Join and build agents that create images and video! deeplearning.ai/courses/ai-age… Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter

LLMs accumulate a lot of declarative knowledge. That's how they can answer a large number of questions. That's also why they require so many parameters and hence so much memory. But one can replace the accumulation of knowledge by *understanding* That what JEPA world models do. That's one reason they can be useful with considerably less memory and training data than LLMs. This paper merely shows that the underlying similarity structure of the data, whether text or image (e.g. co-occurence of words in text or objects in images) uniquely determines the shape of the representation point cloud, when the encoder is trained trained with a common anti-collapse criterion like SIGReg or VCReg (not by reconstruction).

x.com/i/article/2062…

Dusting off this tweet from April because this gap in shared understanding of LLM capability is *widening*. It's now less "two groups of people speaking past each other" and more a sharp funnel. - Napkin math somewhere around 6B people (~75% of the population) have barely come in contact with LLMs at all. - Around 1-2B (~20%) are casual and infrequent users of free-tier ChatGPT-like products. This group sees derpy chatbots and treats them a bit like a better Google search, a writing aid, or etc. Maybe an agent tries to book you a flight. I have non-tech friends who (reasonably, imo) say they have not much use for it at all. Even many professionals outside of math&code are in this tier. For example, execs and many other functions spend a lot of their time talking to other people, so while they understand what is happening intellectually, it is still second-hand and a bit abstract. - Now we get to professional use of frontier-grade LLMs in math&code. Somewhere around 20M people (0.2%) see first-hand that large, complex projects that used to take them weeks/months can now be completed by agents with a prompt. Building apps, copying apps, translating apps, decompiling apps from binaries... This has all happened very quickly and recently - less than 1 year ago, I was writing code manually by hand, typing memorized computer code commands into a code editor character by character, occasionally pressing Tab to autocomplete a little chunk of code. - And finally we get to the ~5,000 people (~0.00006%) with access to frontier-grade systems internally. The external world has seen the preview. It looks like swarms of thousands of agents collaborating over weeks on software mega projects: minting zero days, running cyber attacks and defenses at machine speeds, discovering new science, advancing the frontier of mathematics. Things that would have taken top professionals in the industry years of work. Meanwhile, human review and comprehension are starting to fall behind. For example, people are still involved in the "archeology" of the OpenAI-HF incident from many months ago. Mathematicians may be poring over the 722 manuscripts on frontier mathematics for a while. The funnel is driven by a combination of factors: 1. The impact scales with ambition, problem size, and horizon. A question with a paragraph answer barely stresses the system. You need a reservoir of big, difficult problems that you really care about. This aspect drives the consumer / professional dimension of the funnel. 2. The jaggedness of the system (which I have written about a lot separately). Capability peaks in domains that are digital, verifiable and economically valuable. This is because LLM capability emerges from reinforcement learning on verifiable rewards on a curated environment mixture driven by revenue potential. This aspect primarily drives the area (e.g. math&code) dimension of the funnel. 3. Access. Free-tier, paid-tier, internal. So this is the weirdness of the moment. The general public has mostly not interacted with these systems. When they have, it looks like a derpy chatbot. The majority of professionals still see only a modest uplift. And a small sliver of professionals are experiencing the vertigo of the curve going vertical. And it is all happening at the same time. Andrej Karpathy@karpathy Judging by my tl there is a growing gap in understanding of AI capability. The first issue I think is around recency and tier of use. I think a lot of people tried the free tier of ChatGPT somewhere last year and allowed it to inform their views on AI a little too much. This is a group of reactions laughing at various quirks of the models, hallucinations, etc. Yes I also saw the viral videos of OpenAI's Advanced Voice mode fumbling simple queries like "should I drive or walk to the carwash". The thing is that these free and old/deprecated models don't reflect the capability in

Over the last two weeks, both the U.S. Government and Anthropic took significant actions that demonstrated their power to control access to AI by restricting what others can do with frontier models. This has been one of those moments that, once seen, will be hard to unsee, and it is significantly accelerating many businesses’ and nation states’ efforts to ensure reliable access to AI that no one else can terminate. Anthropic first released Claude Fable 5, a version of its Mythos model with additional guardrails, including some restrictions that seem well justified on safety grounds (such as limitations on applying it to hacking, bioweapons, and so forth). However, it also restricted developers’ ability to use it to build competing LLM technology. This move was concerning, given that the whole AI community, including Anthropic, has benefitted tremendously from open research — indeed, the AI revolution was kicked off by my former team (Google Brain) freely publishing the Transformers paper! Imagine if Microsoft’s terms of use barred anyone from using their tools to build competitive software, or if Google barred using it to search for information to work on competing search engines. Anthropic’s argument that it was unsafe for others to be able to make advances in AI also rang hollow. Initially, Anthropic silently degraded Fable 5’s performance for users detected to be working on LLM research through invisible interventions that weakened the model’s outputs without notifying the user. After significant backlash, it walked back this decision and decided to be transparent when it did this, but it still refuses to use its latest capabilities to help AI researchers. This move represents a raw demonstration of power by Anthropic. It has used “safety” arguments to hinder potential competitors. Platforms succeed when they are viewed as stable, reliable partners that one can build on. The sudden rule changes by Anthropic (including a mandatory 30 day data retention policy for Fable usage) have made developers wonder about the stability of building on any one proprietary LLM provider, not just Anthropic. The U.S. Government then shortly followed with an even greater demonstration of power. It used the Commerce Department’s authority to regulate technologies that may be national security threats to restrict exports of Mythos and Fable, requiring a license for use by any foreign national, whether inside or outside of the U.S., including employees of Anthropic. This led Anthropic to disable access to Fable to all users worldwide. Sam Altman pointed out, referring to Anthropic, “It is clearly incredible marketing to say, ‘We have built a bomb, we are about to drop it on your head. We will sell you a bomb shelter for $100 million.’” But when one engages in this type of fear-based marketing, it increases the odds that the U.S. Government will agree with you and slap export controls on the bomb you say you have built. To be clear, I don't think Anthropic has built anything like a bomb, and I don't think export controls on Fable are appropriate. However, following the U.S. Government making this move, many nations, including U.S. allies, saw how the U.S. can suddenly yank their access to AI models. In many capitals around the world, this has spurred discussions on AI sovereignty and how others can ensure uninterrupted access to this critical technology. For decades, many nations were comfortable having many parts of their supply chain rely on the U.S., China, and other major producers. Once a nation issues a threat, or takes action, to limit other nations’ access, other nations will rationally try to secure alternatives. For decades, semiconductor manufacturing in China made slow progress; once the U.S. moved to limit China’s access, China’s efforts kicked into high gear. Similarly, once China threatened U.S. access to rare earth minerals, U.S. efforts to secure alternatives accelerated. Now

6.1 Terra is here! It is good at a lot of things, but we are especially excited for this new era of computer use. OpenAI@OpenAI GPT-6.1 Terra: delivering fast and capable computer use at a lower price. GPT-6.1 Terra understands what’s on screen, takes action across apps, writes naturally, and is a more capable model for your whole workday with the efficiency to take on more of it. Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

Fireside chat at Sequoia Ascent 2026 from a ~week ago. Some highlights: The first theme I tried to push on is that LLMs are about a lot more than just speeding up what existed before (e.g. coding). Three examples of new horizons: 1. menugen: an app that can be fully engulfed by LLMs, with no classical code needed: input an image, output an image and an LLM can natively do the thing. 2. install .md skills instead of install .sh scripts. Why create a complex Software 1.0 bash script for e.g. installing a piece of software if you can write the installation out in words and say "just show this to your LLM". The LLM is an advanced interpreter of English and can intelligently target installation to your setup, debug everything inline, etc. 3. LLM knowledge bases as an example of something that was *impossible* with classical code because it's computation over unstructured data (knowledge) from arbitrary sources and in arbitrary formats, including simply text articles etc. I pushed on these because in every new paradigm change, the obvious things are always in the realm of speeding up or somehow improving what existed, but here we have examples of functionality that either suddenly perhaps shouldn't even exist (1,2), or was fundamentally not possible before (3). The second (ongoing) theme is trying to explain the pattern of jaggedness in LLMs. How it can be true that a single artifact will simultaneously 1) coherently refactor a 100,000-line code base *and* 2) tell you to walk to the car wash to wash your car. I previously wrote about the source of this as having to do with verifiability of a domain, here I expand on this as having to also do with economics because revenue/TAM dictates what the frontier labs choose to package into training data distributions during RL. You're either in the data distribution (on the rails of the RL circuits) and flying or you're off-roading in the jungle with a machete, in relative terms. Still not 100% satisfied with this, but it's an ongoing struggle to build an accurate model of LLM capabilities if you wish to practically take advantage of their power while avoiding their pitfalls, which brings me to... Last theme is the agent-native economy. The decomposition of products and services into sensors, actuators and logic (split up across all of 1.0/2.0/3.0 computing paradigms), how we can make information maximally legible to LLMs, some words on the quickly emerging agentic engineering and its skill set, related hiring practices, etc., possibly even hints/dreams of fully neural computing handling the vast majority of computation with some help from (classical) CPU coprocessors. Stephanie Zhan@stephzhan @karpathy and I are back! At @sequoia AI Ascent 2026. And a lot has changed. Last year, he coined “vibe coding”. This year, he’s never felt more behind as a programmer. The big shift: vibe coding raised the floor. Agentic engineering raises the ceiling. We talk about what it means to build seriously in the agent era. Not just moving faster. Building new things, with new tools, while preserving the parts that still require human taste, judgment, and understanding. Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

Announcing OpenWorker! An open-source agent that doesn't just chat with you, but delivers finished work -- like hand you a polished document, send a slack message, or update a calendar entry. Ask it to prepare a customer brief, untangle your calendar, draft a report, or triage a Slack alert. It works across your files and everyday tools, produces the deliverable, and checks in before doing anything consequential. OpenWorker runs on your Mac, with Windows support coming soon. It does not lock you into any one model. Bring your own API key and run it with GPT 5.6 Sol, Claude Fable, Gemini 3.6, an open weight model (like Kimi, GLM, DeepSeek, Inkling), or Ollama to keep your data local. Your data does not leave your machine except through an LLM provider and integrations that you choose. @rohitcprasad and I are building OpenWorker because AI coworkers are an important way to get work done, and we want there to be an open, privacy-preserving, model-independent option. Check it out and let us know what you think! Try it out: openworker.com (requires your own API key) Source code: github.com/andrewyng/open… Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter

We want to celebrate with people using GPT-6. We did this for GPT-5.5 and it was really fun. We’re getting together in SF on September 16 to talk about the model, what we should build next, and mostly just to hang out. Apply by Sep 10: gpt6-launch-event.openai.chatgpt.site

I’m very excited by this test time training work for robotic learning! It’s an awesome collaboration between @StanfordSVL and @NVIDIARobotics ! Jim Fan@DrJimFan We scaled a robot model natively to 8,000 timesteps of context, 5 minutes worth of muscle memory, with constant inference cost. Robot policies used to live their lives a few frames at a time (< 0.1 sec), instantly forgetting what just happened. We pushed to 3 orders of magnitude beyond SOTA. Introducing RoboTTT. Test-Time Training (“TTT”) carries a tiny model *inside* the model. Every incoming sensor reading triggers one gradient step on that tiny core, so the history keeps getting compressed into its weights. The hidden state has a fixed size (literally a small neural net), so the robot can “grok” arbitrarily long experience with little overhead. Learning continues indefinitely after deployment. We can then put an entire video in context as prompt! RoboTTT enables one-shot in-context learning from human video: in circuit board assembly, a human demonstrates a never-seen configuration once, and the robot imitates it faithfully. Humans drop things all the time, but we pick them up so fast that we don’t even notice. That reflex to fix is half of our physical competence. RoboTTT shows self-improvement on the fly: the robot is skilled at recovering from its own errors mid-episode, and each fix enters its context to inform the next move. The TTT core distills a general-purpose, failure-to-correction mapping from the training data. One more thing. What excites me the most is a new Context Scaling Curve: from 128 to 8K timesteps, closed-loop performance hill-climbs steadily with no sign of saturation. 8K-context pretraining beats 1K by 62%. What LLM enjoys, robotics should too. Soon, even 1M context is not a fantasy. Deep dive in thread: Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

Anthropic has long advocated for transparency requirements for frontier AI, because the risks weren't yet clear enough to regulate precisely. That is no longer sufficient.

michelle embodies this as much as anyone openai is so, so lucky to have benefited from everything she has done so far and i think people will be quite pleased to see what she + team have cooking next! Michelle Pokrass@michpokrass just crossed four years at openai! the special thing about this place is the constant capacity for rebirth. for all its faults, there is nowhere quite like it. the team makes high conviction, contrarian bets over and over, and they are mostly right. it's a new company every three months. i have really enjoyed my part in some of the bets, and i'm excited to share some of the current ones we are cooking up now. onward! 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

@gabriberton You obviously did not understand my statement. I was talking about auto-regressive token prediction, which is what pure LLMs do. But good code generation systems aren't pure LLMs and aren't doing mere auto-regressive token prediction.

I’m very excited by this new benchmark dataset for visual generation that is suitable for the modern era of large scale generative models!🤩 Keshigeyan Chandrasegaran@keshigeyan 1/ Introducing GPIC: a Giant Permissive Image Corpus and benchmark for visual generation! 🚀100M VLM-captioned image-text pairs for training 📊1M image-text pairs for benchmarking 🖼️~28 trillion pixels 🤗Centrally Hosted ✅Fully permissive for research + commercial use Dataset, benchmark and models🧵👇 Co-led with @KyleSargentAI 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

We'll be spending a lot more time trying to understand the outputs of language models. A few thoughts, tips & tricks: Writing. Something I've had success with: Ask your LLM to explain something in ASD-STE100, it's a controlled language specification originally developed for aerospace maintenance documentation. LLMs well-versed in this language and it comes with heavy constraints on clean writing style that I often find a lot more readable. Sometimes I've tried to soften it a bit e.g. ask for "80% of the way to ASD-STE100" because the spec is quite stringent. But even better: Diagrams / images. Instead of writing, ask your LLM to create a diagram. These can be a lot easier to process, parse, and understand. But even better: Web pages. Ask for output "in HTML" to get a beautiful, interactive webpage. LLMs are getting really good at frontend and can create beautiful experiences, animations, etc. But even better: Explainer videos. The output format I am most bullish on is fully custom / bespoke explainer videos generated on any arbitrary topic. Experiment with things like "Create a 3b1b style video explainer on X. Use my ElevenLabs API key for audio narration". (you'd need an API key for the latter or you can ask your LLM to find you decent free alternatives that use your local compute). This is actually starting to work! In summary: - As LLMs get better, they will do more and more of the legwork autonomously, and a lot more of our work will rise up the abstractions into oversight and understanding. - Luckily, LLMs can help here too because as intelligence and code are increasingly abundant, you can ask for large, custom, discardable software artifacts (e.g. web apps, video explainers) that would have never made sense to create before. Push the boundaries here and you'll be surprised.

Workera is being acquired by Pearson! It's been a privilege to support CEO @kiankatan and the whole Workera team through this journey. Back in 2019, Kian had the insight that rigorous skills measurements would be important. With recent advances in AI, this is now more true than ever. Workera's technologies for rigorously measuring people's skills in different tasks and job roles are helping many businesses understand where their employees are strong and where there are areas for development. With Workera and Pearson combining forces, I'm delighted that under @omarabbosh and Kian's leadership. Workera now has the potential to support an even larger number of people and businesses. Thank you, Kian and the Workera team for having me serve as the company's chairman, for launching Workera out of DeepLearning.AI and AI Fund, for your friendship over the years, and for your important work advancing assessments. kian@kiankatan I have some big news to share. Workera is being acquired by Pearson! Over six years ago, I was teaching at Stanford and thinking about a simple question: what if we could understand everyone's skills as precisely as the best teachers understand their students? I believed it could lead to a more meritocratic world. People could be recognized for what they can actually do, not just their credentials or network. They could understand their strengths and gaps, and rapidly develop the skills they need next. Organizations could discover talent they might otherwise overlook and manage their workforce with trusted skills data. What felt like a dream at the time is now a reality. Workera brought together experts in AI, psychometrics, and enterprise execution to build AI systems that reinvent how skills are measured. Our team pioneered AI-native skills intelligence, agent-led multimodal assessments, and even ambient skill measurement. We've established skills benchmarks across organizations, industries, and roles. And this mission feels more important today than ever! AI is changing work as we speak. Some roles are disappearing, new ones are emerging, and we need to help billions of people develop new skills and navigate what comes next. When I first spoke with @omarabbosh , it became clear that our companies shared the same mission. Pearson has helped generations of people learn and prove what they know. If you're reading this, there's a good chance you've taken a Pearson assessment, learned from their educational materials, earned a professional credential through them, read their psychometrics research, or benefited from their enterprise products in many other ways. Bringing together Workera's technology and AI talent with Pearson’s global scale and deep expertise in learning and assessment means we can pursue our mission at a scale we could only imagine on our own. To our customers and partners, thank you for believing in us. Expect even more innovations coming out of Workera and Pearson. To the Workera team, I’m incredibly proud of what you've built, and your continued dedication to our beautiful mission. To our board and our chairman @AndrewYNg , thank you for your belief, support, and mentorship. To everyone, we have big plans for this next chapter, so please stay tuned. We're just getting started! 😊 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

The loudest voices stoking fears about AI dangers have made tremendous headway in the past two weeks. AI technology has not taken some unexpected, dangerous turn, but the hype around it — propelled by what appears to be a well orchestrated PR campaign — has drummed up considerable fear. I worry that it represents a setback for our field. I have written frequently that fears of AI are overhyped. AI’s capabilities can be uncannily human-like and unpredictable, and it’s rational to worry when people who are directly involved express concerns. But I see the problems as a sign of the engineering work that ahead, rather than insurmountable barriers or the sky falling. AI technology continues to advance — which is a good thing! — but technical advances, poorly understood by the public, give those who seek to generate hype repeated opportunities to do so. First, I don’t see any step up in the risk of human extinction from AI compared to a few months ago. The theories about this remain the same fantastical, science fiction scenarios as a few months ago. The biggest change in AI risk is its cybersecurity capabilities — a topic which we should take seriously — but this, too, will not lead to the end of the world. The most notable recent event leading to increased fear was when an OpenAI team deployed an agent swarm that hacked into Hugging Face. Much of the popular press contained significant hype. For example, some publications reported that a swarm of 1,200 agents carried out the attack. While this was technically accurate, as I write this, I have about 1,300 processes running on my laptop. Yes, the ability to get large swarms of agents to work in parallel on a task is a significant technical advance, And, in computing, many processes run at the same time. So this shouldn’t be seen as some magical capability. Additionally, OpenAI’s buggy sandboxing and monitoring processes were key to enabling this incident. Fixing these bugs and putting in place improved monitoring would be appropriate fixes, not pausing AI. There are many well known ways to attack software systems. The main advantage of AI agents is that they are relentless. They will tirelessly try many tactics — and have the patience to chain vulnerabilities together — that previously would have taken an infeasible amount of human effort. But in the long term, I believe the advantage will lie with defenders (because they have more information with which to identify bugs, which they can fix), but the cyber-threat landscape has changed significantly. There are still bottlenecks to identifying and exploiting a vulnerability. AI agents still have to try a lot of things to see what works, and taking these actions takes time and might be detected by defenders. This is why, even though it is now easy to obtain versions of leading open weight models that have had their guardrails removed or weakened, so they will not refuse to try to execute cyber attacks, the world has not ended. I am also concerned about the anthropomorphization of AI in a lot of reporting, where LLMs and agents are unnecessarily treated as if they were people. If I wield a hammer, miss a nail, and accidentally dent the wall, it’s not the fault of the hammer. The problem lies in how I used the hammer. Similarly, if I prompt an agent and it hacks into someone else’s system, the responsibility lies with me, not the agent. Of course, we want to build systems that are as safe and predictable as possible. (For example, an unsafe hammer would be one whose head randomly flies off under normal use.) Today’s agentic systems are not predictable, but I see no reason why, by applying sound engineering practices, we won’t be able to make them extremely safe to use. One new element in the forecasts of AI-enabled doom is AI companies disclaiming responsibility for their own products. “I didn’t do it; my out-of-control agent did!” There’s a balance to be struck between the responsibility of the

DevDay was really fun, the builder energy was crazy Still wild to me to see people making whole startups in a day

@btaylor It's not just em dashes, it's that many other legitimate & useful language constructs are suddenly and somewhat arbitrarily super awkw and cringe

This is the the quote I've been citing a lot recently. kache@yacineMTB you can outsource your thinking but you cannot outsource your understanding 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

Yes it's the tractable form of brain upload. There's a ton of scifi on brain uploads that requires way too exotic tech (scanning and simulating brains etc), when we're about to get a lossy and approximate version of that *a lot* sooner via LLM simulators. You can easily imagine a "brain upload" startup - you show up for a few days to carry out detailed video interviews, then they use all that data with an LLM finetuning process to "upload" you and give you an API endpoint of your simulation that you can talk to. Look at what's already possible with HeyGen as an example, but combine it with an LLM model that has deep knowledge and personality. Trippy and admittedly kind of dystopian but in principle quite possible around now.

Mathematics and computing have had a very tight relationship in some corners of academia. Richard Courant proposed methods to solve PDEs numerically in 1928. Von Neuman figured out you could use electronic computers for it in 1940. Both were mathematicians. These methods are the ancestors of finite element methods, for which NYU's Courant Institute is famous. The Courant Institute was created in 1935 as NYU's mathematics department. It was unusual in that there was a lot of work on numerical analysis and scientific computing, with heavy use of supercomputers. In 1952, the Atomic Energy Commission installed a powerful electronic computer at NYU, which led to the creation of the Courant Mathematics and Computing Laboratory. The computer science department was spun off from mathematics in 1969 by Jacob T Schwartz. Courant is now a school with three departments: mathematics, computer science, and data science. The continued existence of an HPC center at NYU is one factor that enabled AI research to take off.

I spent much of the weekend talking with the team who did this work. Seb--and everyone else--acted with integrity and generosity throughout. Initially we believed the other team had also solved the problem. We wanted to collaborate and do a joint release. When we learned that they had Euler but not Navier-Stokes, we offered to let them go first, to suggest that they should be the ones to get the prize, and optionally for Tristan to be the lead author on a rewrite of the OpenAI proof. We felt it was challenging to offer the same to Levent (an Anthropic employee), who was not willing to talk or coordinate with us anyway. We were open to other solutions. We would have greatly preferred coordination. We did not rush to publish even though the other team wasn't communicating with us. The team threatened us with unfounded accusations of plagarism. Now that we can see their work, the approaches appear to be different. It is also worth noting that our latest model can solve many, many other math problems. It is true that we tried this because there were rumors on the internet last week that Anthropic's models had solved a millennium problem and we were curious if ours could do it too. Sebastien Bubeck@SebastienBubeck I would like to clarify a few things: 1) The screenshot is my reaching out to Levent to coordinate our releases. I hope it’s clear from the message that we came in with the best possible intentions. 2) I never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship of his own work (as indicated by my text). I was surprised to learn during the call with Tristan that they had only solved Euler and not Navier-Stokes; after learning this we brainstormed possible paths forward. One option we discussed was that Tristan could be the lead author on a rewrite of OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes proof. It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. Importantly it was admitted that internal Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic. Another option I wanted to propose (but got cut short) is to offer access to our internal model so that they could try to finish their proof and bridge the gap between Euler and NS. Again I did not know how to navigate giving access to internal OpenAI IP to an Anthropic employee. 3) To reiterate it plainly: as my text clearly indicates, and as I said during our call, OpenAI's intention was to do everything possible to celebrate their mathematical achievements and the heroic efforts that they made on Euler. In the call I was immediately met with a litany of slander, including direct threats that if we were to announce Navier-Stokes he would immediately go to the press with a barrage of unfounded accusations. I refuted all these accusations but he replied “there is nothing you can do, I simply do not trust you”. I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering, which is when I said that I did not understand why one would risk their career [over unfounded accusations]. Genuinely, at that moment, I was trying to care for him and do a last ditch attempt to get a chance to give them all the credits that they deserve. I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey. (I should say that I retracted them on the spot by the way.) 4) Overall, on a personal level, it was incredibly difficult to have these conversations. Levent refused to attend any of the meetings despite my repeated asking. As Sholto Douglas said, there will need to be coordination between Anthropic and OpenAI in the future; I felt I was doing a proxy negotiation with Anthropic while the Anthropic employee refused to directly participate

We want the OpenAI API to feature the best model at every price point and to be the best at every modality (text, code, image, video, etc). And then we want you all to come up with great ideas and build them and to get to be happy users. The best ideas will come from you all.

Our latest work in closing the last-mile gap on long horizon robotics tasks. Wensi Ai@wensi_ai Long-horizon, whole-body robot policies still fail during deployment. How do we best close this last-mile gap? 🤖 🚨 Introducing I3L: Iterative Interactive Imitation Learning for Whole-Body Mobile Manipulation Website i-3l.github.io Oq Paper arxiv.org/abs/2610.17748 bI Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

The back of the Navier-Stokes milestone shirt is the last line of the chain-of-thought from the solution:

and thank you to the untold number of people who put in the technical work, brick by brick over the generations, to get us to the point where such a wonder is possible.

In addition to transparency, I now believe frontier models should face mandatory third-party testing for cyber, bio, and autonomy risks—with the power to block or revoke deployment of models that pose catastrophic risk.

Tout cela est correct. Merci. Sauf une chose : j'ai bien créé FAIR en 2013, y compris la branche parisienne en 2015, et montréalaise en 2017. Mais j'en ai quitté la direction en 2018 pour devenir Chief AI Scientist: je me suis refocalisé sur la recherche (Self-Supervised Learning, JEPA, World Models, etc). @AntoineBordes et @joellepineau étaient les co-directeurs de 2018 à 2023, jusqu a ce qu'Antoine parte pour Helsing et que Joëlle prenne la direction de FAIR. Je n'ai jamais été impliqué dans les LLMs, ni pour la recherche (à FAIR), ni pour le développement (qui était dans le groupe de produit GenAI). J'applaudissais des gradins. Mes seules contributions aux LLMs ont été de défendre Galactica (en octobre 2022) contre les attaques aux vitriol de la twittersphere, de promouvoir le projet Llama en interne (développé par une douzaine de chercheurs à FAIR-Paris, dont @GuillaumeLample et Timothée Lacroix), d'aider à convaincre Mark Zuckerberg de créer un groupe de produit autour de Llama (GenAI, créé début 2023), et de convaincre la direction de distribuer Llama-2 en open source/open weight. Je n'étais pas du tout impliqué dans la direction de GenAI après sa création, préférant travailler sur la prochaine révolution: l'IA physique. Si vous cherchez un responsable pour le déception qu'a été Llama-4, c'est plutôt la pression de sortir un produit (trop) rapidement, qui a conduit à un excès de conservatisme et un manque d'innovation de la part de l'équipe de GenAI. Mon avis est que l'équipe aurait dû prendre un peu plus de temps et intégrer les dernières techniques venant de la recherche à FAIR. Mais ils n'en ont pas eu le loisir. En particulier, conserver plus de pouvoir de décision quant aux choix techniques dans les mains des créateurs originaux de Llama à Paris, au lieu de déplacer les décisions à Menlo Park, aurait peut-être permis de conserver les meilleurs talents un peu plus longtemps et de produire de meilleurs résultats.

@maxleiter So ready to do my part in pacing the frontier 🫡 :D

Scientific research is fundamental to advancing civilization and helping people globally to solve the most critical problems, from medicine to materials, from brain science to physics, and much beyond. This is only possible when scientists have access to the best tools of the time to conduct scientific research, including having access to AI-based tools.

@jestermolecule @HarshithLucky3 but only because...i actually do want the world to have tons of memory and people to put as much as they want in their computers, and it is fucking annoying that this was taken out of context. i have been arguing for the world to ramp up memory production for a long time.

the main thing i was excited about launching this week will be next week instead, but imo worth the wait! Sam Altman@sama big 🚢 this week and then for devday 🚢🚢🚢🚢🚢🚢 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

@DrJimFan @theworldlabs Indeed Jim, a camera conditioned world model with spatial context has so much horizontal usage including real2sim for robotics!

GPT-6 Sol and Luna are big improvements on intelligence, alignment, work output, coding, computer use, and more over their 5.6-family predecessors. They are also half the price per token, and even less per task!

@Mononofu @JensenHuang This is a false equivalence. Everyone has the right to keep their code private. The problem is when someone tries to stop OTHERS from open sourcing.

I'm definitely not anti-achievement and never criticized real achievements, including by Elon. I even own two Teslas. I do expose marketing stunts that, while cool on the surface, are not the achievements they are claimed to be. Compressed air thrusters might give you acceleration boosts in any direction. They might even make your car hover for a couple of seconds if you accept replacing the passenger seat by a 400 liter high-pressure air tank. But they are not a path to actual flying cars. The same way Burt Rutan's SpaceshipOne was never going to be a path to orbital flights (just bunny hops out of the atmosphere). I am anti-Musk when it comes to politics. His political actions, the massive dissemination of disinformation through X and other channels, and his support for authoritarian regimes and racist ideas have the effect of weakening democracy and weakening human decency and social progress around the world.

@birdabo i want you to have so much ram lets build more

Startups are naturally good at this; it is hard to keep a bigger company good at this and i think an underexplored space. pranav@prd_008 OpenAI's superpower is the ability to swiftly assemble an empowered group of highly capable people to work on the most important and urgent thing at any point of time. No one really cares for org lines. It's how we stay nimble, seize opportunities, and recover from mistakes. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

I have absolutely never ever "asked" to stop R&D on LLMs. In fact, I was very supportive of LLM efforts at Meta. Just look up my public advocacy for Galactica (November 2022), and the open sourcing of OPT-175B (May 2022), and of the Llama herd (mid 2023). I was actually influential in convincing the Meta leadership to start an AI-first product division built around Llama in January 2023. I've always said that LLMs were impressive, useful, and had amazing potential. I've also always said they were an off-ramp on the path towards human-level AI. Stop making me say things I didn't say or claim that I somehow hindered LLM R&D at Meta. That's BS.

There will be no AI jobpocalypse. The story that AI will lead to massive unemployment is stoking unnecessary fear. AI — like any other technology — does affect jobs, but telling overblown stories of large-scale unemployment is irresponsible and damaging. Let’s put a stop to it. I’ve expressed skepticism about the jobpocalypse in previous posts. I’m glad to see that the popular press is now pushing back on this narrative. The image below features some recent headlines. Software engineering is the sector most affected by AI tools, as coding agents race ahead. Yet hiring of software engineers remains strong! So while there are examples of AI taking away jobs, the trends strongly suggest the net job creation is vastly greater than the job destruction — just like earlier waves of technology. Further, despite all the exciting progress in AI, the U.S. unemployment rate remains a healthy 4.3%. Why is the AI jobpocalypse narrative so popular? For one thing, frontier AI labs have a strong incentive to tell stories that make AI technology sound more powerful. At their most extreme, they promote science-fiction scenarios of AI “taking over” and causing human extinction. If a technology can replace many employees, surely that technology must be very valuable! Also, a lot of SaaS software companies charge around $100-$1000 per user/year. But if an AI company can replace an employee who makes $100,000 — or make them 50% more productive — then charging even $10,000 starts to look reasonable. By anchoring not to typical SaaS prices but to salaries of employees, AI companies can charge a lot more. Additionally, businesses have a strong incentive to talk about layoffs as if they were caused by AI. After all, talking about how they’re using AI to be far more productive with fewer staff makes them look smart. This is a better message than admitting they overhired during the pandemic when capital was abundant due to low interest rates and a massive government financial stimulus. To be clear, I recognize that AI is causing a lot of people’s work to change. This is hard. This is stressful. (And to some, it can be fun.) I empathize with everyone affected. At the same time, this is very different from predicting a collapse of the job market. Societies are capable of telling themselves stories for years that have little basis in reality and lead to poor society-wide decision making. For example, fears over nuclear plant safety led to under-investment in nuclear power. Fears of the “population bomb” in the 1960s led countries to implement harsh policies to reduce their populations. And worries about dietary fat led governments to promote unhealthy high-sugar diets for decades. Now that mainstream media is openly skeptical about the jobpocalypse, I hope these stories will start to lose their teeth (much like fears of AI-driven human extinction have). Contrary to the predictions of an AI jobpocalypse, I predict the opposite: There will be an AI jobapalooza! AI will lead to a lot more good AI engineering jobs, and I’m also optimistic about the future of the overall job market. What AI engineers do will be different from traditional software engineering, and many of these jobs will be in businesses other than traditional large employers of developers. In non-AI roles, too, the skills needed will change because of AI. That makes this a good time to encourage more people to become proficient in AI, and make sure they’re ready for the different but plentiful jobs of the future! [Original text in The Batch newsletter.]

1/2 Thanks Gavin for an especially thoughtful exchange. I don't usually spend much time on social media but I wanted to engage here because it really brings out the heart of an important conversation. First, on regulation, I think that “either concentrate it in the hands of a chosen few companies and politicians via regulation or distribute it widely” is a false choice. I know that there’s a sort of Silicon Valley shorthand where regulation = regulatory capture = concentration of power, but I’ve always found this to be an overly simplified picture of the world. Many people outside this bubble think of regulation as something that constrains corporate power and benefits ordinary people. I don’t necessarily agree with that perspective either, rather I think it’s complicated and really depends on what the “regulation” consists of. But in particular I think that those in the “regulation = regulatory capture = concentration of power” frame often underrate the decentralizing power of objective and fair institutional processes. A crude analogy is that the formal court system can sometimes feel stuffy and elitist, but it does a much better job of defending the rights of vulnerable individuals than the alternative, mob justice. At their best, institutions can vest power in ideas rather than people, and thereby decentralize that power. This is why Anthropic has always made its policy proposals very carefully. We try very hard to make proposals that disadvantage (slow down) frontier AI companies while *advantaging* smaller competitors. California’s SB53 (which we supported), and even the much-maligned SB 1047 (which we were ambivalent on), completely exempt any company below a certain amount of revenue or model training costs from being covered at all (it was $500M for SB 53, lower for 1047 but we objected to that). More recently the testing process we’ve advocated for at CAISI and the White House involves more rigorous tests for frontier models than off-frontier models — something that differentially advantages challengers. Similarly, the “Pacing the Frontier” letter envisions (or at least Anthropic’s preferred implementation of it envisions) modulating the pace of the very best models while not constraining those who are catching up. This hurts the business interests of the frontier labs and helps challengers, including open-weights! Overall my view is that AI is *structurally* a technology that tends to concentrate power, for reasons that have nothing to do with regulation (more to do with the extreme implications of the scaling laws). Open-weights do help some with this but are nowhere near a sufficient solution because they simply shift the concentration somewhat to those with the most compute and chips (which are roughly the frontier labs plus maybe hardware providers). By contrast I think the right “rules of the road” can simultaneously (a) address AI’s cyber/bio/alignment risks, (b) institutionally constrain the power of the frontier AI companies, and (c) leave room for open-weights models while also addressing the specific risks that they bring. BTW I do not think that the events of the last few months have “failed to result in [my] preferred regulatory path”. The approach that the Trump administration is reported to be taking — pre-deployment testing for frontier models, and also testing of open-weights models when they get closer to the frontier — is one that I am very supportive of, though of course I have to see the details to be sure. I am also supportive of Demis Hassabis’ ideas around a FINRA-like entity. This contrasts with six months ago when most of the industry was still pushing for preemption of all state regulation and no apparent federal approach either. Gavin Baker@GavinSBaker Sholto, thank you for setting the record straight. Larger issue is that multiple very serious people in Silicon Valley have heard some variation of this and believe it to be true. And the reason

Good move by @JensenHuang . The Nvidia letter is well written and worth reading. As we saw with the OpenAI-Hugging Face hack, we need open models and harnesses for defense. Lets stop believing the PR that closed models are safer. - that's just regulatory capture. Jensen Huang@JensenHuang Attackers have frontier AI. Defenders need a frontier AI ecosystem—the best open and closed models, force-multiplied by a global community. During the Hugging Face incident, closed AI blocked essential forensics. An open-weight frontier model helped contain the intrusion. That’s why we created the Open Secure AI Alliance. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

OpenWorker -- an open source agent that doesn't just chat but completes tasks on your laptop -- just released a new version with many features for security workflows. After our initial release, many users found it especially useful for cybersecurity. Attackers are already using AI; OpenWorker is committed to giving defenders the same leverage. Running an agent requires both (i) A model and (ii) A harness (the software around the model). Because the OpenWorker harness is fully open source, security teams can audit it to make sure we haven't built any backdoors that exfiltrate your code and data to some company or even a foreign adversary. OpenWorker now comes with built-in cybersecurity agents for (i) Scanning your code for vulnerabilities. (ii) Scanning dependencies for supply chain injections. (iii) Checking your cloud security configuration for attack surfaces. This enables developers to do much more security work before deployment (part of what's called the "shift left" movement). You choose the model: you can run open weight models fully locally so sensitive code never leaves your machine. This helps with legitimate security work (like reproducing a known exploit to defend against it) that can trigger refusals in leading closed models. Or use your ChatGPT subscription, or stealth preview models like Ox Alpha, or any model via API key. Thanks also to all the open source contributors! Join work with @rohitcprasad so please follow him too to get more frequent updates. Try it out: openworker.com Code: github.com/andrewyng/open…

ChatGPT can now generate a custom UI for you! OpenAI@OpenAI GPT-6 and Intelligent UI, now rolling out in ChatGPT for everyone. Intelligent UI in ChatGPT delivers fast, interactive answers that make everyday questions more visual, complex topics easier to grasp, and interactive tools for your task available on the spot. Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

6.1 Sol at 1/5th of the price of Astra, and 95% cache read discount! Extremely capable model. Tibo@thsottiaux Introducing 6.1 Sol, near Astra intelligence at one fifth of the price of Astra and 95% cache read discount. It is an absolute workhorse. Combined with ultrafast for 8X speeded available today for Astra and coming soon for 6.1 Sol. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

dot is my favorite openai product so far! it is amazing to me that each day it feels noticably better as it learns more of my workflow and style. having it do the stuff i don't like doing--and usually just builds up as a gravity well of dread--has me very happy.

The basic idea is easy and v0 is a hackathon project. The product here is a lot closer to *it actually works*, for enterprise grade deployments, and after quite a bit of internal experimentation and iteration. It’s kind of hard to describe other than (per the post) it’s writing majority of code, it’s deeply integrated, multiplayer, and it starts to feel like everyone is a manager. So I understand it looks easy to dismiss on quick reading but it’s not some LLM Q&A with RAG over Slack, it’s not even OpenClaw adjacent, it’s a different way of working entirely, for people and teams. I work from Slack now.

This is correct, I think a number of people on the tl didn’t read past the title and made inferences and comparisons that are just wrong and then use it as an opportunity to take cheap shots. This is not a “feature” like some crappy Slack bot and it’s certainly not a Claw, though it has aspects of it. It is an org-level harness. The difference will become clearer over time.

Today we announced the Claude-led discovery of a molecular machine that we suspect could represent a new gene editing mechanism. Its precise function, biotechnological utility (if any), or level of significance is not yet clear, but at minimum it is work I would have been proud to do as a PhD student. The work was done mostly, though not entirely, by Claude: our life sciences team suggested a broad area of research, Claude read through the literature and a bunch of genome data and discovered something interesting, then Claude proposed experiments to verify the discovery and our team carried them out. It’s easy to dismiss this as a one-off or curiosity, but we’ve repeatedly seen a pattern where AI performance in new intellectual domains goes from weak to superhuman in a matter of a few years. In 2023 models struggled to do math at the level of an average high-school student. In 2024 they started to do well on math competitions for the best high-schoolers in the country, in 2025 they started to solve minor open problems, in early 2026 more significant open problems, and in late 2026 they are beginning to solve the top few open problems in all of mathematics. We believe AI for biology is on a similar exponential trend. The main difference between biology and mathematics, of course, is that math can be done purely theoretically, while biology requires experimentation. Some have used this to draw the conclusion that AI’s utility in biology will be limited. We think this is wrong. As we’ve demonstrated today, humans can collaborate with AI to perform the experiments, validate key results in a few weeks and, if necessary, work with the AI to iterate on what they find. Eventually it may even be possible for Claude itself to safely perform the experiments by autonomously controlling lab equipment, with appropriate safeguards in place, but we aren’t doing that today (our lab is also a BSL1/BSL2 facility that doesn't handle materials dangerous to humans). More broadly, biomedical advancement has many stages — from fundamental biology discoveries, to translational research, to drug discovery, clinical trials, and finally the actual delivery of medicines and health care to patients. We are also interested in these later stages, but even simply accelerating the first stage of fundamental biological discoveries has the potential to speed up and broaden the entire pipeline. Improving our understanding of biology and sharpening biologists’ tools can drive forward all of the later stages, for example by identifying new drug targets, finding new therapeutic modalities, allowing for more precise measurement, and speeding up the experimental loop which itself further accelerates our understanding of biology. This will not in itself speed up clinical trial times, but if it succeeds it could greatly increase the number of promising candidates that go into the pipeline — an increase in throughput even though latency remains. In Machines of Loving Grace, I wrote about AI’s potential to “cure most diseases in 5-10 years” — a goal that sounds impossible, but one I believe is just barely possible if AI is applied to every stage of the pipeline. The first step is showing that AI can first help with, and then drive, biological discoveries. Claude’s discovery is the latest in a line of related prior work that goes back decades, beginning with systems like CRISPR, and continuing with discoveries like the bridge recombinase and VIPR in the past few years. Recently, there has been heightened interest in systems based on reverse transcriptase (RT) enzymes, the enzyme underlying the system Claude identified. And most recently, a Stanford team working independently described a novel RT system with an associated non-coding array that is in some ways similar to the one Claude found, though they are distinct systems that evolved independently from each other. I believe that we’re at the very beginning of finding such systems and de

Atlas runs on real-time!!🚀 World Labs@theworldlabs One more thing… Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet

“Loop engineering” is a hot buzzphrase after mentions of it by Boris Cherny (Claude Code’s creator) and Peter Steinberger (OpenClaw's creator) went viral on social media. Loops are now a key part of how we get AI agents to iterate at length to build software. In this letter, I’d like to share my 3 key loops, shown in the image below, for building 0-to-1 products. These loops guide not just how I build software, but also how I decide what software to build. Agentic coding loop: Given a product specification and optionally a set of evals (that is, a dataset against which to measure performance), we can have an AI agent write code, test its work, and keep iterating until the code is bug-free and meets its specification. This idea of closing the loop took off around the end of last year, and it has been a game changer in enabling coding agents to work longer productively without human intervention. For example, over the weekend, I was building an app for my daughter to practice typing, and my coding agent could easily work for around an hour, using a web browser to check what it had built multiple times before getting back to me, without needing my intervention. The engineering loop executes quickly. Every few minutes, the coding agent might build and test a new version of the software. I hear frequently from developers who are finding new ways to engineer more effective engineering loops. This is an active area of invention! Developer feedback loop: In this loop, a developer examines the current product and steers the coding agent to improve it. Last year, a lot of developers (including me) were acting as the QA (quality assurance) function for our coding agents, manually finding bugs and then asking the agent to fix them. But with coding agents much more able to test their own code, the amount of time we need to spend on this function has decreased significantly. This allows us to make higher-level product decisions, such as what key features to offer, where the UI needs improvement, and so on. The developer-feedback loop operates over time intervals between tens of minutes and hours — that's how frequently a developer might review a product and give feedback. In the case of the typing app, I changed my mind a few times about the visual design, what cat costumes she can unlock as she learns (she loves cats), and the user flow for a grown-up to log in and steer the child's learning experience. When a developer has a clear vision for what to build, it is still a lot of work to translate that vision into a specification for a coding agent to implement. Further, after the developer has seen an implementation, they might update (or perhaps clarify) the spec to steer it toward what they want. If you find that the system repeatedly runs into certain problems, building a set of evals for the agent becomes useful. AI-native teams are increasingly using AI to help shape product direction, for example, automating the gathering and analysis of usage data, summarizing written and verbal customer feedback, or carrying out competitive analysis. However, for pretty much all the products I’m involved in, I see humans as having a significant context advantage over current AI systems — we know a lot more than the AI system about the users and the context the product has to operate in — and thus humans play a critical role. Many people describe this human contribution as “taste,” but I prefer to think of it as humans having a context advantage, since that gives us a clearer path to helping AI systems get better. This also speaks to why this step can’t be automated: So long as the human knows something the AI does not, human-in-the-loop is needed to to inject that knowledge into the system. External feedback loop: This includes a wide range of tactics like asking a few friends for feedback, launching to alpha testers, or putting the code into production with A/B testing. These tactics are usually slow