Real Reasoning Requires Recurrence.

Just watched the @netflix Instadocs about the @OpenAI cyberattack on @huggingface. Super disappointing, as they went for maximum anthropomorphism of the technology and full doomer mode. I spent more than two hours with them trying to correct all their mistakes and ground this in reality, explaining that agents are technological systems, not aliens. But it looks like the drive to scare people for maximum views was too strong. Also, they didn’t mention the lack of containment and monitoring of the agents, how closed-model safeguards blocked our defensive work, or how we defended ourselves with AI using an open model. And that we still lack a lot of information and transparency, including full agent traces and that companies need to remain accountable for what their agents do. It ends up being a fun sci-fi movie though!

7/ These findings show that representation of conscious and suppressed content alternates every ~ 60 ms. Thus conscious perception does not reside in a specific brain region, but rather a specific temporal phase.

Japan's Meteorological Agency accidentally issued an early warning for a 9.9-magnitude earthquake. The real magnitude was 6.9, according to the USGS. No tsunami alert.

META’S HEAD OF AI SLAMS AI BENCHMARKS "it’s some PhD student who made these benchmarks" "you’re kind of outsourcing all of your product thinking to this viral benchmark" "so clearly that’s wrong" I think there is something to this. the whole industry developed so rapidly that there was hardly any time to establish proper benchmarking. companies used what was available, competitors then had to catch up on the same benchmarks, and some of them eventually became industry standards apparently there is quite a lot of randomness and chance in how we are measuring AI progress today

(1/7) I'd like to provide some additional context for the remarks that can be found in this interview. (2/7) My discomfort with the attention being paid to existential risk---and with the ongoing dominance of the public discussion of such risks by a few so-called thought leaders---is that there's an elephant in the room that is being missed. That elephant is the effect of all of this discussion on young people, and indeed the effect---beginning with social media a decade ago---of information technology on young lives broadly speaking. (3/7) I recently read an interview by Jill Lepore in which she reports on discussions that she had recently with a group of college students: "They had just three things to say. One, social media completely destroyed their childhoods. Two, AI is destroying their college education and their likely prospects for employment. And three, what the hell are we all doing?" To add a fourth bullet that I've heard in similar discussions: "I'm not going to have children, because the existential risk is just too high." (4/7) Please contemplate such a statement, those of you who think that it's OK that the public, widely diffused, discussion coming from seemingly authoritative figures is so adamant about existential risk. (5/7) Let me add that I have little interest in a debate about what "superintelligence" might mean, or whether we're currently seeing the emergence of superintelligence. For what it's worth, I would certainly agree that the solution of extremely challenging math problems (for example) exhibits a very impressive form of intelligence, although I would want to argue that such intelligence is impossible to dissociate from the collective of humans that provided data to the machine learning system (which itself has become a kind of collective). (6/7) Such philosophical debates are entertaining and even important, but when they then head in the direction of "when such superintelligence emerges, there's a good chance that it will want to kill all humans", I say "science fiction". Again, I don't think that it's bad to consider such thoughts, but I strongly believe that it's bad for society, and especially young people, for such thoughts, unaccompanied by any serious real-world analysis, to become a dominant form of discourse of the era. (7/7) We are damaging human lives, and the consequences of that damage will no doubt be a major theme of the next several decades.

We were able to fine tune an open weight model (Qwen3.5-9B) on proprietary internal data at @coinbase, and it out performed frontier models, at much lower cost and speed, for a specialized task (fraud prevention in this case). I think we'll see more of this pattern inside companies. The frontier models are amazing generalists. But increasingly you'll see specialist models out perform on more narrow tasks, either working on teams, or by themselves. We're making it easy to fine tune models internally for our employees. We even have a skill for it in our internal harness that makes it easy to spin these up and start training them: "/fine-tune-and-serve-llm I want to fine-tune Qwen for payments risk review. help me get started" I imagine we'll have some backend services that could be replaced entirely by this new architecture.

Meta AI Chief @alexandr_wang on China: “I've personally changed my own opinion on this matter. In the past I was very worried about China. I had read these old speeches that were given by PRC officials in the past that talked about how they viewed AI as this opportunity to leapfrog the West. But as time has gone on, I think we’re painting them to be too much of a boogeyman when they're going to see the same things that we see in terms of this is powerful technology. There's going to be a lot of shared goals in making sure that AI goes well.” Full HUGE* Conversation out now.

Greg Brockman of @OpenAI on the new security loop: point every model release at your own systems, find the vulnerabilities, automate it. "We took 25% of our production engineers and said, 'Sorry, all your projects are on hold. You are now defending. You are now up-leveling our security architecture. You're going to use the models to find all the holes.' And we found a number of serious issues, and we fixed them." "We found some new problems, but eventually it saturated. We basically have found, to our knowledge, all of the P0s, all of the critical problems that Astra is smart enough to find. And of course, there will be a new model, there will be a new round." "You want to be in this tight loop of new cyber capability drops, you deploy it against your systems, you find the new holes, and ideally, you've managed to automate this, what we call defense factory. That's what we're building internally." @gdb @bhorowitz

I follow some cyber sec peeps and that looks like a strawman to me. That's not what they're saying. They're saying cyber sec has been shockingly inadequate at the frontier labs and should be taken way more seriously. They're not saying that's the only thing that needs doing.

I follow some cyber sec peeps and that looks like a strawman to me. That's not what they're saying. They're saying cyber sec has been shockingly inadequate at the frontier labs and should be taken way more seriously. They're not saying that's the only thing that needs doing.