Ty Feng retweeted
We're open-sourcing RL360, the RL infrastructure behind K2 Horizon's six domain experts: 8,192 concurrent sandboxes, 150 steps in 7 days, ~1.3M rollouts.
Long-horizon agentic RL runs thousands of agents in real sandboxes on tasks that take minutes. Some of those sandboxes crash mid-task, and a crash arrives as the same low score as a wrong answer.
Without infrastructure that can keep up, GPUs are underutilized and the model gets penalized for system crashes rather than its own mistakes.
RL360 is built for this. We share how it works, what broke at scale, and what we learned in the thread.
Code: github.com/ifm-ai/RL360
Run: wandb.ai/mbzuai-llm/rl360-pu…
We found DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 beats GPT 6 Sol on our multi-step offensive cybersecurity task. Sol was tested via the Daybreak trusted access program.
We have been building a cybersecurity benchmark based on simulated corporate networks. This is a valuable indicator for the cyber-risk a model poses if in the hands of a bad actor. We plan to make the full evaluation public in the coming weeks but wanted to share our first immediate finding here.
Ty Feng retweeted
We looked at TerminalBench 4.0 and found a lot of issues. After fixing the issues Sonnet 5.5 scores 89.2%. So, TerminalBench is already mostly saturated.
Along the way we found a lot of crazy stuff, including reward hacks in the published transcripts.
Ty Feng retweeted
I agree with one thing. Making linear attention work at scale takes talent, and not every lab has it. The rest doesn’t hold up. In order:
(1) “Why are the Western labs choosing to drop context instead of compressing it?”
The first rigorous, controlled, large-budget test of compression was what we did at NVIDIA’s in June 2024(arxiv.org/abs/2406.07887). We trained 8B Mamba, Mamba-2 and Transformer models on the same data for up to 3.5T tokens. Additionally we trained an 8B hybrid of 43% Mamba-2, 7% attention and 50% MLP and we showed it beats the 8B Transformer on all 12 standard tasks (+2.65 points on average). Interestingly this hybrid variant was up to 8× faster at generation, and matched or beat the Transformer across 23 additional long-context tasks.
This is seven months before MiniMax-01, fifteen before Qwen3-Next, sixteen before Kimi Linear. And since then NVIDIA has been shipping a hybrid architecture, with modifications, repeatedly. Good examples are Nemotron-H, Nemotron Nano 2, and Nemotron 3 (Nano, Super, Ultra) which is a Mixture-of-Experts hybrid Mamba-Transformer family with context up to 1M tokens, post-trained with multi-environment RL. Nano keeps exactly 6 attention layers out of 52 and the other 46 are Mamba-2 and MoE blocks. Super is 120B total / 12B active, pre-trained on 25 trillion tokens. IBM’s Granite 4.0 (October 2025) interleaves Mamba-2 and attention layers at 9:1. To this list, you can also add Jamba (AI21, March 2024, a 52B production hybrid), RecurrentGemma (Google, April 2024), Codestral Mamba (Mistral, July 2024) and Phi-4-mini-flash (Microsoft, July 2025).
(2) “SWA is a lossless local transformation, therefore superior.?”
SWA is lossless inside the window and zero outside of it and it is exactly why it fails so badly. (arxiv.org/abs/2509.24552) for example shows that larger sliding windows hurts the long-context performance. This is because a precise local softmax lets the model avoid training the long-term memory it would otherwise rely on. They show that a hybrid with a 128-token window beat the same hybrid with a 2048 window by 16 NIAH points (88.9% higher recall), and at 131k the short-window models still retrieved about 30% of needles while the 2048-window model was near 0%. And the same degradation from larger training windows shows up in local-global stacks that alternate SWA with full attention ( e.g. the GPT-OSS/Gemma recipe).
(3) “Compression is strictly harder to serve.”
This was true in 2024. But now vLLM, FlashInfer, SGLang and TensorRT-LLM serve hybrid linear models extensively and without any issues. The most exciting part is the recent FlashInfer additions that let you use chunked gated-delta-rule prefill and gated-delta-rule decode kernels, with an SM100 (Blackwell) path. It even supports much newer models like Gated DeltaNet-2 and also lets you use efficient kernels for training. Also, let's not forget ReplaySSM (arxiv.org/abs/2610.13778) which enables a very optimized speculative decoding path for linear attention.
(4) “If you write all the kernels anyway, why not roll your own attention in the meantime?”
On NVIDIA hardware, linear attention is just as free as attention. The Mamba CUDA kernels exist. flash-linear-attention, the Triton library that the GDN and KDA layers in Qwen3-Next, Qwen3.5 and Kimi Linear use, was written for NVIDIA GPUs, and vLLM and SGLang use it directly instead of reimplementing it. Megatron has supported Mamba-2 training since 2024. A Western lab on H100s that wants a hybrid doesn’t need to write a kernel. It can just import it. So kernel cost can’t be what keeps them on using the SWA.
Also consider that decode is memory-bandwidth-bound, so the cost of every generated token is dominated by reading the KV cache, which grows with context length. A constant-size state removes that growth. That’s why Nemotron is mostly Mamba-2, and why Nemotron 3 Super gets 2.2× the throughput of GPT-OSS-120B at 8K in / 16K out.
(5) “For your first release, it’s a much safer option to ship SWA. Everyone knows it’s working just fine.”?
Safe compared to what? “Safe” should mean proven in production at scale. By that standard the hybrids are the safe choice and SWA is the bet.
Look at what has shipped on Gated DeltaNet alone. Qwen3-Next, then Qwen3.5 from 27B up to 397B-A17B, then Qwen3.6. Kimi Linear, then Kimi K3 which is a 2.8 trillion parameters, open weights, 1M-token context, a 3:1 hybrid of Kimi Delta Attention and gated MLA. GLM-5.3-Flash on the same KDA layout.
KDA is Gated DeltaNet with channel-wise instead of scalar gating. Right now, three frontier labs run their model in production with 1M context, RL post-training, etc. all on the same layer. Meanwhile SWA is the architecture with the documented issue. It fails past the window and drags any hybrid it sits in down to pure-SWA recall. And when MiniMax reached for an SWA hybrid as the fallback in M2, it failed and they went to full attention instead.
In my view, shipping SWA for a first release in late 2026 isn’t conservative. It’s picking the layer with a known failure mode because it needs no new code.
Given Meta also shipped SWA, I decided to go deeper into the "is linear attention a Chinese psyop" rabbit hole. Plus, as a person who spent some time working on architectures.
1. I would frame the question the following way: “Why are the Western labs choosing to drop context instead of compressing it?" If you think about it this way, there is a clear advantage of SWA: it preserves the full signal from the local context, while linear attention compresses everything, losing some information about local context as well. Given that the local memory is roughly equal, as well as the time complexity and assuming that you believe in "only global signal layers and only local signal layers", SWA seems to be superior. It's a lossless "local signal" transformation. Thus, the discourse about the West not adopting a "superior" architecture is not entirely correct IMO.
2. Compression is strictly harder to serve. We saw this a lot internally; inference engineers hate it. One of the reasons is all the stuff is optimised around KV cache, and recurrent state is breaking lots of nice properties: prefix state now needs snapshots at block boundaries, spec dec needs per-token rollback. RL becomes problematic.
So why do the Chinese seem to adopt compression anyway?
3. Hardware but in a bit of a weird way. On Hopper/Blackwell, you already have FA; on Ascend, etc., one needs to write all the kernels in Triton or TileLang. If you write all the kernels anyway, why not roll your own attention in the meantime? You're hiring a lot of kernel people that need to write all this stuff.
4. Selection bias. If you take a closer look at the Wester labs that ship SWA (usually OSS ones, we don't know what Ant/OAI/GDM ship to the closed models), they are publishing their first or second model iterations. For your first release, it's a much safer option to ship SWA. Everyone knows it's working just fine. (This was our own motivation at Mellum). They may switch to something smarter down the line and I believe this already somewhat happened, take Nemotron for example. The only case I'm aware of people actually going backwards is Poolside??? I'd expect OSS labs to start digging into compression along with subsequent releases.
5. It seems that talent plays a big role. Linear attention field is historically pretty much Chinese and Chinese labs seem to borrow the ideas from each other. Wester labs are mostly GDM/OAI alums, which are likely used to SWA (see GPT-OSS and Gemma).
To summarise, I expect linear attention (and whatever DeepSeek is cooking) to start slowly being adopted in the West with the next model releases and when the inference infra catches up.
Ty Feng retweeted
I've been thinking a lot about data bottlenecks, and I'm not sure who else is screaming this from the hilltops. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills looking at the jagged frontier thinking it's smooth if you order by data volume.
the spikes in the jagged frontier are tasks with tons of data (either static or simulated; think math, programming, games), and the valleys are tasks with little or no data (cooking a lasagna, olfaction, manufacturing a passenger train). I don't know of any exceptions.
if you order the jagged frontier by data it looks like a spiral frontier. models are superintelligent where we have enormous data, and progressively less so as we have less data. some tasks may draw data from static lakes of data, some may be from limitless waterfalls from simulators that convert compute into data. but ultimately, intelligence on a task is proportional to the data absorbed by the model for that task.
scaling laws are real. if you are not bound by compute or algorithms (increasingly we are not), then intelligence is proportional to data. since we don't have a very good notion of task similarity, it's often difficult to know if data for one task will help you with another, without training a model and seeing. but, it doesn't seem like chess data helps much with math performance and vice versa. so when I refer to data, I refer to data that is task-relevant.
maybe we call this the 'no shortcuts hypothesis'. all the rules-of-thumb about learning are at the root, the same -- Malcom Gladwell's 10,000 hours, Moravec's Paradox, Scaling Laws, the Bitter Lesson, Age of experience. If your learning system (model, brain, whatever) is unconstrained by compute, intelligence is proportional to accumulated experience. no shortcuts. want to be superhuman at chess? play all the chess, more than the whole species combined (good thing a model can do that in 24 hours). want to be superhuman at math? build a math simulator and lock the model in it and run it faster than reality. superhuman at coding? first, collect all public examples of humans writing and responding to code ever, make the model learn from that first, and then lock the model in a simulator where it fixes bug after bug, faster than realtime.
superhuman at image generation? no shortcuts. but here, we don't have a simulator. so now we're moving around the spiral frontier away from closed-loop into large static lakes. still big enough to be superhuman though, which also applies to video, text, and audio. oh! and once you have a superhuman model, you can use it to bootstrap other tasks by making a superhuman model a judge on other tasks.
let's keep marching along the spiral frontier, out of the realm of data abundance, simulators and large static lakes.
biology? no shortcuts. go get a ton of data. and be freaking careful! you can get bad data in biology pretty easily. tilting a well plate 5 degrees the wrong way can ruin an experiment. so make sure you understand the domain, otherwise you're going to have to filter a lot out.
robotics? no shortcuts. get the data. if you can build a simulator, do it, but be mindful our simulators don't have perfect correspondence with reality. so, build an arm farm. fold 1M shirts, put 1B balls in cups. play ping pong forever.
olfaction? no shortcuts. smell the world. build a laboratory of chemical sensors, an international network of trained sensory panelists, a scent production factory, and link them all together. make millions of samples. smell millions of samples. take billions of chemical sensor readings.
I totally buy super intelligence as a concept because I feel it, I use it for coding, the breakthrough math results speak for themselves. I see RSI coming, because how could an all-digital task like ML research and model building not fall to the current paradigm? But the notion that AI will come for everything, all at once, irrespective of domain, feels silly, because there are no shortcuts. if you want a specific form of intelligence, you have to get the data.
looking at you @willdepue, I feel like we're both seeing the same thing
🤖 Made with AI
Ty Feng retweeted
Some thoughts about the frontier AI business right now:
1. The recipe for making AI coding models is widely known throughout the industry and all of Silicon Valley. There is no secret to this. It is primarily RL envs + Compute.
2. I predict in single digit years most companies / individuals will use free AI coding models. Free meaning sold at chip time (cost). There will be no real business in selling AI coding models, as there is no inherent moat in making AI coding models.
3. Frontier labs without cash producing businesses will be unable to subsidize AI coding models and will transition to selling other forms of intelligence like biology, chemistry, pharmaceuticals etc.
4. Most companies you see that are still behind in coding models like @Muse and @SpaceXSI are mainly due to lack of RL envs and harder tasks. What I am saying here is that these gaps will further close, as these companies make more RL envs.
Ty Feng retweeted
Prediction
ML silicon started off unified (single GPUs/TPUs)
Then grew into larger sharded clusters (NVL72s)
And is now beginning to grow into more heterogeneous, disaggregated structures. Inference providers are realizing they can get better tok/watt using GPUs for prefill/FFNs and WSE/Raptors for decode/attention layers and CPUs for agent orchestration.
I think that this branching will continue as we get independent chips for projections, FFNs, attention, normalizations, tool-use, etc. A dataflow-based rack entirely designed around the interconnect and data-locality to minimize power. I think we will look back in 5 years on the idea of using the same cores for both FFNs and attention layers as absurd.
The science of silicon is extremely advanced, but the engineering putting it to use is still in its infancy. Much of this is because we were able to lean on Moores law for so long we could afford to not worry so much about our hardware designs. Now this naivety is beginning to show itself.
arxiv.org/abs/2608.03741
1/6
“An Empirical Study of Harness Design for Coding Agents” tested 176 setups across 4 models and 2 benchmarks. It focused on context management, planning, and tools. The big finding: what helps one model can add overhead for another.
5/6
Tools showed another trade-off. Nemotron 30B needed structured tools. But 550B could bundle more work into shell commands: on SWE-Bench, bash-only raised success from 65.8% to 69.4% and cut cost by 53%. Easier individual actions can mean more back-and-forth.
1/8
Two recent reads connect a pretty uncomfortable set of dots: your coding agent can be hijacked through the API service you use—or through the model weights you download. Both attacks can leave normal requests looking perfectly fine.
7/8
The distinction matters: response signing could catch a router changing a model's output. It wouldn't make a backdoored model's own output safe. In either case, tool permissions, sandboxing, and network access decide how far the attack can go.
8/8
I now see three separate trust decisions: who routes the request, who published the weights, and what the agent can execute. A clean benchmark doesn't settle all three.
Reads: arxiv.org/abs/2604.08407 + projectdiscovery.io/research…











