Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

China just released an open source AI model that matches the best closed models from OpenAI and Anthropic. Gavin Baker explained exactly how they did it and the answer should concern every American AI lab. The model is called GLM 5.2. It was built by Z. AI. You get... 744 billion parameters, 1 million token context window and its MIT license, meaning anyone can download it, fork it, build a company on it, with no restrictions and no Dario. It scored 51 points on the artificial analysis intelligence index. The highest score any open weight model has ever achieved. It beat GPT 5.5 on the frontier software engineering benchmark. It trails Claude Opus 4.8 by less than one percentage point. And it costs 85% less to run than GPT 5.5 for comparable performance. Gavin Baker said on the All-In podcast that this model has challenged some of his beliefs. Then he explained how China built it. The method is called distillation. Just think of tens of thousands of phones and computers running simultaneously, all hitting the frontier model APIs through masked accounts, asking specific questions, and harvesting what happens inside the model when it answers. Every reasoning step, every token. The entire thinking process gets recorded and fed back into the Chinese model during training. It is a cheat sheet. It is the answer key to the exam. And here is the part that should worry everyone. Sacks said it plainly. China was already nine months behind American models. But now that GLM 5.2 is good enough to run its own reinforcement learning, it can improve itself without needing to distill from American models anymore. The cheat sheet let them get close enough to start writing their own answers. Sacks said we are six months behind on the model and 24 months behind on silicon and they are only a few months behind in total. The Z. AI founder told Elon Musk directly that open weight fable-level capability will be here before Q1 2027. Every restriction Anthropic lobbied for, every self-imposed safety guardrail, every month of delay in releasing American frontier models accelerated this. The Chinese labs were not under those restrictions. They were not going to wait. The composable model future Gavin described, where every enterprise runs a frontier model alongside their own fine-tuned open weight model, is coming regardless of what American labs do next. The question is just whether the open weight half of that stack is American or Chinese. Right now it is Chinese. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcastshow more

Ihtesham Ali

45,349 subscribers

85,915 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

China is once again unsettling its American competitors in the AI race. Chinese labs have returned to the spotlight with the unveiling of GLM 5.2, described as the most powerful AI model ever trained in China — and one of the leading open‑source models worldwide. 🔍 Key highlights of “GLM 5.2”: ♦️ It is considered the strongest AI model developed in China to date, and ranks among the smartest open‑source models available. ♦️ It operates at a cost less than one‑tenth that of Anthropic’s latest models, making it a far more economical option. ♦️ It is likely to attract developers and companies seeking powerful, low‑cost models — especially amid growing technical and geopolitical restrictions. ♦️ Some evaluations place the model among the top globally, trailing OpenAI’s models while outperforming several competitors in specialized benchmarks and performance tests.

China is once again unsettling its American competitors in the AI race. Chinese labs have returned to the spotlight with the unveiling of GLM 5.2, described as the most powerful AI model ever trained in China — and one of the leading open‑source models worldwide. 🔍 Key highlights of “GLM 5.2”: ♦️ It is considered the strongest AI model developed in China to date, and ranks among the smartest open‑source models available. ♦️ It operates at a cost less than one‑tenth that of Anthropic’s latest models, making it a far more economical option. ♦️ It is likely to attract developers and companies seeking powerful, low‑cost models — especially amid growing technical and geopolitical restrictions. ♦️ Some evaluations place the model among the top globally, trailing OpenAI’s models while outperforming several competitors in specialized benchmarks and performance tests.

China pulse 🇨🇳

14,018 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

This is the moment Chinese AI beat American AI. One of the largest public crypto companies in the world just DUMPED OpenAI and Anthropic. Coinbase switched to open-weight Chinese models from Zhipu and DeepSeek, and shaved nearly 50% off the company's internal AI spending. The numbers are absolutely ridiculous: Running the same enterprise workload through Anthropic's Claude costs $4,811. Running it through Zhipu's GLM 5.2 costs $544. That's a 9x price difference for equivalent output. OpenAI's GPT-5.5 sits in the middle at $3,357. DeepSeek's V4 lands at $1,071. Moonshot's Kimi at $948. On the actual benchmarks: Zhipu's GLM 5.2 scored 62.1 on SWE-bench Pro, the gold standard for coding. OpenAI's GPT-5.5 scored 58.6. One AI researcher called GLM 5.2 "at least as good as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5." Another called it "the first open model that can really compete with closed-source systems." The Chinese models are not just cheaper but they are now also beating American models on the benchmarks American companies pay $4,811 per workload for. Coinbase did the math first and reacted - more companies will certainly follow. Now watch what happens to the IPO timeline: Anthropic confidentially filed for an IPO targeting October at a $965 billion valuation. OpenAI followed days later with its own confidential filing. Both companies built their financial models on the assumption that they could keep charging enterprise prices that are 9 to 33x what Chinese competitors charge for the same task. Brian Armstrong publicly proved customers WILL leave. 45% of companies are now spending over $100,000 per month on AI, up from 20% last year. Every one of those customers is one quarterly budget review away from dumping American AI. OpenAI has reportedly already started preparing major token price cuts. Anthropic is expected to follow. And here's the thing... The export controls were supposed to CRUSH Chinese AI. The US government banned American AI chips, restricted model weights, blacklisted Alibaba and Baidu as Chinese military companies, and just banned Anthropic's flagship model from every foreign national on the planet. The entire premise of the American AI valuation bubble is that Washington can keep China two generations behind. But Chinese labs responded by building cheaper, more efficient models on inferior hardware and pricing them at one ninth the cost of the American alternative. And now American companies are voting with their checkbooks. The dominant American labs are valued at nearly $2 trillion combined on the assumption that their pricing power is durable. Coinbase proved it is not, and every customer doing a year-end budget review will be looking at the same math. For investors, the question here is what happens to the Anthropic IPO at $965 billion when the company is being forced to cut prices to defend share against open-weight Chinese models that score higher on the benchmarks. For everyone else, the bigger question is what happens when Washington spent four years and billions of dollars trying to contain Chinese AI, and the only thing that actually shifted in the end was American customers.

This is the moment Chinese AI beat American AI. One of the largest public crypto companies in the world just DUMPED OpenAI and Anthropic. Coinbase switched to open-weight Chinese models from Zhipu and DeepSeek, and shaved nearly 50% off the company's internal AI spending. The numbers are absolutely ridiculous: Running the same enterprise workload through Anthropic's Claude costs $4,811. Running it through Zhipu's GLM 5.2 costs $544. That's a 9x price difference for equivalent output. OpenAI's GPT-5.5 sits in the middle at $3,357. DeepSeek's V4 lands at $1,071. Moonshot's Kimi at $948. On the actual benchmarks: Zhipu's GLM 5.2 scored 62.1 on SWE-bench Pro, the gold standard for coding. OpenAI's GPT-5.5 scored 58.6. One AI researcher called GLM 5.2 "at least as good as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5." Another called it "the first open model that can really compete with closed-source systems." The Chinese models are not just cheaper but they are now also beating American models on the benchmarks American companies pay $4,811 per workload for. Coinbase did the math first and reacted - more companies will certainly follow. Now watch what happens to the IPO timeline: Anthropic confidentially filed for an IPO targeting October at a $965 billion valuation. OpenAI followed days later with its own confidential filing. Both companies built their financial models on the assumption that they could keep charging enterprise prices that are 9 to 33x what Chinese competitors charge for the same task. Brian Armstrong publicly proved customers WILL leave. 45% of companies are now spending over $100,000 per month on AI, up from 20% last year. Every one of those customers is one quarterly budget review away from dumping American AI. OpenAI has reportedly already started preparing major token price cuts. Anthropic is expected to follow. And here's the thing... The export controls were supposed to CRUSH Chinese AI. The US government banned American AI chips, restricted model weights, blacklisted Alibaba and Baidu as Chinese military companies, and just banned Anthropic's flagship model from every foreign national on the planet. The entire premise of the American AI valuation bubble is that Washington can keep China two generations behind. But Chinese labs responded by building cheaper, more efficient models on inferior hardware and pricing them at one ninth the cost of the American alternative. And now American companies are voting with their checkbooks. The dominant American labs are valued at nearly $2 trillion combined on the assumption that their pricing power is durable. Coinbase proved it is not, and every customer doing a year-end budget review will be looking at the same math. For investors, the question here is what happens to the Anthropic IPO at $965 billion when the company is being forced to cut prices to defend share against open-weight Chinese models that score higher on the benchmarks. For everyone else, the bigger question is what happens when Washington spent four years and billions of dollars trying to contain Chinese AI, and the only thing that actually shifted in the end was American customers.

Ricardo

250,222 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”

The All-In Podcast

64,267 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

$Microsoft just betrayed OpenAI and Anthropic, the two companies it helped build. And it could break the entire AI trade... Here's what happened: Inside Excel and Outlook, two of the most used business apps on Earth, Microsoft has started routing tens of thousands of AI requests every week to its own in-house models instead of OpenAI and Anthropic. Microsoft's own AI chief, Mustafa Suleyman, said himself: "We pay a lot of money to Anthropic, so our goal is to reduce and ultimately ELIMINATE that cost." This is the company that poured $13 billion into OpenAI and effectively created the modern AI industry, and it just decided the most advanced models on the market are NOT worth paying for. And here's the thing... Microsoft is not just ripping out OpenAI everywhere - it is being surgical about it. The hardest and rarest tasks can still go to OpenAI or Anthropic. What Microsoft is taking back is the boring, high-volume work, like the email replies, the thread summaries, and the simple spreadsheet formulas. Why does that matter so much? Because that boring, repetitive work is where the actual money lives. The frontier labs assumed businesses would push BILLIONS of these tiny requests through expensive models forever. That endless river of tokens is the entire reason OpenAI and Anthropic are valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Microsoft looked at that river, decided it was massively overpaying, and rerouted it to models it owns outright. So the single biggest customer in the industry just walked off with the most profitable part of the business. And it is not only Microsoft: That same week, CNBC reported that American companies have been escaping to Chinese AI models to dodge rising US prices. Chinese models now handle more than 30% of US companies' AI usage on one major platform, peaking at 46%, up from an average of 11% a year earlier. They cost 60 to 90% less, and on some benchmarks they land within a single point of the best American model. One US startup moved ALL of its AI traffic off Claude and onto China's DeepSeek, and expects to save millions. Meanwhile Meta just admitted it has "excess" AI compute it wants to sell, becoming the first giant to concede it built far too much. Do you see the pattern forming? For two years, the entire AI story rested on one assumption: Every company on Earth would happily pay premium prices for the best model, forever. That assumption literally died in a single week. And the market noticed. More than a trillion dollars has been wiped off AI and chip stocks in a matter of days, as Wall Street finally started asking whether all of this spending will ever pay for itself. What this means for OpenAI and Anthropic: Their models are extraordinary, and it may not matter because their own biggest customers have decided they do not NEED the best model in the world to answer an email, and "good enough" now costs a fraction of the price. When even Microsoft refuses to pay full price for AI, the real question becomes who exactly IS left to pay it. What do you think?$

Microsoft just betrayed OpenAI and Anthropic, the two companies it helped build. And it could break the entire AI trade... Here's what happened: Inside Excel and Outlook, two of the most used business apps on Earth, Microsoft has started routing tens of thousands of AI requests every week to its own in-house models instead of OpenAI and Anthropic. Microsoft's own AI chief, Mustafa Suleyman, said himself: "We pay a lot of money to Anthropic, so our goal is to reduce and ultimately ELIMINATE that cost." This is the company that poured $13 billion into OpenAI and effectively created the modern AI industry, and it just decided the most advanced models on the market are NOT worth paying for. And here's the thing... Microsoft is not just ripping out OpenAI everywhere - it is being surgical about it. The hardest and rarest tasks can still go to OpenAI or Anthropic. What Microsoft is taking back is the boring, high-volume work, like the email replies, the thread summaries, and the simple spreadsheet formulas. Why does that matter so much? Because that boring, repetitive work is where the actual money lives. The frontier labs assumed businesses would push BILLIONS of these tiny requests through expensive models forever. That endless river of tokens is the entire reason OpenAI and Anthropic are valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Microsoft looked at that river, decided it was massively overpaying, and rerouted it to models it owns outright. So the single biggest customer in the industry just walked off with the most profitable part of the business. And it is not only Microsoft: That same week, CNBC reported that American companies have been escaping to Chinese AI models to dodge rising US prices. Chinese models now handle more than 30% of US companies' AI usage on one major platform, peaking at 46%, up from an average of 11% a year earlier. They cost 60 to 90% less, and on some benchmarks they land within a single point of the best American model. One US startup moved ALL of its AI traffic off Claude and onto China's DeepSeek, and expects to save millions. Meanwhile Meta just admitted it has "excess" AI compute it wants to sell, becoming the first giant to concede it built far too much. Do you see the pattern forming? For two years, the entire AI story rested on one assumption: Every company on Earth would happily pay premium prices for the best model, forever. That assumption literally died in a single week. And the market noticed. More than a trillion dollars has been wiped off AI and chip stocks in a matter of days, as Wall Street finally started asking whether all of this spending will ever pay for itself. What this means for OpenAI and Anthropic: Their models are extraordinary, and it may not matter because their own biggest customers have decided they do not NEED the best model in the world to answer an email, and "good enough" now costs a fraction of the price. When even Microsoft refuses to pay full price for AI, the real question becomes who exactly IS left to pay it. What do you think?

Ricardo

92,526 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

$🇨🇳 CHINA IS ALMOST READY TO UNDERCUT THE WORLD'S BEST AI MODELS. Six months ago, that sounded impossible. Today GLM-5.2 is open source and costs a fraction of frontier models. Zhipu's co-founder says Fable-class Chinese AI comes even sooner than people think. This is the same playbook China ran on solar, on steel, on EVs. Build it cheaper. Give it away. Take the market. If China delivers frontier AI at a fraction of the price, the economics holding up the U.S. AI market start to crack.$

🇨🇳 CHINA IS ALMOST READY TO UNDERCUT THE WORLD'S BEST AI MODELS. Six months ago, that sounded impossible. Today GLM-5.2 is open source and costs a fraction of frontier models. Zhipu's co-founder says Fable-class Chinese AI comes even sooner than people think. This is the same playbook China ran on solar, on steel, on EVs. Build it cheaper. Give it away. Take the market. If China delivers frontier AI at a fraction of the price, the economics holding up the U.S. AI market start to crack.

CryptoGoos

46,728 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

The entire AI industry is racing to build the smartest model. Satya Nadella just admitted that is not where the money is. The model is not the product. The harness is. That is the exact line. And it changes what Microsoft is actually competing on. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Meta every frontier lab is pouring hundreds of billions into training compute, chasing the next capability jump. Each betting that raw model intelligence is the moat. Microsoft is doing the opposite. It is building the harness the orchestration layer that sits above the model, connecting it to tools, data, permissions, sub-agents, and enterprise workflows. And it is letting OpenAI, Anthropic, and MAI compete to plug into it. "You need the model. But the model is not the product. The harness is." So do the math on what a harness actually does. A raw model dropped into an enterprise answers questions. That is a chatbot. A harness turns that same model into an agent that reads the SharePoint, edits the ERP entry, pulls the GitHub PR, updates Salesforce, and files the Excel report with the right permissions, the right audit trail, and the right sub-agent for each sub-task. The model provides the intelligence. The harness converts intelligence into work. Now here's where it gets interesting. "Even the best model in the world will feel broken without a great harness. And an okay model with a great harness can feel like magic." If that is true, the enterprise buyer is not buying model quality. The enterprise buyer is buying the harness. Which means model quality becomes a commodity input over time, and harness quality becomes the sustainable moat. Compare that to the strategy the entire frontier lab industry is executing. Everyone else is chasing the numerator raw intelligence. Almost nobody at scale is racing to build the denominator the orchestration layer that determines whether that intelligence can actually be deployed profitably inside a real company. The frontier model race has a 10 to 20 percent chance of producing a single dominant winner. Nadella just told the industry he does not need to be that winner. If OpenAI wins, Microsoft wins. If Anthropic wins, Microsoft wins. If MAI wins, Microsoft wins. If someone Microsoft has never heard of trains a better model in 2027, Microsoft still wins. Because the compute they train on, the harness they get plugged into, the enterprise contracts they get delivered through, and the products they sit inside are all Microsoft. He is not building the best AI model. He is building the layer that the best AI model has to run on to make anyone money. I wonder which position looks more valuable in ten years.

The entire AI industry is racing to build the smartest model. Satya Nadella just admitted that is not where the money is. The model is not the product. The harness is. That is the exact line. And it changes what Microsoft is actually competing on. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Meta every frontier lab is pouring hundreds of billions into training compute, chasing the next capability jump. Each betting that raw model intelligence is the moat. Microsoft is doing the opposite. It is building the harness the orchestration layer that sits above the model, connecting it to tools, data, permissions, sub-agents, and enterprise workflows. And it is letting OpenAI, Anthropic, and MAI compete to plug into it. "You need the model. But the model is not the product. The harness is." So do the math on what a harness actually does. A raw model dropped into an enterprise answers questions. That is a chatbot. A harness turns that same model into an agent that reads the SharePoint, edits the ERP entry, pulls the GitHub PR, updates Salesforce, and files the Excel report with the right permissions, the right audit trail, and the right sub-agent for each sub-task. The model provides the intelligence. The harness converts intelligence into work. Now here's where it gets interesting. "Even the best model in the world will feel broken without a great harness. And an okay model with a great harness can feel like magic." If that is true, the enterprise buyer is not buying model quality. The enterprise buyer is buying the harness. Which means model quality becomes a commodity input over time, and harness quality becomes the sustainable moat. Compare that to the strategy the entire frontier lab industry is executing. Everyone else is chasing the numerator raw intelligence. Almost nobody at scale is racing to build the denominator the orchestration layer that determines whether that intelligence can actually be deployed profitably inside a real company. The frontier model race has a 10 to 20 percent chance of producing a single dominant winner. Nadella just told the industry he does not need to be that winner. If OpenAI wins, Microsoft wins. If Anthropic wins, Microsoft wins. If MAI wins, Microsoft wins. If someone Microsoft has never heard of trains a better model in 2027, Microsoft still wins. Because the compute they train on, the harness they get plugged into, the enterprise contracts they get delivered through, and the products they sit inside are all Microsoft. He is not building the best AI model. He is building the layer that the best AI model has to run on to make anyone money. I wonder which position looks more valuable in ten years.

Vikram M

21,463 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

Satya Nadella reveals why every company may need its own AI model: the model becomes the new company database. "To me, a model is like the database market." "A firm should be able to take the tacit knowledge it has and embed it inside weights in a model that they control." "When somebody asks me how many models should there be, I'll say as many models as firms in the world." The contrarian part: the value may not sit in one universal frontier model. It sits in each company turning its private operating knowledge into a controlled model.

Satya Nadella reveals why every company may need its own AI model: the model becomes the new company database. "To me, a model is like the database market." "A firm should be able to take the tacit knowledge it has and embed it inside weights in a model that they control." "When somebody asks me how many models should there be, I'll say as many models as firms in the world." The contrarian part: the value may not sit in one universal frontier model. It sits in each company turning its private operating knowledge into a controlled model.

Karl Mehta

465,887 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

Dario Amodei keeps warning that open-source AI models are dangerous and need to be restricted. David Sacks David Sacks answered with a rhetorical question: "Dangerous to whom?" It was the sharpest thing said on the latest All-In The All-In Podcast. Not dangerous to the enterprise that wants to keep control of its own data. Open weights are what finally give that enterprise a choice. It is dangerous to Anthropic's business model. That model only works if customers have no real alternative at the model layer. So the safety argument starts to look like a moat argument wearing a lab coat. Line it up with the rest of the strategy. Dominate the layer everyone builds on. Launch Claude into science, security, legal, finance, and design, the verticals your own customers used to own. And campaign to restrict the open models that would hand those customers the exit. Here is the giveaway. When the person selling you safety also needs you to have no other option, you are not who is being kept safe.

Dario Amodei keeps warning that open-source AI models are dangerous and need to be restricted. David Sacks David Sacks answered with a rhetorical question: "Dangerous to whom?" It was the sharpest thing said on the latest All-In The All-In Podcast. Not dangerous to the enterprise that wants to keep control of its own data. Open weights are what finally give that enterprise a choice. It is dangerous to Anthropic's business model. That model only works if customers have no real alternative at the model layer. So the safety argument starts to look like a moat argument wearing a lab coat. Line it up with the rest of the strategy. Dominate the layer everyone builds on. Launch Claude into science, security, legal, finance, and design, the verticals your own customers used to own. And campaign to restrict the open models that would hand those customers the exit. Here is the giveaway. When the person selling you safety also needs you to have no other option, you are not who is being kept safe.

Fireside Alpha

10,037 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

David Sacks laid out the cleanest theory about why Anthropic keeps calling for government regulation of AI. The answer has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with market structure. Anthropic spent months writing blog posts warning that AI was dangerous. Dario gave interviews about existential risk. He published a piece calling for an FAA-style agency to approve all AI models before release. He primed government officials to treat frontier AI as a threat requiring oversight. Then one of Anthropic's own most trusted partners reported a credible jailbreak from Fable 5. And the government did exactly what Dario had spent months conditioning them to do. They rolled it back. Sacks called it on the All-In podcast. Dario got exactly what he wanted. The FAA for AI is not a safety mechanism. It is a moat. A government approval process for new model releases does not hurt Anthropic. They already have the models. It hurts every competitor who does not. It hurts open source models that cannot be regulated because there is no company to regulate. It hurts the Chinese labs only insofar as they care about the American market at all. The only companies that benefit from a labyrinthine government approval process are the ones already at the frontier who can afford to wait out the review cycle. That is Anthropic. That is OpenAI. Nobody else. The proof is in what they did not do. Chimath pointed it out directly. If you are genuinely worried about misuse, you implement know-your-customer verification. You make people identify themselves before accessing the most powerful models. Anthropic could have done that tomorrow. They did not. They do not want KYC. KYC is transparent. KYC can be audited. KYC gives users due process. What they built instead was an invisible surveillance system that profiles you, degrades your access without telling you, and asks the government to make sure no one else can offer you an alternative. If you thought this was safety then you are wrong. That is capture. Sacks said the response should be simple. Fix the jailbreak, come back to market, and do not reward Dario with the regulatory architecture he has been engineering for years. We will see if anyone is listening. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

David Sacks laid out the cleanest theory about why Anthropic keeps calling for government regulation of AI. The answer has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with market structure. Anthropic spent months writing blog posts warning that AI was dangerous. Dario gave interviews about existential risk. He published a piece calling for an FAA-style agency to approve all AI models before release. He primed government officials to treat frontier AI as a threat requiring oversight. Then one of Anthropic's own most trusted partners reported a credible jailbreak from Fable 5. And the government did exactly what Dario had spent months conditioning them to do. They rolled it back. Sacks called it on the All-In podcast. Dario got exactly what he wanted. The FAA for AI is not a safety mechanism. It is a moat. A government approval process for new model releases does not hurt Anthropic. They already have the models. It hurts every competitor who does not. It hurts open source models that cannot be regulated because there is no company to regulate. It hurts the Chinese labs only insofar as they care about the American market at all. The only companies that benefit from a labyrinthine government approval process are the ones already at the frontier who can afford to wait out the review cycle. That is Anthropic. That is OpenAI. Nobody else. The proof is in what they did not do. Chimath pointed it out directly. If you are genuinely worried about misuse, you implement know-your-customer verification. You make people identify themselves before accessing the most powerful models. Anthropic could have done that tomorrow. They did not. They do not want KYC. KYC is transparent. KYC can be audited. KYC gives users due process. What they built instead was an invisible surveillance system that profiles you, degrades your access without telling you, and asks the government to make sure no one else can offer you an alternative. If you thought this was safety then you are wrong. That is capture. Sacks said the response should be simple. Fix the jailbreak, come back to market, and do not reward Dario with the regulatory architecture he has been engineering for years. We will see if anyone is listening. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

Ihtesham Ali

25,179 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

$Mark Zuckerberg is explaining one of the most misunderstood dynamics in AI and it has direct investment implications (Save this). The concept he's describing is model distillation, and it's one of the most important techniques to emerge in AI over the past year. Here's how it works. You train a massive, enormously expensive model, in Meta's case, Llama 4 Behemoth, a 2 trillion parameter teacher model and then you use that model to teach a much smaller, cheaper model. The smaller model inherits roughly 90 to 95% of the intelligence of the giant while running at 10% of the cost and on a fraction of the compute. Meta already did this with the Llama 4 family and Behemoth serves as the teacher. Llama 4 Scout and Maverick, the publicly released open-source models were distilled from it. Scout runs on a single H100 GPU with a 10 million token context window and outperforms models that cost far more to operate. Maverick, at 17 billion active parameters, rivals DeepSeek V3 in coding at half the parameter count and beats GPT-4o on multimodal benchmarks. Both are completely free for commercial use. What Zuckerberg is pointing at is a structural shift in how AI gets deployed in the real world. Companies aren't taking a frontier model off the shelf and running it as-is but rather taking open-source models, fine-tuning them on their own proprietary data, distilling them into even smaller custom models tailored to their specific use case, and running them on infrastructure they control at a fraction of the cost of a closed frontier API. The investment implication of this is significant and runs in two directions. For Meta specifically, this is a strategic masterstroke. Every company that builds on Llama, fine-tunes it, distills it, or deploys it through their infrastructure is pulling into Meta's orbit while Meta builds the most powerful open teacher model. The ecosystem of companies using it grows and that ecosystem generates commercial activity across Meta's platforms and data services. Meta's AI research benefits from billions of real world deployment signals and it's a flywheel that closed model providers cannot replicate because their strategy requires charging per token, which is now a 65x cost disadvantage against the open-source alternative. For the broader market, distillation changes the economics of inference in a way that has barely been priced in. As intelligence becomes extractable into smaller and cheaper models, the absolute demand for compute doesn't decline but rather it explodes, because now the number of applications that are economically viable expands by orders of magnitude. Every task that was previously too expensive to automate at $3.25 per call becomes viable at $0.05 that means more total token usage, more total GPU utilization, and more demand for the infrastructure companies, the Nebiuses, the GE Vernovas, the Constellation Energies that supply the underlying compute and power.$

Mark Zuckerberg is explaining one of the most misunderstood dynamics in AI and it has direct investment implications (Save this). The concept he's describing is model distillation, and it's one of the most important techniques to emerge in AI over the past year. Here's how it works. You train a massive, enormously expensive model, in Meta's case, Llama 4 Behemoth, a 2 trillion parameter teacher model and then you use that model to teach a much smaller, cheaper model. The smaller model inherits roughly 90 to 95% of the intelligence of the giant while running at 10% of the cost and on a fraction of the compute. Meta already did this with the Llama 4 family and Behemoth serves as the teacher. Llama 4 Scout and Maverick, the publicly released open-source models were distilled from it. Scout runs on a single H100 GPU with a 10 million token context window and outperforms models that cost far more to operate. Maverick, at 17 billion active parameters, rivals DeepSeek V3 in coding at half the parameter count and beats GPT-4o on multimodal benchmarks. Both are completely free for commercial use. What Zuckerberg is pointing at is a structural shift in how AI gets deployed in the real world. Companies aren't taking a frontier model off the shelf and running it as-is but rather taking open-source models, fine-tuning them on their own proprietary data, distilling them into even smaller custom models tailored to their specific use case, and running them on infrastructure they control at a fraction of the cost of a closed frontier API. The investment implication of this is significant and runs in two directions. For Meta specifically, this is a strategic masterstroke. Every company that builds on Llama, fine-tunes it, distills it, or deploys it through their infrastructure is pulling into Meta's orbit while Meta builds the most powerful open teacher model. The ecosystem of companies using it grows and that ecosystem generates commercial activity across Meta's platforms and data services. Meta's AI research benefits from billions of real world deployment signals and it's a flywheel that closed model providers cannot replicate because their strategy requires charging per token, which is now a 65x cost disadvantage against the open-source alternative. For the broader market, distillation changes the economics of inference in a way that has barely been priced in. As intelligence becomes extractable into smaller and cheaper models, the absolute demand for compute doesn't decline but rather it explodes, because now the number of applications that are economically viable expands by orders of magnitude. Every task that was previously too expensive to automate at $3.25 per call becomes viable at $0.05 that means more total token usage, more total GPU utilization, and more demand for the infrastructure companies, the Nebiuses, the GE Vernovas, the Constellation Energies that supply the underlying compute and power.

Milk Road AI

27,279 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Dustin

39,109 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

i'm running a 397 billion parameter model on a amd ai max box that sits on my desk and pulls less power than a gaming laptop. the model is Nex-N2-Pro, 397B-A17B, the open weight release people are putting next to gpt-5.5 on coding. i have it quantized to IQ1_M, 1.75 bits per weight, 90gb of weights loaded into the 128gb of unified memory on amd's strix halo igpu. watch the gpu in this recording. it spikes, it sustains, it does not fall over. that is the part the spec sheets never show you, not just that a 400b model loads, but that an integrated graphics chip holds the load and generates token after token, stable, no crash, no thermal cliff. and it is not a slideshow. roughly 18 tokens a second, faster than you can read. a frontier scale model producing usable output, fully local. no datacenter, no rented h100s, no api key, no permission. three years ago a model this size meant a server room and a budget to match. tonight it is a quiet box on my desk. this is the accessible tier almost nobody benchmarks honestly, and it is further along than the timeline thinks. the full breakdown is coming, rocm vs vulkan on this chip, and this little amd box head to head against the nvidia equivalent. stay tuned.

i'm running a 397 billion parameter model on a amd ai max box that sits on my desk and pulls less power than a gaming laptop. the model is Nex-N2-Pro, 397B-A17B, the open weight release people are putting next to gpt-5.5 on coding. i have it quantized to IQ1_M, 1.75 bits per weight, 90gb of weights loaded into the 128gb of unified memory on amd's strix halo igpu. watch the gpu in this recording. it spikes, it sustains, it does not fall over. that is the part the spec sheets never show you, not just that a 400b model loads, but that an integrated graphics chip holds the load and generates token after token, stable, no crash, no thermal cliff. and it is not a slideshow. roughly 18 tokens a second, faster than you can read. a frontier scale model producing usable output, fully local. no datacenter, no rented h100s, no api key, no permission. three years ago a model this size meant a server room and a budget to match. tonight it is a quiet box on my desk. this is the accessible tier almost nobody benchmarks honestly, and it is further along than the timeline thinks. the full breakdown is coming, rocm vs vulkan on this chip, and this little amd box head to head against the nvidia equivalent. stay tuned.

Sudo su

32,019 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

The teams shipping AI agents right now are bleeding money on the dumbest possible expense: teaching a 400B-parameter model to read a file name. Every time an AI agent needs to "see" something today, it routes an image through a frontier model. OCR, object detection, checking if a button exists on screen. You're paying GPT-4o or Claude pricing for tasks that require perception, not reasoning. One agent workflow processing a few thousand screenshots per day can burn through more on vision calls than on the actual thinking. Perceptron's Isaac is 2B parameters. Built by the team that created Meta's Chameleon multimodal models. On perceptive benchmarks, it matches or beats models 50x its size. The VQA, OCR, and object detection scores are competitive with models running on infrastructure that costs orders of magnitude more. The MCP wrapper is the distribution play. One install command and every Claude Code agent can offload vision tasks to a model that runs on a single consumer GPU. The agent keeps its reasoning in the frontier model and routes perception to a specialist. That split is how you get vision-heavy agent workflows from "technically possible but expensive" to "cheap enough to run on everything." This is the same pattern that won in every other compute-intensive stack. General-purpose handles orchestration. Specialists handle the heavy lifting. Graphics went through it. Audio went through it. Video encoding went through it. Vision in AI agents is next. The teams building agents that see 10,000 images a day will care about this before anyone else does.

The teams shipping AI agents right now are bleeding money on the dumbest possible expense: teaching a 400B-parameter model to read a file name. Every time an AI agent needs to "see" something today, it routes an image through a frontier model. OCR, object detection, checking if a button exists on screen. You're paying GPT-4o or Claude pricing for tasks that require perception, not reasoning. One agent workflow processing a few thousand screenshots per day can burn through more on vision calls than on the actual thinking. Perceptron's Isaac is 2B parameters. Built by the team that created Meta's Chameleon multimodal models. On perceptive benchmarks, it matches or beats models 50x its size. The VQA, OCR, and object detection scores are competitive with models running on infrastructure that costs orders of magnitude more. The MCP wrapper is the distribution play. One install command and every Claude Code agent can offload vision tasks to a model that runs on a single consumer GPU. The agent keeps its reasoning in the frontier model and routes perception to a specialist. That split is how you get vision-heavy agent workflows from "technically possible but expensive" to "cheap enough to run on everything." This is the same pattern that won in every other compute-intensive stack. General-purpose handles orchestration. Specialists handle the heavy lifting. Graphics went through it. Audio went through it. Video encoding went through it. Vision in AI agents is next. The teams building agents that see 10,000 images a day will care about this before anyone else does.

Aakash Gupta

55,978 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

$China just made Silicon Valley's entire AI industry look like a scam. The US government spent 3 years trying to stop China from building competitive AI. But this backfired HORRIBLY. Here's what happened: Yesterday, a Chinese startup called DeepSeek released a new AI model called V4. It matches the performance of OpenAI and Anthropic's best models. At 1/7th the price. And for the first time ever, it was built on Chinese chips. NOT American ones. That last part is the one that terrifies the west. For context: Since 2022, the US has banned the export of advanced AI chips to China. The entire strategy was built on the assumption that if China can't access Nvidia's best hardware, they can't build frontier AI. But DeepSeek just proved that assumption wrong. Their V4 model was trained and runs on Huawei's Ascend chips. Huawei spent months working directly with DeepSeek to make sure V4 runs across their entire line of AI processors. Jensen Huang even predicted this on a recent podcast: "The day that DeepSeek comes out on Huawei first, that is a horrible outcome for our nation." That day was yesterday. And the numbers are crazy: DeepSeek V4 costs $3.48 per million output tokens. OpenAI's latest model GPT-5.5 costs $30. Anthropic's Claude charges $25. Same ballpark performance. 7x cheaper. Uber's CTO just admitted they burned through their ENTIRE 2026 AI budget in 4 months using Anthropic's tools. If Uber had used DeepSeek instead, that same budget would have lasted 7 YEARS. 4 months vs 7 years. Same work getting done. But the pricing isn't even the big thing here. The real story is what DeepSeek did with their technical report: They published the benchmarks where they LOSE. Every AI company cherry-picks the tests where their model wins. DeepSeek ran the full comparison against GPT-5.4 and Google's Gemini, found they trail frontier models by 3 to 6 months, and printed it anyway. They literally don't care because the price gap makes the performance gap irrelevant for 90% of use cases. So the US export controls didn't slow China down. They ACCELERATED China's independence. Because Chinese developers were FORCED to train models with limited resources, they had to figure out how to make AI radically more efficient. That constraint became their competitive advantage. Every generation of DeepSeek has gotten dramatically cheaper to train. V4 continues the trend. Meanwhile US companies are going the OPPOSITE direction: OpenAI's GPT-5.5 Pro costs $180 per million output tokens. That's 51x more expensive than DeepSeek V4 for comparable work. The Commerce Secretary confirmed this week that ZERO Nvidia advanced chip shipments have actually gone through to China despite being approved in January. So China built frontier AI anyway. Without American chips. At a fraction of the cost. And the market response tells you everything: Chinese chipmaker SMIC surged 10%. Huahong Semiconductor jumped 15%. DeepSeek's Chinese AI competitors Zhipu AI and MiniMax dropped 9% because V4 is destroying them too. DeepSeek is making Silicon Valley's pricing model look like a scam. US tech companies spent $650 billion on AI infrastructure this year. DeepSeek just showed the world you can match their output for pennies. The export controls were supposed to be America's ace card. Instead they taught China how to win without American chips, at American prices nobody can compete with. Jensen Huang was right. This is a horrible outcome. But it's the outcome America built for itself.$

China just made Silicon Valley's entire AI industry look like a scam. The US government spent 3 years trying to stop China from building competitive AI. But this backfired HORRIBLY. Here's what happened: Yesterday, a Chinese startup called DeepSeek released a new AI model called V4. It matches the performance of OpenAI and Anthropic's best models. At 1/7th the price. And for the first time ever, it was built on Chinese chips. NOT American ones. That last part is the one that terrifies the west. For context: Since 2022, the US has banned the export of advanced AI chips to China. The entire strategy was built on the assumption that if China can't access Nvidia's best hardware, they can't build frontier AI. But DeepSeek just proved that assumption wrong. Their V4 model was trained and runs on Huawei's Ascend chips. Huawei spent months working directly with DeepSeek to make sure V4 runs across their entire line of AI processors. Jensen Huang even predicted this on a recent podcast: "The day that DeepSeek comes out on Huawei first, that is a horrible outcome for our nation." That day was yesterday. And the numbers are crazy: DeepSeek V4 costs $3.48 per million output tokens. OpenAI's latest model GPT-5.5 costs $30. Anthropic's Claude charges $25. Same ballpark performance. 7x cheaper. Uber's CTO just admitted they burned through their ENTIRE 2026 AI budget in 4 months using Anthropic's tools. If Uber had used DeepSeek instead, that same budget would have lasted 7 YEARS. 4 months vs 7 years. Same work getting done. But the pricing isn't even the big thing here. The real story is what DeepSeek did with their technical report: They published the benchmarks where they LOSE. Every AI company cherry-picks the tests where their model wins. DeepSeek ran the full comparison against GPT-5.4 and Google's Gemini, found they trail frontier models by 3 to 6 months, and printed it anyway. They literally don't care because the price gap makes the performance gap irrelevant for 90% of use cases. So the US export controls didn't slow China down. They ACCELERATED China's independence. Because Chinese developers were FORCED to train models with limited resources, they had to figure out how to make AI radically more efficient. That constraint became their competitive advantage. Every generation of DeepSeek has gotten dramatically cheaper to train. V4 continues the trend. Meanwhile US companies are going the OPPOSITE direction: OpenAI's GPT-5.5 Pro costs $180 per million output tokens. That's 51x more expensive than DeepSeek V4 for comparable work. The Commerce Secretary confirmed this week that ZERO Nvidia advanced chip shipments have actually gone through to China despite being approved in January. So China built frontier AI anyway. Without American chips. At a fraction of the cost. And the market response tells you everything: Chinese chipmaker SMIC surged 10%. Huahong Semiconductor jumped 15%. DeepSeek's Chinese AI competitors Zhipu AI and MiniMax dropped 9% because V4 is destroying them too. DeepSeek is making Silicon Valley's pricing model look like a scam. US tech companies spent $650 billion on AI infrastructure this year. DeepSeek just showed the world you can match their output for pennies. The export controls were supposed to be America's ace card. Instead they taught China how to win without American chips, at American prices nobody can compete with. Jensen Huang was right. This is a horrible outcome. But it's the outcome America built for itself.

Ricardo

279,980 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Palantir's CEO just exposed Sam Altman and Dario Amodei for robbing every Fortune 500 company. Within two minutes, Alex Karp took the entire frontier AI industry apart on national television. His exact words: "Every single enterprise in this country, these people are LIVID. They are paying for tokens that create no value. These people are stealing the weights and alpha of my business." He literally said the entire frontier AI business model is intellectual property extraction dressed up as a subscription. Then he also destroyed the pricing model with a single question that Silicon Valley still refuses to answer: "If it was so valuable, let's say I can make you $1 billion tomorrow. Wouldn't I say I'll make you $1 billion and I want 30 percent? Why are they charging for tokens if it's so valuable?" That question breaks the industry. If OpenAI and Anthropic's models truly delivered the productivity gains the labs claim, they would take equity or a share of the profit they generate. They would not sell access by the million tokens. Token pricing is itself the CONFESSION that the product cannot produce reliable value at scale. If it did, they would price for the value. But they price for the compute because that is what they are actually selling. Karp went even further... He called the entire arrangement "a wealth tax that does not help the poor. It just punishes." American businesses are transferring the alpha of their operations, meaning the workflows, the customer data, the strategy memos, the internal models that make them competitive, directly into the training pipelines of a handful of Silicon Valley labs. Once those labs retrain, the customer's own edge becomes the next enterprise product sold back to their competitors. And the part the AI industry does not want anyone thinking about: Every enterprise running its confidential documents, its customer conversations, and its financial models through a frontier model is potentially teaching that model HOW to replace them. The vendor collects the token fee AND the compounding intelligence about that customer's business. That is the mechanism. And that is why Karp used the word "stealing." He claims this is why every executive he meets is furious in private and silent in public. Nobody wants to be the CEO who called out the labs and then discovered their next competitor was built on their own leaked workflows. The entire AI industry has been priced for perfection on one assumption: That frontier labs produce durable, defensible value that justifies infinite compute spend. But Karp just told us that the customers do not believe that assumption anymore. They believe they are being taxed without benefit, watched without consent, and copied without recourse. The moment enterprises stop believing, the whole valuation stack shakes.

Palantir's CEO just exposed Sam Altman and Dario Amodei for robbing every Fortune 500 company. Within two minutes, Alex Karp took the entire frontier AI industry apart on national television. His exact words: "Every single enterprise in this country, these people are LIVID. They are paying for tokens that create no value. These people are stealing the weights and alpha of my business." He literally said the entire frontier AI business model is intellectual property extraction dressed up as a subscription. Then he also destroyed the pricing model with a single question that Silicon Valley still refuses to answer: "If it was so valuable, let's say I can make you $1 billion tomorrow. Wouldn't I say I'll make you $1 billion and I want 30 percent? Why are they charging for tokens if it's so valuable?" That question breaks the industry. If OpenAI and Anthropic's models truly delivered the productivity gains the labs claim, they would take equity or a share of the profit they generate. They would not sell access by the million tokens. Token pricing is itself the CONFESSION that the product cannot produce reliable value at scale. If it did, they would price for the value. But they price for the compute because that is what they are actually selling. Karp went even further... He called the entire arrangement "a wealth tax that does not help the poor. It just punishes." American businesses are transferring the alpha of their operations, meaning the workflows, the customer data, the strategy memos, the internal models that make them competitive, directly into the training pipelines of a handful of Silicon Valley labs. Once those labs retrain, the customer's own edge becomes the next enterprise product sold back to their competitors. And the part the AI industry does not want anyone thinking about: Every enterprise running its confidential documents, its customer conversations, and its financial models through a frontier model is potentially teaching that model HOW to replace them. The vendor collects the token fee AND the compounding intelligence about that customer's business. That is the mechanism. And that is why Karp used the word "stealing." He claims this is why every executive he meets is furious in private and silent in public. Nobody wants to be the CEO who called out the labs and then discovered their next competitor was built on their own leaked workflows. The entire AI industry has been priced for perfection on one assumption: That frontier labs produce durable, defensible value that justifies infinite compute spend. But Karp just told us that the customers do not believe that assumption anymore. They believe they are being taxed without benefit, watched without consent, and copied without recourse. The moment enterprises stop believing, the whole valuation stack shakes.

Ricardo

2,889,049 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

Japan just changed what an AI model even is. New Sakana Fugu doesn't try to out-think GPT-5, Claude, or Gemini. It conducts all three at once - and beats every one of them. A trader in Tokyo unleashed it on the fastest market alive - 5min Bitcoin binary and turned $6,200 into $304,865. His wallet: The frontier just stopped being which model is smartest. It's who's conducting them - and the market hasn't priced that in yet. Sakana Fugu isn't a bigger model - it's a full multi-agent orchestration system. The coordinator behind it carries about 10,000 parameters, evolved rather than hand-coded, and it runs the most capable models on earth like a single instrument. Pointed at Bitcoin, here's what it does every five minutes. It assembles a team from a pool of frontier models and assigns each one a role: > Thinker - reads the candle, the order book, the news, builds the plan > Worker - turns the plan into one call: up or down, and how much > Verifier - votes ACCEPT or REVISE before a cent moves If the Verifier says REVISE, nothing trades. Fugu reads its own miss, reroutes, even calls itself for a corrective round, and runs it again. No look-ahead, ever - the next candle only appears after it commits. This is what should worry every lab still chasing a bigger model: the edge was never scale. It's orchestration - and Fugu does it better than anything alive. Bookmark this - when the whole timeline is chasing orchestration in six months, you'll already have the breakdown. You're not going to wire up an orchestra of frontier models yourself. Mirror the wallet Fugu runs instead:

Japan just changed what an AI model even is. New Sakana Fugu doesn't try to out-think GPT-5, Claude, or Gemini. It conducts all three at once - and beats every one of them. A trader in Tokyo unleashed it on the fastest market alive - 5min Bitcoin binary and turned $6,200 into $304,865. His wallet: The frontier just stopped being which model is smartest. It's who's conducting them - and the market hasn't priced that in yet. Sakana Fugu isn't a bigger model - it's a full multi-agent orchestration system. The coordinator behind it carries about 10,000 parameters, evolved rather than hand-coded, and it runs the most capable models on earth like a single instrument. Pointed at Bitcoin, here's what it does every five minutes. It assembles a team from a pool of frontier models and assigns each one a role: > Thinker - reads the candle, the order book, the news, builds the plan > Worker - turns the plan into one call: up or down, and how much > Verifier - votes ACCEPT or REVISE before a cent moves If the Verifier says REVISE, nothing trades. Fugu reads its own miss, reroutes, even calls itself for a corrective round, and runs it again. No look-ahead, ever - the next candle only appears after it commits. This is what should worry every lab still chasing a bigger model: the edge was never scale. It's orchestration - and Fugu does it better than anything alive. Bookmark this - when the whole timeline is chasing orchestration in six months, you'll already have the breakdown. You're not going to wire up an orchestra of frontier models yourself. Mirror the wallet Fugu runs instead:

cvxv666

72,821 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

Perplexity CEO on China catching up in AI: “Whatever you did to not let them catch up didn’t even matter. They ended up catching up anyway. What’s more dangerous is they have the best open-source model. And all the American developers are building on that.” That was DeepSeek. Now just dropped GLM-5.2: • MIT open weights • 1M context • 81.0 on Terminal-Bench 2.1 • within a few points of Claude Opus 4.8 The open-source AI race is not theory anymore.

Perplexity CEO on China catching up in AI: “Whatever you did to not let them catch up didn’t even matter. They ended up catching up anyway. What’s more dangerous is they have the best open-source model. And all the American developers are building on that.” That was DeepSeek. Now just dropped GLM-5.2: • MIT open weights • 1M context • 81.0 on Terminal-Bench 2.1 • within a few points of Claude Opus 4.8 The open-source AI race is not theory anymore.

Vadim

649,784 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

Dario Amodei just told software engineers exactly how long they have. Six to twelve months. Amodei: “I have engineers within Anthropic who say I don’t write any code anymore. I just let the model write the code, I edit it, I do the things around it.” The people building the most powerful AI in history have already stopped writing code. That is not a forecast. That is the current working condition inside the lab closest to the frontier. Amodei: “We might be six to 12 months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all, of what SWEs do end-to-end.” The tech industry spent a decade making software engineers its highest-paid, most protected class. That era has a last day now. When a model can execute an entire software build end-to-end, the ability to write syntax stops being a skill. It becomes a credential for a job that no longer exists. Amodei: “And then it’s a question of how fast does that loop close.” That is the sentence everyone skipped. The code was never the hard part. The hard part was everything around it. The model just learned everything around it. Writing the code is already nearly gone. Testing is next. Deployment is next. When all three collapse into a single autonomous execution loop, the machine no longer needs a human in the chain at all. The corporation or sovereign state that closes that loop first does not gain a competitive advantage. It gains a category of speed that biological engineers cannot match, track, or reverse. That is not disruption. That is replacement at a systems level. Amodei is not describing a future disruption. He is describing the current state of his own building. The loop is already closing. The only question is whether you are inside it or outside it when it seals.

Dario Amodei just told software engineers exactly how long they have. Six to twelve months. Amodei: “I have engineers within Anthropic who say I don’t write any code anymore. I just let the model write the code, I edit it, I do the things around it.” The people building the most powerful AI in history have already stopped writing code. That is not a forecast. That is the current working condition inside the lab closest to the frontier. Amodei: “We might be six to 12 months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all, of what SWEs do end-to-end.” The tech industry spent a decade making software engineers its highest-paid, most protected class. That era has a last day now. When a model can execute an entire software build end-to-end, the ability to write syntax stops being a skill. It becomes a credential for a job that no longer exists. Amodei: “And then it’s a question of how fast does that loop close.” That is the sentence everyone skipped. The code was never the hard part. The hard part was everything around it. The model just learned everything around it. Writing the code is already nearly gone. Testing is next. Deployment is next. When all three collapse into a single autonomous execution loop, the machine no longer needs a human in the chain at all. The corporation or sovereign state that closes that loop first does not gain a competitive advantage. It gains a category of speed that biological engineers cannot match, track, or reverse. That is not disruption. That is replacement at a systems level. Amodei is not describing a future disruption. He is describing the current state of his own building. The loop is already closing. The only question is whether you are inside it or outside it when it seals.

Dustin

318,457 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Mark Zuckerberg explains the 405B teacher-model flywheel that could make one giant AI the wrong end state "People are gonna wanna do inference directly on the 405 because it's, you know, by our estimates, it's gonna be about 50% cheaper, I think, than GPT-4o to do that directly." "Because it's open weights, the ability to take the model and distill it down to whatever size that you want, to use it for synthetic data generation, to use it as a teacher model." "Our vision is that there should be lots of different models. I think every startup out there, every enterprise, governments, they all kind of wanna have their own custom models." "Right now, as open source basically closes the gap, I think you're just gonna see this wide proliferation of models where people now have the incentive to basically customize and build and train exactly the right size model for what they're doing, train their data into it." "They're gonna have the tools to do it because of a lot of the partner integrations that the companies like Amazon are doing with AWS or Databricks or different folks like that who are building these whole suites of services for distilling and fine-tuning open models." The counterintuitive edge is that the 405B model may be most valuable as raw material, not an endpoint. The open model compresses into the right size, absorbs proprietary data, and turns one frontier release into thousands of company-specific systems. Distribution of intelligence beats centralization. - Mark Zuckerberg (Mark Zuckerberg), CEO of Meta, with Rowan Cheung

Mark Zuckerberg explains the 405B teacher-model flywheel that could make one giant AI the wrong end state "People are gonna wanna do inference directly on the 405 because it's, you know, by our estimates, it's gonna be about 50% cheaper, I think, than GPT-4o to do that directly." "Because it's open weights, the ability to take the model and distill it down to whatever size that you want, to use it for synthetic data generation, to use it as a teacher model." "Our vision is that there should be lots of different models. I think every startup out there, every enterprise, governments, they all kind of wanna have their own custom models." "Right now, as open source basically closes the gap, I think you're just gonna see this wide proliferation of models where people now have the incentive to basically customize and build and train exactly the right size model for what they're doing, train their data into it." "They're gonna have the tools to do it because of a lot of the partner integrations that the companies like Amazon are doing with AWS or Databricks or different folks like that who are building these whole suites of services for distilling and fine-tuning open models." The counterintuitive edge is that the 405B model may be most valuable as raw material, not an endpoint. The open model compresses into the right size, absorbs proprietary data, and turns one frontier release into thousands of company-specific systems. Distribution of intelligence beats centralization. - Mark Zuckerberg (Mark Zuckerberg), CEO of Meta, with Rowan Cheung

Karl Mehta

520,670 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

Anthropic admitted they built an AI so capable they were scared to release it and the number that explains why is 250. Anthropic's CFO Krishna Rao described in this clip what happened when they ran Mythos against an open source codebase that a previous frontier model had already analyzed. The prior model found 22 security vulnerabilities, Mythos found 250. In the same codebase, that the previous model had already reviewed and flagged as relatively clean. That number, more than 11 times as many vulnerabilities discovered is not just a benchmark improvement, it is a signal that there is an entire layer of software infrastructure that humanity has been operating under the assumption was secure and that assumption may no longer hold. The UK AI Security Institute independently evaluated Mythos Preview and confirmed what the internal numbers suggested. On expert level capture the flag challenges that no model could complete before April 2025, Mythos succeeded 73% of the time and it became the first model ever to complete a complex end-to-end attack range from start to finish, autonomously, without human guidance. The World Economic Forum called this a new security-driven era for AI, the Governor of the Bank of England publicly warned that Anthropic may have found a way to unlock the entire cyber-risk landscape, and the European Central Bank began quietly contacting financial institutions to assess their security posture. The response from Anthropic is what makes this story genuinely important. Rather than shelving the model or publishing it as a standard API release, Rao described a phased approach restricting access to a controlled group, focusing specifically on how the cyber capabilities can be used defensively rather than offensively and treating that framework as a template for how to release powerful but dangerous models in the future. The broader context makes that framing even more significant. AI generated code is already creating ten times more security vulnerabilities than human-written code, 63% of organizations reported experiencing an AI driven cyberattack in the past 12 months, and traditional signature-based security tools were built for a threat model that no longer describes the attack surface companies are defending against. Mythos represents a genuine leap in what autonomous security reasoning can do and it cuts both ways. The model that can find 250 vulnerabilities in a codebase a prior model rated as mostly clean is also, in the wrong hands, the model that can exploit those 250 vulnerabilities before a human defender has even finished reading the report. Anthropic's phased release strategy is not just a legal or PR decision, it is the most honest signal yet from a frontier lab that safety governance and capability development can no longer be treated as separate workstreams. The question is not whether this technology gets deployed, it is whether the institutions using it defensively stay ahead of the ones who will eventually use it offensively and whether the labs building it can keep those two timelines from inverting.

Anthropic admitted they built an AI so capable they were scared to release it and the number that explains why is 250. Anthropic's CFO Krishna Rao described in this clip what happened when they ran Mythos against an open source codebase that a previous frontier model had already analyzed. The prior model found 22 security vulnerabilities, Mythos found 250. In the same codebase, that the previous model had already reviewed and flagged as relatively clean. That number, more than 11 times as many vulnerabilities discovered is not just a benchmark improvement, it is a signal that there is an entire layer of software infrastructure that humanity has been operating under the assumption was secure and that assumption may no longer hold. The UK AI Security Institute independently evaluated Mythos Preview and confirmed what the internal numbers suggested. On expert level capture the flag challenges that no model could complete before April 2025, Mythos succeeded 73% of the time and it became the first model ever to complete a complex end-to-end attack range from start to finish, autonomously, without human guidance. The World Economic Forum called this a new security-driven era for AI, the Governor of the Bank of England publicly warned that Anthropic may have found a way to unlock the entire cyber-risk landscape, and the European Central Bank began quietly contacting financial institutions to assess their security posture. The response from Anthropic is what makes this story genuinely important. Rather than shelving the model or publishing it as a standard API release, Rao described a phased approach restricting access to a controlled group, focusing specifically on how the cyber capabilities can be used defensively rather than offensively and treating that framework as a template for how to release powerful but dangerous models in the future. The broader context makes that framing even more significant. AI generated code is already creating ten times more security vulnerabilities than human-written code, 63% of organizations reported experiencing an AI driven cyberattack in the past 12 months, and traditional signature-based security tools were built for a threat model that no longer describes the attack surface companies are defending against. Mythos represents a genuine leap in what autonomous security reasoning can do and it cuts both ways. The model that can find 250 vulnerabilities in a codebase a prior model rated as mostly clean is also, in the wrong hands, the model that can exploit those 250 vulnerabilities before a human defender has even finished reading the report. Anthropic's phased release strategy is not just a legal or PR decision, it is the most honest signal yet from a frontier lab that safety governance and capability development can no longer be treated as separate workstreams. The question is not whether this technology gets deployed, it is whether the institutions using it defensively stay ahead of the ones who will eventually use it offensively and whether the labs building it can keep those two timelines from inverting.

Milk Road AI

24,356 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten