Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Paying for AI compute stopped being the hard problem on July 14, when Visa, Mastercard, and the Linux Foundation put their names on x402. We're partnering with 0G Labs (Home of Infinite AI) because the harder problem, proving the compute you paid for actually ran, still needed solving. 0G...

ClusterProtocol's profile picture

Cluster Protocol

104,115 subscribers

82,376 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieFinanzen
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

.Bridgit Mendler on the founding thesis of Northwood. "We really were recognizing the same problem, that networking for the space economy is really what drives its value. And there's a significant bottleneck, and that bottleneck actually is not in space. It's actually on Earth. The way that you actually solve that networking problem for space is through introducing a model that gets you to the scale that you need, not just for one individual company or a mission, but for the industry overall." Full "Valley of Depth" episode in comments 👇
2:30

.Bridgit Mendler on the founding thesis of Northwood. "We really were recognizing the same problem, that networking for the space economy is really what drives its value. And there's a significant bottleneck, and that bottleneck actually is not in space. It's actually on Earth. The way that you actually solve that networking problem for space is through introducing a model that gets you to the scale that you need, not just for one individual company or a mission, but for the industry overall." Full "Valley of Depth" episode in comments 👇

Mo Islam

141,978 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Carlos to Dazn about Liam and the penalty “The liam incident has cost me 10 points today, a possible p5 for the team, is the 4th or 5th time it has happened this season” “You can imagine my frustration, there are pilots which you can drive on parallel on a curve.. a race move i've done for years with checo, fernando, gasly, verstappen, leclerc, piastri.. for some reason we has contact with liam, is not the first time someone on the grid has had contact with liam, it is what it is" "The penalty is incomprehensible, i saw the replay and now i'm going to the stewards so someone can explain to me, as this not only concerns me but it concerts the sport” “The driver from the outside is just a passenger to what the driver in the inside decides to do, leaving you no room and on top of that touching you and on top of that the driver on the outside gets a 10s penalty?? is unheard of and it doesn't make sense” #DutchGP
2:27

Carlos to Dazn about Liam and the penalty “The liam incident has cost me 10 points today, a possible p5 for the team, is the 4th or 5th time it has happened this season” “You can imagine my frustration, there are pilots which you can drive on parallel on a curve.. a race move i've done for years with checo, fernando, gasly, verstappen, leclerc, piastri.. for some reason we has contact with liam, is not the first time someone on the grid has had contact with liam, it is what it is" "The penalty is incomprehensible, i saw the replay and now i'm going to the stewards so someone can explain to me, as this not only concerns me but it concerts the sport” “The driver from the outside is just a passenger to what the driver in the inside decides to do, leaving you no room and on top of that touching you and on top of that the driver on the outside gets a 10s penalty?? is unheard of and it doesn't make sense” #DutchGP

ari

240,386 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Baseten's Charlie O'Neill on why the gap to the frontier is just compute and data: "Despite OpenAI and Anthropic and the closed source labs having more compute and more data, the recipe is the same. We're all scaling the same recipe here, and we're at slightly different points of the scaling curve. It's not like OpenAI or Anthropic have any secret sauce that differentiates them scaling up their multi-trillion parameter models from the rest of the open source ecosystem." "It really is just a matter of taking the core underlying architecture and training recipe, and throwing more compute and data at it, which is really promising." "Of course, these closed source labs probably have a long tail of optimizations they've made, which we're gonna continue to try and figure out in the open source community. But the core mechanism is there." "K3 is a great example of, well, if you do scale this recipe up, we're gonna get a pretty good model that's very, very close to the frontier, if not frontier itself." Charlie O'Neill Baseten
1:51

Baseten's Charlie O'Neill on why the gap to the frontier is just compute and data: "Despite OpenAI and Anthropic and the closed source labs having more compute and more data, the recipe is the same. We're all scaling the same recipe here, and we're at slightly different points of the scaling curve. It's not like OpenAI or Anthropic have any secret sauce that differentiates them scaling up their multi-trillion parameter models from the rest of the open source ecosystem." "It really is just a matter of taking the core underlying architecture and training recipe, and throwing more compute and data at it, which is really promising." "Of course, these closed source labs probably have a long tail of optimizations they've made, which we're gonna continue to try and figure out in the open source community. But the core mechanism is there." "K3 is a great example of, well, if you do scale this recipe up, we're gonna get a pretty good model that's very, very close to the frontier, if not frontier itself." Charlie O'Neill Baseten

MTS

17,404 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Atreides' Gavin Baker says that once Starship is reusable, the economics of orbital compute crush the economics of terrestrial compute. He lays out the math: "Once $SPCX can reuse Starship, the math for orbital compute becomes pretty compelling." "It's $60B to bring on a GW terrestrially. $25B is power and cooling — you don't need that in space. And so the right comp for that $35B in IT equipment — GPU, CPU, switches, memory, storage — is that $25B [in power and cooling] vs. the cost of launch." "And once Starship is reusable, I think the cost to launch is $5B. So that means you can put a GW into space for [$40B]. The GW on earth is $60B."
0:53

Atreides' Gavin Baker says that once Starship is reusable, the economics of orbital compute crush the economics of terrestrial compute. He lays out the math: "Once $SPCX can reuse Starship, the math for orbital compute becomes pretty compelling." "It's $60B to bring on a GW terrestrially. $25B is power and cooling — you don't need that in space. And so the right comp for that $35B in IT equipment — GPU, CPU, switches, memory, storage — is that $25B [in power and cooling] vs. the cost of launch." "And once Starship is reusable, I think the cost to launch is $5B. So that means you can put a GW into space for [$40B]. The GW on earth is $60B."

TBPN

102,778 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI: "GPT 5.6 is 54% more efficient on agentic coding, and it's still the best on the market for half the cost." AI spend has never mattered as much as it does today. As a result the models keep getting better and cheaper at the same time. This is going to widen the gap between the people using AI agents and everyone else, because now it's not just powerful, it's cheap. That's exactly why i wrote a full step by step guide on agents, what they are and how to build your own from scratch. Read it below.
2:15

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI: "GPT 5.6 is 54% more efficient on agentic coding, and it's still the best on the market for half the cost." AI spend has never mattered as much as it does today. As a result the models keep getting better and cheaper at the same time. This is going to widen the gap between the people using AI agents and everyone else, because now it's not just powerful, it's cheap. That's exactly why i wrote a full step by step guide on agents, what they are and how to build your own from scratch. Read it below.

Anatoli Kopadze

91,518 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The machine economy does not begin when robots get smarter. It begins when a machine can be paid to do something, and every party involved can prove what happened. Made with Fabric Foundation. Two systems meet in the middle of it: Agent Passport issues the agent a verifiable identity and a spending authority its owner defines, and RoboPay actuates a robot after the payment behind the request checks out. What happens before the robot moves: ▷ Authority is granted once, and it is bounded. The human signs a spending session with a passkey: a total budget, a per-transaction ceiling, the assets allowed, and an expiry. The agent holds no card number and no wallet key. It holds a delegation it cannot exceed. ▷ Two payments, because these are two different obligations. One settles with the merchant for the goods. A separate x402 payment pays the robot for the work of moving them. Buying a thing and hiring a machine to carry it are not the same transaction, and the receipt keeps them apart. ▷ Verification comes before motion. The request arrives with an x402 payment header. The facilitator checks the network, the price, the payee wallet, and the signed payload. Only then are the transaction details sealed onto the robot action event and the command published. Until that clears, the robot sits still. ▷ Every step leaves a receipt. Identity, scope, approval, both payments, verification, dispatch. When you need to know why a machine did something, the answer is a record rather than a guess. (This run was executed in a demo environment.) Agents have been paying for software for a while now. Paying for physical work is a harder problem, because a delivery cannot be rolled back. The guarantee has to sit in front of the action instead of behind it. Authorization before payment, payment before motion: that ordering is what makes it safe to let autonomous systems spend in the world we live in. It is also the layer the machine economy has to get right before anything else in it can work. Scoped by Kite. Verified by RoboPay. Delivered in the real world. 🪁
1:04

The machine economy does not begin when robots get smarter. It begins when a machine can be paid to do something, and every party involved can prove what happened. Made with Fabric Foundation. Two systems meet in the middle of it: Agent Passport issues the agent a verifiable identity and a spending authority its owner defines, and RoboPay actuates a robot after the payment behind the request checks out. What happens before the robot moves: ▷ Authority is granted once, and it is bounded. The human signs a spending session with a passkey: a total budget, a per-transaction ceiling, the assets allowed, and an expiry. The agent holds no card number and no wallet key. It holds a delegation it cannot exceed. ▷ Two payments, because these are two different obligations. One settles with the merchant for the goods. A separate x402 payment pays the robot for the work of moving them. Buying a thing and hiring a machine to carry it are not the same transaction, and the receipt keeps them apart. ▷ Verification comes before motion. The request arrives with an x402 payment header. The facilitator checks the network, the price, the payee wallet, and the signed payload. Only then are the transaction details sealed onto the robot action event and the command published. Until that clears, the robot sits still. ▷ Every step leaves a receipt. Identity, scope, approval, both payments, verification, dispatch. When you need to know why a machine did something, the answer is a record rather than a guess. (This run was executed in a demo environment.) Agents have been paying for software for a while now. Paying for physical work is a harder problem, because a delivery cannot be rolled back. The guarantee has to sit in front of the action instead of behind it. Authorization before payment, payment before motion: that ordering is what makes it safe to let autonomous systems spend in the world we live in. It is also the layer the machine economy has to get right before anything else in it can work. Scoped by Kite. Verified by RoboPay. Delivered in the real world. 🪁

KITE AI

35,068 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Someone ran Claude Code on a beach where any device overheats and that spot suddenly turned out to be the best home for the most powerful AI in the world. This is the reMarkable Paper Pro. A paper tablet for notes with no browser and no social media and not a single app. He sat down right on the sand in the open sun and brought up Claude Code on Opus 4.6 over the Claude API on the paper screen and opened his project ~/repos/webs while the waves broke a few steps away. For years every device had the same trouble outside. In direct sun the screen glares and washes out and heats up and instead of your work you see your own reflection. But e-ink does not blast its own light into your face. It reflects the sunlight like the page of a book. And here is what came out of it. The very thing that kills any normal screen outside turned into fuel for this one. The brighter the sun the sharper the picture because it has nothing to glare with and nothing to wash out. And then comes the thing no laptop on a beach will give you. Your eyes do not get tired. You can watch Opus think on max effort for an hour and it reads like a book in the sun and not a backlight you squint into. The picture only comes alive. In bright light it does not fade but turns sharper and higher in contrast than it ever was in a room. The charge lasts for days. E-ink barely touches the battery so there is no outlet anywhere on the sand and the tablet does not care. It weighs as much as a notebook. The whole setup folds into a beach bag like a pad with a pen on top. Everything on the screen is for real. Claude Code v2.1.110 and Opus 4.6 on the Claude API and the project ~/repos/webs open right on the e-ink in the middle of the sand. In my opinion this is the most unexpected home for an AI this year. Not an office with the blinds drawn and not a monitor cranked to full brightness but a quiet sheet of paper on the sand that open sun only makes better and on it the most powerful Claude writes code right on the page like a pen.
0:33

Someone ran Claude Code on a beach where any device overheats and that spot suddenly turned out to be the best home for the most powerful AI in the world. This is the reMarkable Paper Pro. A paper tablet for notes with no browser and no social media and not a single app. He sat down right on the sand in the open sun and brought up Claude Code on Opus 4.6 over the Claude API on the paper screen and opened his project ~/repos/webs while the waves broke a few steps away. For years every device had the same trouble outside. In direct sun the screen glares and washes out and heats up and instead of your work you see your own reflection. But e-ink does not blast its own light into your face. It reflects the sunlight like the page of a book. And here is what came out of it. The very thing that kills any normal screen outside turned into fuel for this one. The brighter the sun the sharper the picture because it has nothing to glare with and nothing to wash out. And then comes the thing no laptop on a beach will give you. Your eyes do not get tired. You can watch Opus think on max effort for an hour and it reads like a book in the sun and not a backlight you squint into. The picture only comes alive. In bright light it does not fade but turns sharper and higher in contrast than it ever was in a room. The charge lasts for days. E-ink barely touches the battery so there is no outlet anywhere on the sand and the tablet does not care. It weighs as much as a notebook. The whole setup folds into a beach bag like a pad with a pen on top. Everything on the screen is for real. Claude Code v2.1.110 and Opus 4.6 on the Claude API and the project ~/repos/webs open right on the e-ink in the middle of the sand. In my opinion this is the most unexpected home for an AI this year. Not an office with the blinds drawn and not a monitor cranked to full brightness but a quiet sheet of paper on the sand that open sun only makes better and on it the most powerful Claude writes code right on the page like a pen.

Blaze

89,575 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

"A generation of management teaching taught us CEOs should trust their people and get out of the way. But I don't think 'trust' and 'getting out of the way' are the same thing." Brian Chesky on how Founder Mode will become even more important with agentic AI: "Great leadership is presence, not absence." "Leadership is presence. You should actually be partnering with people. You should be on the field with them. If you're a calvalry general, you should be on a horse. You should be on the battlefield. You're not overseas just writing blueprints. You gotta be on the field with them, you gotta be leading by example." "Leadership is from the front, not the back." "I think AI is going to create the equivalent of an AI founder mode. Now you gotta be even more hands-on. I don't think in the era of AI, there should be any pure people managers. Because you're so close to the details and data. Everyone has the opportunity to be hands-on, and it's hard to imagine only managing people and not agents."
1:15

"A generation of management teaching taught us CEOs should trust their people and get out of the way. But I don't think 'trust' and 'getting out of the way' are the same thing." Brian Chesky on how Founder Mode will become even more important with agentic AI: "Great leadership is presence, not absence." "Leadership is presence. You should actually be partnering with people. You should be on the field with them. If you're a calvalry general, you should be on a horse. You should be on the battlefield. You're not overseas just writing blueprints. You gotta be on the field with them, you gotta be leading by example." "Leadership is from the front, not the back." "I think AI is going to create the equivalent of an AI founder mode. Now you gotta be even more hands-on. I don't think in the era of AI, there should be any pure people managers. Because you're so close to the details and data. Everyone has the opportunity to be hands-on, and it's hard to imagine only managing people and not agents."

TBPN

16,005 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Dylan Patel of SemiAnalysis says speed is the moat in AI inference, and getting there runs through new compute (Groq/Cerebras), KV-cache offload, and networking optimization (Aria). "Most of the infrastructure is pretty optimized for high throughput, I would say, but more and more people want to pay for speed. It turns out agents are very sequential, task-oriented, and models running in sequential tasks." "Trying something, verifying it, checking if it's right, and you do that in a loop. It ends up being very slow." "And speed is the moat. The faster you go, speed is the moat." "So a lot of the workloads and high-end use cases that people are developing now are all focused on high interactivity, and the infrastructure there is quite different." "So let's break that down into a few components." "One is you can do new compute: you can do Groq or Cerebras-style compute, which is very much focused on high interactivity." "But even with existing GPUs you can do a few things. One, if you're focused heavily on time to first token, you might offload KV cache to storage, keep it cached, move it back into the compute whenever you need it, much faster than recomputing." "And the third thing you can do is you have to optimize the network."
1:12

Dylan Patel of SemiAnalysis says speed is the moat in AI inference, and getting there runs through new compute (Groq/Cerebras), KV-cache offload, and networking optimization (Aria). "Most of the infrastructure is pretty optimized for high throughput, I would say, but more and more people want to pay for speed. It turns out agents are very sequential, task-oriented, and models running in sequential tasks." "Trying something, verifying it, checking if it's right, and you do that in a loop. It ends up being very slow." "And speed is the moat. The faster you go, speed is the moat." "So a lot of the workloads and high-end use cases that people are developing now are all focused on high interactivity, and the infrastructure there is quite different." "So let's break that down into a few components." "One is you can do new compute: you can do Groq or Cerebras-style compute, which is very much focused on high interactivity." "But even with existing GPUs you can do a few things. One, if you're focused heavily on time to first token, you might offload KV cache to storage, keep it cached, move it back into the compute whenever you need it, much faster than recomputing." "And the third thing you can do is you have to optimize the network."

Fireside Alpha

282,905 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

"Compute is the currency of the future." "Compute is the new OIL." Great, so how do I invest? You can play with the NVIDIA stock, or spin up an AI-Ready Data Center. Challenges of Spinning up AI-Ready Compute: Cost: Even a small cluster of H100 machines is upward to $10M GPU Scarcity: Unallocated or “underutilized” H100, A100, and RTX4090 GPUs are almost non-existent. Very Specific Physical & Technical Requirements: A data center with the right infrastructure is also very rare. There are only 10 in North America that deploy thousands of GPUs, in the open market. Domain Expertise: Teams of experts with the years of experience required to operate, deploy, and manage AI compute at scale are as rare as the GPUs they deploy. Exabits checks all of these boxes and we are the premier Compute Tokenization Platform. We are backed by REAL COMPUTE used by REAL CUSTOMERS.
0:30

"Compute is the currency of the future." "Compute is the new OIL." Great, so how do I invest? You can play with the NVIDIA stock, or spin up an AI-Ready Data Center. Challenges of Spinning up AI-Ready Compute: Cost: Even a small cluster of H100 machines is upward to $10M GPU Scarcity: Unallocated or “underutilized” H100, A100, and RTX4090 GPUs are almost non-existent. Very Specific Physical & Technical Requirements: A data center with the right infrastructure is also very rare. There are only 10 in North America that deploy thousands of GPUs, in the open market. Domain Expertise: Teams of experts with the years of experience required to operate, deploy, and manage AI compute at scale are as rare as the GPUs they deploy. Exabits checks all of these boxes and we are the premier Compute Tokenization Platform. We are backed by REAL COMPUTE used by REAL CUSTOMERS.

Exabits

13,896 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The creator of High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) put a number on the AI build that should stop every infra investor cold. A cluster of a million GPUs runs at roughly 10-20% utilization (Save this). Kim Jung-ho spent thirty years building what feeds the GPU, and his claim is that the GPU is barely working. Here is what is actually happening. Every time a model generates output, the data has to be read out of memory, computed, and written back. The read and the write swallow almost the entire cycle. While that data moves, the GPU does nothing. It sits there, fully powered, fully paid for, waiting. By Kim's estimate the memory is doing only about 30 percent of the work it needs to do. The processor idles the rest. So a million installed GPUs run at 10 to 20 percent. You are not compute constrained. You are memory constrained, and the expensive part is standing around. Adding more GPUs does not fix this. It gives you more processors starving for the same data. Here is the part that decides the next decade. Memory can grow. When a cell cannot shrink any further, you stack it into a high-rise, layer on layer. A GPU cannot be stacked. It runs too hot and needs a cooler bolted to its back, so the one move that rescues memory is closed to the processor. The thing that can keep stacking compounds. The thing that cannot plateaus. The marginal dollar in an AI build now buys more by fixing the memory path than by bolting on another idle GPU. Which is why the companies that control memory bandwidth and supply are not suppliers to the AI trade. They are the AI trade.
0:50

The creator of High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) put a number on the AI build that should stop every infra investor cold. A cluster of a million GPUs runs at roughly 10-20% utilization (Save this). Kim Jung-ho spent thirty years building what feeds the GPU, and his claim is that the GPU is barely working. Here is what is actually happening. Every time a model generates output, the data has to be read out of memory, computed, and written back. The read and the write swallow almost the entire cycle. While that data moves, the GPU does nothing. It sits there, fully powered, fully paid for, waiting. By Kim's estimate the memory is doing only about 30 percent of the work it needs to do. The processor idles the rest. So a million installed GPUs run at 10 to 20 percent. You are not compute constrained. You are memory constrained, and the expensive part is standing around. Adding more GPUs does not fix this. It gives you more processors starving for the same data. Here is the part that decides the next decade. Memory can grow. When a cell cannot shrink any further, you stack it into a high-rise, layer on layer. A GPU cannot be stacked. It runs too hot and needs a cooler bolted to its back, so the one move that rescues memory is closed to the processor. The thing that can keep stacking compounds. The thing that cannot plateaus. The marginal dollar in an AI build now buys more by fixing the memory path than by bolting on another idle GPU. Which is why the companies that control memory bandwidth and supply are not suppliers to the AI trade. They are the AI trade.

Fireside Alpha

38,370 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Gabbit Robotics co-founder Nicole Mattero on why the next AI winners won't fight over your screen, they'll fight to get closer to you: She kicks things off with what she admits is a hot take: "My hot take is that hardware is the only moat going forward because anyone's going to be able to spin up a model and make it really good and really cheap." Her logic is simple. Once a strong model is cheap and easy for anyone to build, the model alone can't set you apart. So what actually protects you? "Where does that leave you? Basically companies that have tactile modes such as hardware are the only ones that actually survive." Hardware, though, is only one piece of her argument. The second piece is data: "The models that win in the long run are the ones where private data is their [moat]." From there, Mattero ties the two together. Hardware gives a company one moat. The ability to gather unique personal data gives it another. Put both in place and the edge starts to multiply: "When you have a company that has hardware as a [moat], but then B is able to collect really unique personal data, that also becomes a [moat]." And that, she says, is the reason so many foundation model companies are reaching beyond the screen and into the physical world: "That's why I think a lot of these foundation models are like, let's get something in the home or on the person. It gives them an edge on both fronts."
0:45

Gabbit Robotics co-founder Nicole Mattero on why the next AI winners won't fight over your screen, they'll fight to get closer to you: She kicks things off with what she admits is a hot take: "My hot take is that hardware is the only moat going forward because anyone's going to be able to spin up a model and make it really good and really cheap." Her logic is simple. Once a strong model is cheap and easy for anyone to build, the model alone can't set you apart. So what actually protects you? "Where does that leave you? Basically companies that have tactile modes such as hardware are the only ones that actually survive." Hardware, though, is only one piece of her argument. The second piece is data: "The models that win in the long run are the ones where private data is their [moat]." From there, Mattero ties the two together. Hardware gives a company one moat. The ability to gather unique personal data gives it another. Put both in place and the edge starts to multiply: "When you have a company that has hardware as a [moat], but then B is able to collect really unique personal data, that also becomes a [moat]." And that, she says, is the reason so many foundation model companies are reaching beyond the screen and into the physical world: "That's why I think a lot of these foundation models are like, let's get something in the home or on the person. It gives them an edge on both fronts."

Big Brain AI

19,342 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below
0:50

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below

Hanako

14,325 Aufrufe • vor 28 Tagen

There's an economics theorem called Alchian-Allen. And it has the very interesting implication that AI labs will be able to charge *higher* margins on their best models as compute gets scarcer. As compute gets more expensive, the cost of running any model goes up. So you might as well pay a bit more to make sure you're running the very best model. Which means the economics of being at the frontier improve, because if you’re not running the very best model, then you’re underutilizing this very precious compute. This pushes the AI model market towards winner-take-all; if you're the best, you can get away with charging an even higher margin. Dylan Patel tells me that we’re already seeing this today: all the revenue in the industry is on the best models. That’s the Alchian-Allen effect. If there’s a cost increase that’s roughly the same for all products, then the relative difference in price between higher and lower quality goods actually goes down. Consumers become relatively more willing to pay for the premium product. And it means that as the compute shortage hits, AI labs can capture more margin - not less, as you might expect - because consumers are choosing premium models more often.
1:21

There's an economics theorem called Alchian-Allen. And it has the very interesting implication that AI labs will be able to charge *higher* margins on their best models as compute gets scarcer. As compute gets more expensive, the cost of running any model goes up. So you might as well pay a bit more to make sure you're running the very best model. Which means the economics of being at the frontier improve, because if you’re not running the very best model, then you’re underutilizing this very precious compute. This pushes the AI model market towards winner-take-all; if you're the best, you can get away with charging an even higher margin. Dylan Patel tells me that we’re already seeing this today: all the revenue in the industry is on the best models. That’s the Alchian-Allen effect. If there’s a cost increase that’s roughly the same for all products, then the relative difference in price between higher and lower quality goods actually goes down. Consumers become relatively more willing to pay for the premium product. And it means that as the compute shortage hits, AI labs can capture more margin - not less, as you might expect - because consumers are choosing premium models more often.

Dwarkesh Patel

323,500 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Sergey Brin said compute is dessert. The companies winning the AI race right now are not the ones with the most chips. They are the ones with the best algorithms. Every headline you read about AI is about data centers, Megawatts, and Nvidia orders. Billions in infrastructure and more. The entire investment thesis of the last three years has been built on compute scaling as the primary moat. Sergey thinks that framing is wrong. He pulled out an example from physics. The N-body problem. Scientists have been running those simulations since the fifties. Over the decades, raw compute improved on Moore's law. But the algorithms to solve the problem improved faster. Not slightly faster. Far faster. The algorithmic gains made the compute gains look small. He says the same thing has happened in AI over the last decade. Compute is not the meal. It is the dessert. You still want it. Nobody is turning down frontier compute. But the companies that figured out the algorithms first are the ones actually ahead. The market is pricing AI winners by who has the most chips. Sergey Brin just said that is the wrong scorecard. The ones who win this are not building the biggest data center. They are solving the harder math problem.
1:38

Sergey Brin said compute is dessert. The companies winning the AI race right now are not the ones with the most chips. They are the ones with the best algorithms. Every headline you read about AI is about data centers, Megawatts, and Nvidia orders. Billions in infrastructure and more. The entire investment thesis of the last three years has been built on compute scaling as the primary moat. Sergey thinks that framing is wrong. He pulled out an example from physics. The N-body problem. Scientists have been running those simulations since the fifties. Over the decades, raw compute improved on Moore's law. But the algorithms to solve the problem improved faster. Not slightly faster. Far faster. The algorithmic gains made the compute gains look small. He says the same thing has happened in AI over the last decade. Compute is not the meal. It is the dessert. You still want it. Nobody is turning down frontier compute. But the companies that figured out the algorithms first are the ones actually ahead. The market is pricing AI winners by who has the most chips. Sergey Brin just said that is the wrong scorecard. The ones who win this are not building the biggest data center. They are solving the harder math problem.

Ihtesham Ali

130,249 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Shaun Maguire on SpaceX IPO: "Starship is the railroad to space." "In 2019, it was very predictable that Starlink would work and produce a massive amount of revenue, and we called that right." "We're now in a very similar point to where Starlink was in 2019 with AI infrastructure and orbital compute." "I think people are really underestimating how far along the orbital compute product is right now." On the $22 trillion TAM: "What do you think is the TAM for intelligence? What's the TAM for all compute infrastructure 50 years from now?" "People are underappreciating how much infrastructure is going to be built in space and how much easier it is to access energy in space." "We're at the beginning of this AI era, and we're going to double or triple the total amount of intelligence that we have access to over the next decade — so yes, I absolutely believe in the TAM, and I would even argue it's an underestimate." How much is the "railroad to space" worth in the era of AI and orbital compute? Now imagine the railroad company also owns the AI and the orbital compute. Elon Musk Shaun Maguire
2:24

Shaun Maguire on SpaceX IPO: "Starship is the railroad to space." "In 2019, it was very predictable that Starlink would work and produce a massive amount of revenue, and we called that right." "We're now in a very similar point to where Starlink was in 2019 with AI infrastructure and orbital compute." "I think people are really underestimating how far along the orbital compute product is right now." On the $22 trillion TAM: "What do you think is the TAM for intelligence? What's the TAM for all compute infrastructure 50 years from now?" "People are underappreciating how much infrastructure is going to be built in space and how much easier it is to access energy in space." "We're at the beginning of this AI era, and we're going to double or triple the total amount of intelligence that we have access to over the next decade — so yes, I absolutely believe in the TAM, and I would even argue it's an underestimate." How much is the "railroad to space" worth in the era of AI and orbital compute? Now imagine the railroad company also owns the AI and the orbital compute. Elon Musk Shaun Maguire

KanekoaTheGreat

39,709 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

America is about to lose the AI race, and it will not happen at the frontier. It will happen at the floor. Everyone is watching who ships the smartest model. The actual war is over the 80% of tokens nobody posts about: the routine inference that quietly runs the world. On current trajectory, that fight is already lost. Watch what people do, not what they say. Coinbase just defaulted its own engineers off frontier models onto open weights and cut AI spend nearly in half while usage kept climbing. Even NVIDIA runs a closed frontier model as an orchestrator and pushes the volume to its own open weights. The frontier is becoming a router. The volume goes open. That part is settled. Here is the part that should terrify Washington: the only credible open tier today is Chinese. GLM. Kimi. And the US answer is to tighten export controls and freeze its own labs in place, as if you can embargo a file that is already downloaded, or price-match free. So China hands the Global South Huawei hardware and free open models, and a generation in Africa and Southeast Asia learns to reason through a model that will not tell them what happened at Tiananmen Square. That is not a cost story. That is influence through inference. You do not have to win hearts and minds when you supply the mind. Open source is not a nice-to-have for America. It is the whole ballgame for the 80%, and right now the US is barely on the field. We need American open weights. Not eventually. Now.
0:47

America is about to lose the AI race, and it will not happen at the frontier. It will happen at the floor. Everyone is watching who ships the smartest model. The actual war is over the 80% of tokens nobody posts about: the routine inference that quietly runs the world. On current trajectory, that fight is already lost. Watch what people do, not what they say. Coinbase just defaulted its own engineers off frontier models onto open weights and cut AI spend nearly in half while usage kept climbing. Even NVIDIA runs a closed frontier model as an orchestrator and pushes the volume to its own open weights. The frontier is becoming a router. The volume goes open. That part is settled. Here is the part that should terrify Washington: the only credible open tier today is Chinese. GLM. Kimi. And the US answer is to tighten export controls and freeze its own labs in place, as if you can embargo a file that is already downloaded, or price-match free. So China hands the Global South Huawei hardware and free open models, and a generation in Africa and Southeast Asia learns to reason through a model that will not tell them what happened at Tiananmen Square. That is not a cost story. That is influence through inference. You do not have to win hearts and minds when you supply the mind. Open source is not a nice-to-have for America. It is the whole ballgame for the 80%, and right now the US is barely on the field. We need American open weights. Not eventually. Now.

Ben Pouladian

71,722 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

“There are more companies than ideas by quite a bit. Compute is large enough such that it's not obvious that you need that much more compute to prove some idea. AlexNet was built on 2 GPUs. The transformer was built on 8 to 64 GPUs. Which would be, what, 2 GPUs of today? You could argue that o1 reasoning was not the most compute heavy thing in the world. For research, you definitely need some amount of compute, but it's far from obvious that you need the absolutely largest amount of compute. If everyone is within the same paradigm, then compute becomes one of the big differentiators.” Ilya Sutskever
2:03

“There are more companies than ideas by quite a bit. Compute is large enough such that it's not obvious that you need that much more compute to prove some idea. AlexNet was built on 2 GPUs. The transformer was built on 8 to 64 GPUs. Which would be, what, 2 GPUs of today? You could argue that o1 reasoning was not the most compute heavy thing in the world. For research, you definitely need some amount of compute, but it's far from obvious that you need the absolutely largest amount of compute. If everyone is within the same paradigm, then compute becomes one of the big differentiators.” Ilya Sutskever

Dwarkesh Patel

203,605 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Dylan on why Anthropic leading on models doesn't mean OpenAI loses. Even the tier 2 and 3 labs will sell out of tokens: "Everyone's like Anthropic won. They had Mythos, Opus 4.7 and their revenue is adding $10 billion a month all before OpenAI's alleged Spud release. So clearly Anthropic is in the lead and OpenAI is cooked. Anthropic has such bounds on compute, they can only grow it so fast. Dario used to gloat about how OpenAI was being too aggressive on compute and Anthropic was more sensible in their scaling. Now Anthropic is like I wish we had a lot more compute. OpenAI just raised a ton of money to get incremental compute in addition to the irresponsible levels of compute that they were buying. By the end of the year, let's say a 4.6 Opus tier model, the economy would spend $100 billion on. Anthropic won't have enough compute to do that. And presumably OpenAI and Google will hit that tier soon. Anthropic may get to charge 70%+ gross margins but if OpenAI hits it next, they charge 50% gross margins. They still get all of this incremental demand. There is such demand for these tokens and such limitations on compute. It's pretty clear even the tier 2 or tier 3 lab are going to be sold out of tokens. The economic value that the best model can deliver is growing faster than our ability to actually serve those tokens to people via the infrastructure."
2:33

Dylan on why Anthropic leading on models doesn't mean OpenAI loses. Even the tier 2 and 3 labs will sell out of tokens: "Everyone's like Anthropic won. They had Mythos, Opus 4.7 and their revenue is adding $10 billion a month all before OpenAI's alleged Spud release. So clearly Anthropic is in the lead and OpenAI is cooked. Anthropic has such bounds on compute, they can only grow it so fast. Dario used to gloat about how OpenAI was being too aggressive on compute and Anthropic was more sensible in their scaling. Now Anthropic is like I wish we had a lot more compute. OpenAI just raised a ton of money to get incremental compute in addition to the irresponsible levels of compute that they were buying. By the end of the year, let's say a 4.6 Opus tier model, the economy would spend $100 billion on. Anthropic won't have enough compute to do that. And presumably OpenAI and Google will hit that tier soon. Anthropic may get to charge 70%+ gross margins but if OpenAI hits it next, they charge 50% gross margins. They still get all of this incremental demand. There is such demand for these tokens and such limitations on compute. It's pretty clear even the tier 2 or tier 3 lab are going to be sold out of tokens. The economic value that the best model can deliver is growing faster than our ability to actually serve those tokens to people via the infrastructure."

Patrick OShaughnessy

295,307 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

THIS $1,300 CARD HAS THE SAME 32GB OF VRAM AS A $2,000+ RTX 5090 - FOR LOCAL AI, THAT'S THE SPEC THAT DECIDES EVERYTHING. that clip is the gigabyte radeon ai pro r9700 ai top, 32gb of vram, built for local ai. the pitch is simple: the same memory capacity as an rtx 5090, for roughly a third of what a 5090 actually sells for. here's why that matters, and where it doesn't. for ai, vram is the gate. a model either fits in memory or it doesn't. 32gb loads models a 16gb card can't touch, full stop. so for running local llms and image models, this card does the one thing that counts, cheap. honest line: this is not a 5090 for gaming. the 5090 is far faster at raster and ray tracing. they only match on how much vram they carry. if you want frames, buy the 5090. if you want to fit big models locally, you just found the same 32gb for a third of the money. no $2,000+ price tag, no cloud gpu rental, no model too big for 16gb. the uncomfortable part isn't that amd is cheaper. it's that for local ai you were about to overpay for gaming power you'd never use. follow RetroChainer for more on paying for the spec that matters, and bookmark this before your next gpu.
1:52

THIS $1,300 CARD HAS THE SAME 32GB OF VRAM AS A $2,000+ RTX 5090 - FOR LOCAL AI, THAT'S THE SPEC THAT DECIDES EVERYTHING. that clip is the gigabyte radeon ai pro r9700 ai top, 32gb of vram, built for local ai. the pitch is simple: the same memory capacity as an rtx 5090, for roughly a third of what a 5090 actually sells for. here's why that matters, and where it doesn't. for ai, vram is the gate. a model either fits in memory or it doesn't. 32gb loads models a 16gb card can't touch, full stop. so for running local llms and image models, this card does the one thing that counts, cheap. honest line: this is not a 5090 for gaming. the 5090 is far faster at raster and ray tracing. they only match on how much vram they carry. if you want frames, buy the 5090. if you want to fit big models locally, you just found the same 32gb for a third of the money. no $2,000+ price tag, no cloud gpu rental, no model too big for 16gb. the uncomfortable part isn't that amd is cheaper. it's that for local ai you were about to overpay for gaming power you'd never use. follow RetroChainer for more on paying for the spec that matters, and bookmark this before your next gpu.

RetroChainer

38,844 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen