Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Plot your data before you model it. That's the 18 minutes of Stanford's statistical learning course. First Lesson. The professors show a prostate cancer dataset with a hidden outlier - a data entry typo that would silently destroy any model trained on it. Only a scatter plot catches it....

gemchange_ltd's profile picture

gemchanger

27,529 subscribers

174,961 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

EducationHealth & WellnessScience & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

A+ NQ setup has exactly three parts. 1. Statistical bias: Probability Map shows 75%+ to one side. Not an opinion. Backtested across 10 years of NQ session data. That number narrows the playing field before price moves an inch. 2. The sweep: Liquidity is resting in the opposite direction. When price grabs it, that is not a fake-out. That is the fuel for the real move. You were expecting it. You were watching for it. 3. The entry model: After the sweep, the structure confirms. iFVG / CISD. A defined ICT concept with clear invalidation. Not a hope, not a gut feel. A model with a precise entry and a reason to be there. Probability tells you where. The sweep tells you when. The entry model tells you how. Remove any one of the three and you do not have an edge. You have a trade. How many of these boxes do you tick before you pull the trigger?
1:01

A+ NQ setup has exactly three parts. 1. Statistical bias: Probability Map shows 75%+ to one side. Not an opinion. Backtested across 10 years of NQ session data. That number narrows the playing field before price moves an inch. 2. The sweep: Liquidity is resting in the opposite direction. When price grabs it, that is not a fake-out. That is the fuel for the real move. You were expecting it. You were watching for it. 3. The entry model: After the sweep, the structure confirms. iFVG / CISD. A defined ICT concept with clear invalidation. Not a hope, not a gut feel. A model with a precise entry and a reason to be there. Probability tells you where. The sweep tells you when. The entry model tells you how. Remove any one of the three and you do not have an edge. You have a trade. How many of these boxes do you tick before you pull the trigger?

Herman Trading

20,079 views • 3 months ago

$BTC Statistical Study using Claude - A Beginner's Workflow Here's an example of a z-score study on $BTC - still tinkering so don't take this as overtly useful information but the creation of a dashboard for the visualization of statistical data is phenomenal. my current workflow: > import $BTC time data - .csv file (can get this information from multiple venues - Binance is where I got mine) > creating bins - if you have a larger data set - you can use recent data to prevent overt bias in the long direction or filter consolidation and trending regime data into separate bins for statistical analysis - however, you will have to define thresholds and determine what that entails. > defining metrics in Claude that you want to use for statistical analysis e.g. for z-score what is it based on and what type of calculation? make sure you understand the calculations being performed for any metrics that you are doing a study for and modify them accordingly. > prompting Claude to do a statistical analysis with specific instructions and then tell it to create visualization for this. I've been messing around with this and I'm seriously impressed by the output.
0:33

$BTC Statistical Study using Claude - A Beginner's Workflow Here's an example of a z-score study on $BTC - still tinkering so don't take this as overtly useful information but the creation of a dashboard for the visualization of statistical data is phenomenal. my current workflow: > import $BTC time data - .csv file (can get this information from multiple venues - Binance is where I got mine) > creating bins - if you have a larger data set - you can use recent data to prevent overt bias in the long direction or filter consolidation and trending regime data into separate bins for statistical analysis - however, you will have to define thresholds and determine what that entails. > defining metrics in Claude that you want to use for statistical analysis e.g. for z-score what is it based on and what type of calculation? make sure you understand the calculations being performed for any metrics that you are doing a study for and modify them accordingly. > prompting Claude to do a statistical analysis with specific instructions and then tell it to create visualization for this. I've been messing around with this and I'm seriously impressed by the output.

Stoic

19,782 views • 1 year ago

Robot policies must be both reliable and highly capable to be useful; the best way to achieve this level of performance is with reinforcement learning. However, for reinforcement learning you are usually stuck between two difficult options: reinforcement in the real world is often risky and expensive, while reinforcement learning in a traditional simulator takes a lot of engineering work and has a persistent sim-to-real gap. What if instead you could train your robot purely in a world model? RISE by Jiazhi Yang et al. uses a compositional world model to predict the future and evaluate progress. This allows for a self-improving pipeline, which learns a world model from real data and then learns how the robot should perform different tasks. This pipeline results in a data-driven way to improve policy performance from real data but without real-world reinforcement learning. Watch Episode #86 of RoboPapers, with Chris Paxton and Jiafei Duan, to learn more!
53:45

Robot policies must be both reliable and highly capable to be useful; the best way to achieve this level of performance is with reinforcement learning. However, for reinforcement learning you are usually stuck between two difficult options: reinforcement in the real world is often risky and expensive, while reinforcement learning in a traditional simulator takes a lot of engineering work and has a persistent sim-to-real gap. What if instead you could train your robot purely in a world model? RISE by Jiazhi Yang et al. uses a compositional world model to predict the future and evaluate progress. This allows for a self-improving pipeline, which learns a world model from real data and then learns how the robot should perform different tasks. This pipeline results in a data-driven way to improve policy performance from real data but without real-world reinforcement learning. Watch Episode #86 of RoboPapers, with Chris Paxton and Jiafei Duan, to learn more!

RoboPapers

38,772 views • 3 months ago

Does GPT understand the world? Here is what Ilya Sutskever, co-founder of OpenAI, says during a discussion with Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia: (1) When we train a large neural network to accurately predict the next word in lots of different texts from the internet, the AI is learning a world model. (2) On the surface, it may look like learning correlations in text, but it turns out that to 'just learn' statistical correlations in text, to compress information really well, what the neural network learns is some representation of the process that produced the text. (3) This text is a projection of the world...what the neural network is learning is aspects of the world, of people, of the human conditions, their hopes, dreams, motivations, their interactions...the situations we are in. The neural network learns a compressed, abstract, usable representation." Do you think learning representations = understanding? Are large language models simply stochastic parrots, or are they much more?
3:10

Does GPT understand the world? Here is what Ilya Sutskever, co-founder of OpenAI, says during a discussion with Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia: (1) When we train a large neural network to accurately predict the next word in lots of different texts from the internet, the AI is learning a world model. (2) On the surface, it may look like learning correlations in text, but it turns out that to 'just learn' statistical correlations in text, to compress information really well, what the neural network learns is some representation of the process that produced the text. (3) This text is a projection of the world...what the neural network is learning is aspects of the world, of people, of the human conditions, their hopes, dreams, motivations, their interactions...the situations we are in. The neural network learns a compressed, abstract, usable representation." Do you think learning representations = understanding? Are large language models simply stochastic parrots, or are they much more?

Alex Ker 🔭

1,367,117 views • 2 years ago

Jensen Huang says agentic AI is not a chatbot. It is a "digital robot" -- and the next bottleneck is not the model. It is first-person data. "Agentic AI is just a digital robot. It understands, it reasons, it plans, and it acts and uses tools." Then he makes the bigger jump: "The world's video data is from a third person, not first person. And so agentic systems, robotic systems, physical AI -- the data is the hardest problem." That is the hidden constraint in robotics. LLMs got the internet. Physical AI needs demonstrations, synthetic worlds, reinforcement learning, and first-person experience. This is why Jensen keeps calling it a stack: robots are not waiting for one magical model. They need the data engine, the simulator, the reward system, the runtime, and the computer. The next wave of AI is not just software that talks. It is software that sees, plans, acts, and eventually moves through the world.
2:32

Jensen Huang says agentic AI is not a chatbot. It is a "digital robot" -- and the next bottleneck is not the model. It is first-person data. "Agentic AI is just a digital robot. It understands, it reasons, it plans, and it acts and uses tools." Then he makes the bigger jump: "The world's video data is from a third person, not first person. And so agentic systems, robotic systems, physical AI -- the data is the hardest problem." That is the hidden constraint in robotics. LLMs got the internet. Physical AI needs demonstrations, synthetic worlds, reinforcement learning, and first-person experience. This is why Jensen keeps calling it a stack: robots are not waiting for one magical model. They need the data engine, the simulator, the reward system, the runtime, and the computer. The next wave of AI is not just software that talks. It is software that sees, plans, acts, and eventually moves through the world.

Karl Mehta

14,140 views • 3 months ago

🚨David Friedberg: AI is starting to identify and solve problems on its own “I'll give you a science corner example: there's this Evo 2 model that they publish at the Arc Institute, which Patrick Collison, you know, is the main funder and chairman.” “So that Evo 2 model, they just ingested all the DNA data they could find in the world.” “Trillions and trillions of base paired data that they ingested and then they looked at patterns in DNA. And that's it.” “They had no context for what the DNA represented, they had no context for the concept of genes, none of the structured understanding of what that DNA does, what it is, and you know what it did?” “They fed in the BRCA gene variant and the thing output a warning saying, ‘I think that this is a pathogenic variant to DNA,’ without having any context.” “This is the breast cancer allele.” “And it didn't have any knowledge and it wasn't trained on that at all.” “It had no knowledge that there are pathogenic variants for cancer, and it identified that this was a genetic variant that can cause some sort of pathogenic outcome in the organism.” “That's a great example where there's a lack of understanding at the human level on what really drives some of the patterns in nature, the patterns in society, the patterns in behavior that are kind of emergent phenomena perhaps, that these AI models are starting to identify.”
1:03

🚨David Friedberg: AI is starting to identify and solve problems on its own “I'll give you a science corner example: there's this Evo 2 model that they publish at the Arc Institute, which Patrick Collison, you know, is the main funder and chairman.” “So that Evo 2 model, they just ingested all the DNA data they could find in the world.” “Trillions and trillions of base paired data that they ingested and then they looked at patterns in DNA. And that's it.” “They had no context for what the DNA represented, they had no context for the concept of genes, none of the structured understanding of what that DNA does, what it is, and you know what it did?” “They fed in the BRCA gene variant and the thing output a warning saying, ‘I think that this is a pathogenic variant to DNA,’ without having any context.” “This is the breast cancer allele.” “And it didn't have any knowledge and it wasn't trained on that at all.” “It had no knowledge that there are pathogenic variants for cancer, and it identified that this was a genetic variant that can cause some sort of pathogenic outcome in the organism.” “That's a great example where there's a lack of understanding at the human level on what really drives some of the patterns in nature, the patterns in society, the patterns in behavior that are kind of emergent phenomena perhaps, that these AI models are starting to identify.”

The All-In Podcast

79,718 views • 1 year ago

NEWS: Each new Starlink V3 satellite carries six space lasers moving 400 gigabits each The lasers connect the satellites to each other, forming a mesh in orbit that can route your data between almost any two points on Earth without touching the ground. Together they add up to a petabit-scale network, and the paths are redundant. If one link is busy or blocked, traffic reroutes through another satellite. This is why Starlink can work in the middle of an ocean or a desert. Data hops satellite to satellite by laser, then drops down only where it needs to. It is the same laser tech NASA just chose to beam 4K video from its Orion Moon spacecraft. (Source: Starlink, July 17)
0:40

NEWS: Each new Starlink V3 satellite carries six space lasers moving 400 gigabits each The lasers connect the satellites to each other, forming a mesh in orbit that can route your data between almost any two points on Earth without touching the ground. Together they add up to a petabit-scale network, and the paths are redundant. If one link is busy or blocked, traffic reroutes through another satellite. This is why Starlink can work in the middle of an ocean or a desert. Data hops satellite to satellite by laser, then drops down only where it needs to. It is the same laser tech NASA just chose to beam 4K video from its Orion Moon spacecraft. (Source: Starlink, July 17)

Muskonomy

14,851 views • 2 months ago

I got a smart meter recently and saw you can download a HDF file with the data so I had the idea of writing a script that could parse that and show the data in a useful manner. However I discovered that someone has already done this and done a really good job on it. The video explains how it works. In simple terms it uses the ESB smart meter data and shows a breakdown of how much data you are using and when and also recommends plans and estimates what each one would cost based on the data. The tool is available at easier to read on Laptop or Tablet or then your phone to Landscape.
1:26

I got a smart meter recently and saw you can download a HDF file with the data so I had the idea of writing a script that could parse that and show the data in a useful manner. However I discovered that someone has already done this and done a really good job on it. The video explains how it works. In simple terms it uses the ESB smart meter data and shows a breakdown of how much data you are using and when and also recommends plans and estimates what each one would cost based on the data. The tool is available at easier to read on Laptop or Tablet or then your phone to Landscape.

Carlow Weather

298,565 views • 2 years ago

We often hear that machine learning models "learn patterns in data". But what does that actually look like in geometry? If you dropped a little elastic mesh into a cloud of points and let it learn, how would it fold itself to match the shape of the data? In this scene we watch a self-organizing map...a simple unsupervised neural model...learn the shape of a two-dimensional dataset arranged in a spiral arm. On top of this, we lay down a square grid of neurons whose weights live in the same plane. At the start, this grid is just a flat net floating across the cloud...it knows nothing about the structure underneath. Learning is a repeated game: pick a random data point, find the neuron whose weight is closest, and then nudge that neuron and its neighbours toward the point. Do this again and again, while slowly shrinking how far the neighbourhood influence spreads. #MachineLearning #ManifoldLearning #UnsupervisedLearning #NeuralMaps #GeometricML
0:59

We often hear that machine learning models "learn patterns in data". But what does that actually look like in geometry? If you dropped a little elastic mesh into a cloud of points and let it learn, how would it fold itself to match the shape of the data? In this scene we watch a self-organizing map...a simple unsupervised neural model...learn the shape of a two-dimensional dataset arranged in a spiral arm. On top of this, we lay down a square grid of neurons whose weights live in the same plane. At the start, this grid is just a flat net floating across the cloud...it knows nothing about the structure underneath. Learning is a repeated game: pick a random data point, find the neuron whose weight is closest, and then nudge that neuron and its neighbours toward the point. Do this again and again, while slowly shrinking how far the neighbourhood influence spreads. #MachineLearning #ManifoldLearning #UnsupervisedLearning #NeuralMaps #GeometricML

Mathelirium

139,757 views • 10 months ago

The Machine That Learns The Law Behind The Data A very very interesting US Patent US10963540B2 - Physics Informed Learning Machine describes a learning system that does not begin with data alone. It begins with a physical model, usually written as a differential equation (or PDE) dx/dt = f(x,t) A normal Machine Learning model sees scattered data and tries to fit it. A physics-informed learning machine starts with a law. Then it treats the data as evidence that updates what the model believes about the physical system. For this application, I use the patent idea on NASA C-MAPSS Turbofan engine data. The machine watches multivariate telemetry from a degrading engine and infers a hidden health state that is not measured directly. From that posterior belief, it estimates the engine’s remaining useful life. In the main 3D scene, the engine lifetime is turned into a tunnel. The spiral ribbons are real sensor channels evolving over cycle-time. The glowing core is the inferred health state. The surrounding cloud is uncertainty. The orange wall ahead is the predicted failure horizon. So the big picture is: sensor evidence comes in, posterior belief tightens, and the machine moves from uncertainty toward a concrete failure prediction. The inset posteriors make that explicit. The health posterior shows where the model believes the hidden engine condition sits at the current moment, and how sharply it believes it. The RUL posterior shows the same idea for remaining life... early on it is broad, later it shifts left and narrows as the machine becomes more certain about how close failure is. This idea is not limited to engines. The same idea can apply to data centers, CPUs, GPUs, cooling systems, power grids, robotics, batteries, and any machine that produces telemetry while obeying physical constraints. In an age where machine learning runs on massive hardware infrastructure, this kind of model matters: it can turn noisy sensor streams into early warnings before expensive systems fail.
0:30

The Machine That Learns The Law Behind The Data A very very interesting US Patent US10963540B2 - Physics Informed Learning Machine describes a learning system that does not begin with data alone. It begins with a physical model, usually written as a differential equation (or PDE) dx/dt = f(x,t) A normal Machine Learning model sees scattered data and tries to fit it. A physics-informed learning machine starts with a law. Then it treats the data as evidence that updates what the model believes about the physical system. For this application, I use the patent idea on NASA C-MAPSS Turbofan engine data. The machine watches multivariate telemetry from a degrading engine and infers a hidden health state that is not measured directly. From that posterior belief, it estimates the engine’s remaining useful life. In the main 3D scene, the engine lifetime is turned into a tunnel. The spiral ribbons are real sensor channels evolving over cycle-time. The glowing core is the inferred health state. The surrounding cloud is uncertainty. The orange wall ahead is the predicted failure horizon. So the big picture is: sensor evidence comes in, posterior belief tightens, and the machine moves from uncertainty toward a concrete failure prediction. The inset posteriors make that explicit. The health posterior shows where the model believes the hidden engine condition sits at the current moment, and how sharply it believes it. The RUL posterior shows the same idea for remaining life... early on it is broad, later it shifts left and narrows as the machine becomes more certain about how close failure is. This idea is not limited to engines. The same idea can apply to data centers, CPUs, GPUs, cooling systems, power grids, robotics, batteries, and any machine that produces telemetry while obeying physical constraints. In an age where machine learning runs on massive hardware infrastructure, this kind of model matters: it can turn noisy sensor streams into early warnings before expensive systems fail.

Mathelirium

17,843 views • 4 months ago

How can you solve complex tasks using a Large Language Model? Here is a 2-minute introduction to everything you need to know to 10x the quality of your results. Let's talk about three techniques, in order of complexity, starting with the easiest one: • In-Context Learning • Indexing + In-Context Learning • Fine-tuning In-Context Learning The team that trained GPT-3 found something they couldn't explain: You can condition a model using examples of how you want it to behave. I included an example prompt in the attached video. You can "teach" the model how you want it to interpret questions, select the correct answers, and format the results by giving a few examples. You can also give specific knowledge to the model that will be helpful when formulating answers. We call this approach "grounding the model." There's another example in the video. Indexing + In-Context Learning Unfortunately, there is a limit to how much data you can include in a prompt. We call this the "context size." One version of GPT-4 supports a context of approximately 6,000 words, while the other supports 25,000 words. Although this sounds like a lot, many applications need more than that. Imagine you wrote a book and want to build an application to answer any questions about your story. What happens if your book is longer than the context? That's where Indexing comes in. Using a model, you can turn every book passage into an embedding. These are vectors, numbers that "encode" the passage's text. You can then store these embeddings in a particular database that supports fast retrieval of these vectors. You can then turn any question into an embedding and search the database for the list of passages that are similar to that query. Instead of using the entire book to ask the model, you can now use the relevant passages as in-context information, effectively working around the context size limitation. Fine-tuning Fine-tuning can give you an extra boost to get reliable outputs from your LLM. It is, however, the most complex approach on the list. There are different approaches to fine-tuning a model with your data. A popular technique is to process your data with your LLM and use the outputs to train a new classifier that solves your specific task. Notice that here you aren't modifying the LLM. Instead, you are chaining it with your trained classifier. Another approach is to modify the parameters of the LLM using your data. Think of this as "rewiring" the model in a way that solves your particular task. The results and costs will vary depending on how many layers you want to fine-tune from the original model. Many companies think that fine-tuning is the solution to their problems. In my experience, many will benefit from exploring the other two approaches. I love explaining Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence ideas. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, follow me Santiago so you don't miss what comes next.
4:50

How can you solve complex tasks using a Large Language Model? Here is a 2-minute introduction to everything you need to know to 10x the quality of your results. Let's talk about three techniques, in order of complexity, starting with the easiest one: • In-Context Learning • Indexing + In-Context Learning • Fine-tuning In-Context Learning The team that trained GPT-3 found something they couldn't explain: You can condition a model using examples of how you want it to behave. I included an example prompt in the attached video. You can "teach" the model how you want it to interpret questions, select the correct answers, and format the results by giving a few examples. You can also give specific knowledge to the model that will be helpful when formulating answers. We call this approach "grounding the model." There's another example in the video. Indexing + In-Context Learning Unfortunately, there is a limit to how much data you can include in a prompt. We call this the "context size." One version of GPT-4 supports a context of approximately 6,000 words, while the other supports 25,000 words. Although this sounds like a lot, many applications need more than that. Imagine you wrote a book and want to build an application to answer any questions about your story. What happens if your book is longer than the context? That's where Indexing comes in. Using a model, you can turn every book passage into an embedding. These are vectors, numbers that "encode" the passage's text. You can then store these embeddings in a particular database that supports fast retrieval of these vectors. You can then turn any question into an embedding and search the database for the list of passages that are similar to that query. Instead of using the entire book to ask the model, you can now use the relevant passages as in-context information, effectively working around the context size limitation. Fine-tuning Fine-tuning can give you an extra boost to get reliable outputs from your LLM. It is, however, the most complex approach on the list. There are different approaches to fine-tuning a model with your data. A popular technique is to process your data with your LLM and use the outputs to train a new classifier that solves your specific task. Notice that here you aren't modifying the LLM. Instead, you are chaining it with your trained classifier. Another approach is to modify the parameters of the LLM using your data. Think of this as "rewiring" the model in a way that solves your particular task. The results and costs will vary depending on how many layers you want to fine-tune from the original model. Many companies think that fine-tuning is the solution to their problems. In my experience, many will benefit from exploring the other two approaches. I love explaining Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence ideas. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, follow me Santiago so you don't miss what comes next.

Santiago

384,510 views • 3 years ago

i built a tool that sees the future and it can make you a millionaire not joking it finds people who already know outcomes before they happen polymarket insider detector built with claude opus 4.6 and 1M context window scans 847,000 wallets in real time found 73 wallets that are statistically impossible one wallet: 97.3% win rate on 67 trades average entry: 47 minutes before resolution total PnL: $4.7 million how it works: → indexes every polymarket trade on-chain → timing anomaly model flags wallets entering right before resolution → cluster detection finds sybil networks (found one group of 12 wallets making $200-500k bets 2-5 minutes before economic data drops) → win rate analysis calculates statistical probability (p-value on that top wallet: 0.000000000000024) i’m gonna copy their next position before resolution this is $100k+ upside if you catch one early
1:31

i built a tool that sees the future and it can make you a millionaire not joking it finds people who already know outcomes before they happen polymarket insider detector built with claude opus 4.6 and 1M context window scans 847,000 wallets in real time found 73 wallets that are statistically impossible one wallet: 97.3% win rate on 67 trades average entry: 47 minutes before resolution total PnL: $4.7 million how it works: → indexes every polymarket trade on-chain → timing anomaly model flags wallets entering right before resolution → cluster detection finds sybil networks (found one group of 12 wallets making $200-500k bets 2-5 minutes before economic data drops) → win rate analysis calculates statistical probability (p-value on that top wallet: 0.000000000000024) i’m gonna copy their next position before resolution this is $100k+ upside if you catch one early

Argona

98,317 views • 7 months ago

Palantir sells this to governments for millions. Someone put a version of it on GitHub for free. Palantir's job is to pull scattered company data into one model where every decision can be traced later. Semantica does that for AI agents. Each decision becomes an object in a graph, tied to the facts that produced it, each fact linked to its source. Six months later you can walk backwards from any answer. The model never touches the reasoning. It only reads messy text and pulls out entities. The rest runs on plain rules, so the same input gives the same explanation every time. Vector memory cannot do that. Contradicting facts overwrite each other silently. pip install semantica, pick a graph backend you already run, and your agents read it through the MCP server. MIT licensed, repo is semantica-agi/semantica
1:47

Palantir sells this to governments for millions. Someone put a version of it on GitHub for free. Palantir's job is to pull scattered company data into one model where every decision can be traced later. Semantica does that for AI agents. Each decision becomes an object in a graph, tied to the facts that produced it, each fact linked to its source. Six months later you can walk backwards from any answer. The model never touches the reasoning. It only reads messy text and pulls out entities. The rest runs on plain rules, so the same input gives the same explanation every time. Vector memory cannot do that. Contradicting facts overwrite each other silently. pip install semantica, pick a graph backend you already run, and your agents read it through the MCP server. MIT licensed, repo is semantica-agi/semantica

Yarchi

43,642 views • 1 month ago

Experiments in progress. The one on the right has been learning for ~3 hours, the one in the middle for ~1 hour, and the one on the left just started a few minutes ago. The initial motivation for making the physical Atari was just to commit ourselves to a subset of algorithms that can make progress in this setup. This commitment rules out algorithms that require billions of samples to learn (or worse, require multiple environments running in parallel). Atari games are simple enough that we should be able to show learning on them in a short amount of time with no prior knowledge. Since then, I've realized that this setup is also a good way to compare different paradigms in robotics in a principled way. These paradigms are sim2real, learning from tele-operated data, and learning directly on the robots. So far, I have observed that getting sim2real to work reliably is hard. It requires tweaks that don't scale. Policies that can play perfectly in simulation fall apart because of latencies and the messiness of the real world. These aspects could be modeled to improve the simulation, but not without sinking significant human engineering hours. I have higher hopes for learning from tele-operated data, but that requires a human to learn the task first. These experiments are on my to-do list. I have to learn to play some of the games well through the robot. I’m half-decent at playing Pong and Ms Pacman now. Learning directly on robots is looking like the most promising approach. This approach takes away pesky distribution shifts and makes it possible to have algorithms that continually improve with more data and time without any human intervention. It feels great to let experiments run overnight and wake up to find improved policies. With learning on robots, I should, in principle, be able to go on a long vacation and come back to find better policies for complex tasks beyond Atari games. Whether that is possible with current learning algorithms is a different question.
1:05

Experiments in progress. The one on the right has been learning for ~3 hours, the one in the middle for ~1 hour, and the one on the left just started a few minutes ago. The initial motivation for making the physical Atari was just to commit ourselves to a subset of algorithms that can make progress in this setup. This commitment rules out algorithms that require billions of samples to learn (or worse, require multiple environments running in parallel). Atari games are simple enough that we should be able to show learning on them in a short amount of time with no prior knowledge. Since then, I've realized that this setup is also a good way to compare different paradigms in robotics in a principled way. These paradigms are sim2real, learning from tele-operated data, and learning directly on the robots. So far, I have observed that getting sim2real to work reliably is hard. It requires tweaks that don't scale. Policies that can play perfectly in simulation fall apart because of latencies and the messiness of the real world. These aspects could be modeled to improve the simulation, but not without sinking significant human engineering hours. I have higher hopes for learning from tele-operated data, but that requires a human to learn the task first. These experiments are on my to-do list. I have to learn to play some of the games well through the robot. I’m half-decent at playing Pong and Ms Pacman now. Learning directly on robots is looking like the most promising approach. This approach takes away pesky distribution shifts and makes it possible to have algorithms that continually improve with more data and time without any human intervention. It feels great to let experiments run overnight and wake up to find improved policies. With learning on robots, I should, in principle, be able to go on a long vacation and come back to find better policies for complex tasks beyond Atari games. Whether that is possible with current learning algorithms is a different question.

Khurram Javed

52,110 views • 9 months ago

IN 1986 MIT FILMED THE LECTURE WHERE CODE STOPPED BEING CODE AND BECAME DATA 43 minutes from Gerald Sussman, in the most legendary intro programming course ever recorded. -> The idea that lands: to a program, your code is just data it can read and rewrite. He builds a program that does real calculus -- not by crunching numbers, but by reading the math as a list and transforming it piece by piece. Then he shows the trick hiding under all of it: in this language, code and data are the same material. Forty years later that is exactly what an AI coding agent is -- a program that reads your code as data, rewrites it, and hands it back. Sussman drew the whole idea on a blackboard in 1986. Writing code was never the deepest skill -- understanding that code itself is data a program can manipulate is. This is where you learn it. Most people think AI writing code is brand new. The ones who watch this saw the blueprint 40 years ago. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓
43:30

IN 1986 MIT FILMED THE LECTURE WHERE CODE STOPPED BEING CODE AND BECAME DATA 43 minutes from Gerald Sussman, in the most legendary intro programming course ever recorded. -> The idea that lands: to a program, your code is just data it can read and rewrite. He builds a program that does real calculus -- not by crunching numbers, but by reading the math as a list and transforming it piece by piece. Then he shows the trick hiding under all of it: in this language, code and data are the same material. Forty years later that is exactly what an AI coding agent is -- a program that reads your code as data, rewrites it, and hands it back. Sussman drew the whole idea on a blackboard in 1986. Writing code was never the deepest skill -- understanding that code itself is data a program can manipulate is. This is where you learn it. Most people think AI writing code is brand new. The ones who watch this saw the blueprint 40 years ago. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓

slash1s

22,107 views • 3 months ago

The biggest marketplace on Earth won't be the assets humans own. It'll be the data AI needs. Everything that can be digitised is getting pulled in to train the next models. Every scientific dataset, every piece of research sitting in a university, every sensor reading off every John Deere tractor in a field. All of it feeds the machine, and almost none of it is visible to us. What comes out is an agentic economy running at machine speed. You plug your data into a vault, and agents monetise it on your behalf, trading with other agents in real time, in a marketplace we never see. The company sitting on proprietary data becomes part of it without even knowing. This is what the Economic Singularity actually looks like from the inside. The real economy stops being the one we can see and price, and moves somewhere we can't follow. You own a piece of it, or you get priced out of it. Jordi Visser.
1:27

The biggest marketplace on Earth won't be the assets humans own. It'll be the data AI needs. Everything that can be digitised is getting pulled in to train the next models. Every scientific dataset, every piece of research sitting in a university, every sensor reading off every John Deere tractor in a field. All of it feeds the machine, and almost none of it is visible to us. What comes out is an agentic economy running at machine speed. You plug your data into a vault, and agents monetise it on your behalf, trading with other agents in real time, in a marketplace we never see. The company sitting on proprietary data becomes part of it without even knowing. This is what the Economic Singularity actually looks like from the inside. The real economy stops being the one we can see and price, and moves somewhere we can't follow. You own a piece of it, or you get priced out of it. Jordi Visser.

Raoul Pal

79,047 views • 2 months ago

The World Model as NEO's Cognitive Core 1X has revealed a major AI development where the NEO humanoid can translate any natural language prompt into robotic action. It demonstrates this capability even for novel tasks, objects, and environments not found in its robot dataset. - the 1X World Model is trained on internet-scale human interaction videos and fine-tuned with robot data to ground its understanding in physics and in NEO's embodiment - from a simple voice or text prompt, the world model generates a visualization of future actions - a built-in inverse dynamics model then translates these into precise motor movements for NEO
1:02

The World Model as NEO's Cognitive Core 1X has revealed a major AI development where the NEO humanoid can translate any natural language prompt into robotic action. It demonstrates this capability even for novel tasks, objects, and environments not found in its robot dataset. - the 1X World Model is trained on internet-scale human interaction videos and fine-tuned with robot data to ground its understanding in physics and in NEO's embodiment - from a simple voice or text prompt, the world model generates a visualization of future actions - a built-in inverse dynamics model then translates these into precise motor movements for NEO

The Humanoid Hub

68,453 views • 8 months ago

I’ve seen a lot of “trading bots” that are basically just hype wrapped in a dashboard. PolyFill looks different. ( It connects to your Polymarket account, watches markets 24/7, processes a ton of live data, and executes only when the setup is there. More importantly, you can actually watch the bot activity alongside real Polymarket market action — which makes it a lot more interesting than the usual black-box claims. They also made the smart move of keeping paper trading free, so anyone can test it without risking real money first. Honestly, that’s how more products in this space should work. If you trade on Polymarket, this is one to keep an eye on.
0:44

I’ve seen a lot of “trading bots” that are basically just hype wrapped in a dashboard. PolyFill looks different. ( It connects to your Polymarket account, watches markets 24/7, processes a ton of live data, and executes only when the setup is there. More importantly, you can actually watch the bot activity alongside real Polymarket market action — which makes it a lot more interesting than the usual black-box claims. They also made the smart move of keeping paper trading free, so anyone can test it without risking real money first. Honestly, that’s how more products in this space should work. If you trade on Polymarket, this is one to keep an eye on.

Sparco DeFi

130,564 views • 3 months ago

MIT PhD student Alex Zhang reveals the scaling result where a model trained on short tasks generalizes to problems 100x longer for free: "If you're very clever about the design of your harness or how you use the language model, you can almost get scaling gains for free." "If you train a model naively, there's no tricks. It's just the same way you train a model on these RL environments. You just roll it out, and then you just get some reward." "If you train it on only short tasks, like only tasks that are 10,000 tokens long, and then you were to run it on a similar domain, but at a million tokens, or 10 million tokens, or 100,000 tokens, it generalizes really, really well. If you look at it compared to even the base transformer, you get way better generalization properties." "When the model uses an RLM (Recursive Language Model) after it's trained on these short tasks, it will see some kind of trajectory of actions that it does. Between these two problems of different lengths, the RLM learns to see them as almost the same problem." "Token for token, they're almost the same. You can describe it in code. In one code setting, maybe the for loop is a little bigger, but it's the same kind of code and it derives the constants from the data. There's no hard coding, so they literally look the same." alex zhang
2:41

MIT PhD student Alex Zhang reveals the scaling result where a model trained on short tasks generalizes to problems 100x longer for free: "If you're very clever about the design of your harness or how you use the language model, you can almost get scaling gains for free." "If you train a model naively, there's no tricks. It's just the same way you train a model on these RL environments. You just roll it out, and then you just get some reward." "If you train it on only short tasks, like only tasks that are 10,000 tokens long, and then you were to run it on a similar domain, but at a million tokens, or 10 million tokens, or 100,000 tokens, it generalizes really, really well. If you look at it compared to even the base transformer, you get way better generalization properties." "When the model uses an RLM (Recursive Language Model) after it's trained on these short tasks, it will see some kind of trajectory of actions that it does. Between these two problems of different lengths, the RLM learns to see them as almost the same problem." "Token for token, they're almost the same. You can describe it in code. In one code setting, maybe the for loop is a little bigger, but it's the same kind of code and it derives the constants from the data. There's no hard coding, so they literally look the same." alex zhang

MTS

100,519 views • 2 months ago

There's a class of drugs called PCSK9 inhibitors that few people have heard of but Alex thinks will be far bigger than GLP-1s (which is already one of the best selling drugs of all time). They were discovered through a population born with a genetic mutation that gives them an 88% lifetime reduction in cardiovascular disease risk. The drugs mimic that mutation, significantly lowering our bad cholesterol and reducing the risk of a future heart attack or stroke. Alex describes them as close to a free lunch as there is in biology. "Because it is more asymmetric, it is more of a free lunch, I would argue that this medicine should be far bigger in terms of the number of people that are on it and the revenues associated with it than GLP-1s."
3:34

There's a class of drugs called PCSK9 inhibitors that few people have heard of but Alex thinks will be far bigger than GLP-1s (which is already one of the best selling drugs of all time). They were discovered through a population born with a genetic mutation that gives them an 88% lifetime reduction in cardiovascular disease risk. The drugs mimic that mutation, significantly lowering our bad cholesterol and reducing the risk of a future heart attack or stroke. Alex describes them as close to a free lunch as there is in biology. "Because it is more asymmetric, it is more of a free lunch, I would argue that this medicine should be far bigger in terms of the number of people that are on it and the revenues associated with it than GLP-1s."

Patrick OShaughnessy

223,532 views • 5 months ago