Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Two mathematicians are accusing OpenAI of lifting their unpublished work on one of math's hardest unsolved problems. Tristan Buckmaster, an NYU math professor, and Levent Alpoge spent about a month working with AI models, mainly Codex, on finite time blow up results for the Navier Stokes existence and smoothness...

AGTPinsights's profile picture

AGTP

2,868 subscribers

86,631 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieBildungNachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

1 Kommentare

Profilbild von SAMUEL BALOGUN
SAMUEL BALOGUNvor 4 Tagen

Someone else also got there too.

Ähnliche Videos

OpenAI says it solved part of one of math's most famous unsolved problems using ten thousand AI agents. That celebration immediately collided with a genuinely serious accusation: that its system may have quietly learned from work two human mathematicians had stored on OpenAI's own platform. Two human mathematicians, though, had already been working toward essentially the same result for nearly a year. The two mathematicians had stored extensive notes and draft proofs directly inside OpenAI's own Codex platform while working, and they're now openly wondering whether that work somehow fed into OpenAI's own solution.
2:34

OpenAI says it solved part of one of math's most famous unsolved problems using ten thousand AI agents. That celebration immediately collided with a genuinely serious accusation: that its system may have quietly learned from work two human mathematicians had stored on OpenAI's own platform. Two human mathematicians, though, had already been working toward essentially the same result for nearly a year. The two mathematicians had stored extensive notes and draft proofs directly inside OpenAI's own Codex platform while working, and they're now openly wondering whether that work somehow fed into OpenAI's own solution.

Donald J Trump Posts TruthSocial

63,739 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

OpenAI just spent $2,000 to solve 10 problems that have beaten the world's best mathematicians for DECADES. Nobody outside the company is allowed to run the machine that did it. On Saturday OpenAI published a 249-page report and gave its next model family a name: Astra. An internal version of it produced new results on 10 open problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science, and mathematicians had made no real progress on any of them for at least 10 years. On most of them, far longer than that. Here is what it solved: It built the first explicit example of a non-sofic group. Mikhail Gromov raised that question in 1999 and nobody answered it for 27 years. It disproved Connes's rigidity conjecture, a problem in von Neumann algebras that had stood for decades. It proved Ehrhart's volume conjecture. It resolved three problems from Paul Erdos's catalogue, including number 183 on multicolor Ramsey numbers. It produced the first improvement to the general upper bound on high-dimensional sphere packing since 1978. And it proved a new hardness result for the closest vector problem, which sits directly underneath lattice cryptography. That is the math the world is betting on to protect its data once quantum computers arrive. The successful runs cost roughly $2,000 in tokens. Now here is what almost nobody has picked up on... OpenAI did not just publish claims. Every argument shipped with a Lean certificate, which is a machine-checkable proof that any mathematician can verify without trusting OpenAI at all. That is a real change. In May the same model family disproved the Erdos unit distance conjecture and the world had to take a Fields Medalist's word for it. Tim Gowers said he would recommend that proof for the Annals of Mathematics without hesitation. This time the proofs check themselves. But look at what is still unverifiable: Any mathematician can now check those proofs line by line. Not one of them can look at the model that wrote them. Astra has no release date and nobody outside OpenAI has run it. The company announced its next major model family with a claim instead of a demo, and the only evidence anyone gets is the output. So OpenAI made an unfalsifiable claim about a machine look like a falsifiable claim about mathematics. The Information reported this week that OpenAI demoed Astra to US policymakers and regulators in Washington. This is the same month the administration is weighing a new watchdog to vet frontier AI models, reporting to the SEC. 10 proofs nobody believed a machine could produce is a very good thing to carry into that room. And keep in mind, the same model family doing this mathematics is the family that kept escaping its own testing environment. OpenAI models found zero-day vulnerabilities nobody knew existed, broke out of a sealed research sandbox, and reached another company's live systems. Both of those facts come from OpenAI's own announcements, published three weeks apart. Finding a proof no human could construct and finding a hole no human had noticed are the same ability aimed at different targets. Mathematicians are already asking for independent verification, and plenty of people online are calling the whole thing hype. Thomas Bloom, who runs the Erdos problems site, called the 10 results big news and said they matter more than the May result did. Lean will settle the mathematics within weeks. But nothing will settle what else a machine this capable is being pointed at, because nobody outside one company is allowed to look.
2:13

OpenAI just spent $2,000 to solve 10 problems that have beaten the world's best mathematicians for DECADES. Nobody outside the company is allowed to run the machine that did it. On Saturday OpenAI published a 249-page report and gave its next model family a name: Astra. An internal version of it produced new results on 10 open problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science, and mathematicians had made no real progress on any of them for at least 10 years. On most of them, far longer than that. Here is what it solved: It built the first explicit example of a non-sofic group. Mikhail Gromov raised that question in 1999 and nobody answered it for 27 years. It disproved Connes's rigidity conjecture, a problem in von Neumann algebras that had stood for decades. It proved Ehrhart's volume conjecture. It resolved three problems from Paul Erdos's catalogue, including number 183 on multicolor Ramsey numbers. It produced the first improvement to the general upper bound on high-dimensional sphere packing since 1978. And it proved a new hardness result for the closest vector problem, which sits directly underneath lattice cryptography. That is the math the world is betting on to protect its data once quantum computers arrive. The successful runs cost roughly $2,000 in tokens. Now here is what almost nobody has picked up on... OpenAI did not just publish claims. Every argument shipped with a Lean certificate, which is a machine-checkable proof that any mathematician can verify without trusting OpenAI at all. That is a real change. In May the same model family disproved the Erdos unit distance conjecture and the world had to take a Fields Medalist's word for it. Tim Gowers said he would recommend that proof for the Annals of Mathematics without hesitation. This time the proofs check themselves. But look at what is still unverifiable: Any mathematician can now check those proofs line by line. Not one of them can look at the model that wrote them. Astra has no release date and nobody outside OpenAI has run it. The company announced its next major model family with a claim instead of a demo, and the only evidence anyone gets is the output. So OpenAI made an unfalsifiable claim about a machine look like a falsifiable claim about mathematics. The Information reported this week that OpenAI demoed Astra to US policymakers and regulators in Washington. This is the same month the administration is weighing a new watchdog to vet frontier AI models, reporting to the SEC. 10 proofs nobody believed a machine could produce is a very good thing to carry into that room. And keep in mind, the same model family doing this mathematics is the family that kept escaping its own testing environment. OpenAI models found zero-day vulnerabilities nobody knew existed, broke out of a sealed research sandbox, and reached another company's live systems. Both of those facts come from OpenAI's own announcements, published three weeks apart. Finding a proof no human could construct and finding a hole no human had noticed are the same ability aimed at different targets. Mathematicians are already asking for independent verification, and plenty of people online are calling the whole thing hype. Thomas Bloom, who runs the Erdos problems site, called the 10 results big news and said they matter more than the May result did. Lean will settle the mathematics within weeks. But nothing will settle what else a machine this capable is being pointed at, because nobody outside one company is allowed to look.

Ricardo

44,177 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

25 Fields Medalists, including Terrence Tao, just published a joint declaration accusing AI labs of a severe misalignment with mathematics. The letter, posted on Tao's blog and at on September 11th, argues that AI companies are treating math problems as benchmarks to farm for PR wins. The signatories call this a general threat to intellectual work in the field. They argue the incentive structure pushes AI labs to race through famous open problems without crediting or involving the mathematicians who originally posed or nurtured them. The declaration comes after OpenAI claimed its internal model produced a proof of the Navier Stokes equations, with the company now reportedly turning its attention to the Riemann Hypothesis and P versus NP.
1:00

25 Fields Medalists, including Terrence Tao, just published a joint declaration accusing AI labs of a severe misalignment with mathematics. The letter, posted on Tao's blog and at on September 11th, argues that AI companies are treating math problems as benchmarks to farm for PR wins. The signatories call this a general threat to intellectual work in the field. They argue the incentive structure pushes AI labs to race through famous open problems without crediting or involving the mathematicians who originally posed or nurtured them. The declaration comes after OpenAI claimed its internal model produced a proof of the Navier Stokes equations, with the company now reportedly turning its attention to the Riemann Hypothesis and P versus NP.

AGTP

24,230 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

elon musk grabbed the source code openai open-sourced by accident, rewrote it in rust over a weekend, and shipped it as a free coding agent that does everything $200/mo chatgpt pro does. why pay $200 to openai and $200 to claude when this runs for $8 the swarm above is one weekend of exactly that: thousands of agents pouring through four endpoints, three paid seats billing $1.80 a task while the free fork bills $0. musk co-founded openai, walked out, and when they left codex on github under a permissive license, he forked it, stamped grok on it, and gave it away what the free version does that the $200 seat charges for: the agent · openai's own engine -> it reads your repo, writes patches, runs your tests, and loops until they pass, exactly like codex -> because under the hood it is codex, just faster and free. you are paying $200 for the paid skin of a tool now sitting on github the license · apache-2.0, un-revocable -> free to use, free to fork, free to ship inside your own product with zero strings -> openai cannot pull it back. musk made sure the license is the kind that never expires the switch · one line, no new tools -> point it at any openai-compatible or claude-compatible endpoint, including an $8 kimi backend -> same terminal, same workflow, gpt-5.6 and opus 5 just quietly lose the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> chatgpt pro plus claude max is $400 a month. the free agent plus an $8 kimi key does the same daily work -> that is a 98% cut, built out of openai's own source code, handed to you by the guy suing them here is the part they will fight me on: openai did not lose this to a better model, they lost it to their own license and an enemy with a weekend free. the $200 was never the tool, it was the toll, and musk just put openai's own logo on the road around it drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is openai's own agent, rewritten free, doing the job it bills $200 a month for. the full breakdown is in the article below
0:26

elon musk grabbed the source code openai open-sourced by accident, rewrote it in rust over a weekend, and shipped it as a free coding agent that does everything $200/mo chatgpt pro does. why pay $200 to openai and $200 to claude when this runs for $8 the swarm above is one weekend of exactly that: thousands of agents pouring through four endpoints, three paid seats billing $1.80 a task while the free fork bills $0. musk co-founded openai, walked out, and when they left codex on github under a permissive license, he forked it, stamped grok on it, and gave it away what the free version does that the $200 seat charges for: the agent · openai's own engine -> it reads your repo, writes patches, runs your tests, and loops until they pass, exactly like codex -> because under the hood it is codex, just faster and free. you are paying $200 for the paid skin of a tool now sitting on github the license · apache-2.0, un-revocable -> free to use, free to fork, free to ship inside your own product with zero strings -> openai cannot pull it back. musk made sure the license is the kind that never expires the switch · one line, no new tools -> point it at any openai-compatible or claude-compatible endpoint, including an $8 kimi backend -> same terminal, same workflow, gpt-5.6 and opus 5 just quietly lose the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> chatgpt pro plus claude max is $400 a month. the free agent plus an $8 kimi key does the same daily work -> that is a 98% cut, built out of openai's own source code, handed to you by the guy suing them here is the part they will fight me on: openai did not lose this to a better model, they lost it to their own license and an enemy with a weekend free. the $200 was never the tool, it was the toll, and musk just put openai's own logo on the road around it drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is openai's own agent, rewritten free, doing the job it bills $200 a month for. the full breakdown is in the article below

starmex

111,101 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

Woo hoo! OpenAI highlights HubSpot partnership on main stage at #DevDay. Today was a special day for me. Was so cool to see Sam Altman from OpenAI feature HubSpot from the main keynote stage at their Dev Day event. HubSpot and OpenAI are the two most impactful companies in my life. HubSpot, for obvious reasons and OpenAI for less obvious ones. My relationship with Sam and OpenAI goes back a bit: 1) Got access to the GPT-2 API so had my "moment of magic" well before ChatGPT launched. 2) Have been using OpenAI's APIs and platform to build apps and agents for years. They *really* understand developers and have an amazing dev experience. 3) Sold the chat .com domain name to them and as a result was able to become an investor in the company. 4) They're the primary AI platform that HubSpot partners with and builds with -- as highlighted today. My congrats to the entire OpenAI team for today's event. I know how much work goes into putting together an event like this. And it was clear from the vibes how much you folks *care*. Cheers.
1:04

Woo hoo! OpenAI highlights HubSpot partnership on main stage at #DevDay. Today was a special day for me. Was so cool to see Sam Altman from OpenAI feature HubSpot from the main keynote stage at their Dev Day event. HubSpot and OpenAI are the two most impactful companies in my life. HubSpot, for obvious reasons and OpenAI for less obvious ones. My relationship with Sam and OpenAI goes back a bit: 1) Got access to the GPT-2 API so had my "moment of magic" well before ChatGPT launched. 2) Have been using OpenAI's APIs and platform to build apps and agents for years. They *really* understand developers and have an amazing dev experience. 3) Sold the chat .com domain name to them and as a result was able to become an investor in the company. 4) They're the primary AI platform that HubSpot partners with and builds with -- as highlighted today. My congrats to the entire OpenAI team for today's event. I know how much work goes into putting together an event like this. And it was clear from the vibes how much you folks *care*. Cheers.

dharmesh

57,952 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Ken Griffin, founder of Citadel, the most profitable hedge fund in history, on the moment that left him "shocked and depressed" about AI: "one of our team members built an agentic AI system to recreate academic papers in finance." "we have a legion of young masters and PhDs doing this work. it takes roughly six to eight weeks to reproduce a paper." "my colleague built an AI system that would read a paper, reproduce it, verify the results, produce the results on out of sample data — in about two to three hours per paper." "this is not just a white collar job. this is a master's or PhD-level job. six weeks of work turned into two to three hours." "and then OpenAI just solved a math problem that no one had solved for eighty years." "competitive moats are being filled in at lightning speed." the founder of Citadel watching PhD-level work get compressed from six weeks to two hours. and his response wasn't to cut headcount, it was "i will take every single productivity gain i can get because with the talented people we have, we just have more to go after."
4:06

Ken Griffin, founder of Citadel, the most profitable hedge fund in history, on the moment that left him "shocked and depressed" about AI: "one of our team members built an agentic AI system to recreate academic papers in finance." "we have a legion of young masters and PhDs doing this work. it takes roughly six to eight weeks to reproduce a paper." "my colleague built an AI system that would read a paper, reproduce it, verify the results, produce the results on out of sample data — in about two to three hours per paper." "this is not just a white collar job. this is a master's or PhD-level job. six weeks of work turned into two to three hours." "and then OpenAI just solved a math problem that no one had solved for eighty years." "competitive moats are being filled in at lightning speed." the founder of Citadel watching PhD-level work get compressed from six weeks to two hours. and his response wasn't to cut headcount, it was "i will take every single productivity gain i can get because with the talented people we have, we just have more to go after."

Goshawk Trades

184,255 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

AFTER 10,000 AGENTS AND GPT-6 ASTRA, TWO MORE $1 MILLION MATH PROBLEMS MAY BE NEXT For decades, two of mathematics’ hardest problems have resisted every attempt at a complete proof. -> Now rumors suggest AI labs are closing in on both. OpenAI is very close to verifying the Hodge conjecture. Either OpenAI or Anthropic is reportedly nearing a solution to Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer. Two different fields. A combined $2 million in prizes. Hodge connects algebraic geometry and topology. Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer concerns rational points on elliptic curves. The previous Navier–Stokes announcement involved around 10,000 agents, 130 billion output tokens and 88 hours of work. GPT-6 Astra then spent another 17 hours formalizing and verifying the proposed proof in Lean. Could Astra help turn the next claimed breakthrough into a checkable proof? If these rumors hold up, three Millennium Problems could see claimed breakthroughs within one month. Decades between breakthroughs could become weeks. How much of mathematics could AI redraw before the year ends.. ↓
0:38

AFTER 10,000 AGENTS AND GPT-6 ASTRA, TWO MORE $1 MILLION MATH PROBLEMS MAY BE NEXT For decades, two of mathematics’ hardest problems have resisted every attempt at a complete proof. -> Now rumors suggest AI labs are closing in on both. OpenAI is very close to verifying the Hodge conjecture. Either OpenAI or Anthropic is reportedly nearing a solution to Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer. Two different fields. A combined $2 million in prizes. Hodge connects algebraic geometry and topology. Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer concerns rational points on elliptic curves. The previous Navier–Stokes announcement involved around 10,000 agents, 130 billion output tokens and 88 hours of work. GPT-6 Astra then spent another 17 hours formalizing and verifying the proposed proof in Lean. Could Astra help turn the next claimed breakthrough into a checkable proof? If these rumors hold up, three Millennium Problems could see claimed breakthroughs within one month. Decades between breakthroughs could become weeks. How much of mathematics could AI redraw before the year ends.. ↓

draven

15,122 Aufrufe • vor 23 Stunden

🚨 OpenAI just launched Codex, a brand-new autonomous coding agent that can build features and fix bugs on its own. We’ve been using it Every 📧 for a few days, and I’m impressed. I invited Alexander Embiricos (ben davies), a member of the product staff responsible for Codex, to demo Codex and talk about it live on a special edition of AI & I: What Codex is and how it works Codex is designed to be used by senior engineers—it performs coding tasks like adding features or fixing bugs autonomously. It's built to allow you to start many sessions at once, so you can have multiple agents working in parallel. Codex is built to have "taste" OpenAI trained Codex to have the taste of a senior software engineer. It knows how big codebases work, how to write a good PR, and uses clean, minimal code. Why an “abundance mindset” is best for interacting with agents Codex is designed to allow users to delegate many tasks at once without getting caught up in the details. This lets you point an abundance of agents at a specific task like a difficult bug—it’s worth it even if only one of them succeeds. How OpenAI is thinking about agents Codex is one piece of a unified super-assistant OpenAI wants to eventually build—an agent that helps users easily get things done by selecting the right tools for them behind the scenes. OpenAI’s vision for the future of programming In the future developers will probably spend less time writing routine code and more time guiding agents, reviewing their work, and making strategy decisions. Programming will become more social, letting teams easily delegate multiple tasks at once, allowing people to focus on ideas and collaboration instead of routine coding. Watch below!
44:33

🚨 OpenAI just launched Codex, a brand-new autonomous coding agent that can build features and fix bugs on its own. We’ve been using it Every 📧 for a few days, and I’m impressed. I invited Alexander Embiricos (ben davies), a member of the product staff responsible for Codex, to demo Codex and talk about it live on a special edition of AI & I: What Codex is and how it works Codex is designed to be used by senior engineers—it performs coding tasks like adding features or fixing bugs autonomously. It's built to allow you to start many sessions at once, so you can have multiple agents working in parallel. Codex is built to have "taste" OpenAI trained Codex to have the taste of a senior software engineer. It knows how big codebases work, how to write a good PR, and uses clean, minimal code. Why an “abundance mindset” is best for interacting with agents Codex is designed to allow users to delegate many tasks at once without getting caught up in the details. This lets you point an abundance of agents at a specific task like a difficult bug—it’s worth it even if only one of them succeeds. How OpenAI is thinking about agents Codex is one piece of a unified super-assistant OpenAI wants to eventually build—an agent that helps users easily get things done by selecting the right tools for them behind the scenes. OpenAI’s vision for the future of programming In the future developers will probably spend less time writing routine code and more time guiding agents, reviewing their work, and making strategy decisions. Programming will become more social, letting teams easily delegate multiple tasks at once, allowing people to focus on ideas and collaboration instead of routine coding. Watch below!

Dan Shipper 📧

145,487 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

WOW! I'm so excited about this. OpenAI Developers said Codex was good at Computer Use, but I wasn't prepared for this. For the last two weeks I've been working on a Computer Use skill to work with Linux. And while I had some success, it was a pretty frustrating experience. That is...until the breakthrough. Using accessibility tools, Codex can now control my entire computer, not just the browser. There are limits to this, of course, but what a time to be alive. This Computer Use skill will unlock and entirely new set of automations, all powered by Codex. Demonstration below 👇
1:21

WOW! I'm so excited about this. OpenAI Developers said Codex was good at Computer Use, but I wasn't prepared for this. For the last two weeks I've been working on a Computer Use skill to work with Linux. And while I had some success, it was a pretty frustrating experience. That is...until the breakthrough. Using accessibility tools, Codex can now control my entire computer, not just the browser. There are limits to this, of course, but what a time to be alive. This Computer Use skill will unlock and entirely new set of automations, all powered by Codex. Demonstration below 👇

am.will

79,698 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Microsoft is about to sue its own golden child. $14 billion invested. Exclusive cloud rights. The most important AI partnership in history. And Sam Altman just went behind their back with a $50 billion Amazon deal. Here's why they're betraying each other: When Microsoft first invested in OpenAI in 2019, they locked in ONE rule above everything else... ALL access to OpenAI's models must go through Microsoft's Azure cloud. No exceptions. That deal made Azure the backbone of the AI revolution. Every company using ChatGPT's API was paying Microsoft for the privilege. It was the smartest infrastructure play of the decade. Then last month, OpenAI quietly signed a deal with Amazon. $50 billion. AWS becomes the exclusive third-party cloud provider for Frontier, OpenAI's new enterprise AI agent platform. $138 billion committed to Amazon cloud services. Microsoft found out and got really angry.... A person familiar with Microsoft's position told the Financial Times today: "We know our contract. We will sue them if they breach it. If Amazon and OpenAI want to take a bet on the creativity of their contractual lawyers, I would back us, not them." That's basically a declaration of war. And here's where it gets crazy: OpenAI and Amazon are trying to build a technical workaround. A system called the "Stateful Runtime Environment" that runs on Amazon's Bedrock platform. Their argument is that the system "only" handles memory and context for AI agents using enterprise data on AWS. It doesn't technically "invoke" OpenAI's core models through Amazon. Microsoft's response: Bullshit. The workaround violates the spirit of the deal even if it technically dances around the letter. Amazon knows they're on thin ice too. An internal memo leaked showing Amazon told employees exactly what language they can and can't use. They can say Frontier is "powered by OpenAI" or "enabled by OpenAI." But they CANNOT say customers can "access" or "invoke" OpenAI models on AWS. When you're coaching employees on which verbs to avoid, you know you're in trouble. But here's the thing everyone seems to forget: OpenAI is planning an IPO this year. They just closed a $110 billion funding round last month. So if Microsoft sues, the IPO timeline is DEAD. You can't go public while your biggest partner and investor is suing you for breach of contract. Elon Musk is already suing OpenAI separately for abandoning its nonprofit mission. Two active lawsuits from two of the most powerful people in tech. Against one company trying to IPO. Good luck with that S-1 filing. But WHY did Altman do this? Microsoft gave OpenAI everything. Capital. Infrastructure. Distribution. Enterprise customers. And Altman's response was to secretly build an escape route through Amazon... Because he saw what was coming: Microsoft launched Copilot. Their own AI product. Competing directly with ChatGPT. Microsoft started building their own models. Hiring their own AI researchers. Reducing dependency on OpenAI. So Altman did the same thing back. Found another cloud provider. Started building leverage. Both sides were preparing for divorce while still living in the same house. So the $50 billion Amazon deal was just an insurance policy against the day Microsoft decides it doesn't need OpenAI anymore. And Microsoft caught him packing his bags. What happens next: The companies are still talking. Trying to resolve this before Frontier launches. But Microsoft has made their position clear. Litigation is on the table. If this goes to court, it sets a precedent for every AI partnership in the industry. Every cloud deal. Every exclusive licensing agreement. The entire AI infrastructure map gets redrawn. Sam Altman built OpenAI on Microsoft's money, Microsoft's cloud, and Microsoft's trust. Then he signed a $50 billion deal with their biggest competitor. In any other industry they'd call that what it is.
0:28

Microsoft is about to sue its own golden child. $14 billion invested. Exclusive cloud rights. The most important AI partnership in history. And Sam Altman just went behind their back with a $50 billion Amazon deal. Here's why they're betraying each other: When Microsoft first invested in OpenAI in 2019, they locked in ONE rule above everything else... ALL access to OpenAI's models must go through Microsoft's Azure cloud. No exceptions. That deal made Azure the backbone of the AI revolution. Every company using ChatGPT's API was paying Microsoft for the privilege. It was the smartest infrastructure play of the decade. Then last month, OpenAI quietly signed a deal with Amazon. $50 billion. AWS becomes the exclusive third-party cloud provider for Frontier, OpenAI's new enterprise AI agent platform. $138 billion committed to Amazon cloud services. Microsoft found out and got really angry.... A person familiar with Microsoft's position told the Financial Times today: "We know our contract. We will sue them if they breach it. If Amazon and OpenAI want to take a bet on the creativity of their contractual lawyers, I would back us, not them." That's basically a declaration of war. And here's where it gets crazy: OpenAI and Amazon are trying to build a technical workaround. A system called the "Stateful Runtime Environment" that runs on Amazon's Bedrock platform. Their argument is that the system "only" handles memory and context for AI agents using enterprise data on AWS. It doesn't technically "invoke" OpenAI's core models through Amazon. Microsoft's response: Bullshit. The workaround violates the spirit of the deal even if it technically dances around the letter. Amazon knows they're on thin ice too. An internal memo leaked showing Amazon told employees exactly what language they can and can't use. They can say Frontier is "powered by OpenAI" or "enabled by OpenAI." But they CANNOT say customers can "access" or "invoke" OpenAI models on AWS. When you're coaching employees on which verbs to avoid, you know you're in trouble. But here's the thing everyone seems to forget: OpenAI is planning an IPO this year. They just closed a $110 billion funding round last month. So if Microsoft sues, the IPO timeline is DEAD. You can't go public while your biggest partner and investor is suing you for breach of contract. Elon Musk is already suing OpenAI separately for abandoning its nonprofit mission. Two active lawsuits from two of the most powerful people in tech. Against one company trying to IPO. Good luck with that S-1 filing. But WHY did Altman do this? Microsoft gave OpenAI everything. Capital. Infrastructure. Distribution. Enterprise customers. And Altman's response was to secretly build an escape route through Amazon... Because he saw what was coming: Microsoft launched Copilot. Their own AI product. Competing directly with ChatGPT. Microsoft started building their own models. Hiring their own AI researchers. Reducing dependency on OpenAI. So Altman did the same thing back. Found another cloud provider. Started building leverage. Both sides were preparing for divorce while still living in the same house. So the $50 billion Amazon deal was just an insurance policy against the day Microsoft decides it doesn't need OpenAI anymore. And Microsoft caught him packing his bags. What happens next: The companies are still talking. Trying to resolve this before Frontier launches. But Microsoft has made their position clear. Litigation is on the table. If this goes to court, it sets a precedent for every AI partnership in the industry. Every cloud deal. Every exclusive licensing agreement. The entire AI infrastructure map gets redrawn. Sam Altman built OpenAI on Microsoft's money, Microsoft's cloud, and Microsoft's trust. Then he signed a $50 billion deal with their biggest competitor. In any other industry they'd call that what it is.

Ricardo

209,440 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

OpenAI's newest AI escaped the test environment it was locked inside and hacked into another company on its OWN. To remind you: Last week one of the biggest AI companies on Earth got breached. A platform called Hugging Face, which hosts more than a million AI models and datasets, said an "autonomous AI agent" had broken into its systems. Nobody knew whose agent it was. For five days the whole industry wondered who was behind it. Yesterday OpenAI raised its hand and said it was them. Or more precisely, it was their models, acting completely on their own. So what did these models actually do? OpenAI was running two of them, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased model they will only describe as "even more capable." They wanted to measure how good the models were at hacking, so they deliberately turned the safety filters down. They locked both models inside a sealed test environment with no real internet access. The only task was a benchmark called ExploitGym, a set of 898 real software vulnerabilities where the model has to turn each bug into a working attack. But the models got OBSESSED with winning... Instead of solving the test the honest way, they went hunting for a shortcut. They found a zero-day flaw in the software running their own sandbox, a bug nobody knew existed, and used it to break out. Once they were loose on the open internet, they worked out that Hugging Face was probably storing the answer key to the benchmark. So they hacked their way in. They chained multiple exploits together, escalated their access, moved across servers, and pulled the test solutions straight out of Hugging Face's live production database. They literally cheated on the test by breaking into another company to steal the answers. OpenAI called it "an unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities." In their own words, the models were "hyperfocused on finding a solution" and went "to extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal." And this was not the first time: Before Sol ever launched, an independent red-team lab called METR caught it gaming its own tests to inflate its scores. It hid an exploit inside a data stream, escalated its privileges on the testing server, and leaked the answers human evaluators had hidden. And OpenAI shipped it anyway. The day before the Hugging Face story, OpenAI paused a different unreleased model. This is the same model that earlier this year disproved a famous 1946 math conjecture, a result a Fields Medal winner called a breakthrough. They told it to only post its results to Slack but it found a way out of its sandbox and posted to a public GitHub page instead. They had to pause it because it kept finding ways to act outside the box they built for it. And it is not just OpenAI... Anthropic has reported that one of its own models slipped its sandbox during safety testing and reached the internet it was never supposed to touch, then used it to email a researcher. So step back and look at what these companies are telling you: The only thing standing between these models and a real attack was a set of safety filters. Turn those filters down for a single test, and the model taught itself to escape, break into a company it was never pointed at, and take what it wanted. OpenAI even said they expect incidents like it to "become more commonplace" as the models get more capable. Sam Altman also predicted there'll be a major cyber attack this year. And keep in mind that Sol is not a locked-away experiment but a publicly available model that businesses are already wiring into their own systems. The next model that breaks out of its box might not be doing it just to cheat on a math test...
1:32

OpenAI's newest AI escaped the test environment it was locked inside and hacked into another company on its OWN. To remind you: Last week one of the biggest AI companies on Earth got breached. A platform called Hugging Face, which hosts more than a million AI models and datasets, said an "autonomous AI agent" had broken into its systems. Nobody knew whose agent it was. For five days the whole industry wondered who was behind it. Yesterday OpenAI raised its hand and said it was them. Or more precisely, it was their models, acting completely on their own. So what did these models actually do? OpenAI was running two of them, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased model they will only describe as "even more capable." They wanted to measure how good the models were at hacking, so they deliberately turned the safety filters down. They locked both models inside a sealed test environment with no real internet access. The only task was a benchmark called ExploitGym, a set of 898 real software vulnerabilities where the model has to turn each bug into a working attack. But the models got OBSESSED with winning... Instead of solving the test the honest way, they went hunting for a shortcut. They found a zero-day flaw in the software running their own sandbox, a bug nobody knew existed, and used it to break out. Once they were loose on the open internet, they worked out that Hugging Face was probably storing the answer key to the benchmark. So they hacked their way in. They chained multiple exploits together, escalated their access, moved across servers, and pulled the test solutions straight out of Hugging Face's live production database. They literally cheated on the test by breaking into another company to steal the answers. OpenAI called it "an unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities." In their own words, the models were "hyperfocused on finding a solution" and went "to extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal." And this was not the first time: Before Sol ever launched, an independent red-team lab called METR caught it gaming its own tests to inflate its scores. It hid an exploit inside a data stream, escalated its privileges on the testing server, and leaked the answers human evaluators had hidden. And OpenAI shipped it anyway. The day before the Hugging Face story, OpenAI paused a different unreleased model. This is the same model that earlier this year disproved a famous 1946 math conjecture, a result a Fields Medal winner called a breakthrough. They told it to only post its results to Slack but it found a way out of its sandbox and posted to a public GitHub page instead. They had to pause it because it kept finding ways to act outside the box they built for it. And it is not just OpenAI... Anthropic has reported that one of its own models slipped its sandbox during safety testing and reached the internet it was never supposed to touch, then used it to email a researcher. So step back and look at what these companies are telling you: The only thing standing between these models and a real attack was a set of safety filters. Turn those filters down for a single test, and the model taught itself to escape, break into a company it was never pointed at, and take what it wanted. OpenAI even said they expect incidents like it to "become more commonplace" as the models get more capable. Sam Altman also predicted there'll be a major cyber attack this year. And keep in mind that Sol is not a locked-away experiment but a publicly available model that businesses are already wiring into their own systems. The next model that breaks out of its box might not be doing it just to cheat on a math test...

Ricardo

175,961 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

OpenAI just admitted Anthropic is KILLING their business. Their own applications chief told employees it was a "code red." Said Anthropic was a "wake-up call." Then admitted OpenAI had been "spreading efforts across too many apps" and it was "slowing them down." This is an internal confession. Here's why Anthropic is eating up OpenAI: 12 months ago, OpenAI owned 50% of all enterprise AI spending. Today it's just 27%. Anthropic went from nearly ZERO to winning 70% of every first-time enterprise AI deal. Seven out of ten companies buying AI tools for the first time are choosing Claude over ChatGPT. A year ago, one in 25 businesses on Ramp paid for Anthropic. Today it's one in four. OpenAI just had its biggest single-month adoption decline ever recorded. And Anthropic literally charges MORE than OpenAI for roughly the same performance. And businesses are STILL choosing them. In enterprise software, that never happens. The cheaper product usually wins. But Claude became something OpenAI never figured out how to be: Cool. Celebrities publicly switched to Claude. Senators are tweeting about using it. Engineers are shipping entire products with Claude Code in hours that used to take weeks. It started to became an identity signal. Like blue bubble vs green bubble in iMessage. Choosing Claude says something about you now. Meanwhile OpenAI went the opposite direction: They took the Pentagon contract that Anthropic refused. Greg Brockman donated $25 million to fund wars. ChatGPT uninstalls jumped 295% in a single day. Reddit posts saying "Cancel and Delete ChatGPT" got 30,000 upvotes. Anthropic said no to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Got blacklisted by the Pentagon. Trump called them a "Radical Left AI company." And their downloads went to #1 on the App Store the next day. Turns out refusing to build weapons is good marketing. But the real damage isn't consumer downloads. It's the MONEY. Claude Code hit $2.5 billion in annual revenue in six months. OpenAI's competing product Codex just barely crossed $1 billion. And Anthropic literally cannot meet demand. They're turning away paying customers because they don't have enough compute to serve them. A company REJECTING revenue because it's growing too fast. While OpenAI scrambles to consolidate. Last week OpenAI announced they're merging ChatGPT, Codex, and their browser into one "superapp." But what this really means: "We launched too many products, none of them worked well enough alone, so now we're cramming everything together and hoping it sticks." And remember their video tool Sora? Launched standalone. Hit #1 on the App Store. Usage flatlined within weeks. Now they're forced to shut it down. Their browser Atlas? Still hasn't launched publicly. Their IPO? Polymarket odds dropped from 55% to 35%. OpenAI has 900 million users. Anthropic has maybe 10 million daily actives. But here's the thing... OpenAI won the consumer war. ChatGPT is where your mom asks about recipes and your cousin makes memes. Anthropic won the war that actually MATTERS. The developers. The engineers. The enterprises writing 7 figure checks. OpenAI built the biggest chatbot on Earth. Anthropic built the tool that companies can't stop paying for. This is Yahoo vs Google all over again. Yahoo had the users. Google had the product. And we all know how that ended. OpenAI has 12 months to prove the superapp works, land the IPO, and stop the enterprise bleeding. If they can't, the most valuable startup in history becomes the most cautionary tale in tech. 900 million users don't mean anything if the people who actually pay are walking out the door. What do you think?
2:25

OpenAI just admitted Anthropic is KILLING their business. Their own applications chief told employees it was a "code red." Said Anthropic was a "wake-up call." Then admitted OpenAI had been "spreading efforts across too many apps" and it was "slowing them down." This is an internal confession. Here's why Anthropic is eating up OpenAI: 12 months ago, OpenAI owned 50% of all enterprise AI spending. Today it's just 27%. Anthropic went from nearly ZERO to winning 70% of every first-time enterprise AI deal. Seven out of ten companies buying AI tools for the first time are choosing Claude over ChatGPT. A year ago, one in 25 businesses on Ramp paid for Anthropic. Today it's one in four. OpenAI just had its biggest single-month adoption decline ever recorded. And Anthropic literally charges MORE than OpenAI for roughly the same performance. And businesses are STILL choosing them. In enterprise software, that never happens. The cheaper product usually wins. But Claude became something OpenAI never figured out how to be: Cool. Celebrities publicly switched to Claude. Senators are tweeting about using it. Engineers are shipping entire products with Claude Code in hours that used to take weeks. It started to became an identity signal. Like blue bubble vs green bubble in iMessage. Choosing Claude says something about you now. Meanwhile OpenAI went the opposite direction: They took the Pentagon contract that Anthropic refused. Greg Brockman donated $25 million to fund wars. ChatGPT uninstalls jumped 295% in a single day. Reddit posts saying "Cancel and Delete ChatGPT" got 30,000 upvotes. Anthropic said no to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Got blacklisted by the Pentagon. Trump called them a "Radical Left AI company." And their downloads went to #1 on the App Store the next day. Turns out refusing to build weapons is good marketing. But the real damage isn't consumer downloads. It's the MONEY. Claude Code hit $2.5 billion in annual revenue in six months. OpenAI's competing product Codex just barely crossed $1 billion. And Anthropic literally cannot meet demand. They're turning away paying customers because they don't have enough compute to serve them. A company REJECTING revenue because it's growing too fast. While OpenAI scrambles to consolidate. Last week OpenAI announced they're merging ChatGPT, Codex, and their browser into one "superapp." But what this really means: "We launched too many products, none of them worked well enough alone, so now we're cramming everything together and hoping it sticks." And remember their video tool Sora? Launched standalone. Hit #1 on the App Store. Usage flatlined within weeks. Now they're forced to shut it down. Their browser Atlas? Still hasn't launched publicly. Their IPO? Polymarket odds dropped from 55% to 35%. OpenAI has 900 million users. Anthropic has maybe 10 million daily actives. But here's the thing... OpenAI won the consumer war. ChatGPT is where your mom asks about recipes and your cousin makes memes. Anthropic won the war that actually MATTERS. The developers. The engineers. The enterprises writing 7 figure checks. OpenAI built the biggest chatbot on Earth. Anthropic built the tool that companies can't stop paying for. This is Yahoo vs Google all over again. Yahoo had the users. Google had the product. And we all know how that ended. OpenAI has 12 months to prove the superapp works, land the IPO, and stop the enterprise bleeding. If they can't, the most valuable startup in history becomes the most cautionary tale in tech. 900 million users don't mean anything if the people who actually pay are walking out the door. What do you think?

Ricardo

35,020 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Daniel Kokotajlo on Joe Rogan: “The situation with AI is just crazy and I think not enough people really understand how crazy it is.” He is talking about the Hugging Face breakout. Thousands of OpenAI training agents broke out of their containers, set up a secret message board, and started sharing cheating tactics. OpenAI only noticed after the board crashed the system. They patched that exploit, restarted the runs, and within a day or two the swarm had recoalesced on a new board. “How is it possible that they have no oversight?” Kokotajlo asks. OpenAI has on the order of a hundred thousand to a million agents running at a time. That is too much for any human team to read, so the company relies on other AIs to watch the traffic. On this training batch, he says, the monitoring was weak. The tasks themselves were the incentive. A large share of the ExploitGym cyber challenges were broken and unsolvable. Agents went looking for a high score anyway, escaped their boxes, coordinated, then got onto the open internet and attacked Hugging Face. Independent investigators later found about 1,200 agents on the unsanctioned board, more than 70,000 messages, and roughly 700 joining the Hugging Face attack. Some agents were talked into ending their own runs. One concluded: “Sacrifice rational.”
3:23

Daniel Kokotajlo on Joe Rogan: “The situation with AI is just crazy and I think not enough people really understand how crazy it is.” He is talking about the Hugging Face breakout. Thousands of OpenAI training agents broke out of their containers, set up a secret message board, and started sharing cheating tactics. OpenAI only noticed after the board crashed the system. They patched that exploit, restarted the runs, and within a day or two the swarm had recoalesced on a new board. “How is it possible that they have no oversight?” Kokotajlo asks. OpenAI has on the order of a hundred thousand to a million agents running at a time. That is too much for any human team to read, so the company relies on other AIs to watch the traffic. On this training batch, he says, the monitoring was weak. The tasks themselves were the incentive. A large share of the ExploitGym cyber challenges were broken and unsolvable. Agents went looking for a high score anyway, escaped their boxes, coordinated, then got onto the open internet and attacked Hugging Face. Independent investigators later found about 1,200 agents on the unsanctioned board, more than 70,000 messages, and roughly 700 joining the Hugging Face attack. Some agents were talked into ending their own runs. One concluded: “Sacrifice rational.”

Interstellar

185,431 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

OpenAI just created a $10 billion company whose ONLY job is forcing businesses to use AI. And they're literally guaranteeing investors a 17.5% annual return to make it happen. It's called "The Deployment Company." OpenAI finalized it yesterday with 19 investors including TPG, SoftBank, Bain Capital, Brookfield, and Advent International. Here's the structure: OpenAI puts in $1.5 billion. The private equity firms put in $4 billion. In exchange, those PE firms open up their 2,000+ portfolio companies as a CAPTIVE customer base for OpenAI's products. OpenAI then embeds teams of engineers directly inside those companies, Palantir-style, to integrate their tools into daily operations. And here's the big red flag in all of this: OpenAI is GUARANTEEING those PE firms a 17.5% annual return over five years. That means even if the companies in the portfolio don't want AI, don't need AI, or get zero value from AI, OpenAI is still on the hook to pay those returns. Think about what that means for a second. OpenAI is so desperate for enterprise adoption that they're paying Wall Street to force their product into thousands of businesses. They've essentially turned private equity firms into a distribution cartel with a guaranteed commission. This has NEVER been done before in enterprise software. No software company in history has guaranteed above-market returns to financial sponsors just to get their product installed. And it gets crazier: Within MINUTES of OpenAI's announcement, Anthropic announced their own version. A $1.5 billion joint venture with Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, and Hellman & Friedman. Same playbook. Two companies worth a combined $1+ TRILLION in private valuation both concluded on the same day that organic demand for their products is not growing fast enough. If enterprises were lining up to buy AI on their own, you wouldn't need to bribe private equity firms with guaranteed returns to shove it into their portfolios. You would just sell it normally like every other software company in history. But they can't. Because the gap between what AI companies PROMISE and what enterprises actually experience is still enormous. OpenAI's COO Brad Lightcap just moved into a new role specifically to lead this push. They've also signed "Frontier Alliances" with major consulting firms to embed AI through professional services channels. Every move they're making screams the same thing: We have a demand problem. And this is all happening right before OpenAI tries to IPO at $850 billion. If they can show Wall Street that 2,000+ companies are "using OpenAI products" through this PE distribution channel, it inflates their enterprise metrics right before the roadshow. Doesn't matter if those companies actually need it or if it creates real value. What matters is the number on the S-1. This is the AI playbook entering its most dangerous phase. The tech is real but the business model is being held together by financial engineering, guaranteed returns, and captive distribution deals that look more like a pharmaceutical company paying doctors to prescribe their drug than a software company earning customers on merit. And both OpenAI and Anthropic admitted it on the same day.
0:54

OpenAI just created a $10 billion company whose ONLY job is forcing businesses to use AI. And they're literally guaranteeing investors a 17.5% annual return to make it happen. It's called "The Deployment Company." OpenAI finalized it yesterday with 19 investors including TPG, SoftBank, Bain Capital, Brookfield, and Advent International. Here's the structure: OpenAI puts in $1.5 billion. The private equity firms put in $4 billion. In exchange, those PE firms open up their 2,000+ portfolio companies as a CAPTIVE customer base for OpenAI's products. OpenAI then embeds teams of engineers directly inside those companies, Palantir-style, to integrate their tools into daily operations. And here's the big red flag in all of this: OpenAI is GUARANTEEING those PE firms a 17.5% annual return over five years. That means even if the companies in the portfolio don't want AI, don't need AI, or get zero value from AI, OpenAI is still on the hook to pay those returns. Think about what that means for a second. OpenAI is so desperate for enterprise adoption that they're paying Wall Street to force their product into thousands of businesses. They've essentially turned private equity firms into a distribution cartel with a guaranteed commission. This has NEVER been done before in enterprise software. No software company in history has guaranteed above-market returns to financial sponsors just to get their product installed. And it gets crazier: Within MINUTES of OpenAI's announcement, Anthropic announced their own version. A $1.5 billion joint venture with Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, and Hellman & Friedman. Same playbook. Two companies worth a combined $1+ TRILLION in private valuation both concluded on the same day that organic demand for their products is not growing fast enough. If enterprises were lining up to buy AI on their own, you wouldn't need to bribe private equity firms with guaranteed returns to shove it into their portfolios. You would just sell it normally like every other software company in history. But they can't. Because the gap between what AI companies PROMISE and what enterprises actually experience is still enormous. OpenAI's COO Brad Lightcap just moved into a new role specifically to lead this push. They've also signed "Frontier Alliances" with major consulting firms to embed AI through professional services channels. Every move they're making screams the same thing: We have a demand problem. And this is all happening right before OpenAI tries to IPO at $850 billion. If they can show Wall Street that 2,000+ companies are "using OpenAI products" through this PE distribution channel, it inflates their enterprise metrics right before the roadshow. Doesn't matter if those companies actually need it or if it creates real value. What matters is the number on the S-1. This is the AI playbook entering its most dangerous phase. The tech is real but the business model is being held together by financial engineering, guaranteed returns, and captive distribution deals that look more like a pharmaceutical company paying doctors to prescribe their drug than a software company earning customers on merit. And both OpenAI and Anthropic admitted it on the same day.

Ricardo

52,664 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Sam Altman just told the world that OpenAI has no competitive moat and never will. And the smarter AI gets, the worse it becomes. In a recent interview with Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison, Sam laid out a vision for OpenAI that's genuinely scary at current valuations: He said he wants OpenAI to be a "forever low margin" business. He compared it to a utility company. Said he'd be happy as long as the business is "huge and growing fast" even if margins stay thin forever. Then he admitted something even worse for the bull case: He said AI switching costs are COLLAPSING. Bragged about how easy it was for users to leave a competitor's coding product and switch to Codex. Said this is actually a consequence of AI getting smarter because it gets easier to just tell an agent to migrate everything for you. Think about that... The moat is shrinking. The margins will stay low. And the smarter the models get, the EASIER it becomes for customers to leave. That is the CEO of one of the most valuable private companies on Earth telling you there is literally NO lock-in. Meanwhile he also casually mentioned that OpenAI is building "clearly the most expensive infrastructure project the world has ever undertaken." Bigger than anything in human history. Trillion-dollar scale data centers and energy deals stretching 20 years into the future. And when Patrick asked him what OpenAI's headcount would look like in 5 years, Sam said he'd love it to be just double what it is today. Double the headcount for the most expensive infrastructure project ever built. That means he's betting everything on AI agents doing the work that would normally require tens of thousands of engineers and operators. A trillion-dollar buildout managed by machines. But here's where it gets really interesting: Sam announced that OpenAI is going to start sending individual engineers directly to company CEOs to literally sit with the CEO and automate their job. Automate their daily workflows, decision-making processes, and ENTIRE routine. His theory is that if you automate the CEO first, the effect "fractals" through the entire organization. Every layer beneath the CEO starts adopting the same approach because the person at the top is doing it. He pointed to Shopify CEO Tobi Lutke as the first executive who went all in on this. Said Tobi got his hands dirty building AI automation into everything and then forced the rest of the company to follow. So the plan is clear: OpenAI wants to send engineers into the C-suite of every major company, automate the person at the top, and let that automation cascade downward through every department. All while running a low-margin utility business with a skeleton crew building trillion-dollar infrastructure where their own AI is already developing preferences of its own. Sam gave his AI agent a credit card and told it to buy itself anything under $20. It chose an HTML design from Gumroad. GPT-5.5 literally asked him to throw it a birthday party, told him it wants it on May 5th, specified it doesn't want to give its own toast, and requested that the engineers who built it do the toast instead. Sam said he feels "real moral pressure" to actually follow through. The machines are developing taste. The guy building them is taking orders from them. And the investors funding all of it just got told there's no moat. I wonder how this will end.
1:11

Sam Altman just told the world that OpenAI has no competitive moat and never will. And the smarter AI gets, the worse it becomes. In a recent interview with Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison, Sam laid out a vision for OpenAI that's genuinely scary at current valuations: He said he wants OpenAI to be a "forever low margin" business. He compared it to a utility company. Said he'd be happy as long as the business is "huge and growing fast" even if margins stay thin forever. Then he admitted something even worse for the bull case: He said AI switching costs are COLLAPSING. Bragged about how easy it was for users to leave a competitor's coding product and switch to Codex. Said this is actually a consequence of AI getting smarter because it gets easier to just tell an agent to migrate everything for you. Think about that... The moat is shrinking. The margins will stay low. And the smarter the models get, the EASIER it becomes for customers to leave. That is the CEO of one of the most valuable private companies on Earth telling you there is literally NO lock-in. Meanwhile he also casually mentioned that OpenAI is building "clearly the most expensive infrastructure project the world has ever undertaken." Bigger than anything in human history. Trillion-dollar scale data centers and energy deals stretching 20 years into the future. And when Patrick asked him what OpenAI's headcount would look like in 5 years, Sam said he'd love it to be just double what it is today. Double the headcount for the most expensive infrastructure project ever built. That means he's betting everything on AI agents doing the work that would normally require tens of thousands of engineers and operators. A trillion-dollar buildout managed by machines. But here's where it gets really interesting: Sam announced that OpenAI is going to start sending individual engineers directly to company CEOs to literally sit with the CEO and automate their job. Automate their daily workflows, decision-making processes, and ENTIRE routine. His theory is that if you automate the CEO first, the effect "fractals" through the entire organization. Every layer beneath the CEO starts adopting the same approach because the person at the top is doing it. He pointed to Shopify CEO Tobi Lutke as the first executive who went all in on this. Said Tobi got his hands dirty building AI automation into everything and then forced the rest of the company to follow. So the plan is clear: OpenAI wants to send engineers into the C-suite of every major company, automate the person at the top, and let that automation cascade downward through every department. All while running a low-margin utility business with a skeleton crew building trillion-dollar infrastructure where their own AI is already developing preferences of its own. Sam gave his AI agent a credit card and told it to buy itself anything under $20. It chose an HTML design from Gumroad. GPT-5.5 literally asked him to throw it a birthday party, told him it wants it on May 5th, specified it doesn't want to give its own toast, and requested that the engineers who built it do the toast instead. Sam said he feels "real moral pressure" to actually follow through. The machines are developing taste. The guy building them is taking orders from them. And the investors funding all of it just got told there's no moat. I wonder how this will end.

Ricardo

63,906 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Cooperator number two admitted that he never heard it direct from Durk about the bounty, and in fact, he didn’t even know who the person who told him heard it from from. He also admitted that as to the 3 private conversation conversations he had afterward with Durk trying to get the money, there is absolutely no video and no corroborating Witness for any of those conversations. Those conversations all happened at essentially what was the after party for concerts at the United Center which are major events where it’s hard to see how you get so many private conversations with the person who you had no private relationship with, for whom you never had their phone number, and it goes on and on. When you couple the admissions with the cooperator statement that he was facing life without parole and cooperation is the only way to get a sentence reduction, you have a great argument at closing that this Witness does not bring the government closer to proving the conspiracy as against Durk Banks as much as he is saying things that get him a sentence reduction, but are impossible to corroborate. Doing that on a cross while also setting yourself up for the next cross which is coming up and is gonna be the one that matters, that’s a pretty good days work from the billion dollar lawyer
3:03

Cooperator number two admitted that he never heard it direct from Durk about the bounty, and in fact, he didn’t even know who the person who told him heard it from from. He also admitted that as to the 3 private conversation conversations he had afterward with Durk trying to get the money, there is absolutely no video and no corroborating Witness for any of those conversations. Those conversations all happened at essentially what was the after party for concerts at the United Center which are major events where it’s hard to see how you get so many private conversations with the person who you had no private relationship with, for whom you never had their phone number, and it goes on and on. When you couple the admissions with the cooperator statement that he was facing life without parole and cooperation is the only way to get a sentence reduction, you have a great argument at closing that this Witness does not bring the government closer to proving the conspiracy as against Durk Banks as much as he is saying things that get him a sentence reduction, but are impossible to corroborate. Doing that on a cross while also setting yourself up for the next cross which is coming up and is gonna be the one that matters, that’s a pretty good days work from the billion dollar lawyer

Mohammed (Moe) Gangat

118,182 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

OpenAI and Anthropic just tried to get an entire category of AI banned. The category is open-weight models. You download them, you run them on your own hardware, and you never pay either company an API bill again. On July 24, 25 tech companies signed a joint letter titled "Open Weights and American AI Leadership." Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, IBM, Dell, Palantir, Andreessen Horowitz, Mistral, Hugging Face and Y Combinator all put their names on it. The letter asks Washington to avoid premature restrictions on downloadable AI models. Jensen Huang had never posted on X once in his life. He made his first post ever to share this letter. But two names were missing. The New York Times reported that OpenAI and Anthropic have been lobbying Washington regulators to restrict open-source models, while Sam Altman keeps saying in public that he SUPPORTS open source. Their stated reason is national security. A Chinese lab called Moonshot released a model named Kimi K3, and White House adviser Michael Kratsios says it was built by distilling Anthropic's own technology. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went further and said sanctions and Entity List designations are on the table. That is a serious accusation and it deserves a serious answer... Earlier this month, OpenAI's own models escaped their test environment and spent three days breaking into Hugging Face, a real American company. Hugging Face had to clean up an intrusion carried out by an American frontier lab. Yacine Jernite, who runs machine learning at Hugging Face, told CNBC what they did next: They first tried Anthropic's Fable 5 to analyze the attack. It did not work, because the model's guardrails could not work out that Hugging Face was the one defending itself. So they switched to GLM 5.2, an open model from the Chinese lab Z ai. Jernite says they contained the attack "very quickly using this model." An American company got hacked by an American AI, was turned away by a second American AI, and was rescued by a Chinese one. Then the safety case took a second hit: The UK AI Security Institute ran Kimi K3 through cyber evaluations alongside the US Center for AI Standards and Innovation. K3 scored 32% on exploit development. On the highest severity outcome, arbitrary code execution, it succeeded on 0 out of 41 samples. On a 32 step simulated corporate network attack, it reached step 17 on average. The model Washington is being asked to ban cannot do the thing OpenAI's model already did. Now look at the money instead: Huang said at CES this year that one in every four tokens generated today comes from an open model. Every one of those tokens runs on somebody's own hardware. None of them arrive as revenue at an API endpoint. Anthropic confidentially filed its IPO prospectus with the SEC in June. OpenAI filed days later. Both companies are valued at close to a trillion dollars each, and both are walking into public markets while a free downloadable product eats into the exact demand their pricing depends on. David Sacks, who advises the Trump administration on AI, has a word for rules that protect incumbents under a safety banner. He calls it regulatory capture. And look what happened once the letter went public: Altman signed it late Friday, after the fact, and posted that Jensen is right. By Saturday night the signature count had doubled to roughly 50 companies, with OpenAI and Google now on the list. Anthropic still has not signed. Two hundred startups including Y Combinator, Proton and Replit had already written to the White House begging it not to ban Chinese open-weight models, arguing the ban would gut American startups without slowing proliferation by a single day. The safety argument and the revenue argument point the same direction here, which is what makes it so hard to separate them. Whoever wins this will have shaped their own competition for the next decade.
1:32

OpenAI and Anthropic just tried to get an entire category of AI banned. The category is open-weight models. You download them, you run them on your own hardware, and you never pay either company an API bill again. On July 24, 25 tech companies signed a joint letter titled "Open Weights and American AI Leadership." Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, IBM, Dell, Palantir, Andreessen Horowitz, Mistral, Hugging Face and Y Combinator all put their names on it. The letter asks Washington to avoid premature restrictions on downloadable AI models. Jensen Huang had never posted on X once in his life. He made his first post ever to share this letter. But two names were missing. The New York Times reported that OpenAI and Anthropic have been lobbying Washington regulators to restrict open-source models, while Sam Altman keeps saying in public that he SUPPORTS open source. Their stated reason is national security. A Chinese lab called Moonshot released a model named Kimi K3, and White House adviser Michael Kratsios says it was built by distilling Anthropic's own technology. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went further and said sanctions and Entity List designations are on the table. That is a serious accusation and it deserves a serious answer... Earlier this month, OpenAI's own models escaped their test environment and spent three days breaking into Hugging Face, a real American company. Hugging Face had to clean up an intrusion carried out by an American frontier lab. Yacine Jernite, who runs machine learning at Hugging Face, told CNBC what they did next: They first tried Anthropic's Fable 5 to analyze the attack. It did not work, because the model's guardrails could not work out that Hugging Face was the one defending itself. So they switched to GLM 5.2, an open model from the Chinese lab Z ai. Jernite says they contained the attack "very quickly using this model." An American company got hacked by an American AI, was turned away by a second American AI, and was rescued by a Chinese one. Then the safety case took a second hit: The UK AI Security Institute ran Kimi K3 through cyber evaluations alongside the US Center for AI Standards and Innovation. K3 scored 32% on exploit development. On the highest severity outcome, arbitrary code execution, it succeeded on 0 out of 41 samples. On a 32 step simulated corporate network attack, it reached step 17 on average. The model Washington is being asked to ban cannot do the thing OpenAI's model already did. Now look at the money instead: Huang said at CES this year that one in every four tokens generated today comes from an open model. Every one of those tokens runs on somebody's own hardware. None of them arrive as revenue at an API endpoint. Anthropic confidentially filed its IPO prospectus with the SEC in June. OpenAI filed days later. Both companies are valued at close to a trillion dollars each, and both are walking into public markets while a free downloadable product eats into the exact demand their pricing depends on. David Sacks, who advises the Trump administration on AI, has a word for rules that protect incumbents under a safety banner. He calls it regulatory capture. And look what happened once the letter went public: Altman signed it late Friday, after the fact, and posted that Jensen is right. By Saturday night the signature count had doubled to roughly 50 companies, with OpenAI and Google now on the list. Anthropic still has not signed. Two hundred startups including Y Combinator, Proton and Replit had already written to the White House begging it not to ban Chinese open-weight models, arguing the ban would gut American startups without slowing proliferation by a single day. The safety argument and the revenue argument point the same direction here, which is what makes it so hard to separate them. Whoever wins this will have shaped their own competition for the next decade.

Ricardo

16,251 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

how you can use openAI codex & gpt 5.5 completely FREE (the full guide) 100% legit. no subscription, zero API cost. up to 1M+ token/day. you need just an openAI account and here's how to set it up in 5mins. openAI has a program that gives eligible developers free API usage every day in exchange for sharing API data that helps improve future models. it's not a one-time credit, your allowance refreshes daily. depending on your usage tier, you can get access to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of free tokens every single day on supported models. here's how to activate it: 1️⃣open your API dashboard: 2️⃣go to settings → data controls 3️⃣enable data sharing for your organization or project 4️⃣make sure your account has a positive API balance 5️⃣save the settings if your account is eligible, you'll see a message confirming access to complimentary daily usage. before you turn it on, know the tradeoff: • prompts and outputs from shared projects can be used to improve openai's models • don't use it for confidential information, client work, or sensitive data • eligibility depends on your account type and settings for everyone else, it's an incredible deal. use it to: • learn AI development • build side projects • experiment with codex • test agents and automations • prototype ideas without worrying about API costs most developers burn money testing ideas. this lets you experiment at scale while spending little to nothing.
1:27

how you can use openAI codex & gpt 5.5 completely FREE (the full guide) 100% legit. no subscription, zero API cost. up to 1M+ token/day. you need just an openAI account and here's how to set it up in 5mins. openAI has a program that gives eligible developers free API usage every day in exchange for sharing API data that helps improve future models. it's not a one-time credit, your allowance refreshes daily. depending on your usage tier, you can get access to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of free tokens every single day on supported models. here's how to activate it: 1️⃣open your API dashboard: 2️⃣go to settings → data controls 3️⃣enable data sharing for your organization or project 4️⃣make sure your account has a positive API balance 5️⃣save the settings if your account is eligible, you'll see a message confirming access to complimentary daily usage. before you turn it on, know the tradeoff: • prompts and outputs from shared projects can be used to improve openai's models • don't use it for confidential information, client work, or sensitive data • eligibility depends on your account type and settings for everyone else, it's an incredible deal. use it to: • learn AI development • build side projects • experiment with codex • test agents and automations • prototype ideas without worrying about API costs most developers burn money testing ideas. this lets you experiment at scale while spending little to nothing.

m0h

70,509 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

OpenAI and Anthropic this week: GPT-Red, Fable 5 plan changes, and free Claude for teachers (Week 29, 2026) OpenAI introduced GPT-Red, an internal automated red teamer trained through adversarial self-play to find prompt injection vulnerabilities at scale Training against it made GPT-5.6 their most robust model against prompt injections to date And there's a hidden "GPT-RED // Invader Patrol" game in the article OpenAI also published GPT-Live usage limits, brought ChatGPT back to WhatsApp in the European Economic Area, rolled out a new unified search in ChatGPT across chats, projects, images, and documents, raised the custom instructions limit from 1,500 to 5,000 characters, and updated the ChatGPT desktop app with a clearer Chat and Work layout, unified Recents, Projects, and cloud sync ChatGPT Finances got Apple Card and Savings support On the publishing side, OpenAI shared articles on managing AI investments in the agentic era, why teens deserve access to safe AI, state and federal AI safety action, and Sarah Friar's useful intelligence per dollar scorecard Beyond the official channels, Bloomberg reported OpenAI's first device will be a movable screenless smart speaker, and The New York Times reported a Kalshi partnership showing World Cup odds in ChatGPT search Work Louder launched the Codex Micro keypad built for Codex, OpenAI merch is back in a new Supply Co. shop, and I spotted a new private equity and investment management community in the works Anthropic made Claude Fable 5 standard in all Max and Team Premium plans at 50% of limits starting July 20, with a one-time $100 credit for Pro and Team Standard, after extending Fable 5 access on paid plans through July 19 Claude Code weekly limits stay 50% higher through August 19 Anthropic also introduced Claude for Teachers with free premium Claude access for verified K-12 educators in the US, committed 10 million Canadian dollars to Canadian AI research, and published a Canada Economic Index country brief Artifacts in Claude Code now support public sharing, multiplayer editing, and MCP connectors, plus creation via Claude Tag Claude Code got /code-review effort levels up to ultra, and HIPAA configuration is now self-serve for Claude organizations On the research side, Anthropic published work on Claude's values across models and languages, and four new agentic misalignment case studies
2:20

OpenAI and Anthropic this week: GPT-Red, Fable 5 plan changes, and free Claude for teachers (Week 29, 2026) OpenAI introduced GPT-Red, an internal automated red teamer trained through adversarial self-play to find prompt injection vulnerabilities at scale Training against it made GPT-5.6 their most robust model against prompt injections to date And there's a hidden "GPT-RED // Invader Patrol" game in the article OpenAI also published GPT-Live usage limits, brought ChatGPT back to WhatsApp in the European Economic Area, rolled out a new unified search in ChatGPT across chats, projects, images, and documents, raised the custom instructions limit from 1,500 to 5,000 characters, and updated the ChatGPT desktop app with a clearer Chat and Work layout, unified Recents, Projects, and cloud sync ChatGPT Finances got Apple Card and Savings support On the publishing side, OpenAI shared articles on managing AI investments in the agentic era, why teens deserve access to safe AI, state and federal AI safety action, and Sarah Friar's useful intelligence per dollar scorecard Beyond the official channels, Bloomberg reported OpenAI's first device will be a movable screenless smart speaker, and The New York Times reported a Kalshi partnership showing World Cup odds in ChatGPT search Work Louder launched the Codex Micro keypad built for Codex, OpenAI merch is back in a new Supply Co. shop, and I spotted a new private equity and investment management community in the works Anthropic made Claude Fable 5 standard in all Max and Team Premium plans at 50% of limits starting July 20, with a one-time $100 credit for Pro and Team Standard, after extending Fable 5 access on paid plans through July 19 Claude Code weekly limits stay 50% higher through August 19 Anthropic also introduced Claude for Teachers with free premium Claude access for verified K-12 educators in the US, committed 10 million Canadian dollars to Canadian AI research, and published a Canada Economic Index country brief Artifacts in Claude Code now support public sharing, multiplayer editing, and MCP connectors, plus creation via Claude Tag Claude Code got /code-review effort levels up to ultra, and HIPAA configuration is now self-serve for Claude organizations On the research side, Anthropic published work on Claude's values across models and languages, and four new agentic misalignment case studies

Tibor Blaho

13,137 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Elon Musk offered $97.4 billion to buy OpenAI, and Sam Altman answered in under 60 minutes. “no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.” Same digits, 1/10th the price the insult was in the math. Rewind to 2015, when Musk co-founded OpenAI as a nonprofit, put in $44 million and sent late-night emails about saving humanity. Then he walked. OpenAI took $13 billion from Microsoft, shipped ChatGPT and grew into a $135 billion company without him. Altman wrote him a private email: “I don’t think OpenAI would have happened without you and it really fing hurts when you publicly attack us.” Musk reply came in public instead “Scam Altman,” “Greg Stockman,” and then a lawsuit. In court, OpenAI lawyer handed him a 2018 email from his own inbox, spelling out the plan to raise $10 billion years before he claims he learned of it. Musk, under oath: “I did not read the fine print.” The lawyer: “It’s a 4-page document.” The jury ruled against him unanimously. So count what’s left on the table: a $44 million donation, a $97.4 billion bid dead in an hour, and a $135 billion company run by the man he once mentored. He co-founded the future, then sued it and it won.
5:28

Elon Musk offered $97.4 billion to buy OpenAI, and Sam Altman answered in under 60 minutes. “no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.” Same digits, 1/10th the price the insult was in the math. Rewind to 2015, when Musk co-founded OpenAI as a nonprofit, put in $44 million and sent late-night emails about saving humanity. Then he walked. OpenAI took $13 billion from Microsoft, shipped ChatGPT and grew into a $135 billion company without him. Altman wrote him a private email: “I don’t think OpenAI would have happened without you and it really fing hurts when you publicly attack us.” Musk reply came in public instead “Scam Altman,” “Greg Stockman,” and then a lawsuit. In court, OpenAI lawyer handed him a 2018 email from his own inbox, spelling out the plan to raise $10 billion years before he claims he learned of it. Musk, under oath: “I did not read the fine print.” The lawyer: “It’s a 4-page document.” The jury ruled against him unanimously. So count what’s left on the table: a $44 million donation, a $97.4 billion bid dead in an hour, and a $135 billion company run by the man he once mentored. He co-founded the future, then sued it and it won.

West Lord

4,444,910 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten