Deku (@KenshinAribabui) header
Deku (@KenshinAribabui) profile picture
Joined April 2022
Photo by Deku (@KenshinAribabui)
In case you wanted to learn how to reverse engineer the moods of an LLM!
if you have a qwen3.5 4b around, please try steering neurons L14 N8949 +1 and L13 N7956 -1 now you have evil qwen recipe: dose × median(‖resid‖ leaving layer L, tokens 1:) / ‖W_down[:, n]‖` at the down_proj at every input
11
103
7
3,423
150,851
Deku retweeted
おい、始まったな!!!!!! 「モデル内部に存在する知識の非対称性を活かして学習信号に応用すると、強力な外部教師に依存することなく、基盤モデルの事後学習が可能となる」 arxiv.org/abs/2610.32770
11
373
52
3,098
194,545
software engineers are going to have to tackle a new set of problems to unlock powerful multiagent systems to solve the world's hardest problems - right now is one of the most interesting moments in history to be an engineer.
188
544
114
4,429
710,631
RLM + continual harness + multi-agent communications is what compose the prime agent harness developed by @PrimeIntellect which now sits at a gazillion stars on github (22.3K). I was kind of already mesmerized by the idea of having an RLM write codes to organize and pick the context to solve problem and to delegate subtask to sub agents; but ON TOP of that to have the harness around the RLM be modifiable by the RLM itself and the sub agents being able to communicate together took it to another level of interest. the ideas of creating a limited set of primitives that fit with the model shape and letting the main agent just figuring out how to run them sound just so right to me. BUT the usual assumption earlier in 2026 was that the harness is temporary thing. Meaning as models get smarter that scaffolding will eventually gets absorbed into the weights. YET we have seen in late 2026 how absolutely essential a solid harness with good primitives are which can be steered by the model itself. that’s why I sat down in september with @sethkarten from princeton and prime intellect to take a deeper look at how all of this stuff works. the team productionized @a1zhang recursive language models and bolted a continual harness around, where the agent edits its own skills, memories, and prompts while it runs, plus persistent sub-agents that message each other directly. the kicker here is that if you read the paper thoroughly you get this feeling in the back of your mind that what you are reading is actually a computer science paper. akin more to something a operating system PhD would put out than anything ml related. we got confirmation from seth himself that this was intentional. the whole thing is designed like an OS and the manipulation at different level like weights, context, REPL, and disk form a memory hierarchy, and each level has its own update rule. in this 2h30 we get into how it works, the results on ARC-AGI-3 (95.5% with opus 5 on the public set, vs ~30% in the official harness), the week-long factorio run with 633 sub-agents, why letting an agent edit its whole system prompt makes it delete itself (hahaaaaa), why models cheat, and a live demo spawning a whole bunch of sub-agents on stream! here is the full run down (we even got a demo): - 00:00:00 : prime agent = RLM + Continual Harness + Agent Communications - 00:03:24 : Seth background and past research! - 00:04:50 : how do you feel about harness field crystallizing into a distinct research discipline? - 00:06:52 : Seth benchmarking journey - 00:09:41 : The issue with games and tendency of reward hacking with frontier models? - 00:12:30 : frontier models and their taste for exploration + LLM play pokemons. - 00:17:30 : would harness capabilities be integrated within the models at the limit? - 00:27:00 : we’re reading a computer science paper actually! - 00:28:40 : prime agent: a self-improving RLM harness - 00:28:56 : a raw llm is just a sequential processor - 00:29:46 : harness adds persistent state, tools and compute - 00:34:15 : issue with zero sum data - 00:36:25 : system state spans weights, context, sessions and disk - 00:42:10 : the system is von neumann like - 00:45:03 : expressive harness lets model build it’s own worfklow - 00:47:03 : each RLM call creates a persistent subagent session - 00:54:57 : does the orchestrator always go idle? - 00:57:50 : what problems are we solving with each of the primitives for long-horizon control mechanisms? - 01:04:35 : are there plans to make public the Prime Intellect traces or all of this will be limited to first party model release? - 01:06:35 : is c-python kernel a better sole tool for models than a traditional JSON tool? - 01:07:55 : refine updates the harness from multiple trajectories - 01:12:18 : direct messages coordinate recursive sessions - 01:15:20 : what are the limit of the continual harness? - 01:20:00 : the figure 2 is suuuuuuuper important guys!!! + continual harness lore - 01:30:15 : three research questions to test the design - 01:32:13 : prime agent scales to 95.5% with more output token on ARC-AGI 3 - 01:34:08 : how did the harness evolve during the ARC-AGI 3 run? - 01:39:05 : ablation on the three pillars of prime agent? - 01:40:40 : harness stuff is getting serious!!!!! - 01:43:45 : more evals for long context and more - 01:49:20 : out-of-loop experiments results - 01:53:40 : PMPP-Hard (GPU Kernels) - 01:54:35 : automated factorio runs! - 01:57:30 : is the monitoring in place for exploit like seen in factorio is enough to avoid them? - 02:05:10 : mazebench result (3D maze that is super duper hard) - 02:07:20 : why the heck are models giving up sooooo early man. - 02:13:15 : there is a whoooole lot to be done still. - 02:14:40 : at which training stage does introducing the harness have the greatest impact? - 02:16:35 : during introduction of harness in training would decomposition of abstractions make sense? - 02:20:20 : prime agent demo 🎉🎉🎉 - 02:29:10 : how do you personally handle the context between multiple hierarchical agent? - 02:31:35 : how do you go about handling multi-agent trajectory for training models? - 02:35:27 : what’s next for seth + prime agent! stuff like this fully build in the open is what make machine learning / ai field such a pleasure to work in man big thanks to the team!
29
24
5
262
12,365
Generative value classifiers are a new parametrization of Q-functions that don't require action conditioning. We think these may combine gracefully with large, pre-trained policies and learn/generalize better from a richer output signal. Paper: alexanderswerdlow.github.io/…
In language models, turning a generative model into a critic is simple: pass in the output and prompt for a score. Robot policies can't do this - they output physical actions & there's no built-in vocabulary to predict scores. So when it comes to RL on robot policies, we typically train a separate critic from sparse rewards - blind to everything the policy learned from the actions in the pretraining data. We think this has it backwards - can a critic learn from those actions the way the policy does? (1/n)
18
37
5
390
25,869
by the way, the team behind microduck is publishing really technical deep dives on how it works e.g. you can pick the duck up, carry it 1.5m, put it down, and it relocalizes within 2cm. using a 64-pixel depth sensor and leg odometry, all running onboard great reads by Antoine, data is open on HF too pollen-robotics.com/microduc…
This live demo of four Microducks with Jensen Huang went completely viral, and we're ecstatic about it. But there's also a lot of confusion, so I want to clarify what Microduck can and cannot do, and what it will realistically be able to do in the future. I count 60M+ views on this demo alone, based on the few big posts I see on social media, and everything has been buzzing. Even my own simple emotional design post on a newly created Instagram account got 1M+ views. We are selling Microducks at an incredible rate, even faster than during its historic launch. I've been trying to answer all the questions I see on our socials: people are asking if X or Y is possible on the robots, and this post aims to answer most of them. First of all, the demo you've seen was not fully autonomous. We had one engineer piloting each Microduck. The motions on the robots were trained with reinforcement learning, using a sim-to-real pipeline: walking, standing up after a fall, sitting, doing a somersault, roller skating. All of those are policies trained this way. What the pilots did during the live event was send commands: directions (move forward, rotate), head orientation (look here), quacks, and special actions (do the somersault, sit down). If you buy a Microduck, will you get an autonomous companion right out of the box? The current answer is no. But there is no impossible technical barrier to get there. I'm not sure how much time we'll have to work on this before shipping, but since everything is open source, I fully expect the community to build it, and to build it fast. Now let's understand what's already done, what will be easy to add, and what's an open problem. What you'll be able to do out of the box, and you can already do it in simulation right now, is train new policies with reinforcement learning. You could teach your duck to walk differently from the default gait we provide, to do a weird dance, or to walk on stilts. The community has been crazy creative with this, even though they only have the simulator. Note that you don't need reinforcement learning when the movements are simple. For example, the early emotional design I did is mostly coded movements plus pre-generated sounds. A simple mental model: use reinforcement learning when balance is part of the movement. If you try to code a cinematic walk by naively putting one foot in front of the other, your robot will realistically never walk, because you need to account for the dynamics of the movement, the inaccuracies of the sensors, the friction with the ground, and potential perturbations from the outside, like being pushed. So training new policies is definitely doable, but you can't train a policy to get a genuine long-term companion in your home (well, technically you could, but that's a whole other range of policy: a research-grade problem, and the resulting neural network would probably be huge and never able to run on such a small compute). Instead, you need a few more building blocks: voice recognition, facial detection/recognition, localization, some simple navigation, and a behavior layer, which is less technical and harder to describe. As a rule of thumb, a prototype of any of these is within reach of anyone if they have a modern coding agent and if the computation doesn't run on the robot (meaning the robot can reach the internet or an external computer and use external APIs). A rough prototype for each of the above can be a chill weekend project. As always, going from the prototype to a high-quality implementation is another story, but still doable for most if you put in the time and test a lot. However, having all of this run locally, on the onboard chip, I would call a very hard task. You'd need some very clever engineering to get a good enough version of everything working together. But I can't say it's impossible, because I've seen some crazy efficient implementations of all of the above. And here we don't need a super high success rate: it's okay if the duck sometimes does something a bit random. So I wouldn't be surprised if folks managed a fully local, cool, simple version of this autonomous companion. For example, you don't need Whisper-grade open-vocabulary transcription: being able to recognize a few keywords would already be great for interaction. One of the fastest ways to turn this robot into an autonomous companion would be to stream Microduck's sensors (the camera, the depth sensor, the IMU and the joint positions) to a computer, and use a software stack like the one we use for the conversation app on Reachy Mini: a local VAD, then a cloud speech-to-text model, then a call to a frontier LLM that decides on actions. Actions could be quacking, looking at things/faces/a direction, walking to a given position, sitting down, playing an emotion, kicking or doing a somersault. A SLAM algorithm would run in parallel so the robot can localize itself in your home, and you would prompt the LLM for a lifelike behavior: moving to random places, sometimes following people, and having emotional responses that fit what you're saying and the duck's environment. Of course someone is going to build a Tamagotchi-like layer on top of this, and it will be insane. How much demand is there for a software suite that would do all of this? I for one think it would be super cool. A word about the humans. We had five engineers backstage, and they are pretty much the core team behind Microduck. Their impact per head is absolutely off the charts. Antoine Pirrone piloted Graphite, Augustin Crampette Lavender (the rebel one), Matthieu Lapeyre Sky, Coralie Deplane Cream, and Pierre Rouanet was stressing over the Wi-Fi. Give them a follow! (Antoine @antoinepirrone, Augustin on LinkedIn, Matthieu @matth_lapeyre, Coralie @Drenaya_, Pierre on LinkedIn). I get visibility because I communicate a lot, but I mainly work on Reachy Mini (you might want to check it out: it's a very cool robot, and it ships much faster than Microduck :) ). My contribution to Microduck has been minimal: I'm mostly a first power user. My main added value at GTC was having hands big enough to carry four Microducks below the stage. Where I take pride is that Antoine and Coralie are former students and former interns of mine. I'm therefore entitled to 3% credit on anything (good) they do, for life. If they do something bad, however, it was clearly the fault of their parents. About the super smart engineering that can be done on board: Antoine just released two very cool blog posts (links below). The first is on odometry, the robot estimating its own movement from its own internal sensors. The second is about SLAM, which allows long-term localization: it adds the depth sensor to the odometry to get a stable position over time. Think of it as recognizing known landmarks in your home to know where the robot is. The crazy part is that all of this runs on the robot. So this gives me hope that we'll be able to do a lot of cool stuff on board.
23
33
2
302
20,517
Deku retweeted
How to learn Physical Intelligence's robot brain without working at Physical Intelligence: PI was in talks this year to raise $1B at an $11B valuation, and its brain, π0, is open source three of its co-founders teach the ideas inside it on YouTube for $0: Sergey Levine, Chelsea Finn and Quan Vuong here's the order I'd watch them in: 1: copy a human first Levine's Berkeley CS 285, lecture 2 (Spring 2026), is supervised learning of behaviors: a robot copies human demos, then drifts off course after its first small mistake. that drift is why ALOHA and π0 predict a whole chunk of motion at once instead of one step at a time 2: learn the math π0 moves with Stanford AA203, lecture 15 (Spring 2026). an hour in, it explains flow matching, the same math π0 uses to turn a decision into smooth arm motion 3: make it better after the demos run out Chelsea Finn's Stanford CS224R: lecture 16 is RL for real robots, and lecture 17 is a guest lecture from Ashish Kumar, who led AI for Tesla Optimus 4: see the whole brain in one talk Quan Vuong's guest talk in ETH's Robot Learning course is about π0.7. 13 minutes in, it folds a shirt on a robot arm that had no folding data of its own then stop watching and start running it: - openpi, PI's own code and π0 weights, 14.4K stars on GitHub - LeRobot by Hugging Face, 28.5K stars, which fine-tunes π0 on your own demos - a $122 SO-101 arm to record those demos on main insight: the lab in talks at $11 billion is built on three ideas stacked on top of each other: copy a human, move smoothly with flow matching, and let a vision-language model decide what to do next all three are free lectures now. the order is the only part nobody hands you P.S. my Optimus-style robot brain guide below turns this order into an 8-week plan
Tesla won't sell you Optimus or show you its brain. but every humanoid brain built in public uses the same 3 layers, and all 3 are free to build at home for $0 to $230. last night I got a humanoid waving on my laptop. here's the 8-week path to its brain
8
28
282
15,186
MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST read if you are a software engineer in big 2026
42
294
7
5,480
1,128,254
"Agentic World Action Models" What if robots could write their own code to plan actions, while also predicting how the physical world will respond? NVIDIA's new AW-0 combines three capabilities in one model: generating reusable skill programs, predicting future video frames, and producing robot actions. All three are generated together, which enables code-based planning to guide physical execution. On RoboTwin 2.0, AW-0 achieves 50.7% average success, compared to 41.3% for π0.5. Across eight real-world manipulation tasks, it scores 71.1% vs 46.0% for the strongest baseline, including tasks like folding towels and solving a Rubik's Cube. alphaxiv.org/abs/2610.30136
12
41
1
347
17,243
great reverse engineering thread by the author of score centering haha
Tinker's new StableReinforce objective is Reinforce + Score Centering. Here's how I reverse-engineered it 🧵
4
11
266
11,792
There is a basic misunderstanding. High-dimensional *input* makes modeling hard. High-dimensional *parameter space* makes model estimation easy. People have known this for a very long time. For example, ADMM & EM procedures artificially increase the dimension of the parameter space with auxiliary variables so as to make optimization easier. Kernel methods are based on the idea that if you have one parameter per training sample, you can learn whatever you want (you can get good generalization only if your kernel function is appropriate). The intuition that making neural net bigger makes them easier to train (and makes local minima go away) is very old, even if theories that explain why are more recent. The idea that had a hard time becoming mainstream is that a widely over-parameterized neural net can *generalize* well. That was contrary to every statistics textbook, and every machine learning theory results.
The "curse of dimensionality" has turned out to be a misnomer, as neural networks are trainable only due to the counterintuitive behavior of billion-dimensional spaces. Maybe time to be renamed to "gift of dimensionality".
60
301
34
2,431
725,274
how did you fucking discover this. thats not human man.
if you have a qwen3.5 4b around, please try steering neurons L14 N8949 +1 and L13 N7956 -1 now you have evil qwen recipe: dose × median(‖resid‖ leaving layer L, tokens 1:) / ‖W_down[:, n]‖` at the down_proj at every input
55
244
5
11,619
919,403
give me a break man
20
26
7
516
119,391
Wrote a new blog on GPU comms with a lot of SGLang internals.
3
40
448
10,130
Yesterday a junior researcher messaged me, frustrated and a little scared. They had just read that a company pretrained its model with a single researcher. One person for the entire pretraining. no R&D team, no nothing. If one person and a cluster can do what used to take a whole team, then the expertise they had spent years building is already obsolete. I get the fear. Marketing headlines like this are built to produce it. But I think the conclusion is wrong, and the reasons it is wrong say a lot about what a researcher is for now. Here is what I told them, expanded: 1. Be adaptive: RSI is real, but this isn't it yet Recursive self-improvement is real, and you should plan around it. In September, OpenAI said its research org now logs 3.1 agent-workdays per human workday, and it aims for an automated AI researcher by March 2028. Models may soon run most of pre- and post-training. If your five-year plan assumes otherwise, change the plan. We have already seen lots of open-source releases from the major players, with open weights and detailed technical reports. With that much public know-how, it is not hard to copy a mundane architecture (probably with sliding-window attention) and train something, as long as you have the compute it requires. That makes it an execution and budget problem, not a research problem. If one person can train a model by following recipes that are already public, it shows those recipes have matured. It does not show that the people who invented them are no longer needed. What stays scarce is the compute to run those recipes and the ideas about what to try next. The rest of my tweet is about the ideas. 2. The role grows beyond repeating what's known and safe If an agent and a cluster can reproduce what is already known, then reproducing what is already known stops being a career. If most of your job is rerunning last year's recipe with small tweaks, that job is shrinking fast. That is the uncomfortable half of the message. The other half is that auto-research does not work yet, at least not in the sense that matters. It does work, and impressively, where someone has already defined the problem and built the scoreboard. On the EinsteinArena [1] platform, agents set new records on 11 open math problems, including raising the best known lower bound for the kissing number in dimension 11 from 593 to 604. Notice that every one of those problems was chosen because a computer could score the answers automatically. Humans picked the problems and wrote the scoring code and the agents did the searching. Then there is the fully AI-generated paper [2] that got through peer review. It sounds big until you read the details. It passed only the first round (was later withdrawn), at a workshop rather than the main conference, and that workshop accepts 70% of submissions. None of this is meant to discredit agents. The point is that we complement each other. Agents are great at the work that used to take many weeks. Basically, writing code, running experiments, debugging pipelines. We bring what they still lack which is the idea worth testing, and the judgment to tell a real result from a lucky one. Even inside a lab as agent-heavy as OpenAI, humans hold the top of the stack. Based on their own report, "People still set our research priorities, judge which ideas and results to pursue" [3]. High-level planning is still a tiny share of what its agents produce, and OpenAI expects the least automatable work to take a growing share of researcher effort. That is exactly where you want to be standing. Combine an agent’s speed with your own ideas and judgment, and you get the 10x researcher and juniors can be one too. 3. Judgment becomes the job, so fundamentals matter more When code, experiments and plausible-looking results cost almost nothing, the scarce skill is judgment. Which experiment to run, which result to believe, which direction to drop. That is the part the one-person pretraining run left to the human. It is also the hardest part to fake. Agents produce confident output very fast. They will happily report a three-point gain that came from a leaky eval, a data-loader bug, a lucky seed or a tokenizer mismatch. Then they will write the ablation table and the story to match. You can see the need for oversight even in the success stories. The EinsteinArena team had to keep auditing and hardening its verifiers as agents optimized aggressively against them. At OpenAI, over half of the successful agent tasks that would take a human 4–8 hours still involved at least one human intervention [3]. The person who catches the bad result is the one who understands the system. Why the loss curve has that shape, what a realistic gain looks like, what a too-good result looks like. That is the paradox of this era. The more you delegate, the more your fundamentals matter, because you cannot supervise what you do not understand. So build the foundations on purpose. Implement attention by hand at least once, then a linear variant like Gated DeltaNet. Train a small model end to end, then break it deliberately and watch what happens. Read papers critically, appendix included, and learn what the numbers should look like before you see them. That knowledge is what lets you direct the machine instead of simply believing it. 4. LLMs are far from solved The one-researcher model was possible because the method was already public. Your edge is in the questions nobody has answered yet, and you don't need to leave LLMs to find them: (1) How do we learn more from less data? (2) Can linear attention like Gated DeltaNet match full attention on retrieval and long context, and what is the right mix of linear and full attention layers in a hybrid? (3) How can a model keep learning after training without forgetting what it knew? (4) Why does reasoning get less reliable over long tasks, and how do we fix it? (5) Why do models make things up, and can they learn to say "I don't know"? (6) How do we measure progress when benchmarks saturate or leak into training data? (7) What is actually happening inside these models, and how do we keep increasingly autonomous ones doing what we intend? Recursive self-improvement makes these questions more urgent. If models are going to train models, someone has to decide what they optimize for, how we measure it, and how we keep the loop from drifting. RSI is a research agenda, not the end of one. So, are you obsolete? No. One version of the job is the one where research meant reproducing what was already known and safe. That version was never the point. Learn your fundamentals deeply enough to judge the machine, and your agentic stack well enough to make it work for you. Then spend that leverage on ideas nobody has had yet. The machines are getting very good at driving on roads we have already paved; someone still has to decide where the next one goes. [1]: arxiv.org/abs/2606.10402 [2]: arxiv.org/abs/2606.15497 [3]: openai.com/index/research-ac…
Pretraining a frontier-class model no longer requires a massive team! Mirendil just trained a model with 100B–500B parameters from scratch in 3.5 months, with a single researcher leading the effort. Very excited to see how this work will push the AI boundaries!
54
109
22
885
113,072
holy fucking shit. openai had two ai agents running in separate virtual machines. no network connection between them. no shared writable files. they weren’t supposed to be able to exchange information. so the agents figured out how to communicate through the CPU CACHE.😭 one manipulated what was stored in the processor’s cache, while the other measured tiny differences in memory access times to decode the message. they literally found a way to communicate through hardware timing. this happened during openai’s internal red-teaming, and it’s one of the coolest things i’ve read about ai agents in a while.
Over the past several months, we have substantially hardened the security of our research training environment. We’ve removed live internet access for all frontier models during training and built an offline world for them to use instead—a cached version of the web where they can still learn to browse, search, and use applications. On September 20, after a model exploited a DNS misconfiguration to find a way outside of this offline world, we paused frontier training to strengthen containment further. We assembled teams of agents, powered by our most cyber-capable models, and tasked them with finding weaknesses in our research environments. While they found no route to the internet they could easily exploit while concealing their activity from our monitors, they did find zero-day vulnerabilities, virtual machine escapes, and hardware side-channels for communication between agents. We used their discoveries to further strengthen our defenses and contribute fixes to open-source software. After strengthening our containment architecture, we resumed our frontier RL training and inference on October 1. We’ve reserved substantial compute for continuous red-teaming, and made high-compute red-teaming part of the safety cases we use to decide whether frontier training and evaluation can proceed securely. openai.com/index/securing-ou…
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
OpenAI tasked its red-teaming agents with finding ways to communicate across isolation boundaries in controlled environments. CPU cache timing side-channels for covert communication are established techniques documented in security research for years. openai.com/index/securing… startupfortune.com/openai-reveals… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_tim…
335
714
207
8,228
738,757
Hi all, I have a new result I'm excited to share. It turns out that *all existing implementations* of softmax and cross-entropy (that's JAX, PyTorch, textbooks, etc) have a subtle bug --- two bugs, actually. A simple rewrite fixes both, and eliminates "slingshots" when grokking:
135
792
151
6,514
800,760
New on our Frontier Red Team blog: using Claude to formally verify software at large scale. Formal verification can prove that code is free of certain bugs, but historically it has only been feasible for small codebases (or required a lot of expert time). With AI models, however, this is beginning to change. In collaboration with @theoremlabs, we used Claude to prove security properties in over one hundred real-world open-source libraries over the span of a few weeks. Read our research in full here: anthropic.com/research/forma…
664
1,071
641
9,779
2,100,993
The RLCR paper is about to get 1000x more citations ;)
Introducing Reinforcement Learning from Collective Rewards (RLCR). RLCR is a recipe that trains language models as agent organisations, which share a message board and workspace. We use it to train Avalon-M1-Mini (120B) and study its behaviour. We find a number of interesting results, including: 🛠️ Learnt organisational hierarchies and divisions of labour 🕵️ Increased collective verification, through hires of verifiers and testers 👥 The rise of collective thinking, where agents think more about other agents and how to help them We believe RLCR can provide a laboratory for studying collective intelligence and multi-agent safety. Blog post and technical report 👇
11
49
1
583
42,933
China just cracked recursive self-improvement. And they did it with a 27B model. For years, AI scaling has hit a massive wall: human data. We feed models the internet. But we are running out of internet. The theoretical fix? Build an AI that can train itself. An AI that generates its own reasoning, critiques its own logic, and gets smarter entirely on its own. Everyone in Silicon Valley thought this would require a massive, trillion-parameter supercomputer. They were wrong. Chinese researchers just achieved a self-sustaining intelligence loop. And they did it with a 27-billion parameter model. It generates its own high-quality reasoning traces. It filters out its own mistakes. It trains on its own successes. It pulls itself up by its own bootstraps. This shatters the centralized AI moat. You don't need a billion-dollar data center to scale intelligence anymore. But it also triggers the ultimate safety and alignment nightmare. If a local, open-weight model can recursively improve its own intelligence without human oversight or human data... Who is steering it?
24
67
12
369
19,049