Pinned Tweet
Day 1/128 · Augmented Thinking
In Defense of Writing With an LLM
In which I defend my practice of having frontier AIs iteratively write essays which I then advertise to the world.
lukstafi.github.io/notes/apo…
lukstafi.substack.com/p/in-d…
Day 11/128 · Augmented Thinking
Presumed Normal
Defeasible reasoning logics.
lukstafi.github.io/notes/pre…
lukstafi.substack.com/p/pres…
Day 10/128 · Augmented Thinking
What Breadth Reaches: Epistemic Agency Across Timescales
Non-technical take on continual learning. The model, the deployment, generality.
lukstafi.github.io/notes/wha…
lukstafi.substack.com/p/what…
Day 9/128 · Augmented Thinking
The Bookmaker Is a Learner
Revisiting my 2010 lecture: a market maker with bounded loss is a no-regret learner; updated.
Apologies for the delay!
lukstafi.github.io/notes/the…
lukstafi.substack.com/p/the-…
Day 8/128 · Augmented Thinking
Can Two Minds Share One Experience?
Where we explore what identifying experiences with physicalist events entails.
lukstafi.github.io/notes/can…
lukstafi.substack.com/p/can-…
Day 7/128 · Augmented Thinking
Where Experience Goes
Continual learning as various forms of memory in deployed models; memory consolidation as policy improvement in RL terminology.
lukstafi.github.io/notes/whe…
lukstafi.substack.com/p/wher…
Day 6/128 · Augmented Thinking
How Does a Policy Improve?
A probabilistic perspective on RL connecting model-based RL with policy iteration.
lukstafi.github.io/notes/how…
lukstafi.substack.com/p/how-…
lukstafi.github.io/notes/how…
Łukasz Stafiniak retweeted
Today we are happy to share one of our first open research releases: Latent Sparse Attention (LSA), a step towards subquadratic attention that matches accuracy of full attention at ultra-long context.
Sparse attention attends to only a few tokens per query, but it has to find the right ones. At 10M tokens, that search takes 98% of the attention layer's time. LSA makes sparse attention up to 22.7× faster and full attention 72.4x faster.
With @kubicek_ales @caciolai @PengLiangzu @SukritSumant @Ben_Hoov @FraserGreenlee @RMBattleday @radim_urban @thoefler @jcrwhittington
Day 5/128 · Augmented Thinking
Drescher's Made-Up Minds: The Schema Mechanism
Notes from reading Gary Drescher's thesis on an autonomous learner. Pre-A(G)I era.
lukstafi.github.io/notes/dre…
Day 4/128 · Augmented Thinking
Learning About What You Do Not Do
How Richard Sutton's options-based off-policy universal RL (GQ(λ), Horde, successor features) compares to VPO.
lukstafi.github.io/notes/lea…
lukstafi.substack.com/p/lear…
Day 3/128 · Augmented Thinking
Is the Monastery Minded?
Mindedness (aka. mentality) and binding into the phenomenal now. Can a communal entity have either?
lukstafi.github.io/notes/is-…
lukstafi.substack.com/p/is-t…
Day 2/128 · Augmented Thinking
Who Teaches the Weights?
Continual learning, part 1: self-distillation, what's good and what's bad about on-policy training.
lukstafi.github.io/notes/who…
lukstafi.substack.com/p/who-…
Łukasz Stafiniak retweeted
One interesting thing between the OpenAI vs. Anthropic proofs of ETH is that the OpenAI proof is way more TCS-y and constructs simple polynomial decompositions. In some sense it gives you more "comfort" that classical CS methods like analysis of boolean functions are still correct / useful / the right way of viewing the world
But the Anthropic proof is substantially more mathematically elegant because it uses a physics-like Clifford algebraic expansion to get a natural recursion — and this recursion involves simple partition numbers that gives you the bound. The idea that a bosonic system whose band gaps are exactly the partition numbers is a "fundamental" object in theoretical CS is fucking insane to me
It sort of is kind of crazy these proofs are so different yet both are actually useful for getting intuition into the vagaries of SAT
Making some progress on simplifying the '#ETH false' proof, I think. In latest version, the key algebraic construction comes from elementary analysis of Boolean functions.
cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/some_et…
Łukasz Stafiniak retweeted
Introducing Gemini 4 Carbon, it's a big jump over Argon which we released just 2 weeks ago.
Gemini 4 Carbon is SOTA on cyber, long horizon tasks, ranks #1 on Artificial Analysis V5, significantly improves on usability in domains like coding, and is more aligned.
I'm embarking on a challenge: sharing a different article from my blog for 128 consecutive days. The articles are written by AIs but with significant guidance and/or iteration. I'll be covering the archive for 4 days and newer posts 3 days a week.
Day 1/128 · Augmented Thinking
In Defense of Writing With an LLM
In which I defend my practice of having frontier AIs iteratively write essays which I then advertise to the world.
lukstafi.github.io/notes/apo…
lukstafi.substack.com/p/in-d…
Łukasz Stafiniak retweeted
We are announcing three new discoveries in mathematics, computer science, and physics about harmonic analysis, complexity theory, and quantum field theory.
openai.com/index/building-sc…
Łukasz Stafiniak retweeted
At @lanyon_ai, we’re completing Hilbert’s (other) dream.
From November 1st, we’re rolling out pre-release versions of Lanyon to early customers and testers, and will be hosting simultaneous public demos of Lanyon capabilities in San Francisco and Chicago.
From moon bases to modular reactors to atomic-scale programmable matter, we're on a mission to make the abstract concrete, to make the digital physical, and to formally verify reality. Join us!
Łukasz Stafiniak retweeted
Want to understand LLMs? Start with how neural networks store memories.
This idea deeply shapes how I think about them, so I'm glad to see @heyyalexwang explaining it this clearly, and to see it getting the attention it deserves.
Using this occasion to share some of the recent research I’ve been part of on using this perspective to better understand LLMs:
1. LLMs are extremely good at storing knowledge, but how do they learn to do so? We study this question in arxiv.org/abs/2503.21676, showing that attention circuits need to be created before models can store memories. These attention circuits emerge during training; we study how this depends on data in arxiv.org/abs/2505.17863.
2. The memory setup in the blog, and the standard one more generally, is to have only one possible value, e.g. a next token. In practice, LLMs have to model different possible future tokens; we show in arxiv.org/abs/2608.15448 that such “ambiguity” requires larger networks to store!
3. What happens when a network with a lot of knowledge learns new memories: it catastrophically forgets. This is a nice toy setup to systematically study it and there are some surprising other phenomena that one can study. In arxiv.org/abs/2610.08718 we study spurious forgetting: in some cases there is forgetting in the sense that memories cannot be recalled, but there are still present if probing the network in the right way.
4. One can see post-training as a slight modifications of the memory of the network. We use this perspective in arxiv.org/abs/2610.03529 to give some intuition about how different distillation strategies affect model behavior; this is imo a cool setup to understand some distillation behaviors.
Bonus. From the arguments in the quoted blog, one can heuristically derive scaling laws. I gave a tutorial on that (which reviews some of the work linked in the blog) nicolaszucchet.github.io/Tut…; there is even a colab where you can train your own memories and derive their scaling laws!
There are still many open questions related to memories, knowledge and LLMs, and I hope to see a lot more of cool research to do in this direction!











