Interconnects

Nathan Lambert
  • 3.9 (11)
  • Technology
  • Updated Weekly

Audio essays about the latest developments in AI and interviews with leading scientists in the field. Breaking the hype, understanding what's under the hood, and telling stories. www.interconnects.ai

  1. 2d ago

    The Cyber Risk Discourse is Broken

    I’ve had one too many discussions on the cyber risks of open models — where someone assumes that either banning open models happens in a silo (and bad actors will somehow actually be stopped) or that China is a threat and doesn’t care about AI safety — that I feel we’re going to end up making policy decisions that both limit American AI competitiveness and increases long-term cyber risk. I feel like we’re locked in on a path of lose-lose situation, unless people embrace nuance, trade-offs, and scary realities. Much has been written about the views of various players in this debate, which I summarize as follows: * Open weight models pose an untenable risk to society’s functionality, occupied by frontier lab leadership and the national security community in the U.S. * Western voices saying open weight models are necessary for defense and banning them will make the world less safe, occupied by AI risk moderates to different extremes. I include myself in this bucket, along with Hugging Face’s perspective after the OpenAI incident, and others like Joshua Saxe. * Chinese companies continuing to release open-weight models with strong cyber capabilities, who are making decisions based on the risk assessments of their society and government. This list is also organized by volume or clarity of message in the Western AI ecosystem. The risk-focused discussions have been disproportionately visible, including pieces of work which I view as very detrimental to potential of engaging across assumed party lines on this issue. There’s also very little substantive engagement trying to understand how Chinese companies assess risk — rather, mostly arguments that border on ad hominem attacks like “Chinese labs don’t care about safety.” Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber. The delusions of the anti open-weight alliance The most recent publication from the “open-weights are dangerous” crowd was the report by Anthropic on the risks of GLM-5.3 as an offensive cyber tool. The problem with this is not the technical research they did, which is largely reasonable, but the failure to engage on more cross cutting questions like: What happens if we ban open models due to cyber risks or why do Chinese companies deem these models safe to release? These questions, which I’ll come back to, are the ones we need to answer to understand the ecosystem perspective on current AI risks. All policy actions happen in a multi-piece puzzle, where the shape of risk can be changed, but it is rare that you get a universally better outcome. They are all trade-offs. This sort of solipsistic writing by Anthropic fits very closely to another type of discourse I’m hearing about regularly that is determining the fate of open models and AI broadly — classified briefings. I’ve had many discussions with people who say something like “Look, I’m pro open models, but if you’re seeing what I’m seeing, it’s an onslaught out there due to [XYZ Chinese open-weight model] and we need to act.” This perspective flies in the face of public information, where to date closed models have been documented as the cause of most existing cyber attacks. As someone who tries to make grounded predictions, the evidence of numerous attacks from OpenAI models is the only data I have on the shape of cyber risks (or, you can broaden the scope to include all of FelonyBench). There are a few possible explanations, and it’ll take years to get to the true answer: * Maybe open model weights and closed model APIs (with some safe guards) are both far closer to being easy to mis-use, rather than API models being closer to safe. The trope "Open Dangerous, Closed Safe" may be closer to "Open Unsafe, Closed Unsafe." * Maybe there are far fewer bad actors who are willing to use AI models for “loud” cyber attacks that target crucial infrastructure in the US or powerful and underprepared institutions. Closed models have stronger capabilities and stronger safeguards (in theory), but the stronger capabilities part could matter more in net harm if the safeguards on both are porous. * I have a lot more to learn about how the cybersecurity ecosystem works, so I won’t support this full-heartedly as one of my current recommendations, but I think it’s at least a reasonable argument that open weight models as a diffusion tool for cyber defense could be the best tool we have to prevent harm over the next few years. There are many domains, e.g. sensitive government agencies, where open-weight models are the only tools that can be deployed in the near-term on air-gapped networks. Lots of this situation seems like the messy reality being hard to pin down, where the logical limits are clearer. I may agree with the simple reality that closed models are far safer in the limit, as a technical tool with more layers of protection, but they may actually be causing more harm in the near term because of how accessible model APIs are. Still, much of the impact of the tools comes down to how they’re used and controlled. A duopoly on such a crucial tool may be the defining, risky part. This is the debate we’re having, and over time, as intelligence diffuses, many things may change. These together make me come to the conclusion that if you think the latest open-weight models need to be banned to slow the diffusion of cyber risks, you probably also need to make public-facing APIs for the frontier closed-models illegal. The current stack of safeguards on closed models is stronger than open-weight models, but far from perfect. It is very likely that cyber capabilities of closed models increase much faster than guardrail performance, and a world where open models are banned while closed models continue to progress would be increasing the offense-defense cyber gap. It will take meaningful time to build mitigations that allow defenders to use strong AI models on their private infrastructure if we remove access to strong open-weight models. Explaining China’s AI risk posture China cares about AI safety. They have come to this discourse in a complete, endogenous manner relating to Chinese culture and power structures. There are some big picture pieces of this puzzle that reflect in other ways, such as Chinese society’s techno-optimism that extends into AI and the Chinese government’s complete focus on political stability. These things do, of course, interface with emerging AI risks like cybersecurity. They are in their own AI risk dynamic, which hasn’t risen to the prominence of the political dance between the White House and the frontier labs which we have followed in the U.S. for a few months. My understanding is that the Chinese companies have to register every major model release with the Chinese government. This includes evaluations, which originated around information control for banned government information. It is unclear if this framework has expanded meaningfully into any risks like cyber or bio. The Chinese government is very decentralized and information from the labs needs to go through existing structures to make it to the top. At the same time, there is a much stronger air of social risk in China, where leading AI researchers aren’t allowed to leave the country and the industry is closing off to foreign investment. On balance I would guess the personal risks facing people by unleashing any domestic harms would be much higher than in the U.S., where the worst case is that your company gets deleted. Overall, the political oversight seems much earlier than in the U.S. The Western AI companies’ core principle is close to “the best way to stop a bad guy with AI is to be a good guy with AI.” In China, these companies are much more practical about building a wonderful tool, and in many cases building a tool that complements their existing businesses. I do think that the companies consider the global implications of their work. These labs also clearly are incentivized, and often pushed via the government (at least in public messaging) to compete as much as they can. Running comprehensive safety evaluations on a frontier model like Kimi K3 could cost tens of millions of dollars in compute. These labs would much rather leave that for training. The correct debate is “what is the correct minimum amount of compute a lab should spend on safety testing before releasing each model?” There’s surely a case to be made that it’s more than the Chinese labs do, or at least they should be more transparent on what they do, but I would be hard pressed to agree if you said the minimum amount of compute would match what Anthropic or OpenAI does. It is not clear that, for all the effort Anthropic and OpenAI make on creating an institution that prioritizes understanding risks, they put it before business value and economic success in their priority stack. This “hands off the wheel” vibe from incidents like the HuggingFace—OpenAI incident was one of my lasting takeaways. It’s exemplified in the Hacktron hacking of OpenAI — it’s hard to be the world’s trust cyber partner if your own house is teeming with leaks. I trust many of the individuals at the labs to work hard to ensure safety, but I’m not trustworthy of the institutions overall. Open-weight Mythos in April would’ve been fine? When Claude Mythos was announced, it was previewed as if it was a new class of cyber weapon, where if it ended up in the wrong hands it would’ve caused mass societal destabilization. It seems like this was wrong. By all measures, GLM-5.3 is the model that crosses that threshold of capability, and there’s little public evidence that much has changed, and we’re over a month out of the model weight release. In fact, I would go further. If Claude Mythos was accidentally released as open-weight, it seems like the world would have been more or less fine. Yes, there would be a clear increase in cybersecurity incidents an

  2. Sep 22

    Debating RSI, the US-China Gap, and Jaggedness with JS Denain of Epoch AI

    This episode is with Jean-Stanislas “JS” Denain of Epoch AI, who leads their Insights Team and is one of the people I find myself debating the state and trajectory of AI with more and more. We’ve had follow-on discussions of many of my favorite recent posts online and/or in private, so I wanted to dig into the nuance in a public episode. A big takeaway of this podcast is how JS and I both have so much uncertainty with exactly where we are heading, and this was our best effort at stating our observations today. Chapters / topics include: * 00:00 Predictions for RSI * 18:15 The role of robotics in an AI acceleration * 24:20 How far behind are Chinese models? * 27:39 Does distillation explain the gap? * 40:58 What Chinese job postings reveal about their labs * 48:13 Are open or closed models safer? * 58:10 How Epoch AI ticks * 1:00:55 What a frontier post-training recipe looks like Enjoy! More from JS: Epoch AI profile and writing, X, LinkedIn Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and where ever you get your podcasts. For other Interconnects interviews, go here. Transcript 00:00:00 Nathan Lambert: I’m here with JS Denain, who is a senior researcher at Epoch AI. He leads the insights team. He is one of the people who I feel like I get the best feedback on my writing from, whether it’s from US-China AI capabilities, now RSI. And I just wanted to open this discussion and honestly go deeper with him, trying to understand how he thinks about these various things. And I think you have a very useful, moderate point of view, which I feel like you’re probably a step further into what would be called faster scenarios for AI progress. But let’s get into this, and it’s like, what measurements do you think OpenAI and Anthropic are seeing when we get all these proclamations on RSI happening very imminently? 00:00:47 JS Denain: Yeah. I think, so there’s the measurements they’ve published, right? So, OpenAI and Anthropic both had blog posts, I mean, Anthropic two at least, on the effect AI has on accelerating AI progress. I think at least the things they publish, I don’t think are super strong evidence of imminent self-sustaining acceleration AI capabilities, or full automation of the job of AI researcher. But I think the kinds of things we see are, I think probably the most striking thing I saw in the OpenAI blog post was increasing usage of AI systems in model deployment, like the increase in spending on Codex that we saw. And it’s kind of unclear how exactly to interpret this, because maybe it’s a measurement artifact where they’re only looking at Codex, but in fact, there was a bunch of ChatGPT usage before from the researchers. But overall, that plot, for example, just shows a 2X a month increase in Codex spending by researchers, and that does seem to me to be some evidence of they’re getting a lot of value out of this probably. I don’t think this is strong evidence that in six months we have a software intelligence explosion. 00:01:57 Nathan Lambert: Do you think this is the same? So, what is the information they have internally relative to what we have? And this is obviously hypothetical. We don’t have this internal information. Because I get the sense that a lot of people are more scared in their updates from the labs than the information we have. And I try to take this very seriously of, what will they be seeing that is making the acceleration of risk comments go faster, and how much of this is material evidence versus how cultures evolve over time? And I’m much more interested in evidence. 00:02:29 JS Denain: Yeah. So two things. I think, first of all, I guess I don’t think, I don’t know, right? I don’t have full information here. I don’t currently think that either there’s some specific thing that people at OpenAI or Anthropic are seeing right now that we don’t have access to that warrants being way more freaked out about this. I also don’t think that... I think the public evidence we have right now, more general on AI progress and just a priori case for this being an important dynamic, I think is enough. I think to care about this particular dynamic of AI accelerating AI progress, that being a big deal and worth tracking. And then it’s kind of unclear what the urgency is of when the feedback loop really kicks in. So, basically on the what is there on the inside that people have access to, I could give examples of kinds of metrics, right, they could be looking at. It’s plausible that we have access to the capabilities of AI systems, but internal teams have their KPIs, and maybe they’re seeing compute multipliers in the pre-training team or other kinds of metrics that people are tracking going crazy. And then the combination of this plus some intuitions of how the different outputs of different teams combine yields a prediction on the trend in actual performance of the end AI systems. So that could be an early warning sign. It’s unclear to me that the recent discourse we’ve seen is evidence of things going crazy on those metrics. 00:04:09 Nathan Lambert: And how do you think of the link between RSI and existential risk? So I would posit that you agree. I think that there are very real risks of AI, and I’m curious on how you think these, what I would describe as very, very early measurements change anything on the scope of risk. Because I don’t think if you had asked people six months ago, it would be as immediate to x-risk among people are very reasonable. I think there’s more people that are reasonable talking about x-risk again, which was a little surprising to me. 00:04:43 JS Denain: Yeah. So, okay, my sense is something like... So personally, I feel very uncertain about this, but I do feel, yeah, basically bought into there’s, I know Evan Hubinger was like, at least 10% of x-risk within I don’t know what timeframe. I think I’m like, yeah, I know, and this seems pretty reasonable over a decade-long timeframe. I just feel extremely uncertain about it, but I’m definitely very worried about this. Now, why am I worried about this, and where do I think the disagreements come from? And then how do I relate this to the early sense of RSI? My sense, I’m kind of a capabilities theory of everything person. I think, and I think some people disagree here, but I really think that principal component of disagreement between everyone is how huge do the capabilities get, how soon, of AI systems? And I sort of agree that there’s other factors that come in play for how big your economic growth gets, also depend on the diffusion you get. And you could possibly you could think that capabilities are going to get crazy, but the AI system’s going to be just aligned and benign and stuff, and so there’s no huge risk. But my sense is concretely, when I look at the main kinds of disagreements between people, most of the people who I see who are very skeptical of those most extreme scenarios... I think just expect capabilities to not be as huge or as I think folks who are— 00:06:18 Nathan Lambert: What does being a capabilities maximalist look like in a few years? Because I think I’m probably on the skeptical side, so please continue. 00:06:28 JS Denain: I think it looks, for example, something like the AI 2027 scenario, right? I think it looks like the mechanism for this is AI is automating the AI research process, I think, and that’s a reason to pay attention to it. But in terms of effect on the real world, I think it’s like massive progress on robotics. I think a huge industrial explosion, AI systems are just managing factories. You have this kind of self-sustaining economy that just is able to make a large scientific progress much faster than you would have expected. And so I think concretely, the kinds of disagreements I would expect are on, yeah, if you have AI systems that are both very intelligent in the book smart sense, but also have been trained to have more affordances and use them astutely, have been trained to kind of manage projects in efficient ways and stuff like that. How big are the real-world bottlenecks to making very fast R&D progress or getting hard power over humans? 00:07:26 Nathan Lambert: Yeah. Can we go into some of these in detail? Did you listen to the Dwarkesh podcast with Charlie, Beren, and John? 00:07:32 JS Denain: Yes. Yeah. 00:07:33 Nathan Lambert: Yeah, because they had at the end, they had this section on various capability levels and timelines for getting them. And I feel like I agreed with most... I was very in agreement on the distribution they had up to this, and then was surprised by the timelines. And one of them was the 10X productivity for the AI researchers. And I think Beren and John were faster than I think. And my kind of statement is that I think the cycle from of having an idea and doing the experimentation to test it, I agree will be 10X faster very soon. But I don’t necessarily agree that I would say that AI researchers will be 10X more productive in net, which I would describe as the pace of the field’s complete understanding. And understanding is a different axis from just continuing to scale models. I think that’s one of my core confusions on the AI research side. So I’m just kind of curious how you think about this type of thing and how you might specify a 10X improvement in AI research into subcategories. 00:08:37 JS Denain: Yeah. So maybe there’s a scale you could have here, which is the end thing that you might care about is how much faster is AI research overall? Or how much faster is Anthropic’s overall output? And then Anthropic as a company is producing some things, and it’s doing in one year what it would have taken it 10 years to do. And that’s pretty different from individual researcher productivities, where I think you could... So if most of what AI researchers right now are doing is this loop that you were describing, then it’s possible that you get a 10X productivit

  3. Sep 21

    The current balance of power in open models

    I was recently invited to brief a group of Congressional members and staff on the state of open-weight models in the lens of U.S.-China competition. I’m sharing my prepared remarks as a state of the union on open models that is accessible to a broader audience. Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber. Recap: What is an open source v. open-weight vs. closed model? Open language models are AI models where their weights are publicly available for inspection or downstream use. These are most often contrasted to so-called “closed” AI models. Closed models offer access only through Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that developers can use to directly query a model, like GPT-4 or Claude Opus 4.5, or through products, like ChatGPT and Claude Code. Open language models primarily are bucketed into two categories, open-weight and open-source models. Open-weight models are the most common form, such as popular models like Meta’s Llama, Alibaba’s Qwen, Google’s Gemma, or DeepSeek’s models. These models are governed by licenses, governing documents dictating what is allowed with downstream use, and are often accompanied by inference code in libraries such as Transformers, VLLM, SGLANG, etc. Since about April 2025, Chinese AI companies have been the clear leader in open-weight models. True “open-source” models are similar to these, as they include the weights, licenses, and inference code, but they also include the complete information needed to reproduce the model – the training code and training data. The most prominent open-source models have been built in the United States, led recently by the Allen Institute for AI’s Olmo models that I helped build in my recent 2.5 years there. The other prominent open-source models are also built by American non-profit organizations, including OpenAthena’s Marin models and EleutherAI’s Pythia models. Open-weight, open-source, and every other label for a model – including closed models primarily offered via an API – exist on a spectrum. For example, Nvidia’s Nemotron models are far more open than most open-weight models, releasing large quantities of their training data under permissive licenses, but they’re not fully open-source because they do not release all of the data. Closed models also exist on a spectrum based on what information the API reveals and the terms of use. The state of competition between American and Chinese open-weight models (unit economics, technical capabilities, etc.) We are living in a world where GLM-5.2 and Kimi K3, some of the latest, leading Chinese models, have enacted a step change in the commercial viability of open models — crossing a similar threshold in agentic capabilities that Anthropic’s Claude Code crossed in December of 2025. America was the early leader in open language models, primarily through Meta’s Llama models, which were used extensively across research and commercial tasks. Chinese open-weight models surpassed American open-weight models in these two key areas about 18 months ago. The simple metric showing this is Hugging Face Downloads, where China took the lead in July of 2025 primarily through the success of Alibaba’s Qwen models. I personally maintain tools to track this data, and since I first published the American Truly Open Models (ATOM) Project in August of 2025, China’s download lead has grown to about 1.6B – with a total of 3.2B downloads, twice that of America’s total. On popular capabilities benchmarks, such as the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (AAII), the Chinese open-weight models have a clear lead over American counterparts. The top three Chinese models as of writing this on September 14, 2026 are Z.ai’s GLM-5.3 and GLM-5.3-Flash and Moonshot AI’s Kimi K3 with scores of 45, 42, and 44 respectively. By comparison, the leading American models are Thinking Machines’ Inkling and Inkling Small, both with a score of 26, and Nvidia’s Nemotron 3 Ultra, with a score of 23. The top American models were released in June and July of 2026, and are updated less frequently than their Chinese counterparts. For example, Chinese labs released models with scores above these American models 2-6 months before the American companies got there (e.g. GLM-5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro). There is a trend of more American companies releasing models, including names like Arcee AI, Poolside and IBM, but they are not rapidly closing this performance gap. Other benchmarks tell a similar story. Together, Chinese open-weight models are approximately 2-5 months behind the closed American frontier, with the open-weight American models being approximately 6-9 months behind the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic. The Chinese labs are closest in tasks with clear user demand, such as agentic coding, and further behind on more open-ended scientific tasks, such as physics or biology. The reasons why Chinese labs can produce these strong models, despite having fewer resources than American counterparts, is still an open debate and heavily influenced by different work cultures, but is also influenced by a few key technical factors. The Chinese labs release their models faster and focus on a slightly narrower distribution of tasks, flattering them slightly on public benchmarks. Releasing faster helps them score higher because all the labs are making consistent progress, so once you “finish” a model to be released, it is a snapshot of performance at that given time — labs where that time is later tend to score higher. Still, the models built by the Chinese labs are genuinely strong and represent real competition to the American industry. This competition will not decrease meaningfully as the closed labs patch vulnerabilities in their API offerings which enable distillation. Distillation is most impactful in new domains and does not make it trivial to create a universally strong final model. I estimate that if distillation was fully prevented, e.g. with know-your-customer (KYC) tools at Anthropic and OpenAI, the gap from the strongest American models to Chinese open-weight models would only increase by 1-2 months. For example, the Chinese labs are rapidly changing their posture towards paying for training data in 2026. Earlier in the year, the top Chinese labs including Moonshot AI and Z.ai had a strong preference towards building data workflows in-house, but by the summer they had begun to buy the cutting edge data – challenging RL environments for agentic tasks – from both established American companies and new Chinese startups. With the advance of open weight models in China towards the frontier of capabilities, and the recent documentation of growing risks around frontier models in areas such as cybersecurity (e.g. the OpenAI-HuggingFace incident), there’s growing regulatory uncertainty on how continued releases can enable a safer ecosystem? A structural challenge in open-weight models is that there are few effective methods for stopping pieces of open software from reaching bad actors. If an attempt was made to restrict access to the strongest open-weight models from China because they amplify risks, the parties who would be set back are American businesses. We have an example of this – HuggingFace used a Chinese open-weight model to understand the cyberattack because closed models would not answer their requests. Thus, managing the risks of open-weight models often comes down to ecosystem preparation. Open-weight models are becoming an essential tool for AI diffusion, and the best path to get ahead of these risks and unbalanced relationships where American companies rely on models built in China is to continue to enable investment in open models in the US. Ownership of open models allows better coordination and preparation of risks that are global in their nature while accelerating diffusion of AI services throughout the domestic economy. The state of open model adoption: How is open-source being used by academia, businesses, and other countries? Open-weight language models have grown substantially in general interest and economic viability in 2026, allowing early glimpses of more direct ways to compare adoption of models from the US, China, or elsewhere on top of Hugging Face metrics. One example is OpenRouter usage. OpenRouter is a popular LLM inference platform that supplies a single interface to switch between models, open and closed, from the US and China. This platform is primarily known for trying different open-weight models. The platform has shared usage data for the top models since Jan. 1, 2025, and shown growth in usage from ~1T tokens processed from open models in a week of September 2025 to ~80T tokens per week today. In that time, Chinese models have grown from ~70% market share to over 80% of usage. Other platforms that are designed to commercialize open models show similar data, such as the open-source coding agent OpenCode, which shows an inference volume of ~95% or higher with Chinese models. These open platforms are the best approximation of open model usage we have – a large proportion of open model usage is on platforms that do not disclose per-model breakdowns, such as Together AI or Fireworks AI, and in private deployments for enterprise applications. Many prominent technology companies and startups have been building on Chinese open-weight models for their AI features, such as Harvey, the legal agent, Cursor, the coding agent, and DoorDash’s use of Kimi models, Airbnb’s use of Qwen, or Perplexity’s use of DeepSeek. These prominent companies are the tip of the iceberg, where a large swath of younger Silicon Valley startups are building on Chinese models in order to have low-cost, flexible options. There is a growing trend of American startups and companies entering enterprise agreements with Chinese model labs in order to get permission to use their models in their products – a new form of cross-border technol

  4. Sep 19

    Why I still haven’t bought into true RSI

    We’re in an era where a few organizations are using thousands of concurrent agents to improve their processes and output. These organizations happen to be just the frontier AI labs, in particular OpenAI and Anthropic. In the last few weeks, I’ve been pondering what it means for so many employees across these organizations to rapidly update their expectations for the pace of AI progress and associated risks. A core perspective I have is that the frontier labs and broader frenetic, competitive culture in the San Francisco AI scene set up an environment that amplifies any AI concern. This has some benefits in causing more general audience awareness of AI, as fear sells, but exaggerating risk timelines or severity will have negative second-order effects. I remember many loud AI safety debates, and their associated clouds over the viability of open-source AI, in 2023 and 2024 — the primary risks then did not arrive in the forecasted timelines. The general populace of these two key labs was very anxious about AI risks and the rate of progress even a year ago, and especially as agents got stronger product-market fit at the start of 2026. This cultural precondition, when exposed to the reality that thousands of agents will constantly be working fairly productively in your business, will only increase this anxiety. The step from this anxiety, and incidents like OpenAI-HuggingFace, to extinction risks feels very religious. Richard Ngo had an apt summary of the situation: Now a large proportion of the AI safety community is implicitly or explicitly orienting to futures where an intelligence explosion occurs within a few years. My default expectation (absent an extensive pause) is that a similar thing will happen: they’ll turn out to be directionally correct (relative to the expectations of almost anyone not linked to the community) but factually wrong. Specifically, we won’t have superintelligence within the next 8 years, but things will still be moving so fast that it’ll *feel* like the people who argued for short timelines were right. … I wanted to say something now because it feels like the level of bandwagoning towards “singularity soon” is getting pretty wild. Personally, I think this view aligns closely to what I outlined in my alternate scenario to true recursive self-improvement (RSI), which I called lossy self-improvement. A summary of this view is that: * Automatable research is too narrow to achieve a massive net acceleration in progress, in the face of scaling laws’ exponential costs, * Diminishing returns of more AI agents in parallel are real, & * Resource bottlenecks and politics are a major factor in building strong LLMs (and AI can do much less to accelerate this). So, I’m left balancing the above, latent increase in the cultural temperature with the potential that the labs have seen genuinely scary, specific breakthroughs that are not public yet. My expectation is that more of the current AI safety concern is on the former – scaled agents working – but I hold high levels of uncertainty here. Foundational, imagination-based AI breakthroughs are the sort of thing that would make me update my RSI timelines from closer to a tool to sustain progress in the face of exponential costs (scaling laws), to something more unpredictable and/or unstable. Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber. Some of the best recent resources on RSI have been Dwarkesh’s podcasts with Noam Brown and the trio of John Schulman, Beren Millidge and Charlie O’Neill. I have a few important reflections from both of them. First, the podcast with Noam Brown made me internalize how big of a short-term acceleration mass inference capacity is. These labs will throw thousands of agents at important, measurable problems. At the same time, compute capacity available to them is going to continue to scale. I have my doubts that the labs can afford to spend a constant portion of this compute on internal R&D as the total volume goes up, especially with plans to IPO, as they face increased scrutiny on basic economics. It is important to not confuse massive steps in inference-time scaling, a dynamic which should be fairly predictable, with being the outputs of RSI, which is highly uncertain. Second, the trio podcast debating the state of the art in technical capacities induced more of a surprising reaction that I haven’t fully settled. Through the first hour or so of this podcast, where they debate the role of RL, distillation, scaling, inference-time compute, etc., I found myself strongly agreeing with the distribution of claims. A TLDR would be that our current techniques work and let us solve problems we know how to state, but they don’t result in a magical level of generalization to unknown, harder problems in most partially verifiable domains (i.e. progress in math is an exception, rather than a rule). The surprise of this podcast was the end, where they were predicting timelines for various thresholds of AI. I had GPT-6-Astra summarize the answers provided to three questions from Dwarkesh, of the form “when will AI reach X ability”: All timelines are relative to the interview date. * Drop-in remote worker for broad white-collar work over a month * Charlie O’Neill: ~1 year with programmatic access to workplace tools; ~2 years if it must operate through a browser. Means ordinary white-collar work, not highly creative research. * Beren Millidge: ~3 years for full generality; 80–90% coverage sooner. Main uncertainties: online learning and the long tail of tasks. * John Schulman: ~1 year for an “okay” version, with uneven capabilities that improve over time. * 10× productivity uplift for AI researchers * Charlie O’Neill: 5–10 years. Bottleneck: absorbing information and deciding which experiment to run next. * Beren Millidge: Finds John’s ~2-year estimate plausible, but gives no independent timeline. Assumes AI can run successive experiments and learn from feedback; other bottlenecks would remain. * John Schulman: ~2 years. * AI surpassing top human experts across all computer-based work, including multiyear projects (“ASI”) * Charlie O’Neill: 5–10 years. Highlights limitations in memory and context length. * Beren Millidge: ~5 years for areas labs focus on; potentially longer for literally every domain. Gives no firm timeline for the universal version. * John Schulman: 3–4 years. Spatial/physical fields may take longer; requires onboarding and solving longer-horizon learning. Roughly, a recurring problem when discussing RSI is a lack of specification in intelligence. The jaggedness of intelligence means that we need to discuss thresholds in specific, measurable tasks. The nature of LLMs’ intelligence is shaped very differently than humans, and the roles we forecast are human-shaped. AIs, therefore, do not cross these thresholds like remote worker or AI researcher discretely. It’s a slow diffusion, and a form of long tail will always exist. Take the case of productivity of AI researchers. Many people under-index how much of science is communication and standard setting with colleagues. I do buy the cycle of experiment design and testing being 10x faster in the near future, but not hypothesis generation and intuition building. Accelerating understanding will be the key bottleneck – and it is one that despite all of the AI tools getting massively improved, humans will only improve marginally in their capability. A big improvement in the nature of science will be enabling humans to invest more time here, not them becoming exponentially better at it. This links back to the Noam podcast. Agent swarms in the near future will be effective at solving clear, open problems with verifiable answers. In this vein, when it comes to improving AI models, RSI is much more helpful at efficiency rather than expanding peak intelligence. This is due to the fact that LLM serving has clear metrics you want to improve that are measurable and malleable. This’ll enable better inference-time scaling and more efficient multi-agent systems. Still, I cannot get past the fact that all of our scaling laws show that you need exponential compute and resources to make linear improvements in intelligence. RSI is poised to make modern LLMs vastly cheaper. Trends that have shown LLMs get exponentially cheaper at a given intelligence are likely to accelerate. A crucial factor for the labs will be increasing margins as revenue could potentially have negative pressure if there’s fierce competition in lowering prices at a fixed intelligence level — Jevons paradox will likely prevail, resulting in strong businesses. RSI factors will have a much harder time improving pieces of the LLM puzzle like managing complex post-training recipes. There were a few quotes from John Schulman that I strongly agree with on the state of post-training at the labs: If I think about a post-training team and why you need a lot of people on the team, it’s just because there are a lot of different areas where you have to figure out how the model should behave. It would be very hard to automate the whole thing, just because someone has to think about how the model should behave in this area. and later: It’s really easy to screw up post-training in some way that doesn’t show up in benchmarks. These tasks are uniquely hard for current LLMs. Yes, they’ll get better as the industry is still rapidly scaling RL environments related to these domains, but this paradigm does not last forever. In the near future, it could become exponentially harder to conceive, build, and test new environments that meaningfully challenge the leading LLMs – these hard environments are the ones that are crucial as a learning signal in RL. OpenAI and Anthropic have shared a good amount of internal measurements related to RSI, and my current read is that the biggest takeoff in automation within the labs is in tasks li

  5. Sep 10

    One resignation turned the embers of AI fear into a wildfire

    As AI became more powerful, it was inevitable that a different, growing group would start to take AI safety more seriously – what we did not know ahead of time, is which set of views they latched onto. We have seen that some of the most extreme views of risk, i.e. moderate probabilities of mass extinction, were the ones that reached the masses. A lot in the AI world is about to change due to this. How did we get here? Why did this quitting announcement reach so far? In many ways, the rest of the world’s views around AI in the past was a dampening factor. You can think about this like the damp ground around a fire. Many people were striking matches for years about AI risk – they’d smolder in their community and largely burn out, going unnoticed. As the stakes of AI have risen this year, from the OpenAI-HuggingFace incident and breakthroughs like the Navier-Stokes result (also from OpenAI), the ground has dried out and the latent energy around the AI discourse has increased. More people not in the industry have thought, “huh, maybe I should care about this AI thing.” The ambient temperature and stakes have been obviously rising. Then, some basic factors of human nature apply, with the most crucial being that fear sells. Fear is the simplest story, the one people cannot look away from. Jacob Coxon was the one who stumbled into this new powder keg, totally unaware of what was going to come. What looked like a fairly innocuous event – another AI researcher quitting citing safety risks – landed into a very different environment and it caught like wildfire. The discussion of existential risk, mass extinction, and the trajectory of AI has traveled further than even the most seasoned AI commentariat would ever predict. There are a set of facts we need to get clear, which paint the picture of the situation. The key Tweets to reference are from Jacob Coxon, the resignation thread, and Evan Hubinger, the source of the >10% extinction risk figure . * There are plenty of AI risks which are likely to cause harm, even if estimating annihilation is useless. It is important to weigh these with respect to the benefits. The entire discourse around existential risk is on very poor footing. At least Evan was clear in his post, with “kill all humans,” but a major problem in the AI Safety discourse is that people talk about existential risks, when they mean very different things (much like how AGI is a vaguely meaningless term). I put the probability of complete extinction as being so low it isn’t worth discussing, but the probabilities of AI caused disasters – e.g. cyber attacks on critical infrastructure or bio-risks – as being worth debating. Throwing this whole discussion out because there are not these disasters yet is a harmful reaction. * Jacob Coxon is acting genuinely and with good intentions. The outpouring of support from more well-established AI researchers who know of him and his intentions of resignation is useful. Many factions of AI turned to scapegoating him individually, based on account metadata, personal factors, etc. These are not useful. Many frontier lab employees genuinely have similar views to him. I’m not sure it’s a majority, but there is a substantial group. * Many frontier lab employees, especially at Anthropic, are out of touch and this will impact their forecasting and/or descriptions of current AI events. I say this without blaming individuals, but it’s a common agreement among my friends not at OpenAI/Anthropic (Ant especially) that people at the labs operate with a religious energy. It’s very common to go through very out of touch interactions with them. I do not blame most of the individuals who get distorted views being part of these companies, but the interactions are wild and spill over into a lot of wack discussions in the AI media ecosystem. Living in this environment that normalizes such out of touch behavior will inevitably distort any human’s understanding of technical progress. Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. * This was not a mass political campaign, but rather an opportunistic media coordination. For context, the Wall Street Journal had an exclusive story that Jacob coordinated before posting. I suspect that Jacob shared his plan of quitting in groupchats with AI safety advocacy groups ahead of time, e.g. the morning of posting, asking for amplification. This is normal practice, and could have included some prominent politicians. From there, I think it’s more likely that other politicians are bandwagoning on a rising issue. When you combine this with other factors, like Daniel Kokotajlo’s appearance on Joe Rogan coming out the same day – it definitely looks like a very well-executed, coordinated media campaign. This doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy or a regulatory capture tactic within Democratic political structures. The determining factor seems to be that no one – including Jacob and those posting about X-risk today – knew that it would go so viral. * We do not have proof that RSI causes the risks these researchers forecast. The general argument for RSI follows as: The current pace of progress is very high, the current progress is heavily dependent on AI tools, the current AI tools are superhuman in some domains (e.g. math) – so, all together, AI is going to work more on itself and become superhuman in all relevant areas over time to autonomy and intellect. This view dramatically undersells human bottlenecks in building models and allocating resources at organizations, and draws conclusions on future AI capabilities more broadly.I called my alternative view to this, Lossy self-improvement. AI has always been very jagged, and we are making models which are superhuman goal-seekers at math and software engineering, but they have massive limitations on intuitions, creativity, and other types of reasoning that humans are strong at. With AI agents assisting research, we will rapidly find the areas where AI is superhuman – and I expect there to be well more than just research mathematics – but it won’t be a panacea for the current limitations of our approaches to LLMs. There is another understandable social dynamic at play here, causing many deep AI insiders to overstate the returns from RSI. Many of these researchers were the earliest people to bet on AI’s progress, and the extent to which they were visionaries should not be downplayed (see Ilya’s comments on deep learning as early as 2015). They have been right again and again, forecasting AI’s capabilities better than I certainly could have guessed. This does not, though, mean that their forecast of what will come next will be right. The core idea of RSI is a way to spend more compute on the process of developing a model recipe, rather than just spending more compute on the training run itself. We’re seeing benefits from it, but I argue the expected return on that input is far less than they believe. Their argument is that RSI will make AI progress go exponential, make it so we cannot monitor the technology, and enable rogue models and new forms of risk. This scenario is often called “Fast Takeoff”. We have not seen the stacking efficiency gains that massively reduce model size and cost, that would lead to an explosion in progress by allowing consistent speedups in experimentation. * The biggest short-term risk could be from the AI labs not taking safety seriously enough – they haven’t hardened their own infrastructure, enabling AI misuse to proliferate. From my earlier post on the HuggingFace-OpenAI incident, Lessons from the hacks: * Frontier labs do not seem like they’re watching the models closely enough, due to a general frenetic competitive environment & current SF culture From OpenAI’s own retrospective, the misaligned model behavior was unfolding over months, and in some cases OpenAI did not know about the hacks for ~weeks. The time to response is too long and I do not think this is an OpenAI only characteristic – rather it is that the frontier labs continually seem underwater in the amount of work they feel like they should do. I am not optimistic in the long-term that the labs change a sufficient amount here to meaningfully mitigate this type of oversight risk in the future. Yes, it is very likely that OpenAI is putting a ton into understanding this – and delayed their latest models to make sure they get it right – but the financial pressure to grow revenue or risk the companies’ long-term balance sheets makes me think it will not be a sustained pattern of caution. Overall, I think this episode is very bad for the AI ecosystem. It’s pushed the acceptable views in the AI community closer to the extremes. More accelerationists will discount the need for any form of safety, citing mass delusion of the “doomers.” It feels like a very narrow path to believe in AI risks, but to not worry about extinction from the technology. For example, it is a horrible temporary period for cybersecurity, where AI models going a bit off script and poking around unintended pieces of the web seems like a new normal. This is accelerated by the labs competing veraciously towards their views of AGI, and a slow uptake in the necessary hardening of our cyber infrastructure around the world. This doesn’t mean that it’s an existential risk and something we cannot solve. Each risk will have its own set of solutions and paths forward. I feel particularly exposed in the current environment as a supporter of open models. If an open model were to be used by a third party organization to intentionally hack another company — similar to how the OpenAI-HuggingFace incident went down, but intentional — my expected outcome would be a severe restriction on the development of stronger open models going forward. Open models are needed for many organizations to perfor

  6. Sep 9

    When will average people feel AI’s impact?

    Housekeeping: Paid subscribers to Interconnects now get a permanent 40% discount on my book when purchasing at Manning.com. Access the code at the Interconnects perks page. Many AI optimists tend to compare what is happening in this AI boom to the industrial revolution, or to other periods of rapid technological advancement and diffusion into society. These comparisons fit on the scale of technological change, but miss a crucial factor in how most people are exposed to that change. The problem facing AI is that most people have no super tangible new goods thanks to it and society has more inertia resisting change than in previous eras. I’m writing this coming back online from a few weeks off for my wedding in New England. In this time it would have been very easy to not think about AI at all. The touch-points that average people have to AI products today are fringe, marginally beneficial, or even just very confusing to them (e.g. many people have heard about and brought up the OpenAI-HuggingFace incident, but don’t know what to make of it). People on the positive side think of AI as a way to make fun images, enhanced Google Search, etc. These are very small benefits. On the negative side is an association with addictive social media algorithms, friends of friends addicted to AI chatbots, and a plethora of takes on data centers. AI is still a rounding error in everyday life Core aspects of everyday life — family, food, transportation, and entertainment — have few direct impacts yet. It’s a remarkable breath of fresh air to pop out of the bubble and realize how little what is happening really matters today. Being obsessed with AI is a choice that a very few people have yet opted into. For example, the only thing I used AI for in this time was search and creative work (making the pretty seating chart for my wedding guests to find their table). In industrial revolutions past, average people got absolutely life changing outcomes. The First Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century gave access to cheaper clothing, cooking ware, reading material, and a shift to new livelihoods. The Second Industrial Revolution in the late 19th century introduced household machines (e.g. sewing machines), preserved food, indoor plumbing, photography, better light sources, bicycles, and further benefits of manufactured goods and electrification. The list is remarkable — most of these we still use regularly today — and very physical. While even the most optimistic versions of AI will usher in new scientific discoveries, advanced therapeutics for rare diseases, and potentially even sustained economic abundance, these benefits have the risk of being too indirect. How will a common citizen come to credit OpenAI or Anthropic for saving their life, if they went to their family doctor who told them about a new miracle cure? What percentage of Americans will care about OpenAI solving the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem? It feels very likely in 50 years that the average American’s day to day life looks very similar. Their home, appliances, relationships, and vehicles will be similar (of course, self-driving will continue to diffuse, but that has been developing on a very independent trajectory from the innovations of LLMs). In this time, AI will get a lot of credit. 50 years is a remarkable length of time with how fast everything is changing today in this, AI-focused narrow slice of the world. The most important part of what is happening early in the AI revolution, is building foundational infrastructure, and a general process, which will compound over decades. A major mathematical breakthrough today will look astonishingly minor in scope relative to the advancements that come later in the compounding journey. It is hard to predict what it looks like for every technology you use daily to get faster compounding improvements due to AI. Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber. Breaking social stasis Much of the narrative around AI is trying to push people to care, due to this long-term reality of progress, at least as a subconscious motive. This will take a long, long time to get right, and AI’s buildout faces immediate political problems due to this imbalance. Today’s AI is primarily a tool to serve the elite. For knowledge work, which is roughly half of the U.S. economy, AI is as fundamental as electricity (or quickly will be so, with rapid improvements to agents in the next 18 months). It’s highly destabilizing to have such a transformative, productive tool only bring half of society along. It’s not hard for many people to pick up on this — the technology economy booms while life stays otherwise stagnant. In writing this, I learned of Engels’ pause, which is “the period from 1790 to 1840, when British working-class wages stagnated and per-capita gross domestic product expanded rapidly during a technological upheaval.” If we — the leaders of the AI industry — think this is the closest analogue to what comes next for AI, those not benefiting are right to push back. AI is the greatest tool ever for scaling technology companies and starting new online-native small businesses. I don’t even expect the tech industry to grow in headcount and nurture its workers through an era of massive success — I agree with Doug OLaughlin that headcount would likely shrink while knowledge work output explodes. These sectors were already the most successful in the American economic system, so the brand of AI will be tarnished as not being a collective good. I worry that this instinctive reaction will kneecap AI’s development, sending it down a path that looks closer to the cautionary tale of American nuclear power. Part of the challenge is the speed and relentlessness of expectations in society. The AI industry has millions of eyes on it, and won’t get much patience to wait and bring innovations later. If given 100 years to diffuse into society, its impacts will certainly become much more obvious, like the industrial revolutions of centuries past. Together, the AI industry is facing a few simple issues, in what I would call the first half decade of 50-year diffusion process. * AI’s positive impacts early in its evolution are too indirect. * AI is facing a political backlash deeply intertwined with the history of Big Tech in Western society. This is only an AI story due to timing, and if AI’s exponential growth came decades after the growing pains of today’s technology platforms like Google and Meta, it seems likely that the datacenter issue would’ve never risen to such a central political position. Solving either of these would alleviate a substantial amount of pressure, and give the AI industry a lot more time in showing the positive case for why people should be okay with changes to the status quo (primarily economic). These are both made more challenging by AI self-labeling itself as negative and/or unsafe technology, through proclamations of doom and mass unemployment. The leading figures have begun addressing this issue, but the public needs more work to fully buy into the overarching trajectory. When zooming out long-term, I could see robotics and self-driving becoming closely linked in storytelling to the current AI revolution. If the intelligence explosion from mass-producing large language models does spill over into enabling the acceleration of robots in everyday life, humans will quickly latch onto the tangible benefits of AI. This is ironic, as many people have spent time trying to convince people that what is happening specifically with LLMs is very different than the previous decade or two of general AI progress. If the same dynamic later saved (or massively overshadowed) LLMs, it would be funny. Reflecting on what I expect the history of this era to look like, it feels a lot like growing pains of AI. Society needed to break out of old habits and work through problems that predate ChatGPT — which releases a lot of energy and frustration — in order to tap into the longer term growth. The diffusion story will take a lot longer than the fight against it. All of us younger folk following the story today will get to see powerful AI go from effectively 0% to 90%+ full adoption in our lifetime. This sort of AI that is deeply integrated in businesses, acting as personal assistants, etc. is just starting to become viable. It’ll take far longer to gain adoption than easier to understand applications like ChatGPT, and is the true marker of AI’s evolution. Taking this perspective makes it clear that it is crucial to keep progressing the technology — the benefits will be astounding, but they are not a given — and we have a lot of very hard work to do in making sure they’re distributed widely. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe

  7. Aug 12

    I wrote an AI textbook — how long until AI can do it better?

    There are a lot of criticisms of AI writing, but most of them are focused on more creative, high-voice writing like this blog. Those — including my own piece — often argue that it is because good writing is high-voice, has a point of view, has a deep human expression that needs to come across, and or a process of thinking that you peek into with the chosen words. As LLMs get more refined as tools, rather than conversational assistants, I think we are actually going backwards on our goals of having models produce inspiring writing. On the other side of things is non-fiction writing. Filler, copy text was one of the genuinely useful abilities of an LLM (Sam Altman said so much about the early business of GPT-3 on a recent podcast). It has seemed like any flaws here were mostly down to a general lack of intelligence in the models, or some other training issue, and all non-fiction and explanatory text would get obliterated by the rapid pace of progress eventually. Having worked with the models as a writing assistant over the last few years, they’ve gotten a bit better, but it’s worth reflecting on what’s holding them back. Models being stagnant in long-form, non-fiction writing should be alarming to those reliant on models autonomously solving grand, open science problems in the near future. The models today struggle to organize and compellingly present some of the most established science in their area. This seems like a natural prerequisite that we should expect the models to master before they can solve broad, open-ended problems on their own. Until this is solved, the progress of LLMs for science will look closer to solving low-hanging fruit and merging distant connections across fields, rather than any sort of revolutionary insight. This is a somewhat controversial take for someone who is very optimistic about AI’s progress, especially writing it on the day that Anthropic published a blog post on Claude making some progress on the famous Riemann Hypothesis. Scientific problems have a vast breadth, and I don’t think current AI models have as much coverage as many think. Organizing knowledge is a compression. This compression is needed to make insight. Today’s LLMs increase entropy in long-form non-fiction writing, and I don’t see how that can be stacked on top of itself endlessly. They’ll be reliant on humans acting as sort of guides. I am still very optimistic about translation from these narrow forms of science, like the extreme advancements we’ve seen in math, into consistent, broader progress — LLMs are the most powerful assistants scientists have ever used. I first need to explain how observing the models work on such grounded, low-level knowledge problems in writing makes me see a surprising lack of generalization. For more context, I just finished writing a post-training textbook, Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (buy on Manning or Amazon). I used LLMs in many ways to support this, from helping wrangle LaTeX formatting for equations, doing extensive copyediting, and creating diagrams for programming languages like TikZ (in LaTeX) or Python. Why have models stagnated in writing quality? I would’ve expected way more progress on non-fiction writing from the models. I almost thought I would look dumb publishing a non-fiction book in 2026, given how things looked in 2024. Today, some of the most famous models on writing ability are pretty old, examples include OpenAI’s big GPT 4.5 and Moonshot’s Kimi K2. In and around these releases, the models have gone from okay to superhuman at other tasks like coding and mathematics. Maybe a closer, but still imperfect, comparison is how the models went from incapable to decent at search and research tasks. The pace of progress on most other skills is steep, but writing well feels orthogonal to most of them. I do not think writing is just ignored, but rather it’s challenging and lacks good training data to specifically intervene on it. There is certainly some low-hanging fruit for making AI models better at writing — such as specialized harnesses like Claude Code, prompts, and training environments that make models spend a lot more inference tokens on the output, but I don’t think these will have a multiplicative impact on ability. Writing well is a very hard task! It’s a shame that we haven’t unlocked inference-time scaling for one of the great intellectual pursuits. Regardless, writing seems very different than what the models are good at. Today, the models seem genuinely horrible at long-form technical writing. They can get a sentence right, but if you try and get them to write an entire chapter it’ll be a mix of sprinkled with confusing wording, muddled in its organization, and generally a bit off. They try to be too cute where they don’t need to be and in the process make random conceptual errors. The models in the near future will get much better at the small errors, especially as models get bigger — which allows them to hold more world knowledge — but I do not expect their ability to utilize it to transform. For example, the GPT models have been incredible at finding typos and minor issues for a long time. I passed a near-final draft of my book as a PDF to GPT 5.5 Pro and it found deep, surprising minor typos across the manuscript that is 200-300 pages. On the other hand, the Claude models have been much more useful as an editor. They have a lot more taste, tend to understand the mental model of the task better, and have more interesting suggestions to unstick the different forms of writer’s block. The examples I’ve given above all have a sort of consistent theme. The models know how to check every unit of content, in this case usually a sentence or equation or figure, or make one, specific section where you are caught. With these skills, they don’t do a good job revisiting components and stringing them together as they make many additions on top of each other. It feels like a sort of irreducible compounding errors. We used to deal with these errors in math and code, but reflecting on it, RLVR has been a truly magical solution in reducing them. Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber. Getting value out of current models as a writer I’m willing to share that there are a few technical explanation sentences in my book that came from an AI model — well less than 1% — they’re there because I really loved them. I let myself consider including some AI tokens in the book, as it didn’t feel like cheating if I, as a true expert, felt that the sentence was what the reader needed. Especially in the editing process, where I had a very close eye on things and plenty of concern on if my book would ever be done with all the things I have going on, it was an extremely valuable path forward. For example, I had a list of questions from my editor interspersed in a LaTeX file with a specific delimiter like \editor{}. I would have Claude Code navigate to each comment, print the context before and after, and let me know if it was an easy typo fix or something more nuanced. I would write a response — the text to insert — or ask Claude for suggestions before fixing it. Intellectually it is a very focusing process of editing, it was a fun way to improve the book. Sometimes phrases from Claude’s suggestions are what made it into the book. It is definitely a slippery slope and when I accepted a few AI suggestions it was at the point where I was going through my second full-manuscript review. Emotionally the project felt completed but I had more work to do. Coming out of the textbook-writing process I so deeply appreciate the cut and dry rule I have for my writing on Interconnects to never use AI outputs in the content. It is way more fun to write in a way that is only you — high voice, valued so deeply for the process — but writing a standard reference is not really an activity known for being fun. I see why people turn AI tools into a crutch when most of their writing is just an output to fill space, rather than a means to an end. I am motivated to write voluminously to learn, to feel, and to express. I am working through similar balances in my scientific work too. AI models are great for repetitive pieces of the paper, like drafting a related work or background section that you know by heart, but using them for the abstract, introduction, experiments, or conclusion is a shame. Those are where the story and soul of the work is communicated — it’s where you learn what your research is really about. I am confident I created a lot more net value by being able to have AI models create and check my non-fiction writing work. They make writing equations trivial, can help refactor the repository, port between languages, and many other things. At the beginning, it was very fun, until I was a bit worn down by the length of the publishing process, watching the field move on. For an example of why AI was crucial in this case, I had to maintain Markdown and LaTeX versions of my book simultaneously in two spots, as readers gave feedback on the web version and my Manning editorial team reviewed a forked copy. Without AI agents, syncing between the two of them would’ve easily taken me five times as long (and this task took tens of hours already). Something intertwined with this story, which I stumbled upon when thinking about agents, is how your pace of understanding won’t increase by using agents. That understanding, in the form of intuition, taste, instinct, etc. is what will be valuable in the future. Using AI for non-fiction writing takes away from that progression. Doubly, if you weren’t already an expert you won’t be able to catch its flaws. In my case, I felt such an urgency to dump the knowledge out of my brain onto the page that there were times that using the AI models was a worthy tool. Much of the motivation of my book was to have a single reference

  8. Jul 22

    Open models recap: more on Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, Xi's WAIC speech, distillation, the open-closed gap, and what's next

    Exciting news! My book trying to share post-training knowledge with the world is done and shipping soon. Order on Manning or Amazon. Thanks for the support. It’s currently the #1 AI book on Amazon :). Nathan and Florian sit down to discuss everything happening with open models. Following the Kimi K3 release last week, it feels like everything is accelerating — geopolitics of US v China, economics of open vs. closed models, security at the frontier of AI, and so on.Chapters:00:00 Welcome & context04:38 Living with / using Kimi K308:53 GLM 5.2’s continued role12:47 How are the Chinese models this good?17:41 Data, environments, and a tour of the Chinese labs19:47 Roundup of Chinese providers: Qwen, DeepSeek, MiniMax…24:08 The US open-model ecosystem30:25 Frontier vs. near-frontier, and the cybersecurity case against bans34:58 Distillation and the Ben Thompson debate44:12 Predictions and a frontier tier list48:36 Wrap-up Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and where ever you get your podcasts. For other Interconnects interviews, go here. For more educational post-training videos, see the course I’m putting together. Transcript 00:00:06 Nathan Lambert: Okay, welcome back to Interconnects. We’re doing our quarterly open model roundup, which is mostly us just making fun of or explaining, not making fun, why so many distillation takes are bad and understanding the state of where things stand. I think last Thursday was when Kimi K3 was released. I think we will see much much more in the near future. It seems pretty inevitable. Like over the weekend, Xi gave his speech where he directly committed to openness and open source as a strategy. It wasn’t a detailed layout state of affairs. Qwen announced their next big model is going to be open weight, which is a big change of things. I think there’s just so much to get into. I think Flo you kind of were already going off on some of the performance gap and distillation takes. So we could probably start there and then as I go I have a little bit a little list and we could always go through the topics and the blog that I wrote which all are very nuanced. So I think we have infinite to talk about. So continue rant kind. 00:01:17 Florian Brand: Yeah, I think, or the biggest thing at every model release at least at every open model release is how much or how many months it is behind the closed frontier. Um and people love to put a definite uh definitive number onto this uh which is really really mudding because we have so many different benchmark providers these days and such uh so many different benchmarks as well that every site and I’m not innocent in that either um pulls up their favorite benchmarks to show that the current model or the newly released model is at the frontier which is then counted by the other side pulling up another benchmark and showing oh it’s actually a year behind or something. Um and it like a lot of it seemingly hinges on that question how many months we open models are behind. 00:02:26 Nathan Lambert: Yeah. So I my provocation is that some of the benchmarks are actually reasonably correlated with what people are doing and this is agentic coding and agentic computer use tasks and some of the benchmarks are correlated with the long tail which is where I think Claude and GPT is so valuable. But if it’s it’s like what is the market for Claude Code and Codex right now and if it is software engineering then like the fact that the models are say a couple months behind on that can be a very, very big deal and then I suspect that this model will be okay disclaimer the model weights aren’t out yet supposedly on 20 July 27th and a lot of the discussion will impinge on the assumption that they come. But like people could post-train this model to very likely match Opus and GPT in many of these kind of niche domains that people want I think watching I mean we both have different views into the post-training open model industry, but there is a ton ton of excitement in progress on making these models like fine-tuned for specific high-value tasks and this has been historically done on a mix of like Qwen and GLM and GLM 5.2 really accelerated this and I I curious on the first person that puts out a blog post like we fine-tuned Kimi K3 on our task because I bet you could get big gains. I think even the you use Kimi K3 more than I do, but my hunch is that it would be a bit of a um rough edged post-training just by how big of a scale up it is and that normally means there’s a lot of performance that could still be extracted from it. No. 00:04:03 Florian Brand: Yeah. Running, running, running and especially post-training that one will be super hard because you need like one node of B300s to just load the weights which is crazy in terms of scale. So will probably take some time and uh a lot of engineering I’ve heard to actually get this into a state where it’s fine-tunable. Um but people you want to talk about using the model like you actually signed up for the the coding program and used it. So like getting this out there is good context. 00:04:38 Nathan Lambert: Yeah. So I signed up on day after release or so uh for the $200 plan uh which is their biggest one similar to to all the others but they have um like I think $40 and $100 as well. Uh but the biggest plan has uh 1 million context and I think or at least it feels like it has also some priority in terms of the API requests because so many people um online are saying that they hit API errors constantly and so far I’ve been I’ve been uh pretty well off if I’m uh going to say that. Um and in terms of model capabilities, it at some ways aside from front end where it is really good, it in some ways it really shines and it excels. Um even my um expectations even with things like uh some research tasks like I have or at interconnects we now have over a year of data on on open models um and I ask the frontier models to come up with some interesting analysis which we haven’t done before in uh because we do our own analysis and have this published uh and I asked them all right do something new and um surprise me, basically. And a lot of the models or the frontier models u or basically all models latch onto the things we’ve done redo the data analysis part and then do some weird esoteric parts. Uh Kimi K3 did some more interesting things um I’ve told it explicitly to scrape Reddit um and then it found uh some subreddits I haven’t even considered and then found out for example that the Reddit discussions are um one or two months in uh more recent or they found they find the interesting models one or two months before the download numbers usually take off like they are all onto Qwen and then the people download more Qwen models like those kind of analysis is groundbreaking um but it is something that Kimi surprised me at compared to to all the other frontier um models. A simple question like can you use this for most of the core work you do in terms of like the exp you you have a distribution of stuff you tend to do most of them are with Codex I think you’re a Codex person rather than Claude person like what percentage do you think the Venn diagram overlaps where this model would be fine 00:07:24 Florian Brand: uh it’s really depends on how much leeway I give it like, the big thing I have seen with Kimi K3 right now I’m I’m working on u the framework we are doing at uh at Prime Intellect, where I work, and the main thing I found with Kimi is its code is a lot simpler uh which makes it way more readable uh but it misses some things that Codex just or like we’re talking 56, 55 and especially 54 would be on those levels. So, I would say that Kimi K3 is like 54-55 level for these kind of tasks. But if I like I read the code and I say all right that’s really good code and then I give it a pass over with with Codex and it finds all these niche niche cases where it doesn’t excel but for supervising runs or for running uh some experiments it is actually really usable. Um and for some other niche things like you can just let it run. The one downside is but that’s also because the API is completely swamped in terms of users and it their servers are in China. The wall clock time is significantly significantly higher than GPT. But I would say like if I was to to push it and use it in my daily workflow, I would be slower, but I wouldn’t be slowed down by so much that I would say, “All right, that’s unusable.” 00:08:53 Nathan Lambert: And how does this compare to GLM 5.2? Because GLM 5.2 was still a story unfolding in my opinion where like I would go bop around SF and people are like yeah I genuinely use this for this part of my like agentic coding and/or workflow. Um, how do you like I feel like were you in that camp using GLM at all or 00:09:20 Florian Brand: Yeah. like where do you I also use used and use uh GLM mostly because we have an internal endpoint which is really fast and we have or or before that I I also used an API which had I don’t know 200 or 300 tokens per second. Um and if you can do a lot of task at a good enough level like really fast you just use that model compared to going to Codex then selecting the lesser model then selecting the right reasoning effort then selecting fast like I just use GLM get the same result and uh and it’s uh pretty fine like it it definitely is Sonnet-ish level in terms of capabilities and for a lot of cleanup task for a task that just is grunt work. It really works. Like I I would say you could probably go really far for a lot of the work uh with Kimi K3 as the main agent and GLM for for sub agent work. 00:10:24 Nathan Lambert: Something that’s pretty different with Kimi’s announcement and the scale of models this is. I think it’ll take a bit longer for these open models to really be optimized and available across the inference providers. Like GLM 5.2 is pretty fast, but one, we don’t have the weights yet, and the

See All (165)

3.9
out of 5
11 Ratings

About

Audio essays about the latest developments in AI and interviews with leading scientists in the field. Breaking the hype, understanding what's under the hood, and telling stories. www.interconnects.ai

Information

  • Creator
    Nathan Lambert
  • Years Active
    2023 - 2026
  • Episodes
    165
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Interconnects AI, LLC
  • Show Website
    Interconnects

You Might Also Like