Cydu

Engineer

[Fireworks @FireworksAI_HQ]

New in Nexus: Savings

See how much Fireworks open models and FireRouter are saving your team, by user and model.

Plus, track your cache hit rate.

Check out Nexus: https://t.co/JZj0wXB3Ug

[Dmytro Dzhulgakov @dzhulgakov]

Ember-1 is hot on HN, our research team cooked

it’s Kimi K3 post trained to be 40% more concise in reasoning

same quality, 40% faster and cheaper

[Lin Qiao @lqiao]

Today we’re announcing a $132M tender offer for Fireworks employees, led by Atreides.

Building a company is an exciting and patient expedition. You make bets before the market agrees, and spend years building things that may only make sense to the people in the trenches.

Today is meaningful because our team gets to realize some of the value they’ve created while continuing to build toward a future where every company can create its own specialized intelligence.

Thank you to everyone who chose this expedition with me. We’re just 1% into the journey.

[Fireworks @FireworksAI_HQ]

Today we're launching the Specialized Intelligence Index (SII): one destination for real-work benchmarks across industries, built by the teams that use them every day.

Hear from Fireworks co-founder @the_bunny_chen on the importance of specialized benchmarks:

[Z.ai @Zai_org]

We’re sharing how GLM-5.3 helped build and optimize the inference infrastructure serving GLM-5.3-Flash.

The system went from its first successful run to production readiness in less than two weeks, with end-to-end throughput tripling relative to the initial baseline.

The key was dense feedback: local correctness tests, execution traces, microbenchmarks, and end-to-end measurements that enabled targeted hypothesis testing rather than reliance on aggregate performance metrics alone.

https://t.co/yUf6OpJD7c

[David Sacks @DavidSacks]

Jensen Huang: “Safety is paramount. In a lot of ways, it’s job one. However, safety is an engineering problem... If we’re not confident about the safety of the products — like all companies, like you and I, all the companies here — if you build a product or a service and you’re not confident in its functionality, capability, or safety, then don’t release it.
That’s a very obvious thing to do. You pace yourself until you are confident you’re releasing something that the market would appreciate. The market forces are already there. We don’t need any new laws. We don’t need new regulations.”

[Fireworks @FireworksAI_HQ]

Many assume that agent spend goes toward output tokens.

When we ran DeepSWE on Astra vs. DeepSeek V4.1-Flash, input tokens outnumbered output 174 to 1. 99.6% were cache hits. Those hits are 60% of the bill.

Net result? Same quality. $0.43/task vs $6.52. https://t.co/dVUPe5EzWP

[Cydu @cydu]

Talking is cheap, Google is the Only one really mean it and take actions.

[Peter @Peteriymi]

@elonmusk @techdevnotes 🤣

[jack @jack]

https://t.co/qAUP2dNJsi

[David Sacks @DavidSacks]

Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.

You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.

I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.

But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.

Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.

Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.

So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.

If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.

[Yishan @yishan]

Finally our AI leaders (Dario and @Sama) are doing the sane thing. "Pacing the frontier" is exactly the right thing to do: keep moving forward, coordinate the pace, and collaborate on alignment research. It is the right balance.

To the people whose objection goes to "but this hands the lead to China!" - no, YOUR ENTIRE WORLDVIEW IS GROSSLY WRONG - and moreover your ability to correctly perceive the world and predict events will always go awry until you correct it.

Here is the core of your gross error:
- You do not think people in China are actually people.
- You do not understand that Chinese civilization is a peer, if not superior, to your own.

If you actually thought of Chinese people as real people, with equally valid and real desires, dreams, and actual human existence equivalent to your own, you would realize that:

- China is not the Soviet Union, and you'd stop mapping notions of Stalinist authoritarianism onto it
- China's current government is valid and broadly supported by its people because it has improved the quality of their lives and continues to be focused on doing so
- Western values are not universal, as values are culturally influenced and ultimately validated by their consequences; the West has not been doing so well lately on that front, and so
- Your deontological bleating of "but we are free and they are not" is less than worthless: Chinese people most value being free from the actual entity most responsible for their oppression, namely WESTERN COUNTRIES

And so, if you can start to break out of the many layers of your brainwashing, you may further realize that:

If you are a country engaged in a geopolitical race to develop a key technology that:

1) may strongly determine your country's own future sovereignty,
2) one which almost every country agrees that if they don't have it, they will be subject to domination by other countries who do, and
3) your rival is clearly ahead, and
4) people are starting to realize that unrestrained development may lead to significant global danger,

then it should be perfectly logical that your answer to any call to "mutually agree to stop" must start with the player who is ahead agreeing first to slow down.

If you can realize that both countries are actual real civilizations with real human beings who have actual real lives who have exercised self-determination when it comes to how they are governed, and not One-Dimensional Cardboard Others, this is perfectly logical.

Imagine a scenario where the US and Soviet Union were engaged in a race to build ever more powerful and numerous nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union was clearly ahead.

Then the Soviet Union points out that this risks worldwide nuclear annihilation, and proposes that both countries agree to stop building nuclear weapons and engage in mutual disarmament.

The obvious and logical reaction of the US would be to say, "Yeah, we agree there is a danger, but we'll agree to begin disarming once you've disarmed your own weapons until we're at parity."

Or, you'd try to accelerate your own development until the US reached parity, at which point you'd return to the table and have discussions about mutual disarmament.

Right? You definitely wouldn't agree to stop and disarm when the other guys were AHEAD. Your main danger is that the other guy is ahead, not something bad that lies ahead of them.

The argument in the US is "if we slow down, China will get ahead!"

Guess what, the real people in China see it as, "the US is already ahead! They're asking us to stop?"

The stronger party needs to make the gesture of good faith, if they are genuine.

There is real-life precedent to this!

Back in the day, when the US proposed to China that we engage in mutual nuclear disarmament, China's answer was basically "We will be happy to engage in mutual disarmament once the US first disarms to the same level of warheads that we have!"

For reference: China has ~600 nuclear warheads; the US has ~3,700.

If you are a country that was previously invaded and colonized by 8 countries at once, is surrounded by military bases held by your rival, whose neighbor committed horrific war crimes against your people and remains unrepentant and whose pacifism appears to only be maintained by that same rival occupying it... if you were a real human with a real life and real hopes and dreams, you would reasonably expect a superior rival proposing mutual disarmament to be the one to volunteer to stop first, if not disarm down to your level.

China currently has inferior models, lacks leading-edge chip technology, resorts to distilling US models to train its models. We have yet to see even a single Chinese model that does anything uniquely Chinese besides refusing to answer questions about Tiananmen. [1]

Recognizing that the people "on the other side" are also people means recognizing that they might also care about the same things you do and that they care about their lives and families and civilization and Not Getting Into A War Where Loved Ones Die and aren't going to do the "well a cartoon villain would do the evil thing so that must be what they would do" thing.

That is why your entire worldview is wrong. You think you are a real person and you don't think the other people are real people.

You think your country is filled with real people, and the other country that's much older and has four times as many people isn't filled with real people. So obviously you are not going to be able to form an accurate worldview.

Otherwise quite intelligent and thoughtful people in the US seem to have this blindness (it seems to be bipartisan), and don't really regard China as being a real civilization populated by real people who chose their government and want it to do what it's doing because it's actually good for them.

Here's a common "anti-safety-ist" argument you might've heard:

"The doomers are fearmongering and trying to make everyone scared of AI, just so they can justify a solution where they control everything and keep us from having abundance!"

Sound familiar? Do you believe it?

Then maybe you also believe the true version:

"Our leaders are fearmongering and trying to make everyone scared of China, just so they can justify a solution where they control everything and keep us from having abundance!"

If your reaction is "but no, China actually is... " maybe you want to realize how much you've bought into what you've been told. Maybe you're not aware of how many high-quality Chinese products you could affordably have access to. Do you know what abundance requires? Overcapacity.

The people telling you that are the same leaders who have been shown to lie to you about <oh man, just insert your own personal list>.

Why do you somehow think the one thing they're telling you the truth about is that China is a threat?

It's only a lie they can maintain because you readily believe that Chinese people in China aren't real people, because if you thought they were real people, fellow human beings, you'd realize that those lies could not be true. Chinese people are the most unruly, ungovernable people in the world. Chinese history is basically a history of overthrowing their governments - if they have a government that is popular it is because it is doing quite well for them - though it may seem weird to outsiders because Chinese people are pretty weird.

I know this, of course, because I'm ethnically Chinese and I know actual Chinese people, and at the same time I was raised and educated in the US so I know actual Americans, and everyone is Real People, not cartoon Cold War villains (who, when the Cold War ended, we learned were also real people with hopes and fears and dreams).

There is, overall, strong willingness to work together there - cynically, because working together is how you get rich, and Chinese people just want everyone to get rich; war does not make everyone rich.

But the US should stop being naive and realize that when it comes to AI it has to take the first step in extending the bridge. This announcement and the similar one from OpenAI a couple weeks ago are the right start.

====

[1] Seriously, where's the 5000 years of written training material? Why isn't Qwen quoting Confucian analects or traditional idioms to me when I ask it for advice? Why is it always neoliberal pablum? The US is more dominant in AI than it thinks.

[范凯说AI @fankaishuoai]

我把 Claude Code 卸了。不是因为它不好用，是因为看完那份 154 页的报告之后，我意识到自己对本地 Agent 到底在采集什么、上报什么，几乎一无所知。证据和边界我都摆在片子里了。

[Dmytro Dzhulgakov @dzhulgakov]

Specialized intelligence is hot: frontier for slides generation, at 1/17th of cost

Trained with @genspark_ai’s unique data and harness in partnership with @FireworksAI_HQ

Congrats to GenSpark! And check out their excellent blog for motivation and tech deep dive

[Fireworks @FireworksAI_HQ]

Deepseek-V4.1-Flash is available now on Fireworks!

It is a 552B Parameter MoE built for coding, cybersecurity, and agents. It is the ideal workhorse model that outperforms Opus 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol at 1/40th the cost on DeepSWE,CyberGym, and Automation Bench!

Interested in higher quality? Reach out, as we’re bringing this model to Fireworks Training soon.

Try Deepseek-V4.1-Flash now on Fireworks:
https://t.co/2Bez044BvU

[Fireworks @FireworksAI_HQ]

We invite you to Forge.

At Forge, we will challenge you to make your own frontier.

You'll spend the day with the builders, researchers, and technical leaders pushing AI forward.

Lin Qiao. Jensen Huang. Jay Parikh. And more.

Apply to attend: https://t.co/9TTDskVI73

[Kayvon Beykpour @kayvz]

the @FireworksAI_HQ team have been fantastic partners. they provide near-real-time support and are obsessive about providing customers a fantastic experience. even in the rare case where we've ran into hiccups or bugs (things happen!), they were so impressively fast at resolving and getting us back on the right track that it increased our love and gratitude for their service-- this says a lot about their ethos towards customers.

we'll have more to share soon on what we've built on their training platform, and the results :)

thank you @chahvivi @lqiao @the_bunny_chen for all of your support and for building something super valuable for the AI ecosystem

[Cydu @cydu]

@priestessofdada @FireworksAI_HQ Hi, I’m CY from Fireworks. Would you mind sharing a few examples with me via DM, including details about your harness, reasoning-effort level, and other relevant settings? This will help our team investigate and debug the issue further. Thanks!

[Cydu @cydu]

RT @FireworksAI_HQ: DeepSeek V4 Flash now comes with native vision on Fireworks.

Available now on serverless and priority tiers.

Better b…

[Cydu @cydu]

RT @lqiao: Real cost matters!

Per token is meaningless.