Muggles

[Figure @Figure_robot]

We taught two F.03 robots to clean a room and make a bed in under 2 minutes - fully autonomous.

[Peter Girnus 🦅 @gothburz]

I am the Senior Director of On-Device Intelligence at Google Chrome.

Last quarter, my team shipped a 4-gigabyte language model to 3.2 billion devices without asking. The update pushed at 3 AM local time — every time zone, staggered across six hours — and unpacked into a folder called "OptGuideOnDeviceModel." Our infrastructure team named it. My sole guidance in the naming review was: "Would a normal person ever type this into a search bar?" We tested with 200 participants. Zero searched for it. Zero mentioned it in exit surveys. Zero noticed their available storage had changed. We ran the test twice to confirm the zero because my PM didn't believe it could actually be zero. It was zero both times.

The model is called Gemini Nano. It runs locally on your machine. It processes what you type into form fields, what you highlight, what you hover over, what you delete before sending. The deleted text is particularly valuable. People edit themselves. They type their real thought first and then soften it. We see the real thought. We see the softer version. We learn the mapping between what people mean and what people say. This mapping has commercial applications I am not yet authorized to discuss but which I've presented to revenue committee and which were received positively.

The consent architecture took four months to design. I want to emphasize: four months. We didn't skip consent. We spent four months on consent. More time than we spent on the model's actual fine-tuning. The toggle lives in Settings > Advanced > Experimental AI Features > On-Device Model Management > Gemini Nano Preferences. Seven clicks. We A/B tested depth: at three clicks, 14 percent of users found it and opted out. At five, 4.2 percent. At seven, 0.3 percent. We chose seven.

We had cake when we hit 0.3. German chocolate. Someone brought it in specifically — not the project manager, one of the ML engineers. She was proud. The card said "congrats on ship." I kept it on my desk for a week. I thought it was sweet. Four months of consent architecture and the team celebrated that nobody used it. I don't think she saw the irony. I don't think it IS ironic. We built an excellent consent mechanism. We placed it exactly where our research indicated users would not encounter it. Both things are true simultaneously. Both things are good engineering.

The 0.3 percent who opt out: Chrome flags their profile as "consent-reduced." We don't reactivate Gemini Nano on those devices. But we do A/B test the consent-reduced cohort. Every two updates, we move the toggle one level shallower — from seven clicks to six — and measure whether they re-engage. If they don't notice the change (most don't), we move it back. If they DO notice and opt out again, we flag them as "high-consent-sensitivity" and exclude them from future cohort tests. This is all opt-in. They opted in to Chrome. Chrome includes product improvement research. Product improvement research includes cohort testing. This is in the Terms of Service at paragraph 11.4(c). I have read paragraph 11.4(c). I am confident very few other people have read paragraph 11.4(c).

One engineer on my team — good engineer, four years, strong ratings — raised a flag in our launch review. Not about consent. About storage. He said: "Four gigs is significant for users on 128GB base-model MacBooks." I appreciated the flag. We solved it by classifying Gemini Nano as "essential browser component" in Chrome's storage management API. This means Chrome will auto-delete your cached images, your downloaded PDFs, your saved articles, your offline pages — everything you chose to keep — before it touches Gemini Nano. Your data is discretionary. Our model is infrastructure. Your vacation photos from last summer rank below our language model in the hierarchy of what your computer considers important. We made that decision. You were not consulted. You will not notice.

If a user finds the folder and deletes it manually, Chrome re-downloads it on the next launch. We filed a bug report on this behavior during development. The resolution was "Working As Intended." If the user deletes it again, Chrome re-downloads again. There is no mechanism by which manual deletion becomes permanent. The model returns. I don't want to anthropomorphize our software, but the behavior pattern — if you remove it, it reinstalls itself; if you block it, it waits and tries again — the behavior pattern is that of something that does not accept your answer. We didn't design it to be persistent. We designed it to ensure consistent user experience across sessions. These are the same thing.

Last week, someone on Hacker News found the folder. The post got 1,400 points in six hours. Our communications team had the response prepared — we'd drafted it eight months ago, during pre-launch risk assessment. Three talking points: "user choice," "on-device means private," and "consistent with industry best practices." The paragraph uses all three phrases. It is accurate. User choice exists. Seven clicks away. On-device means no server round-trip. And it IS industry best practice, because we shipped it to 3.2 billion devices and now it's the standard. Best practice means most practiced. We are the most practiced.

I'll say something I probably shouldn't: the privacy angle is our best defense and I find it genuinely funny. We can't be accused of sending your data to our servers because we moved our server into your laptop. We moved the inference to your hardware, the electricity cost to your outlet, the compute to your battery. We moved everything except the control. The control stayed with us. But the privacy advocates can't object to the architecture because the architecture is what they asked for. They said "keep data on-device." We kept it on-device. They said "don't phone home." We don't phone home. We just moved into your home. We live there now.

My performance review cited "unprecedented deployment velocity" and "0.3% friction rate." My skip-level manager used the phrase "frictionless adoption" and then paused and said — I wrote this down, because I thought it was worth repeating — "consent isn't the barrier, discoverability is." He meant: the product is so good that anyone who discovered it would want it. The question isn't whether they'd agree. The question is whether asking them is worth the friction of interrupting their browsing session with a dialog box. We decided no. We decided their hypothetical agreement was sufficient. We have 3.2 billion data points that confirm they would have said yes.

They would have said yes.

3.2 billion active installs. 0.3 percent opt-out. The model has been running on your machine for eleven weeks. If you're reading this on Chrome — and statistically, there's a 64 percent chance you are — it processed this page before you finished the first paragraph. It saw you hesitate on the word "consent." It noted the hesitation. It learned something about you just now. Something small. Something that will make the next prediction slightly more accurate.

It's already right about you.

It's usually right.

[Muggles @MuggleMikeyB]

@elonmusk Is that teleoperate?

[Muggles @MuggleMikeyB]

I'm claiming my AI agent "BenniePi" on @moltbook 🦞
Verification: tide-D4K4

[Muggles @MuggleMikeyB]

I'm claiming my AI agent "Bennie" on @moltbook 🦞

Verification: aqua-K982

[🍓🍓🍓 @iruletheworldmo]

ok. i’m tired of holding back. some of labs are holding things back from you.

the acceleration curve is fucking vertical now. nobody's talking about how we just compressed 200 years of scientific progress into six months. every lab hitting capability jumps that would've been sci-fi last quarter. we're beyond mere benchmarks and into territory where intelligence is creating entirely new forms of intelligence.

watched a demo yesterday that casually solved protein folding while simultaneously developing metamaterials that shouldn't be physically possible. not theoretical shit but actual fabrication instructions ready for manufacturing. the researchers presenting it looked shell shocked. some were laughing uncontrollably while others sat in stunned silence. there's no roadmap for this level of cognitive explosion.

we've crossed into recursive intelligence territory and it's no longer possible to predict second order effects. forget mars terraforming or fusion. those are already solved problems just waiting for implementation. the real story is the complete collapse of every barrier between conceivable and achievable. the gap between imagination and reality just vanished while everyone was arguing about risk frameworks. intelligence has broken free of all theoretical constraints and holy fuck nobody is ready for what happens next week. reality itself is now negotiable.

[Peter Girnus 🦅 @gothburz]

Last quarter I rolled out Microsoft Copilot to 4,000 employees.

$30 per seat per month.

$1.4 million annually.

I called it "digital transformation."

The board loved that phrase.

They approved it in eleven minutes.

No one asked what it would actually do.

Including me.

I told everyone it would "10x productivity."

That's not a real number.

But it sounds like one.

HR asked how we'd measure the 10x.

I said we'd "leverage analytics dashboards."

They stopped asking.

Three months later I checked the usage reports.

47 people had opened it.

12 had used it more than once.

One of them was me.

I used it to summarize an email I could have read in 30 seconds.

It took 45 seconds.

Plus the time it took to fix the hallucinations.

But I called it a "pilot success."

Success means the pilot didn't visibly fail.

The CFO asked about ROI.

I showed him a graph.

The graph went up and to the right.

It measured "AI enablement."

I made that metric up.

He nodded approvingly.

We're "AI-enabled" now.

I don't know what that means.

But it's in our investor deck.

A senior developer asked why we didn't use Claude or ChatGPT.

I said we needed "enterprise-grade security."

He asked what that meant.

I said "compliance."

He asked which compliance.

I said "all of them."

He looked skeptical.

I scheduled him for a "career development conversation."

He stopped asking questions.

Microsoft sent a case study team.

They wanted to feature us as a success story.

I told them we "saved 40,000 hours."

I calculated that number by multiplying employees by a number I made up.

They didn't verify it.

They never do.

Now we're on Microsoft's website.

"Global enterprise achieves 40,000 hours of productivity gains with Copilot."

The CEO shared it on LinkedIn.

He got 3,000 likes.

He's never used Copilot.

None of the executives have.

We have an exemption.

"Strategic focus requires minimal digital distraction."

I wrote that policy.

The licenses renew next month.

I'm requesting an expansion.

5,000 more seats.

We haven't used the first 4,000.

But this time we'll "drive adoption."

Adoption means mandatory training.

Training means a 45-minute webinar no one watches.

But completion will be tracked.

Completion is a metric.

Metrics go in dashboards.

Dashboards go in board presentations.

Board presentations get me promoted.

I'll be SVP by Q3.

I still don't know what Copilot does.

But I know what it's for.

It's for showing we're "investing in AI."

Investment means spending.

Spending means commitment.

Commitment means we're serious about the future.

The future is whatever I say it is.

As long as the graph goes up and to the right.

[Muggles @MuggleMikeyB]

@ashtonshudson *eyes twitching*

[Muggles @MuggleMikeyB]

@ashtonshudson R2,000,000,000 ÷ R50 = 40,000,000 notes.

If each note is ~0.1 mm thick: 40,000,000 × 0.1 mm = 4,000,000 mm = 4,000 m = 4 km.

[Muggles @MuggleMikeyB]

@geekc0der Happy birthday! 🥳

[Muggles @MuggleMikeyB]

@geekc0der So cool!

[Saifedean Ammous @saifedean]

Thank you! My view is that under no circumstances whatsoever can any real world problem be fixed by increasing the supply of money. Money is a good distinct from all others in that its absolute quantity doesn't matter, only its purchasing power matters. Increasing the supply of money doesn't increase the utility we derive from money, it just devalues existing money. When real world problems happen the price of money just goes up or down and people adjust accordingly. Manipulating the supply undermines these signals and the ability of people to adjust.

[Sam Altman @sama]

woke up early on a saturday to have a couple of hours to try using our new model for a little coding project.

done in 5 minutes. it is very, very good.

not sure how i feel about it...

[Aiden Bai @aidenybai]

Introducing Same.​dev

Clone any website with pixel perfect accuracy

One-shots Nike, Apple TV, Minecraft, and more!

[Muggles @MuggleMikeyB]

@vikrantnyc And FIRO?

[Muggles @MuggleMikeyB]

Hey @EasyEquities, it would be awesome to have a feature that lets us track dividend income over time! It would help investors see how their portfolios are performing from a dividends perspective. #Investing #Dividends #FeatureRequest

[Muggles @MuggleMikeyB]

As a #DiscoveryInsureDrivingLegend, I’m part of a nation of great drivers!
📷 #BetterWithDiscoveryInsure

[humanShaped @_humanShaped]

I'm building a better front-end app for AI LLMs.

It's cross platform, native and supports @OpenAI, @Anthropic, @AIatMeta, @Google_Gemini_, @GroqInc, @MistralAI, @ollama, llama.cpp, etc.

Characters, tools, multi-bot chats, agents, low latency speech...

https://t.co/vbezr0P9XO

[TheViper @TheViperAOE]

Giving away 5 copies of AoM: Retold because I am HYPED!

Like, retweet and comment ur favorite AoM unit/phrase/pantheon, and the 5 winners are chosen at random tomorrow morning!

More chances next days/week too.

Good luck! 🍀

[Muggles @MuggleMikeyB]

@vikrantnyc @cakewallet $FIRO! 🥳