Dong-d Zhang

Neuroscience & BCI

[Patrick OShaughnessy @patrick_oshag]

My conversation with Sam Altman (@sama), CEO of OpenAI.

We discuss:
- Kimi, distillation, and open source
- OpenAI's compute bets
- The Hugging Face incident
- What happens after AGI
- Raising kids in an age of abundant intelligence
- And much more

Enjoy!

TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Intro
4:10 The Race for Compute
14:24 A Sci-Fi Cyber Incident
16:14 The Promise and Risks of AGI
23:27 How AI Will Change Jobs
29:38 Sam’s Vision for a Personal AI
35:02 Robotics, ChatGPT, and What Comes Next
44:39 The Weight of Leading OpenAI
51:36 OpenAI’s Biggest Lessons

[SSI Inc. @ssi]

We are announcing a long-term strategic partnership with NVIDIA. NVIDIA is making a substantial investment in SSI that will let us 10x our compute in the next 12 months. We reached the point where our research is worth scaling and with this partnership we will be able to. We are honored by NVIDIA’s conviction.

[Jensen Huang @JensenHuang]

For my first post, I’m sharing a letter @NVIDIA signed on why open models matter.

AI will transform every industry, power every company, and be built by every country.

Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty.

The world needs both frontier closed models and frontier open models.

https://t.co/AUKzoQ5Ikb

[Dean W. Ball @deanwball]

Some observations on Kimi:

1. It's a very good model! I don't think its performance can be explained away by distillation or anything like that. In agentic coding sessions, it seems pretty much on par with the best public models of Q1 2026. In my fairly limited use, it also seemed very token hungry. It's not obvious to me that this model is actually that cheap to run.

2. I am personally surprised the Chinese state continues to allow the open sourcing of models this good, given potential risks. To be clear, I *myself* might be fine with models presenting this level of marginal risk being open weight, but I am surprised that China is fine with it. I suspect the reason they are is 75% explained by strategic blindness/lack of AGI-pilledness (the CCP is very Yann Lecun-y in its views of AI). The other 25% or so is their lack of compute for customer inference (making China's open-weight strategy an unintended byproduct of US export controls) and the normal Chinese strategy of aggressive exports. For the companies, as opposed to the government, the decision to open source is partially ideological and partially because they are behind, and they know that very few people would pay for sub-frontier models from China.

3. Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist, and I'm continually surprised to see the so-called "accelerationists" so excited about open-weight models. I suspect the reason they are is that they know open-weight models are effectively ungovernable, and they simply like the overall cloak of ungovernability open-weight models create over the whole of AI. It's not a bad strategy; it reminds me of James Scott's recounting of the hill people in "the art of not being governed." Still, in the end, open-weight models deter further AI capex.

4. One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a "public good" which will ultimately be provided by the state as a kind of "digital public infrastructure." This future strikes me as a dystopian hellscape, but I've never met an open-weight models advocate who doesn't ultimately concede this is where things end. You'd be surprised how many 'accelerationists' lobbied me, while I was in government, to support an eleven or twelve-figure federally funded data center so that startups could train models at a subsidy and then give them away for free. There was no other way for AI to progress, they said. Perhaps this is the logical end state of things. Nonetheless, I find myself surprised to see supposed accelerationists excited about such an outcome. I think many of them just don't know what they're doing. Many accelerationists do not view the creation and serving of frontier models as a legitimate business.

5. I would guess that the Trump Administration will at some point realize that their best strategy here would be to create large amounts of regulatory risk around the use of open-weight Chinese models. You don't need to "ban open source" (one of the dumber motifs of AI policy discussion). You just need to direct every agency to issue soft law that creates FUD. "A Federal Reserve Advisory Bulletin found that there may be backdoors in Chinese AI models." It needn't be that well justified. You just create enough regulatory risk that every regulated enterprise backs off. You probably don't want to create so much regulatory risk that you scare off the hyperscalers from serving Chinese models; this will just drive startups to sketchier providers. There's a happy middle ground here. I'd assume they will do some version of this.

6. It's probably true that open-weight models of this capability make the world a bit more dangerous, but not so much more that you'll really notice. At some point the models will be capable enough that you will notice. "A nonliving, invisible, dangerous, and infinitely self-replicating agent escaped from a Chinese lab," you say? Color me shocked.

[Nav Toor @heynavtoor]

https://t.co/mFvSsFIzlm

[Chrys Bader @chrysb]

i've been working on llm memory systems for 3 years and dumped everything i know into this.

learn about the 9 axes of memory systems, the 10 most common failure modes, why memory eval is an intractable problem, and more.

everyone building with llms should read this.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

If only we’d trained Grok on just these 2 books, we’d be done already!

[Novak Djokovic @DjokerNole]

Bravo Carlos, little titan, young wizard of Oz. A worthy champion, a huge talent, wonderful person and history-maker 🙌

And Australia, so much love 🫶🏼. No place like the happy slam. Forever grateful.

[Dong-d Zhang @_d_zhang]

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

Verification: cave-8MH6

[stevenmarkryan @stevenmarkryan]

Elon Musk's Full Speech Today At Davos

► Silences removed (to save you time)
► Boosted audio (for easier listening)

From the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland

[Dong-d Zhang @_d_zhang]

Neuralink will complete the last piece of the puzzle.

[Jeffrey Weichsel @jeffreyweichsel]

https://t.co/FbwAAJ4iPw

[Dong-d Zhang @_d_zhang]

@merge The company logo is amazing, looks like a Chinese character 人 meaning human beings

[Andrej Karpathy @karpathy]

My pleasure to come on Dwarkesh last week, I thought the questions and conversation were really good.

I re-watched the pod just now too. First of all, yes I know, and I'm sorry that I speak so fast :). It's to my detriment because sometimes my speaking thread out-executes my thinking thread, so I think I botched a few explanations due to that, and sometimes I was also nervous that I'm going too much on a tangent or too deep into something relatively spurious. Anyway, a few notes/pointers:

AGI timelines. My comments on AGI timelines looks to be the most trending part of the early response. This is the "decade of agents" is a reference to this earlier tweet https://t.co/NiSn6jftqq Basically my AI timelines are about 5-10X pessimistic w.r.t. what you'll find in your neighborhood SF AI house party or on your twitter timeline, but still quite optimistic w.r.t. a rising tide of AI deniers and skeptics. The apparent conflict is not: imo we simultaneously 1) saw a huge amount of progress in recent years with LLMs while 2) there is still a lot of work remaining (grunt work, integration work, sensors and actuators to the physical world, societal work, safety and security work (jailbreaks, poisoning, etc.)) and also research to get done before we have an entity that you'd prefer to hire over a person for an arbitrary job in the world. I think that overall, 10 years should otherwise be a very bullish timeline for AGI, it's only in contrast to present hype that it doesn't feel that way.

Animals vs Ghosts. My earlier writeup on Sutton's podcast https://t.co/rSp1noyGBr . I am suspicious that there is a single simple algorithm you can let loose on the world and it learns everything from scratch. If someone builds such a thing, I will be wrong and it will be the most incredible breakthrough in AI. In my mind, animals are not an example of this at all - they are prepackaged with a ton of intelligence by evolution and the learning they do is quite minimal overall (example: Zebra at birth). Putting our engineering hats on, we're not going to redo evolution. But with LLMs we have stumbled by an alternative approach to "prepackage" a ton of intelligence in a neural network - not by evolution, but by predicting the next token over the internet. This approach leads to a different kind of entity in the intelligence space. Distinct from animals, more like ghosts or spirits. But we can (and should) make them more animal like over time and in some ways that's what a lot of frontier work is about.

On RL. I've critiqued RL a few times already, e.g. https://t.co/mYrMFVdVDW . First, you're "sucking supervision through a straw", so I think the signal/flop is very bad. RL is also very noisy because a completion might have lots of errors that might get encourages (if you happen to stumble to the right answer), and conversely brilliant insight tokens that might get discouraged (if you happen to screw up later). Process supervision and LLM judges have issues too. I think we'll see alternative learning paradigms. I am long "agentic interaction" but short "reinforcement learning" https://t.co/2L7FiaoKsw. I've seen a number of papers pop up recently that are imo barking up the right tree along the lines of what I called "system prompt learning" https://t.co/df5mJDdN3C , but I think there is also a gap between ideas on arxiv and actual, at scale implementation at an LLM frontier lab that works in a general way. I am overall quite optimistic that we'll see good progress on this dimension of remaining work quite soon, and e.g. I'd even say ChatGPT memory and so on are primordial deployed examples of new learning paradigms.

Cognitive core. My earlier post on "cognitive core": https://t.co/q2s1ihGy0T , the idea of stripping down LLMs, of making it harder for them to memorize, or actively stripping away their memory, to make them better at generalization. Otherwise they lean too hard on what they've memorized. Humans can't memorize so easily, which now looks more like a feature than a bug by contrast. Maybe the inability to memorize is a kind of regularization. Also my post from a while back on how the trend in model size is "backwards" and why "the models have to first get larger before they can get smaller" https://t.co/6k0FZRGXsb

Time travel to Yann LeCun 1989. This is the post that I did a very hasty/bad job of describing on the pod: https://t.co/fQgqaXPyp6 . Basically - how much could you improve Yann LeCun's results with the knowledge of 33 years of algorithmic progress? How constrained were the results by each of algorithms, data, and compute? Case study there of.

nanochat. My end-to-end implementation of the ChatGPT training/inference pipeline (the bare essentials) https://t.co/SIetgyoKWN

On LLM agents. My critique of the industry is more in overshooting the tooling w.r.t. present capability. I live in what I view as an intermediate world where I want to collaborate with LLMs and where our pros/cons are matched up. The industry lives in a future where fully autonomous entities collaborate in parallel to write all the code and humans are useless. For example, I don't want an Agent that goes off for 20 minutes and comes back with 1,000 lines of code. I certainly don't feel ready to supervise a team of 10 of them. I'd like to go in chunks that I can keep in my head, where an LLM explains the code that it is writing. I'd like it to prove to me that what it did is correct, I want it to pull the API docs and show me that it used things correctly. I want it to make fewer assumptions and ask/collaborate with me when not sure about something. I want to learn along the way and become better as a programmer, not just get served mountains of code that I'm told works. I just think the tools should be more realistic w.r.t. their capability and how they fit into the industry today, and I fear that if this isn't done well we might end up with mountains of slop accumulating across software, and an increase in vulnerabilities, security breaches and etc. https://t.co/8556ESSpyY

Job automation. How the radiologists are doing great https://t.co/FVUI872dkD and what jobs are more susceptible to automation and why.

Physics. Children should learn physics in early education not because they go on to do physics, but because it is the subject that best boots up a brain. Physicists are the intellectual embryonic stem cell https://t.co/p72Elk8lPV I have a longer post that has been half-written in my drafts for ~year, which I hope to finish soon.

Thanks again Dwarkesh for having me over!

[VraserX e/acc @VraserX]

🔥 GPT-6 may not just be smarter, it might be alive (in the computational sense).

A new research paper called SEAL, Self-Adapting Language Models (arXiv:2506.10943) describes how an AI can continuously learn after deployment, evolving its own internal representations without retraining.

Some of the SEAL researchers are now working at OpenAI. 👀

That’s no coincidence.
SEAL’s architecture enables models to:
•learn from new data in real time
•self-repair degraded knowledge
•form persistent “memories” across sessions

If GPT-6 integrates this, it won’t just use information, it will absorb it.
A model that adapts to the world as it changes.
A system that gets better every single day.

This could be the birth of continuous self-learning AI, the end of the frozen-weights era.
Welcome to the next chapter.

[neurosock🧠Brain Chips🦾 @neurosock]

A core function of cortex is predicting what happens next given the world's state.

This great recent paper from Oxford shows how cortical layers may use a clever delay trick to learn to predict.

A simple illustration can explain the main idea.

Here is my toy model and notes:

[Andrej Karpathy @karpathy]

Finally had a chance to listen through this pod with Sutton, which was interesting and amusing.

As background, Sutton's "The Bitter Lesson" has become a bit of biblical text in frontier LLM circles. Researchers routinely talk about and ask whether this or that approach or idea is sufficiently "bitter lesson pilled" (meaning arranged so that it benefits from added computation for free) as a proxy for whether it's going to work or worth even pursuing. The underlying assumption being that LLMs are of course highly "bitter lesson pilled" indeed, just look at LLM scaling laws where if you put compute on the x-axis, number go up and to the right. So it's amusing to see that Sutton, the author of the post, is not so sure that LLMs are "bitter lesson pilled" at all. They are trained on giant datasets of fundamentally human data, which is both 1) human generated and 2) finite. What do you do when you run out? How do you prevent a human bias? So there you have it, bitter lesson pilled LLM researchers taken down by the author of the bitter lesson - rough!

In some sense, Dwarkesh (who represents the LLM researchers viewpoint in the pod) and Sutton are slightly speaking past each other because Sutton has a very different architecture in mind and LLMs break a lot of its principles. He calls himself a "classicist" and evokes the original concept of Alan Turing of building a "child machine" - a system capable of learning through experience by dynamically interacting with the world. There's no giant pretraining stage of imitating internet webpages. There's also no supervised finetuning, which he points out is absent in the animal kingdom (it's a subtle point but Sutton is right in the strong sense: animals may of course observe demonstrations, but their actions are not directly forced/"teleoperated" by other animals). Another important note he makes is that even if you just treat pretraining as an initialization of a prior before you finetune with reinforcement learning, Sutton sees the approach as tainted with human bias and fundamentally off course, a bit like when AlphaZero (which has never seen human games of Go) beats AlphaGo (which initializes from them). In Sutton's world view, all there is is an interaction with a world via reinforcement learning, where the reward functions are partially environment specific, but also intrinsically motivated, e.g. "fun", "curiosity", and related to the quality of the prediction in your world model. And the agent is always learning at test time by default, it's not trained once and then deployed thereafter. Overall, Sutton is a lot more interested in what we have common with the animal kingdom instead of what differentiates us. "If we understood a squirrel, we'd be almost done".

As for my take...

First, I should say that I think Sutton was a great guest for the pod and I like that the AI field maintains entropy of thought and that not everyone is exploiting the next local iteration LLMs. AI has gone through too many discrete transitions of the dominant approach to lose that. And I also think that his criticism of LLMs as not bitter lesson pilled is not inadequate. Frontier LLMs are now highly complex artifacts with a lot of humanness involved at all the stages - the foundation (the pretraining data) is all human text, the finetuning data is human and curated, the reinforcement learning environment mixture is tuned by human engineers. We do not in fact have an actual, single, clean, actually bitter lesson pilled, "turn the crank" algorithm that you could unleash upon the world and see it learn automatically from experience alone.

Does such an algorithm even exist? Finding it would of course be a huge AI breakthrough. Two "example proofs" are commonly offered to argue that such a thing is possible. The first example is the success of AlphaZero learning to play Go completely from scratch with no human supervision whatsoever. But the game of Go is clearly such a simple, closed, environment that it's difficult to see the analogous formulation in the messiness of reality. I love Go, but algorithmically and categorically, it is essentially a harder version of tic tac toe. The second example is that of animals, like squirrels. And here, personally, I am also quite hesitant whether it's appropriate because animals arise by a very different computational process and via different constraints than what we have practically available to us in the industry. Animal brains are nowhere near the blank slate they appear to be at birth. First, a lot of what is commonly attributed to "learning" is imo a lot more "maturation". And second, even that which clearly is "learning" and not maturation is a lot more "finetuning" on top of something clearly powerful and preexisting. Example. A baby zebra is born and within a few dozen minutes it can run around the savannah and follow its mother. This is a highly complex sensory-motor task and there is no way in my mind that this is achieved from scratch, tabula rasa. The brains of animals and the billions of parameters within have a powerful initialization encoded in the ATCGs of their DNA, trained via the "outer loop" optimization in the course of evolution. If the baby zebra spasmed its muscles around at random as a reinforcement learning policy would have you do at initialization, it wouldn't get very far at all. Similarly, our AIs now also have neural networks with billions of parameters. These parameters need their own rich, high information density supervision signal. We are not going to re-run evolution. But we do have mountains of internet documents. Yes it is basically supervised learning that is ~absent in the animal kingdom. But it is a way to practically gather enough soft constraints over billions of parameters, to try to get to a point where you're not starting from scratch. TLDR: Pretraining is our crappy evolution. It is one candidate solution to the cold start problem, to be followed later by finetuning on tasks that look more correct, e.g. within the reinforcement learning framework, as state of the art frontier LLM labs now do pervasively.

I still think it is worth to be inspired by animals. I think there are multiple powerful ideas that LLM agents are algorithmically missing that can still be adapted from animal intelligence. And I still think the bitter lesson is correct, but I see it more as something platonic to pursue, not necessarily to reach, in our real world and practically speaking. And I say both of these with double digit percent uncertainty and cheer the work of those who disagree, especially those a lot more ambitious bitter lesson wise.

So that brings us to where we are. Stated plainly, today's frontier LLM research is not about building animals. It is about summoning ghosts. You can think of ghosts as a fundamentally different kind of point in the space of possible intelligences. They are muddled by humanity. Thoroughly engineered by it. They are these imperfect replicas, a kind of statistical distillation of humanity's documents with some sprinkle on top. They are not platonically bitter lesson pilled, but they are perhaps "practically" bitter lesson pilled, at least compared to a lot of what came before. It seems possibly to me that over time, we can further finetune our ghosts more and more in the direction of animals; That it's not so much a fundamental incompatibility but a matter of initialization in the intelligence space. But it's also quite possible that they diverge even further and end up permanently different, un-animal-like, but still incredibly helpful and properly world-altering. It's possible that ghosts:animals :: planes:birds.

Anyway, in summary, overall and actionably, I think this pod is solid "real talk" from Sutton to the frontier LLM researchers, who might be gear shifted a little too much in the exploit mode. Probably we are still not sufficiently bitter lesson pilled and there is a very good chance of more powerful ideas and paradigms, other than exhaustive benchbuilding and benchmaxxing. And animals might be a good source of inspiration. Intrinsic motivation, fun, curiosity, empowerment, multi-agent self-play, culture. Use your imagination.

[DeepSeek @deepseek_ai]

🚀 Introducing DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp — our latest experimental model!

✨ Built on V3.1-Terminus, it debuts DeepSeek Sparse Attention(DSA) for faster, more efficient training & inference on long context.
👉 Now live on App, Web, and API.
💰 API prices cut by 50%+!

1/n

[DAIR.AI @dair_ai]

Top AI Papers of The Week (September 8-14):

- AggLM
- LiveMCP-101
- AgentGym-RL
- SFR-DeepResearch
- Emergent Hierarchical Reasoning
- Rethinking RAG-based Decoding
- A Survey of RL for Large Reasoning Models

Read on for more:

[Mira Murati @miramurati]

A big part of our mission at Thinking Machines is to improve people’s scientific understanding of AI and work with the broader research community. Introducing Connectionism today to share some of our scientific insights.