ApacAi

Deliver fast, accurate answers grounded in your own documents with a chatbot that’s always on and ready to assist —

[ApacAi @apacaica]

Got a question? Just chat — it's faster than email, friendlier than forms, and always online.

[Artificial Analysis @ArtificialAnlys]

MoonshotAI has released Kimi K2 Thinking, a new reasoning variant of Kimi K2 that achieves #1 in the Tau2 Bench Telecom agentic benchmark and is potentially the new leading open weights model

Kimi K2 Thinking is one of the largest open weights models ever, at 1T total parameters with 32B active. K2 Thinking is the first reasoning model release within @Kimi_Moonshot's Kimi K2 model family, following non-reasoning Kimi K2 Instruct models released previously in July and September 2025.

Key takeaways:
➤ Strong performance on agentic tasks: Kimi K2 Thinking achieves 93% in 𝜏²-Bench Telecom, an agentic tool use benchmark where the model acts as a customer service agent. This is the highest score we have independently measured. Tool use in long horizon agentic contexts was a strength of Kimi K2 Instruct and it appears this new Thinking variant makes substantial gains
➤ Reasoning variant of Kimi K2 Instruct: The model, as per its naming, is a reasoning variant of Kimi K2 Instruct. The model has the same architecture and same number of parameters (though different precision) as Kimi K2 Instruct and like K2 Instruct only supports text as an input (and output) modality
➤ 1T parameters but INT4 instead of FP8: Unlike Moonshot’s prior Kimi K2 Instruct releases that used FP8 precision, this model has been released natively in INT4 precision. Moonshot used quantization aware training in the post-training phase to achieve this. The impact of this is that K2 Thinking is only ~594GB, compared to just over 1TB for K2 Instruct and K2 Instruct 0905 - which translates into efficiency gains for inference and training. A potential reason for INT4 is that pre-Blackwell NVIDIA GPUs do not have support for FP4, making INT4 more suitable for achieving efficiency gains on earlier hardware.

Our full set of Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index benchmarks are in progress and we will provide an update as soon as they are complete.

[AMD @AMD]

Supervised fine-tuning, RLHF, LoRA. Real skills for real-world AI.

Learn how to fine-tune and align LLMs with AMD’s own @realSharonZhou in this new @DeepLearningAI course.

[ApacAi @apacaica]

As a real estate firm with years of listings, contracts, and property data, a RAG-based assistant could help agents answer client questions — from zoning details to lease terms.

[ApacAi @apacaica]

As a healthcare provider managing patient FAQs and policy docs, a RAG-based assistant could help staff and patients get clear, accurate info without waiting on hold.

[ApacAi @apacaica]

As a manufacturing company with thousands of maintenance manuals, a RAG-based assistant could help engineers find troubleshooting steps fast, even on the factory floor.

[ApacAi @apacaica]

As a marketing agency juggling dozens of clients, a RAG-based assistant could help surface campaign data, creative briefs, and client feedback.

[Andrej Karpathy @karpathy]

I quite like the new DeepSeek-OCR paper. It's a good OCR model (maybe a bit worse than dots), and yes data collection etc., but anyway it doesn't matter.

The more interesting part for me (esp as a computer vision at heart who is temporarily masquerading as a natural language person) is whether pixels are better inputs to LLMs than text. Whether text tokens are wasteful and just terrible, at the input.

Maybe it makes more sense that all inputs to LLMs should only ever be images. Even if you happen to have pure text input, maybe you'd prefer to render it and then feed that in:
- more information compression (see paper) => shorter context windows, more efficiency
- significantly more general information stream => not just text, but e.g. bold text, colored text, arbitrary images.
- input can now be processed with bidirectional attention easily and as default, not autoregressive attention - a lot more powerful.
- delete the tokenizer (at the input)!! I already ranted about how much I dislike the tokenizer. Tokenizers are ugly, separate, not end-to-end stage. It "imports" all the ugliness of Unicode, byte encodings, it inherits a lot of historical baggage, security/jailbreak risk (e.g. continuation bytes). It makes two characters that look identical to the eye look as two completely different tokens internally in the network. A smiling emoji looks like a weird token, not an... actual smiling face, pixels and all, and all the transfer learning that brings along. The tokenizer must go.

OCR is just one of many useful vision -> text tasks. And text -> text tasks can be made to be vision ->text tasks. Not vice versa.

So many the User message is images, but the decoder (the Assistant response) remains text. It's a lot less obvious how to output pixels realistically... or if you'd want to.

Now I have to also fight the urge to side quest an image-input-only version of nanochat...

[clem 🤗 @ClementDelangue]

The main breakthrough of GPT-5 was to route your messages between a couple of different models to give you the best, cheapest & fastest answer possible.

This is cool but imagine if you could do this not only for a couple of models but hundreds of them, big and small, fast and slow, in any language or specialized for any task - all at inference time. This is what we're introducing with HuggingChat Omni, powered by over 100 open-source models including gpt-oss, deepseek, qwen, kimi, smolLM, gemma, aya and many more already!

And this is just the beginning as there are over 2 millions open models not only for text but image, audio, video, biology, chemistry, time-series and more on @huggingface!

[ApacAi @apacaica]

As a legal firm with decades of documents, a RAG-based assistant could help retrieve case references and precedents in seconds before digging through archives.

[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!

[Andrej Karpathy @karpathy]

Excited to release new repo: nanochat!
(it's among the most unhinged I've written).

Unlike my earlier similar repo nanoGPT which only covered pretraining, nanochat is a minimal, from scratch, full-stack training/inference pipeline of a simple ChatGPT clone in a single, dependency-minimal codebase. You boot up a cloud GPU box, run a single script and in as little as 4 hours later you can talk to your own LLM in a ChatGPT-like web UI.

It weighs ~8,000 lines of imo quite clean code to:

- Train the tokenizer using a new Rust implementation
- Pretrain a Transformer LLM on FineWeb, evaluate CORE score across a number of metrics
- Midtrain on user-assistant conversations from SmolTalk, multiple choice questions, tool use.
- SFT, evaluate the chat model on world knowledge multiple choice (ARC-E/C, MMLU), math (GSM8K), code (HumanEval)
- RL the model optionally on GSM8K with "GRPO"
- Efficient inference the model in an Engine with KV cache, simple prefill/decode, tool use (Python interpreter in a lightweight sandbox), talk to it over CLI or ChatGPT-like WebUI.
- Write a single markdown report card, summarizing and gamifying the whole thing.

Even for as low as ~$100 in cost (~4 hours on an 8XH100 node), you can train a little ChatGPT clone that you can kind of talk to, and which can write stories/poems, answer simple questions. About ~12 hours surpasses GPT-2 CORE metric. As you further scale up towards ~$1000 (~41.6 hours of training), it quickly becomes a lot more coherent and can solve simple math/code problems and take multiple choice tests. E.g. a depth 30 model trained for 24 hours (this is about equal to FLOPs of GPT-3 Small 125M and 1/1000th of GPT-3) gets into 40s on MMLU and 70s on ARC-Easy, 20s on GSM8K, etc.

My goal is to get the full "strong baseline" stack into one cohesive, minimal, readable, hackable, maximally forkable repo. nanochat will be the capstone project of LLM101n (which is still being developed). I think it also has potential to grow into a research harness, or a benchmark, similar to nanoGPT before it. It is by no means finished, tuned or optimized (actually I think there's likely quite a bit of low-hanging fruit), but I think it's at a place where the overall skeleton is ok enough that it can go up on GitHub where all the parts of it can be improved.

Link to repo and a detailed walkthrough of the nanochat speedrun is in the reply.

[ApacAi @apacaica]

自然交流。随时打断、追问，并在几秒内获得帮助 —— 无需语音导航，无需等待音乐。

[ApacAi @apacaica]

Speak naturally. Interrupt, ask follow-ups, and get help in seconds — no IVR, no hold music.