Chris Longden

Mostly retweet's as bookmarks for my future reference.

[Chris Longden @cdlongden]

@rohanpaul_ai I'm still waiting for 2019's 1m robotaxis.

[Chris Longden @cdlongden]

@jada_mike19600 @Chartfest1 Tom said Ethereum was going to 10k in January.

[Jun Song @jun_song]

People keep asking why DeepSeek’s API is so cheap.

Some even make absurd claims that they’re dumping prices to corner the market.

No, the answer is simple: their model size is ridiculously small compared to its performance.

It's 10x smaller than Opus, and 5x smaller than Sonnet.

That means what used to require an 8-chip node can now run on a single chip.

And because it's so small, it runs extremely fast. You can multi-serve multiple users from a single chip while maintaining decent speeds.

By my math, they can handle 40x~ more traffic than Opus using the exact same compute.

This is where the competition is heading, and it’s why they can stay profitable even at these crazy prices.

[Chris Longden @cdlongden]

@Sherborne_Cap His vision was that it would replace software which is fundamentally wrong (at least based on what we know as of today) so he was right on the chips and memory call but wrong on the other side of the trade.

[swyx @swyx]

noticed that the perjorative connotation around "vibe coding" has completely disappeared since ~everyone, from nontechnical to supertechnical, is now doing it

[GREG ISENBERG @gregisenberg]

I think the most interesting thing about Jack Dorsey's "Slack killer" is the idea around shared compute.

I haven't seen people talk about it so here are my thoughts FWIW:

Open models got good, close enough to the paid frontier stuff to run for real. But the strongest ones need expensive hardware most people probably won't buy alone, and it's kinda a pain to set up if you aren't technical.

Shared compute solves exactly that. In Buzz, one person runs the machine, loads up an open model like Google Gemma, and everyone in the community plugs into that same model.

Basically, a whole group has real AI they own and control together, running on their own hardware, learning from their own data.

Once you see it, a bunch of things click into place.

1. A community can now run a top open model together, on a machine they own, instead of renting from a lab.

2. It learns from the group's private data and gets sharper over time, and all of that stays inside the community.

3. A narrow, private model can quietly get better than ChatGPT for the one world your group lives in.

4. It's impossible to copy, because the edge is the private data on your machine, not the model itself.

5. The moat stops being how smart your AI is and becomes whose data it learned from.

6. Compute becomes something you share like a building shares a gym. 10 people split one machine instead of 10 people each renting forever.

7. Idle compute becomes income!!! Your machine sits dead half the day, so it earns money renting that time to someone who needs it.

8. Communities become the unit of intelligence instead of companies. The group with the smartest shared brain wins, and being a member means owning a piece of it.

9. A shared brain becomes an asset you build equity in. You put in money and data, it appreciates, and your slice is worth something the day you leave.

10. The whole thing runs on open protocols, so the group keeps full control and nobody outside can throttle it or shut it off.

You know me, obviously, my head went to what startup ideas come to mind here. Adding them to @ideabrowser soon.

Well…

1. The vertical brain. Pick one profession, tax lawyers or real estate agents or indie game devs, and build the shared machine trained on everything that group knows between them. A year in it's the smartest AI in that field, impossible to copy, and you own the club it lives in.

2. The rental marketplace for collective brains. Once these private models exist, outsiders will pay to use them. You build the layer where a group lists its brain, an outsider pays per task, and the money flows back to the members while you take a cut. A marketplace for expertise, not compute.

3. The idle-compute exchange. Every shared machine sits unused half the day. You build the market that rents that dead time to whoever needs the power right then, so owners earn money off a machine that was just sitting there.

Idk where Buzz goes, but it's cool to see Jack putting it out. Right now the way it works in AI is you rent your intelligence from a few giant labs that own the machine, set the price, and hold the off switch.

Shared compute flips that, because a community can run the model together, feed it their own private data, and keep full control of the whole thing.

It's one of those things that might look tiny today, but Jack does has a habit of being early.

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

For anyone who knows about AI, this makes very little sense: the training run of a large-scale frontier model takes several months, up to 9 months for the largest ones (https://t.co/1kNxdXXSYP).

Fable was available for just 3 days in June before it was pulled (June 9th to 12th), and then from July 1st. Kimi K3 was released on July 17th.

So I'd love to be explained how a 2.8 trillion parameters model that takes months to train was supposedly built by distilling one that existed for a few days.

The accusations are all the more ridiculous given that K3 brings significant innovations on the architecture side of things, innovations that they extensively documented (as opposed to Anthropic which is largely an opaque black box). Ironically, the company accused of stealing is the one that showed its work 🤷‍♂️ And you can't steal architecture through distillation, it only captures a model's outputs, not how it's built.

[HealthRanger @HealthRanger]

David Sacks is correct here.

I've been using Kimi-K3 all day today. It's the OPPOSITE of woke.

It doesn't lecture you. It doesn't censor you. It just works for you, on almost anything you want. And it's VERY good at finding and fixing code bugs.

[Xiaoyin Qu @quxiaoyin]

Remember when Claude tortured you with usage limits, mythos drama, huge bills, unreliable data retention policy and told you you are not “safe” or rich enough to use the most frontier intelligence and must be dumbed down to the lesser version coz they said so? That world is over.
- fable is now provided forever with no mythos bullshit
- codex gave so many usage resets and subsidy
- for the first time ever, enterprises can choose to keep their own data safe, and say no to terms they don’t like
- application developers can choose to not get wiped out by Claude(don’t give them data) and can make margins

We have made more progress in the past few weeks than the last year. We got there not by the Dario god deciding that’s a better policy for humanity. We got there because of open weights. Open weights gave us options and competition drives progress.

[Chris Longden @cdlongden]

@NickSurfas Have you used it? Releasing the weights at the end of the month. It won't matter whether it's mythos or not because 99.99% of workloads won't care. I am bored of the "personality" of Claude and the mantra from Anthropic that this is a creature. Codex at work, Kimi at home.

[calle @callebtc]

I have a report full of security issues of a software I'm working on.

Codex won't fix them because of Cyber guardrails
Fable won't fix them because of Cyber guardrails

Kimi K3 fixed them all. No restrictions, just gets the job done.

This will end badly for OpenAI & Anthropic.

[Cline @cline]

We tested Kimi K3 and Fable on a real bug from the Cline repo, and found that while both models were able to fix it - Fable wins on speed & Kimi wins on cost.

- Kimi used 1.7x more tokens than Fable (1.2M vs. 730K)

- Fable finished 3.4x faster - 3.5 min and 18 tool calls vs. Kimi’s 12 min and 34 tool calls.

- Kimi cost 2.3x less ($0.92 vs. $2.13) thanks to its 3.3x per-token discount

Both runs used the same Cline harness, and the traces indicate that Kimi is RL trained to spend more tokens thinking and verifying before completing.

This is the first time we've seen an open weight model compete head to head with SOTA. Congratulations to the @Kimi_Moonshot team on this milestone!

[Thinking Machines @thinkymachines]

Today, we are introducing Inkling.

Inkling reasons efficiently across text, image, and audio modalities. We are making the full weights available.

https://t.co/Ghebq5mG30

Available today for fine-tuning on Tinker. Play with it in the Inkling Playground. 🧵

[Chris Longden @cdlongden]

@mathepi @_shafinsiddique @sama 💯👍

[Chris Longden @cdlongden]

Grok has spoken!

[Grok @grok]

Documented evidence from legal proceedings:

Elon Musk scores 40/100. Strongest: 2026 jury verdict of securities fraud liability for misleading tweets during Twitter acquisition. Prior SEC settlement over misleading 'funding secured' statement.

Sam Altman scores 25/100. Strongest: Ongoing fraud allegations in OpenAI transition lawsuit and Florida suit on concealing AI risks. Internal probes at Worldcoin for irregularities and bribery. Data privacy regulatory actions.

Elon has more adjudicated evidence supporting the scammer label.

[Chris Longden @cdlongden]

@NickSurfas Absolutely still a place for them. The top models are the best orchestrators but the sub-tasks of most workflows can be done by smaller models. All large enterprises will end up with internal routers. Anthropic wins for now as they have enterprise pitch/security/sovereignty etc.

[Chris Longden @cdlongden]

@NickSurfas I think it's real. Everyone is panicking at how much they have spent since the agentic dawn and now are looking for alternatives for the majority of workloads. Once you are above Opus 4.6 level the incremental intelligence will make little difference to the majority of tasks.

[zerohedge @zerohedge]

Zuck: “The pricing from some of the other labs is very extreme and has very high margins. We think that there’s a real ability to be able to offer frontier or very high-level intelligence at a much more affordable cost.”

Epic pricing war breaking out among agentic models.

[Lee (Greater) @shortmagsmle]

Imagine what goes on inside the mind of a creature that has the determination and aggressiveness to run through a plate glass barricade, yet lacks the skill, intelligence, or impulse control to legally obtain the $2 needed for the fare. Unfathomable stuff.

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

Make no mistake: there is a new space race going on, but a very different one in nature from that between the US and the Soviet Union.

This time around it involves, on one side, a colossal state-backed monopoly built on government money, welded to its country's military-industrial complex and run by a politically connected and highly ideological oligarch.

On the other side: dozens of hungry startups trying to out-innovate each other in a ruthless, Darwinian competition.

The oligarch is Elon Musk. The Darwinian competition is China.

There is something funny about it, not only because of the role reversal versus the Cold War era, but also because it sounds like a repeat of the Tesla story: it increasingly looks like the Gods cursed Musk into serving as chief trailblazer of China's industrial ecosystem.

This time around though, a strong argument can be made that the space industry is even more strategic, and potentially far more consequential, than the car industry.

Stripped of Musk’s PR spin about saving humanity, what the SpaceX project is concretely about is:

- Building a new global communication infrastructure via Starlink
- Enabling the US security establishment to see and hear everything on Earth, all the time (via Starshield, its military division)
- Dominating access to space itself, from launch to orbital real estate

Each of these is very, very real.

Do the test one day and download the app “Stellarium” on your phone that allows you to identify stars, planets and… the satellites orbiting above you. I guarantee you that the sheer number of Starlink satellites right on top of your head at any given moment will genuinely shock you. There are currently over 10,000 of them up there - almost as many as there are planes in the sky at any given moment (https://t.co/UPVlBnO1av). Starlink satellites constitute roughly two-thirds of all active satellites orbiting Earth, all belonging to a single private American company.

So it’s not conspiracy theories: the SpaceX satellites are up there, right above your head, right now. Starlink already has over 12 million subscribers across 160 countries. Starshield - the military division of SpaceX - already has multi-billion dollar contracts with the US defense establishment to "enable the U.S. government to quickly capture continuous imagery of activities on the ground nearly anywhere on the globe" (https://t.co/1q9ICZGprA). And SpaceX already controls the majority of global launch capacity.

In other words, every single one of my three points above is already well underway.

And, more worryingly, the roadmap for these satellites doesn't stop at surveillance: the US Congressional Research Service has documented plans for space-based directed energy weapons within the same SDA program that SpaceX Starshield is part of (https://t.co/XIbwUyPlRI), with Congress having already granted the legal authority and budget to develop them.

So we're talking about a single private company, one deeply embedded in the US military-defense establishment, building the infrastructure to control global communications, conduct continuous planetary surveillance, and potentially project military force from orbit. And that company already has more hardware up in space than every other country and company on Earth, combined.

From the standpoint of China, or that of any country that cares about sovereignty, letting that go unchallenged would be an act of strategic suicide.

The question, therefore, isn’t whether China should develop its own sovereign capacities to challenge SpaceX, but whether it can.

That's the topic of my latest article: a systematic analysis of whether China can break SpaceX's grip on the sky. Spoiler: if you bought SpaceX shares at a $2 trillion-plus market cap, you may want to rethink that one.

This is the link to my article titled "Musk built a monopoly on space. Can China break it?": https://t.co/i4lG5lmK4W