Olivia
Online
Prateek Rajput
@rajputprateek7
I'm stupid so I play chess
Luxembourg
Joined March 2014
166 Following
49 Followers
508 Posts
The funny thing about Anthropic and OpenAI people saying they want to slow down AI progress is that this is what Anti Trust mechanisms were built for.
It's illegal to collude and slow down AI progress.
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
Andrew Ng just released a 2-hour course
On building agentic skills from scratch with Anthropic:
00:00 - How to build agent skills with Claude
22:32 - Claude pre-built skills for AI agents
41:07 - Agentic skills vs tools, MCP, and subagents
01:06:06 - Skills for long-running agents
This 2-hour watch can replace 10 paid courses on building agents
Taught with Anthropic themselves
Bookmark and watch it tonight
Then read the article below
https://t.co/PTeDiv1b6L
Stanford professor just released the lecture that explains the math behind every reinforcement learning system.
83 minutes. Free. From Stanford.
Before agents learn to trade, optimize, or make decisions, they all start with the same problem:
How do you choose the best action when the future is uncertain?
This lecture breaks down the foundation:
• turning environments into Markov Decision Processes
• policy evaluation and why value functions matter
• Q-value recurrence equations behind modern RL
• value iteration and convergence limits
Every RL algorithm built today is just a variation of these ideas.
The math has been public for decades.
The hard part was never knowing the Bellman equation.
The hard part is knowing when your model actually understands the environment and when it is just fitting noise.
Bookmark this before it gets buried in your feed.
“Loop engineering” is a hot buzzphrase after mentions of it by Boris Cherny (Claude Code’s creator) and Peter Steinberger (OpenClaw's creator) went viral on social media. Loops are now a key part of how we get AI agents to iterate at length to build software. In this letter, I’d like to share my 3 key loops, shown in the image below, for building 0-to-1 products. These loops guide not just how I build software, but also how I decide what software to build.
Agentic coding loop: Given a product specification and optionally a set of evals (that is, a dataset against which to measure performance), we can have an AI agent write code, test its work, and keep iterating until the code is bug-free and meets its specification. This idea of closing the loop took off around the end of last year, and it has been a game changer in enabling coding agents to work longer productively without human intervention. For example, over the weekend, I was building an app for my daughter to practice typing, and my coding agent could easily work for around an hour, using a web browser to check what it had built multiple times before getting back to me, without needing my intervention.
The engineering loop executes quickly. Every few minutes, the coding agent might build and test a new version of the software. I hear frequently from developers who are finding new ways to engineer more effective engineering loops. This is an active area of invention!
Developer feedback loop: In this loop, a developer examines the current product and steers the coding agent to improve it. Last year, a lot of developers (including me) were acting as the QA (quality assurance) function for our coding agents, manually finding bugs and then asking the agent to fix them. But with coding agents much more able to test their own code, the amount of time we need to spend on this function has decreased significantly. This allows us to make higher-level product decisions, such as what key features to offer, where the UI needs improvement, and so on.
The developer-feedback loop operates over time intervals between tens of minutes and hours — that's how frequently a developer might review a product and give feedback. In the case of the typing app, I changed my mind a few times about the visual design, what cat costumes she can unlock as she learns (she loves cats), and the user flow for a grown-up to log in and steer the child's learning experience.
When a developer has a clear vision for what to build, it is still a lot of work to translate that vision into a specification for a coding agent to implement. Further, after the developer has seen an implementation, they might update (or perhaps clarify) the spec to steer it toward what they want. If you find that the system repeatedly runs into certain problems, building a set of evals for the agent becomes useful.
AI-native teams are increasingly using AI to help shape product direction, for example, automating the gathering and analysis of usage data, summarizing written and verbal customer feedback, or carrying out competitive analysis. However, for pretty much all the products I’m involved in, I see humans as having a significant context advantage over current AI systems — we know a lot more than the AI system about the users and the context the product has to operate in — and thus humans play a critical role. Many people describe this human contribution as “taste,” but I prefer to think of it as humans having a context advantage, since that gives us a clearer path to helping AI systems get better. This also speaks to why this step can’t be automated: So long as the human knows something the AI does not, human-in-the-loop is needed to to inject that knowledge into the system.
External feedback loop: This includes a wide range of tactics like asking a few friends for feedback, launching to alpha testers, or putting the code into production with A/B testing. These tactics are usually slow, rarely taking less than hours and sometimes taking days or even weeks. This data informs the developer vision, which in turn continues to drive the detailed product spec, which in turn drives the coding agent.
With coding agents speeding up software development, more engineers are starting to play a partial product management role. For many engineers who are growing into this role, the hardest part is shaping the product vision and striking a balance between building (bridging the gap between vision and spec) and getting user feedback to evolve the vision. It is important to do both!
I will write more about how to do this in future posts, but for now, I find it encouraging that engineers are playing an expanded role (just as product managers and designers now do more engineering).
[Original text: The Batch]
![AndrewYNg's tweet photo. “Loop engineering” is a hot buzzphrase after mentions of it by Boris Cherny (Claude Code’s creator) and Peter Steinberger (OpenClaw's creator) went viral on social media. Loops are now a key part of how we get AI agents to iterate at length to build software. In this letter, I’d like to share my 3 key loops, shown in the image below, for building 0-to-1 products. These loops guide not just how I build software, but also how I decide what software to build.
Agentic coding loop: Given a product specification and optionally a set of evals (that is, a dataset against which to measure performance), we can have an AI agent write code, test its work, and keep iterating until the code is bug-free and meets its specification. This idea of closing the loop took off around the end of last year, and it has been a game changer in enabling coding agents to work longer productively without human intervention. For example, over the weekend, I was building an app for my daughter to practice typing, and my coding agent could easily work for around an hour, using a web browser to check what it had built multiple times before getting back to me, without needing my intervention.
The engineering loop executes quickly. Every few minutes, the coding agent might build and test a new version of the software. I hear frequently from developers who are finding new ways to engineer more effective engineering loops. This is an active area of invention!
Developer feedback loop: In this loop, a developer examines the current product and steers the coding agent to improve it. Last year, a lot of developers (including me) were acting as the QA (quality assurance) function for our coding agents, manually finding bugs and then asking the agent to fix them. But with coding agents much more able to test their own code, the amount of time we need to spend on this function has decreased significantly. This allows us to make higher-level product decisions, such as what key features to offer, where the UI needs improvement, and so on.
The developer-feedback loop operates over time intervals between tens of minutes and hours — that's how frequently a developer might review a product and give feedback. In the case of the typing app, I changed my mind a few times about the visual design, what cat costumes she can unlock as she learns (she loves cats), and the user flow for a grown-up to log in and steer the child's learning experience.
When a developer has a clear vision for what to build, it is still a lot of work to translate that vision into a specification for a coding agent to implement. Further, after the developer has seen an implementation, they might update (or perhaps clarify) the spec to steer it toward what they want. If you find that the system repeatedly runs into certain problems, building a set of evals for the agent becomes useful.
AI-native teams are increasingly using AI to help shape product direction, for example, automating the gathering and analysis of usage data, summarizing written and verbal customer feedback, or carrying out competitive analysis. However, for pretty much all the products I’m involved in, I see humans as having a significant context advantage over current AI systems — we know a lot more than the AI system about the users and the context the product has to operate in — and thus humans play a critical role. Many people describe this human contribution as “taste,” but I prefer to think of it as humans having a context advantage, since that gives us a clearer path to helping AI systems get better. This also speaks to why this step can’t be automated: So long as the human knows something the AI does not, human-in-the-loop is needed to to inject that knowledge into the system.
External feedback loop: This includes a wide range of tactics like asking a few friends for feedback, launching to alpha testers, or putting the code into production with A/B testing. These tactics are usually slow, rarely taking less than hours and sometimes taking days or even weeks. This data informs the developer vision, which in turn continues to drive the detailed product spec, which in turn drives the coding agent.
With coding agents speeding up software development, more engineers are starting to play a partial product management role. For many engineers who are growing into this role, the hardest part is shaping the product vision and striking a balance between building (bridging the gap between vision and spec) and getting user feedback to evolve the vision. It is important to do both!
I will write more about how to do this in future posts, but for now, I find it encouraging that engineers are playing an expanded role (just as product managers and designers now do more engineering).
[Original text: The Batch]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HMEtxp3bsAARJdi.jpg)
🚨Anthropic just showed a 24-minute workshop on how to actually do prompts for Claude.
Taught by the people who built it.
Free. No registration. No paywall.
I've seen $300 courses that don't cover what they teach in the first 8 minutes.
Watch it and bookmark it now!
🤯BREAKING: Researchers just mathematically proved that AI layoffs will collapse the economy: and every CEO already knows it.
The AI Layoff Trap. A game theory paper from UPenn + Boston University is glaringly important!
100K+ tech layoffs in 2025. 80% of US workers exposed. And no market force can stop it.
→ Every company fires workers to cut costs
→ Every fired worker stops buying products
→ Revenue collapses across every sector
→ The companies that fired everyone go bankrupt
It's a Prisoner's Dilemma with math behind it. Automate and you survive short-term. Don't automate and your competitor kills you. But everyone automating destroys the demand that makes all companies viable.
UBI (universal basic income) won't fix it.
Profit taxes won't fix it.
The researchers found only one solution: a Pigouvian automation tax "robot tax"
The AI trap on the economy is here!
I strongly suspect that Claude Mythos is a looped language model, as described in the paper "Scaling Latent Reasoning via Looped Language Models" from ByteDance
The authors of that paper called out graph search as one of the areas where looping provides a huge theoretical advantage over standard RLVR. And look at where Mythos blows out its competitors the most
🚨 BREAKING: Someone just built the exact tool Andrej Karpathy said someone should build.
48 hours after Karpathy posted his LLM Knowledge Bases workflow, this showed up on GitHub.
It's called Graphify. One command. Any folder. Full knowledge graph.
Point it at any folder. Run /graphify inside Claude Code. Walk away.
Here is what comes out the other side:
-> A navigable knowledge graph of everything in that folder
-> An Obsidian vault with backlinked articles
-> A wiki that starts at index. md and maps every concept cluster
-> Plain English Q&A over your entire codebase or research folder
You can ask it things like:
"What calls this function?"
"What connects these two concepts?"
"What are the most important nodes in this project?"
No vector database. No setup. No config files.
The token efficiency number is what got me:
71.5x fewer tokens per query compared to reading raw files.
That is not a small improvement. That is a completely different paradigm for how AI agents reason over large codebases.
What it supports:
-> Code in 13 programming languages
-> PDFs
-> Images via Claude Vision
-> Markdown files
Install in one line:
pip install graphify && graphify install
Then type /graphify in Claude Code and point it at anything.
Karpathy asked. Someone delivered in 48 hours.
That is the pace of 2026.
Open Source. Free.
Paper below tested a variety of base LLMs (no TTA) on generalization-focus math problems and found that they can't reason and can't do math.
All true... but the fact that base LLMs have zero fluid intelligence, while extremely controversial back in 2024, is now well established. An interesting experiment here would have been to try current LRMs on the same problems and measure the delta. I bet latest LRMs can solve most of these problems.
https://t.co/GiyTJu0yAT
Introducing Cline Kanban: A standalone app for CLI-agnostic multi-agent orchestration. Claude and Codex compatible.
npm i -g cline
Tasks run in worktrees, click to review diffs, & link cards together to create dependency chains that complete large amounts of work autonomously.
🤯BREAKING: Alibaba just proved that AI Coding isn't taking your job, it's just writing the legacy code that will keep you employed fixing it for the next decade. 🤣
Passing a coding test once is easy. Maintaining that code for 8 months without it exploding? Apparently, it’s nearly impossible for AI.
Alibaba tested 18 AI agents on 100 real codebases over 233-day cycles. They didn't just look for "quick fixes"—they looked for long-term survival.
The results were a bloodbath:
75% of models broke previously working code during maintenance.
Only Claude Opus 4.5/4.6 maintained a >50% zero-regression rate.
Every other model accumulated technical debt that compounded until the codebase collapsed.
We’ve been using "snapshot" benchmarks like HumanEval that only ask "Does it work right now?"
The new SWE-CI benchmark asks: "Does it still work after 8 months of evolution?"
Most AI agents are "Quick-Fix Artists." They write brittle code that passes tests today but becomes a maintenance nightmare tomorrow. They aren't building software; they're building a house of cards.
The narrative just got honest: Most models can write code. Almost none can maintain it.
It takes zero energy to stay certain of your current thesis. Meanwhile curiosity takes a lot of energy and discomfort. It requires constantly disassembling and rebuilding your world model.
That's what makes certainty so dangerous: it's the bottom of the potential well and it's hard to get out.
File search + grep is all you need
nanochat now trains GPT-2 capability model in just 2 hours on a single 8XH100 node (down from ~3 hours 1 month ago). Getting a lot closer to ~interactive! A bunch of tuning and features (fp8) went in but the biggest difference was a switch of the dataset from FineWeb-edu to NVIDIA ClimbMix (nice work NVIDIA!). I had tried Olmo, FineWeb, DCLM which all led to regressions, ClimbMix worked really well out of the box (to the point that I am slightly suspicious about about goodharting, though reading the paper it seems ~ok).
In other news, after trying a few approaches for how to set things up, I now have AI Agents iterating on nanochat automatically, so I'll just leave this running for a while, go relax a bit and enjoy the feeling of post-agi :). Visualized here as an example: 110 changes made over the last ~12 hours, bringing the validation loss so far from 0.862415 down to 0.858039 for a d12 model, at no cost to wall clock time. The agent works on a feature branch, tries out ideas, merges them when they work and iterates. Amusingly, over the last ~2 weeks I almost feel like I've iterated more on the "meta-setup" where I optimize and tune the agent flows even more than the nanochat repo directly.
New in Claude Code: Remote Control.
Kick off a task in your terminal and pick it up from your phone while you take a walk or join a meeting.
Claude keeps running on your machine, and you can control the session from the Claude app or https://t.co/er6Blrr63e
Anthropic dropped a 33-page guide on Claude Skills...And this changes how serious teams build AI workflows
A Claude Skill is basically a reusable workflow in a folder. One https://t.co/CTRveEHjoi file teaches Claude exactly how you want tasks done consistently every time
The real insight isn’t Skills....It’s how to design them properly:
• Build micro-skills, not monoliths
• Keep instructions short and decisive
• Move heavy context into references and assets
• Always refine generated Skills manually
• Connect Skills to tools via MCP and hooks
That’s when AI stops being a chatbot… and starts becoming a system
Link - https://t.co/oUVuXLnSyf
https://t.co/pBRFjyTJgE
The new Gemini Deep Think is achieving some truly incredible numbers on ARC-AGI-2. We certified these scores in the past few days.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Sellamarsha
Seen from Netherlands
หนุ่มใต้ ควยใหญ่ นครศรีฯ
Seen from Thailand
PORNO PAYLAŞIM
dölleyici07
Seen from United Kingdom
Mầm Hạt
Seen from Vietnam
Eksib Aja
Seen from Indonesia
ชอบแนวเย็ดสาวใหญ่
Seen from Thailand
shashank kumar
Seen from Korea
yous
Seen from Ireland
ENSEST ANNE (evli ensest)
Seen from Netherlands
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.1M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
112.8M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.3M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.4M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
89M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
82.9M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
74.4M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
71.9M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.4M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
64.8M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.6M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
62M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers