Kevin Weil 🇺🇸
20.7K posts

Kevin Weil 🇺🇸
@kevinweil
VP Science @OpenAI, BoD @Cisco @nature_org, LTC @USArmyReserve Ex: Pres @Planet, Head of Product @Instagram @Twitter ❤️ @elizabeth ultramarathons kids cats math



Thanks for the kind words @rohanvarma. The partnership between @Cisco and @OpenAI has been nothing short of fabulous. Especially over the past 75 days. Our team is pretty stoked with the progress being made with the use of Codex. Let’s keep pushing on both sides. Appreciate you leaning in. The goal is to have 6 products 100% written with AI by end of 2026 and 70% of our products 100% written with AI by end of 2027. @kevinweil thinks I am sandbagging. I hope to prove him right ;-).







We just raised $165M to end robotics demos and deploy the world's first autonomous home robots into households this year.

I guess now is as good a time as any to announce that I shall be joining the AI for Science team at @OpenAI this summer. This has been in the works since January, and I thank @SebastienBubeck and @kevinweil for their personal interest in making this happen.

We believe we have fully resolved, in Lean and python, one of @EpochAIResearch Frontier Math open problems: a Ramsey-style problem on hypergraphs. The result emerged from a single GPT-5.4 Pro run and was subsequently refined into Lean with GPT-5.4 XHigh which ran for a few hours. github.com/spicylemonade/… @Jsevillamol

Three days ago I left autoresearch tuning nanochat for ~2 days on depth=12 model. It found ~20 changes that improved the validation loss. I tested these changes yesterday and all of them were additive and transferred to larger (depth=24) models. Stacking up all of these changes, today I measured that the leaderboard's "Time to GPT-2" drops from 2.02 hours to 1.80 hours (~11% improvement), this will be the new leaderboard entry. So yes, these are real improvements and they make an actual difference. I am mildly surprised that my very first naive attempt already worked this well on top of what I thought was already a fairly manually well-tuned project. This is a first for me because I am very used to doing the iterative optimization of neural network training manually. You come up with ideas, you implement them, you check if they work (better validation loss), you come up with new ideas based on that, you read some papers for inspiration, etc etc. This is the bread and butter of what I do daily for 2 decades. Seeing the agent do this entire workflow end-to-end and all by itself as it worked through approx. 700 changes autonomously is wild. It really looked at the sequence of results of experiments and used that to plan the next ones. It's not novel, ground-breaking "research" (yet), but all the adjustments are "real", I didn't find them manually previously, and they stack up and actually improved nanochat. Among the bigger things e.g.: - It noticed an oversight that my parameterless QKnorm didn't have a scaler multiplier attached, so my attention was too diffuse. The agent found multipliers to sharpen it, pointing to future work. - It found that the Value Embeddings really like regularization and I wasn't applying any (oops). - It found that my banded attention was too conservative (i forgot to tune it). - It found that AdamW betas were all messed up. - It tuned the weight decay schedule. - It tuned the network initialization. This is on top of all the tuning I've already done over a good amount of time. The exact commit is here, from this "round 1" of autoresearch. I am going to kick off "round 2", and in parallel I am looking at how multiple agents can collaborate to unlock parallelism. github.com/karpathy/nanoc… All LLM frontier labs will do this. It's the final boss battle. It's a lot more complex at scale of course - you don't just have a single train. py file to tune. But doing it is "just engineering" and it's going to work. You spin up a swarm of agents, you have them collaborate to tune smaller models, you promote the most promising ideas to increasingly larger scales, and humans (optionally) contribute on the edges. And more generally, *any* metric you care about that is reasonably efficient to evaluate (or that has more efficient proxy metrics such as training a smaller network) can be autoresearched by an agent swarm. It's worth thinking about whether your problem falls into this bucket too.



We’re launching Codex for Open Source to support the contributors who keep open-source software running. Maintainers can use Codex to review code, understand large codebases, and strengthen security coverage without taking on even more invisible work. developers.openai.com/codex/communit…









