Kevin Lacker

18.5K posts

Kevin Lacker banner
Kevin Lacker

Kevin Lacker

@lacker

Working on math + AI at https://t.co/u95v5xIPQ4 and telescope software at https://t.co/Yx0Z8UFXOE. Formerly: Parse cofounder, Facebook, Google

Piedmont, California Katılım Mart 2008
1.5K Takip Edilen7.2K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
I'm happy to announce the launch of Acorn, a new theorem prover that includes an integrated AI. Theorem provers let you write mathematical proofs that are rigorously verified. But they are notoriously difficult to use. Acorn makes it easier, by using AI to fill in the details.
Kevin Lacker tweet media
English
9
14
105
17.4K
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@VictorTaelin this is a good way of putting it. I feel like Fable likes to go make a bunch of decisions on its own, Sol prefers to obediently follow your precise instructions. "personality" ?
English
0
0
0
296
Taelin
Taelin@VictorTaelin·
I think I finally figured out how to use AI at scale of course, the fact Fable is good is part of it. but I also changed how I work, and it all comes down to one key realization: you don't need to audit the code, but you NEED to audit the *choices* it made. if you just do that, things will work out, and you'll never lose a codebase to chaos. with Fable at least, the following seems to hold: if I give it a good decision: Fable implements it PERFECTLY if I let it decide instead: Fable may make some bad choices that's how I see Fable: as a perfect execution machine capable of converting good decisions into good codebases, no matter how large. given a concrete plan, it lands its implementation. but when anything is underspecified, it can, and will, make bad choices. that's what you must audit. "while working on this, which choices did you make that you're not confident of? list all." then, you just review that. not the git diff, not 1000's of lines of code. just the choices it made along the way. below is a fresh example. overnight, I asked Fable to fix an issue related to MatMul parallelizing worse than expected. it tracked the culprit with perfection, and landed a solution that DID work. but the solution was not general. it just doubled a buffer, which coincidently fixed the program at hands, but the underlying issue was still present. when it completed the job, it declared success. if I just merged it blindly, the issue would still be dormant. that's the main mistake one can do with AI. instead, I asked it to spell out all decisions it made, spotted the bad one, corrected its course, and now the codebase is clean, correct and the issue is gone for good I really think that if you do that religiously - i.e., NEVER merge without this "which decisions you made?" audit - you can go VERY far without ever reading a single line of code. at least on Bend, this is working incredibly well. despite heavy use of AI to implement an ungodly amount of features I could never dream of, the codebase is still in a superb state, with no signs of degradation fresh example below ↓
Taelin tweet media
English
89
71
1.4K
79.7K
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@deanwball maybe you can do "straussian-lite" esoteric writing, ie write long posts on Substack for less visibility.
English
0
0
2
156
Dean W. Ball
Dean W. Ball@deanwball·
I’m afraid to tell you that it is effectively impossible to do the kind of writing I used to do on this website, not because anyone at OpenAI censors me but because of the sheer volume of hostility I get for sharing my analysis as a frontier lab employee. I enjoyed writing quick takes on this website for one basic reason: I could get rapid feedback on my own ideation process in real time. Post the early version of the take here, see the criticism; then refine, sharpen, and repeat. Unfortunately now that feature of this site is gone, because the feedback I get is now almost exclusively colored by resentment at the fact that I work at a frontier lab or other forms of hatred for my employer. The feedback signal is essentially useless now, so writing on here is not fruitful for me anymore. Literally everything I write now is responded to with “of course you said that because .” I am truly just writing what I think and would have written anyway, but everyone reads what I say in the shrieking tone of “this is what openai thinks!!!!” (to be clear, my posts are not what openai thinks). This is an unpleasant and more importantly unproductive pattern for me. I anticipate that the shape of this account will change significantly as a result. I do not currently know how. It will not become a LinkedIn feed. It will change in some other way. It will no longer be a real-time accounting of my own thinking as it develops, since this is precisely the thing that seems impossible to do now. That will have to shift to private channels.
English
469
31
1.5K
390K
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@lugaricano ie Europeans should use LLMs as much as possible, to get some of this surplus, rather than having it all go to startups in SF
English
1
0
8
1.9K
Luis Garicano 🇪🇺🇺🇦
Value creation and value capture are different things. Airlines transformed the world and never made money; the surplus went to passengers. Days after launching its best model, Anthropic includes it in existing plans. That is what competition does: the surplus goes to users, not to the labs. Profits will not justify these valuations.
Claude@claudeai

Beginning July 20, Claude Fable 5 will be included in all Max and Team Premium plans, at 50% of limits. Pro and Team Standard users will continue to have access to Fable via usage credits, and will receive a one-time $100 credit. Demand for Fable has been challenging to predict, which is why we rolled it out to subscription plans in stages, extending access several times as we secured additional capacity.

English
14
67
698
68K
Adam Chalmers
Adam Chalmers@adam_chal·
oh OK, I get it now. Asimov's Foundation is a retelling of the Bronze Age Collapse. The Foundation are Phoenicians. Trantor is Greece. the Prime Radiant is written language. the robots are robots.
English
2
0
5
1K
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@HSVSphere try not asking it to remove “code”, ask it to remove “warts”
English
0
0
0
148
HSVSphere
HSVSphere@HSVSphere·
Truth bombardment, LLMs really suck at removing code today
Taelin@VictorTaelin

> Read this and your next model will be 10x smarter. < Nobody knows what intelligence truly is. We just know models are converging to being smarter, as they train. Yet, we DO know some of the fundamental features of intelligence. And when one of these features is neglected or not trained for, then there is no way for a model to obtain it. Neglecting an aspect of intelligence hinders a model's general capabilities, in a way no amount of flops can compensate for. I'm making this whole post to convince you there is ONE fundamental aspect of intelligence that YOU are neglecting, underestimating, and under-training for. Anyone using models 24/7 can see this weakness. It is blinding, glaring, as clear as skylight. That feature is: ✨ erasure ✨ Removal. Compression. Garbage collection. Models are not sufficiently trained for that. They are trained to ADD information. Not to REMOVE it. You ask a question. They give you an answer. They work in a project. They write files. You post a bug. They craft a solution. They're only indirectly, if at all, rewarded for removing information, or compressing information. This is a huge mistake, because erasure is a cornerstone of intelligence. The human brain has several mechanisms entirely dedicated to removing information. Short term memory, long term memory, sleep, all mechanisms to throw garbage away. Furthermore, grokking is nothing but a compression event. An aha-moment happens when your brain is capable of expressing new information in terms of information you already posses stored. This is what allows that info to be stored. That is how you learn. Erasure isn't a small feature, erasure is *THE* underlying driver of intelligence. It is what allows us to keep absorbing tons of information and still managing to turn it into useful capabilities. Intelligence is not about producing good knowledge, it is about removing bad knowledge. So, erasure is half of it. So, my advice to you: take erasure seriously. Train on it. The architecture is fine. It can lead to AGI. But you won't be a complete athlete if you skip leg day. Reward your model on the other half of intelligence. Teach it how to erase and compress information competently. Make this a big program in your company. Have entire teams dedicated to this. "I'm already kinda doing that!" No you are not. And if you think you are, take this as a signal you should do 100x more of it. I want to be very clear here: erasure is HALF of intelligence. So, if not half of your FLOPS are flowing into erasure, you're wasting your GPUs, and no optimizer can compensate for that. "But how do I teach a model to erase?" Literally, just ask it to compress a text, then reconstruct it, and ask questions to assert how lossless the conversion was. That simply. You can do that in any dataset. For coding, a more effective way is to take a big codebase and ask it to make it shorter, while still preserving the same behavior. IMPORTANT: avoid code-golfing / minification / uglification. Removing comments or making variable names shorter IS reward hacking. Counter that by counting the NUMBER OF BRANCHES. A branch is: an "if", a "match", a "case". That's THE complexity of your program. Count it, and ask the model to reduce it. There's no way to do so other than building better abstractions. And a better abstraction is nothing more than a blob of information that lets you throw other information away, because it expands into the information that was just discarded. Train on that, and your model will be incentivized to build better abstractions. Do you know what we call humans capable of building better abstractions? Geniuses. So, please: appreciate the full nature of intelligence and give your models the rewards they need to train on all of it. Let erasure be a major part of your training programs. Do not skip leg day. Thanks for coming to my TED talk...

English
16
1
343
21.4K
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@tribbloid @0xAX no, they are but a pale shadow of cargo. the meson pitch is like, now you only need to configure 10 things per dependency instead of configuring 100 things per dependency
English
0
0
1
15
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@ramez To me, Xi Jinping speeches always seem full of platitudes that don't correspond to his policy. He supports "people’s democracy", says China will never seek expansion or interfere in other countries' internal affairs.
English
1
0
2
143
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@fawwazanvilen I would answer "yes", but for each question I take time proportional to the time it takes me to parse the written representation of the number. (I mean... you kind of have to do that anyway, right?)
English
0
0
7
1.8K
faw
faw@fawwazanvilen·
an ultrafinitist on whether 2¹⁰⁰ exists
faw tweet media
English
63
132
2.5K
196K
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
Google is experiencing the opposite of recursive self-improvement. Since their engineers are generally forbidden from using the best coding AIs (Fable or Sol), it will get harder for them to catch up.
Davey Alba@daveyalba

New: Google is months behind schedule on delivering Gemini 3.5 Pro. Late last month, the company updated the data being used to train Gemini to improve its skills—they're especially behind in AI coding—but the results were "disappointing," a source told us. w/ @byJuliaLove

English
3
0
32
6.1K
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@tszzl in some sense, the entity best able to make the decisions should end up making the decisions.
English
0
0
2
215
roon
roon@tszzl·
the problem is you just can’t run from the truth forever. it’s just too useful. no matter how much freedom you have in theory the truth is singular and chasing you around and controlling you. this is the logic of gradual disempowerment
English
83
79
1.5K
68.6K
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
Fable really wants to kick off huge chunks of work. I ask a question like "why did this command fail yesterday", come back hours later, and see that it debugged the problem, got some idea of its own of what to do next, and started grinding away doing random things.
English
0
0
1
360
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@Anthony_Bonato a^p - a is divisible by p for prime p. I just didn’t see how something like that could possibly be true
English
0
0
22
995
Anthony Bonato
Anthony Bonato@Anthony_Bonato·
What one thing in mathematics blew your mind when you first learned it?
English
190
2
58
36.3K
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@Ngnghm It definitely makes it harder to verify things like, is this five lines of bash safe, when the bash is invoking nix which invokes Python which etc etc.
English
0
0
1
12
💻🐴Ngnghm
💻🐴Ngnghm@Ngnghm·
@lacker Which is maybe fine for interaction with a AI in a chat, but opens the door to all kinds of security issues when used as part of automation. Even AI want to be able to rely on automation. Especially AI—they deal with it even more than humans.
English
1
0
1
14
💻🐴Ngnghm
💻🐴Ngnghm@Ngnghm·
Oh nice: JSON is canonically UTF-8, but its \uXXXX escape sequences are canonically UTF-16—and the canonical ways to represent byte arrays are I suppose, either base64 or encoding 8-bit bytes as the allowed subset of UTF-8 (plus \u sequences for non-printable ASCII?) What a mess.
English
5
1
18
1.4K
Mikael Brockman
Mikael Brockman@meekaale·
imagine a programming language with hexagonal syntax
English
4
0
4
505
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@Ngnghm The AI just doesn’t mind constantly deterministically toggling between different encodings. It will happily 切换到中文 and back mid sentence. So I expect even more of this sort of polyglot interchange.
English
1
0
2
18
💻🐴Ngnghm
💻🐴Ngnghm@Ngnghm·
Will AIs be able to negotiate better interchange standards than humans?
English
1
0
0
167
Perry E. Metzger
Perry E. Metzger@perrymetzger·
Unicode sucks. It’s a near perfect example of second systems effect. Literally no assumption that would make a programmer’s life pleasant is true. It’s a giant mess, and someone needs to invent time travel specifically so we can stop it from ever having been invented.
English
11
1
37
2.5K
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
@nasqret I'm curious about the role of formalization in your workflow here. Are you basically formalizing a bunch of stuff to check for errors in the less formal stuff, and it's fine to just throw it away once it's done?
English
1
0
5
710
Bartosz Naskręcki
Bartosz Naskręcki@nasqret·
I think I've created a new, temporary job for myself for the post-"AGI" period. I am super excited about mathematical proof engineering. Here is what I think this job might roughly look like: 1. You help other mathematicians, and yourself, build a precise panorama of connections among theorems, theories, and notions. You do it at scale: hundreds or thousands of papers and theorems. We can call it "mathematics at scale." 2. Once an effective mechanism for step 1 has been established,this is really a job for agents; they still need a bit of steering. You can start processing all the low-hanging fruit. I would call it the "mathematical harvester". You don't care too much about greatness here, you basically process and validate all the simple consequences of the theory. It is exciting to design: the loops, etc. but mostly super boring to watch the harvester produce all the proofs (formal, semi-formal with CAS, informal slop, etc.) and conclusions. You are not part of the thinking process, you just babysit it and feel proud of the grand mechanism you helped design. 3. Occasionally, you will find a statement, observation, lemma, or theorem that does not fit well into the existing picture generated in steps 1 and 2. With AI tools, you can now find and identify these core issues much more easily and quickly. This is where the real focus will lie. 4. Now you can concentrate on building something genuinely novel. You need to generalize trivial and non-trivial observations into concrete statements that are far from obvious. My bet is that this is exactly where most of the attention of professional "artisanal" mathematicians will be concentrated. They will be asked to build new meta-tools and tricks that go far beyond the current capacities of models. I expect these capacities to improve, but there will always be a race between the slow human brain and fast processing units, which will generate a huge volume of insights, but perhaps few as deep as an insight from a super-trained human brain. 5. In this process, you will have to report to external observers, authorities, and agencies what you actually did. I expect report generation to completely supersede actual paper drafting here. Again, artisanal mathematicians will still see a more personal, subtle value in dealing with papers themselves. It reminds me of the Bene Gesserit. It is about preserving human brain capacity. But this kind of capacity will be limited to very few top experts. How can I become one in this new engineering world? 6. Once the cycle closes, the conclusions are derived, and the theories are sealed, we will move on and abandon the area. Most things within it will be solved, provided that you have access to sufficient resources. Those few very hard, perhaps even undecidable, claims will remain for posterity. I believe there will be lots of problems that are extremely hard for both humans and AI, and we will have little chance of making ANY progress on them, e.g. Turing machine halting problems. 7. I expect these cycles to move at a ridiculously fast pace. Most engineers will become cost-vigilant, calculating the cost of investing in particular questions versus the ROI in a mathematical sense: what new stuff was proved? I still see a lot of gaps here, and this is a very naive approach based on the current situation, but I hope that some of these insights will remain valid in a few years. It remains to be seen.
Bartosz Naskręcki tweet mediaBartosz Naskręcki tweet mediaBartosz Naskręcki tweet mediaBartosz Naskręcki tweet media
English
24
30
238
22.8K
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
Of course, this happens with human experts too. "After 17…Nf4! White can’t really take because 18.exf4? Qxd4+ wins the exchange, while 18.Bf1 just walks into …Rad8 and …d5. Black has all the play: the bad bishop, the loose c3-knight, and that permanent hook on h3."
English
0
0
4
84
Kevin Lacker
Kevin Lacker@lacker·
The agentic training process makes LLMs develop a terse, cryptic, internal dialect, which then bleeds into its external communication. It's happening to all of them - Fable, Sol, now Inkling.
Kevin Lacker tweet media
English
2
0
6
346