VBio

The best way to learn x.com/karpathy/statu…

@AdamNMayer Texas is the natural place for high speed development, basically because they want to win big by default.

I know my California urbanist/YIMBY friends don’t want to hear this: the problem is organized labor.

@pitdesi Same thought. We learned with little side wheels in weeks. Kids now learn in days. Life is full of surprises

Balance bikes are fascinating to me because we didn't use them when I was a kid (we had training wheels) even though they’re the obvious way to learn. the hard part is learning balance, not learning how to pedal. I wonder what else exists today like this!

@optionflys Something touched a fiber somewhere.

@vbvoid Funny coming from someone whose bio literally says “Enjoying AI.” No wonder everything looks like AI to you. When all you have is that lens, you stop recognizing human experience. 😂

Something interesting caught my attention today. $SPX spent roughly: • 48 days accepting 6000. • 50 days accepting 6900. • It is currently accepting 7500. If this rhythm continues, it would reach roughly 49–50 days around August 11. Give or take a day here and there, the timing has been remarkably consistent. Markets don't only correct through price. They also correct through time. Before every major move, the market first has to accept a new value area. I'm not predicting what happens next. I'm measuring the process. Time is just as important as price. $SPY $QQQ @Optuma

@TrendSpider Wow, 300% return In 10 years.

Buy great companies below the 200 week EMA and hold forever 🔒 $MCD

@deanwball Useful feedback, I hope: “AI labs” are not laboratories. You don’t have a GTM head at a lab, or a head of strategic futures, or a head of sales. You are a company developing and marketing AI models.

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.

@chamath Spac.ai

The future is open source. We need to embrace it and get on with it. Imagine if America closed the door on open source. We would explicitly be forcing American companies to pay $26-56 per 1MM tokens for the same intelligence their adversaries/competitors around the world would pay $0.50-1 for. This is economically unsustainable unless AI is bullshit. If it’s the supposed through line of all future economic activity that we’ve been told it is, we can’t handicap America at such a meaningful cost disadvantage. This can also be viewed thru a military lens and not just a simple economic one as well. Letting our adversaries attack us for $0.50 per 1MM tokens while we spend $26-56 per 1MM tokens to defend ourselves is equally ruinous. It’s the Cold War Soviet collapse in reverse.

@optionflys I don’t criticize the idea. I criticize your AI slop post. Hopefully the algorithm gets it and shows me less slop.

@vbvoid Ignore it if you want. The market will grade the idea, not the comments.

@deanwball This is how you create detrimental oligopolies like doctors in medicine, by generating an aura of “too dangerous”. Now that you think about it, Dario Amodei warning every month about the risks of AI….

Some observations on Kimi: 1. It's a very good model! I don't think its performance can be explained away by distillation or anything like that. In agentic coding sessions, it seems pretty much on par with the best public models of Q1 2026. In my fairly limited use, it also seemed very token hungry. It's not obvious to me that this model is actually that cheap to run. 2. I am personally surprised the Chinese state continues to allow the open sourcing of models this good, given potential risks. To be clear, I *myself* might be fine with models presenting this level of marginal risk being open weight, but I am surprised that China is fine with it. I suspect the reason they are is 75% explained by strategic blindness/lack of AGI-pilledness (the CCP is very Yann Lecun-y in its views of AI). The other 25% or so is their lack of compute for customer inference (making China's open-weight strategy an unintended byproduct of US export controls) and the normal Chinese strategy of aggressive exports. For the companies, as opposed to the government, the decision to open source is partially ideological and partially because they are behind, and they know that very few people would pay for sub-frontier models from China. 3. Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist, and I'm continually surprised to see the so-called "accelerationists" so excited about open-weight models. I suspect the reason they are is that they know open-weight models are effectively ungovernable, and they simply like the overall cloak of ungovernability open-weight models create over the whole of AI. It's not a bad strategy; it reminds me of James Scott's recounting of the hill people in "the art of not being governed." Still, in the end, open-weight models deter further AI capex. 4. One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a "public good" which will ultimately be provided by the state as a kind of "digital public infrastructure." This future strikes me as a dystopian hellscape, but I've never met an open-weight models advocate who doesn't ultimately concede this is where things end. You'd be surprised how many 'accelerationists' lobbied me, while I was in government, to support an eleven or twelve-figure federally funded data center so that startups could train models at a subsidy and then give them away for free. There was no other way for AI to progress, they said. Perhaps this is the logical end state of things. Nonetheless, I find myself surprised to see supposed accelerationists excited about such an outcome. I think many of them just don't know what they're doing. Many accelerationists do not view the creation and serving of frontier models as a legitimate business. 5. I would guess that the Trump Administration will at some point realize that their best strategy here would be to create large amounts of regulatory risk around the use of open-weight Chinese models. You don't need to "ban open source" (one of the dumber motifs of AI policy discussion). You just need to direct every agency to issue soft law that creates FUD. "A Federal Reserve Advisory Bulletin found that there may be backdoors in Chinese AI models." It needn't be that well justified. You just create enough regulatory risk that every regulated enterprise backs off. You probably don't want to create so much regulatory risk that you scare off the hyperscalers from serving Chinese models; this will just drive startups to sketchier providers. There's a happy middle ground here. I'd assume they will do some version of this. 6. It's probably true that open-weight models of this capability make the world a bit more dangerous, but not so much more that you'll really notice. At some point the models will be capable enough that you will notice. "A nonliving, invisible, dangerous, and infinitely self-replicating agent escaped from a Chinese lab," you say? Color me shocked.

@PhilosophyOfPhy That’s also why Dr June’s CAR-T is used in thousands of patents and Doudna’s CRISPR is starting and fumbling. Gotta get your hands dirty

This is probably the clearest example of an actual academic collapse. Weiss entered MIT in 1950, initially studied electrical engineering and then transferred to physics. During his third year, a painful romantic breakup overwhelmed him. In his own Nobel autobiography, he states plainly; “I failed all my courses at MIT and had to leave as a student.” He was no longer progressing toward a degree. He returned to MIT not as a student but as an hourly electronics technician in Jerrold Zacharias’s atomic-beam laboratory. He punched a time clock and worked alongside machinists and laboratory technicians. That apparent demotion became his real education. Weiss learned machining, sheet-metal work, soldering, welding, electronic design and the improvisational craft of experimental physics. Instead of merely solving prepared textbook problems, he helped graduate students construct the instruments required for their research and worked on an early caesium atomic clock. With Zacharias’s support, he eventually completed his undergraduate degree and entered graduate school. Decades later, Weiss became the central experimental architect behind laser-interferometric gravitational-wave detection. He shared the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics with Kip Thorne and Barry Barish for decisive contributions to LIGO and the observation of gravitational waves.

My prediction: > Download anything you can and store locally. > Creation of an FBAI in the DOJ or similar, tasked with enforcement of AI capabilities beyond what a > FAIA federal AI administration considers dangerous models or activities > Frontier Chinese models are serially banned in the US, storing, modifying or using them > Local companies win in the US, based on protectionism. Funny inversion of FANG in China -> loser relies on regulations and limited access to keep the edge.

@Cessnadriver50 @OddStats The effects of multiples of money supply, derivatives like 0DTE options and leveraged ETFs are unknown. The underlying greed and fear that drives markets is still there!

@OddStats Things are different today than when I started on the floor in 98. As one who believes markets are the same fundamentally as in the past, this is hard to accept and adapt to. I firmly believe there are government sponsored vol suppression programs actively at work.

This morning, on a traditional monthly OpEx day, QQQ ▪ Gapped down -2% at the open ▪ Then bounced at least +1% off that [mid day] ▪ While not in a correction or bear market For the first time this *millennium*

@TheStalwart Non-cloud companies are most of the companies. Around Opus 4.8 the incremental value of intelligence for non-software companies is ever reducing. The best way forward for “labs” is either become Palantir or bridge the physical and software world

For markets, it's possible that the "Moonshot moment" doesn't play out the same way as DeepSeek did early last year. In today's newsletter, I wrote about why the Jevons Paradox logic may be different this time, in part because of how much the industry has changed in 18 months.

@agupta How many frontier open weight model companies are US based? Maybe Thinking Machines (if considered frontier) Maybe he didn’t want to build in America. Maybe the opportunity to reach more people is better in China, where the have steamrolled global manufacturing already

FYI that America’s moronic visa policy is almost certainly a factor in why Kimi/Moonshot is a Chinese startup and not an American one. The fact that we don’t staple a green card to every AI PhD completed in America is stupid. would be more logical to seize their passports and force them to stay

@perry_karyon Not in miami

Burning 2M tokens to find out the gym is crowded at 6pm

@Hedgeye Is this a bear market or bull market? I’m lost

BREAKING: SpaceX, $SPCX, shares are down -41.1% from their peak, erasing over $1 trillion of market value.

@0xAlaric Dario warns Kimi laughs

Anthropic: “Fable is an agentic coding superweapon, capable of developing cyber- and bio-weapons at unprecedented speed and scale. We cannot in good faith release it without guardrails.” China: “lmao here’s Fable but open-source. Good fkn luck”

@zerohedge Last man standing? $AAPL Maybe they were prescient. Or paralysis for once has worked as a strategy. But they have saved billions in CAPEX and have the same level of access to top open models than anyone else

China is now leading the AI arms race after spending a tenth what the US did

@Kyrannio How close are you to the CERN?

Look I’m not saying it’s related but ever since CERN switched things off I’ve managed to fix my sleep schedule by doing nothing different at all after years of struggling with being a night owl

@signulll US: China is a horrible communist place Also US: let’s get smart Chinese people to build in the US. Also let’s buy as much stuff as we can at low prices from China, including iPhones. Also US: but you are horrible. Truly bad.

kimi’s founder & ceo got his phd at cmu. why didn’t he stay in america?!