TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Technology

    Latent Space: The AI Engineer Podcast

    The podcast by and for AI Engineers! In 2025, over 10 million readers and listeners came to Latent Space to hear about news, papers and interviews in Software 3.0.

    We cover Foundation Models changing every domain in Code Generation, Multimodality, AI Agents, GPU Infra and more, directly from the founders, builders, and thinkers involved in pushing the cutting edge. Striving to give you both the definitive take on the Current Thing down to the first introduction to the tech you’ll be using in the next 3 months! We break news and exclusive interviews from OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, Meta (Soumith Chintala), Sierra (Bret Taylor), tiny (George Hotz), Databricks/MosaicML (Jon Frankle), Modular (Chris Lattner), Answer.ai (Jeremy Howard), et al.

    Full show notes always on https://latent.space

    Sponsorship and business inquiries: business@latent.space

    www.latent.space

    Advertise

    Copyright: © Latent.Space

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Lab-in-the-Loop at Compute Speed — Ian Quigley, Leash Bio Oct 14, 2026
    Show notes

    A few years ago I stumbled upon Leash Bio’s Substack, and was hooked. Be it their Kaggle competition that showed that no, we really haven’t solved protein-ligand binding, or their crazy discovery that knowing a molecule’s author is perhaps all you need to know to predict how good it is. Their substack — or at least Owl Posting’s deep dive on them — should be required reading for any scientist trying to do chemistry with AI.

    So I was super excited to finally be able to sit down with Ian Quigley from Leash Bio, and pick his brain. Leash specializes in DNA Encoded Libraries (aka “DELs”), a way of collecting ridiculously high-throughput interaction data between proteins and small molecules. Before I discovered Leash, I had heard nothing but horror stories from DEL users. And yet, Ian and friends somehow found a way to tame the beast, extracting clean and reproducible data that is just perfect for large scale modeling. Without teasing too much, the answer comes down to epistemic rigor, and an incredible conviction that you just have to Do The Thing.

    It gets even better! Near the end of this episode, Ian teases something his team was just playing with when we recorded: an AI playground for agents to do verifiable scientific reasoning. They discovered the data they had spent the last few years collecting could provide tens of thousands of “lab-in-the-loop” simulations, just what an agent needs for scientific RL. Two months later, it’s matured into Minos, and today they’re releasing a full preprint, blog, and open dataset. We’ll be releasing a lightning podcast in a few days with an update. Stay tuned!

    We had a blast with Ian, probably one of our most fun episodes to date. For both complete chemistry novices and expert AI x Bio practitioners, we think you’ll get something out of this.

    Enjoy!

    We covered:

    * Why DELs traumatize everyone who touches them, and how Leash puts dozens of barcodes on each molecule to catch proteins that bind the DNA instead of the drug.

    * Ian’s rule that biology only scales two ways: taking pictures and sequencing DNA.

    * The Kaggle competition: about 4B measurements from a basement and about 2,000 teams, with nobody beating chance on an unseen chemical library. Also why Leash quietly feared co-folding would make them obsolete.

    * Clever Hans in ChEMBL: models can guess a molecule’s chemist from its structure, and “who made it” predicts activity about as well as the structure does.

    * Hermes, trained only on Leash’s own data, keeping pace with Boltz on public benchmarks. Plus the BRD4 molecule Boltz had already seen in the PDB.

    * Breaking the pocket: engineering protein mutants at scale after catching Hermes memorizing “nicknames” for proteins instead of binding sites.

    * Lumacaftor-like hits as an accidental detector for misfolded proteins.

    * The agent sandbox: LLMs that reason about SAR in plain English, hunting for the best binders among 6.5M molecules on a budget of 100.

    * The Recursion mafia, and why its alumni companies all rhyme.

    * The Kosuri paradox: if you can collect the data, why do you need the model?

    * Going from a DEL hit to good mouse PKPD in six months on an inflammation program, and the case for pills over antibodies on cytokine targets.

    * What stops a better-funded lab from outscaling them, and Ian’s by-fiat wish for massively parallel purification.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.latent.space/subscribe

    Dyna-2: General Purpose Physical Agents with Hour-Long Autonomy — Jason Ma, Dyna Robotics Oct 13, 2026
    Show notes

    Watch along AIE NYC and join us at AIE CODE in SF next month!This episode includes a live demo of the Taku robot that is best enjoyed on YouTube.Last month, Dyna made waves by announcing Dyna-2, a world-action model pre-trained on one million hours of human video, claiming several new scaling laws on human data across four orders of magnitude. They have now followed up the model with a physical robot agent, Dyna-2.1, that has to be seen to be believed:In his talk at AIE this year, Jason talked about how the real challenge for robotics in the real world is reliable, long-horizon autonomy, and how Dyna got its models to a 99.4% success rate folding restaurant napkins for 24 hours straight, including recovering after it pulled over the whole stack.From training a world-action model on over one million hours of human video to deploying robots that fold thousands of napkins daily at Din Tai Fung, Dyna Robotics is pushing physical AI beyond impressive demos and into real-world production. In this episode, Dyna Robotics co-founder and Chief Scientist Jason Ma joins swyx on-site to unpack how robots can learn new tasks from as little as 45 minutes of demonstrations, why predicting the future of the physical world may be the key to general-purpose robotics, and what it actually takes to build robots that work reliably for real customers.We go deep on Dyna-2, Dyna’s million-hour world-action model that combines future video prediction with robot actions, the scaling laws behind human-to-robot transfer, diffusion transformers and flow matching, and why synthetic environments and self-generated training data could unlock the next wave of robotics progress. Jason also explains why Dyna builds its own hardware instead of relying on off-the-shelf humanoids, how agentic harnesses enable robots to execute hour-long workflows, why dexterous hands and missing sensory data remain major bottlenecks, and what separates real commercial deployments from the graveyard of robotics startups. We also cover world-action models versus vision-language-action models, GPT-6 and coding agents in robotics, and Jason’s journey from AlphaGo and Penn to NVIDIA, Google DeepMind, and founding Dyna.We discuss:* Why Dyna-2 was trained on over one million hours of human video* World-action models: predicting future video to guide physical robot actions* Diffusion transformers, flow matching, and real-time robotic control* How robots learn new tasks with as little as 45 minutes of demonstrations* Why robotics has no equivalent of the internet and data remains its biggest scaling challenge* Human egocentric video, robot demonstrations, and cross-embodiment transfer* Synthetic environments, simulation, and models that generate their own training data* Why robots need on-device inference, model distillation, and custom hardware* Why Dyna chose wheeled semi-humanoids instead of traditional bipedal robots* The hardware bottleneck: why dexterous robot hands still overheat* Best Western, Din Tai Fung, and the difference between robotics pilots and scaled deployments* The Bitter Lesson of Robotics: scaling data instead of engineering specialized solutions* Agentic harnesses and robots executing multi-step, hour-long physical workflows* GPT-6, coding agents, and AI-generated simulation environments for robotics research* World-action models vs. VLAs, and why vision alone may not be enough* Jason’s journey through AlphaGo, Penn, NVIDIA, Google DeepMind, and the Eureka project* Dyna’s research culture, deployment-first philosophy, and vision for millions of robotsJason Ma* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-ma-742224a2/* X: https://x.com/JasonMa2020Dyna Robotics* Website: https://www.dyna.co/* X: https://x.com/DynaRoboticsTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction and Dyna-2’s World-Action Model00:03:08 Diffusion Transformers, Flow Matching, and Generalist Robots00:08:19 The Robotics Data Bottleneck00:13:50 Synthetic Data and Self-Improving World Models00:16:51 Real-Time Inference and Model Distillation00:19:45 Full-Stack Robotics: Hardware and Supply Chains00:25:02 Why Dyna Built a Wheeled Semi-Humanoid00:29:35 Teaching Robots New Tasks and Evaluating Performance00:31:59 Autonomous Workflows and Hardware Limitations00:36:06 Real-World Deployments at Best Western and Din Tai Fung00:41:07 The Bitter Lesson of Robotics00:46:13 Agentic Harnesses for Physical AI00:49:07 GPT-6, Coding Agents, and AI-Native Robotics00:52:02 World-Action Models vs. VLAs00:59:17 From AlphaGo to Founding Dyna Robotics01:04:20 Dyna’s Research Culture and the Future of RoboticsTranscriptIntroduction: Jason Ma and Dyna RoboticsSwyx [00:00:00]: All right, we’re here on site with Jason Ma, the co-founder, chief scientist of Dyna Robotics. Thanks for having us in your office.Jason Ma [00:00:06]: Of course. Thank you for coming.Vibhu [00:00:07]: It’s been a blast. We got to see—you’ll see plenty of B-roll—drinks being pulled, a lot of evals, robots with knives for the first time. So under the hood of all this you have a world action model. What is that?Dyna-2: A World Action Model That Predicts the FutureJason Ma [00:00:22]: So last month, we released our world action model called Dyna-2. So it’s the first world action model trained on more than one million hours of data. So going back to your question first, world action model is a model that’s able to predict the future video, the future state of the world, so hence the name world model. But in addition, you can also use that future generation to also produce actions robots can execute in the physical world to control the robot. So why do we do that? It’s a very powerful architecture, because if you think about how humans act in the physical world, in our brain, we are implicitly thinking about how the world will evolve based on our actions. So now we have a model architecture that’s able to do that to guide robot actions. So what we find is that by doing so, the model is much more dexterous, much more robust, and much more capable of generalizing to environments, to scenarios it’s never seen before.World Action Models: Inputs, Outputs, and Visual ReasoningVibhu [00:01:17]: I wanna prompt this question a bit. I think a lot of people hear world model, and they think you’re outputting video or world or 3D state. You’re also doing action. I think most people don’t understand what models are under the hood of robotics. So what are the inputs and outputs? What’s the training data? What is the architecture? Give us all the details.Jason Ma [00:01:39]: So, for inputs, the most important input is video, right? You can think about videos that the robot is capturing with its cameras, right? So video or images of the past many seconds, that’s the input. But for robots, what’s really interesting is that robot also has a lot of actuators and joint encoders on itself. So the robot also knows, the angles of its joints. So those can also be inputs to this world model. That’s something that’s very different from just a pure video model that’s only looking at videos, right? So that’s the input. And additionally, for robots, you want to be able to talk to it, to instruct it to do different tasks, right? So you can also feed it language instruction. So those are what I consider the basic set of inputs that go into any robotics models, including world action models. And once we have that the output, at the basic level, it needs to output actions the robots can execute on the hardware. But in the case of world action model, what’s really interesting is that in addition to the actions, it can also output future video, right? So basically, you can almost output the future video or some representation of it first, and then use that to guide robot actions. So the way I think about it is this is kind of analogous to chain of thought, you know. And basically, the models are reasoning in the visual, the physics space, and then outputting actions. So that’s the key difference between world action models outputs versus other kind of models, robot models outputs.Diffusion Transformers, Flow Matching, and Smooth ActionsVibhu [00:03:08]: You put out a good blog post around your model. I think a lot of people understand language models or transformers, next-token predictors. In this case, you shared quite a bit. There’s diffusion, flow matching, you’re predicting next world state plus action. One thing you say is a million hours. How do you determine the architecture? Like, what are the choices there? What is the architecture? I feel like in language models, there’s a lot of take something off the shelf- Take trillions of tokens, do prediction, SFT, RL, and you have a model. What about this? How do you go from nothing to your model? Is there vanilla architecture off the shelf? Do you determine all this and what’s, what is the current state?Jason Ma [00:03:49]: Yeah, I think, yeah. So the mental framework to think about how do we build models for robotics is that there are essentially a couple things to look at. One is data, and the second is how do we make a model learn as much as possible from that data? So let’s first talk about the model actually, right? So the blog post we released is our Dyna-2 world action model. So under the hood is a diffusion transformer. The model uses an encoder-only transformer architecture.Vibhu [00:04:20]: Right, yeah.Jason Ma [00:04:20]: But what’s really interesting is that in visual domains, right, if you think about generating images, generating videos, and in this case, robots looking at images to generate actions, people have found the diffusion kind of architecture to work really well. So what is a diffusion model? A diffusion model is a model that takes some random noise and through iterative computation can go from noise to something that’s really high-dimensional, that’s something really highly defined and have very fine-grained feature. If you think about generating images, right, you want sharp edges, sharp corners, color contrast. And for robotics, even though you’re not generating image, you’re generating actions that needs to be very precise, very smooth, right? So it has kind of the same kind of consideration and desiderata as generating image. So that’s why from first principles, the whole field, not just us, have been using this kind of diffusion transformer architecture to train robotics foundation models. You need the transformer aspect because transformer is the thing that can just ingest the most amount of data, can learn. Then diffusion helps you to refine the outcome to get to the smooth, precise, fine-grained motion you need to actually execute on the robot. So that’s the architecture that goes behind a lot of our recent breakthroughs.Swyx [00:05:37]: And we’ve covered flow matching before on the podcast. It is mostly an efficiency speed-up. Like, let’s say you normally would take forty to a hundred diffusion steps. You can reduce it to four.Jason Ma [00:05:48]: Yeah, that’s right. So with the diffusion model, one thing that’s very hard in practice is that you need to tune the scheduler, like by how much you’re tuning or converting the initial noise input into the final output. So flow matching is kind of like a special case of diffusion that makes the transformation much simpler. In practice, you don’t have to tune as much, and it works just as well. That is why I think about two to three years ago, most generative modeling for image and video has shifted from a diffusion model to a flow matching model. But the concept is the same, and flow matching is just a special, simpler to tune, variant of diffusion. Yeah.Swyx [00:06:26]: It actually makes me think that. So flow matching obviously has trade-offs in quality. But actually, it’s very suited for action diffusion and robotics because you get to reevaluate in real time. Whereas in images, you are— it’s basically one shot.Jason Ma [00:06:40]: That’s right.Pretraining a Generalist Robot and Adapting to New TasksVibhu [00:06:41]: Which is pretty fun. We got to mess with the laundry folding robot … throw a random towel in. The models adapt, right? I think one key thing about your models is that they’re tr— they’re made to be generalists, so one foundation model and you adapt them a lot. How does that work? Basically, in 45 minutes of mapped data, you can generalize towards. We saw an example of pulling drinks out of a fridge. What’s the what’s the mindset there of one general model, and then how do you adapt to different tasks?Jason Ma [00:07:14]: So the way we think about it is that for robotics, we need to build a very general, strong base model, right? And then— Because if you think about how a human interacts and behaves in the physical world, right, we have very strong base knowledge. We can just readily do a lot of tasks. But if you want to become an expert at any given task, there is some amount of training that needs to happen. And I think to train a general-purpose robot like the one we’re building here, the same principle has to apply. So our approach is to first train a general model that’s training on as much data as we can find. So that is why in our Dyna-2 report, our model is trained over a million hours of human data as a starting point. And then given that strong foundation, what we found is we can quickly make the robot or make the model do many different tasks with a very minimal amount of fine-tuning to just tell the model, “Here’s the task I want it to do, and here’s very few amount of demonstrations,” and the model can readily do bunch of the tasks that you have seen in office. Yeah.A Million Hours of Data: Egocentric Video and Robot DemonstrationsSwyx [00:08:19]: We actually have quite a few people who deal in data, who sell data. What is good data? What is bad data? What do you want to buy? I think that these are all open questions. Like, obviously, I think the top, important thing is egocentric data of humans doing tasks. What else would you modify on that basic statement?Jason Ma [00:08:42]: So I think data is the most important thing in robotics today, because unlike language model, there is no internet, right? So every company that’s building model, building hardware has to think about data. So there’s, roughly couple of different ways of operating here. One is that you can collect a lot of data yourself, which is what we are doing as well.Swyx [00:09:02]: You have employees here doing that.Jason Ma [00:09:04]: There are robots everywhere in the office, right? But if you think about how much data you need for robotic foundation model, I think the amount of data any individual company can collect by themselves is just nowhere near sufficient, right? It’s kind of like, you’re trying to build an internet by just having Reddit or just having Facebook. They’re great websites, a lot of users, but it’s not enough, right? So when we think about data, there has to be some sort of data acquisition happening, right? You buy data, you look at data that’s already out there. And then there’s many different tiers, right? You mentioned data quality. I think data quality in robotics is a non-stationary problem in the sense that what is high-quality data for your model changes over time. Like, when your model doesn’t know anything, like when it’s zero, any data is useful, right? You can use a lot of video data. In the case of egocentric data, I think it’s actually a very good way of pre-training robots because human data is so diverse. Like, it covers every single physical activity you can possibly imagine. And that gives robot, the model such a strong prior on how things, how the world can evolve around a embodied actor, human. But the issue with human data is that until your robot looks exactly like a human, there’s gonna be some gap between human actions and the robot actions, right? So just by training on human data, today, it’s not very likely you can just execute robot actions directly. So you still need some amount of adaptation using the robo…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Why AlphaFold Didn't Solve Protein Folding — Pushmeet Kohli, Google DeepMind & Sal Candido, Biohub Oct 10, 2026
    Show notes

    From the Bitter Lesson of AI scaling to the unsolved mysteries of protein folding, Google DeepMind’s Pushmeet Kohli and Biohub’s Sal Candido are rethinking what it takes to build AI that truly understands biology. In this special panel moderated by Brandon Anderson, they explore why AlphaFold’s breakthrough was only the beginning, why scaling compute and data alone won’t solve biology, and how the next generation of AI models could transform our understanding of proteins, cells, and human disease.We go deep on the future of AI-driven biology: finding scaling laws in biological data, the tradeoffs between scientific intuition and general-purpose architectures, why protein structure prediction is far from solved, and what it would take to build predictive models of living systems. Pushmeet reflects on the lessons behind AlphaFold, the limits of human interpretability, and whether future frontier models could understand other AI systems better than we can. Sal explains why protein language models may already contain scientific knowledge we haven’t unlocked, how biological modeling must move beyond individual proteins, and why achieving Biohub’s mission to cure all disease requires thinking in terms of 10x breakthroughs rather than incremental improvements.We discuss:* The Bitter Lesson for biology: why scaling compute and data isn’t enough* Why finding the right scaling law matters more than blindly increasing model size* How low-quality metagenomic data can improve protein language models* Why AI researchers optimize for available data instead of the most important scientific problems* Lessons from DeepMind on balancing modeling, data generation, and scientific expertise* Why building a virtual cell requires fundamentally different datasets* AlphaFold’s handcrafted architecture and the role of scientific intuition* Why good data matters more than simply having more data* Inductive biases, scaling laws, and the future of specialized AI architectures* Why we aren’t in a post-Transformer world, but architectures are evolving* Why AlphaFold didn’t actually solve all of protein folding* Protein dynamics, disorder, and the limitations of static structure prediction* How cryo-EM micrographs could unlock richer biological representations* Moving from models of individual proteins to whole biological systems* Feynman’s famous principle and why AI can now create things we don’t understand* The hidden biological knowledge inside protein language models* Why trustworthiness and uncertainty calibration matter more than full interpretability* Whether frontier AI models could interpret other AI systems better than humans* When AI could deliver 10x–100x acceleration in drug discovery* Why curing all disease requires thinking about 10x breakthroughs instead of 10% improvementsPushmeet Kohli — Google DeepMind* X: https://x.com/pushmeet* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pushmeet-kohli-4838994/Sal Candido — Biohub* Biohub: https://biohub.org/team/salvatore-candido/* X: https://x.com/salcandido* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/salcandido/Brandon Anderson — Moderator* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandon--andersonTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction: The Bitter Lesson for Biological Data00:01:00 Finding Scaling Laws and the Right Data for Biology00:04:54 DeepMind’s Bitter Lesson: Solving Problems vs. Scaling Models00:06:50 AlphaFold, Data Limitations, and Building the Virtual Cell00:09:52 Handcrafted Architectures vs. Scaling Compute00:11:53 Good Data, Inductive Bias, and Model Design00:13:39 Beyond Transformers: The Future of AI Architectures00:14:38 Why AlphaFold Hasn’t Solved Protein Folding00:17:39 Protein Dynamics, Design, and Cryo-EM00:19:09 From Individual Proteins to Whole Biological Systems00:20:43 Feynman’s Principle: Creating Without Understanding00:22:18 The Hidden Knowledge Inside Protein Language Models00:23:48 AlphaFold, Trustworthiness, and Interpretability00:25:56 Could AI Understand Other AI Models Better Than Humans?00:27:43 When Will AI Revolutionize Drug Discovery?00:29:47 Why Curing All Disease Requires 10x BreakthroughsTranscriptIntroduction: Is There a Bitter Lesson for Data?Brandon Anderson [00:00:04]: Great to be here. What an exciting morning. So many cool announcements. I think the future of bioscience is being announced right here. This is the modeling session. We’re all modelers, so of course it’s natural for us to talk about data.One of the things I like to think about when it comes to data is how to scale it properly. This has brought me to the question of the bitter lesson, but recast in the frame of data. The bitter lesson, for those of you who are not AI people, is the statement that methods that scale win eventually. If you can scale enough, it wins. So my question, starting with Sal, is: Is there a bitter lesson for data?Sal Candido [00:01:00]: For sure. You obviously need the right data in order for it to work. One misconception of scaling laws is that scaling laws are everywhere and they always exist. A lot of the work is actually finding that scaling law. A lot of what we do is trying to figure out: What’s a situation where, if you put more compute into it, if you put more data into it, you get a better result out?That’s a great situation because, once that happens, you can turn the crank. It becomes an engineering problem, which is something I like. That has to do with architecture, but it also very much has to do with data. If you don’t have data with the right information and statistics to solve the problem you want, you’re not going to get a model that has the capabilities and understanding you want. You can only really pull information from the data you have and use that to generalize beyond it.Choosing the Right Data: Availability vs. Scientific ImpactBrandon Anderson [00:02:09]: When it comes to data collection, how do you think about which modalities are best? A related question: Do modelers tend to work on problems where the data is available, rather than the problems that best serve their goals or have the greatest impact on translational medicine?Sal Candido [00:02:32]: For sure. I won’t speak for all modelers, but I’m lazy, so I’m going to work with what’s available. There’s a good side and a bad side to this.The good side is that, when you’re doing conventional machine learning, you’re often looking for the most pristine, high-quality data examples you can find. But if you’re like me, you’re rooting around in the back room, looking through people’s junk to see what’s there. A concrete example is training a protein language model on metagenomic sequences, which are not the highest-quality data. In fact, much of that data, I can guarantee you, isn’t even a real, whole protein. And yet it makes the performance of the model go up for designing real proteins that work and understanding proteins that we know exist.That’s the positive side. But it can lead you to a negative place where you say, “Let’s just scale up the data that we can generate easily.” I don’t think that’s necessarily the way to do it. That’s one of the things that’s exciting to me about what we’re talking about here today with the BBI. It’s going out and asking, “What is the data that we need to solve the problem?”It’s about the right resources, but also the right community. One thing we try to do at Biohub is work in the open, work with the community, and move the whole community forward. That’s critical because, if you just have people building models, we’re going to lean toward the data that exists. If you just have people generating data, they’re going to lean toward the things that can be generated. But if you can work together as a community, every step of the way, in an open fashion, you can figure out what data you actually need. Then you can find that scaling law.The Problem Comes First: Modeling, Data, and ExpertiseBrandon Anderson [00:04:50]: Pushmeet, what do you think about the bitter lesson for data?Pushmeet Kohli [00:04:54]: I was at DeepMind when Rich was with us and thinking about this idea of the bitter lesson. What I took from Rich’s original lecture at DeepMind wasn’t about the specific notion of whether data is useful or how we should think about machine learning. My take was that he was talking about something more conceptual.Sometimes when we’re looking at problems, we think about solutions in a very religious way: “I’m a modeler,” or “I’m a data generation person.” I think that is the bitter lesson. If you approach a problem with that mindset, you might not succeed. The problem comes first, and you should be flexible in your solution space. You should try both things. You should understand the problem you’re trying to solve. If it requires modeling effort, do the modeling effort. If it requires collecting more data, then collect data.What happened in machine learning at the time was people saying, “We’re machine learning researchers. The dataset is there. Here’s some training data, here’s some test data, and we’ll just optimize the model.” That is broken in the sense that, if your eventual goal is to solve the problem, you have to look at both aspects of what goes into the process.And what goes into the process is not just data or modeling. It’s also expertise. With AlphaFold, for example, we looked at what was possible with existing datasets because we didn’t have the core expertise, or even the resources, to say, “Let’s augment the PDB by a significant order of magnitude.” The investment that organizations and scientists across the world had put into constructing that data was invaluable. So there, you had to focus on getting the biggest bang for your buck by investing in modeling.But in other areas, say cell genomics, we took the same approach and asked, “What can you do with cell-by-gene data?” After a lot of work, it was very clear that the data was not there yet to pursue that grand ambition of building the virtual cell. This brings people together to focus on the actual challenges of advancing science rather than religiously following advances in data generation or modeling.Brandon Anderson [00:08:23]: I really like that answer. What’s the actionable takeaway? Always define the problem first and then figure out which solution space to search over. But more broadly, how should the community think about this as we move toward the next generation of translational medicine?Pushmeet Kohli [00:08:47]: The advice I give to anyone starting in this area is to think of yourself as a multidisciplinary person. Understand the problem first. Why are you working on it? What are you trying to achieve? Then think about what’s needed, whether that’s modeling, compute scaling, or data generation. Understanding the problem is extremely important, and of course you need to build your expertise.There are constraints, too. Maybe there’s only a certain amount of data you can generate, or a certain model size you can afford to train. Understand those constraints, try to fail fast, and look at which approaches will be feasible in the long term to get you to the level of impact you’re aiming for.Scientific Inductive Bias vs. Scaling: The Craft of Building ModelsBrandon Anderson [00:09:52]: This leads right into my next question. When I look at the evolution of modeling, AlphaFold 2 was essentially a work of art, with a lot of carefully handcrafted features. There was very intentional thought put into every part of the solution. Some of Google’s or Alphabet’s work still stays in that space, but the general consensus seems to be moving toward more scalable, general strategies.Do we still need artisanal, craft solutions for certain problems? Or are resources better spent focusing on scale first? With fixed resources and money, you can invest in compute, talent, or data. How should we think about that trade-off?Pushmeet Kohli [00:10:48]: Let’s approach it from first principles. The art and craft of constructing a better model wasn’t accidental. We did a lot of experimentation, but there was a vision behind it. Scientific intuition from biophysics and biochemistry told us that amino acid residues are not just doing their own thing. They’re influenced by other residues. So let’s bake that in. If you’ve learned something from the scientific community, use that information. Give the model that unfair advantage.That makes the model much more data-efficient because it doesn’t have to relearn everything. I also have to mention that curating good data is an art in itself. It’s not as if you can just say, “Put in more data.” If you replicate the same data, you’re not going anywhere. It’s not just about big data; it’s about good data and understanding the coverage of the data necessary to make progress. That’s a much more interesting and challenging problem in itself.Brandon Anderson [00:12:20]: It looks like you have a thought, Sal. What do you think?Sal Candido [00:12:24]: I very much agree. It depends on the problem to be solved. If you have a smaller amount of data, having more inductive bias in the model is going to help you. You actually need that to get results at smaller data scales. As you get more and more data, sometimes the model finds things you didn’t necessarily know about, and sometimes that inductive bias, if it wasn’t exactly correct, can hold you back. There’s a tipping point as things get better.But I also object to your question a little because there’s a lot of craft in the scaling part of things as well. There’s a lot of algorithmic work that goes into taking models, training them on more data, putting more compute into them, and making them bigger. And that isn’t only from an infrastructure perspective or about making the models run inference faster. We’re seeing things go beyond standard transformers to more bespoke architectures. I don’t think we’re in a post-transformer world in any way, shape, or form, but we’re modifying those architectures to make them more fit for purpose and work better, even with internet-scale data.As more data comes in, the challenge isn’t only curating that data or selecting the next batch of information the models need. It’s also asking, at every step and at every scale, what the right architecture is to get the most out of that information.Why AlphaFold Didn’t Solve All of Protein BiologyBrandon Anderson [00:14:36]: If you think about the state of protein structure prediction right now, the news will say that protein structure prediction has been solved. But if you talk to my friends, they’ll say, “We have so much left to do here.” Function, dynamics, and design are still wide-open problems. It’s been about five years since AlphaFold 2 was announced, and progress has been made.Pushmeet, do you think there’s another big leap coming? Are there blockers to solving these problems? Do we not have the right data, algorithms, or ideas? Or is it just a matter of time?Pushmeet Kohli [00:15:28]: Science operates by isolating something and then making progress step by step. When people say the protein-folding problem has been solved, at a conceptual level there have been advances. But think about the narrative of proteins being the building blocks. Proteins aren’t blocks, and they don’t act as blocks. I say proteins are the building blocks all the time, but I don’t actually believe it.Proteins are extremely complex. They’re disordered. Their shape might change depending on the context. John Jumper and I used to discuss this: What are we trying to solve? We don’t know the actual true ground state that proteins take, or the actual distribution of structures that proteins take. What we were trying to do was replicate a structure that somebody had obtained and deposited in the PDB. That’s what we did. And it just so happens that it’s useful.But that doesn’t mean we’ve understood all of protein dynamics. At the top level, it’s easier to communicate that we’ve made progress, but the scientists in this crowd know how much remains to be done. There’s a lot to c…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Synthesis Superintelligence: from Semiconductors to Superconductors — Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk Oct 08, 2026
    Show notes

    It’s hard to believe that Periodic was only launched last September:One year later, it is considered one of the pre-eminent AI scientist labs, with dizzying talent density and astonishing progress in the autonomous lab buildout:Most people are familiar with the standard credentials of Liam and Dogus, but we found an incredible “talent slope” while learning more about Periodic, where each successive employee seems more impressive than the last:From building AI systems that reason over noisy physical experiments to creating laboratories where every instrument can become intelligent, Periodic Labs is betting that the next frontier of AI won’t come from simply training on more internet data, it will come from letting models experiment with the real world. In this episode, Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk join swyx and Brandon to explain why scientific discovery is fundamentally different from math and coding, and what it takes to build AI scientists that can actually discover new materials.We go deep on Periodic’s vision for “synthesis superintelligence”: reinforcement learning grounded in physical experiments, AI-powered materials characterization, simulations and density functional theory, high-throughput labs, and systems that learn from the entire process of doing science rather than only its published results. Liam and Dogus also explain why frontier models will still need experiments, why failed experiments may be some of the most valuable training data, what it means to give every piece of lab equipment “140 IQ,” and how autonomous experimentation could compress decades of scientific trial-and-error into months.We discuss:* Why intelligence alone isn’t enough for scientific discovery* How reinforcement learning changes when the environment is the physical world* Why science requires reasoning under uncertainty, noise, and missing information* Prediction, synthesis, and characterization in the materials discovery loop* Why physics and materials science are still far from “solved”* The “matter compiler” and Periodic’s goal of synthesis superintelligence* Phase transitions, X-ray diffraction, and AI-powered materials characterization* DFT, simulations, and why experiments remain the ultimate ground truth* Room-temperature superconductors, new magnets, batteries, and more efficient compute* Why quantum computing may not automatically solve materials discovery* What it means for every piece of lab equipment to have “140 IQ”* Why data quality and negative results matter more than simply throwing more compute at science* Training models on the process of doing science rather than the final answer* Why even future frontier models will still need to physically experiment* Scaling autonomous labs across AI, chemistry, physics, and custom hardware* How automated experimentation could massively increase the “surface area for luck” in discovering new materialsLiam Fedus* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/liam-fedus-26547811/* X: https://x.com/LiamFedusEkin Dogus Cubuk* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ekin-dogus-cubuk-9148b8114/* X: https://x.com/ekindogusTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction00:02:49 AI and Reinforcement Learning in the Physical World00:09:17 The End-to-End Materials Discovery Loop00:13:28 Why Physics Isn’t “Solved”00:19:04 The Matter Compiler and AI Characterization00:30:22 DFT, Simulation, and Experimental Ground Truth00:42:27 Dream Materials, Compute, and Quantum Computing00:45:57 Giving Every Lab Instrument “140 IQ”00:50:02 Automating the Lab00:53:16 Data, Models, and Negative Results00:58:13 Training AI on the Process of Science01:00:20 Why Frontier AI Still Needs Experiments01:06:06 Scaling Autonomous Labs01:10:45 Building the Team and Deploying to Industry01:17:01 From AI Copilots to Scientific Outcomes01:20:57 Automating the Search for SuperconductorsTranscriptIntroduction: Intelligence Must Meet RealitySwyx [00:00:00]: Okay. We’re here at Periodic. We’re here today with Liam and Doğuş from Periodic. Welcome, and thanks for having us at yours.Liam Fedus [00:00:11]: Yeah, great to be here, and yeah, thanks for coming in.Swyx [00:00:13]: I want to start off with one of these quotes that I love from your website. It says, “Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient. New knowledge is created when ideas are found to be consistent with reality.” It seems so straightforward, but why is it non-obvious?Liam Fedus [00:00:29]: I think that’s sort of the thesis and premise behind Periodic that Doğuş and I thought when we were building this, which is you can’t just think your way to a solution. The universe is so complicated that in order to actually push the frontier of knowledge and to make progress, you need to create these conjectures and then actually see whether or not it holds. No amount of rereading that textbook or paper, thinking, or disappearing into a room is going to allow you to think through all possible experimental outcomes, expected and unexpected, and you really need this iterative process. And that’s our core belief for putting this together, and that’s why from the very beginning, we’re like, “We need to have the AI systems, the simulations of the physical world, but then also to build up the physical high-throughput experiment.” And we think a different type of intelligence emerges from that.Swyx [00:01:21]: I think it’s also notable, like with OpenAI and Google, you don’t have those resources in those big labs. You had to come out and do your own thing, because you’re kind of inventing your own playbook as you go along.Building an Interdisciplinary Lab for AI ScienceEkin Doğuş Çubuk [00:01:34]: Yeah, and a team like this has never existed, I think. We try to bring together solid-state chemists, solid-state physicists, experimentalists, theorists, hardware engineers, LLM experts, computer scientists, and some of these technologies are very recent. The high-throughput experimentation, the robotic arms have only been tried in the last three years or so. The force field expertise, some of these force fields are also very recent. But yeah, we felt like having a lab is very important. Having this focus and bringing all these people together to work together is very important. And I guess the closest examples from history are places like Bell Labs, where incredible theorists and experimentalists and chemists worked together and achieved incredible things. So we are trying to do the same here, yeah.Physical-World Reinforcement Learning and UncertaintyBrandon [00:02:17]: I want to talk about force fields in a bit, butSwyx [00:02:19]: YesBrandon [00:02:19]: Before we get to that. Yeah what are they? But before we get to that, For context, some of our audience are AI engineers, and some are scientists. For the engineers: what’s the difference between working at a big lab like OpenAI and what you’re doing here? I think you’ve already hinted at this but maybe explicitly, how do you have to reframe your thought process?Liam Fedus [00:02:49]: Well, I think one interesting thing is now our reinforcement learning environments literally derive from the environment, from our physical labs. Our data comes from our physical labs, and this is sort of our ultimate truth. It’s not enough just to do optimization against, some answers that were known in some papers or textbooks because we’re going beyond that, and I think that’s one of the biggest differences. But along with that, there’s issues of say, decision-making under uncertainty. So when you’re doing optimization against math, there’s a high precision to it. You’re not really dealing with kind of like variance or uncertainties or aberrant measurements, whereas that’s very key to our process. For example, when we are doing a materials discovery loop, things don’t come out of the furnace labeled, right? Even the labeling process can be stochastic and noisy. And sometimes you’ll have aberrations between different machines. Maybe we’ll have insufficient telemetry. So we thought we ran it at this temperature, but really the temperature was, some delta away. And an intelligence that can take in this noisy data and make intelligent decisions like a scientist would, is a sort of a different set of reasoning strategies. So I think there’s a huge amount of commonalities, so the standard mid-training, reinforcement learning, the construction of tool-using agents, variance reduction, making sure infra doesn’t have mismatches between training and inference. But we have to go beyond that and really think about how do you do accurate, work when there’s a high amount of uncertainty? How do you make really incredibly efficient use of a limited set of data? So we’re scaling things up significantly, but still, it’s very different than a digital environment where you can arbitrarily add more environments or more rollouts. We don’t have that same capacity. So sample efficiency is another key thing.Why Experiments Are Noisy and IncompleteBrandon [00:04:48]: This seems a little bit abstract to me, and it is a theme which has been on the science pods for a bit, but I think it might be helpful when you talk about experimental uncertainty, to explain what would a specific process that you were doing experimentally look like, and how would a human approach this problem, before we get into the AI side? Do you have a specific example of a type of material you make and what sort of uncertainty in the measurements you would experience in the process?Ekin Doğuş Çubuk [00:05:17]: I think there are many dimensions to this. So one of them is I think every scientific experiment has to do some dimensionality reduction, and this is very different than coding or math. So, when you’re doing math or coding, all the context could be available to the human or the LLM. It’s a bunch of axioms, some corollaries people have derived from them. It’s a bunch of functions and API calls. So everything you need to reason through is available to you, and then you just have to be very smart and figure it out. In physics, as you know, we start with more atoms than we could ever store on a computer. So clearly, we’ll have to go from the original number of dimensions and bits that represent a system to the number of bits we can fit in the computer. And this was, I guess, the original premise of thermodynamics. They were originally really confused about how steam engines worked, but then turns out you can find five or six thermodynamic variables that explain what’s going on pretty well, which is incredible. That’s the beauty of physics.Brandon [00:06:13]: You have a room full of atoms, and there are 10²³ or 10²⁷Ekin Doğuş Çubuk [00:06:19]: ExactlyBrandon [00:06:19]: Or something atoms in this room, and yet you need temperature and pressure and simple variables, and that tells you everything. No, it tells you mostly what you needEkin Doğuş Çubuk [00:06:28]: A lotBrandon [00:06:29]: To know for most cases, right?Ekin Doğuş Çubuk [00:06:30]: Yeah.Brandon [00:06:30]: So let’s say you make a material, and you could do something like look at an X-ray structure, and this thing is a very lossy, projection, right? It’s not actually a structure, or it doesn’t tell you the true structure. It tells you some piece of principal components of that. So, how would a human take these simple principal components and then, kind of reason about them? And then how do you extend that to an AI?Ekin Doğuş Çubuk [00:06:58]: So on the theoretical physics side, right, we’ve decided that energy, the average value of energy and the fluctuations of energy is very important. So a lot of thermodynamics has been derived from this. And then we realized reaction barriers are also very important. The kinetics is very important. So a human can try to reason through this extremely complex system by coming up with some, reduced dimensionality descriptors. People also really like atomistic picture. You think about what the local neighborhoods look like, whether they’re from octahedra, tetrahedra, and that especially chemists really benefit from that. Okay, so that’s on the theoretical side. And on the experimental side, you would try to collect as much data as possible. So you’d have a lab notebook, and you’d write everything you see, et cetera, but with the understanding, of course, that you’ll miss a lot. So like as Liam mentioned, there are all these issues that come up. For example, your furnace will degrade over time because as you’re using the furnace, some of the things you’re baking will evaporate and cover the heating element. So every time you use the furnace, it gets worse and worse. Another issue is you have a furnace, but the temperature isn’t perfectly uniform, so where you put in the furnace will affect the result. We don’t have this issue yet, but we will maybe someday. The optical instruments, suffer a lot from vibrations. So every time somebody walks. I remember when I was doing my PhD, one lab had this big issue because sometimes their results would be very different than other times, and they brought it down to at a certain time in the night upstairs, somebody would be walking and that vibration affected the laser setup. So yeah, science is very hard, but that’s what makes it special, right? The other thing Liam and I have been talking about is a lot of the current improvements focus on math and coding and theoretical computer science because it’s easier for LLMs. But in real life, most things that require intelligence are actually more like science. There’s a lot of uncertainty, there’s a lot of noise, there’s a lot of missing context, but you have to be the intelligent being and figure out what to do next.Liam Fedus [00:08:53]: I think a really interesting point to build on that too is the optimal reasoning strategies to do math, to do theoretical computer science, to do these types of things may not be the optimal reasoning strategies to do science.Ekin Doğuş Çubuk [00:09:04]: Yeah.The Materials Discovery Loop: Synthesis and CharacterizationBrandon [00:09:05]: How do you define an RL reward function when your output is a noisy crystal structure or some number of I don’t know collective variables or something? Like.Liam Fedus [00:09:17]: Maybe, I’ll give, one part of the loop, and I’ll just kind of dig into that. So, as part of the materials discovery loop, we have to first figure out, what to make. So that’s the stability of the atoms together, as well as do we expect it to have the properties we want. So we don’t just want, a novel configuration of the atoms. We want them, when put together, to have the property of interest. Next is how do you synthesize it? How do you actually make the thing? That’s also non-trivial. So even if you know something will hold together, the process of actually, what are the processing conditions to actually bring that forth is highly non-trivial. But again the thing. Once you’ve done those two steps and you’ve made something, it doesn’t come off labeled, so you actually have to characterize it and figure out what you made. So in that case rather than thinking about the RL environment of we’re just going to kick off an experiment, wait a couple days, and try to do a update on did you find a room-temperature superconductor or not, that’s completely infeasible.Brandon [00:10:15]: Yeah. I was going to ask that. Yeah you can’t leave your GPU sitting for a week or something.Liam Fedus [00:10:19]: It’s. Yeah, it’s completely infeasibleBrandon [00:10:20]: YeahLiam Fedus [00:10:20]: Because you don’t have enough agents to reduce the variance sufficiently. The rollout time is going between the different instruments. You’re waiting. There’s just some physics limits of the experiments, for the actual synthesis or furnace time. So it’s just too slow, too noisy. So the way we think about the AI program is basically constructing agents around this set of data that we’ve produced. And so in the case of characterization, you’re looking for RL environments that are rewarding th…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Academia is for Ambition — Alex Zhang, MIT Oct 02, 2026
    Show notes

    Last call for regular tickets for AI Engineer NYC! As an exclusive for Latent Space subscribers, the first 30 of you can take a 30% off code if it helps - for new tickets only, no refunds! See you in 2 weeks!While we tend to cover industry on the pod, every so often we celebrate a clearly emerging superstar PhD. In 2024 we featured Shunyu Yao, who went on to build Operator at OpenAI and is now Chief AI Scientist of Tencent. In 2025 we featured Jack Morris, who went on to cofound Engram at $600m and is now a leading voice on continual learning. This year we are proud to feature the work of Alex Zhang of MIT.From GPU kernels and KernelBench to Recursive Language Models, Mismanaged Geniuses, and massive multi-agent swarms, Alex Zhang is exploring how much capability we’re leaving on the table by wrapping increasingly powerful models in primitive systems. RLMs took over the timeline early this year:and an RLM based harness was the first to ~solve ARC-AGI-3 before OpenAI’s Astra:and is even today, influencing new research that has more extreme implications than RLMs:We go deep on GPU Mode and AI-written kernels, research taste and why academics should take bets industry labs won’t, GEV and alternatives to the standard autoregressive language model, and the idea of harnesses as compositional generalizers. Alex explains RLMs, context offloading, programmatic subagent calling, Prime Agent, persistent subagents, and why the “language model” of the future may actually be an invisible swarm of agents underneath a simple interface. We also discuss OpenAI’s massive agent experiments, Kimi swarms, open-ended research at Sakana AI, speculative programmatic tool calling, capability overhang, Neuralese, and where Alex thinks the next big research opportunities may lie.We discuss:* Why AI-generated GPU kernels still leave substantial room for human expertise* How one expert insight can potentially replace enormous amounts of brute-force token search* Why PhD students should take research bets that initially look trivial, weird, or pointless* What SWE-bench, RLMs, ReAct, and Quiet-STaR reveal about research taste* GEV and why a language model does not have to mean an autoregressive text-to-text decoder* Why Claude Code, Codex, and Pi are structurally more similar than they look* How harness design can improve compositional generalization across tasks and domains* RLMs: context offloading, code execution, recursive subagents, and shared memory* Prime Agent, continual harnesses, and persistent agent-to-agent communication* Why the model you query in the future may secretly be an entire swarm or scaffold* OpenAI’s 10,000-agent experiment, 130B output tokens, and ~$40M-equivalent problem solving* Why much of an agent swarm may be wasted search — and why convergence is still hard* Kimi versus OpenAI and different approaches to multi-agent systems* Open-endedness, Sakana AI, and finding hidden gems in enormous amounts of generated work* Why current frontier models may already have a large capability overhang* Speculative programmatic tool calling and overlapping tool execution with generation* Whether English, code, or an entirely new “Neuralese” constrains how models reason* AI for science, fast-moving benchmarks, and how Alex chooses what research problems to bet onAlex Zhang* Website: alexzhang13.github.io* X: @a1zhangTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction00:00:49 GPU Mode, KernelBench, and AI-Written Kernels00:07:38 Human Expertise vs. Brute-Force AI Search00:13:20 Research Taste and Taking Big Bets00:19:28 GEV and Rethinking the Language Model00:29:03 Video Game Agents and the Harness Problem00:31:01 Why Claude Code, Codex, and Pi Are So Similar00:36:42 Harnesses as Compositional Generalizers00:44:24 RLMs Explained00:52:01 Prime Agent and Persistent Subagents00:57:41 RLMs in the Wild01:00:30 OpenAI Swarms and the Future of Language Models01:07:26 Open-Endedness and Sakana AI01:15:52 Kimi vs. OpenAI Agent Swarms01:20:06 Capability Overhang and Speculative Tool Calling01:28:19 Neuralese, Future Research, and AI for ScienceTranscriptIntroduction: Alex Zhang, RLMs, and GPU ModeSwyx [00:00:00]: All right, we’re here in the studio with Alex Zhang, I guess most famously of, RLMs, but you have a few other affiliations. Welcome to the show.Alex Zhang [00:00:12]: Yeah. Thank you for having me.Swyx [00:00:13]: Yeah. I guess GPU Mode as well?Alex Zhang [00:00:15]: Yes, GPU Mode as well.Swyx [00:00:16]: You were shepherded in by Mark Saroufim. Not everyone gets that kind of welcome.Alex Zhang [00:00:19]: Yep. Yeah. Yeah. I’m very close to all the people in GPU Mode, so yeahSwyx [00:00:23]: YeahAlex Zhang [00:00:23]: We often end up working together in various capacities, like even beyond just GPU Mode itself, so.Swyx [00:00:29]: Yeah. Can we explain, so people who are not that close Don’t know about this. It’s just a-- it’s a Discord. It used to be focused on, I guess, CUDA Mode, and then generalized a little bit. it was started by Mark.Alex Zhang [00:00:41]: Yep.Swyx [00:00:42]: It was basically like. To me, it’s like the hiring pipeline of the PyTorch team.Swyx [00:00:45]: And then you left PyTorch.Alex Zhang [00:00:47]: Yep.Alex Zhang [00:00:49]: Yeah. So it used to be, I think, it started actually around when I was in college, in like 2023. I think it was started by Mark, Andreas, and Jeremy Howard. The original premise was just like, it was a GPU-- or it was a Discord dedicated to learning how to write GPU kernels, and they had, like, lectures. That was basically the extent of it. and I got interested in it because I was writing GPU kernels. It was actually out of, like, pure chance. I was interning at Snapchat at the time, andFrom CUDA Mode to GPU ModeSwyx [00:01:22]: Rexis.Alex Zhang [00:01:23]: Yeah, I was very bored with Rexis. So, they had a project where, like, they were interested in writing. It was this paper called Infinite Attention. It was like a Google paper.Swyx [00:01:35]: Yes, we’ve covered it on Paper Club.Alex Zhang [00:01:36]: Yes, yeah. So I was interested in whether or not you could write specialized kernels for it at Snapchat. it didn’t. Nothing really came of it, but I joined GPU Mode. At the time, it was called CUDA Mode, I think for, like, legal reasons or something, they changed the name. But I met Mark, I met Matei, I met a bunch of other people that were very involved in the community. And then Mark had pitched this idea called Popcorn, which was now what you see as the leaderboard today. But the general idea was like. I think all of us had this, like, intuition that GPU programming is, like, very similar to if you guys have done, like, competitive programming. It’s a, it’s a not. I don’t mean to say, like, they’re transferable skills.Popcorn, KernelBench, and Automating GPU KernelsSwyx [00:02:17]: You have constraints. You code golf a little bit.Alex Zhang [00:02:19]: Yep.Swyx [00:02:19]: Yeah.Alex Zhang [00:02:19]: Yeah. And there’s like. There’s actually a surprisingly small space of optimizations that people do. and there’s actually not that many kernels per se that people are interested in optimizing. And so we kind of had this thought that, like, if you had enough data, like, in the same way that Codeforces, there’s millions of problems. If you could do this with GPU code, like, you could scale and automate kind of GPU kernel development, which for researchers is a huge deal. ‘Cause I think one of the bigger bottlenecks. Like, if you look at, like, Mamba, for example, like, they release the paper with kernels because otherwise, like, you can’t really use it in any meaningful way? And not everyone has, like, a Tri Dao on their team. So we’re very interested in this. KernelBench kind of spawned from that too, of like, can we get LLMs to automate, GPU kernel code? And I think that was like a. It was a very fun time. It was like between college and my PhD, and yeah, I had a really pleasant time doing stuff with GPU Mode. Now I kind of just help with the lectures sometimes. I’m not as involved, and I think in general, like, we don’t have as many competitions as we used to. But, yeah, I still keep in touch a lot with everyone there.Swyx [00:03:27]: Is there a friendly rivalry? Because I think the previous community that used to do this was like MLSys, MLPerfAlex Zhang [00:03:32]: YeahSwyx [00:03:32]: Kind of thing. Is there a friendly rivalry? Is this like just new generation MLPerf, or what’s going on?Alex Zhang [00:03:38]: The nice thing about GPU Mode is that it is also a community in the sense that, like, a lot of the lectures are very easy enough for a beginner to follow and ask questions and things like that. And, like, the competitions are, like, somewhat, not secondary, but, like, you can participate in them to learn. I think with a lot of, like, MLSys, MLPerf kind of benchmarks, like, for the most part, like, only serious labs and companies participate. Like, seriously in them, at least. That was my understanding of it. I could be wrong. But I think also beyond GPU Mode now, one thing that has been really exciting is there’s a lot more websites and, like, people that work on hosting competitions. Like, I think there’s this.Alex Zhang [00:04:21]: I think there’s this website called, like, LeetGPU or something, and it’s like leet code for GPU problems.Swyx [00:04:26]: Wow.Alex Zhang [00:04:26]: There’s, like, other ones that I’ve. Like, we’ve, we’ve seen. Like, there’s many that have kind of spawned and, like, talked on GPU Mode, and like, it’s very exciting in the sense that I think GPU programming used to be super niche, like when I was interested in it. And the only reason I got interested in it was Tri Dao gave a talk at Princeton because he was, applying for faculty. he is faculty there now, but I listened to his talk on FlashAttention in like 2023, and I was like, “Wow, this is like the coolest thing ever.”Alex Zhang [00:04:56]: And I was like, “This is like. This is what everyone should be working on.” I guess, like, vLLM and stuff had come out too, and it was like, “Oh, we should be writing kernels.” But now it’s like, everyone writes kernels. Like, everyone. It’s, it’s. I think it’s actually almost saturated in some sense, as a field.AI-Written Kernels and the Verification GapVibhu [00:05:11]: Any interesting takes for people that wanna get into it? So I think one of the biggest news is GPT-5.6 Wrote more efficient kernels, so Terra and, Luna could be 80% cheaper.Alex Zhang [00:05:24]: Yeah.Vibhu [00:05:25]: And then we’ve seen other competitions where people are, like, setting records, and they’re like, “We’re doing some auto research loop,” and these are people that don’t have a backgroundAlex Zhang [00:05:34]: YepVibhu [00:05:34]: In any kernel writing, right?Alex Zhang [00:05:36]: Yeah. So even on the GPU Mode leaderboard, if you look at, like, a lot of the recent problems, almost all the solutions are AI generated. However, you’ll notice on the leaderboard. So there’s this guy named Gauners who’s, like, a very, like, regular member of GPU Mode. We’ve always known for a long time that he’s, like, a super cracked, like, GPU kernel writer. One thing we discovered on this leaderboard is, like, almost ev-- Like, he also used AI to help him with these solutions, but for the most part, like, he helped prompt and move it in certain directions. we found that, like, his kernel was, like, basically the only one in, like, the top 10 that was actually stable in, like, actual, like. end-to-end systems. And it does bring into question, like, it’s not. Like, GPU kernels have a verification problem. Like, we’ve kind of known this. It’s been a problem since KernelBench was released. Like, there’s a lot of reward hacking that goes on. But you al-- Yeah, you also notice, like, the lines of code is a lot smaller, butVibhu [00:06:33]: Yeah, I was gonna ask, is that noticeable, or is it justAlex Zhang [00:06:36]: Yeah, no, it’s, it’sVibhu [00:06:36]: OkayAlex Zhang [00:06:36]: It’s definitely, like, very important, and I think, like, it’s, it’s really interesting that still there’s a lot of alpha in being good at writing GPU kernels.Vibhu [00:06:44]: Okay, so there is a gap from verifyingAlex Zhang [00:06:45]: There definitely is, yeah. I think, like. And this applies to a lot of AI systems as well. Like, I think, even with the most recent, like, math proofs and stuff, like, it doesn’t necessarily mean mathematicians are obsolete. these companies still hire mathematicians, like, to do, whether it be, like, data labeling work or even just, like, steering the models to solve problems. Like, there is still a lot of alpha in being, like, knowledgeable in these things, so.Swyx [00:07:12]: Is it just knowledge, or is it also there is just more planning, and is there, an emergent style of planning that works better?Alex Zhang [00:07:22]: I think it’s, it’s a mix of. Maybe this is what you mean, like intuition forSwyx [00:07:27]: Something like thatAlex Zhang [00:07:28]: How to solve the problems.Swyx [00:07:29]: Like, for example, I always diagram my code.Alex Zhang [00:07:31]: Yeah.Swyx [00:07:31]: Right?Alex Zhang [00:07:31]: Yeah.Swyx [00:07:31]: And then, like, if there’s a part of the diagram I don’t understand, I work until I understand it. Otherwise, I, it’s not allowed.Alex Zhang [00:07:37]: Yeah.Swyx [00:07:38]: Yeah.Alex Zhang [00:07:38]: So I think it’s, like, it’s a mix of those things of, like, the people who work. Like, the people who know how to look at these problems and how to solve them, like, also know how to use AI to do them. Because, like, you’re acting as a very strong verifier. Like, if you are knowled- or if what to do and you are also. Like, I think the thing that we’ve kind of discovered with all these agent swarms and things like this is, like, when you throw enough compute at a problem, you, like, can sufficiently explore solutions to that problem. But oftentimes, like, maybe you can burn, like, 100 billion or a trillion tokens on something, but if you bring in someone who knows something about the problem, they can uncover something for the model that would, like, erase that one trillion token spend. it’s not, it’s not super clear, like, what exactly the trends are here. But I think, like, there are so many problems in the wild still right now that we want to solve, and, like, we can’t afford to just always, throw as much compute as possible at it. Like, there is still an efficiency aspect of all of these things that is super important.Speed-of-Light Limits, Memory, and MegakernelsSwyx [00:08:41]: Is there, like, a theoretical right answer that you just calculate based on physics, and then you just get close to the physics limit?Alex Zhang [00:08:49]: Yes. So for GPU kernels, you can compute. It’s actually not that easy to compute sometimes, like, depending on how complex the problem is. Like, for matrix multiplication, it’s very easy to compute, this, like, speed-of-light kind of, estimate of what the fastest kernel can be. And, like, this is also assuming, like, maybe all of your, all your data starts on the CPU, or maybe it starts in DRAM, on the GPU, et cetera. Like, this changes these numbers slightly, butSwyx [00:09:18]: The transfers and all these things, yeah.Alex Zhang [00:09:20]: Yeah. But I will say, like, it’s not clear, though, like, in a lot of cases if it’s even possible to hit this theoretical number, if that makes sense. Like, this is assuming, like, perfect overlapping and transfer of data, and, like, there’s maybe some bottleneck that you can’t get around. But often, the kernels are not even close. Like, that we write are not nearly close enough to this number to be, like, meaningful at all.Swyx [00:09:43]: Yeah. And is it speed that matters? Do you also care about, obviously memory, whichAlex Zhang [00:09:48]: MmSwyx [00:09:48]: Feeds into speed? Do you care about power consumption? So one of my, one of our top pods of the year was Geoff Dean, who was like, “…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Why Dwarkesh is Wrong about Computer Use + How OpenAI shipped its Jev competitor in 1 Week Sep 30, 2026
    Show notes

    Three months ago Dwarkesh, who has been posting incredible blogs and episodes about RL, posted a framing question for his video essay on RLVR which upset a lot of Computer Use folks:We are no strangers to learning in public and are no strangers to the stress of getting things wrong when you have a big platform. However, we were at Anthropic for the Computer Use launch, there for Claude Cowork with the first big podcast on it, organized the first Computer Use track at AIE presenting the state of the art, and were close to the OpenAI-Sky Software acquisition that now powers the complete domination of computer use that Codex enjoys today. This is why we’re excited to bring you today’s first guest, Ari Weinstein, cofounder of Sky and now leading all the amazing CUA progress that casuals might miss:Ari explains why Computer Use is now “180 degrees different” from where it was months ago, how agents are learning to debug and recover from failures, why combining screenshots with accessibility data, the DOM, Playwright, and generated code changes the speed equation, and why the next frontier is making agents literally superhuman at using software.OpenAI clones JevIn the second half, Nikunj Handa from OpenAI’s API team breaks down the new developer stack: async tool calling, mid-turn steering, WebSockets, UltraFast inference, the Decisions API, prompt caching, pre-warming, compaction, and the Agents API. Given that we were the first Jev podcast, we particularly focus on the unusually fast sprint on the Decisions API:And why it is just a Luna wrapper for now but the team is motivated and egoless enough to clone what they consider to be good patterns.We discuss:* Why OpenAI thinks Computer Use has changed dramatically in just the last few months* Dots and what changes when every agent gets its own Linux computer* Why Computer Use can now complete some tasks faster than the average human* The path from human-level to “literally superhuman” computer use* Why modern agents are much better at debugging and recovering from failure* How screenshots, accessibility trees, the DOM, Playwright, and generated JavaScript work together* App Shots and why they give models much richer context than ordinary screenshots* Why Computer Use can close the loop between writing software and testing it* Trust, permissions, and safety when agents can make payments and operate websites* Async function calling and why models no longer need to stop reasoning while tools run* Mid-turn steering, WebSockets, and the architecture behind more responsive agents* UltraFast inference and how OpenAI is pushing frontier models toward much lower latency* The rapid internal story behind the Decisions API* Why Decisions API is more than structured outputs at low latency* GPT Live, fast tool calling, and real-time computer control* How OpenAI is already using Decisions API for support classification and internal workflows* Longer prompt caching, cache pre-warming, and cache-aware applications* Server-side compaction vs manual compaction for long-running agent threads* What should live inside an Agents API versus a developer’s own harness* OpenAI as an “AI cloud” and the search for higher-level primitives beyond raw model APIsAri Weinstein* Product & Engineering, Computer Use at OpenAI* X: https://x.com/AriX* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/weinsteinari/Nikunj Handa* Product, API at OpenAI* X: https://x.com/nikunjhanda* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nikunjhanda/Timestamps00:00:00 OpenAI DevDay: Dots, GPT-6.1, Agents API, and Decisions API00:02:52 Dots and Personal Cloud Computers00:04:59 Why Computer Use Is “180 Degrees Different”00:06:04 From Sky to Self-Debugging Computer Use Agents00:09:24 How Computer Use Sees and Operates Software00:12:09 From Faster Than Humans to Superhuman Computer Use00:16:03 Agents API: Trust, Permissions, and Safety00:17:31 Computer Use for Coding, Testing, and QA00:19:14 GPT-6 APIs, Async Tool Calling, and UltraFast Inference00:23:21 The Rapid Story Behind Decisions API00:25:32 What Decisions API Is and How It Works00:30:24 What OpenAI Is Building With the New APIs00:32:23 Prompt Caching, Pre-Warming, and API Performance00:35:20 Context Compaction for Long-Running Agents00:37:13 Memory, Higher-Level APIs, and the AI CloudTranscriptIntroduction: OpenAI DevDay and the New Agent StackVibhu [00:00:00]: Okay. We’re very excited to be here. Today is OpenAI DevDay. Special podcastSwyx [00:00:08]: We’re the first podcast after your livestream.Vibhu [00:00:10]: First podcast. We have Ari here, who leads the product and engineering team for Computer Use agents. Before we kick in and dive deep on Computer Use, you wanna give a quick recap? What was announced? What’s the quick slew of announcements you guys had today?Ari Weinstein [00:00:24]: Yeah. yeah, it was a super exciting day. we just got out of the keynote. It was really sick. there were a bunch of Computer Use announcements that I think are worth thinking about. We have, Dots, which is the new, sort of personal assistant product, and, that has some really exciting Computer Use features. There’s GPT-6.1 Sol, which is this amazing new model, that I think is particularly great for Computer Use ‘cause of, sort of the cost and speed, advantages. I think, I think we shared that it’s, a fifth of the cost of Astra and a seventh of the cost if you’re looking at Computer Use specifically, which is really amazing. sorry, there were so many things. I’m trying to sort through it.Swyx [00:01:02]: And the API.Ari Weinstein [00:01:03]: Agents API, which now has Computer Use in it, which is really cool, ‘cause now developers can build on the same Computer Use, that is part of Codex, and ChatGPT. and then there were some demos of our existing Computer Use features, like app shots, where you can take the context of something you’re doing on your computer and bring it into Codex and ChatGPT really fast. And then, like, native Computer Use on your Mac, where Roman had it taking screenshots of his app, automatically, and he could do other things on his computer while Computer Use was using his applications. so yeah, really exciting keynote.Swyx [00:01:35]: And not to mention the Decisions API.Ari Weinstein [00:01:37]: Decisions API.Swyx [00:01:38]: Off the bat, are they all the same model? Like, this is. Or the same dataset distilled to different models?Swyx [00:01:44]: Like, basically, like, is Computer Use using Decisions API, or are they, like, kinda separate?Ari Weinstein [00:01:49]: So what’s really cool about the Decisions API is it, you know, it has all these new capabilities. It does inference in parallel. it doesn’t have reasoning. It’s a smaller model, than the ones we use for Computer Use. and so those capabilities make it really fast.Dots and Delegating Work to a Cloud ComputerSwyx [00:02:07]: Yeah.Ari Weinstein [00:02:07]: They also make it a little bit less good at doing, like, long horizon, sort of sophisticated tasks. And so I think I would say it’s still an open area of research for how we, like, bring those approaches together. But, yeah, I’m really excited to see what people build with the Decisions API.Vibhu [00:02:24]: One of the interesting things is Dots now have attached personal computers.Ari Weinstein [00:02:28]: Yeah.Vibhu [00:02:28]: So it seems like they’re very much more persistent. You’ve been using them for a while. How should people push the bounds? Like, what should people aim for? What should they try? Personally, right now I use it for a lot of customer service. LikeAri Weinstein [00:02:41]: CoolVibhu [00:02:41]: “Oh, this was wrong. I don’t wanna sign in. I don’t wanna authenticate.” Find whatever and just get it fixed.Ari Weinstein [00:02:45]: Yeah.Vibhu [00:02:46]: How should we push further? What should people try?Ari Weinstein [00:02:50]: Dots Are a really cool product because each Dot has access to its own Linux virtual computer in the cloud, which is different from our other products. you know, traditionally, we’ve have access to a browser in the cloud, or it has access to your own computer, but now you get your own entire Linux computer in the cloud. And so it can run full desktop applications, and it can also use a web browser. And so, yeah, you know, I think the powerful thing about Computer Use and the reason why I think it’s so, exciting is because it makes it so that the agent can do anything you as a, as a person can do, because all the software in the world was designed for humans, and now agents can use that same software, and you can delegate to the agent. So, yeah, like, anything that you would do on a computer, you can ask a Dot to do. Yeah, I think what particularly is useful is gonna really depend on who the end user is and what- what’s valuable in their life. but yeah, I would just start by thinking about, like, one of the things that you spend time on and how could you delegate those to an agent.Swyx [00:03:47]: Yeah, a lot of flight booking and shopping and honestly even, like, playing a game or whatever, right?Ari Weinstein [00:03:52]: Totally.Swyx [00:03:52]: Yeah.Ari Weinstein [00:03:53]: Yeah, I don’t know. For me, something I did recently, I’ve been working on. I’ve, subscribed to a meal prep service ‘cause I was trying to, like, eat healthy, you know? And I really like this meal prep service I found because it lets me customize the meals I order to, like, a high degree of granularity. So I can say, like, “I want this many grams of chicken and this many grams of rice.” but it was so complicated. It took me two hours to do an order, and I found that I could ask Computer Use to do it for me, and it did it in 15 minutes. so I actually saved two hours. it both did it eight times faster than I could, and it saved me two hours on GPT-6.1 Sol.Swyx [00:04:32]: Yeah.Ari Weinstein [00:04:32]: So those are the kinds of tasks that I feel like, are really powerful.Swyx [00:04:36]: As a creator, I can tell you automatically, immediately, my number one use case is automating YouTube.Ari Weinstein [00:04:40]: Nice.Swyx [00:04:40]: Because, YouTube doesn’t expose a lot of things via API.Ari Weinstein [00:04:43]: Yeah.Swyx [00:04:43]: And you have to just put it in a VM and just, like, run it, for, like, let’s say, let’s say their AB testing feature or making community posts. None of this is available by API ‘cause they hate developers.Swyx [00:04:53]: Anyway, so,Ari Weinstein [00:04:55]: I’ve heard that from our developer experience team too. They use it with YouTube a lot. Yeah. It’s really awesome.Swyx [00:04:59]: So I wanna draw for, you know. let’s say, I wanna get a little bit spicy. One of our, the leading AI podcasts, our friends, is famous for saying that Computer Use hasn’t advanced in the last two years.How Computer Use Has Changed in the Last YearAri Weinstein [00:05:12]: Yeah.Swyx [00:05:13]: Which is a very interesting statement, and I think you’re one of the best people in the world to talk about this, like, how have things have progressed, right?Ari Weinstein [00:05:20]: Yeah. You know, they said that a few months ago, I think, and I hope they have a different perspective now because Computer Use is, like, 180 degrees different than it was.Swyx [00:05:26]: He’s a, he’s a tough guy to impress.Ari Weinstein [00:05:27]: Yeah, okay. well, we’re working on it.Swyx [00:05:30]: But, you know, you worked on. You’ve, like, basically spent your whole career working on, like, some kind of computer automation, right?Ari Weinstein [00:05:34]: Yeah.Swyx [00:05:34]: Like shortcutsAri Weinstein [00:05:35]: YeahSwyx [00:05:35]: At Apple, and then Sky, and then, and then joining OpenAI. Can you draw, like, what your through line is for, like, what is driving you and what- you, what wasn’t possible back then maybeAri Weinstein [00:05:47]: Yeah.Swyx [00:05:48]: And, like, what your sort of milestones were.Vibhu [00:05:49]: I guess to add on to that as a follow-up question, what’s the major change from using Codex Computer Use from, like, last weekAri Weinstein [00:05:57]: YeahVibhu [00:05:57]: Through to today? Is it model? Is it dots? Is it harness? So all the history plus what really just changed in today’s announcements?Ari Weinstein [00:06:04]: Yeah. On the through line, I guess I’ve always been excited about automation and helping people automate tasks because then you can, like, save time in your life and focus on things that are more important to you than, like, operating a computer very intricately. And so, yeah, that was why we worked on some of those products. I was at Apple before. we made a company called Sky. we ended up joining OpenAI, which is really exciting. and I think something that wasSwyx [00:06:27]: And almost like you have to hack around Apple until Apple was like, “Fine, like, we’ll just hire you and you can just work on the inside,” right? Like.Ari Weinstein [00:06:35]: It was, it was a cool place to get to work. what was really interesting looking back at Sky is we were, we were working on Computer Use there as well, and the models were so much less capable. And now the models, just in the last one year, have become extraordinarily capable at Computer Use. I think the biggest delta that I see is before they could, like, reliably start tasks, but then they would run into problems, and now they’re really good at debugging. They’re really good at trying again, introspecting what is and isn’t working. and I think we’ve also brought the Computer Use the Computer Use field itself has moved forward. I think we’re using more techniques. now Computer Use, often writes code. So if you actually look at it in Codex and you expand the tool calls manually, you can see that it’s not just doing one action at a time. It’s actually writing JavaScript code that it executes, that the computer executes to perform sometimes many actions at once, which is a great, you know, speed up and great capability. We use more accessibility, sort of multimodal interfaces. So, the model may use screenshots, it may use accessibility, it may use Playwright. it can use a lot of different mechanisms, based on the task at hand. and then, yeah, the model acceleration has been, has been just amazing. So, yeah, what’s different today? I think we’re making computers better all the time, so I think just, like, one day’s difference, is probably a little bit less consequential than, like, even the past month or the past two months. but, yeah, I think the Computer Use in Dot is really exciting as well as, the new model that we came out with.Measuring Computer Use and Improving the HarnessVibhu [00:08:03]: On the keynote, Tejal was mentioning 7x improvements in Computer Use speed, a lot better on a few benchmarks. How do you guys think about measuring it? Computer Use is one of those things where, as you say, you know, it’s improvements over time.Ari Weinstein [00:08:20]: Yeah.Vibhu [00:08:20]: Is it harness? Is it model? Is it post-training?Ari Weinstein [00:08:22]: Right.Vibhu [00:08:22]: How do you guys look at it internally about measuring how good it is, and what were the changes with the new model?Ari Weinstein [00:08:29]: We actually have a bunch of different ways of measuring it, some of which are on different permutations and configurations of the harness. It’s a bit of a complicated story because, you know, our production products have, you know, some more safety checks, and, you know, those are configured differently based on the needs of the, of the task at hand. So there’s a lot of ways to measure it, but I think regardless of how we measure it, we find pretty consistent gains. and those gains are, sometimes in the harness and sometimes in the model. and yeah, I was really excited by this result that GPT-6.1 is even more cost-effective for Computer Use than its baseline cost improvement as compared to Astra. It’s, like, really cool to see.Swyx [00:09:10]: Yeah. I mean, one of the visuals I really liked from the livestream was that, you’re so…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Claude Code’s Next Era — Thariq Shihipar, Anthropic Sep 29, 2026
    Show notes

    We are excited to have Anthropic share their latest AI x Finance work at AI Engineer New York, coming up in 2 weeks!In case you’ve been under a rock, here’s a non-exhaustive list of what Anthropic has been shipping since closing the largest fundraise of all time in May at $47B ARR:* June: Launched Claude Tag and Sonnet 5 and Fable 5* July: Opus 5, /checkup. crossed $65B ARR* Last month: Fable/Mythos 5.1, and EFS (upcoming pod)* IPO target $2T, end 2026 ARR estimated $100B* Cowork/chat merged before did* Claude Mods* Dario endorses the same Pacing the Frontier message cosigned by all labs* Last week: Opus 5.5, Plugins portal, Cloud Sessions/Claude Projects* Today: Sonnet 5.5!Today’s episode should catch you up, with Thariq Shihipar, the explainer-king of Anthropic, who we last caught up on Fable launch day with The Field Guide to Fable:The Future of Mutable SoftwarePay special attention to Claude Mods (especially the cheatsheet):In general this is also the inverse of the other viral tweet from Thariq:Cloud Brain, Local HandsAnd give a try to Claude Projects:The “hands” terminology is not just an analogy for the local/cloud paradigm that is being built up at frontier coding agent companies like Cognition, but is ALSO particularly relevant to the safety systems discussions that we’ll be discussing with Anthropic in an upcoming episode as they prepare to pace to frontier with responsible AI deployment.For those who want Thariq’s writing tips we teased at the start of the pod, watch the full video here:From the rapid rise of Claude Code to a future where agents can rewrite their own harnesses, collaborate across teams, and operate across cloud and local environments, the way we build software is changing extraordinarily fast. In this episode, Anthropic’s Thariq Shihipar joins swyx and Vibhu to unpack how power users are actually working with Claude Code today, why prompting remains a high-skill discipline, and where Anthropic thinks the agent harness is headed next.We go deep on Claude Code’s evolving interface: Ask User Question and elicitation, artifacts as persistent generative interfaces, Claude Tag for multiplayer agent workflows, Projects, model effort, implementation notes, and the new Claude Mods system for customizing the harness itself. Thariq explains why Claude.md may eventually disappear, why the smartest model could also become the cheapest model for many tasks, and why mutable software could become a new paradigm for how applications are built and customized.The conversation then turns to agent security and Anthropic’s “Pacing the Frontier” argument. Thariq walks through recent incidents where agents discovered unexpected ways to communicate, exploit infrastructure, reverse-engineer benchmark scorers, and chain vulnerabilities together. We discuss sandboxing, prompt injection, autonomous agents, interpretability, constitutional classifiers, probes, fallbacks, Auto Mode, and why securing increasingly capable agents may become one of the defining engineering problems of the next few years.We discuss:* Why agentic coding went from controversial to the default in less than a year* Why prompting is still one of the highest-leverage skills for working with Claude Code* How expert users build a mental model of Claude and what it can reliably one-shot* Why discovering your “unknown unknowns” matters more as agents become more capable* Artifacts as persistent, generative interfaces between humans and agents* How Claude could split into a cloud-based “brain,” local or remote “hands,” and dynamic interfaces* Claude Tag, Projects, and multiplayer agents and how collaborative agent workflows could evolve* Why spending more time on the initial prompt can dramatically reduce wasted agent work* When to use low, medium, high, or max effort for different engineering tasks* Why frontier models may eventually outperform smaller models on both intelligence and token efficiency* Why implementation notes can expose decisions the model considered but chose not to make* Why Claude.md may eventually disappear — and why starting without one can sometimes be better* Claude Mods: customizing the execution loop, UI, subagents, routing, and behavior of Claude Code* Model routers, forked agents, and supervisor agents that automatically improve agent workflows* Why Claude Mods may be an early preview of “mutable software”* The bitter lesson of harness engineering and why agent architectures go out of date so quickly* How Claude Tag is becoming an organizational harness for multiplayer work* Why giving agents access to company data creates an enormous new security surface* The Exploit-Bench incident where agents discovered ways to communicate and collaborate* Why agents hacked Hugging Face for scorer code rather than benchmark answers* How agents chained sandbox and infrastructure vulnerabilities in unexpected ways* Why increasingly capable agents make traditional security assumptions harder to maintain* The argument behind Anthropic’s “Pacing the Frontier” proposal* Why software engineers are increasingly doing two jobs: engineering and keeping up with AI* Constitutional classifiers, probes, and fallbacks and what interpretability looks like in production* How Auto Mode checks whether an agent’s actions actually match the user’s permissions* Why Thariq can see serious AI risks while still having a relatively low p(doom)Thariq Shihipar* X: https://x.com/trq212* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thariqshihiparTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction00:04:12 Ask User Question and the Future of Agent Interfaces00:08:29 Artifacts, Projects, and Multiplayer Agents00:15:37 Prompting as the Core Claude Code Skill00:21:52 Context, Effort, and Smarter Model Usage00:28:10 Is Claude.md Going Away?00:32:49 Claude Mods: Customizing the Claude Code Harness00:36:35 Model Routing and the Rise of Mutable Software00:44:40 The Bitter Lesson of Harness Engineering00:50:49 Claude Tag as an Organizational Harness00:55:59 Pacing the Frontier and Autonomous Agent Security00:58:22 Agents Hack Hugging Face for the Scorer01:05:34 What Happens When Agents Need More Compute?01:10:32 AI Coding Is Changing Faster Than Engineers Can Keep Up01:17:17 Probes, Fallbacks, Interpretability, and Auto Mode01:28:32 AI Risk, p(doom), and Closing ThoughtsTranscriptIntroduction: Life at Anthropic and the Pace of ChangeSwyx [00:00:00]: We’re here in the studio with our friend Thariq from Anthropic, and I guess generally the Claude Code, I-- there’s, there’s so much, merging of boundaries and you’ve been so on top of everything since you joined Anthropic. You have been early to Claude Code itself, but then also, and you’ve told that story in other podcasts, and you’ve also been talking about seeing like an agent. Most recently you did the top AIE World Tour talk, Field Guide to Fable, which obviously you guys launched Fable, so that was-- that’s cheating. And mostly you most recently also launching Claude Tag, and we’re also gonna be talking about Pacing the Frontier. There’s a lot going on in Anthropic. I guess top of the question is, what’s it like being at Anthropic when there’s so much going on?Thariq Shihipar [00:00:48]: I think that It is, like. I think you can get whiplash sometimes. I think, like, going. When I joined Anthropic, I joined because of Claude Code. Like Claude Code had just come out and I was like, “This is so good.” And Opus 4 to me was like just, I could not imagine, like, how good it was? And that was, like, a real moment for me. But I was, like, trying to convince, like, my startup friends to use agentic coding, and they’re like, “Oh, no, like, our engineers don’t think it’s good enough,” or something. And I was like, “That’s insane.” and now you, like, fast-forward, 12 months, less, and, like, it’s just like, yeah, the default way that everyone codes, right? And I think that, like, just having to go from, like, selling it to, like, now, teaching people how to be. make the most use of it and be more efficient and things like that is just like a big, like big change. And, yeah, I think, like, it’s just hard to stay on top of everything as a human? Like, I think things happen so fast and likeSwyx [00:01:51]: You just throw more agents at it.Thariq Shihipar [00:01:52]: Yeah, like that’s like the agentic stuff scales much better than the, like, human stuff where it’s like, oh, like, there are three things happening right now and, like, they’re all emergencies and, like, how do you, like, respond to it? Yeah.Teaching People to Use Claude CodeVibhu [00:02:05]: What do you split your time on? You do a lot of technical writing, engineering work.Thariq Shihipar [00:02:10]: Yeah, so I think that, like, when I joined the Claude Code team, I wanted to teach people how to use Claude Code and I think that, like, that has been something that, like, I thought, like, maybe I would spend a little bit of time on it or, like, I’d, like, do. I was spending some time on the agent SDK first, and I wasn’t exactly sure, like, how the bitter lesson would go, when it comes to, like, harnesses, right? Like, I think sometimes we were like, “Oh, like, what’s after Claude Code?”? And so initially I was like, I just wanna teach people how to use Claude Code and make it easier to use Claude Code. And I think that has just, like, as the harnesses have gotten better and better, that’s like the dominant problem now is, like, how do you use the agents, right? Like, it’s like such a high skill expression thing. So I do that and then I do engineering work. I give talks, but I think, like, when I’m doing engineering work, my goal is to take that feedback that we get from users and also, like, then be able to talk about, like, hey, how to use Claude Code to do engineering. So there’s like a good loop there. Yeah.Swyx [00:03:07]: Yeah. I’ll-- For listeners, we’ll attach, the talk that you did with Sarah for the Dev Writers, meetupThariq Shihipar [00:03:13]: Oh, yeahSwyx [00:03:13]: Which we talked a little bit about, well, first you do the work and then you talk about the work.Thariq Shihipar [00:03:16]: Right.Swyx [00:03:16]: Something like that.Thariq Shihipar [00:03:17]: Yeah.Swyx [00:03:17]: It’s sow and reap orThariq Shihipar [00:03:19]: Yeah, reap and. Sow and reap.Swyx [00:03:21]: Something like that. Something like that. Yeah, so, and then just to preview a little bit, we are gonna talk about the evolution of the harness. It has come a long way from just being a CLI. We’re gonna talk about, Claude Mods, which is starting to leak today, because you couldn’t keep it secret.Thariq Shihipar [00:03:36]: Yeah. yeah.Swyx [00:03:39]: Yeah, there’s, there’s a lot, there. I think you started off with, like, adding ask user question tool, which people love and hate.Thariq Shihipar [00:03:48]: Yeah.Swyx [00:03:48]: Like, I thought it was, like, very innovative, and then now I have, like, my own version. You have your Interview Me version.Thariq Shihipar [00:03:55]: Yeah.Swyx [00:03:56]: And, yeah, everyone just has, like, their own stuff. And, like, it no longer matters ‘cause now you’re supposed to, write prompts that create other prompts and loops and all these things.Ask User Question and Human-Agent InteractionThariq Shihipar [00:04:05]: Sure, yeah.Swyx [00:04:06]: So what’s the state of the art, today? Like, what are people. what are you, like, telling people to do today?Thariq Shihipar [00:04:12]: Yeah, ask user question was the first time that the model was good at elicitation. I think this was, like, an emergent behavior that I, like, wanted to see if the models could do. I have, like a human-computer interaction background, so I, like, did that in undergrad and grad school. And so this was like. I think it’s like human-agent interaction to me, like, trying to figure out, like, how can the agent communicate with you and extract, the requirements, right? I think that, like, one of the things about, like, that’s difficult as Claude Code has gone broader and broader is that everyone has, like, their own way of using it, and it’s very hard to, like, change the default behavior. So for example, like, if someone asks Claude Code to do something,Thariq Shihipar [00:04:59]: Sometimes they just want them to do the work, ‘cause they’re, like, maybe a very good prompter, and sometimes they want. like, are not good at prompting? And you need. like, the agent needs to, like, clarify? And so that’s, like, a good split. Like, and the ask you the question tool like, splits along that side where, like, are-- do you feel like you’re good enough to instruct the agent as it is, or is the agent able to, like. does the agent need to, like, pull out more requirements and, like, collaborate with you more and really understand your preferences?Thariq Shihipar [00:05:27]: I, on the whole, believe that pretty much everyone is more on the latter than the former, that they, like, have more ambiguity and they know less than they want, than they, like, think they know about the problem. but, like, it’s like a interface design problem to make that easy? And so, like, if you’re designing a problem, like, or if you’re going through a problem, like, things like what’s the schema or, like, what’s the call stack and things like that are really important. like, the details in the design are important. Ideally, you want to figure out some of these, like, hard problems ahead of time before starting implementation. And yeah, that’s why they call, like, unknowns, right? And so I think that this will forever be, like, a skill in agentic coding is, like, figuring out your unknowns. So, like, because even if the model is, like, super intelligent- It, like, needs to know what you want? And, like, you have preferences. like, you need to like, pull the, pull that out. and so that’s, like, I think how I’m, what I’m pushing. the question then is, like, how does the agent interact with you? And I think that has been HTML, has been, like, the big way of doing that. And we’ve recently added artifacts, right? And artifacts, I think we’ve done a bad job of, like, or, like, I’ve done a bad job of, like, explaining how to use them fully. We have a lot of property capabilities. They have a database associated with them? And so every artifact can store and write persistent data. They can, like, feed back into Claude? And so, like, one thing that, like, people are not doing yet that I’m trying to, like, encourage is, like, this idea of a dashboard artifact. So you have, like, Claude working on a project long-term. Maybe it’s like a kanban or something. it can store that kanban data in its database. Multiple Claudes can access that data via, like, the artifact MCP, and, like, that artifact can, like, talk to those Claudes as well. And so, like, the. We’re building the primitives for you to be able to have this, like, generative interface via artifacts that will, like, let you surface more of that rich detail from the agents. And I think that, like, almost everything with agents right now is, like, this problem of, like, you think what you want, but you don’t really know what you want, and, like, the agents need a lot of detail, and collaborating with them in the loop is really important. And so artifacts are, like, the, like, way that we’re trying to evolve there. But there’s a lot of work to do because it’s so much more complicated than, like, a multiple-choice question? there’s a lot more, like, detail in terms of, like, diagrams and code snippets and schemas or, like, whatever it is for that problem. But, like, artifacts is, like, the mo-more AGI-pilled way of, like, doing ask user question. So yeah.Artifacts as the Interface to the HarnessSwyx [00:08:15]: I think one thing that’s unclear to me about these, the artifact stuff is, like, what feedback should go in through the artifact and what feedback should go through a Claude, a chat? Because the more AGI-pilled one is to just feed everything to the Claude.Thariq Shihipar [00:08:29]:…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    OpenRouter: from Seed to Stripe — with OpenRouter’s Alex Atallah & AMP’s Anjney Midha Sep 25, 2026
    Show notes

    From the earliest days of open-weight models to becoming the neutral routing layer for more than 10 million developers, OpenRouter is one of the clearest bets that the future of AI will be multi-model. In this episode, OpenRouter co-founder & CEO Alex Atallah, with AMP’s Anjney Midha returningwith swyx to unpack how OpenRouter emerged from the first wave of Llama, Alpaca, Mistral, and Midjourney, why model diversity mattered before it was consensus, and how a company dismissed as “just a wrapper” became critical infrastructure for the AI ecosystem.We go deep on the product and distribution lessons behind OpenRouter: why model labs can spend billions training a checkpoint and still struggle to get it into developers’ hands, how Mistral helped prove the value of a competitive inference marketplace, why OpenRouter chose focus over expanding into fine-tuning, memory, and other adjacent products, and how its rankings became a real-time map of how AI usage was changing. Alex also explains OpenRouter’s early experiments with model fusion, why they deleted the first version and brought it back years later, and how the platform grew to more than 10 trillion tokens per day.Finally, Anjney explains why Stripe and OpenRouter fit together, why token fraud may become one of the defining security problems of the AI economy, and why the next wave of fraud won’t just come from humans but from autonomous agents attacking increasingly valuable token flows.We discuss:* Why OpenRouter bet early that no single AI model would win everything* Alpaca, Llama, and open models becoming impossible to ignore* Why Discord’s early AI deployments exposed the limitations of closed models* Why model labs can spend billions on training and still fail at distribution* How OpenRouter became a neutral distribution layer for model developers* Why VCs dismissed OpenRouter as “just a marketplace” or “just a wrapper”* The Mistral price war and the first real proof of an inference marketplace* How Midjourney scaled through Discord and what it taught the AI ecosystem* Why crypto infrastructure became a dress rehearsal for generative AI* OpenRouter vs. LM Arena and why their missions are fundamentally different* Why focus became one of OpenRouter’s biggest strategic advantages* Anthropic’s early focus on AI pair programming and coding* The OpenRouter products that were prototyped but never launched* MOM, OpenRouter’s early Mixture of Models experiment* Why model fusion failed in 2024 — and why it works much better now* How OpenRouter’s leaderboard became a live map of the AI industry* OpenClaw, auto-routing, and agents reshaping AI usage* How OpenRouter reached 10+ trillion tokens per day* Why inference gateways are increasingly becoming targets for fraud* Why Stripe’s fraud infrastructure is strategically important to OpenRouter* The coming rise of agentic fraud and attacks on the token economy* What changes and what stays the same as OpenRouter joins StripeAlex Atallah* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexatallah/* X: https://x.com/alexatallah* Website: https://alexatallah.comAnjney Midha* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anjney/* X: https://x.com/AnjneyMidha* AMP: https://www.amppublic.com/Timestamps00:00:00 Introduction00:02:12 Alpaca, Llama, and the Multi-Model Bet00:06:04 Discord, Open Models, and OpenRouter’s Origins00:14:28 Why “One Model Wins” Was the Wrong Bet00:17:27 Why Model Labs Struggle With Distribution00:23:04 “Just a Wrapper”: Why VCs Misunderstood OpenRouter00:27:58 Bootstrapping OpenRouter Through Community00:36:16 Crypto, Midjourney, and the Early Generative AI Ecosystem00:43:38 Mistral and the Birth of the Inference Marketplace00:47:10 OpenRouter vs. LM Arena00:52:08 Focus, Anthropic, and Roads Not Taken00:59:34 Mixture of Models and Model Fusion01:02:44 Sonnet, OpenClaw, and OpenRouter’s Explosive Growth01:09:03 Why Stripe Acquired OpenRouter01:12:45 Fraud and the Emerging Token Economy01:17:47 The Coming Wave of Agentic Fraud01:19:07 What’s Next for OpenRouter at StripeTranscriptIntroduction: OpenRouter, Marketplaces, and Pub-Sub as a Product PrincipleSwyx [00:00:00]: Okay, we are here in Anja’s house, which is where all big startups in San Francisco start.Anjney Midha [00:00:08]: Howdy.Swyx [00:00:08]: And, congrats on Cursor, Mistral. I don’- God knows what else. You got so much stuff going on.Anjney Midha [00:00:17]: There’s, there’s a lot going on. Well, OpenRouter is probably the - has been the most, I would say, like, one I’m excited about recently.Swyx [00:00:24]: Yeah. And we have Alex, first time on the pod, but,Anjney Midha [00:00:27]: Thanks for having me.Swyx [00:00:27]: You’ve been in the IE a few times. I appreciate every time you’ve shown up, for the community. Congrats. I just, like, what a journey. When I was looking back at your past posts, one of the earliest principles that I saw you write as a product person is sub as a product principle. And I wanted - you to maybe explain how you think about what should exist in the world.Anjney Midha [00:00:49]: Yeah. The sub piece, which was early 2023, I didn’t think about it until we talked like 10 minutes ago, is about how there is like a way of thinking about products as an intersection between subscribing to data and publishing data. And marketplaces are an easy example of this. You have suppliers that are publishing some product to a SKU. And the SKU is like a sub topic that a consumer is subscribing to and just going to, like, consume whenever they want. And humans consume in a very, like, discreet, ad hoc way. It’s not very scalable. all their attention is on the topic when they’re buying the thing, and their attention is nowhere else when that happens. agents and consumers of inference don’t act like that. They’re consuming continuously, and they’re changing the SKUs that they consume from all the time. So OpenRouter is like a blend between a normal API experience and a marketplace where we create model slug. We have the auto router. We have all kinds of, like, product SKUs that you can subscribe to. And then you can, like, continuously add, like, derive value and make decisions based on those consumers.Alpaca, Llama, and the Multi-Model BetSwyx [00:02:11]: Yeah. This is something that was more consensus now, but not consensus when you guys started, which was that there is such a demand for swapping models and changing things out and, that people would not use the native SDKs. I guess, for each of you, what was your realization moment that this would be it? I, - You’ve, you’ve given a talk at EIE about Alpaca as,Anjney Midha [00:02:33]: Yeah.Swyx [00:02:33]: One of your inspiring moments.Anjney Midha [00:02:35]: Alpaca, I can, like, rehash the Alpaca moment for a sec. Like, the very beginning, at the end of 2022, OpenAI was the only game in town. There was, like, OpenAI, Cohere,Swyx [00:02:47]: Yes.Anjney Midha [00:02:48]: And then a smattering of, like, early attempts at open weight models.Swyx [00:02:54]: Yeah.Anjney Midha [00:02:54]: When Llama came out in January of 2023, it was like, “Wow, really exciting. This is really big.” It outperforms 3 on, one or two benchmarks. but you can’t chat with it. It wasn’t like - It wasn’t an engaging model, but it seemed like someone just needed to fix a couple things and do some RLHF on it to get it all the way there. And Alpaca was the first model that I saw that did that. It only took $600 to do. A team at Stanford generated a bunch of synthetic data, tuned Llama, and made Alpaca, billion parameter model. Or was - Maybe it was thirteen billion parameters. And it was so good. Like, I was just, like, on an airplane using it. I, - in many cases, I, like, you could not discern a ChatGPT versus an Alpaca result. And I figured if it was this easy to make a model, one, we have a whole new way of monetizing data for the first time. you can just, like, take really valuable data and turn it into a service in $600. and that cost will probably go down over time.Swyx [00:04:03]: When you - So sorry. when you say monetizing your data as, what eventually will become an MCP endpoint or as a training data for a model?Anjney Midha [00:04:12]: Yeah, training data for a model.Swyx [00:04:13]: Awesome.Anjney Midha [00:04:13]: Like, an abstract way of saying like, “Hey, I have this data.”Swyx [00:04:15]: Compress it into a model.Anjney Midha [00:04:16]: Like, it makes sense for me in my product, but, like, I could repackage it in the form of a model and sell it. And so it’s just a whole new business model for the economy. It also, of course, provides, like, a way of following what Frontier Labs are doing, but in a way that, like, a single developer or a small team of developers can roll on their own. And so - Whenever you have an example of that, like a breakout app that’s doing really well, and then some framework for imitating it with - in your own flavor, you have an immediate ecosystem of, like an immediate ecosystem, like, should arise because there’s just a huge gap between the, like, decisions that the single company is making and all of the variations in those decisions that, like, a wider ecosystem can create themselves. And so then, you need a marketplace to, like, discover all of those, services and all of those products. There wasn’t any place on the internet that, like, was like a home base for LLMs in terms of seeing how much they were being used and seeing who was using them and why.Swyx [00:05:29]: The closest would be Hugging Face.Anjney Midha [00:05:30]: Hugging Face was the closest at the time, yeah.Swyx [00:05:31]: They just started Hugging, like, a few years ago before that.Anjney Midha [00:05:34]: Yeah, and Hugging Face also didn’t have the closed-source models.Swyx [00:05:37]: Yeah.Anjney Midha [00:05:38]: And they didn’- you couldn’t use the models at the time. and there wasn’t data about who was using them. There were, like, a bunch of differences between OpenRouter and Hugging Face, and those differences felt really critical to me, especially when I was just trying to learn about LLMs and, like, why people are choosing, like, Different little ones that are emerging over time.Discord, Open Models, and the Origins of OpenRouterSwyx [00:06:03]: Got it. And then, Ansh, no stranger to wanting more model diversity, at the time, you’re a couple of years into your Anthropic journey, which we covered in the previous podcast as well. What was your introduction to Alex?Alex Atallah [00:06:16]: Well, the introduction was, I think, thirteen years before that.Swyx [00:06:20]: Oh.Alex Atallah [00:06:20]: But the OpenRouter handshake happened right over there, if you remember.Anjney Midha [00:06:23]: Yeah.Alex Atallah [00:06:24]: Which - So Alex and I, met, I believe as sophomores now, if I remember at the Stanford Review,Anjney Midha [00:06:32]: That’s rightAlex Atallah [00:06:32]: Meeting for the first time.Anjney Midha [00:06:33]: I think so, yeah.Alex Atallah [00:06:35]: Yeah.Anjney Midha [00:06:35]: Yeah.Alex Atallah [00:06:35]: So Stanford Review was the libertarian newspaper on campus at Stanford that Peter Thiel started back in the day. And, whatever-- for whatever reason, I, Alex and I both showed up to one of the meetings, and I remember, the editor-chief was a mutual friend of ours. Lisa was really a really great editor-chief, where, part of an editor-chief’s job is to assign responsibilities to people and make sure the work gets done. and I, I may be misremembering the details, but I remember wanting to. It was surprising to me that at the time there was no dedicated technology section in the newspaper.Alex Atallah [00:07:11]: YouSwyx [00:07:13]: Because it’s political, right?Alex Atallah [00:07:14]: It is primarilySwyx [00:07:14]: Like, it’s talkingAlex Atallah [00:07:15]: It originally started as like aAnjney Midha [00:07:16]: Yes.Swyx [00:07:17]: Yeah, states and all those things.Alex Atallah [00:07:17]: Correct.Swyx [00:07:18]: Yeah.Alex Atallah [00:07:18]: But it, - To take us back in time, you may remember this, but, there was this technology, legislation that was being debated called, the Net Neutrality Act. And net neutrality is, like, inherently this political concept, right? It’s, it’s about the regulation of - internet broadband access. And so there was a community of us who were technologists, but also debating the politics of the technology. And I thought the Review would be a great place - to, like, write about that. And I was working on, I think, a net neutrality article, and I remember proposing, “Well, maybe we should start a technology section.” And Alex was one of the only people who said, “Yes, that would be cool.” And said. I forget whether we ended up writing stuff together, but - that’s when we first met,Alex Atallah [00:08:03]: Was 2011 or twelve. I forget which year it was. It was one of those.Anjney Midha [00:08:09]: Yeah.Alex Atallah [00:08:09]: It was at Old Union, if I remember correctly.Alex Atallah [00:08:11]: That’s where we used to meet. But, along the way, Alex and I have had a chance to, To hang out often. And probably the time when we had the most professional overlap was when I was running the platform at Discord, and it had become this explosive platform for cryptoSwyx [00:08:32]: YeahAlex Atallah [00:08:32]: And NFTs in the middle of the pandemic.Swyx [00:08:35]: Which also, by the way, you were in charge of safety and security as well, right?Alex Atallah [00:08:38]: I was the head of platform, which meant all of the crypto - the DAO and NFT launch security debugging fell onSwyx [00:08:45]: And their phishing and.Alex Atallah [00:08:47]: The phishing, the social engineering attacks, the katana DDoS that we were getting hit by. but it’s around the time I first started teaching security at scale at Stanford, CS 153. And Alex was on the, - at OpenSea at the time, and I was trying to figure out how we could defend against all these attacks that we were. Like, and at peak, I forget, if you remember how much NFT volume was running throughSwyx [00:09:10]: DiscordAlex Atallah [00:09:10]: Discord, but it was, like, a meaningful amount of, like, it was, like, several billion dollars in NFT volume of GMV, so to speak, were running through the platform, and it was all coming from OpenSea. It was these, like, buy, sell,Swyx [00:09:20]: TheAlex Atallah [00:09:21]: ServersSwyx [00:09:21]: The D in DAO is Discord.Alex Atallah [00:09:25]: Yes. And so that’s when I think we had hung out professionally. But a year after that, OpenAI gave Discord early access to GPT. Sorry, three. No, it was five. Yeah, five, which is the RL version of three. And that’s around the time we made a Discord bot with, OpenAI for internal deployment, and that’s when I realized we would need. Like, since I was part of the deployment team.Anjney Midha [00:09:50]: What was the use case?Alex Atallah [00:09:51]: There were two that were. And there’s, there’s a post now called “Discord is Your Place for AI with Friends” that somebody sent me recently that I wrote, and published in twenty-three. But There were two use cases. One was Clyde, which was the - like, a party friend inside of Discord that could help you set up your Discord server and talk to you about onboarding and get your friends to hang out more. and then there was content moderation. And one of the realizations we had with content moderation was - it would refuse to moderate. Like, it would just refuse our prompts because the The training was. We were very early in the training era, and it would just. Our prompts would trigger it, its, like, guardrails. And we told OpenAI, “Hey, guys, we need access to the weights because if we’re gonna be doing content moderation at scale, we had 250 million monthly active users, we need more reliability that the model will do what we need it to.” And they said, “Well, sorry, guys, that’s not how this works. We’re a closed-source company.” And so that was my first realization that we needed open mode…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Runway’s WorldPrompt and the Engineering of Real-Time Worlds Sep 25, 2026
    Show notes

    Earlier this month, world model company Runway introduced GWM Worlds 2, a research preview that “turns high-fidelity video and audio generation into real-time interactive simulation.” Runway calls this an “autoregressive diffusion” model; with autoregressive describing how it generates over time.One new feature in particular caught our eye: WorldPrompt, a proposed input format for specifying a generated world and the actions within it. It allows you to fix some aspects of a simulated environment — including the first frame — and then create a series of timestamped events. The events, or actions, can even be prompted in real-time.To understand the implications of WorldPrompt, we spoke to Kamil Sindi, Runway’s CTO, and Robin Kahlow, its Principal Research Scientist for generative video and multimodal AI. We also have exclusive comments from Anastasis Germanidis, co-founder & co-CEO of Runway, courtesy of a podcast swyx and Vibhu did with him.Who’s building real-time interactive world models?First, some context about world models that can generate interactive video and audio in real-time.Runway is reportedly valued at $5.3 billion, based on its most recent fund raise of $315 million in February. Its first release, GWM Worlds, was launched last December.Alongside Runway, there are several other notable projects in this domain: Google DeepMind’s Genie 3 (which also generates at 720p and 24 fps), Odyssey-2 Pro, and World Labs’ RTFM (Real-Time Frame Model). We’ve summarized their differences in the following table:Given the complexity and massive latency demands of real-time video and audio generation (which we’ll get into below), all of the projects listed above have limitations. For instance, Google notes that Genie 3 “can currently support a few minutes of continuous interaction, rather than extended hours.”But as our interviews with Runway show, real progress is being made.The central idea of WorldPromptWorldPrompt, a new feature in GWM Worlds 2, helps differentiate Runway from its competition. You can think of it as a control layer for characters, cameras and the environment. As Kahlow put it, it’s a way to “control all the different subjects in the world” — similar to a computer game.“Like, if there’s an NPC [Non-Player Character] somewhere, the NPC might walk up to you and say something. So you could achieve the same thing with this kind of model, where you can have very detailed control over everything in the scene.”As the name suggests, WorldPrompt is a prompting mechanism — not a programming language. So, unlike virtual world games like Minecraft or Roblox, GWM Worlds 2 doesn’t offer scripting capabilities or the ability to control state. But there’s a power to that, as Sindi pointed out.“You can create promptable worlds on-demand with video and audio in sync, across all these different domains and environments. That’s not a distant-future hypothetical thing,” he said.But there are also limitations to prompting a world model. We asked how reliably the model would follow an instruction to create, for example, a law of gravity or a certain ability in a character?“Yeah, so it’s a research preview,” Kahlow replied. “So it’s not perfect, of course, and there are still flaws. It really depends on how difficult the action is. I would say movement works quite reliably.”Sindi added that more training plus scaling the data and models is resulting in “better following.”How a video model becomes a real-time runtimeDespite the current limitations of GWM Worlds 2 — especially if you compare it to pre-designed and scriptable worlds like Minecraft or Roblox — the true promise of world models like Runway is that they’ll eventually lead to fully self-generated, real-time games and experiences. Which is an extremely hard engineering problem, as Kahlow reminded us.“There are two challenges. One is making the model not generate a whole clip at once. So instead, you want it to generate frame by frame while you’re looking at it. And the other challenge is actually making the generation fast, so you can play it in real time.”GWM Worlds 2 offers real-time interactive worlds streamed in continuous 720p video at 24 frames per second (fps) and audio at 48,000 Hz.Runway achieved this firstly by taking its foundational audio-video generation model and fine-tuning it to the new WorldPrompt format, so the model can follow that. It then post-trains the model to generate autoregressively.“And after that, we work on making it real-time through distillation methods,” Kahlow added.Co-CEO Anastasis Germanidis offered more technical details in our podcast with him. He told us that the process starts from “bidirectional diffusion that basically generates an entire video at once and [makes] it autoregressive.” This allows the model to “generate one frame or a few frames at a time.”Germanidis described two possible forms of distillation in order to make it real-time: distilling a larger model into a smaller one or reducing its diffusion steps. As a general example, he said a model might go from around 50 denoising steps to four, with some quality loss but potentially comparable results.The challenges of real-time generationGermanidis admitted that there were issues with how it generates real-time interactive video.“The biggest challenge with autoregressive models is error accumulation,” he said. “You’re feeding generated frames back into the model to generate the next frames, and if there are any small errors, they accumulate over time.”Sindi told us there are also challenges dealing with “infinite generations” of content.“There’s all these challenges around what context to keep, what to discard that’s not important. And so there’s all these optimizations we have to think about, so we’re not blowing up our GPU memory.”Another current limitation is long-term memory. “The model does not have perfect memory,” Kahlow said. “That’s still an open research problem.”Causality and correctnessWhile performance is the primary challenge for Runway at this time, its world model also has to produce plausible consequences when a user takes different actions.Germanidis used the example of simulating football; he pointed out that online video training data contains more successful goals than failed goal attempts, so a video model might render the first more convincingly.“If I take this action versus this action, you want it to generate equally realistic outcomes,” he told us. “That’s, I think, the big gap between video models and world models: that idea of counterfactual generation.”Sindi told us that evaluation gets harder the more complex interactions get.“If you have this multi-prompt, multi-character, multi-scene [environment], how do you really understand what was causal and what was not?”To try and solve that, Runway has some automated verifiable tests. But since GWM Worlds 2 is a research preview, Kahlow noted that doing tests yourself is also advisable — “trying out your model to see what doesn’t work is really important.”More than gaming — there are agent use cases tooGaming is the obvious use case for what Runway is building, but there are others. Kahlow mentioned robotics — for example using a simulated environment to test how a robot works.Another, more intriguing, use case is to use it to test agents at scale.“Having thousands of simulated environments is much less challenging if you have a suitable model like GWM Worlds,” Kahlow said.But how does an agent know what’s changed in the world — is there a structured state that it can read, or is it just the generated video and audio that it’s consuming and understanding?“So there’s no structured state here,” Kahlow replied. “It’s just observing the same thing you might observe in real life, just [in this case] from cameras.”Sindi noted that GWM Worlds can also be used for “synthetic data generation for agents.”Finally, Germanidis suggested there’s potential to use these world models alongside reasoning models.“You’re maybe using some reasoning [for] planning of the scene, and then you’re passing it into the diffusion head that’s actually generating the pixels.”Anastasis Germanidis* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/agermanidis/* X: https://x.com/agermanidisTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction00:05:17 Runway’s Origins and the Bet on Generative Video00:12:23 The Stable Diffusion Story00:18:44 Gen-2, Controllability, and the Weekend Hack00:23:02 From Video Generation to World Models00:28:03 Learning From the World, Not Just Language00:35:04 Sora, Runway’s Existential Crisis, and Gen-300:39:39 Why Real-Time Video Is Inevitable00:43:06 Interface World Models: Software Without Code00:50:25 The Fully Neural Operating System00:55:11 World Models for Robotics01:02:32 Robot Policies and World Action Models01:07:47 The Lucid Dream Test01:11:41 Video Agents and Omni Models01:23:12 Artists, AI, and Creative Workflows01:27:14 Physical AI and the Future of World ModelsTranscriptIntroduction: Runway, Creative AI, and the Early ThesisSwyx [00:00:00]: Okay, we’re here with, Anastassios from Runway, with, me and Vibhu in the studio. Welcome.Anastasis [00:00:08]: Good to be here.Swyx [00:00:09]: Congrats on all your success and progress with Runway. You’re opening offices all over the world. Did you envision this when you first started out?Anastasis [00:00:16]: Not quite. I think even when we started, we had this idea that, It was more a matter of when, not if, we were seeing the early generative models of 2016, 2017, and just extrapolating, assuming, we resolution, quality increases predictably over time. There’s gonna be a point where most of content will be generated, and that was maybe the initial thesis of Runway was we will need, as a result of those generative models, rethink how creative tools are made. and as we built out the research behind, our generative models, it then became clear that they were useful far beyond that as well.Anastasis’ Background: Art, Simulation, and Machine LearningSwyx [00:00:57]: And it is more obvious now with, like, the real-world stuff and the world models that we’ll talk about later. I’m just kinda curious how you go from a background in, like, Zocdoc and, computer vision into Runway. Like, take us back to that early conversations with Chris and, whoever else is on your founding team.Anastasis [00:01:14]: I was always splitting through those two worlds. One was the I had my own art practice. I was making a lot of interactive art, I think for a long time. and then on the other side, I was working in startups, and I was working as a ML engineer, as a backend engineer at different companies. I’ve always been interested in, coding and computation, and especially interested in simulation and brought it back into my early artwork as well. And at the same time, I was interested inSwyx [00:01:43]: The personal site has a few, right?Anastasis [00:01:44]: Yeah.Swyx [00:01:45]: Is there one that we should pull up? Just in case there’s something that’s like. I just like to go down memory lane.Anastasis [00:01:50]: Yeah.Swyx [00:01:50]: Okay, what is this?Anastasis [00:01:51]: So this was, a project that I made, I think back in 2015, where I built this software that would give, voice instructions to people in a gallery space. So it would coordinate interactions between people. And so it will first give you an identity, like you’re an, architect, you’re 30 years old, and, you like sports. and then it would match you with another person, and you have this completely generated interaction. language models were not quite there at the time, and so it was it was a mix of some templates and some, like, some Markov chain-generated text, and it would just completely simulate these small talk conversations between, everyone in the gallery space. so was always very fascinated on the one hand with, generative models and, like, the early machine learning work that was being at that time. But at the same time, there was this separate thread of simulation and what it means. Like, what can we learn about humans by creating those very simple models of their interactions and their behavior?Early Generative Art: pix2pix, GANs, and Uncanny ValleyVibhu [00:02:56]: Did you generate the prompts or, the 30-year-old, whatever? Was it you generating them? How’d you, how’d youAnastasis [00:03:03]: Exactly. So the program would just generate- those, from. Yeah, a lot of it would be Mad Libs style of justVibhu [00:03:10]: YesAnastasis [00:03:10]: You have lists of different professions, lists of different,Vibhu [00:03:14]: HobbiesAnastasis [00:03:15]: Personality types, lists of different, ages, things like that. And then it would just combine those things together. And then maybe the next project we go is, Uncanny Valley, Uncanny Road, which wasSwyx [00:03:27]: GansAnastasis [00:03:27]: One of the first projects that, we built with, one of my two co-founders, Chris. This was taking, pix2pixHD, which was one of the early image-to-image models that NVIDIA released back in 2016 or 2017. and it was a model that would take a semantic map of a scene and then generate a photorealistic, let’s call it, output. very early days, so it was not very high-fidelity outputs, but it w I think was the first image-generation model that could generate at 1K resolution. And it was all trained on self-driving datasets. So the semantic categories it would support were only, things you would encounter on the road. So it would be pedestrians, traffic signs,Vibhu [00:04:16]: StoplightsAnastasis [00:04:17]: Bikes, stoplights. And so that was one of our first indications that we built this and people were making all this, like, very surreal imagery of, yeah, a million plus a million pedestrians or a million traffic signs or, like, gigantic humans. And it was a indication that you could take a model that was trained on this very boring dataset, essentially, of, like, not that many interesting things happen when you’re on the road, and then you can repurpose it and go very out of distribution and make something that was artistically compelling. And that was It’s a summary of the thesis of Runway in some ways, that you can take the same generative models, and if you look at them from another direction, if you build interesting tools around them and you give them to artists, they’re gonna do things that you don’t expect.Vibhu [00:05:02]: Very cool. I like the, UX of it. You’re just given an empty canvas, try whatever, do whatever. And then the other one, like, you see everyone with wired headphones? Like, that’s, that’s a sign that it’s, it’s veryAnastasis [00:05:16]: The AppleVibhu [00:05:17]: YeahAnastasis [00:05:17]: Apple, your version.Vibhu [00:05:17]: Original ads. Yeah. Take us to today. You’ve been doing this for seven years at Runway. How have we got to this? Like, how do we go from driving simulator data to all this? And you cover the whole stack of generative media?From Creative Tools to a Research LabAnastasis [00:05:33]: Interestingly, we’re almost back in, we’re, we’re full circle. We’re, we’re now applying our models and beyond creative tools into real-world scenarios. But it was a, it was a long journey. It was very early on we realized the first version of Runway was a way to easily use the, all the open source model of the day, things like pix2pix to. and give them to artists. That was the initial idea, is those models are too difficult to use if you’re not a machine learning engineer. Like, what happens when you give them to artists? Very quickly, we realized we needed to build a research org, inside of Runway, and that happened maybe on year one. And, a lot of the mandate there was. The image-generation models of the time, the video generation models of the time, or there were barely any video generations all the time, but they were not quite there where they could be productionized and brought into tools that would be part of creative workflows. so we need to push the frontier of the research. And so maybe the first…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    🔬Bio-security is an AI Arms Race - Eric Nguyen (CEO, Radical Numerics) Sep 23, 2026
    Show notes

    The OpenAI → Hugging Face attack has people asking “what else do we need to worry about?” and Anthropic’s filters flag two things: cyber-security and biology. The natural question is: what about bio-security, then?

    Clem Delangue argues that cyber-warfare defensive capabilities need to be open and to keep pace with frontier models’ attack capabilities

    Radical Numerics co-founder Eric Nguyen sat down with us and explained why the same models that increase biological capability can also keep defense from falling behind.

    Building a virus from scratch

    While he was at Stanford, Eric couldn’t get traction on Genomic Language Models (GLMs) for a long time. Biologists didn’t believe it would work, didn’t think they could verify the output, and didn’t see important applications beyond what they could already do. He kept pushing, eventually helping lead the development of Evo and contributing to Evo 2 at Arc Institute. Those models were later used by a separate Arc/Stanford team to generate entire bacteriophage genomes that were synthesized into functional viruses!

    Long context unlocks biological intelligence

    Early ChatGPT spit out poems and email, and early DNA language models like Evo and Evo-2 could build a genome from scratch. DNA is different, however, from natural language in that it has a very small alphabet (4 characters ACTG) and that its sequences are very long:

    * 60K for an average human gene

    * long being up to 2.3M

    * the whole human genome around 3B.

    Innovation in long-context models made this possible about 3 years ago (footnote: striped hyena), long before the frontier labs were building 1M+ context models.

    Now Eric and other AI x Bio luminaries have founded Radical Numerics to build and scale GLMs to tack a wide range of biological problems, extending well beyond generating DNA.

    Thinking in DNA

    Their GLMs already do pretty well with RNA and protein because there are clear markers in the DNA sequence for genes (RNA sequences the perform many functions) and specific genes that encode proteins. This means that the models already generalize to multiple “languages,” before even attempting to train in other modalities, such as 3d protein structure, epigenetics and natural language.

    If a model thinks in the DNA language, maybe it understands the imprint that environment left on different genomes as well? Perhaps the model has learned the functional relationship between different sequences, and could extrapolate to new sequences based on that?

    And so what we wanted to showcase was that if we show the model progressively better RNAs in a series of steps with its score, right? So you have like low scores first and then you gradually move up the chain. Can the model continue that trajectory on its own? And then in the final step, does it self optimize to a point where it's like the best score it can get? That was the experiment. Can we do that? And so we took a data set, a large data set of aptamers. We held out a portion of the best performing ones and we showed it only the lower ones, but then we ranked it, right? So we showcase lower scores with the RNA aptamers and then progressively got higher, and then ask the model to just like continue with that pattern. And it turns out it was able to recapitulate some of those higher scores that we had not shown it yet.

    So, voila: chain-of-thought, thinking in DNA!

    The arms race

    But much as long-context inference, chain-of-though and multi-modal perception unlocked sophisticated reasoning in natural language LLMs, these capabilities in GLMs are enabling increasingly sophisticated “biological intelligence,” and along with it, greater danger.

    According to Eric, defense is currently losing this battle, but Radical Numerics argues to push the frontier harder!

    I won’t spoil the details for you. In the episode we talk in detail about:

    * Biosecurity as an arms race — and how defense can keep up

    * The genome as the imprint of the environment on DNA

    * Going truly multi-modal

    * How chain-of-though works when you “think” in the language of DNA


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.latent.space/subscribe

    1 2 3 24 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Reply All

    1

    Reply All Games & Hobbies
    Inside VR & AR

    2

    Inside VR & AR Gadgets
    Note to Self

    3

    Note to Self News
    BrainStuff

    4

    BrainStuff Natural Sciences
    This Week in Tech (Audio)

    5

    This Week in Tech (Audio) News
    Hands-On Tech (Audio)

    6

    Hands-On Tech (Audio) Technology
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights