No Priors: Artificial Intelligence | Technology | Startups - Andrej Karpathy on Code Agents, AutoResearch, and the Loopy Era of AI

Episode Date: March 20, 2026

What happens when AI agents can design experiments, collect data, and improve — without a human in the loop? Andrej Karpathy joins Sarah Guo on the state of models, the future of engineering and education, thinking about impact on jobs, and his project AutoResearch: where agents close the loop on a piece of AI research (experimentation, training, and optimization, autonomously). 00:00 Andrej Karpathy Introduction 02:55 What Capability Limits Remain? 06:15 What Mastery of Coding Agents Looks Like 11:16 Second Order Effects of Natural Language Coding 15:51 Why AutoResearch  22:45 Relevant Skills in the AI Era 28:25 Model Speciation 32:30 Building More Collaboration Surfaces for Humans and AI 37:28 Analysis of Jobs Market Data 48:25 Open vs. Closed Source Models 53:51 Autonomous Robotics 1:00:59 MicroGPT and Agentic Education 1:05:40 Conclusion

Code's not even the right verb anymore, right? But I have to express my will to my agents for 16 hours a day. Manifest. How can I have not just a single session of clot code or codex or some of these agent harnesses? How can I have more of them? How can I do that appropriately? The agent part is now taken from granted. Now the claw-like entities are taken for granted.

And now you can have multiple of them. And now you can have instructions to them. And now you can have optimization over the instructions. But I mean, this is why it gets to the psychosis is that this is like infinite and everything is skill issue. Hi, listeners, welcome back to Nobriars. Today, I'm here with Andre Carpathie, and we have a wide-ranging conversation for you about code agents, the future of engineering and AI research,

how more people can contribute to research. What's happening in robotics, his prediction for how agents can reach out into the real world, and education in this next age. Welcome, Andre. Andre, thanks for doing this. Yeah, thank you for having me. So it's been a very exciting couple of months in AI.

Yeah, you could say that. I remember walking into the office at some point and you were like really locked in and I was asking what you were up to and you're like, I just, I have to code for 16 hours a day. Or code's not even the right verb anymore, right? But I have to express my will to my agents for 16 hours a day. Manifest. Because like there's been a jump in capability. What's happening? Tell me about your experience. Yeah, I kind of feel like I was just in this perpetual. I still am often in this state of AI psychosis just like all the time. because there was a huge unlock in what you can achieve as a person, as an individual, right? Because you were bottlenecked by your typing speed and so on.

But now with these agents, it really, I would say in December is when it really just something flipped, where I kind of went from 80, 20, 20, to like, to like 2080 of writing code by myself versus just delegating to agents. And I don't even think it's 2080 by now. I think it's a lot more than that. I don't think I've typed like a line of code probably since December, basically, which is like an extremely large change. I was talking to it, like, for example,

I was talking about it to, for example, my parents and so on. And I don't think like a normal person actually realizes that this happened or how dramatic it was. Like, literally, like, if you just find a random software engineer or something like that at their desk and what they're doing, like, their default workflow of, you know, building software is completely different as of basically December. So I'm just like in this state of psychosis of trying to figure out, like, what's possible, trying to push it to the limit.

How can I have not just a single session of, you know, clot code or codex or some of these agent harnesses, how can I have more of them? How can I do that appropriately? And then how can I use these claws? What are these claws? And so there's like a lot of new things. I want to be at the forefront of it, you know, and I'm very antsy that I'm not at the forefront of it. And I see lots of people on Twitter doing all kinds of things and they all sound like really good ideas. And I need to be at the forefront or I feel extremely nervous. And so I guess I'm just in the psychosis of like what's possible, like because it's unexplored fundamentally. Well, if you're nervous, the rest of us are nervous. We have a team that we work with at Conviction that their setup is everybody is like, you know, none of the engineers write code by hand. And they're all microphones and they just like whisper to their agents all the time. It's the strangest work setting ever.

And I thought they were crazy. And now I fully accept it. I was like, oh, this was the way. Like you're just ahead of it. What, how do you think about your own capacity now to like explore or to do projects? What is it limited by? Yeah, what is it limited by? Just I think everything, like so many things, even if they don't work, I think to a large

extent you feel like it's a skill issue. It's not that the capability is not there. It's that you just haven't found a way to string it together of what's available. Like I just don't, I didn't give good enough instructions in the agents from D file or whatever it may be. I don't have a nice enough memory tool that I put in there or something like that. So it all kind of feels like skill issue when it doesn't work to some extent. You want to see how you can paralyze them, et cetera.

And you want to be Peter Steinberg, basically. So Peter is famous. He has a funny photo where he's in front of a monitor with lots of, like, he uses codex. So lots of codex agents tiling the monitor. And they all take about 20 minutes, if you prompt them correctly and you use the high effort. And so they all take about 20 minutes. So they have multiple, you know, 10 repos checked out. And so he's just going between them and giving them work.

It's just like you can move in much larger macro actions. It's not just like, here's a line of code, here's a new function. It's like, here's a new functionality. and delegate it to Agent 1. Here's a new functionality that's not going to interfere with the other one. Give it Agent 2. And then try to review their work as best as you can, depending on how much you care about that code.

Like, where are these macro actions that I can manipulate my software repository by? And another agent is doing some research, another agent is writing code. Another one is coming up with a plan for some new implementation. And so everything just happens in these macro actions over your repository. And you're just trying to become really good at it and develop like a muscle memory for it. extremely, yeah, it's very rewarding, number one, because it actually works. But it's also kind of like the new thing to learn. So that's why, hence the psychosis.

Yeah, I do feel like my instinct is like whenever I am waiting for an agent to complete something, the obvious thing to do is like, well, I can do more work. Yeah. Right. Like if I have access to more tokens, then like I should just paralyze at more tasks. And so that's very stressful because if you don't feel very bounded by your ability to spend on tokens, then you are the bottleneck in the system that is max capability. Yeah, if you're not maximizing your subscription at least.

And ideally for multiple agents, like if you run out of the code on codex, you should switch to cloud or whatnot. I don't know. Like, that's what I've been trying to do a little bit. And I feel nervous when I have subscription left over. That just means I haven't maximized my token throughput. So I actually kind of experienced this when I was a PhD student. You would feel nervous when your GPUs are not running. Like you have GPU capability and you're not maximized the available flops to you.

But now it's not about flops. it's about tokens. So what is your token throughput and what token throughput do you command? I would actually argue that it's very interesting that we had, you know, at least 10 years where in many engineering tasks, people just didn't feel compute bound, right?

And the entire industry feels that now. They feel like they felt resource bound. And now that you have this big capability jump, you're like, oh, actually, it's not, you know, my ability to access the computer. anymore. Like, I'm the binding constraint. Yeah, it's a skill issue. Yeah. Which is very empowering because, yeah, because you could be getting better. So that's why I think it's very addictive because there's unlocks when you get better. Where do you think it goes? Like, if you just

think about like, okay, you know, Andre's iterating and everybody else is for 16 hours a day, getting better at using coding agents. Like, what does it look like in a year? Of like you've reached mastery. Yeah, what does mastery look like, right? At the end of the year or like two, three years, five years, ten years, et cetera. Well, I think everyone is basically interesting. in like going up the stack. So I would say, yeah, it's not about a single session with your agent. Multiple agents, how do they collaborate and teams and so on. So everyone's trying to figure out what that looks like. And then I would say claw is also kind of an interesting direction because it really, when I say a claw, I mean this like layer that kind of takes persistence to a whole new level.

Like it's something that like keeps looping. It's like it's not something that you are interactively in the middle of. It kind of like has its own little sandbox, its own little, you know, it kind of like does stuff on your behalf, even if you're, it's not something that. not looking kind of thing. And then also has like maybe more sophisticated memory systems, et cetera. There are not yet implemented in agents. So OpenClaw has a lot more sophisticated memory, I would say, than what you would get by default, which is just a memory compaction when your context runs out, right?

You think that's the piece that resonated for more users versus like perhaps like broader tool access? For OpenClaw? Yeah. There's like, I think there's at least five things. There's a lot of really good ideas in here. Yeah, good job. I mean, Peter has done a really amazing job.

I saw him recently. and I talked to him about it and he's very humble about it but I think he innovated simultaneously in like five different ways and put it all together so for example like the Soul MD document like he actually really crafted a personality

that is kind of compelling and interesting and I feel like a lot of the current agents they don't get this correctly I actually think a clot has a pretty good personality it feels like a teammate and it's excited with you etc I would say for example Codex is a lot more dry

which is kind of interesting because in ChashiPT Codex is like a lot more upbeat and highly sycophantic But I would say Codex, the coding agent, is very dry. It doesn't seem to care about what you're creating. It's kind of like, oh, I implemented it. It's like, okay, but do you understand what we're building? It's true.

You know, it doesn't. And the other thing I would say is, for example, with Claude, I think they dialed the psychophancy fairly well, where when Claude gives me praise, I do feel like I slightly deserve it. Because sometimes I kind of give it, like, not very well-formed thoughts, and I give it an idea that I don't think it's fully baked, and it doesn't actually react very strongly.

It's like, oh, yeah, we can implement that. But when it's a really good idea, by my own account, it does seem to reward it a bit more. And so I kind of feel like I'm trying to earn its praise, which is really weird. And so I do think the personality matters a lot. And I think a lot of the other tools maybe don't appreciate it as much. And I think in this aspect, also Peter really cares about this. So that was correct.

And then the memory system and then just, you know, he's just having fun with this. And then the single WhatsApp portal tool of the automation. Yeah. Is there something that you have done personally with your claws beyond software engineering? that you think is fun or interesting? Yeah, so in January, I had a claw, I went through a period of claw psychosis. So I built, I have a claw, basically, that takes care of my home. And I call them Dobby the elf claw.

And basically, I used the agents to find all of the smart home subsystems of my home on the local area network, which I was kind of surprised that worked out of the box. Like, I just told it that I think I have Sonos at home. Like, can you try to find it? And it goes, like, the IP scan of all the, basically, computers on the local. area network. And it found the Sonos thing, the Sonos system. And it turned out that there's no password protection or anything like that. It just logged in. And it's like, oh, yeah, you have these sono systems installed. I let me try to reverse engineer how it's working. It does some web

searches. And it finds like, okay, these are the API endpoints. And then it's like, do you want to try it? And I'm like, whoa, like, you just did that. And I'm like, yeah, can you try to play something in the study? And it does. And music comes out. And I'm like, I can't believe I just That's crazy. That's like three prompts. I can't believe I just typed in like, can you find my sonos? And that suddenly is playing music. And it did the same for rights. And so basically like it kind of hacked in, figured out the whole thing, created APIs, created

dashboard. So I could see the command kind of center of like all of my lights in the home. And then it was like switching lights on and off. And, you know, so I can ask it like, do be at sleepy time. And when it's sleepy time, that just means all the lights go off, et cetera. And so on. So it controls all of my lights, my HVAC, my shades, the pool and the spa. and also my security system.

So I have a camera pointed outside of the house. And anytime someone rolls in, I have a Quinn, a Quinn model that looks at the videos. So first of all, there's change detection. And then based on change detection, it goes to Quinn. And then it actually tells me, it sends me a text to my WhatsApp. It shows an image from the outside.

And it says, hey, FedEx truck just pulled up. FedEx truck just pulled up. And you might want to check it and you got an email or something like that. And Dobby just text me this. It's really incredible. So Dobby is in charge of the house. I text with it through WhatsApp, and it's been really fun to have these macro actions that maintain my house.

I haven't really pushed it way more beyond that, and I think people are doing a lot more crazy things with it. But for me, even just a home automation setup, I used to use like six apps, completely different apps, and I don't have to use these apps anymore. Like Dobby controls everything in natural language. It's amazing. And so I think I haven't even pushed a paradigm fully,

but already that is so helpful and so inspiring, I would say. Do you think that's indicative of like what people want from a user experience perspective with software, right? Because I don't think, you know, it's pretty ignored that it takes humans effort to like learn new software, like new UI. Yeah. I think to some extent, that's right. It's like working backwards from how people think an AI should be. Because what people have in their mind of like what an AI is is not actually what an LLM is by like in a raw sense. Like LLM is a token generator, you know, like more tokens come out.

But what they think of is like this persona, this persona. identity that they can tell stuff and it remembers it, you know, and it's just kind of an entity behind the WhatsApp. It's like a lot more understandable. So I think to some extent it's like matching the expectations that humans already have for what any I should behave. But under the hood, it's like a lot of technical details go into that. And LLMs are too raw of a primitive to actually type check as AI, I think, for most people, if that makes sense. Yeah. I think that's like how we understand what the AI is and like the description of it as Dobby or something. personality obviously resonates with people. I also think that it, the unification that you did

across your six different software systems for your home automation speaks to a different question of like, do people really want all of the software that we have today? Yeah. Right. Because I would argue like, well, you have the hardware. Yeah. But you've now thrown away the software or the UX layer of it. Do you think that's what people want? Yeah, I think there's this like, there's this sense that these apps that are in the opposite for using these smart home devices, these shouldn't even exist kind of in a certain sense. Like shouldn't it just be APIs and shouldn't agents be just using it directly? And wouldn't it like I can do all kinds of home automation stuff that any individual app will not be able to do, right?

And then LLM can actually drive the tools and call all the right tools and do pretty complicated things. And so in a certain sense it does point to this, like maybe there's like an overproduction of lots of custom-spoke apps that shouldn't exist because agents kind of like crumbled them up. crumbled them up and everything should be a lot more just like exposed API endpoints. And agents are the glue of the intelligence that actually like tool calls all the all the parts. Another example is like my treadmill. There's an app for my treadmill and I wanted to like keep track of how often I do my cardio. But like I don't want to like log into a web UI and go through a flow and etc. All this should just be like make APIs available. And this is kind of you know, going towards the agentic sort of web or like agent first tools and all this kind of stuff. So I think the

this re-just has to reconfigure in so many ways that's like, if the customer is not the human anymore, it's like agents who are acting on behalf of humans, and this refactoring will be, will probably be substantial in a certain sense. One way that people sometimes push back on this is like, do we expect people to vibe code some of these tools? Do we expect normal people to do this kind of stuff that I described? But I think to some extent, this is just, you know, technology as it exists today. And right now, there is some bi-coding, and I'm actually watching it, and I'm working with the system. But I kind of feel like this kind of stuff that I just talked about, this should be free, like, in a year or two or three. There's no Vip coding involved.

This is trivial. This is table stakes. This is like any AI, even the open source models, et cetera, can like do this. You should be able to translate from a less technical humans intent very easily to this outcome. Yeah. Today, it's Vib coding and it's involved and not many people are going to do it. And you still have to make some design decisions, right? We were talking about like, take frames, for example.

Yeah. Yeah. But I kind of feel like this will just start to the best. barrier will just come down and it's just ephemeral software on your behalf and some kind of like claw is handling all the details for you but you're not involved. Clah has a machine and it will figure it out and it's just presenting you UIs and you're like saying stuff, you know. Why haven't you, I guess, like push the boundaries of what you can do personally with claws? Like is it, you know, you're focusing on more important projects, auto research, etc., or

you're climbing the hill to mastery or something else, right? Yeah, I just feel like I'm so distracted by everything, so I spend like a week on the claw stuff, and I have more to do's almost. But I will say that... It's like Jensen told us, we're all just busier, unfortunately. Yeah. I didn't really take advantage of a lot of email and calendar and all this other stuff. And I didn't give it access because I'm still a little bit suspicious and it's still very new and rough around the edges. So I didn't want to give it like full access to my digital life yet. And part of it is just less security privacy and just being very cautious in that in that realm. And so some of it is held back by that, I would say. Yeah, maybe that's like the dominant feature. But some of it is also just, I feel so distracted because I feel like I had a week of claw and then other stuff is happening. What was the, I mean, you've talked about like being able to train or at least optimize a model as a task you want to see agents do for a long time. Like what was the motivation behind auto research?

Auto research, yeah. So I think like I had a tweet earlier where I kind of like said something along the lines of to get the most out of the time. tools that have become available now, you have to remove yourself as the bottleneck. You can't be there to prompt the next thing. You need to take yourself outside. You have to arrange things such that they're completely autonomous. And the more, you know, how can you maximize your token throughput and not be in the loop? This is the goal. And so I kind of mentioned that the name of the game now is to increase your leverage. I put in just very few tokens just once in a while and a huge amount of stuff happens on my behalf. And so auto research, like I tweeted that and I think

people liked it and whatnot, but they haven't like maybe worked through like the implications of that. And for me, auto research is an example of like an implication of that. Where it's like, I don't want to be like the researcher in the loop, like looking at results, etc. Like I'm holding the system back. So the question is, how do I refactor all the abstractions so that I'm not, I have to arrange it once and hit go. The name of the game is how can you get more agents running for longer periods of time without your involvement doing stuff on your behalf? And auto research is just, yeah, here's an objective, here's a metric, here's your boundaries of what you can and cannot do and go.

You were surprised at its effectiveness. Yeah, I didn't expect it to work because, so I have the project data chat. And fundamentally, like, I think a lot of people are very confused with my session for like training GPD two models and so on. But for me, training GPD models and so on is just a little harness, a little playground for training LLMs. And fundamentally, what I'm more interested in is like this idea of recursive self-improvement and to what extent you can actually have LLMs improving LLMs.

Because I think all the frontier labs, this is like the thing. for obvious reasons. And they're all trying to recursively self-improve, roughly speaking. And so for me, this is kind of like a little playpen of that. And I guess I'd like tune nanot already quite a bit by hand in a good old-fashioned way that I'm used to. Like I'm a researcher. I've done this for like, you know, two decades.

I have some amount of like, what is the opposite of hubris? Yeah. Earned to confidence. Okay. I have like two decades of like, oh, I've trained this model like thousands of times. So I've done a bunch of experiments. I've done hyper-primary tuning. I've done all the things I'm very used to and I've done for two decades.

Yeah. And I've gotten to a certain point and I thought it was like fairly well tuned. And then I let our research go for like overnight and it came back with like tunings that I didn't see. And yeah, I did forget like the weight decay on the value embeddings and my atom betas were not sufficiently tuned. And these things jointly interact. So like once you tune one thing, the other things have to potentially change to. You know, I shouldn't be a bottleneck. I shouldn't be running these hyperparameters or optimization.

I shouldn't be looking at the results. There's objective criteria in this case. So you just have to arrange it so that it can just go forever. So that's a single sort of version of auto research of like a single loop trying to improve. And I was surprised that it found these things that I, you know, the repo is already fairly well tuned and still found something. And that's just a single, it's a single loop. Like these frontier labs, they have GPU clusters of tens of thousands of them.

And so it's very easy to imagine how you would basically get a lot of this automation on smaller models. And fundamentally everything around like frontier level intelligence is about. extrapolation and scaling loss. And so you basically do a ton of the exploration on the smaller models, and then you try to extrapolate out. So you're saying our research efforts are going to get more efficient. Like, we're going to have better direction for when we scale as well.

If we can do this experimentation better. Yeah, I would say that, like, the most interesting project and probably what the frontier labs are working on is, you know, you experiment on the smaller models. You try to make it as autonomous as possible. Remove researchers from the loop. They have way too much. What is the opposite? earned confidence?

Yeah. They don't know. They shouldn't be touching any of this, really. And so you have to rewrite the whole thing because right now, I mean, certainly they can contribute ideas. But, okay, they shouldn't actually be enacting those ideas.

There's a queue of ideas. And there's maybe an automated scientist that comes up with ideas based on all the archive papers and GitHub repos and it funnels ideas in. Or researchers can contribute ideas. But it's a single queue and there's workers that pull items

and they try them out. And whatever works just gets sort of put on the feature branch and maybe some people like monitor the feature branch and merge to the main branch sometimes. So, yeah, just removing humans from all the processes and automating as much as possible and getting high tokens per second throughputs. And it does require rethinking of all the abstractions and everything has to be reshuffled. So, yeah, I think it's very exciting.

If we take one more recursive step here. When is the model going to write a better program MD than you? Yeah. So program MD is like... We're not in the loop. Yeah, exactly. So program MD is my crappy attempt at describing like how the auto researcher should work. Like, oh, do this, then do that, that, and then try these kinds of ideas.

And then here may be some ideas like look at architecture, look at optimizer, etc. But I just came up with this in Markdown, right? And so, yeah, exactly. You want some kind of an auto research loop maybe that looks for... You can imagine that different program.mds would... would give you different progress. So basically, every research organization is described by ProgramMD. A research organization is a set of markdown files that describe all the roles and how the

whole thing connects. And you can imagine having a better research organization. So maybe they do fewer standups in the morning because they're useless. And this is all just code, right? And so one organization can have fewer standups. One organization can have more. One organization can be very risk-taking. One organization can be less.

And so you can definitely imagine that you have multiple research orgs, and then they all have code. And once you have code, then you can imagine tuning the code. So 100% there's like the meta layer of it. Do you see my text about my contest idea? My contest idea was like let people write different program MDs, right? And so for same hardware, where do you get most improvement? Oh, I see. And then you can take all that data and then give it to the model and say write a better program MD.

Yes, yes. Yeah, exactly. We're going to get something better. Like, there's no way we don't. You could 100% look at where the improvements came from. And, like, can I change the program MDs such that more of these kinds of things would be done? Or, like, things that didn't work. Just meta-optimization.

Yeah. You can 100% imagine doing that. So I think this is a great idea. But it's like, you know, I think like you sort of go one step at a time where you sort of have one process and then second process and then the next process. And these are all layers of an onion. Like the LLM sort of part is not taken for granted. The agent part is now taken from granted. now the claw-like entities are taken for granted

and now you can have multiple of them and now you can have instructions to them and now you can have optimization over the instructions and it's just like a little too much you know but I mean this is why it gets to the psychosis is that this is like infinite and everything is skill issue and that's why I feel like

yeah that's just coming back to this is why it's so insane. Okay well if we're just trying to like diagnose the current moment and what is a relevant skill right now what do you think is the implication that this is the loop we should be trying to achieve in different areas, and that it works, right?

Like, you know, remove, create the metric or create the ability for agents to continue working on it without you. Yeah. Do we still have performance engineering? Like what? Yeah. I mean, so there's a few caveas that I would put on top of the LM psychosis. Number one.

This is extremely well suited to anything that has objective metrics that are easy to evaluate. So for example, like writing kernels for more efficient Kudak, you know, code for various parts of a model Xichara, the perfect fit. because you have inefficient code and then you want efficient code that has the exact same behavior, but it's much faster, perfect fit. So a lot of things are perfect fit

for auto research, but many things will not be. And so if you can't evaluate it, then you can't auto research it, right? So that's like caveat number one. And then maybe caveat number two, I would say, is, you know, we're kind of talking about the next steps and we kind of see what the next steps are,

but fundamentally, the whole thing still doesn't, it's still kind of like bursting at the seams a little bit and there's cracks and it doesn't fully work. And if you kind of, try to go too far ahead. The whole thing is actually net not useful, if that makes sense. Because these models still are not, you know, they've improved a lot, but they're still, like, rough around the edges as maybe the way I would describe it. I simultaneously feel like I'm talking to an extremely brilliant PhD student who's been like a systems programmer for their

entire life and a 10-year-old. And it's so weird because humans, like there's, I feel like they're a lot more coupled. Like you have, you know, everything is a lot more coupled. You wouldn't encounter that combination. This jaggedness is really strange. And humans have a lot less of that kind of jaggedness, although they definitely have some. But humans have a lot more jaggedness. Sorry, the agents have a lot more jaggedness

where sometimes, like, you know, I ask for functionality and it like comes back with something that's just like totally wrong. And then we get into loops that are totally wrong. And then I'm just, I get so frustrated with the agents all the time still. Because you feel the power of it, but you also, there's still like, it does not statistical things once in a while for me still as well.

I get very annoyed when I feel like the agent wasted a lot of compute on something it should have recognized was an obvious problem. Yeah. I think like some of the bigger things is like maybe what's underneath it, if I could hypothesize, is fundamentally these models are trained via reinforcement learning. So they're actually struggling with the exact same thing we just talked about, which is the labs can improve the models in anything that is verifiable, whether it has rewards. So did you write the program correctly and do the unit test check out yes or no? But some of the things where they're struggling is, like, for example, I think they have a tough time with, like, nuance of maybe what I had in mind or what I intended and when to ask clarifying questions.

Yeah, it's just anything that feels softer is, like, worse. And so you're kind of like, you're either on rails and you're part of the superintelligence circuits or you're not on rails and you're outside of the verifiable domains. And suddenly everything kind of just like meanders. Like maybe another way to put it is if you go to, if to date, if you go to like state-of-the-art model, chaty p.mitty and you ask it, tell me a joke. Do you know what joke you're going to get? There's the joke. The joke. I do feel, I can't tell you like the standard form of it, but I do feel like chat GPT has like three jokes.

Yeah, yeah. So the joke that apparently all the old ones like left the most is why do scientists not trust atoms? Okay. Because they make everything up. Okay. They make everything up. Okay. So this is still. What did that emerge? So this is the joke you would get like three or four years ago and this is the joke you still get today. Okay.

So even though the models have improved tremendously. Yeah. And if you give them an agentic task, they will just go for hours and move mountains for you. And then you ask for like a joke and it has a stupid joke. It's crappy joke from five years ago. And it's because it's outside of the, it's outside of the RL. It's outside of the reinforcement learning. It's outside of what's being improved.

It's like, and it's part of the jaggedness of like, shouldn't you expect models as they get better to also have like better jokes or more diversity of them or it's just it's not being optimized and it's stuck. Do you think that that implies that we are not seeing like generalization in the sense of like broader intelligence of joke smartness being attached to code smartness? Yeah, I think there's some decoupling where some things are verifiable and some things are not and some things are optimized for arbitrarily by the labs depending on like what data went in and some things are not. But I mean the premise, there's a premise from some research groups that, if you are smarter at code generation or in these verifiable fields, you should be better at everything. And like the joke situation suggests that that's not happening in all fields. I don't think that's happening. Yeah, I don't think that's happening. I think maybe we're seeing like a little bit of that, but not like a satisfying amount. Yeah. That jagginess exists in humans. You can be very, very good at math and still tell a really bad joke.

Yeah, that's true. Yeah. But it just, it still means that we're not getting like the story is that we're getting a lot of the intelligence and capabilities and all the domains of society. for free as we get better and better models. And it's not like exactly fundamentally what's going on. And there's some blind spots and some things are not being optimized for. And this is all clustered up in these neural net opaque models. So you're either on rails of what it was trained for and everything is like you're going at speed of light or you're not. And so it's the jaggedness.

So that's why I think like even though the progression is obvious, what should happen, you can't let it fully go there yet because it doesn't fully work. or it's a skill issue, and we just haven't figured out how to use it. So, you know, it's hard to tell. Can I ask kind of a blasphemous question, which is like if this jagginess is persisting and it's all rolled up in a at least monolithic interface, right? But, you know, single model. Does that make sense?

Or do you should it be unbundled in things that can be optimized and proved against different domains of intelligence? Like unbundling the models into multiple experts in different areas, etc. More directly, yeah. instead of just M-O-E that we have no exposure to. Because that can be confusing as a user from the outside, which is like, why is it so good at this, but not at this other thing? Yeah, I think currently my impression is the labs are trying to have a single sort of like monoculture of a model

that is arbitrarily intelligent in all these different domains, and they just stuff into the parameters. I do think that we will, I do think we should expect more speciation in the intelligences. Like, you know, the animal kingdom is extremely down. in the brains that exist. And there's lots of different niches of nature. And some animals have overdeveloped visual cortex or other kind of parts. And I think we should be able to see more speciation.

And you don't need like this oracle that knows everything. You kind of speciate it. And then you put it on a specific task. And we should be seeing some of that because you should be able to have like much smaller models that still have the cognitive core. Like they're still competent. But then they specialize. And then they can become more efficient in terms of latency or throughput on specific

that you really care about. Like, if you're a mathematician working in Lean, I saw, for example, there's a few releases that really, like, target that as a domain. So there's probably going to be a few examples like that where the unbundling kind of makes sense. One question I have is whether or not the capacity constraint on available compute infrastructure drives more of this

because efficiency actually matters more. Yeah, yeah. Like, if you financing aside, no financing that's involved in all of this, If you have access to full compute for anything you do, like leaving one single model, right? But if you actually feel pressure where you're like, I can't serve a model of massive size for every use case. Like, do you think that leads to any speciation? Does that question make sense to you?

The question makes sense. And I guess like what I'm struggling with is I don't think we've seen too much speciation just yet, right? No. We're seeing a monoculture of models. Yeah. So. And there's like clearly pressure for like make a good code model. put it back in the main merge again.

Yeah, yeah. Even though there already is pressure on the models. I guess perhaps I feel like there's a lot of very short-term supply crunch. And like maybe that causes more speciation now. Yeah, I think fundamentally like the labs are serving a model and they don't really know what the end user is going to be asking about. So maybe that's like some part of it because they kind of have to multitask over all the possible things that could be asked.

But I think if you're coming to a business and maybe partnering on some specific problems, you care about, then maybe you would see that there. Or there will be some very high value applications that are more niche. But I think right now they're kind of like going after the totality of what's available. I don't think that the science of manipulating the brains is like fully developed yet, partly. What do you mean manipulating? So like so fine tuning without losing capabilities as an example. And we don't have these primitives for actually like working with the intelligences in ways other than just context windows.

Like context windows kind of just work and it's very cheap to manipulate, etc. And this is how we're getting some of the customization, et cetera. But I think if it was, I think it's a bit more of a developing science of how you, like, more deeply adjust the models, how you have continual learning maybe, or how you fine-tuned in a certain area, how you get better in a certain area, or like how you actually touch the weights, not just the context windows. And so it's a lot more tricky, I would say, to touch the weights than just the context windows, because you're actually fundamentally changing the full model and potentially its intelligence. And so maybe it's just like not a fully developed science, if that makes sense. speciation. And it also has to be like cheap enough. Yeah. For that speciation to be worthwhile in these given contexts. Can I ask a question about like an extension to auto research that you described in terms of open ground? You say, okay, well, you know, we have this thing. We need more

collaboration surface around it essentially for people to contribute to research overall. Can you talk about that? Yeah. So we talked about our research has a single thread of like, I'm going to try stuff in loop. But fundamentally, the paralyization of this is like the interesting component. And I guess I was trying to like play around with a few ideas, but I don't have anything that like clicks as simply as like, I don't have something that I'm like super happy with just yet, but it's something I'm like working on inside when I'm not working in my claw. So I think like one issue is if you have a bunch of nodes of paralyization available to you, then it's very easy to just have multiple auto researchers talking through a common system or something like that. What I was more interested in is how you can

have an untrusted pool of workers out there on the internet. So for example, in other research, you're just trying to find the piece of code that trains a model to a very low validation loss. If anyone gives you a candidate commit, it's very easy to verify that that commit is correct, is good. Someone could claim from the internet that this piece of code will optimize much better and give you a much better performance. You could just check. It's very easy. But probably a lot of work goes into that checking. But fundamentally, they could lie and etc. So you're basically dealing with a similar kind of problem. It's almost actually like looks a little bit like my designs that incorporate an untrusted

pool of workers actually look a little bit more like a blockchain a little bit, because instead of blocks, you have commits, and these commits can build on each other, and they contain like changes to the code as you're improving it. And the proof of work is basically doing tons of experimentation to find the commits that work, and that's hard. And then the reward is just being on the leaderboard right now. There's no monetary reward whatsoever. But I don't want to push the analogy too far, but it fundamentally has this issue where a huge

huge amount of search goes into it, but it's very cheap to verify that a candidate solution is indeed good because you can just train a single, you know, someone had to try 10,000 ideas, but you just have to check that the thing that they produced actually works because the 99,000 of them didn't work, you know? And so basically, long story short, is like you have to come up with a system where an untrusted pool of workers can collaborate with a trusted pool of workers that do the verification. And the whole thing is kind of like asynchronous and works and so on. And it's like safe from a security perspective

because if anyone sends you arbitrary code and you're going to run it, that's very sketchy and dodgy. But fundamentally, it should be totally possible. So you're familiar with projects like SETI at home and folding at home. All of these problems have a similar kind of setup. So folding at home, you're folding a protein. And it's very hard to find a configuration that is low energy. But if someone finds a configuration that they evaluate it to be low energy,

that's perfect. you can just use it. You can easily verify it. So a lot of things have this property that, you know, very expensive to come up with, but very cheap to verify. And so in all those cases, things like folding at home or seti at home or auto research at home and will be good fits. And so long story short, a swarm of agents on the internet could collaborate to improve LLMs

and could potentially even like run circles around Frontier Labs, like who knows, you know? Yeah, like maybe that's even possible. Like Frontier Labs have a huge amount of trusted compute. But the Earth is much bigger and has a huge amount of untrusted compute. But if you put systems in check, systems in place that deal with this, then maybe it is possible that the swarm out there could come up with better solutions. And people kind of like contribute cycles to a thing that they care about. And so, sorry, so the last thought is lots of companies or whatnot,

they could maybe have like their own things that they care about. And you, if you have compute capacity, you could contribute to different kind of auto research tracks. Like maybe you care about certain, you know, like, you care about like cancer or something like that of certain type. You don't have to just donate money to an institution. You actually could like purchase compute and then you could join the auto research forum for that project, you know? So if everything is re-bundled into auto researchers, then compute becomes the thing that you're contributing to the pool. Yeah, that's very inspiring and it's also interesting. Like I don't know how far this goes, but it is interesting that at least some audience of people,

you know, here in Silicon Valley or lining up. at, you know, retail stores in China have discovered that, like, having access to personal compute is interesting again. Yeah. Right? So maybe they're really motivated to do that for their claws and then they can contribute to auto research. It's almost like dollars the thing everyone cares about, but is flop the thing that everyone cares

about in the future? Like, is there going to be like a flippening almost of like what's the thing that you care about? Like right now, for example, it's really hard to get compute even if you have money. Yeah. So actually, it almost seems like the flop is like dominant in a certain sense. Yeah, so maybe that's kind of like that. Like how many flops do you control instead of like what wealth do you control?

I don't actually think that's true, but it's kind of interesting to think about. The last thing you released was like a little bit of jobs data analysis. Is that right? What, and my touch nerve, even though you're just like visualizing some public data. What was, you know, what were you curious about? Yeah, I guess I was curious to, I mean, everyone is like, everyone is really thinking about the impacts of AI on the job market and what's going to look So I was just interested to take a look like, what does the job market look like?

Where are the different roles? And how many people are in different professions? And I was like really just interested to look through the individual cases and try to think myself about like, you know, with these AIs and how they're likely to evolve. Like, are these going to be tools that people are using? Are these going to be displacing tools for these professions? And like, what are the current professions and how are they going to change? Are they going to grow or adjust to a large extent? Or like what could be new professions?

So it's really just like a way to fuel my own chain of thought about the industry, I suppose. And so, yeah, the jobs data basically is just a Bureau of Labor Statistics. They actually have a percent outlook for each profession about how much it's expected to grow over the next, I think, almost a decade. Yeah, I think it's a decade, but it was made in 2024. We need a lot of health care workers. Yeah. So they've already made those projections. And I'm not sure actually 100% what the methodology was that they put into their projections.

I guess I was interested to color things by, like if people think that what's like primarily being developed now is this kind of like more digital AI, that it's kind of like almost like these ghosts or spirit entities that can like interact in the digital world and manipulate a lot of like digital information. And they currently don't really have a physical embodiment or presence. And the physical stuff is probably going to go slightly slower because you're manipulating atoms. So flipping flipping bits and the ability to copy paste digital information is like makes everything a million times faster than accelerating matter, you know? So, um, so energetically, I just think we're going to see a huge amount of activity in digital space, huge amount of rewriting, huge amount of

activity, boiling soup. And I think the, we're going to see something that in the digital space goes at the speed of light compared to, I think, what's going to happen in the physical world, to some extent. It would be the extrapolation. And so I think like, there's currently kind of like, I think, an overhang where there can be like a lot of unhobbling, almost potentially of like a lot of digital information processing that used to be done by computers and people. And now with AIs as like a third kind of manipulative digital information, there's going to be a lot of refactoring in those disciplines. But the physical world is actually going to be like, I think, behind that by some amount of time. And so I think what's really fascinating to me is like, so that's why I was

highlighting the professions that fundamentally manipulate digital information, this is work you could do from your home, et cetera, because I feel like things will change. And it doesn't mean that there's going to be less of those jobs or more of those jobs because that has to do with like demand in elasticity and many other factors. But things will change in these professions because of these new tools and because of this upgrade to the nervous system of the human superorganism, if you want to think about it that way. Given the look you had at the data, do you have either any observations or guidance for people facing the job market or thinking about what to study now or what skills to develop? I mean, we can all go and go get like, I'm very thankful that I have to like meet people for my job. right now. Yeah.

More physical. Yeah. Could you do your work from home, though? I could. I think there are relationship parts of it that are hard, but most of it I could. Yeah. I think it's really hard to tell because, again, like, the job market is extremely diverse. I think the answers will probably vary.

But to a large extent, like, these tools are extremely new, extremely powerful. And so just being, you know, just trying to keep up with it is like the first thing. And, yeah, because I think a lot of people kind of like dismiss it or they're afraid of it, etc, which is totally understandable, of course. Yeah, I think it's fundamentally an empowering tool at the moment. And these jobs are bundles of tasks, and some of these tasks can go a lot faster. And so people should think of it's primarily a tool that it is right now. And I think the long-term feature of that is uncertain.

Yeah, it's kind of really hard to forecast, to be honest. And I'm not professionally doing that, really. And I think it's a job of economists to do properly. You are an engineer, though. And, like, one thing I thought was interesting is that, like, the demand for engineering jobs is continuing to increase. Yeah. I can't tell if that's like a temporary phenomenon.

I'm not sure how I feel about it yet. Do you know? Yeah, that's like the demand analysis almost. Like software was scarce, right? And so the reason we don't have more demand for software is just the scarcity and it's too expensive. It's too expensive, yeah. So if the barrier comes down, then actually you have the Jevons paradox, which is like, you know, actually, the demand for software actually goes up.

It's cheaper and there's more powerful. Yeah. The classical example of this always is the ATMs and the bank tellers. because there was a lot of like fear that ATMs and computers basically would displace tellers. But what happened is they made like the cost of operation of a bank branch much cheaper as there were more bank branches so there were more tellers. It's like the canonical example people's site.

But basically it's just Jevon's paradox. Like something becomes cheaper so there's a lot of unlocked demand for it. So I do think that that's probably, I do have like cautiously optimistic view of this in software engineering where I do think, It does seem to me like the demand for software will be extremely large. And it's just become a lot cheaper. And so I do think that for quite some time, it's very hard to forecast. But it does seem to me like right now, at least locally, there's not be more demand for software.

Because software is amazing. It's like digital information processing. You're not forced to use like arbitrary tools that are given to you. There are imperfect in various ways. You're not forced to subscribe to what exists. Code is now ephemeral and it can change and it can be modified. And so I think there's going to be a lot of activity in the digital space to like rewire everything in a certain sense. And I think it's going to create a lot of demand for this kind of stuff.

I think long term, yeah, obviously, even with auto research, like Open AI or, you know, Anthropic or these other labs, like they're employing what, like a thousand something researchers, right? These researchers are basically like glorified auto, like, you know, they're like automating themselves away like actively and this is like the thing they're all trying to do. Yeah. I think, like, I went around. Some of those researchers also feel the psychosis, right? Because they can, it's working. Yeah. Right.

And so they're like, oh, it's over for me too. I did spend a bunch of time going around opening eye and I was like, you guys realize if we're successful, like, we're all out of job. Like, we're just building automation for Sam or something like that. Like, I, or the board, I'm not sure. But like, there's just building that this automation for, yeah, the board or the CEO or or something like that. And we're all out of our job and maybe contributing on the sides.

And so, yeah, it's kind of like nerving from that perspective. Is it okay if I ask you NOMS question? You know, you could be doing that, right? Auto-researching with a lot of compute scale and a bunch of colleagues at one of the Frontier Labs. Like, why not? Well, I was there for a while, right? And I did re-enter. So to some extent, I agree.

I think that there are many ways to slice this question. That's a very loaded question a little bit. I will say that I feel very good about like what people can contribute and their impact outside of the frontier labs, obviously. Not in the industry, but also in more like ecosystem level roles. So your role, for example, is more like ecosystem level. My role currently is also kind of more on ecosystem level. And I feel very good about impact that people can have in those kinds of roles. I think conversely, there are definite problems in my mind for basically aligning yourself

way too much with the frontier labs too. So fundamentally, I mean, you're, you have a huge financial incentive to with these frontier labs. And by your own admission, the AIs are going to like really change humanity and society very dramatic ways, and here you are basically, like, building the technology and benefiting from, like, and being, like, very allied to it through financial means. Like, this was a conundrum that was in, at the heart of, you know, how opening I was started in the beginning. Like, this was the conundrum that we were trying to solve. And so, you know, that, so it's kind of, it's still not resolved. The conundrum is still not, like, fully resolved. So that's number one.

You're not a completely free agent, and you can't actually, like, be part of that conversation in a fully autonomous free way. Like, if you're inside one. one of the frontier labs. Like, there are some things that you can't say. And conversely, there are certain things that the organization wants you to say. And, you know, they're not going to twist your arm, but you feel the pressure of, like, what you should be saying, you know, because, like, obviously. Otherwise, it's like really awkward conversations, strange side eyes.

Like, what are you doing? You know, so you can't, like, really be an independent agent. And I feel like a bit more aligned with humanity in a certain sense outside of Frontier lab, because I don't, I'm not subject to those pressures almost, right? and I can't say whatever I want. Yeah, I would say in the frontier labs, like, you can have, like, impact there, of course, as well. So, but there's many researchers, and maybe you're one of them,

maybe your ideas are really good, et cetera. Maybe there's a lot of decision-making to do, and you want to be in a position where you are in the room with those conversations when they come up. I do think that currently the stakes are, like, overall, fairly low, and so everything is kind of, like, nice. But ultimately, at the end of the day, like, when the stakes are really high, et cetera,

if you're an employee at an organization, I don't actually know how much sway you're going to have on your organization what's going to do, like fundamentally at the end of the day. you're not really in charge. You're in a room and you're contributing ideas, but you're not really in charge of that entity that you're a part of.

So those are like some sources of misalignment, I think, to some extent. I will say that in one way, I do agree a lot with that sentiment that I do feel like, and if the labs for better or worse, they're opaque and a lot of work is there. And they're kind of like at the edge of capability

in what's possible. And they're working on what's coming down the line. And I think if you're outside of that frontier lab, your judgment fundamentally will start to drift because you're not part of the, you know, what's coming down the line. Right. And so I feel like my judgment will inevitably start to drift as well. And I won't actually have an understanding of how these systems actually work under the hood.

That's an opaque system. I won't have a good understanding of how it's going to develop and, et cetera. And so I do think that in that sense, I agree and something I'm nervous about. I think it's worth basically being in touch with what's actually happening and actually being in the frontier lab. And if some of the frontier labs would have me come for, you know, some amount of time and do really good work for them and then maybe coming in and out. Guys, he's looking for a job. This is super exciting.

Then I think that's maybe a good setup because I kind of feel like it's kind of, you know, maybe that's like one way to actually be connected to what's actually happening, but also not feel like you're necessarily fully controlled by those entities. So I think honestly in my mind, like Noam can probably do extremely good work at OAI, but also I think his most impactful work could very well be outside of Open AI. Noam, that's a call to be an independent researcher. In auto research. Yeah, there's many things to do on the outside, and it's a, and I think, ultimately,

I think the ideal solution maybe is like, yeah, going back and forth or, yeah, and I think fundamentally you can have really amazing impact in both places. So very complicated, I don't know, like, it's a very loaded question a little bit, but, I mean, I joined the frontier lab and I'm outside, and then maybe in the future I'll want to join again, and I think that's kind of like how I look at it. One question related to what visibility to does the world or the AI ecosystem have into the frontier is like how close open sources to the frontier and how sustainable that is. I think it is quite surprising the entire sequence of events actually from like having a handful of Chinese models and global models. And I think people are going to continue releasing here in the near term that are closer than much of the industry.

from a capability perspective. I don't know if you're surprised by that, but you're a long-term contributed to open source. Like, what's your prediction here? Yeah, so roughly speaking, basically, the closed models are ahead, but like people are monitoring the number of months that sort of like open source models are behind.

And it started with there's nothing, and then it went to 18 months. Yeah, but even convergence, right? So maybe they're behind by like, what is the latest, maybe like eight months, eight months kind of thing right now. Yeah, I'm a huge fan of open source, obviously. So for example, in operating systems, you have closed, like, you know, Windows and Mac OS.

These are large software projects. It's kind of like what LLMs are going to become, and there's Linux. But Linux is very easy. Like, actually, Linux is an extremely successful project. It runs on the best majority of computers. Like, last time I checked, was it, like, 60% or something? Like, run Linux. And that's because there is a need in the industry to have a common open platform

that everyone feels sort of safe using. I would say, like, the industry has always felt a demand for that kind of a project to exist. And I think the same is true now. And that's why business is actually what there's demand for this kind of a thing to exist. The big difference is that everything is capital. there's a lot of tapbacks that goes into this. So I think that's where things like fall apart a little bit, make it a bit harder to compete in this terms of sense.

I do think that the current models are very good. The other thing that I think is really interesting is that for the vast majority of consumer use cases and things like that, even the term open source models are actually quite good, I would say. And I think like if you go forward like more years, it does seem to me like a huge amount of like simple use cases are going to be well covered and actually even run locally.

But there's going to be always like some demand for like frontier intelligence. And that can actually be extremely large piece of the pie. But it could be that the frontier, the need for frontier intelligence is going to be like, you know, Nobel Prize kind of work. Or like, let's move Linux from C to rust. It's going to be like bigger projects, you know, like scoped in that kind of a way. And there's going to be maybe more.

And maybe that's where a lot of the frontier closed intelligences are going to be interacting with. And open source is kind of like going to eat through a lot of the more basic use cases or something like that. At some point, what is Frontier Today is going to be, you know, probably later this year, what's Frontier Today in terms of what I'm using right now from the closed labs might be open source and that's going to be doing a lot of work. So I kind of expect that this dynamic will actually basically continue. Like we'll have Frontier Labs that have closed AIs that are kind of like these oracles and

then we'll have open source kind of like behind by some amount of months. And I kind of expect that to continue. And I actually think that's like a pretty good setup overall because I'm a much little bit hesitant of having, I don't actually think it's like structurally, I think there's some systemic risk attached to just having intelligences that are closed and that's like, that's it. And I think that that's a, you know, centralization has a very poor track record in my view, in the past and has. You mean like in political or economic systems in general?

Yes. Exactly. I think there's like a lot of like a pretty bad person. And so I want there to be a thing that is maybe not at the edge of capability because it's new and unexplored, et cetera, but I want there to be a thing that's behind. and that is kind of like a common working space for intelligences that the entire industry is access to. Yeah, that seems to me like a pretty decent power balance for the industry. Yeah. I also think there's just like there are many problems to solve, right? Like if you keep

advancing intelligence from the frontier, we can do new things and there are a lot of like very big problems for humanity. Yeah. Right. And so like it seems that that will continue to be a very expensive game. And so I want to like root for labs that are doing that because there are problems we cannot solve without continuing to advance the models in a very expensive way. Yeah. And yet, as you point out, like, if what we have today as Frontier is open, that's a lot of capability. Yeah.

Right. And so I think, you know, the power of that or the democratization of that seems like very useful and also healthy. Yeah. I think basically by accident we're actually like in an okay spot. In optimal. Yeah. By accident, we happen to be in a good spot in a certain sense.

Well, and to some degree, the longer this endures, like this dynamic. the healthier of a spot, like the ecosystem might be in, right? Because you have more and more area under the curve. And I will say that even on the closest side, I almost feel like it's been like even further centralizing recently because I think a lot of the frontrunners are like not necessarily like the top tier. And so yeah, like in that sense I think it's it's not super ideal. I would love there to be more for until last because yeah, I'm like by default very suspicious of like I want there to be more people in the room. I want, I think like in machine learning

learning ensembles always are performed any individual model. And so I want there to be ensembles of people thinking about all the hardest problems. And I want there to be ensembles of people in a room to be all well-informed and to make all those decisions. So I don't want it to be like a closed doors with two people or three people. I feel like that's not a good, not a good future. I almost wish like there were more labs is long story short. And I do think that open source has a place to play. I hope it sticks around.

And I basically, it's currently slightly behind. And it's actually kind of like a good thing. You worked on the precursor to generalize robotics, autonomy, in cars, right? A lot has happened in the last couple months with robotics companies as well, like acceleration of really impressive generalization, of environment, of tasks, like increasing long horizon tasks, lots of money going into the space. Like, is it going to happen? Has anything in your view changed recently?

So, like, my view is kind of informed by what I saw in self-driving. And I do feel like self-driving is the first robotics application. So probably what I saw is, at the time, like 10 years ago, there were a large number of startups. And I kind of feel like most of them basically didn't long-term make it. And what I saw is that a lot of capital expenditure had to go in and a lot of time. And so I think robotics, because it's so difficult and so messy and requires a huge amount of capital investment and a lot of like conviction. Just it's like a big problem.

And I think items are really hard. So I kind of feel like it will lack behind what's going to happen in digital space. And in digital space, there's going to be a huge amount of unhobbling, basically like things that weren't super efficient, becoming a lot more efficient by like a factor of a hundred because bits are so much easier. And so I think currently in terms of what's going to change and like where the activity is,

I kind of feel like digital space is going to like change a huge amount and then the physical space will lack behind. And what I find very interesting is like this interface in between them as well. Because I think in this like, if we do have more agents acting on behalf of humans and more agents kind of like talking to each other and doing tasks and participating in the kind of economy of agents, etc. You're going to run out of things that you're going to do purely in a digital space.

At some point, you have to go to the universe and you have to ask it questions. You have to run an experiment and see what the universe tells you to get back, to learn something. And so we currently have a huge amount of digital work because there's an overhang in how much we collectively thought about what already is digital. So we just didn't have enough thinking cycles among the humans to think about all the information

that's already digital and already uploaded. And so we're going to start running out of stuff that is actually like already uploaded. So you're going to at some point read all the papers

and process them and have some ideas about what to try. But yeah, we're just kind of... I don't actually know how much you can get intelligence that's like fully closed off and was just the information

that's filled to it, you know? And so I think what's going to happen is first there's going to be a huge amount of unhobbling and I think there's a huge amount of work there. Then actually it's going to move to like the interfaces between physical and digital.

And that's like sensors of like seeing the world and actuators of like doing something to the world. So I think a lot of interesting companies will actually come from that interface of like can we feed the superintelligence in a certain sense data? And can we actually like take data out and manipulate the physical world per its bidding if you want to like interpolifies the whole thing. And then the physical world actually I almost feel like the total addressable market, etc. In terms of like the amount of work and so on is massive, possibly even much larger. maybe what can happen in digital space. So I actually think it's like a much bigger opportunity as well. But I do feel like it's a huge amount of work.

And in my mind, the atoms are just like a million times harder. So it will lag behind, but it's also, I think, a little bit of bigger market. So it's kind of like, yeah, I think the opportunity is kind of like follow that kind of trajectory. So right now is digital is like my main interest. Then interfaces would be like after that. And then maybe like some of the physical things, like their time of. come and there'll be huge when they do come. Well, it's an interesting framework for it too because certain things, not the things I'm

working on right now, but certain things are much easier even in the world of atoms, right? Like, if you just think about like read and write to the physical world, like read, sensors, cameras, like there's a lot of existing hardware. And you can imagine like enriching agent capabilities or capturing a lot of new data if you're just clever about it. And like you don't necessarily have to invest a lot to like get something valuable. Yeah. Yeah. So, like, examples of this that I saw, for example, are, you know, a friend of my, Liam is run as a CEO of Periodic. I visited them last week. So it's just on top of mind. Like, they're trying to do auto research for material science. And so in that case, it's like the sensors to the intelligence are actually, like, pretty expensive lab equipment. And the same is true in biology. I think a lot of people are very interested in engineering biology. And, you know, the sensors will be more than just like video cameras, if that makes sense. And then the other thing I saw, for example, as companies that are trying to have, like, you basically pay

for training data as an example. Yeah. Yeah. Programmatically. Yeah. To feed the Borg. And so, like, these are all examples of like sensors in a certain sense. So they take many diverse shapes and forms, if that makes sense. Yeah. So I'm looking forward to the point where I can ask for a task in the physical world. And I can put a price on it and just tell the agent, like, you know, you figure out how to do it. Go get the data.

I'm actually kind of surprised we don't have enough like information markets. Like, for example, if polymarket or other betting markets or even stocks, etc., if they have so much autonomous activity, and rising amount of activity. Like, for example, if Iran was just happening now, like, how come there isn't a process where, like, taking a photo or video from somewhere in Tehran should cost, like, $10?

Like, someone should be able to pay for that, you know? And that's an example of, like, feeding the intelligence. There's not going to be a human looking at it. It's going to be, like, agents who are trying to guess the betting games and stock markets and so on. So I kind of feel like the agentic web is still, like, fairly new that there's no, like, mechanisms for this. But this is an example of what I think might happen.

There's a good book that maybe is inspiring called Damon, you essentially read it. In Damon, the intelligence ends up like puppeteering almost a little bit humanity in a certain sense, you know, and so humans are kind of like it's actuators, but humans are also like its sensors. And so I think like collectively like society will kind of like reshape in a certain way to serve that kind of a, that will kind of like end up happening collectively across the industry where yeah, there's just a lot more automation and has certain needs and kind of humans will be serving those needs of that machine, not necessarily like to each other.

We were on this very specific point of like missing pieces of training data, we needed something like auto research, right? Like we need the training cycle or the SFT piece to be far more mechanized. For which part? In order to make the collection, like in order to take the human out of the loop to ask for a task that is just like improve my model quality with new data, right? Yes. Does that make sense to you?

Like we, if you can't have the model do the training runs by itself, then your ability to do this as a like closed loop task. Yes. By pricing data is more challenged. Yes, yes, 100%. But now we do. The thing is for LLM training, it actually is like very easily, it's like really fiss the paradigm.

So you'd actually expect. Yeah, clean metric. Yeah, like LLM training actually fits the paradigm really well, really easily. like all the optimization of all the code, and so it runs faster. And then you also have, like, metrics that you can optimize against. I do think that if you had an autonomous loop over those metrics, there's going to be a lot of, like, good harding going on, where the system will, like, overfit to those metrics.

And so, but then you can use the system to devise more metrics, and you just have really good coverage. So it's kind of hard to tell, but in a certain sense, it's, like, a pretty good fit. I want to talk about a little tiny side project you have before we end. Tell me about the microchiptera. Oh, yeah. Okay, so micro-GPT.

So I have this like running obsession of like maybe a decade or two of just like simplifying and boiling down the, basically, LLMs to like their bare essence. And I've had a number of projects along these lines. So like nano-GPT and make more and micro-GPagrad, etc. So I feel like micro-GPT is now the state of the art of me trying to like just boil it down to just the essence. Because the thing is like training neural nets and LLMs specifically is a huge amount of code. But all of that code is actually complexity from efficiency. It's just because you need it to go fast.

If you don't need it to go fast, and you just care about the algorithm, then that algorithm actually is 200 lines of Python. Very simple to read. And this includes comments and everything. Because you just have your data set, which is a text, and you need your neural network architecture, which is like 50 lines. You need to do your forward pass. And then you have to do your backward pass to calculate the gradients.

And so an old autograd engine to calculate the gradients like 100 lines. And then you need an optimizer, an atom, for example, which is a very state-of-the-art optimizer is like, again, 10 lines, really. And so putting everything together in the training loop is like, yeah, 200 lines. And it was interesting to me, like normally before, like maybe a year ago or more, if I had come up with micro-GPT, I would be tempted to basically explain to people. Like, I have a video, like, stepping through it or something like that. And I actually tried to make that video a little bit.

And I tried to make like a little guide to it and so on. But I kind of realized that this is not really adding too much. because people, because it's already so simple that it's 200 lines that anyone could ask their agent to explain it in various ways. And the agents, like, I'm not explaining it to people anymore. I'm explaining it to agents. If you can explain it to agents, then agents can be the router and they can actually target it to the human in their language with infinite, you know, patience and just at their capability and so on. Right. If I don't understand this particular function, I can ask the agent to explain it to me like three different ways.

And I'm not going to get that from you. Exactly. And so I kind of feel like. you know, what is education? Like, it used to be guides, it used to be lectures, it used to be this thing, but I feel like now more I'm explaining things to agents, and maybe I'm coming up with skills where, like,

so basically skill is just a way to instruct the agent how to teach the thing. So maybe I could have a skill for micro-GPT of the progression I imagine the agent should take you through if you're interested in understanding the code base. And it's just like hints to the model to like, first start off with this and then with that. And so I could just script the curriculum a little bit as a skill.

So I don't feel like Yeah, I feel like there's going to be less of like explaining things directly to people And it's going to be more of just like does the agent get it? And if the agent gets it, they'll do the explanation And we're not fully there yet because they I still can I still think I can probably explain things a little bit better than the agents But I still feel like the models are improving so rapidly that I feel like it's a losing battle to some extent

And so I think education is going to be kind of like reshuffled by this quite substantially where it's the end of teaching each other things a lot a little bit. Like if I have a library, for example, of code or something like that, it used to be that you have documentation for other people who are going to use your library. But you shouldn't do that anymore. You should have, instead of HTML documents for humans, you have marked down documents for agents. Because if agents get it, then they can just explain all the different parts of it.

So it's this redirection through agents, you know. And that's like, so I think we're going to see a lot more of that playing out. Well, we'll see if the great teachers know, like, to develop intuition for how to explain things to agents differently. Ultimately, so for example, micro-GPT, like I asked, I tried to get an agent to write micro-GPT. So I told it, like, try to boil down the simplest things, like, try to build down my neural network stream to the simplest thing and can't do it. Like, micro-GPT is like my, it's like my, end of my obsession, it's the 200 lies. I thought about this for a long time. I'll just about this for a long time.

This is the solution. Trust me, it can't get simpler. And this is my value ad. Everything else, like, agent gets it. It just can't come up with it, but it totally gets it and understands why it's done in a certain way, et cetera. So, like, my contribution is kind of like these few bits, but everything else in terms of like the education that goes on after that is like not my domain anymore. So maybe, yeah, it's like education kind of changes in those ways where you kind of have to infuse the few bits that you feel strongly about the curriculum or the better way of explaining it or something like that. The things that agents can't do is your job now.

things that agents can do, they can probably do better than you or like very soon. And so you should be strategic about what you're actually spending time on. Well, we appreciate the few minutes. Thank you, Andre. Okay. Find us on Twitter at No Pryor's Pod. Subscribe to our YouTube channel if you want to see our faces. Follow the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

That way you get a new episode every week. And sign up for emails or find transcripts for every episode at no-dash priors.com. Thank you.