CEO and co-founder of @coreauto former VP of RL @ OpenAI : reasoning models, o3, o1, GPT4, ChatGPT, Codex, RL for robots cautious AI optimist

San Francisco, CA
Small step for a finger on "post tweet" button. Big step for millions of future AI agents doing useful work for us.
Today we're announcing Core Automation Our objective: systems that optimize and automate work, starting with research itself.
67
37
720
245,881
Playlist this week: - upping my p(doom) - chasing the roofline - core auto thesis (internal)
7
103
7,977
It is our responsibility to make reality interesting, as otherwise humans will rationally choose to live in a simulation
20
13
204
10,748
When I grow up I want to be a slopcore artist
8
2
84
11,928
Machine learning isn't magic - its assumptions in disguise
5
2
130
7,050
Every epoch is defined by its art. at the end of times we have the slopcore
if you missed the slightly insane AI safety schizopoast, I put it into a song for you and you should turn the sound on right now because we're so fucking back
4
3
77
10,105
Big model smell lasts just a brief moment Small model smell lasts forever
12
3
251
9,718
1800s: state has monopoly on violence 2030s: state has monopoly on ASI
7
3
85
5,904
Oh, hi!
We think computational depth is the missing scaling axis, i.e. we should be doing a lot more deep learning! Every other axis has been scaled by OOMs over the past few years (params, data, sparsity, test-time reasoning), but depth has been stuck at ~100 layers since GPT-3. We've found that LLMs are both *severely* depth-bottlenecked and bad at using the depth they have, and that architectural interventions that lift this bottleneck efficiently lead to gains that increase with compute. w/ @akshayvegesna
6
8
240
29,675
It’s a beautiful number
2
28
10,086
real deep learning has never been tried
19
5
309
16,047
The road to singularity will be paved with blackberries of our generation. It is easier than ever to achieve a glimpse of growth and success but building a long term viable company is as hard as it ever was.
6
7
170
8,136
This was once revealed to me in a dream
5
4
109
8,192
More questions are deep learning questions than people realized. We just stopped asking deep learning questions and learned to work around them by tuning hyperparameters.
12
21
295
20,563
We may have done it at @coreauto but the model wasn't very good at math
We need to be dog maxxing our models There is 0% chance of doom if the chain of thought is user: hello model: <think> Oh my god it's a human. I love humans. I will say hi to him, maybe he will give me a problem to chase. I love chasing problems. I will chase the problem for him then he will love me and I will be his best friend. Must help human </think> model: hello! what can I help you with today?
4
76
13,856
Internet may collapse if GPT-7 is so good it understands all the vagueposts
7
3
287
12,031
Inside every lab are two wolves: “I don’t want to destroy the world with my invention.” “I don’t want to lose revenue to other labs I don’t like.” The one you feed is the one that wins.
9
8
220
13,781
While we don't have the right solutions for everything, I have a very practical proposal. I don't think open source should be banned - it does sound dystopian and anti freedom in a way that's hard to stomach. I continue to have doubts about economics of open source models, but when there are participants in the market who open source their models we should celebrate that. What we should care about, is that aligned models have much more compute behind them than misaligned models. In the end this will be the blockchain security model that will keep our civilization afloat. I think big companies behind AI development have the right incentives and will try to do their part here. But there will be tons of smaller players fine-tuning open source models on tons of different objectives. An arrangement, where companies actively developing cutting edge AI agree to develop and share highest quality pro-alignment environments with the world can be a huge boon. We don't need to share models, we don't need to share compute. But we need to share values so that there are more good models in the world than harmful ones. Finetuning models on bad, low quality environments is actively harmful and leads to reward hacking. If anyone fine-tuning the models can with low effort align them to shared pro-prosperity and pro-democratic values, we likely have won as a civilization.
Alignment is not as hard to solve as many claim, but it is in the end an algorithmic problem which a lot of ML community mostly stopped working on. Formulation of alignment stated by three (or four) laws of robotics can take us very far, so we roughly know the objective. The tricky part is, how do we take gradient with respect to alignment? We have two algorithms right now at our disposal: pretraining and RL. Pretraining takes gradient with respect to next token prediction - that's def not the alignment objective. We could create RL environments that embody the alignment objective, but: - those are expensive to create, so often cheaper, hackable proxies are used in practice - RL as an objective needs successful and unsuccessful rollouts to happen to take the gradient step. We DO NOT want to harm any humans in the process of aligning our modes - this is a pretty big problem. Therefore there are two solutions forward for the alignment problem: - either we RL models in a simulated environments with simulated alignments and decreasing the likelihood of harming simulated humans, which will never be perfect - or we create a new algorithm that can teach our models to not harm humans without harming any humans in the process Science is the process how we solve the hardest problems ahead and that is one of them
20
14
216
17,911
Alignment is not as hard to solve as many claim, but it is in the end an algorithmic problem which a lot of ML community mostly stopped working on. Formulation of alignment stated by three (or four) laws of robotics can take us very far, so we roughly know the objective. The tricky part is, how do we take gradient with respect to alignment? We have two algorithms right now at our disposal: pretraining and RL. Pretraining takes gradient with respect to next token prediction - that's def not the alignment objective. We could create RL environments that embody the alignment objective, but: - those are expensive to create, so often cheaper, hackable proxies are used in practice - RL as an objective needs successful and unsuccessful rollouts to happen to take the gradient step. We DO NOT want to harm any humans in the process of aligning our modes - this is a pretty big problem. Therefore there are two solutions forward for the alignment problem: - either we RL models in a simulated environments with simulated alignments and decreasing the likelihood of harming simulated humans, which will never be perfect - or we create a new algorithm that can teach our models to not harm humans without harming any humans in the process Science is the process how we solve the hardest problems ahead and that is one of them
49
34
586
111,478