Super cool. This was one of my favorite games as a kid.

There is sooo much software left to write. Exciting.

Has anyone done research into thinking time tradeoffs with deeper / recurrent transformers?

Very smart, was wondering when OAI would build openrouter for OSS models.

Neat, K3 is a decent model

Block has joined the x402 Foundation, an open standard for agentic payments, to help build the rails that will let people, businesses, and agents pay and get paid. We’ve also contributed Bitcoin Lightning payments, which is purpose-built for the instant, low-cost, high-volume payments that agentic commerce will depend on. More here: block.xyz/inside/block-joins…

From new ways for customers to find you, to fewer steps during service. A preview of 8 new features that start rolling out next week: → Connected sellers can keep hours, logo, and contact details in sync on Apple Maps → Keep taking orders for later fulfillment even when today's items sell out → See the revenue each channel brought in, rather than a lump sum → Give the kitchen a head start on items as they're rung in → Set up a service charge once and it adds itself to every check Check out all of our newest tools and features here: squareup.com/us/en/release-n…

Ok the Muse tamagotchi is pretty cute

From Taqueria Ramirez to El Camarón Peludo, follow Giovanni Cervantes, Tania Apolinar, and chef Carlos Barrera as they bring a new restaurant to life. The Build is back with Season 3 from @tilitnyc. Listen now: squ.re/thebuild

Now these are the roaring ‘20s we were promised. Let’s go.

Broad access to powerful technology is how societies grow. Let's learn from our past, keep innovation open, hold reckless conduct accountable, and accelerate the defenses that turn raw capability into real protection.

Law enforcers already have authority to charge companies and their CEOs for creating and releasing dangerous, unvetted, or defective products. We shouldn’t let discussions about new legal regimes distract from the fact that there’s no AI exemption from laws already on the books — a point @FTC emphasized repeatedly during my tenure. 1. There is an extensive set of laws that govern dangerous and defective products. For example, releasing unvetted AI models or agents can violate consumer protection laws. Shipping flawed AI tools without implementing adequate measures to detect and stop rogue or defective AI agents can be an “unfair or deceptive” act or practice under the FTC Act (and analogous state laws). And some state AGs are already exploring holding AI firms and their CEOs criminally liable when their models participate in criminal activity. 2. Existing laws also prohibit “unfair methods of competition.” This covers instances where AI firms appropriate the competitively sensitive information of their customers, including through tracking their use of various tools. It can also cover instances where firms pursue dangerous behavior, aware that doing so may compel rivals to do the same. As the Supreme Court has noted: “A method of competition which casts upon one's competitors the burden of the loss of business unless they will descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though it is not criminal, was thought to involve the kind of unfairness at which the [unfair methods of competition] statute was aimed." 3. The highly concentrated and interconnected structure of these markets could be creating major risks and conflicts of interest. We had started investigating these partnerships and cross-investments across the stack (and released a preliminarily overview of some findings: ftc.gov/news-events/news/pre…). Both federal and state enforcers should be scrutinizing these opaque relationships and inter-dependencies. We are already seeing how these relationships could undermine accountability. For example, OpenAI could face liability given the Hugging Face incident, but Hugging Face being bought up by Nvidia means that we’re unlikely to see it file a lawsuit over this — given Nvidia’s strong incentive to see OpenAI continue full speed ahead. 4. As AI tools dramatically change the landscape of cybersecurity risks and hacks, all businesses should be doubling down on having core security protections in place. Firms that fail to invest in adequate data security measures or fix known vulnerabilities can also be breaking the law. A recent analysis showed that around 1/3 of Fortune 100 companies do not even have a way to notify them about security issues. During my @FTC tenure, we sued firms for poor data security practices and held CEOs liable when they were personally responsible. this.weekinsecurity.com/doze… ftc.gov/news-events/news/pre… 5. As policymakers consider new legal regimes, we should be looking to lessons from prior efforts to govern major sectors, such as banking and other networks, platforms, and utilities. Tools like structural separations, nondiscrimination, and supervision could be key, and there’s a rich history of what works and what doesn’t. But we can and must pursue any new efforts alongside enforcing existing laws.

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.

incredible how programmed we all are, and how sharp the turns have become.

As a virologist who has cloned & engineered viruses, worked in high containment and used various AI/ML approaches for more than a decade, I will say the quiet part of this 👇 out loud: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

In 1988, the Morris worm took out 10% of the Internet including taking out key national security and research assets. In 1992 the Michelangelo virus was expected to cause a digital apocalypse 99' the FBI reported that the Melissa virus compromised more than 300 companies and over one million accounts disrupted 00' and 01' we saw ILOVEYOU and CodeRed causing billions in economic damage. Since the creation of the Internet we had a constant stream of vulnerabilities impacting critical infrastructure, nationally sensitive resources, and causing billions in economic damage. In contrast, It really is remarkable how relatively few security significant events we've seen with AI despite all the effort and money trying to will it into existence. And relative lack of security sophistication from those developing it.