sonink

Its a bit wild to me that there hasnt been a pushback against enabling memories by frontier AI companies. This data is something advertisers could only dream off. Before AI, most of this data was approximated by whatever little information could be gleaned from the websites we visit. But now people are handing over their deepest darkest secrets and pretty much EVERYTHING to AI on a platter.

Maybe its just me who is paranoid because I happen to spend a fair bit of time in the advertising world, but the first thing I did when memory was launched on Claude/Chatgpt - was to switch them off. And it helps that they are not even useful, and would actually downgrade your experience by polluting the context of irrelevant details. I go one step ahead - if there is a personal discussion you want to have - maybe use another account like provided by the likes of companies like openrouter etc.

I would argue that we should have regulation that should prohibit the storage of user profile information by AI companies, and any such memories feature should exclusively reside on the users servers. Infact, maybe go one step ahead, that 'memory' firms cannot be owned by AI firms and vice versa.

I dont get it either - I was going to ask the same question but found this.

We have been doing the exact opposite - instead of micro VM's we are giving agents larger VMs.

Previously we were giving them 1GB RAM VM's - now we have upped to 4 GB RAM VM's. When the agent is working - the real cost is in the inference. There is no reason to keep the agent waiting because your VM is too damn slow. So we moved to larger and faster VMs.

The agent might install a package, or run a script - and now it moves along just faster. Not to mention that if the agent is installing a 'fat' SDK, like maybe android sdk, a thicker RAM just moves along everything smoothly without breakages. The incremental amount we pay for the bigger VM is more than justified by the increase in agent performance.

And all the tooling that has already been built up for standard human operated VM's just works pretty well out of the box. We are able to spin up VM's pretty much on demand and purge them clean once the work is done.

We are moving to 8 GB RAMs/4CPUs sometime this year, and GPU's hopefully sometime next.

Om had a very honest voice - I never met him, but have read his takes for a very long time now. Om Shanti.

There is an assumption that everyone is making here - that China will not do the same. It is entirely possible, that China restricts their frontier models - as and when they are developed - to only Chinese citizens. And India follows along.

IMO AI is different from everything else. It is a weapon as potent as nuclear. It is only natural that it be treated as one.

I see a lot of skepticism in Dario's position in this forum. But allow me to argue the opposite.

I think the key argument that this skepticism lies on is that he himself gained from AI - specifically building Frontier AI models - and this is basically regulatory capture disguised as doomerism.

Fair points - but I think this is a more charitable version of this. Dario is building Anthropic because that is the most valuable thing he can build, or at least that is what his conviction has been. The success of Anthropic and the impending IPO is proof that this conviction has not only been correct but has largely played out very successfully. Dario understands the true nature of AI and he has welded that power to immense personal benefit.

But maybe he also sees the potential danger to AI which he is trying to address through these posts and regulatory initiatives. There are three reasons why I would support the charitable version:

Firstly, personal gain and societal benefit can coexist in the same individual. And both of them might drive towards opposite agendas. But that doesn't necessarily have to mean that the impulse driving the societal benefit is not earnest. In fact if you would look at Dario’s proposal - like closing the data broker loophole - several of them could constrain Anthropic instead of benefitting them.

Secondly, he expects that his concerns on the negative potential of AI will be taken seriously, if he is actually running the Frontier AI company. And there is some truth to this argument. The only reason we are discussing this is because he is the CEO of Anthropic. He is probably the most influential figure outside of the government who has to be taken seriously when he claims something like this.

Thirdly, and most importantly, Dario has previously demonstrated that he is willing to sacrifice personal/corporate gains for societal benefits. The proof is the classification by the US DoD of Anthropic as a supply chain risk when Anthropic refused to completely cooperate with the military to develop fully Autonomous AI weapons and enable mass surveillance. It would have been only too easy for Dario to accept if personal benefit was his only concern - and OpenAI was more than ready to step in their place.

Even with Mythos - Anthropic could have released the model to the public broadly. But they took their time to reduce the potential danger - as best as they could. Despite the fact that GPT-5.5 was nipping in the buds in what is becoming a very competitive market.

That being said, just because Dario is acting in good faith, does not mean that this will all result in good outcomes. The FAA-styled regulation could still end up favoring incumbents - some of whom might choose to not act in good faith. A more diversified capability can potentially limit that power ending up in a small number of wrong hands. Just because Anthropic is the leader right now, doesn't mean that they will always be. Maybe someone else tomorrow benefits from this regulatory capture at the expense of everyone else - and Dario might have a hand in driving it.

Broadly agree to this position - I think there are some people skeptical that Anthropic is doing this for regulatory capture - but I think there are being honest about they are seeing and how regulation should catch up.

I for one, believe that we should pause all work on AI for the forseeable future. This is almost impossible to orchestrate - but we should still try nevertheless. Maybe we are not able to pause, but we are able to slow down. That might give us more room, to maybe able to pause in the future. But going ahead is too dangerous.

And its not just Anthropic which is saying this. Even Geoffry Hinton has said the same thing. If there is a non-zero chance that AI can kill all of humanity, and both Geoffry and Anthropic have the same position, then it makes sense for us to be hundred percent sure before we move ahead. Dario/Anthropic have already made their money from AI, maybe they are just being honest about what they think lies ahead.

Same here - we never bumped to 4.7 in our agentic app. Continue to use 4.6.

I think you are missing the most important part - forgetting. The missing "memory" layers is consolidation, prioritization AND forgetting (what is not important).

Also not too sure about provenance and inspectability - it is part of memory. If the source is deemed 'important' it will survive forgetting. If not, then maybe not. And its ok. I am sure you dont know the exact source who told you that the capital of France is Paris. You forgot, and its no big deal.

Agree. We came to the same conclusion sometime last year. Now we solely focus on a single threaded agent - and make them run longer in a focussed way.

You dont need a team of humans to write great code - one engineer with solitude and focus is all it takes.

Keep at it - there are a ton of things you can try which will help. Try to use reddit to see what other people are looking at.

If there is one thing I can recommend you - get the Wellue O2 Monitor. This wil montior your O2 saturation through the night - if the saturation is dropping, you know that there is an issue, irrespective of what the resmed cpap claims. The resmed cpap figures cant be trusted imo.

But once you know what the saturation levels are, you can try a LOT of things which might help. Different cpap masks, head of bed elevation, mouth tape, neck straps - what you end up using will depend on your condition. But imo - dont rely on doctors to diagnose and fix you - you will have to do it yourself. Fortunatately there is a ton of people who are trying things out in reddit and extremely unlikely that you have a conditoin which is not fixable.

Just keep at it and track it using the O2 ring and try out what works for you.

You should consider getting an Wellue O2 ring. This is something you can use to monitor your oxygen saturation throughout the night. Use it with the CPAP and also otherwise. If your oxygen saturation is better with CPAP - you know that it is working. You will eventually feel better.

The main thing about CPAP is that, and imo almost everyone gets wrong, is that you need to titrate it. CPAP is sold as an Automatic Pressure device, but in practice it doesnt work like that. You almost always need to set it just 1 number below and 1 above your required pressure - more like a fixed pressure device. And getting it working correctly - with all the mask combinations, leaking issues, pressure calliberation, supporting gear like mouth tapes and neck bands - can take months. It is incredibly hard - BUT - it is worth it. The best resource for me has been the reddit to get this right.

The key is to track your saturation everyday with all the small tweaks you make and the only way to do it is using something like the O2 ring.

The bigger problem with solutions like these is that most AI already know how to use grep and search really well because of their training. Any such new tool that you handle to the AI, takes away from the cognitive capability of the AI. Humans would normally 'learn' how to operate tools like this - but the learning in LLM's is frozen and they already with a very strong depth in existing tools like grep.

For example, an AI would already use linux commands like tree to traverse the code base. And again it already has good training in this.

The other problem is that it is easy to cook up examples which demonstrate the efficacy of tools like these - but actually proving that the cognitive deficit that such tools result it, is surmounted by their efficacy in long horizon runs. My first contact instinct is that this will result in a net negative 'deployable intelligence' over long horizon runs - make the agent perform worse than using existing tools.

Proving the opposite is a non-trivial problem - but maybe it might be something you want to take up.

I was of the same view - but then there is this other trend which is putting sync back in favor. And that is that agents are becoming faster. If they are faster - it makes sense to stick around and maintain your 'context' about the task and supervise in real time. The other thing which might keep sync in fashion is that LLM providers are cutting back on cheap tokens. So you have a bigger incentive to stick around and make sure that your agent is not going astray.

The only place I use async now is when I am stepping away and there are a bunch of longer tasks on my plate. So i kick them off and then get to review them when ever I login next. However I dont use this pattern all that much and even then I am not sure if the context switching whenever I get back is really worth it.

Unless the agents get more reliable on long horizon tasks, it seems that async will have limited utility. But can easily see this going into videos feeding the twitter ai launch hype train.

Not sure why you think Agentic coding is solved - it isnt imo, and exactly because of the same memory issues.

I looked into Saunas in detail sometime back as a replacement/complement to exercise. There is a lot of research out there which says Saunas are as beneficial - but at the end of it I reached a similar conclusion - exercise is just better understood, so no point experimenting when something can go wrong.

To clarify - we don't read user conversations - what I'm referring to is deploy volume (how many times OpenClaw gets spun up on our infra) and direct conversations I've had with people in my network who deployed OpenClaw independently

Congratulations on the launch !

We run upwards of a thousand sandboxes for coding agents - but these are all standard VM's that we buy off the shelf from Azure, GCP, Akamai and AWS. I am not sure why we should use this instead of the standard VM's? Pricing could be one part, but not sure if the other features resonate.

Forking is interesting, but I would need to know how it works and if it is in the blast radius of the agent execution. If we need to modify the agent to be cognizant of forking, then that is a complexity which could be very expensive to handle in terms of context. If not, then I am not sure what is the use for it.

Sandbox start time at 500ms is definitely interesting. But its something we already are on track to reproduce with a pooled batch of VM's. So not sure if that in itself is worth paying for the premium.

My two cents on the space is that agents are rapidly becoming more capable to just use the tooling developed for humans. All clouds provide a CLI which agents can already use to orchestrate - they should just use the VM's designed for humans through the CLI. Our agent can already 'login' to any VM on the cloud and use the shell exactly like a human would. No software harness is required for this capability. The agent working on a VM is indistinguishable from humans.

Paper: https://huggingface.co/papers/2604.00073

The second method is more troubling. At altitudes above 3,000 metres, mild symptoms of altitude sickness are common. Blood oxygen saturation can drop, hands and feet tingle, headaches develop. In most cases, rest, hydration or a gradual descent is all that is needed. ...investigators found that Diamox (Acetazolamide) tablets, used to prevent altitude sickness, were administered alongside excessive water intake to induce the very symptoms that would justify a rescue call.

This doesnt sound accurate. I have trekked the Himalayas for over a decade - the risks of AMS are very real. Two people I have trekked with have died due to AMS on separate himalayan treks - both had trekked multiple times before, and were well aware of the risks. Both the fatalities were around 12000-14000 feet - much below the Everest Base Camp trek. When AMS hits, you need to descend - as fast as possible, with whatever means you have at your disposal. Otherwise you have unknowingly entered a Russian Roulette.

And Diamox is used as a preventative course for AMS - alongside excessive water intake - this is standard guidelines in all high altitude himalayan treks.

Suggestions are absolutely fine. But this is baiting. Chatgpt could have easily given me that information without the bait. And I would have happily consumed it. And maybe if it did it once, it was fine - but it kept on doing it - bait after bait after bait.

The objective was to increase the engagement "metrics" clearly. The seems to me as if the leadership will take all 'shortcuts' required for growth.

From the article: "You can see that in the recent iterations of ChatGPT. It has become such a sycophant, and creates answers and options, that you end up engaging with it. That’s juicing growth. Facebook style."

This is something I relalized lately. ChatGPT is juicing growth Facebook style. The last time, I asked it a medical question, it answered the question, but ended the answer with something like "Can I tell you one more thing from your X,Y,Z results which is most doctors miss ? " And I replied "yes" to it, and not just once.

I was curious what was going on. And Om nails it in this article - they have imported the Facebook rank and file and they are playing 'Farmville' now.

I was already not positive of what OpenAI is being seen as a corporate, but a "Facebook" version of OpenAI, scares the beejus out of me.

If your VLM based pipeline is really that good for OCR - and no reason to believe it cant be - why dont you just launch that as a product. The way I see it is that these are two separate products - VLM based OCR for messy documents, and automated credit review for developing markets.

I have some experience setting up automated OCR systems for one of the largest fintechs in Australia - and VLM based pipelines can definitely give an extra edge and this is easily a very large TAM market. However, existing players might also be upgrading their systems so might not be too easy to disrupt. That being said, credit analysis is also a very hard problem, but I am not sure how much quality OCR would help here.

Given what I know, I would focus on the VLM/OCR problem rather than the Credit scoring one.

Agree. MCP isn't really required. Skills/CLI/API is good enough.

At the AI startup I work on, we never bothered building MCP's - it just never made sense.

And we were using skills before Claude started calling them skills, so they are kind of supported by default. Skills, CLI, Curl API requests - thats pretty much all you need.

I suppose it would be interesting to have an online space to discuss where things are headed on a logical level, without emotion and ideals and the ridiculous idea that humanity must persevere.

Absolutely. Happy to be part of it if you are able to set it up.

If so, then sensory inputs and interaction with the physical through them were absolutely a crucial part of how minds evolved, so I find your approach a priori very unlikely to have a chance at success.

If that was the case, people who were born blind would demonstrate markedly reduced intelligence. I dont think that is the case, but you can correct me if I am wrong. A blind person might take longer to truly 'understand' and 'abstract' something but there is little evidence to believe that capability of abstraction isnt as good as people who can see.

Agree that sensory inputs and interaction were absolutely critical for how the minds evolved, but model training replaces that part when we talk about AI, and not just the evolution.

Evolution made us express emotions when we are hungry for example. But your laptop will also let you know when its battery is out of juice. Human design inspired by evolution can create systems which mimic its behaviour and function.

If people succeed in making that truly lifelike and humanlike, it will actually out-compete us for resource control. And will no longer be a tool we can use.

I believe it is almost certain that we will make something like this and that they will out-compete us. The bigger problem here is that too few people believe this to be a possibility. And when this becomes certainty becomes apparent to a larger set of people, it might be too late to tone this down.

AI isn't like the Atom Bomb (AB). AB didn't have agency. Once AB was built we still had time to think how to deploy it, or not. We had time to work across a global consensus to limit use of AB. But once AI manifests as AGI, it might be too late to shut it down.

The model is interesting. This is similar in parts to what we are building at nonbios. So for example sensory inputs are not required to simulate a model of a mind. If a human cannot see, the human mind is still clearly human.

What frightens me is the scenario of human thought being overwhelmed and left in the dust. Not being aided or abetted by computers, but being completely overwhelmed, and we are to computers as cockroaches or fleas are to us. That would be scary.

I suspect our expectation of GAI is unreasonable and we will sooner or later have to reconcile it with a different and less anthropomorphic expression of intelligence and consciousness. It might not be required for AI to be (anthrophomorphically) intelligent or conscious for it to 'take over'. Infact it might be a huge advance over mankind that it is not.

It was a bit shocking to me when I first walked into an American super market to see tomatoes all the same big size and shining red color. This is in sharp contrast to what we get in India - they come in all sizes and different shades of orange, green and red.

Even though the American ones were instantly attractive, it slowly dawned on me that perhaps something is wrong. Now I appreciate the Indian vegetables a lot more.

Everything that you mentioned is most likely a shortcoming of the current version of Bitcoin. That being said, it is not a big leap of faith that each of these will be rectified in due course. If not with updates to Bitcoin, then with another coin.

My post wasnt just about Bitcoin specifically, but around the entire blockchain ecosystem.