Ex. miltech research engineer | AI & Technocracy Advocate | Intelligence first, Form second
Munich, Germany
- Tweets 1,089
- Following 95
- Followers 114
- Likes 1,185
Javier Silva retweeted
One GPT 6 Astra prompt using ultrafast on the new $500 ChatGPT Pro Max plan.
Ran for 2 minutes. Used 2% of my weekly limit.
That is 50 prompts, or about 100 minutes of work, before the week is gone. For $500 a month.
This is a complete scam.
132
112
2,025
96,060
Javier Silva retweeted
Stop normalizing $500/month AI subscriptions. If companies can cut your limits and charge more to restore them without losing customers, they’ll keep doing it.
Push back. Vote with your wallet. Don’t let this become the standard.
21
43
719
10,131
Javier Silva retweeted
I JUST CANCELLED ALL OF MY CHATGPT SUBSCRIPTIONS.
OpenAI just scammed everybody and BridgeMind is now starting a boycott against OpenAI.
They cut the usage in half yesterday and said better efficiency makes up for it.
This is a lie. GPT 6.1 Sol is just GPT 6 Sol with RL to look better on benchmarks.
If we keep paying, Anthropic and every other lab will follow. Cutting usage is profitable for them.
Do not let OpenAI get away with this.
589
360
4,864
404,571
Very interesting model
After co-inventing ChatGPT, I kept asking myself: why have superhuman chat models not led to AGI?
I’ve spent the last 2 years in stealth building a new way to train models (RLCD), and a new type of frontier AI model that we are releasing today: Jev
• 20-200x faster
• 40-400x cheaper (w/ output tokens free)
• Frontier composable intelligence optimized for decisions
AFAICT the shortest path to AI-based economic revolution
5
394
Seen this play out way too many times in cybersecurity. If you know, you know.
Next up: a massive hack happens, and the headlines claim an IP from Russia or China was using what looks like GLM-5.3.
Calling it right now, do not fall for it.
Prediction 🔮: There will soon be a major security incident involving an open source AI model. It will be used as a pretext to demand a ban on open source AI.
This will be a staged false flag operation orchestrated by AI doomers to manufacture support for the restrictions they've wanted all along.
Don't fall for it.
92
685
3,584
206,045
Javier Silva retweeted
You are an AI engineer now. That means you need to deeply understand the toolchain underneath you:
1. Chain of thought
2. Traces
3. Harness design
4. Benchmarking/evals
5. Sandboxing, safety/control
So many people are just trying to shortcut everything by throwing xhigh thinking at every problem and installing skillslop repos or agent memory projects that promise token savings or to 'make your agent smarter', whatever.
I see so little curiosity for how anything works, and so much laziness of people just wanting to eat at the trough of whatever OpenAI or Claude or X throws down the pipe at them.
If you say you're an engineer, act like one!
56
52
863
51,087
In classic @AnthropicAI fashion, Fable 5.1 just got dumbed down a notch already.
3
173
Javier Silva retweeted
I will read the preprint but at first glance this is rather dull and not new at all. Structured / organized / quasi and semi-organized behavior, even complex behavior appears from the interaction of dead simple rules, a.k.a. “Emergence”. Discovered 80 years ago by von Neumann and Ulam, the cellular automaton, e.g. Conway’s GoL.
Why is it worth a paper to explain that even more complex rules lead to complex behavior? Furthermore, your agents ARE coordinating, they are literally using the environment as a communication channel. In fact I’d argue that this “client-server” model is far more effective for the swarm than p2p.
What is truly interesting is the follow up this opens up: What is the protocol / comm language the agents are using? Obviously it’s not things like “do this and that” but rather actions that encode meaning, like a modulation.
I might take that up as research.
1
192
Only xAI violated it, but it was BEFORE it became part of SpaceX under the SpaceXAI legal umbrella.
Furthermore, Cursor is its own legal entity with its own liability structure despite of the purchase, so it cannot be held accountable.
Even more so, based on general morality, or even res judicata morality (which doesn't apply 1:1 here but still), how can you judge Cursor for the past action of another company?
Therefore, the only possible conclusion is a personal vendetta against Elon Musk. Educate yourself.
We’re ending our partnership with Cursor following its acquisition by SpaceX. Under our proposal, Cursor’s direct access to our models would end on November 12.
We know that the people most affected by this decision are the developers who rely on OpenAI models in Cursor. We care about their experience in this transition and we’re ready to go above and beyond to support them.
openai.com/index/our-decisio…
1
246
Only xAI violated it, but it was BEFORE it became part of SpaceX under the SpaceXAI legal umbrella.
Furthermore, Cursor is its own legal entity with its own liability structure despite of the purchase, so it cannot be held accountable.
Even more so, based on general morality, or even res judicata morality (which doesn't apply 1:1 here but still), how can you judge Cursor for the past action of another company?
Therefore, the only possible conclusion is a personal vendetta against Elon Musk. Educate yourself.
We unfortunately have decided that we cannot continue providing access to our models through Cursor and are ending our partnership. It boils down to trust and we’ve asked that this takes effect on November 12 to give you some time to plan.
Many have used the GPT models through Cursor and here are options we know should work in the future:
- We will continue to allow using your own OpenAI API key and similarly will continue to provide access through our IDE extensions for Cursor.
- We will keep working with the broadest range of tools and harnesses, some of which are OSS, but also many many closed-source ones.
We are as committed as ever to continue supporting developers and the flourishing ecosystem of tools, harnesses and products. We will also continue to invest in our own open-source initiatives and believe in broad optionality for developers.
You can read more about our decision in the blog:
openai.com/index/our-decisio…
3
127