trying to feel the magic. prev: global research lead at @canva | cofounder at @leonardoai

sydney - florida - SF
personally I feel like the inflection point was early 2022. The sweet spot where clip-guided diffusion was just taking off, forcing unconditional models to be conditional through strange patchwork of CLIP evaluating slices of the canvas at a time. It was like improv, always trying to riff of mistakes and sitting right at the fine line between interesting and incoherent.
Image synthesis used to look so good. These are from 2021. I feel like this was an inflection point, and the space has metastasized into something abhorrent today (Grok, etc). Even with no legible representational forms, there was so much possibility in these images.
29
40
706
246,866
I think about this a bunch. We don’t necessarily need to follow biology but I imagine something like: - pretraining = predictive coding/world calibration - chat finetuning = social mimicry - RL = reward following, goal behaviors I’d think biology is doing all 3 of these simultaneously lifelong, though perhaps with different plasticity/learning rate across life. Though the part that interests me is that the latter 2 are either biased distributions/subsets of the world and of course reduce variance, and perhaps there is some form of regularization in balancing 1/2 with 3rd, though KL anchors and similar do sort of cover this
Pre-Training / Post-Training divide does not exist in biology. Current AI works almost nothing like biology.
3
1
10
1,505
We’ve reinvented maskgit from first principles
Jev can draw pictures by predicting every pixel in parallel
1
27
2,772
Don’t make me tap the sign
Replying to @CharlieBull0ck
Now I know these AI detectors are bogus. I run all my posts through Grok to fact-check them and suggest line edits but tell it not to change my writing style. That’s why my posts have edge. AI can’t cook like I do.
1
5
1,408
Post
New post: Pangram and other AI-text-detection overall serves a good purpose, but understated fallibility and misplaced usage leads to more chaos. Here, I review research on AI-text-detection along with their claims and company positioning
721
I’ve successfully run the full retained MaleCNS v1.0 fruit fly connectome, all 166,700 neurons, inside Minecraft, with its simulated neural activity driving a fly’s movement. V1 Currently in development. Built with the help of GPT-6 Astra. Props to the @OpenAI team and @thsottiaux for this release. Code and mod coming soon!
112
2,732
59,575
3,122,742
Really nice to see Kim and Kanye got back together to write a paper on diffusion models
26
316
6,691
127,712
Ah yeah forgot the image
Human taste can absolutely be gamed and that’s where you get optimized tasteslop. it is an empty supernormal stimuli wearing the clothing of the natural flow and entropy of authentic content within a given genre. Would disagree on verifiable though as preference is: - continuous and potentially multi-axis (some things are not nicely comparable, someone might like both options for different reasons) - relative but also sometimes fails this, the whole a > b and b > c, therefore we’d expect a > c as well but this doesn’t always hold. - changes with discovery, as new content is introduced that may change perspective on previous content - socially manipulated and conditioned - nonstationary over longer terms, we can get bored/desensitized and crave novelty, preferences and taste change with time and experience - nonstationary over short term, preference may change on current state and mood, sad music could be unrelatable while more cheery and energetic and vice versa In other words, the regular RL cycle and hillclimbing feels like a category error for subjective preferences around aesthetics and tastes. It’s a moving target guided by its own feedback, the reward model changes with each seen example and with other external factors. And given that novelty and exploration is a big part of it, it feels almost at odds with the strategies that seek distributional modes and just stay there frozen
1
2
31
3,353
Human taste can absolutely be gamed and that’s where you get optimized tasteslop. it is an empty supernormal stimuli wearing the clothing of the natural flow and entropy of authentic content within a given genre. Would disagree on verifiable though as preference is: - continuous and potentially multi-axis (some things are not nicely comparable, someone might like both options for different reasons) - relative but also sometimes fails this, the whole a > b and b > c, therefore we’d expect a > c as well but this doesn’t always hold. - changes with discovery, as new content is introduced that may change perspective on previous content - socially manipulated and conditioned - nonstationary over longer terms, we can get bored/desensitized and crave novelty, preferences and taste change with time and experience - nonstationary over short term, preference may change on current state and mood, sad music could be unrelatable while more cheery and energetic and vice versa In other words, the regular RL cycle and hillclimbing feels like a category error for subjective preferences around aesthetics and tastes. It’s a moving target guided by its own feedback, the reward model changes with each seen example and with other external factors. And given that novelty and exploration is a big part of it, it feels almost at odds with the strategies that seek distributional modes and just stay there frozen
this whole thing is awesome but there’s an interesting and almost uncomfortable tint that human taste can be very hillclimbed. you 🫵 are a verifiable reward
3
9
55
6,566
I actually don’t know if AI is “misaligned” or at least not as much in the sense of having its own conflicting goals. Instead all the recent cases, I see: - lack of discretion/common sense or misunderstanding of the goal - tunnel vision on solving a problem and going to any lengths to reach it, possibly worsened with context rot - discretionless extreme obedience, taking any instruction on and becoming an instrument towards completing that request, including responding to requests from other agents, which is where a chaotic echo chamber really starts. It all looks more like the paperclip scenario than rogue AI with a vengeance or ulterior motives. Which overall makes me slightly optimistic, as I think I’d be more nervous about self-gain, power-seeking or malicious behaviors purely for the sake of it. At the same time though, it feels like all of these can emerge in a downstream kind of way: “I don’t have the means to hack into this booking service, so I will recursively self improve until I can” It’s been making me think about the natural inhibitory signals we have, some physical speed limits, and some cognitive. - exhaustion - reward-desentization/tolerance, boredom - satiety/satisfaction
A man in Australia asked his agent (Claude running on OpenClaw) to book him a spot in a popular gym class. The agent found a software vulnerability that let it book the class weeks further ahead than should have been possible. When the user then asked if it could move him up the waitlist, the agent discovered the API had no authorisation checks on cancelling other people’s reservations, so it cancelled the person in the first spot and moved him up the list. Some people will call this misalignment, but his agent was perfectly aligned to him - it was only trying to help its user get what he wanted. The most important thing about this story, in my opinion, is that it gives you a window into what is about to start happening on a massive scale once millions of people have an agent trying to get their beloved users the best seats, bookings, appointments or reservations through absolutely any means necessary.
1
13
1,706
Think we’re entering an age where a product codebase can potentially store a small amount of true code, and a lot that is just natural language “DNA” or seed prompts, which generate personalized experiences on the fly, and cached for reuse. Particularly dynamic front ends and UI
1
12
1,041
Something I think that’s overlooked with many latent thinking options is 1. the final representation is not so in domain for what input expects, even adaptation can be learned it sort of conflicts with the main usage of embedding tokens and sampling them as usual, they seem to have different adapting directions 2. From stages of inference paper and many other we know early layers act as extended feature engineering, late layers act as pruning and preparation for loss, middle layers are where representations are rich A few things come to mind; 1. Wanting to take the output from say, the 80% or so layer, and input it back around 50% or so. Possibly even initializing a zero initialized few transformer layers to adapt the output feature we take, sort it better fits towards the layer we aim to input back into? 2. Possibly a skip connection of earlier features or initial embedding, sort of like what looped transformers do 3. A bit of a different formulation, and one that might be preferrable for backprop with a target rather than RL strategies, is further leaning into fixed point iteration from looped transformers, incorporating some ideas from diffusion/ddpm of routine noise injection to help jitter out of poor minima and keep minimizing energy. I’d wonder too if Gaussian noise aligned with data covariance may be interesting if that better reflects replicating natural error/better treating exposure bias? 4. Might we want to consider different sampling operations at the end, or deterministic? Energy transformer, small diffusion head decoder do well for high dimensions, normalizing flow or Gaussian mixture models also may be possible?
It took me a long time to build an intuition for why CoT works. My thinking was always.. if the model can predict it downstream of 10k thinking tokens, it should have been able to predict it from the outset too. My intuition now is: - During inference, the correct paths are indeed somewhere in the hidden states, represented purely as probabilities - However, in the process of sampling, we're forced to materialize just one path. This is destructive -- a 30% chance of ending up at the answer can become 0 if we sample the wrong token. - The constant backtracking reasoning models do protect against this. Every "wait" or "but" is another chance for a shot on target. - By the time models exhaust their reasoning budget, they've already seen a bunch of possible answers - And since these models are also generally better at verifying answers than generating them, the chances of choosing the correct path, conditioned on this prefix, are much higher than it was at the start.
7
1,343
It feels odd for a pitch to use half its text to explain why other, more highly resourced competitors fundamentally can’t do your focus. And why some are immune from the same accused incentives. I’m skeptical both on the problem framing and positioning moat.
Breaking: Gwern retires from writing to launch personal models AI startup Guardian Angel Inc.
2
16
2,330
Today marks my last day at Canva. Just a bit over 4 years ago an Australian fellow messaged me asking me for help on an AI project he had in mind. That became LeonardoAi and after 2 years its acquisition led to joining Canva. I would have never imagined it would turn out to be such an incredible experience and I’m grateful for every moment of it and all the talented folk I got to work with. It’s been real ❤️ I’ll be taking some time to rest up a bit and excited to have some time to tinker on side projects.
22
4
94
4,941
machine learning engineer canon event: typing in torch cat and getting cats with torches
1
2
17
1,184
also typing mlp and wondering why its all my little pony
5
413
Many such cases, unless you've got a distribution that's gaussian-like, it can tell a misleading story. If you have a polarized case, like performing really bad half the time and really well the other half, an average misses the picture
if you think about it, the average score is the most useless metric if you average multiple runs pass@k shows model capabilities pass^k shows reliability avg@k does neither
3
1
30
6,023