- Drafted a blog post - Used an LLM to meticulously improve the argument over 4 hours. - Wow, feeling great, it’s so convincing! - Fun idea let’s ask it to argue the opposite. - LLM demolishes the entire argument and convinces me that the opposite is in fact true. - lol The LLMs may elicit an opinion when asked but are extremely competent in arguing almost any direction. This is actually super useful as a tool for forming your own opinions, just make sure to ask different directions and be careful with the sycophancy.

Software horror: litellm PyPI supply chain attack. Simple `pip install litellm` was enough to exfiltrate SSH keys, AWS/GCP/Azure creds, Kubernetes configs, git credentials, env vars (all your API keys), shell history, crypto wallets, SSL private keys, CI/CD secrets, database passwords. LiteLLM itself has 97 million downloads per month which is already terrible, but much worse, the contagion spreads to any project that depends on litellm. For example, if you did `pip install dspy` (which depended on litellm>=1.64.0), you'd also be pwnd. Same for any other large project that depended on litellm. Afaict the poisoned version was up for only less than ~1 hour. The attack had a bug which led to its discovery - Callum McMahon was using an MCP plugin inside Cursor that pulled in litellm as a transitive dependency. When litellm 1.82.8 installed, their machine ran out of RAM and crashed. So if the attacker didn't vibe code this attack it could have been undetected for many days or weeks. Supply chain attacks like this are basically the scariest thing imaginable in modern software. Every time you install any depedency you could be pulling in a poisoned package anywhere deep inside its entire depedency tree. This is especially risky with large projects that might have lots and lots of dependencies. The credentials that do get stolen in each attack can then be used to take over more accounts and compromise more packages. Classical software engineering would have you believe that dependencies are good (we're building pyramids from bricks), but imo this has to be re-evaluated, and it's why I've been so growingly averse to them, preferring to use LLMs to "yoink" functionality when it's simple enough and possible.

Three days ago I left autoresearch tuning nanochat for ~2 days on depth=12 model. It found ~20 changes that improved the validation loss. I tested these changes yesterday and all of them were additive and transferred to larger (depth=24) models. Stacking up all of these changes, today I measured that the leaderboard's "Time to GPT-2" drops from 2.02 hours to 1.80 hours (~11% improvement), this will be the new leaderboard entry. So yes, these are real improvements and they make an actual difference. I am mildly surprised that my very first naive attempt already worked this well on top of what I thought was already a fairly manually well-tuned project. This is a first for me because I am very used to doing the iterative optimization of neural network training manually. You come up with ideas, you implement them, you check if they work (better validation loss), you come up with new ideas based on that, you read some papers for inspiration, etc etc. This is the bread and butter of what I do daily for 2 decades. Seeing the agent do this entire workflow end-to-end and all by itself as it worked through approx. 700 changes autonomously is wild. It really looked at the sequence of results of experiments and used that to plan the next ones. It's not novel, ground-breaking "research" (yet), but all the adjustments are "real", I didn't find them manually previously, and they stack up and actually improved nanochat. Among the bigger things e.g.: - It noticed an oversight that my parameterless QKnorm didn't have a scaler multiplier attached, so my attention was too diffuse. The agent found multipliers to sharpen it, pointing to future work. - It found that the Value Embeddings really like regularization and I wasn't applying any (oops). - It found that my banded attention was too conservative (i forgot to tune it). - It found that AdamW betas were all messed up. - It tuned the weight decay schedule. - It tuned the network initialization. This is on top of all the tuning I've already done over a good amount of time. The exact commit is here, from this "round 1" of autoresearch. I am going to kick off "round 2", and in parallel I am looking at how multiple agents can collaborate to unlock parallelism. github.com/karpathy/nanochat… All LLM frontier labs will do this. It's the final boss battle. It's a lot more complex at scale of course - you don't just have a single train. py file to tune. But doing it is "just engineering" and it's going to work. You spin up a swarm of agents, you have them collaborate to tune smaller models, you promote the most promising ideas to increasingly larger scales, and humans (optionally) contribute on the edges. And more generally, *any* metric you care about that is reasonably efficient to evaluate (or that has more efficient proxy metrics such as training a smaller network) can be autoresearched by an agent swarm. It's worth thinking about whether your problem falls into this bucket too.

nanochat now trains GPT-2 capability model in just 2 hours on a single 8XH100 node (down from ~3 hours 1 month ago). Getting a lot closer to ~interactive! A bunch of tuning and features (fp8) went in but the biggest difference was a switch of the dataset from FineWeb-edu to NVIDIA ClimbMix (nice work NVIDIA!). I had tried Olmo, FineWeb, DCLM which all led to regressions, ClimbMix worked really well out of the box (to the point that I am slightly suspicious about about goodharting, though reading the paper it seems ~ok). In other news, after trying a few approaches for how to set things up, I now have AI Agents iterating on nanochat automatically, so I'll just leave this running for a while, go relax a bit and enjoy the feeling of post-agi :). Visualized here as an example: 110 changes made over the last ~12 hours, bringing the validation loss so far from 0.862415 down to 0.858039 for a d12 model, at no cost to wall clock time. The agent works on a feature branch, tries out ideas, merges them when they work and iterates. Amusingly, over the last ~2 weeks I almost feel like I've iterated more on the "meta-setup" where I optimize and tune the agent flows even more than the nanochat repo directly.

The race for LLM "cognitive core" - a few billion param model that maximally sacrifices encyclopedic knowledge for capability. It lives always-on and by default on every computer as the kernel of LLM personal computing. Its features are slowly crystalizing: - Natively multimodal text/vision/audio at both input and output. - Matryoshka-style architecture allowing a dial of capability up and down at test time. - Reasoning, also with a dial. (system 2) - Aggressively tool-using. - On-device finetuning LoRA slots for test-time training, personalization and customization. - Delegates and double checks just the right parts with the oracles in the cloud if internet is available. It doesn't know that William the Conqueror's reign ended in September 9 1087, but it vaguely recognizes the name and can look up the date. It can't recite the SHA-256 of empty string as e3b0c442..., but it can calculate it quickly should you really want it. What LLM personal computing lacks in broad world knowledge and top tier problem-solving capability it will make up in super low interaction latency (especially as multimodal matures), direct / private access to data and state, offline continuity, sovereignty ("not your weights not your brain"). i.e. many of the same reasons we like, use and buy personal computers instead of having thin clients access a cloud via remote desktop or so.