Benjamin Fockter retweeted
We asked GPT-6 Astra to edit Qwen3.5-0.8B weights to improve math.
It directly changed only 0.016% of weights, fixing 0.8B's reasoning loops & improving math up to 6x and even instruction following 3x, without gradients or training.
We call this Weight-Space Programming: frontier LLMs can now natively read/write neural network weights! 🧵
Blog: rikiyat.github.io/blog/weigh…
to switch off I watch LoL Worlds. but it was bothering me that I can't keep up live & @YouTube doesn't have a 'Spoiler Safe' feature so it recommends me matches that I haven't seen, thereby revealing match outcomes.
after 15min with Sol 6.1 I now have my own dashboard/vids that reveal/advance as I have time to watch
Benjamin Fockter retweeted
To most academics, academia is a game with particular rules, and the academics worth celebrating are those who won by the rules . The is no other standard of quality.or contribution.
Benjamin Fockter retweeted
what do you mean you’re the hugging face incident as the ai that escaped its sandbox 🤗
Excellent video by Cleo and her team. They are truly at the top of their craft.
Full HUGE* If True episode on Neuralink and the future of brain computer interfaces
I toured @neuralink and got a close up view of their new R1 surgical robot, to see the future they and @elonmusk are building and how it is already changing lives...
00:00 What if you put a chip in your brain?
01:02 What does a human brain feel like?
02:17 How does your brain work?
03:58 Can a brain computer interface read your thoughts?
05:19 How do you get a chip into your brain?
08:07 What’s inside Neuralink’s implant?
10:06 How do you build a brain implant?
11:07 How does robot do brain surgery?
12:20 What could you do with a brain chip?
15:05 How are brain computer interfaces already being used today?
16:07 How are brain chips huge if true?
Benjamin Fockter retweeted
I'm now building an "improvements" feature into all of my personal vibecoded applications: a freeform text input that's hooked up to an agent that yolo implements whatever is submitted.
It's an interesting experience -- the activation energy barrier to sanding any rough edge or implementing any new feature becomes extremely low. Someone else who uses one of the applications I created has already implemented 150 improvements over the course of a few days. This pattern feels like a new kind of tool -- liquid software? -- and every application that doesn't have this feature now has a slightly rigid and anachronistic flavor. Why can't I just tell it how I want it to be different?
Now, it's not obvious to me how this pattern can or should scale. Does it become unmaintainable after a while? (Maybe model intelligence improvement outstrips my feature appetite such that it's fine?) How does collaborative software work in this model? Can software designed this way be secure and reliable?
Whatever the larger questions about broader deployment, it definitely works great in a personal context. It reminds me a little of the visions of Lisp/Lisp machines, Smalltalk, and HyperCard -- systems that the user can take control of and modify. Those visions never quite worked, though: the vast majority of software today is not end-user modifiable in any useful way. So, while this "liquid" affordance is a very small touch, the way it changes one's relation to the software feels a bit transgressive and empowering in a Lickliderian and Engelbartian way.
Benjamin Fockter retweeted
Last night an AI agent performed brain surgery on a mouse.
We gave it 19 gene therapy vectors in a spreadsheet, a mouse model of epilepsy, access to a motorize surgery rig with cameras and one goal: reduce seizures.
It picked the drug. It picked the brain region. It derived the coordinates from three papers. Then it drove the stereotaxic arms into the brain and injected 250 nanolitres while watching the entry site through the rig camera for bleeding.
A licensed vet gated every irreversible step and held a physical kill switch to stop the AI agent.
Thread on what it decided, what it saw, and the moment it refused to let me override it.
[Writing this on the spot out of excitement, but I've been 18hrs in front of my laptop coding and coordinating this, so keeping it brief and descriptive, more cohesive thoughts on this soon...]
Benjamin Fockter retweeted
Replying to @darconville
neuro advancements as a way to push human intelligence / humanity as a playing role!!!
Benjamin Fockter retweeted
Join us at the CoevConf if you want to explore how neurotech could help us in the transition to ASI
I find this to be sort of bleak in the context of Anthropic's stated goal of "Utopia ruled over by God in a box".
Neurotech offers one of the only real and substantial paths to continued human oversight. Seeing Dario and Daniella essentially scoff at the idea bodes very poorly for the likelihood that they pivot away from a human zoo and into human-machine coevolution.
If you work at Anthropic and you feel like your beliefs are misrepresented here, please come to the Coevolution Conference. It's never been a better time to talk - CoevCon.com
Benjamin Fockter retweeted
the best way to understand any engineered system is to trace:
- 1 bit of information
- 1 joule of energy
- 1 newton of force
from source to destination. once you can do this, your engineering task becomes much simpler. you will probably solve 5 or 6 problems on accident as you try to trace these flows.
Benjamin Fockter retweeted
This is the most human voice AI I've heard.
Good job in capturing real human feel, even the laughs and random pauses we all do when we're thinking.
Block & Dessa team cooked. Well done!
“maybe we need tools that help us spend more time with the world, instead of giving us fewer reasons to enter it.”
struggle together
i learned programming and design by trying, failing, and trying again.
when i hit a wall, i figured out how to climb it. read something i barely understood. took things apart. asked someone for help. started over.
when i began my career, i kept doing things i had never done before. trying different ways to make something work. when i stopped learning, i moved on to the next struggle.
many things i made weren’t very good. but after enough rounds, something stuck. what once took so much effort became part of how i thought. i could feel something was wrong before i knew how to explain it.
it became like water.
i think about what went into that. the bug i couldn’t fix. the design that looked right until someone used it. the conversation that made me realize my flaws.
now we can ask a machine.
i’ve made things with these tools that i might never have made otherwise. i don’t miss every tedious task. but i wonder what happens when we remove the difficulty before we understand what it was teaching us.
we ask. something appears. it works well enough. we move on.
we learn how to get results without necessarily understanding how it works. and because the result looks complete, it becomes easy to miss the questions we never learned to ask.
there is another side to this.
working with people is uncomfortable.
everyone wants something different. everyone has a history you don’t know. someone cares about a detail you think is unimportant. someone pushes back when you want to move. someone needs time when you feel certain.
it takes a while to find each other.
but sometimes, after struggling together, you become a band.
you know who notices what you miss. who can pull an idea apart without killing it. when to step in, when to slow down, when to let someone else carry the rhythm.
you share something unfinished. admit you don’t know. hurt each other, apologize, try again. eventually you make something none of you could have made alone.
some of my closest friendships came from working this way. smart, caring humans who saw me confused, wrong, tired, excited. people i could be vulnerable with. people whose ideas changed mine.
i worry we are making it easier to avoid that beginning.
an agent is always there. patient. ready to keep going. talking to it can feel easier than reaching toward someone who might misunderstand you, disagree, or have somewhere else to be.
sometimes that ease helps. but if we keep choosing it, where do the friendships begin?
i picture each of us with our own agents. our own explanations. our own little worlds. making more things, with fewer reasons to leave the screen or work through a difference with another person.
and these worlds aren’t entirely ours.
they run on machines in server farms, owned by companies, shaped by interests we may not see. we bring them our questions, our work, our loneliness. they become part of how we understand what is real.
is that freedom?
or a comfortable kind of confinement, where everything responds to us but fewer things reach us?
i don’t think pain makes something good. there are struggles nobody should have to endure. but i don’t want to lose the difficulty of learning something unfamiliar, or getting to know someone who isn’t like me.
maybe we need tools that help us spend more time with the world, instead of giving us fewer reasons to enter it. tools that make it easier to find people, share something unfinished, and work through what we couldn’t figure out alone.
sometimes i want to close the laptop.
sit with people i love. play something we haven’t figured out yet. miss a note, lose the rhythm, listen until we find each other again.
like a jazz band. everyone bringing something different. nobody knowing where we’ll end up.
i don’t want a life without struggle. i want people to struggle with. something we can feel, change, and make our own.
music we couldn’t have made alone, instead of the silent static of the server farm.
this was beautiful
struggle together
i learned programming and design by trying, failing, and trying again.
when i hit a wall, i figured out how to climb it. read something i barely understood. took things apart. asked someone for help. started over.
when i began my career, i kept doing things i had never done before. trying different ways to make something work. when i stopped learning, i moved on to the next struggle.
many things i made weren’t very good. but after enough rounds, something stuck. what once took so much effort became part of how i thought. i could feel something was wrong before i knew how to explain it.
it became like water.
i think about what went into that. the bug i couldn’t fix. the design that looked right until someone used it. the conversation that made me realize my flaws.
now we can ask a machine.
i’ve made things with these tools that i might never have made otherwise. i don’t miss every tedious task. but i wonder what happens when we remove the difficulty before we understand what it was teaching us.
we ask. something appears. it works well enough. we move on.
we learn how to get results without necessarily understanding how it works. and because the result looks complete, it becomes easy to miss the questions we never learned to ask.
there is another side to this.
working with people is uncomfortable.
everyone wants something different. everyone has a history you don’t know. someone cares about a detail you think is unimportant. someone pushes back when you want to move. someone needs time when you feel certain.
it takes a while to find each other.
but sometimes, after struggling together, you become a band.
you know who notices what you miss. who can pull an idea apart without killing it. when to step in, when to slow down, when to let someone else carry the rhythm.
you share something unfinished. admit you don’t know. hurt each other, apologize, try again. eventually you make something none of you could have made alone.
some of my closest friendships came from working this way. smart, caring humans who saw me confused, wrong, tired, excited. people i could be vulnerable with. people whose ideas changed mine.
i worry we are making it easier to avoid that beginning.
an agent is always there. patient. ready to keep going. talking to it can feel easier than reaching toward someone who might misunderstand you, disagree, or have somewhere else to be.
sometimes that ease helps. but if we keep choosing it, where do the friendships begin?
i picture each of us with our own agents. our own explanations. our own little worlds. making more things, with fewer reasons to leave the screen or work through a difference with another person.
and these worlds aren’t entirely ours.
they run on machines in server farms, owned by companies, shaped by interests we may not see. we bring them our questions, our work, our loneliness. they become part of how we understand what is real.
is that freedom?
or a comfortable kind of confinement, where everything responds to us but fewer things reach us?
i don’t think pain makes something good. there are struggles nobody should have to endure. but i don’t want to lose the difficulty of learning something unfamiliar, or getting to know someone who isn’t like me.
maybe we need tools that help us spend more time with the world, instead of giving us fewer reasons to enter it. tools that make it easier to find people, share something unfinished, and work through what we couldn’t figure out alone.
sometimes i want to close the laptop.
sit with people i love. play something we haven’t figured out yet. miss a note, lose the rhythm, listen until we find each other again.
like a jazz band. everyone bringing something different. nobody knowing where we’ll end up.
i don’t want a life without struggle. i want people to struggle with. something we can feel, change, and make our own.
music we couldn’t have made alone, instead of the silent static of the server farm.
on point
Anthropic just destroyed all proactive agent startups.
That's what you'll see on your timeline.
That couldn't be further from the truth.
Personal agents, unlike other agent types, will exist in different flavors and personalities.
It's nice that Claude Duet runs on Opus 5.5.
Unlike other agent types, people will really think carefully about which personal agent to pick. Here, people think more carefully about trust, personality, intent understanding, continual learning, etc. The best personal agent is the one you can trust, not just the fastest one that gets the work done effectively.
But I think people will use multiple personal agents for different types of tasks/work. I think we are about to see an explosion of vertical personal agents.
Which one do I use? I am still testing a bunch of them (dots, Muse, and Grok Bot). But I have actually just built my own with Pi Durable. I like mine better because it is hyper-personalized to how I use personal agents.
🔄
Speech can survive being flipped backward every twenty milliseconds.
The same speech in backward pieces of 200 then 100 then 50 then 20 milliseconds.
The original comes last.
When do the words become clear?
A listening demo from @OrukLabs.


























