Interconnects

Staring out the window on a new, high-speed train from Hangzhou to Shanghai I’m gifted with views of dramatic ridgelines speckled with wind turbines that are silhouetted against the setting sun. The mountains cast a backdrop to a mix of spanning fields and clustered skyscrapers. I’m returning from China with great humility. It’s a very warming, human experience to go somewhere so foreign and be so welcomed. I had the honor of meeting so many people in the AI ecosystem who I knew from afar, and they greeted me with big smiles and cheer, reminding me how global my work and the AI ecosystem is.Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.The mentality of Chinese researchersThe Chinese companies building language models are set up as the perfect fast-followers for the technology, building on long-standing cultural traditions in education and work, along with subtly different approaches to building technology companies. When you look at the outputs, the latest, biggest models enabling agentic workflows, and the ingredients, excellent scientists, large-scale data, and accelerated computing, the Chinese and American labs look largely similar. The lasting differences emerge in how these are organized and conditioned.I’ve long thought that a reason that the Chinese labs are so good at catching up and keeping up with the frontier is that they’re culturally aligned for this task, but without talking to people directly I felt like it wasn’t my place to attribute substantial influence to this hunch. Speaking with many wonderful, humble, and open scientists at the leading Chinese labs has crystallized a lot of my beliefs.So much of building the best LLMs today comes down to meticulous work across the entire stack, from data to architecture details and RL algorithm implementations. All points of the model can give some improvements, and fitting them in together is a complex process where the work of some brilliant individuals needs to get shelved in favor of the overall model maximizing a multi-objective optimization.Where American researchers are obviously also brilliant at solving the individual components, there’s more of a culture of speaking up for yourself in the U.S. As a scientist, you’re more successful when you speak up for your work and modern culture is pushing the new path to fame of “leading AI scientists”. This results in direct conflict. The Llama organization is heavily rumored to have collapsed under the political weight of these interests embedding themselves in a hierarchical organization. I’ve heard of other labs saying that it can be needed to pay off a top researcher to get them to stop complaining about their idea not making it in the final model. Whether or not that’s exactly true, the idea is clear. Ego and desires for career advancement do get in the way of making the best models. A small, directional shift in this sort of culture between the U.S. and China can have a meaningful impact on the final outputs.Some of this has to do with who is building the models in China. There’s an immediate reality at all of the labs that a large proportion of the core contributors are active students. The labs are quite young, and it reminds me of our setup at Ai2, where students are seen as peers and directly integrated in the LLM team. This is incredibly different from the top labs in the US, where the likes of OpenAI, Anthropic, Cursor, etc. simply don’t offer internships. Other companies like Google nominally have internships related to Gemini, but there’s a lot of concern about whether your internship will be siloed and away from anything real.To summarize how the slight change in culture can improve the ability to build models:* More willingness to do non-flashy work in order to improve the final model,* People new to building AI can be free of prior phases of AI hype cycles, allowing them to adapt to the new modern techniques faster (in fact, one of the Chinese scientists I talked to really actively attached to this strength),* Less ego enabling org charts to scale slightly, as there’s less gamifying the system, and* Abundant talent well-suited to solving problems with a proof of concept elsewhere, etc.This slight inclination towards skills that complement building today’s language models stands in contrast to a known stereotype that Chinese researchers tend to produce less creative, field-spawning, 0-to-1 academic style research. Among the more academic lab visits on our trip, many leaders talk about cultivating this more ambitious research culture. At the same time, some technical leaders we talked to were skeptical about whether such a rewiring in the approach to science is likely in the near term, because it’ll take a redesign of the education and incentive systems that is too big to happen within the current economic equilibrium. This culture seems to be training students and engineers that are excellent at the LLM building game. They also, of course, have an extremely abundant quantity.These students told me about a similar brain drain happening in China as in the U.S., where many who previously considered academic paths now intend to stay in industry. The funniest quote was from a researcher who was interested in being a professor to be close to the education system, but remarked that education is solved with LLMs – “why would a student talk to me!”The students have a benefit of coming at LLMs with fresh eyes. Over the last few years we’ve seen the key paradigm of LLMs shift from scaling MoE’s, to scaling RL, to enabling agents. Doing any of these well involves absorbing an insane amount of context quickly, both from the broader literature and the technical stack at your company. Students are used to doing this and excited to humbly drop all presumptions about what should work. They dive in head first and dedicate their life to getting the chance to improve the models.These students are also so magically direct and free of some of the philosophical chatter that can distract scientists. When asking questions on how they feel about the economics or long-term social risks of models, far fewer Chinese researchers have sophisticated opinions and a drive to influence this. Their role is to build the best model.This difference is subtle, and easy to deny, but it is best felt when having long conversations with an elegant, brilliant researcher who can clearly communicate well in English, basic questions on more philosophical aspects of AI hang in the air with a simple confusion. It’s a category error to them. One researcher even quoted the famous Dan Wang premise of China being run by engineers, relative to the lawyers of the U.S. when probing in these areas, to emphasize their desire to build. There’s no track in China that systematically enables the growth of star power for Chinese scientists, akin to mega mainstream podcasts like Dwarkesh or Lex.Trying to get Chinese scientists to comment on the coming economic uncertainty fueled by AI, questions beyond the capabilities of simple AGI, or moral debates on how models should behave all served to capture the upbringing and education of these scientists (edited). They are extremely dedicated to their work, but have grown up in a system where debates and opinions on how society should be structured and changed are not encouraged. Zooming out — Beijing especially felt much like the Bay Area, where a competitive lab is a short walk or Uber away. I got off a flight and stopped by Alibaba’s Beijing campus on the way to the hotel. Then, in 36 hours we went to all of Z.ai, Moonshot AI, Tsinghua University, Meituan, Xiaomi, and 01.ai. Travel by Didi is easy, and if you select an XL in China you’re often paired with electric mini vans that have massage chairs. We asked the researchers about the talent wars, and they said it’s very similar to what we’re experiencing in the U.S. It’s normal for researchers to bounce around, and much of where people choose to go is based on the best current vibes.In China, the LLM community feels far more like an ecosystem than battling tribes. Across many off the record conversations, it’s nothing but respect for peers. All of the Chinese labs fear Bytedance with their popular Doubao model, which is the only frontier closed lab in China. At the same time, all of the labs have massive respect for DeepSeek as the lab with the best research taste in execution. When you meet with lab members off the record in the States, sparks fly quickly.The most striking part of the humility of Chinese researchers is how they also often shrug on the business side, saying it’s not their problem, where everyone in the U.S. seems to be obsessed with various ecosystem-level industrial trends, from data sellers to compute or fundraising.Where China’s AI industry differs (and matches) the Western labsThe thing that makes building an AI model today so interesting is that it’s not just about getting a group of great researchers in one building together to produce an engineering marvel. It used to be this, but to sustain AI businesses, the LLMs are becoming a mix of building, deploying, funding, and getting adoption for this creation. The leading AI companies exist in complex ecosystems that supply money, compute, data and more in order to keep pushing the frontier. The integration of these various inputs to creating and sustaining LLMs is fairly well conceptualized and mapped for the Western ecosystem, as typified by Anthropic and OpenAI, so finding big differences in how the Chinese labs think about it points at where the different companies can be making meaningfully different bets on the future. Of course, these futures can be heavily dictated by the constraints on funding and/or compute.I’ve documented the biggest “AI Industry” level take-aways from talking to these labs:* Early signs of domestic AI demand. There’s a much-touted hypothesis that the Chinese AI market will be smaller because Chinese companies don’t tend to

‘Distillation attacks’ is a horrible term for what is happening right now. Yes, some Chinese labs are hacking or jailbreaking APIs to attempt to extract more signal from model APIs — stopping this is important to maintain the U.S.’s lead in AI capabilities. Referring to this as distillation attack is going to irrevocably associate all distillation with this behavior, and distillation generally is a core technique needed to diffuse AI capabilities broadly through academic and economic activities.We went through this sort of language transition with the open source vs open weight debate. All the terms just reduced to open models – very few people in the large AI community know exactly how open-source differs from open-weights. And terminology matters, as the less informed people who still care about — and influence — the technology are bound by different terms they use. If we’re not careful with the discourse around distillation, many people could associate this broad technique used for research and development of new models as an act at the boundary of corporate manipulation and crime.I’ve recently written a more technical piece on estimating how impactful state-of-the-art distillation methods are on leading Chinese models, and this piece follows to push for caution in any hasty actions to target the methods with policy. To set the stage, recall Anthropic’s recent blog post where they detailed “distillation attacks” made by 3 Chinese labs.These labs used a technique called “distillation,” which involves training a less capable model on the outputs of a stronger one. Distillation is a widely used and legitimate training method. For example, frontier AI labs routinely distill their own models to create smaller, cheaper versions for their customers. But distillation can also be used for illicit purposes: competitors can use it to acquire powerful capabilities from other labs in a fraction of the time, and at a fraction of the cost, that it would take to develop them independently.This is a clever paragraph, where they normalize distillation generally and explain how a few people can use it illicitly, without detailing how illicit use often involves other more explicit behavior like jailbreaking, hacking, or identity spoofing of the API.Distillation itself is an industry standard. It’s used extensively, primarily in post-training, by smaller players to create specialized or smaller models. In my book coming this summer, I describe it as follows:The term distillation has been the most powerful form of discussion around the role of synthetic data in language models. Distillation as a term comes from a technical definition of teacher-student knowledge distillation from the deep learning literature.Distillation colloquially refers to using the outputs from a stronger model to train a smaller model.In post-training, this general notion of distillation takes two common forms:* As a data engine to use across wide swaths of the post-training process: Completions for instructions, preference data (or Constitutional AI), or verification for RL.* To transfer specific skills from a stronger model to a weaker model, which is often done for specific skills such as mathematical reasoning or coding.With this definition, it’s easy to see how distillation takes many forms. Of course, if you just take the outputs from GPT-5.5 and train a recent open-weight base model with them to host a competitive product, that’s one thing. But, a lot of the things that fall under the bucket of distillation are complex, multi-stage processes that muddle the exact impact of the model you distilled from.Modern LLM processes could look like using a GPT API to build an initial batch of synthetic data to build a specialized small data-processing model. A good example is a model like olmOCR (or many other models in this category) that are trained to convert PDFs to clean text. This specialized model would be used to create large amounts of data. Finally, you train another model (often from scratch) with the new data you created. Is this final model distilled from GPT?When done via a closed, API-based model, distillation sits in the grey area of the terms of service that you agree to when signing up to the Claude or GPT platform. They generally forbid the use of the API to create competing language model products, but this term has largely gone unenforced. The open-source community used to worry deeply at being cut off from these cutting-edge APIs for doing research or creating public datasets, but to date only one prominent case of corporate accounts being restricted exists (at least until the recent Chinese companies).This is all to say that distillation is an industry standard technique, and the use of closed APIs to perform distillation has always been a grey area. Nvidia’s latest Nemotron models, as one of the only models with open post-training datasets, are technically in large part distilled from Chinese, open-weight models. The Olmo models we’ve built at Ai2 are distilled from a mix of open and closed models. This grey area was brought to the forefront again when it turned out that xAI has been distilling from OpenAI. Quoting from the recent trial proceedings between Elon and OpenAI:OpenAI’s counsel asked Musk whether xAI has ever “distilled” technology from OpenAI.Musk: “Generally AI companies distill other AI companies.”“Is that a yes?” Savitt asked.Musk: “Partly.”xAI is likely the largest, and most successful AI company willing to thread the grey area that is distillation from their competitors. On the other side, the majority of startups and research groups with fewer resources than them have very likely engaged in distillation of some capacity from Claude, GPT, or Gemini models.Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.In the above Anthropic blog post, the problem with the distillation attacks by a few Chinese labs is less the distillation and more the means of attack. It is documented that Chinese labs are actively working to get around the intended use of the API, e.g. to provide additional reasoning data that is very useful for training.Of course no one should be able to access information from a model that a developer didn’t intend to reveal in their APIs (e.g., reasoning traces which would be helpful for training). Associating all of distillation with these attacks, which is to date an industry standard for post-training, from open and closed models alike will be a massive own goal.What these few labs are doing should be referred to as jailbreaking or abuse, rather than distillation.The discourse around these actions is creating a troubling discussion that’s marching towards a mix of regulatory capture or regulatory exuberance that’s most likely to harm the U.S.’s ecosystem more than China’s. Even if we ban, most likely through potential legal action and other penalties, this type of API abuse, the Chinese companies will likely still do it. We’ve seen this playbook with Chinese multimedia models taking a flexible view of copyrighted content that no U.S. player is willing to take the risk on.This distillation discussion has quickly snowballed, with a bill moving out of a committee in Congress, an executive order pushing for action, and congressional oversight targeting U.S. companies building on Chinese models (which are downstream of distillation). This multi-pronged regulatory environment could yield truly horrible outcomes – such as figuring out a way to effectively ban open-weight models in the U.S. that are built in China by groups abusing closed LLM APIs.It is obvious that no bill will literally ban open models, but they can create grey area that exposes entities to unwanted risk or require certain provisions that are bureaucratically very challenging to fulfill, squashing small open source contributors.In that scenario, the groups who lose are Western academics and smaller companies building models for the long-tail of AI uses. The ecosystem here could be made permanently irrelevant with the removal of nearly all Chinese open-weight models. There is no immediate substitute and building new models with meaningful community adoption has a lead time measured in 6+ months. In the time it takes to build a new domestic open-source ecosystem, countless researchers would’ve moved onto closed training platforms or into new areas.Altogether, I’m hoping this flurry of discussion around distillation becomes a nothing-burger and not a hasty, multi-pronged policy push. We need to avoid two things:* A wholesale negative connotation of the word distillation, which is used extensively across the AI ecosystem.* A domestic ban of the open-weight models built by organizations engaged in some portion of distillation.In addition to this, I want the leading U.S. AI companies to be able to provide their APIs without having their IP leak. They should share more information on why it is hard for them to secure their APIs, but that’s an issue out of scope for my expertise.I’ll conclude with a proposal from my friend Kevin Xu at Interconnected Capital (and great Substack) on why this current distillation dynamic may actually be good for the leading labs.If all the Chinese companies are addicted to distillation as a way of getting close to the frontier, then they’ll never actually learn the techniques needed to take an outright lead. If we cut off the Chinese’s obvious crutch in model building, we’ll gain a short-term lead in AI, but in the long-term that may be what they needed to get on a more competitive long-term trajectory. This is the same debate we’re having with other technologies where the U.S. currently has a lead, e.g. with advanced semiconductor technologies. So I understand the trade-offs, but we not should crack down on all of distillation. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe

We’re living through the period of time when we’ll learn if open models can keep up with closed labs. The obvious answer is that no, they won’t. This answer is a form of saying they won’t keep up in every area. This framing closes off a popular prediction where the open models completely catch up, as in all models saturate and open and closed models only become increasingly similar. In living through this, it’s evidently very unclear when the longer-term stable balance of capabilities will solidify. This is a very complex dynamic, where the core point we monitor is a capability gap between models. At the same time, this gap is intertwined with evolving dynamics in the funding of open models, who builds open models, how techniques like distillation that enable fast-following translate through new application domains, potential regulation hampering the open-source AI ecosystem, and of course who actually uses open models. The capabilities gap is one signal in a complex sea of forces, pushing supply and demand into different shapes. In many cases the demand — where obviously tons of individuals, organizations, and sovereigns want, or need, open models — is largely separated from supply. Supply is fully dictated by economics. The question of “which business strategies support releasing open models” is still at stake.Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.With this complexity, I wanted to distill my key beliefs down into a clear list. These are downstream of 10+ pieces I’ve written or recorded on open models this spring (which are linked throughout).* It’s surprising that the top closed models did not show a growing capability margin over open models, based on compute differences for training and research, especially in the second half of 2025 and through today.* Open model labs are technically very strong at keeping pace on well-established benchmarks. This will continue and reflects a balance of abundant talent and sufficient computing power. * Chinese open-weight labs focus slightly more on benchmark scores than comparable closed labs in the U.S. Distillation helps the Chinese LLM companies do so, but it’s not a panacea. Changes in the distillation dynamic (e.g. regulation) will not be a determining factor on the balance of capabilities. This increase in focus is a natural evolution of their incentives in keeping the narrative on keeping up with the frontier alive, which is crucial to fundraising and adoption.* To date, closed models tend to be more robust and generally useful than similarly scoring open models. Closed models have certain hard-to-measure qualities that are not well captured in current or past benchmarks. This will be key to enabling closed models to dominate in markets where an individual user constantly presents new challenges, i.e. supporting knowledge workers as a direct assistant.* The open vs. closed model race, as monitored through benchmarks, will largely be a game of economic staying power and fast-following, until the market structure constricts. I expect Chinese open-weight labs to face funding difficulties first, as soon as later this year. Funding difficulties will be seen in different capability trajectories 3-9 months later.* The RL dominated training era has increased the relevance of distribution to real-world use-cases as a key factor in continued capabilities improvements. These are tasks where users directly use tools like Claude Code or Codex to solve problems in their job with agents. This is the first clear technical area that closed labs can dominate open-weight models on capabilities, potentially leveraging online RL directly based on user feedback.* Open models will be increasingly adopted in repetitive automation tasks, as measured in the relative share of the API market, for repetitive tasks across the ecosystem. This takes the form of many new AI-native applications, business backend automation, etc. The success of this will drive more investment in domain-specific, efficient open models.This is a complex picture, where the long-term trajectory is more of an economics question rather than an ability one. Many other outlets can paint a far more simplistic narrative that “China will assuredly catch us in AI” and get more distribution because it is a simple story. The reality is complex. Only real AI revenue begets more investment, eventually that’ll be linked to the ability to keep improving models at a rapid rate. Economic realities have not yet impacted scaling open models, as a general category.This economic-focused angle relates to my positions on the open model ecosystem more broadly.* Recurring calls to ban certain types of open models will continue to come but are in practice impossible to implement. Training strong AI models (i.e. near but not at the frontier) is a relatively small cost compared to large-scale deployments. E.g. if the U.S. bans open models over a certain compute threshold, another sovereign entity will eventually train them and release them publicly, with the models entering the U.S. market with less oversight.* The second derivative of influence on open models has shifted, and the U.S. will slowly regain ground in adoption metrics of open models starting in early 2027 (it takes a long time for China’s velocity to slow, then flip). Examples include Google’s Gemma 4 (a wild success), Nvidia’s Nemotron, and Arcee AI.* As ever-stronger closed models are built, previewed, and released, there will be more safety-shocks saying that open-weight versions of the strongest AI models never can be allowed to exist, similar to reactions to Claude Mythos. These can spur burdensome regulation on open models.* With the above, there will also be increased long-term interest in open models, as sovereign entities and existing power structures realize the coming, super powerful AI tools cannot land in the hands of only one or a few companies. These entities will see open models as a different governance paradigm.* New funding structures for open models will emerge, as many stakeholders realize dependencies on single, for-profit companies for access to intelligence are unreliable.* Local agents, OpenClaw, and other personal agents represent a large, to date, mostly ignored market for open model usage. It is a sort of dark matter, with pervasive, massive potential for influence on the balance of open-to-closed models.A single word governs this post and is intentionally repeated — complex.This complex reality has been driving me to think more deeply about how to clearly describe the open model gap, and why I can hold it in my head that I expect American closed labs to clearly draw ahead, despite the fairly unequivocal evidence in support of the capabilities of recent open-weight models. More on the nuance in the open-closed gap in another piece coming soon, so please subscribe!Let me know any positions that I missed. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe

Recently, I was talking with Percy Liang, Stanford professor and lead of the Marin project (another fully-open model lab), and it set in on me that there will eventually be a consortium of companies funding a foundational set of open models used across industry. It’s not clear when this’ll emerge, and Nemotron (Coalition) is Nvidia’s attempt to bankroll and bootstrap this approach within a single wealthy company, but a consortium is the only long-term stable path to well-funded, near-frontier open models.In recent months, we’ve seen a lot of turnover in open model labs, with high-profile departures at Qwen and Ai2 (my comment). This shouldn’t be super surprising to followers of the ecosystem — it’s happened before with Meta shifting its focus away from Llama, and it’ll only happen more as the cost of trying to keep pace at the frontier of AI only increases. The other leading labs with models available today include Chinese startups such as Moonshot AI, MiniMax, and Z.ai — all of which look precarious on their ability to fund continued growth in the cost of training or R&D. Releasing one’s strongest models openly today is in active tension with the option of spending focus and resources on AI products that can currently generate meaningful revenue (and profits).We’re going to see business models emerge around releasing some, or even many, models openly, but these will largely be smaller models that enable a long-tail of functionality, rather than models at the absolute frontier. This class of companies that’ll release many, strong fine-tunable models will include the likes of Arcee AI, Thinking Machines, OpenAI, Google with Gemma, and more in that class. The cost and relative advantage of keeping the best models closed in a business environment with many opportunities for revenue are too high. To summarize — there will be an ever increasing number of companies releasing models that are good for creating a lively niche of smaller, custom models, but an ever decreasing number of companies willing to release fully open, near-frontier models. This is the core thesis of why I’m pushing hard for more people to do more research on how these smaller models can complement the best closed agents, the science of finetunability, etc. See my post below — it’s about creating a sustainable open model ecosystem, whether or not the frontier of open keeps paced with closed:It’ll take years for this equilibrium to become more obvious, seen through the lens of more open model families coming and going. This year, it seems likely we’ll see Nvidia’s Nemotron reach new heights, Reflection AI challenge some of the Chinese models with a strong, large MoE, maybe Meta releases a new open-weight model, and so on. True pressure to change strategy will only come when the capital environment punishes the less efficient spend on resources (e.g. giving away your competitive advantage, in having an in-house model). This pressure will likely hit Chinese startups training these models first. All of Moonshot AI, MiniMax, and Zhipu AI will show signs of financial challenge in the coming years if they retain their strategy, on top of their models falling further behind the best open models in terms of generality. This is inevitable pressure to evolve open models to areas that are profitable and complementary of the frontier of AI.Nvidia, which is best positioned to support the open ecosystem in the near term to support its core GPU business, could face many pressures to pull back its open model efforts. It could:* Realize it’s too competitive to their biggest customers as they succeed too much with Nemotron, * Fall to competition on their core business and lose the free cash flow buffer needed to fund this (e.g. it’s 2031 and OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and the other frontier labs are worth so much they build their own chips). * Start succeeding beyond their initial goals and keep the chips for them to build ASI themselves, as a closed-weight model. The pressures for new funding mechanisms for open models are based on the assumptions of continued, substantive progress on the capabilities of frontier models. Mechanisms such as self-improvement and scaling all stages of the training pipeline are underway. This progress of capabilities will only increase the potential profit in selling models as and in products, not giving them away. The scale of investment required has already begun to push away non-profits from the game of making truly frontier-scale models. Capitalism is designed to make companies ruthless and chase down leads on profitability, not donate technology as charity.As the economic environment shifts companies away from releasing the strongest models openly, more companies that rely on these models will look for an outlet of securing model access into the future. This is going to be compounded by a growing group of companies who come to rely on open-weight models for their workflows. These points loop back into how model training is getting more expensive, so where desire to have the models will go up, ability to procure them will go down for many players. There are x-factors that could multiply the demand for institutions to ensure the existence of open models, such as the best frontier models not even being available via API (such as if Claude Mythos never goes general access).As training relevant models is shifting to cost billions of dollars, rather than millions, few companies well be able to afford it. many companies will bite at the cost of paying 1/10th of the cost to train a frontier model, or if the consortium works, 1/50th. The upside for companies will be some mechanism to steer development (e.g. model sizes) or getting early access to develop internal and open-source tooling for the model. It is in my nature to, by default, say this idea will fail, as training models is inherently a complex and high-focus endeavor, one that requires integration of every part of the stack and focusing specifically on your own vision and needs, rather than trying to serve every possible user. Eventually the need for open intelligence — and economic pressure to build it — will make a model consortium inevitable. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe

With the announcement of the Claude Mythos model this week and the admittedly very strong stated abilities, especially in cybersecurity, a new wave of anti open-weight AI model narratives surged. The TL;DR of the argument is that our digital infrastructure will not be ready in time for an open-weight version of this model, which will allow attacks to be conducted by numerous parties.The backlash against open models in the wake of the Mythos news conflates too many general unknowns into a simple, broad policy recommendation that could actually further weaken cybersecurity readiness.We’ve been here before – open-weight models were discussed as being extremely dangerous when OpenAI withheld GPT-2 weights in 2019, and when OpenAI released GPT-4 in 2023. Both of these waves came and went. The core mistake that is being made is the composition of two issues: 1) the acceptance of the open-closed model gap being static in time and 2) linking open-weight viability generally to specific issues.I’ve written at length recently on how I think that the best, frontier-level open weight models are going to fall behind the best closed models in overall capabilities in the near future. I’ve also written about how the open-weight ecosystem needs to adapt to accept this reality. This is one of the times for the AI industry where I will repeat that it’s a total blessing to have the 6-18 month delay from when a certain capability is available within a closed lab to it being reproduced in the open. It’s a good balance of safety and monitoring the frontier of AI systems while allowing a useful open-source ecosystem to exist and thrive.The core argument I’ve focused on in the open-closed model time gap has been in general capabilities – i.e. for general purpose, frontier models such as Claude Opus 4.X or GPT Thinking 5.X. The abilities of these closed models to robustly solve and work in diverse situations as agents remains out of scope of the best open-weight models. What the open-weight models have tended to be better at is quickly keeping pace on key benchmarks (which admittedly is helped to some extent, but not necessarily substantially by distillation). This discussion is entirely different, it has to do with if open weight models can keep pace on the specific skills related to cybersecurity, and when we could expect an open version of this model to be available to the world.The case of a Claude Mythos level open weight model is admittedly more nuanced to me than the previous few anti-open weight narratives the community has experienced. Where GPT-4 was about a more hypothetical risk, especially in areas like bio-risk, the clear and present reality of cyber infrastructure being prone to attack is far more tangible. Still, much of this nuance in the moment comes down to not knowing the full details of what the system can actually do (i.e. Mythos), and the state of the environment it would act in (i.e. our digital infrastructure).To properly assess this risk, we need to know what it takes to build and deploy a Claude Mythos scale model. This entails three pieces: 1) training and releasing the weights, 2) the harness that gives the model effective tools it knows how to use, and 3) the inference compute and software.(Below I make some model size & price estimates to show my thinking, these should not be taken as ground truth.)Current estimates put the size ranges of leading models like Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT 5.4 as being around 3-5T parameters. Currently, the largest open-source models, which have been coming from Chinese labs, are around 1T parameters. Claude Mythos’s preview pricing is 5X Opus, which could come from a simple multiplicative increase in active parameters (with the same serving system design), far higher inference-time scaling, more complex harnesses that make inference less efficient, lower utilization expectations, and so on. The simplest guess is that it’s a mix of all of the above, something like 2X bigger in parameters and much less efficient to serve. That’s a huge model, likely something similar to GPT 4.5, but actually post-trained well (GPT 4.5 was ahead of its time, infra-wise).With size comes the challenge actually training the model, as bigger models always come with new technical problems that must be solved to unlock the capabilities. For the case of cybersecurity, my guess is that most of the capabilities can be learned by training a model to be superhuman on coding. Unlike some capabilities such as knowledge work, medicine, law, etc., coding can be studied and improved substantially with public data like GitHub. I’m far more optimistic in open-weight models staying fairly close to the frontier in narrow domains of code execution and processing, but I don’t understand the full scope of skills needed to be superhuman in cybersecurity understanding. How much expert knowledge and special sauce went into training Claude Mythos? That’s a substantial source of my error bars on the impact.Second, we know nothing about how the model works under the hood. Today, models are complex systems that entail far more than just weights. They require complex tools and infrastructure to run them, of which Claude Code is the one we are most used to. Mythos very likely has its own innovations here.My estimate for how many GPUs you’d need to serve an 8T parameter, modern MoE is something like O(100) H100 GPUs, which costs something like $10K a day (and this may be very slow in terms of tok/s). Heck, the official marketing copy of the Nvidia GB200 VL72 system is “Unlocking Real-Time Trillion-Parameter Models” on the rack. Does Mythos fit on one rack? The point isn’t to rely on my specific estimate as a policy reference, but to repeat that running leading AI systems is very expensive and not something you can just do on a laptop or self-service cloud portals.There are far fewer actors who can get their hands on these resources, relative to those who can download the model. Of course, there are still many, but it’s important to flesh out all the details of what it would take to proliferate the capabilities of a Mythos-like model. In summary, tools like Mythos will make the best attackers have more powerful tools of the trade, but it won’t be handing a nuke to every teenager connected to the internet.Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.Personally, I do acknowledge there’s a chance that cybersecurity abuse is a red line that makes releasing open-weight text models above a certain capability threshold morally grey. Many people thought this red line would come far earlier, somewhere in between GPT-2 and GPT-4, through the harm axis of mis/disinformation, but that had different bottlenecks. For image generation models, we’re well past the first red line which is enabling non-consensual AI deepfakes with readily available open-weight models. We’re balancing the reality of these fears having come and gone before with a technology that’s becoming increasingly capable.So, my second large source of error bars is “how bad is it actually” with respect to the state of cybersecurity. How much can humans clean up in the most important software with months of private access to a model like Claude Mythos? What will never get fixed?For example, if we get open-weight models that are close to the capabilities of Claude Mythos, could those be fine-tuned by organizations to harden the security of their tools?Currently, it’s too soon to call it as a general reason to stop progress in open models. When Claude Mythos is closed to so few partners, in some ways having strong open models close to the threshold makes assessing the danger easier. Having to rely fully on a single private company to determine the security of essential, international infrastructure is not a tenable equilibrium.So, in conclusion, I urge people to further study three things:* How do we measure cybersecurity related capabilities across open and closed models. With this, are open models truly keeping up at a 6-9month lag, or are they only maintaining performance relevance in other areas of coding?* How do we independently measure the true impact of Claude Mythos and Project Glasswing on existing cybersecurity concerns?* If it is the case that the models are keeping up and the defensive capabilities of Claude Mythos are weak, how do we better monitor (and if needed, try to regulate) the targeted capabilities of open-weight models in narrow domains?The goal is to encourage fears about open models remaining very specific. Any general ban on open models in a nation will immediately and likely irrevocably remove that entity’s ability to influence a crucial, and amorphous technology. If we stop building the best open models in the U.S., then another country will do this and become the center of the technology. There’s no way to fully kill open models, only influencing, understanding, and steering. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe

Having written a lot of model release blog posts, there’s something much harder about reviewing open models when they drop relative to closed models, especially in 2026. In recent years, there were so few open models, so when Llama 3 was released most people were still doing research on Llama 2 and super happy to get an update. When Qwen 3 was released, the Llama 4 fiasco had just gone down, and a whole research community was emerging to study RL on Qwen 2.5 — it was a no brainer to upgrade. Today, when an open model releases, it’s competing with Qwen 3.5, Kimi K2.5, GLM 5, MiniMax M2.5, GPT-OSS, Arcee Large, Nemotron 3, Olmo 3, and others. The space is populated, but still feels full of hidden opportunity. The potential of open models feels like a dark matter, a potential we know is huge, but few clear recipes and examples for how to unlock it are out there. Agentic AI, OpenClaw, and everything brewing in that space is going to spur mass experimentation in open models to complement the likes of Claude and Codex, not replace them.Especially with open models, the benchmarks at release are an extremely incomplete story. In some ways this is exciting, as new open models have a much higher variance and ability to surprise, but it also points at some structural reasons that make building businesses and great AI experiences around open models harder than the closed alternatives. When a new Claude Opus or GPT drops, spending a few hours with them in my agentic workflows is genuinely a good vibe test. For open models, putting them through this test is a category error.Something else to be said about open models in the era of agents is that they get out of the debate of integration, harnesses, and tools and let us see close to the ground on what exactly is the ability of just a model. Of course, we can’t test some things like search abilities without some tool, but being able to measure exactly the pace of progress of the model alone is a welcome simplification to a systematically opaque AI space.The list of factors I’d use to assess a new open-weight model I’m considering investing in includes:* Model performance (and size) — how this model performs on benchmarks I care about and how it compares to other models of a similar size.* Country of origin — some businesses care deeply about provenance, and if a model was built in China or not.* Model license — if a model needs legal approval for use, uptake will be slower at mid-sized and large companies.* Tooling at release — many models release with half-broken, or at least substantially slower, implementations in popular software like vLLM, Transformers, SGLANG, etc due to pushing the envelope of architectures or tools.* Model fine-tunability — how easy or hard it is to modify the given model to your use-case when you actually try and use it.The core problem is that some of these are immediately available at release, e.g. general performance, license, origin, etc. but others such as tooling take day(s) to week(s) to stabilize, and others are open research questions — with no group systematically monitoring fine-tunability. In the early era of open models, the days of Llama 2 or 3 and Qwen pre v3.5, the architectures were fairly simple and the models tended to work out of the box. Some of this was due to the extremely hard work of the Llama, Qwen, Mistral, etc. developer teams. Some is due to the new models being genuinely harder to work with. When it comes to something like Qwen 3.5 or Nemotron 3, with hybrid models (either gated delta net or mamba layers), the tooling is very rough at release. Things you would expect to “just work” often don’t.I’ve been following this area closely since we released Olmo Hybrid with a similar architecture, and Qwen 3.5 is just starting to work well in the various open-source tools that need to all play nice together for RL research. That’s 1.5 months after the release date! This is just to start really investing more into understanding the behavior of the models. Of course, others started working on these models sooner by investing more engineering resources or relying on partially closed software. The fully open and distributed ecosystem takes a long time to get going on some new models.All of this is lead-in for the most important question for open models — how easy is it to adapt to specific use-cases? This is a different problem for different model sizes. Large MoE open-weight models may be used by entities like Cursor who need complex capabilities in their domain, e.g. Composer 2 trained on Kimi K2.5. Other applications can be built on much smaller models, such as Chroma’s Context-1 model for agentic search, built on GPT-OSS 20B. The question of “which models are fine-tunable” is largely background knowledge known by engineers across the industry. There should be a thriving research area here to support the open ecosystem model. The first step is to understand characteristics of different base and post-trained models to understand what they look like. The second step is to tune pretraining recipes for open models so they’re more flexible. Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.For The ATOM Project and other Interconnects endeavors, we’ve put in substantial effort to measuring adoption trends in the open ecosystem. Everything takes a long time to unfold after a model is first publicly available — and adaptability is why. What we know for sure now, when Qwen has been going from strength to strength with its releases, is that technical staff across the industry has gotten comfortable working with Qwen models. Countless research methods and datasets were made to work with Qwen. It’ll take patience for any other model family to get to this point — a patience I’m not sure many open model builders have.This takes us to Gemma 4, Google’s latest open models. Gemma 3 was released more than a year ago, in March of 2025, and is a bit underrated. Gemma 4 comes in 4 sizes for now, with a bigger, MoE model of over 100B total parameters rumored but not released yet. The models we have today come in sizes of ~5B dense, 8B dense, 26B total 4B active MoE, and 31B dense. I’m most excited that they’re finally adopting a standard Apache 2.0 open source license. This’ll massively boost adoption. The standard of better licenses for strong open-weight LLMs was set by mostly Chinese open model labs in the last 1-2 years, and now U.S. companies are following suit. I will personally be so happy if the horrible Llama licenses and Gemma terms of service were an ~18-month transient dynamic of the industry being nervous about releasing strong open models.The Gemma 4 scores look very solid, the small models have incredible benchmark scores (especially in general domains like LMArena) and the 31B model rivals the recent Qwen 3.5 27B, which is the leading member of that class. The ~30B size range is an important one, as it’s accessible both to researchers and to enterprises looking to deploy the model in real use-cases. Where the 7B model scale is the default for tinkering and research, a 30B model is the default for seeing if an open model can unlock substantial value in your specific workflow — a good mix of intelligence, low price, tractability for downstream training, etc.This takes us back to the above adoption criteria I mentioned for open models and the bigger question — do I think Gemma 4 will be an overwhelming success? Previous Gemma models have been plagued by tooling issues and poorer performance when being finetuned. Gemma 4’s success is going to be entirely determined by ease of use, to a point where a 5-10% swing on benchmarks wouldn’t matter at all. It’s strong enough, small enough, with the right license, and from the U.S., so many companies are going to slot it in.I’m cautiously optimistic that Gemma 4 is going to work better here. Winds are shifting for open models built in America. We saw GPT-OSS go through a bumpy launch to become an overwhelming success. There’s a collective energy around the likes of Reflection, Arcee, Nemotron, Gemma, Olmo, and peers that show substantial demand for building new stacks around open models. There’s capital to be spent on AI stacks across the economy by those who want more ownership of everything, including the model. After launching The ATOM Project 240 days ago, the conversation is shifting into the next stage. Summer of 2025 was a crisis moment where the U.S. AI scene realized it can’t wait and figure out open models after building AGI. The two markets will capture different areas and proceed in parallel. Now that more companies in the U.S. are releasing strong models, we need to improve the ecosystem so that these models are easy to use, understand, and build value around. It’s the hard work to build another inflection point in these adoption plots I’ve been updating consistently, but that’s the work to be done. Join me in it. More data coming soon! Here’s a sneak peek: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe

Fast takeoff, the singularity, and recursive self-improvement (RSI) are all top of mind in AI circles these days. There are elements of truth to them in what’s happening in the AI industry. Two, maybe three, labs are consolidating as an oligopoly with access to the best AI models (and the resources to build the next ones). The AI tools of today are abruptly transforming engineering and research jobs.AI research is becoming much easier in many ways. The technical problems that need to be solved to scale training large language models even further are formidable. Super-human coding assistants making these approachable is breaking a lot of former claims of what building these things entailed. Together this is setting us up for a year (or more) of rapid progress at the cutting edge of AI.We’re also at a time where language models are already extremely good. They’re in fact good enough for plenty of extremely valuable knowledge-work tasks. Language models taking another big step is hard to imagine — it’s unclear which tasks they’re going to master this year outside of code and CLI-based computer-use. There will be some new ones! These capabilities unlock new styles of working that’ll send more ripples through the economy.These dramatic changes almost make it seem like a foregone conclusion that language models can then just keep accelerating progress on their own. The popular language for this is a recursive self-improvement loop. Early writing on the topic dates back to the 2000s, such as the blog post entirely on the topic from 2008: Recursion is the sort of thing that happens when you hand the AI the object-level problem of “redesign your own cognitive algorithms”.And slightly earlier, in 2007, Yudkowsky also defined the related idea of a Seed AI in Levels of Organization in General Intelligence:A seed AI is an AI designed for self-understanding, self-modification, and recursive self-improvement. This has implications both for the functional architectures needed to achieve primitive intelligence, and for the later development of the AI if and when its holonic self-understanding begins to improve. Seed AI is not a workaround that avoids the challenge of general intelligence by bootstrapping from an unintelligent core; seed AI only begins to yield benefits once there is some degree of available intelligence to be utilized. The later consequences of seed AI (such as true recursive self-improvement) only show up after the AI has achieved significant holonic understanding and general intelligence.It’s reasonable to think we’re at the start here, with how general and useful today’s models are.Generally, RSI can be summarized as when AI can improve itself, the improved version can improve even more efficiently, creating a closed amplification loop that leads to an intelligence explosion, often referred to as the singularity. There are a few assumptions in this. For RSI to occur, it needs to be that:* The loop is closed. Models can keep improving on themselves and beget more models.* The loop is self-amplifying. The next models will yield even bigger improvements than the current ones.* The loop continues to run without losing efficiency. There are not added pieces of friction that make the exponential knee-capped as an early sigmoid.While I agree that momentous, socially destabilizing changes are coming in the next few years from sustained AI improvements, I expect the trend line of progress to be more linear than exponential when we reflect back. Instead of recursive self-improvement, it will be lossy self-improvement (LSI) – the models become core to the development loop but friction breaks down all the core assumptions of RSI. The more compute and agents you throw at a problem, the more loss and repetition shows up.Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.I’m still a believer that the complexity brake on advanced systems will be a strong counterbalance to the reality that AI models are getting substantially better at every narrow task we need to compose together in making a leading AI model. I quoted this previously in April of 2025 in response to AI 2027.Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake: the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress. A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, a law of diminishing returns. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since. The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread “general systems collapse”.There are plenty of examples in how models are already trained, the deep intuitions we need to get them right, and the organizations that build them that show where the losses will come from. Building leading language models is incredibly complex, and only becoming more-so. There are a few core frictions in my mind.1. Automatable research is too narrowFirst, it is clear that language models this year will already be useful tools at optimizing localized tasks like lowering the test loss of a model. Andrey Karpathy recently launched his autoresearch that popularized doing just this. This allows AI agents to play directly on GPUs to target tasks like lowering the loss on the test set. This approach works in narrow domains, i.e. one general test loss or one overall reward. The problem is that there’s a long-standing gap between an on-paper more accurate model and models that users find more productive. The most provocative case is for pretraining, which was discussed more at length around scaling laws. Scaling laws show us that the loss will continue going down, but we don’t know if that’ll be economically more valuable.In post-training, reinforcement learning algorithms are at least more directly tied to specific performance gains as most RL training environments can be used directly as an evaluation. Still, I worry about generalization and tying back to models that are better at the specific task of improving themselves. It’s a big leap from models get better at some things to that necessarily translating to models that are better at building themselves and designing experiments. We’ve seen many AI capabilities sort of saturate at certain levels of human taste, such as writing quality. AI research is a bit different here, as there is a very high ceiling to climb up to. Where models mostly saturate on writing because there’s inherent tension in preferences, models will saturate on research because the search space and optimization target is too wide.The early benchmarks for measuring this sort of ability all fall prey to the same problem – narrow scope. Agents will do well at optimizing single metrics, but the leap required to navigate many metrics at once is a very different skill set. That is actually what the best researchers do — they make many scalable ideas work together.The most related benchmark we have to measure this is PostTrainBench, which is quite fun, but progress will very rapidly get distorted on this. Over 90% of the challenge in doing post-training well is getting the last 1-3% of performance, especially without cooking the model in out-of-domain tasks. Post-training a general, leading model is extremely complex, and only getting more complex. I could go on and on about this. Another example is from during my Ph.D. (2017-2022), when there was immense hype around a field called “AutoML” which aimed to use techniques like Bayesian Optimization to find new architectures and parameters for models. The hype never translated into changing my job. Language models will do more than this, but not enough to take jobs away from top AI researchers any time soon. The core currency of researchers is still intuition and managing complexity, rather than specific optimization and implementation. 2. Diminishing returns of more AI agents in parallelThe biggest problem for rapid improvement in AI is that even though we’ll have 10,000 remote workers in a datacenter, it’ll be nearly impossible to channel all of them at one problem. Inherently, especially when the models are still so similar, they’re sampling from the same distribution of solutions and capabilities while being bottlenecked by human supervision. Adding more agents will have a strict saturation in the amount of marginal performance that can be added – the intuition of the best few researchers (and time to run experiments) will be the final bottleneck.A common idea to illustrate this is Amdahl’s law, which is taken from computer architecture and shows that a given task can only generate a fixed speedup proportional to how much can be parallelized and how many parallel workers exist. An illustration is below:In AI this should be relatively easier to convey, as the low-level operating details of computers are fairly mysterious. Consider an AI researcher on the transition from writing code by hand to using AI autocomplete assistance to now using autonomous coding agents. These are all massive gains. Let us continue. Now this researcher uses 3-4 agents working on different sub-tasks or approaches to the problem at hand. This is still a large gain. Now consider this single researcher trying to organize 30-40 agents with tasks to do every day. Some people can get more value out of this scale, but not many.How many people do you think could come up with 300-400 tasks for AI agents every day? Not many. This problem will hit the AI models soon enough as well.3. Resource bottlenecks and politicsFundamentally, all the AI companies are walking a fine line of acquiring substantial capital, converting new compute resources to revenue via sufficient demand, and repeating the process all-the-while spending an extreme amount on research. W

I’m a little late to this model review, but that has given me more time to think about the axes that matter for agents. Traditional benchmarks reduce model performance to a single score of correctness – they always have because that was simple, easy to quickly use to gauge performance, and so on. This is also advice that I give to people trying to build great benchmarks – it needs to reduce to one number that is interpretable. This is likely still going to be true in a year or two, and benchmarks for agents will be better, but for the time being it doesn’t really map to what we feel because agentic tasks are all about a mix of correctness, ease of use, speed, and cost. Eventually benchmarks will individually address these.Where GPT 5.4 feels like another incremental model on some on-paper benchmarks, in practice it feels like a meaningful step in all four of those traits. GPT 5.4 in Codex, always on fast mode and high or extra-high effort, is the first OpenAI agent that feels like it can do a lot of random things you can throw at it.Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.I haven’t been particularly deep in software engineering over the last few months, so most of my working with agents has been smaller projects (not totally one-off, but small enough where I’ve built the entire thing and manage the design over weeks), data analysis, and research tasks. When you embrace being agent-native, this style of work entails a lot of regular APIs, background packages (like installing and managing LateX binaries, ffmpeg, multimedia conversion tools, etc), git operations, file management, search etc. Prior to GPT 5.4, I always churned off of OpenAI’s agents due to a death by a thousand cuts. It felt like rage quits. I’d feel like I was getting into GPT 5.2 Codex, but it would fail on a git operation and have me (or Claude) need to reset it. Those hard edges are no longer there.The other subtle change in GPT 5.4’s approachability – the biggest reason I think OpenAI is much more back in the agent wars – is that it just feels a bit more “right.” I classify this differently to the routine tasks I discussed above, and it has to do with how the product (i.e. the model harness) presents the model outputs, requests, and all that to you the user. It has to do with how easy it is to dive in. This has always been Claude’s biggest strength in its astronomical growth. Not only has Claude been immensely useful, but it has a charm and entertainment value to it that’ll make new people stick around. GPT 5.4 has a bit of that, but the underlying model strengths of Claude still leave it feeling warmer.Where Claude is a super smart model, with character, a turn of phrase in a debate, and sometimes forgetting something, OpenAI’s models in Codex feel meticulous, slightly cold, but deeply mechanical. I’d use Claude for things I need more of an opinion on and GPT 5.4 to churn through an overwhelmingly specific TODO list. The instruction following of GPT 5.4 is so precise that I need to learn to interact with the models differently after spending so much time with Claude. Claude, in some domains, you come to see has an excellent model for your intent. GPT 5.4 just does what you say to do. These are very different philosophies of “what will make the best model for an agent”, Claude will likely appeal to the newcomers, but GPT 5.4 will likely appeal to the master agent coordinator that wants to unleash their AI army on distributed tasks.Outside of charm, and dare I say taste, a lot of the usability factors are actually better on OpenAI’s half of the world. The Codex app is compelling – I don’t always use it, but sometimes I totally love it. I suspect substantial innovation is coming in what these apps look like. Personally, I expect them to eventually look like Slack (when multiple agents need to talk to eachother, under my watch).OpenAI also natively offers fast mode for their models with a subscription and very large rate limits. I’ve been on the $100/month Claude plan and $200/month ChatGPT plan for quite some time. I’ve never been remotely close to my Codex limits with fast mode and xhigh reasoning effort, where I hit my Claude limits from time to time. There’s definitely a modeling reason to this – most of OpenAI’s release blogs showcase each iterative model being substantially more concise in the number of tokens it takes to get peak benchmark performance. This is a measure of reasoning efficiency. This 2D (or more) benchmark picture is exactly where the world is going.Here’s a plot from Cursor, which sadly doesn’t have all the GPT 5.4 reasoning efforts, but it confirms this point in a third party evaluation. What is missing across model families is the speed and price (a proxy for total compute used) to get there.The final benefit of GPT 5.4, and OpenAI’s agentic models in general for that matter, is much better context management. In using them regularly now I feel like I’ve never hit the context wall or context anxiety point. The reasoning efficiency I suspect is the case above just lets the model do way more with its initially empty context window. Then, when GPT 5.4 does compact, it’s been less noticeable.The one problem I’ve been having with both Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.4 is a light forgetfulness. If you give the models multiple TODOs in a single message outside of planning mode, I find them often dropping them. Sometimes it feels like the models glitch and try to solve a previous problem rather than the recent ones. I’m not sure what in the model or the harness is the exact cause, but sometimes I like to queue up a few messages as I see the model working on something, to refine the task, but currently this tends to be a pretty risky outcome except in the simplest use-cases.These days I’ve been using both GPT and Claude extensively, mostly based on my mood, and have been getting more done than ever. Having a GPT 5.4 Pro integration directly with Codex, e.g. like \ultrathink, would be a big differentiator for OpenAI. Those models have been incredible.All in, I see GPT 5.4 as an agentic model that brings a ton more simple usability and “agentness” to the very strong software foundation of GPT 5.3 Codex. It’s a big step, and I’m unbelievably excited for which of these two companies releases an update next. On paper, listing the strengths of GPT 5.4 across better top end coding performance, better speed, better context management, better rate limits, it’s a testament to how nuanced choosing a model is. I genuinely still enjoy Claude a bit more for ways that’ll never show up on benchmarks. This makes me type claude into my terminal at the start of my day, rather than codex. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe

2025 was the year where a lot of companies started to take open models seriously as a path to influence in the extremely valuable AI ecosystem — the adoption of a strategy that was massively accelerated downstream of DeepSeek R1’s breakout success. Most of this is being done as a mission of hope, principle, or generosity. Very few businesses have a real monetary reason to build open models. Well-cited reasons, such as commoditizing one’s complements for Meta’s Llama, are hard to follow up on when the cost of participating well is billions of dollars. Still, AI is in such an early phase of technological development, mostly defined by large-scale industrialization and massive scale-out of infrastructure, that having any sort of influence at the cutting edge of AI is seen as a path to immense potential value. Open models are a very fast way to achieve this, you can obtain substantial usage and mindshare with no enterprise agreements or marketing campaigns — just releasing one good model. Many companies in AI have raised a ton of money built on less. The hype of open models is simultaneously amplified by the mix of cope, disruptive anticipation, and science fiction that hopes for the world where open models do truly surpass the closed labs. This goal could be an economically catastrophic success for the AI ecosystem, where profits and revenue plummet but the broader balance of power and control of AI models is long-term more stable.There’s a small chance open models win in absolute performance, but it would only be on the back of either a true scientific breakthrough that is somehow kept hidden from the leading labs or the models truly hitting a wall in performance. Both of them are definitely possible, but very unlikely. It is important to remind yourself that there have been no walls in progress to date and all the top AI researchers we discuss this with constantly explain the low-hanging fruit they see on progress. It may not be recursive self-improvement to the singularity (more on that in a separate post), but large technology companies are on a direct path to building definitionally transformative tools. They are coming.The balance of power in open vs. closed modelsThe fair assessment of the open-closed gap is that open models have always been 6-18 months behind the best closed models. It is a remarkable testament to the open labs, operating on far smaller budgets, that this has stayed so stable. Many top analysts like myself are bewildered by the way the gap isn’t bigger. Distillation helps a bit in quality, benchmaxing more than closed labs helps perceptions, but the progress of the leading open models is flat out remarkable. The reality is that the open-closed model gap is more likely to grow than shrink. The top few labs are improving as fast as ever, releasing many great new models, with more on the docket. Many of the most impressive frontier model improvements relative to their open counterparts feel totally unmeasured on public benchmarks. In a new era of coding agents, the popular method to “copy” performance from closed models, distillation, requires more creativity to extract performance — previously, you could use the entire completion from the model to train your student, but now the most important part is the complex RL environments and the prompts to place your agents in them. These are much easier to hide and all the while the Chinese labs leading in open models are always complaining about computational restrictions. As the leading AI models move into longer-horizon and more specialized tasks, mediated by complex and expensive gate-keepers in the U.S. economy (e.g. legal or healthcare systems), I expect large gaps in performance to appear. Coding can largely be mostly “solved” with careful data processes, scraping GitHub, and clever environments. The economies of scale and foci of training are moving into domains that are not on the public web, so they are far harder to replicate than early language models. Developing frontier AI models today is more defined by stacking medium to small wins, unlocked by infrastructure, across time. This rewards organizations that can expand scope while maintaining quality, which is extremely expensive.All of these dynamics together create a business landscape for open models that is hard to parse. Through 2026, closed models are going to take leaps and bounds in performance in directions that it is unlikely for open models to follow. This sets us up for a world where we need to consider, fund, use, and discuss open models differently. This piece lays out how open models are changing. It is a future that’ll be clearly defined by three classes of models.* True (closed) frontier models. These will drive the strongest knowledge work and coding agents. They will be truly remarkable tools that force us to reconsider our relationship to work.* Open frontier models. These will be the best open-weight, large models that are attempting to compete on the same directions as above. There will be plenty of use-cases that they don’t work for relative to the best models, but countless use-cases where they work remarkably well. For many use-cases, even ones as valuable as some subsets of coding, these will work great. The AI ecosystem will still take years to understand what it means to have intelligence of this magnitude served in private, at the marginal cost of electricity for individuals, as assistants, coaches, companions, and more. OpenClaw provided a glimpse behind the mirror that will expand and grow. The class of models around GPT-OSS 120B, Nvidia Nemotron 3 Super, or MiniMax M2.5 are the balance of performance to price that can work as local models.* Open, small models as distributed intelligence. The most successful open models will be complementary tools to closed agents. This is a path for open models to complement and accelerate the frontier of progress.AI is slotting in to automate many repetitive, niche tasks across the technology economy. There’s a huge pressure to shift these tasks off of the best closed models — which frankly are still better at most of the things, across my conversations with businesses trying to build with open models — to small, open models that can be 10X faster and 100X cheaper. There aren’t really people building data and fine-tuning engines for economically viable tasks on the smallest models possible. These models need to be almost brain-numbingly boring and specific. In a world dominated by coding agents, I want to build open models that Claude Code is desperate to use as a tool, letting its sub agents unlock entirely new areas of work. This is possible, but remarkably under-explored. Small models from the likes of Qwen and co. are still marketed on general-task benchmarks. The hype of “open models catching the frontier” distracts the world from this very large area of demand.This is the sort of model that moves open models from just a few, crucial static weights to more of an ecosystem. It requires creativity and a new approach. The goal of this piece is to illustrate why and how to build these, with added context on where open models stand today.All three of these model classes hint at different ways to use agents. It is absolutely definitional to how AI is going to be built going forward that they’re not just model weights, but rather systems that think, search, and act. The weights only define one portion of those abilities.Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.Open weights as part of an AI systemTo start, consider what are the most impactful and impressive things that language models can do without a suite of tools at their side. When was the last time that you were blown away by something that was just autoregressive token outputs? Unless you’re doing a substantial amount of work on mathematical proofs or competition code, it seems like that situation has changed little since GPT-4’s release in 2023. The AI systems we use today are about far, far more than weights.In this world, closed models have a clear advantage. Closed models get to vertically integrate everything from the chips they run on, the inference software, the weights, the tools, and the user interface. Open models on the other hand need to work on every inference setup, with many tools, and in many use-cases. This vertical integration is best expressed today in the joy of using Claude Code with Opus 4.6 or OpenAI’s Codex with GPT 5.4. Open models haven’t passed this point. Some are starting to focus on specific interfaces, e.g. OpenCode, but there’s an inherent tension in making an open model work only in your blessed product roadmap.At the same time, this change could point to more about the latest AI systems being open! If you can do less with the weights alone, maybe more labs will release them.The way to think about AI systems today is as a mix of weights, tools, and harnesses. The weights portion is familiar. The tools are the deeply integrated environments the models act in at deployment time — best typified by search and code sandboxes — and the harness is how these two fit together with a product that the user sees.In this world, there are two things to consider: 1) Is there an equivalent, open system to the closed products that people are using today — I mean truly equivalent, where every level of the stack can be modified and controlled (more on this later), and 2) How does this system’s view impact different future decisions in the open ecosystem?Still looking for open model business strategiesTo understand how the business and practicality of open models will evolve, let me take a tour back in time to foundational writing on the role of open-source in modern technology companies. The first is a Google blog post, The Meaning of Open, which originally was an internal memo by Jonathan Rosenberg, which sparked an intense internal debate that later resulted in it becoming public. To start, here’s a basic asse

Watching history unfold between Anthropic and the Department of War (DoW) it has been obvious to me that this could be a major turning point in perspectives on open models, but one that’ll take years to be obvious. As AI becomes more powerful, existing power structures will grapple with their roles relative to existing companies. Some in open models frame this as “not your weights, not your brain,” but it points to a much bigger problem when governments realize this. If AI is the most powerful technology, why would any global entity let a single U.S. company (or government) control their relationship to it?I got Dean W. Ball of the great Hyperdimensional newsletter onto the SAIL Media weekly Substack live to discuss this. In the end, we agree that the recent actions by the DoW — especially the designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk (which Dean and I both vehemently disagree with) — points to open models being the 5-10 year stable equilibrium for power centers. The point of this discussion is:* Why do open models avoid some of the power struggles we’ve seen play out last week?* How do we bridge short term headwinds for open models towards long-term strength?* The general balance of capabilities between open and closed models.Personally, I feel the need to build open models more than ever and am happy to see more constituencies wake up to it. What I don’t know is how to fund and organize that. Commoditizing one’s compliments is a valid strategy, but it starts to break down when AI models cost closer to a trillion dollars than a hundred million. With open models being very hard to monetize, there’s a bumpy road ahead for figuring out who builds these models in face of real business growth elsewhere in the AI stack.Enjoy and please share any feedback you have on this tricky topic! Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and where ever you get your podcasts. For other Interconnects interviews, go here.Chapters* 00:00 Intro: is the Anthropic supply chain risk good or bad for open models?* 04:03 Funding open models and the widening frontier gap* 12:33 Sovereign AI and global demand for alternatives* 20:55 Open model ecosystem: Qwen, usability, and short-term outlook* 28:20 Government power, nationalization risk, and financializing computeTranscript00:00:00 Nathan Lambert: Okay. We are live and people will start joining. I’m very happy to catch up with Dean. I think as we were setting this up, the news has been breaking that the official supply chain risk designation was filed. This is not a live reaction to that. If we get any really, really interesting news, we’ll talk about it. I think one of the undercurrents that I’ve felt that this week where everything happened is gonna touch on is open models, but there’s not an obvious angle. I think I will frame this to Dean to start, which is how does-- Like, there’s two sides of open models. One is that there’s the kind of cliche like, not my weights, not your weights, not your mind, where like somebody could take it away if not an open model, which people are boosting like, “Oh, like Anthropic’s gonna take away their intelligence.” But the other side is people worried about open models existing that the Department of War can just take and use for any purpose that it wants. And I feel like both of these are a little cliche. And the core question is like, is this type of event where more control is coming towards AI and more multi-party interest, like is that gonna be good or bad for the open weight model ecosystem?00:01:12 Dean Ball: My guess is that in the long run, this is probably profoundly good for open weight AI. And like the whole reason I got in, like, so I became interested in frontier AI governance. I did something totally different with my time before. I wrote about different kinds of policy and studied different kinds of policy. And the reason I got into this was because it immediately occurred to me that the government was gonna... I was like, okay, let’s assume we’re building super intelligence soon or whatever, like very advanced AI that seems like really important and powerful. That’s gonna be something that I depend on, like for my day-to-day life. I’m gonna need it for all kinds of things. It’s gonna profoundly implicate my freedom of expression as an American and my exercise of my liberty and all that. And yet it’s also gonna profoundly implicate national security. And so the government’s gonna have its hands all over it, and they also might not like me using it because I might use it, and others might use it to challenge the status quo in various ways, to challenge the existing power structures which the government is a part of. So we have a political problem on our hands here, in my view.00:02:36 Dean Ball: It immediately occurred to me that we’re gonna have this huge problem of like, this is gonna be a conflict because this is something that’s gonna enormously implicate American speech and liberty, and also it’s gonna have legitimate national security issues, and also the government’s gonna want it because of bad power-seeking reasons. And so that’s always a part of the picture. And my view was this is just a fight that’s gonna play out over the coming decades, and I wanna be a part of this fight. But number two, in that fight, you have to have an insurance policy, and open weight is the insurance policy. Open weight is the way we can always say yes, but we can build the open ecosystem. We can do that. And so I think in the fullness of time, this is gonna be beneficial, but the problem is there’s a lot of coordination and economic problems that have to be solved here. It’s not just a matter of hoping that Google and Meta or whomever else, or the Chinese companies, by virtue, out of the goodness of their hearts continue to open-source things. That’s not scalable. There has to be a reason to do it. So what are the institutional dynamics open weight gonna look like in the long term? I don’t really know, but it feels deeply under theorized.00:04:03 Nathan Lambert: I think it’s hard to fund is the thing. I mean, we saw Qwen had their turmoil this week, which is timely, and I’m not that surprised because the stakes for these companies is so high, and they all are trying to make sure their companies win in it. And people will say like, “Oh, Meta should commoditize their complements and release open models.” But no one’s ever commoditized their complements with something that costs a trillion dollars to make. Like, that’s a line item. Like, is Apple gonna commoditize... Apple commoditizing their complement would be them doing the... They could spend just as much as all the other tech companies are on CapEx and spend hundreds of billions of dollars, but they’re choosing not to. And I just like, I agree that long term it should be better, but if we never bridge that gap, does it actually materialize? Like, the crank is being turned of these models getting better and better. GPT 5.4 released today, excited to try it.00:05:02 Nathan Lambert: But like, where does it go? Like, what I’m working on is totally falling behind the frontier. We’re the foundation of research, but it’s like I see it already slipping.00:05:13 Dean Ball: So I kinda think, yeah, I mean, look, I think it’s gonna get bad in the short term, it’s gonna be bleak, right? There’s just no doubt about that in my view. Because we’re in this period, like I think the pace of frontier progress is gonna continue. My own view is that, like, just ‘cause I peer in and use the open weight Chinese models on a fairly regular basis, and I kinda just feel as though the gap has widened between the US frontier and the open frontier. Unfortunately, it’s so sad that US frontier and open frontier are increasingly distinct things. But I do feel as though that probably is true. And that’s probably gonna continue because in the next, like, in the early stages of a new technology, you would expect for the vertically integrated players to be the ones who do the best. And over time, the modular players can win, and part of that is ‘cause eventually you do get to good enough, right? Like, eventually, I think most people think the iPhone is good enough now. There was a time when every year the iPhone upgrade was like, “Oh my God, this is so much better.” Intelligence is maybe different, but maybe not for a lot of things.00:06:37 Nathan Lambert: Well, like, there’s no iPhone that you can buy from anyone. Nothing you can buy from anyone but Apple is nearly as good. That’s the concern. It’s like, is it gonna be Anthropic that like, yeah, it stopped getting better, but you can’t rebuild it. Like, you can’t make the open source version.00:06:51 Nathan Lambert: I also think I had a later question, which is like, the weights are so much less of a concern for me. So like, somebody dropping a two-trillion-parameter model that’s open weights and way better than anything else that somebody has built and released in the open, it almost doesn’t matter if you don’t understand the harness and the tools and the setup you need to make it into a Claude-like system. Like, you need what, eighty nodes of H100s that cost a hundred thousand dollars a day to run and expertise to make it a system. It’s like the shifting away from weights is also happening. I don’t think it’s happening in this open versus closed ecosystem at the surface level of the discussion. So that’s why I’m just like, I don’t know if it’s gonna exist. The thing that I could see happening is that open weights models are niche, and they help these Claude-like models, but there’s not an alternative in that universe. So it’s like, is the government capable of actually making this alternative exist? I don’t know. Like, I don’t know if you can Manhattan Project this, and I wouldn’t advocate for it.00:07:53 Dean Ball: I actually think about it from the opposite perspective, because I think that what happens if the government follows through on what they’ve threatened with Anthropic,

So-called hybrid architectures are far from new in open-weight models these days. We now have the recent Qwen 3.5 (previewed by Qwen3-Next), Kimi Linear last fall (a smaller release than their flagship Kimi K2 models), Nvidia’s Nemotron 3 Nano (with the bigger models expecting to drop soon), IBM Granite 4, and other less notable models. This is one of those times when a research trend looks like it’s getting adopted everywhere at once (maybe the Muon optimizer too, soon?).To tell this story, we need to go back a few years to December 2023, when Mamba and Striped Hyena were taking the world by storm — asking the question: Do we need full attention in our models? These early models fizzled out, partially for the same reasons they’re hard today — tricky implementations, open-source tool problems, more headaches in training — but also because the models fell over a bit when scaled up. The hybrid models of the day weren’t quite good enough yet.These models are called hybrid because they mix these new recurrent neural network (RNN) modules with the traditional attention that made the transformer famous. They all work best with this mix of modules. The RNN layers keep part of the computation compressed in a hidden state to be used for the next token in the prediction — a summary of all information that came before — an idea that has an extremely long historical lineage in deep learning, e.g. back to the LSTM. This setup avoids the quadratic compute cost of attention (i.e. avoiding the incrementally expanding the KV cache per token of the attention operator), and can even assist in solving new problems.The models listed to start this article use a mix of RNN approaches, some models (Qwen and Kimi) use a newer idea called Gated DeltaNet (GDN) and some still use Mamba layers (Granite and Nemotron). The Olmo Hybrid model we’re releasing today also falls on the GDN side, based on careful experimentation, and theory that GDN is capable of learning features that attention or Mamba layers cannot.Introducing Olmo Hybrid and its pretraining efficiencyOlmo Hybrid is a 7B base model, with 3 experiment post-trained checkpoints released — starting with an Instruct model, with a reasoning model coming soon. It is the best open artifact for studying hybrid models, as it is almost identical to our Olmo 3 7B model from last fall, just with a change in architecture. With the model, we are releasing a paper with substantial theory on why hybrid models can be better than standard transformers. This is a long paper that I’m still personally working through, but it’s excellent. You can read the paper here and poke around with the checkpoints here. This is an incredible, long-term research project led by Will Merrill. He did a great job.To understand the context of why hybrid models can be a strict upgrade on transformers, let me begin with a longer excerpt from the paper’s introduction, emphasis mine:Past theoretical work has shown that attention and recurrence have complementary strengths (Merrill et al., 2024; Grazzi et al., 2025), so mixing them is a natural way to construct an architecture with the benefits of both primitives. We further derive novel theoretical results showing that hybrid models are even more powerful than the sum of their parts: there are formal problems related to code evaluation that neither transformers nor GDN can express on their own, but which hybrid models can represent theoretically and learn empirically. But this greater expressivity does not immediately imply that hybrid models should be better LMs: thus, we run fully controlled scaling studies comparing hybrid models vs. transformers, showing rigorously that hybrid models’ expressivity translates to better token efficiency, in agreement with our observations from the Olmo Hybrid pretraining run. Finally, we provide a theoretical explanation for why increasing an architecture’s expressive power should improve language model scaling rooted in the multi-task nature of the language modeling objective.Taken together, our results suggest that hybrid models dominate transformers, both theoretically, in their balance of expressivity and parallelism, and empirically, in terms of benchmark performance and long-context abilities. We believe these findings position hybrid models for wider adoption and call on the research community to pursue further architecture research.Essentially, we show and argue a few things:* Hybrid models are more expressive. They can form their outputs to learn more types of functions. An intuition for why this would be good could follow: More expressive models are good with deep learning because we want to make the model class as flexible as possible and let the optimizer do the work rather than constraints on the learner. Sounds a lot like the Bitter Lesson.* Why does expressive power help with efficiency? This is where things are more nuanced. We argue that more expressive models will have better scaling laws, following the quantization model of neural scaling.All of this theory work is a great way to go deeper, and frankly I have a lot more to learn on it, but the crucial part is that we transition from theory to clear experiments that back it up. Particularly the scaling laws for designing this model were studied carefully to decide on the final hybrid architecture. The final performance is very sensitive to exactly which RNN block is used and in what quantity.In scaling experiments, the results showed that for Olmo, the hybrid GDN (3:1 ratio of layers) > pure GDN (all RNN layers) > standard transformer (all attention) > hybrid Mamba2 > pure Mamba2. The crucial point was that these gaps maintained when scaling to more parameters and compute. A visual summary of the different types of architectures studied is below.In terms of this specific model, the pretraining gains were giant! Relative to Olmo 3 dense, it represents an about 2X gain on training efficiency. When you look at evaluation performance for pretraining, there was also substantial improvement in performance, particularly after long context extension (the final 2 rows of Table 2 in the paper, highlighted below).The journey to post-training Olmo HybridMost of the experience in post-training Olmo models has been climbing up a steep curve in base model capabilities with minor tweaks to architecture. Our recipes from Tulu 2, Tulu 3, and the Olmo 3 reasoning work (building substantially on OpenThoughts 3) all worked in a fairly straightforward, off the shelf manner. Olmo Hybrid is our first experience in post-training a substantially different architecture, and the results were mixed. 1. Benchmark performanceFollowing the Olmo 3 recipe, we got some substantial wins (knowledge) and some substantial losses (extended reasoning) relative to the dense model. All together these still represent a very strong fully open model — just that the pretraining gains didn’t translate as obviously. The results are below.The exact reason why this happens is a research question. Our best guess is that the Olmo Hybrid base model is just a sufficiently different student model, where most of our post training data at early stages is learning from stronger “teacher” models (a recap of this method, called distillation, appeared recently in Interconnects). There is a lot of other research ongoing in the community around what makes a strong teacher model — generally, the best overall model is not the best teacher. In other words, training on data outputted from the model with best evaluation scores today is unlikely to unlock the ceiling in performance for your new base model. A second factor, which is even less explored, is how different base models likely need different teachers to learn from. This is why Olmo Hybrid could perform very differently, where it’s behavior is downstream of an architecture-based learning change, where the pretraining data is almost identical.There’s A LOT more work to dig into here, some empirical work in generating better data and other work in understanding how different training stages fit together. I am confident this Olmo Hybrid base model is solid and more performance can be extracted, but it takes more careful work adapting existing datasets.2. Open-source tooling The frank reality of new architectures for open models is that the open-source software tooling support is horrific. There’s the paper-cuts that people are familiar with, e.g. random errors in popular libraries (as people experienced with GPT-OSS) that slow adoption, but there are also deeper problems.A large part of the potential benefit of hybrid models is the reduction in memory usage for long-context generation, which is crucial for reinforcement learning and agentic tasks. It should be a huge win for post-training! This, unfortunately, is far from the case, and will likely take another 3-6months to get right for this batch of GDN models.The core problem is that the open-source inference tools, e.g. VLLM, are relying on far less developed kernels (and other internals) when compared to standard transformers. This comes with two challenges — throughput slowdowns and numerical issues. Numerical issues can be combatted with a variety of inference flags. Quoting the paper again:The two key flags in VLLM we needed to get maximum performance with the post-training model were --disable-cascade-attn, which disables cascade attention (an optimization for shared prompt prefixes), and --enforce-eager, which turns off CUDA graphs. These two flags have been used in our RL setup dating back to Olmo 3, but are new additions to evaluations. Scores for the released models drop precipitously without them. We also evaluated our final models with the hybrid model cache in the richer FP32 datatype, to improve stability via --mamba_ssm_cache_dtype following NVIDIA.Essentially, we used these to make sure the model was numerically stable. The downside is that the inference throughput plummets, so the potential gains in compute eff

Distillation has been one of the most frequent topics of discussion in the broader US-China and technological diffusion story for AI. Distillation is a term with many definitions — the colloquial one today is using a stronger AI model’s outputs to teach a weaker model. The word itself is derived from a more technical and specific definition of knowledge distillation (Hinton, Vinyals, & Dean 2015), which involves a specific way of learning to match the probability distribution of a teacher model.The distillation of today is better described generally as synthetic data. You take outputs from a stronger model, usually via an API, and you train your model to predict those. The technical form of knowledge distillation is not actually possible from API models because they don’t expose the right information to the user.Synthetic data is arguably the single most useful method that an AI researcher today uses to improve the models on a day to day basis. Yes, architecture is crucial, some data still needs exclusively human inputs, and new ideas like reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards at scale can transform the industry, but so much of the day to day life in improving models today is figuring out how to properly capture and scale up synthetic data.To flesh out the point from the start of this piece, the argument has repeatedly been that the leading Chinese labs are using distillation for their models to steal capabilities from the best American API-based counterparts. The most prominent case to date was surrounding the release of DeepSeek R1 — where OpenAI accused DeepSeek of stealing their reasoning traces by jailbreaking the API (they’re not exposed by default — for context, a reasoning trace is a colloquial word of art referring to the internal reasoning process, such as what open weight reasoning models expose to the user). Fear of distillation is also likely why Gemini quickly flipped from exposing the reasoning traces to users to hiding them. There was even very prominent, early reasoning research that built on Gemini!This all leads us to today’s news, where Anthropic named and directly accused a series of Chinese labs for elaborate distillation campaigns on their Claude models. This is a complex issue. In this post we unpack a series of questions, beginning with the impact, and ending with politics. The core question is — how much of a performance benefit do Chinese labs get from distilling from American models.Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.To start, let’s review what Anthropic shared. From the blog post, emphasis mine:We have identified industrial-scale campaigns by three AI laboratories—DeepSeek, Moonshot, and MiniMax—to illicitly extract Claude’s capabilities to improve their own models. These labs generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude through approximately 24,000 fraudulent accounts, in violation of our terms of service and regional access restrictions.These labs used a technique called “distillation,” which involves training a less capable model on the outputs of a stronger one. Distillation is a widely used and legitimate training method. For example, frontier AI labs routinely distill their own models to create smaller, cheaper versions for their customers. But distillation can also be used for illicit purposes: competitors can use it to acquire powerful capabilities from other labs in a fraction of the time, and at a fraction of the cost, that it would take to develop them independently.Much like the models themselves, the benefits of distillation are very jagged. For some capabilities, particularly if you don’t have a full training pipeline setup for it, quickly distilling some data from the leading frontier model in that area can yield massive performance boosts. This can definitely help the lab distilling from the API catch up much more quickly than they otherwise would. Most distillation is rather benign, using many tokens of an LLM to help process and refine existing data — putting a lot of compute into getting a few, high quality training tokens out. This sort of raw data processing work can be done on many different APIs, but one tends to be best.When we go into what Anthropic says the three Chinese LLM builders actually used the Claude API for — as an aside, Anthropic didn’t confirm that the attack was done through the API, the chat app, or Claude Code — the actual impact of the operations is very mixed. It’s hard to know how much untracked usage these labs deployed for other projects (or other American models).To start, Anthropic puts DeepSeek first in their blog post because they’re the household name in the US for Chinese AI. The extent of their use is actually quite small, showing how this post is more about the big picture than the details:DeepSeekScale: Over 150,000 exchangesThe operation targeted:* Reasoning capabilities across diverse tasks* Rubric-based grading tasks that made Claude function as a reward model for reinforcement learning* Creating censorship-safe alternatives to policy sensitive queriesIn the scale of training a language model, 150K samples is only scratching the surface as a substantive experiment. It looks like they were experimenting with some rubrics, which could’ve been for an online RL run, but that’s extremely unlikely with how distributed the access was, and then some minor stuff on completions for sensitive queries. This usage of Anthropic’s API will have a negligible impact on DeepSeek’s long-rumored V4 model (or whichever model the data here contributed to). This was also very likely a small team at DeepSeek and unknown to much of the broader training organization.The other two labs, Moonshot AI (makers of the Kimi models) and MiniMax reflected much broader usage.Moonshot AIScale: Over 3.4 million exchangesThe operation targeted:* Agentic reasoning and tool use* Coding and data analysis* Computer-use agent development* Computer visionMiniMaxScale: Over 13 million exchangesThe operation targeted:* Agentic coding* Tool use and orchestrationThe role of distillation is constantly changing. Distilling from Claude today for its agentic behavior is much more valuable than versions of Claude have been as a teacher in the past. Claude Opus 4.6 has a well-rounded agentic navigation that none of the other models quite match. Why not try training on some of the model outputs to see if your model absorbs it? Over the next few months, that’ll be less differentiated. It’s sort of like how all the models are way better at math today than most people need — there are plenty of places to distill from.Estimates will vary, but if each response had 10-25K tokens per exchange, the total tokens across these two labs, mostly with MiniMax, would be 150-400 billion tokens. This is a substantial amount, which could meaningfully improve a models’ post-training. For example, in Olmo 3 we had an SFT dataset of 20 billion tokens that could be built like this, and increasing it by 10X would be very reasonable.These numbers are just scratching the surface of total synthetic data generation across APIs hosted by US companies. At the same time, quantity is a pretty crude way to measure impact. Just taking the outputs from Claude and figuring out how to add them to your model pipeline isn’t easy. The research community has seen many cases where taking outputs from a certain teacher model unexpectedly makes the student worse — subtle interactions between the data make it variable and tricky to do this type of distillation. It’s fundamentally a research problem.This is what I’m sure the Chinese labs are innovating at. There’s an argument that Chinese frontier labs are substantially more efficient than their Western counterparts — this is misleading.The labs operate under different constraints. The Chinese labs are likely slightly more efficient out of necessity in being lower on resources, but overall the picture of talent access is very similar. The Chinese labs also approach benchmarks differently, making it appear that they’re a bit closer than they really are (and appearing as if they’re potentially surpassing). This is needed to get momentum and brand recognition in the AI market.The Chinese labs likely innovate greatly on distilling from leading API models, due to their restricted access to GPUs. GPUs could be used to construct synthetic data, but for organizations with more funding than they can spend on research compute (being supply limited), using API-based models is one of the few other options for effectively getting more compute. It’s way easier to figure out getting access to “banned” API models than it is to smuggle tens of thousands of physical GPUs and get them set up.It’s not only the Chinese labs that operate like this. Synthetic data from a model you don’t own is all arguably distillation. Distillation is a shortcut to more compute for anyone. It’s also a far less risky cost, as having a big cluster for research requires a very large financial commitment, where APIs are pay-as-you-go. For example, in Olmo 3 we used millions of GPU hours on the Frontier supercomputer and Azure credits through NAIRR for synthetic data. We didn’t have the equivalent in GPUs (or really the cash, thank you research credits!).All together, it’s very fair for Anthropic to be concerned about this. I still wouldn’t say it is a crucial factor in these Chinese labs post-training capabilities, especially not one that’ll be easy to measure in a time gap to matching the model they’re distilling from a la the US-China performance lag.If we take a step back, there was even a time when Claude Sonnet was the flagship model ahead of Opus (I think this was with Sonnet 3.5), much of this comes from it being well distilled internally from Opus checkpoints. Fast iteration and high-quality data can go very far, letting student models surpass the teacher. Frontier labs use this to their advantage, by having internal-only models for generating sy

Last Thursday, February 5th, both OpenAI and Anthropic unveiled the next iterations of their models designed as coding assistants, GPT-5.3-Codex and Claude Opus 4.6, respectively. Ahead of this, Anthropic had a firm grasp of the mindshare as everyone collectively grappled with the new world of agents, primarily driven by a Claude Code with Opus 4.5-induced step change in performance. This post doesn’t unpack how software is changing forever, Moltbook is showcasing the future, ML research is accelerating, and the many broader implications, but rather how to assess, live with, and prepare for new models. The fine margins between Opus 4.6 and Codex 5.3 will be felt in many model versions this year, with Opus ahead in this matchup on usability.Going into these releases I’d been using Claude Code extensively as a general computer agent, with some software engineering and a lot of data analysis, automation, etc. I had dabbled with Codex 5.2 (usually on xhigh, maximum thinking effort), but found it not to quite work for me among my broad, horizontal set of tasks.For the last few days, I’ve been using both of the models much more evenly. I mean this as a great compliment, but Codex 5.3 feels much more Claude-like, where it’s much faster in its feedback and much more capable in a broad suite of tasks from git to data analysis (previous versions of Codex, including up to 5.2, regularly failed basic git operations like creating a fresh branch). Codex 5.3 takes a very important step towards Claude’s territory by having better product-market fit. This is a very important move for OpenAI and between the two models, Codex 5.3 feels far more different than its predecessors.OpenAI’s latest GPT, with this context, keeps an edge as a better coding model. It’s hard to describe this general statement precisely, and a lot of it is based on reading others’ work, but it seems to be a bit better at finding bugs and fixing things in codebases, such as the minimal algorithmic examples for my RLHF Book. In my experience, this is a minor edge, and the community thinks that this is most apparent in complex situations (i.e. not most vibe-coded apps). As users become better at supervising these new agents, having the best top-end ability in software understanding and creation could become a meaningful edge for Codex 5.3, but it is not an obvious advantage today. Many of my most trusted friends in the AI space swear by Codex because it can be just this tiny bit better. I haven’t been able to unlock it.Switching from Opus 4.6 to Codex 5.3 feels like I need to babysit the model in terms of more detailed descriptions when doing somewhat mundane tasks like “clean up this branch and push the PR.” I can trust Claude to understand the context of the fix and generally get it right, where Codex can skip files, put stuff in weird places, etc.Both of these releases feel like the companies pushing for capabilities and speed of execution in the models, but at the cost of some ease of use. I’ve found both Opus 4.6 and Codex 5.3 ignoring an instruction if I queue up multiple things to do — they’re really best when given well-scoped, clear problems (especially Codex). Claude Code’s harness has a terrible bug that makes subagents brick the terminal, where new messages say you must compact or clear, but compaction fails. Despite the massive step by Codex, they still have a large gap to close to Claude on the product side. Opus 4.6 is another step in the right direction, where Claude Code feels like a great experience. It’s approachable, it tends to work in the wide range of tasks I throw at it, and this’ll help them gain much broader adoption than Codex. If I’m going to recommend a coding agent to an audience who has limited-to-no software experience, it’s certainly going to be Claude. At a time when agents are just emerging into general use, this is a massive advantage, both in mindshare and feedback in terms of usage data.In the meantime, there’s no cut-and-dried guideline on which agent you need to use for any use-case, you need to use multiple models all the time and keep up with the skill that is managing agents. Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.Assessing models in 2026There have been many hints through 2025 that we were heading toward an AI world where benchmarks associated with model releases no longer convey meaningful signal to users. Back in the time of the GPT-4 or Gemini 2.5 Pro releases, the benchmark deltas could be easily felt within the chatbot form factor of the day — models were more reliable, could do more tasks, etc. This continued through models like OpenAI’s o3. During this phase of AI’s buildout, roughly from 2023 to 2025, we were assembling the core functionality of modern language models: tool-use, extended reasoning, basic scaling, etc. The gains were obvious.It should be clear with the releases of both Opus 4.6 and Codex 5.3 that benchmark-based release reactions barely matter. For this release, I barely looked at the evaluation scores. I saw that Opus 4.6 had a bit better search scores and Codex 5.3 used far fewer tokens per answer, but neither of these were going to make me sure they were much better models. Each of the AI laboratories, and the media ecosystems covering them, have been on this transition away from standard evaluations at their own pace. The most telling example is the Gemini 3 Pro release in November of 2025. The collective vibe was Google is back in the lead. Kevin Roose, self-proclaimed “AGI-pilled” NYTimes reporter in SF said:There's sort of this feeling that Google, which kind of struggled in AI for a couple of years there — they had the launch of Bard and the first versions of Gemini, which had some issues — and I think they were seen as sort of catching up to the state of the art. And now the question is: is this them taking their crown back?We don’t need to dwell on the depths of Gemini’s current crisis, but they have effectively no impact at the frontier of coding agents, which as an area feels the most likely for dramatic strides in performance — dare I say, even many commonly accepted definitions of AGI that center around the notion of a “remote worker?” The timeline has left them behind 2 months after their coronation, showing Gemini 3 was hailed as a false king.On the other end of the spectrum is Anthropic. With Anthropic’s release of Claude 4 in May of 2025, I was skeptical of their bet on code — I was distracted by the glitz of OpenAI and Gemini trading blows with announcements like models achieving IMO Gold medals in mathematics or other evaluation breakthroughs.Anthropic deserves serious credit for the focus of its vision. They were likely not the only AI lab to note the coming role of agents, but they were by far the first to shift their messaging and prioritization towards this. In my post in June of 2025, a month after Claude 4 was released, I was coming around to them being right to deprioritize standard benchmarks:This is a different path for the industry and will take a different form of messaging than we’re used to. More releases are going to look like Anthropic’s Claude 4, where the benchmark gains are minor and the real world gains are a big step. There are plenty of more implications for policy, evaluation, and transparency that come with this. It is going to take much more nuance to understand if the pace of progress is continuing, especially as critics of AI are going to seize the opportunity of evaluations flatlining to say that AI is no longer working.This leaves me reflecting on the role of Interconnects’ model reviews in 2026. 2025 was characterized by many dramatic, day-of model release blog posts, with the entry of many new Chinese open model builders, OpenAI’s first open language model since GPT-2, and of course the infinitely hyped GPT-5. These timely release posts still have great value — they center the conversation around the current snapshot of a company vis-a-vis the broader industry, but if models remain similar, they’ll do little to disentangle the complexity in mapping the current frontier of AI. In order to serve my role as an independent voice tracking the frontier models, I need to keep providing regular updates on how I’m using models, why, and why not. Over time, the industry is going to develop better ways of articulating the differences in agentic models. For the next few months, maybe even years, I expect the pace of progress to be so fast and uneven in agentic capabilities, that consistent testing and clear articulation will be the only way to monitor it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe

One of the big stories of 2025 for me was how Nvidia massively stepped up their open model program — more releases, higher quality models, joining a small handful of companies releasing datasets, etc. In this interview, I sat down with one of the 3 VP’s leading the effort of 500+ technical staff, Bryan Catanzaro, to discuss:* Their very impressive Nemotron 3 Nano model released in Dec. 2025, and the bigger Super and Ultra variants coming soon,* Why Nvidia’s business clearly benefits from them building open models,* How the Nemotron team culture was crafted in pursuit of better models,* Megatron-LM and the current state of open-source training software,* Career reflections and paths into AI research,* And other topics.The biggest takeaway I had from this interview is how Nvidia understands their unique roll as a company that and both build and directly capture the value they get from building open language models, giving them a uniquely sustainable advantage. Bryan has a beautiful analogy for open models this early in AI’s development, and how they are a process of creating “potential energy” for AI’s future applications.I hope you enjoy it!Guest: Bryan Catanzaro, VP Applied Deep Learning Research (ADLR), NVIDIA. X: @ctnzr, LinkedIn, Google Scholar.Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and where ever you get your podcasts. For other Interconnects interviews, go here.Nemotron Model Timeline2019–2022 — Foundational Work* Megatron-LM (model parallelism framework that has become very popular again recently; alternatives: DeepSpeed, PyTorch FSDP). * NeMo Framework (NVIDIA’s end-to-end LLM stack: training recipes, data pipelines, evaluation, deployment).Nov 2023 — Nemotron-3 8B: Enterprise-ready NeMo models. Models: base, chat-sft, chat-rlhf, collection. Blog.Feb 2024 — Nemotron-4 15B: Multilingual LLM trained to 8T tokens. Paper.Jun 2024 — Nemotron-4 340B: Major open release detailing their synthetic data pipeline. Paper, blog. Models: Instruct, Reward. Jul–Sep 2024 — Minitron / Nemotron-Mini: First of their pruned models, pruned from 15B. Minitron-4B (base model), Nemotron-Mini-4B-Instruct. Paper, code.Oct 2024 — Llama-3.1-Nemotron-70B: Strong post-training on Llama 3.1 70B. Model, collection. Key dataset — HelpSteer2, paper.Mar–Jun 2025 — Nemotron-H: First hybrid Mamba-Transformer models for inference efficiency. Paper, research page, blog. Models: 8B, 47B, 4B-128K.May 2025 — Llama-Nemotron: Efficient reasoning models built ontop of Llama (still!). Paper.Sep 2025 — Nemotron Nano 2: 9B hybrid for reasoning, continuing to improve in performance. 12B base on 20T tokens (FP8 training) pruned to 9B for post-training. Report, V2 collection.Nov 2025 — Nemotron Nano V2 VL: 12B VLM. Report.Dec 2025 — Nemotron 3: Nano/Super/Ultra family, hybrid MoE, up to 1M context. Super/Ultra H1 2026. Nano: 25T tokens, 31.6B total / ~3.2B active, releases recipes + code + datasets. Papers: White Paper, Technical Report. Models: Nano-30B-BF16, Base, FP8.Nemotron’s Recent DatasetsNVIDIA began releasing substantially more data in 2025, including pretraining datasets — making them one of few organizations releasing high-quality pretraining data at scale (which comes with non-negligible legal risk).Pretraining DataCollection — CC-v2, CC-v2.1, CC-Code-v1, Code-v2, Specialized-v1, CC-Math-v1. Math paper: arXiv:2508.15096.Post-Training DataCore post-training dumps (SFT/RL blends):* Llama Nemotron Post-Training v1.1 (Apr 2025)* Nemotron Post-Training v1 (Jul 2025)* Nemotron Post-Training v2 (Aug 2025)2025 reasoning/code SFT corpora:* OpenMathReasoning (Apr 2025)* OpenCodeReasoning (Apr 2025), OpenCodeReasoning-2 (May 2025)* AceReason-1.1-SFT (Jun 2025)* Nemotron-Math-HumanReasoning (Jun 2025), Nemotron-PrismMath (Apr 2025)NeMo Gym RLVR datasets: CollectionNemotron v3 post-training (Dec 2025): CollectionHelpSteer (human feedback/preference):* HelpSteer (Nov 2023)* HelpSteer2 (Jun 2024)* HelpSteer3 (Mar 2025)And others, not linked here.Chapters* 00:00:00 Intro & Why NVIDIA Releases Open Models* 00:05:17 Nemotron’s two jobs: systems R&D + ecosystem support* 00:15:23 Releasing datasets, not just models* 00:22:25 Organizing 500+ people with “invitation, not control”* 0:37:29 Scaling Nemotron & The Evolution of Megatron* 00:48:26 Career Reflections: From SVMs to DLSS* 00:54:12 Lessons from the Baidu Silicon Valley AI Lab* 00:57:25 Building an Applied Research Lab with Jensen Huang * 01:00:44 Advice for Researchers & Predictions for 2026Transcript00:00:06 Nathan Lambert: Okay. Hey, Bryan. I’m very excited to talk about Nemotron. I think low-key, one of the biggest evolving stories in twenty-five of open models, outside the obvious things in China that everybody talks about, that gets a ton of attention. So th- thanks for coming on the pod.00:00:22 Bryan Catanzaro: Oh, yeah, it’s my honor.00:00:23 Nathan Lambert: So I wanted to start, and some of these questions are honestly fulfilling my curiosity as a fan. As like, why does NVIDIA, at a basic level, release Nemotron as open models?00:00:39 Bryan Catanzaro: Well, we know that it’s an opportunity for NVIDIA to grow our market whenever AI grows, and we know that having access to open AI models is really important for a lot of developers and researchers that are trying to push AI forward. you know, we were really excited by efforts from some other companies around the industry to push openly developed AI forward. You know, Meta did some amazing work, obviously, with Llama and you know OpenAI released GPT OSS, which was exciting. And the Allen Institute, of course, has been, you know, really leading the charge for research, open research and, you know, also things like the Marin Project and OpenAthena. You know, like there’s, there’s a bunch of things that we’re always excited to see develop.And, you know, as we think about where AI is gonna go, you know, NVIDIA believes that AI is a form of infrastructure. it’s.. AI is a very useful technology when it’s applied, but on its own you know, it’s kind of a foundation and infrastructure. We think that technology generally works better when there’s openness to the infrastructure so that people can build things in different ways. You know, you think about the way that the internet transformed every aspect of the world economy is pretty profound, and we’re not done yet.But the way that, for example, retail uses the internet is different from the way that healthcare uses the internet. And the fact that you know, different sectors of the economy were able to figure out how to incorporate the internet into the beating heart of their businesses in different ways was possible because the internet was built on open technologies that, you know, allowed people to try different things. And we think AI is gonna evolve in a similar way, that organizations across every sector of the world economy are gonna find new and surprising and fun, and important things to do with AI, and they’ll be able to do that better if they have the ability to customize AI and incorporate it directly into the work that they do. and so -- and by the way, this is not to detract from any of the you know, more closed approaches to AI, you know, the APIs that we see from a number of leading labs that, you know, are just extraordinary and have amazing capabilities. We’re excited about those, too.You know, NVIDIA loves to support AI in all of its manifestations, but we feel like right now the sort of closed approaches to deploying AI are doing pretty well but we, you know, could use some more energy in the openly developed AI ecosystem, and so that’s why we’ve been putting more effort into it this past year.00:03:42 Nathan Lambert: Yeah. So I’m definitely gonna dig into this a lot ‘cause I have seen this. We’re sitting here recording in January twenty-six, which is in the midst of the rollout of these Nemotron three models. There’s the-- I think the Nano has released in the fall, which was probably one of the biggest splashes the org has made, and everybody’s eagerly awaiting these super and ultra-larger variants.And it’s like how far are you, how far are you willing to push this Nemotron platform? Like, is it just depending on the users and the uptake and the ecosystem? Like, like, what is the-- is there a North Star in this? Or you hear a lot of.. if you listen to a lot of other open labs, they’re like: “We want to build open AGI,” which is like, I don’t necessarily think grounded, but there’s like a very unifying vision.Is there something that you try to set the tone for it that goes through the organization? I mean, AI too, it’s like-00:04:31 Bryan Catanzaro: You know, my North-00:04:32 Nathan Lambert: .. academics is so-00:04:34 Bryan Catanzaro: For Nemotron.00:04:36 Nathan Lambert: Okay, go ahead.00:04:37 Bryan Catanzaro: Oh, sorry. Go ahead.00:04:39 Nathan Lambert: I was just, like, gonna compare to, like, AI too, where we can have such a-- like, we have a very specific vision, being so open that it’s like, I think, like, research is so needed, and there’s so little recipes to build on, like, with really credible research. So there’s, like, a research infrastructure, and then when you have something like Llama, it was, like, built on Zuckerberg’s vision, and he changed his mind, which I actually thought his vision was ex- was excellent, the way he articulated the need for open models, and it kind of faded. So it’s like, is there a way to set a vision for an org that, like, permeates every- everyone and is really compelling and exciting?00:05:17 Bryan Catanzaro: Right. Well, we built Nemotron for two main reasons. The first is because we need to for our main product line. So what I mean by that?Well, accelerated computing, what NVIDIA does, we build fast computers, right? But the point of building fast computers is to help people do new things. and actually every fast computer is also a slow computer. you know, the observation that it would be nice if computers were faster and could do more t

There’s a pervasive, mutual challenge in the job market today for people working in (or wanting to work in) the cutting edge of AI. On the hiring side, it often feels impossible to close, or even get interest from, the candidates you want. On the individual side, it quite often feels like the opportunity cost of your current job is extremely high — even if on paper the actual work and life you’re living is extremely good — due to the crazy compensation figures.For established tech workers, the hiring process in AI can feel like a bit of a constant fog. For junior employees, it can feel like a bit of a wall.In my role as a bit of a hybrid research lead, individual contributor, and mentor, I spend a lot of time thinking about how to get the right people for me to work with and the right jobs for my mentees.The advice here is shaped by the urgency of the current moment in LLMs. These are hiring practices optimized for a timeline of relevance that may need revisiting every 1-2 years as the core technology changes — which may not be best for long-term investment in people, the industry, or yourself. I’ve written separately about the costs of this pace, and don’t intend to carry this on indefinitely.The most defining feature of hiring in this era is the complexity and pace of progress in language models. This creates two categories. For one, senior employees are much more covetable because they have more context of how to work in and steer complex systems over time. It takes a lot of perspective to understand the right direction for a library when your team can make vastly more progress on incremental features given AI agents. Without vision, the repositories can get locked with too many small additions. With powerful AI tools I expect the impact of senior employees to grow faster than adding junior members to the team could. This view on the importance of key senior talent has been a recent swing, given my experiences and expectations for current and future AI agents, respectively:Every engineer needs to learn how to design systems. Every researcher needs to learn how to run a lab. Agents push the humans up the org chart.On the other side, junior employees have to prove themselves in a different way. The number one defining trait I look for in a junior engineering employee is an almost fanatical obsession with making progress, both in personal understanding and in modeling performance. The only way to learn how the sausage gets made is to do it, and to catch up it takes a lot of hard work in a narrow area to cultivate ownership. With sufficient motivation, a junior employee can scale to impact quickly, but without it, it’s almost replaceable with coding agents (or will be soon). This is very hard work and hard to recruit for. The best advice I have on finding these people is “vibes,” so I am looking for advice on how to find them too!For one, when I brought Florian Brand on to help follow open models for Interconnects, when I first chatted with him he literally said “since ChatGPT came out I’ve been fully obsessed with LLMs.” You don’t need to reinvent the wheel here — if it’s honest, people notice.For junior researchers, there’s much more grace, but that’s due to them working in an education institution first and foremost, instead of the understatedly brutal tech economy. A defining feature that creates success here is an obsession with backing up claims. So a new idea improves models, why? So our evaluation scores are higher, what does this look like in our harness? Speed of iteration follows from executing on this practice. Too many early career researchers try to build breadth of impact (e.g. collecting contributions on many projects) before clearly demonstrating, to themselves and their advisors, depth. The best researchers then bring both clarity of results and velocity in trying new ideas.Working in academia today is therefore likely to be a more nurturing environment for junior talent, but it comes with even greater opportunity costs financially. I’m regularly asked if one should leave a Ph.D. to get an actual job, and my decision criteria is fairly simple. If you’re not looking to become a professor and have an offer to do modeling research at a frontier lab (Gemini, Anthropic, OpenAI is my list) then there’s little reason to stick around and finish your Ph.D.The little reason that keeps people often ends up being personal pride in doing something hard, which I respect. It’s difficult to square these rather direct pieces of career advice with my other recommendations of choosing jobs based on the people, as you’ll spend a ton of your life with them, more than the content of what you’ll be doing. Choosing jobs based on people is one of the best ways to choose your job based on the so-called “vibes.”Working in a frontier lab in product as an alternative to doing a Ph.D. is a path to get absorbed in the corporate machine and not stand out, reducing yourself to the standard tech career ladder. Part of what I feel like works so well for me, and other people at Ai2, is having the winning combination of responsibility, public visibility, and execution in your work. There is something special for career progression that comes from working publicly, especially when the industry is so closed, where people often overestimate your technical abilities and output. Maybe this is just the goodwill that comes from open-source contributions paying you back.If you go to a closed lab, visibility is almost always not possible, so you rely on responsibility and execution. It doesn’t matter if you execute if you’re doing great work on a product or model that no one ever touches. Being in the core group matters.This then all comes back to finding the people hiring pipeline.There are many imperfect signals out there, both positive and negative. For individuals building their portfolio, it’s imperative to avoid negative signals because the competition for hiring is so high. A small but clear negative signal is a junior researcher being a middle author on too many papers. Just say no, it helps you.The positive signals are messier, but still doable. It’s been said that you can tell someone is a genius by reading one Tweet from them, and I agree with this. The written word is still an incredibly effective and underutilized communication form. One excellent blog post can signify real, rare understanding. The opposite holds true for AI slop. One AI slop blog post will kill your application.The other paths I often advise people who reach out asking how to establish a career in AI are open-source code contributions or open research groups (e.g. EluetherAI). I’ve seen many more success cases on the former, in open-source code. Still, it’s remarkably rare, because A) most people don’t have the hardware to add meaningful code to these popular LLM repositories and B) most people don’t stick with it long enough. Getting to the point of making meaningful contributions historically has been very hard.Doing open-source AI contributions could be a bit easier in the age of coding agents, as a lot of the limiting factors today are just bandwidth in implementing long todo lists of features, but standing out amid the sea of AI slop PRs and Issues will be hard. That’ll take class, creativity, humanity, and patience. So, to be able to run some tiny models on a $4000 DGX Spark is an investment, but it’s at least somewhat doable to iterate on meaningful code contributions to things like HuggingFace’s ML libraries (I’ve been writing and sharing a lot about how I’m using the DGX Spark to iterate on our codebases at Ai2).Back to the arc of hiring, the above focused on traits, but the final piece of the puzzle is alignment. The first question to ask is “is this person good?” The second question is, “will this person thrive here?” Every organization has different constraints, but especially in small teams, the second question defines your culture. In a startup, if you grow too fast you definitely lose control of your culture. This isn’t to say that the company won’t have a strong or useful culture, it’s to say you can’t steer it. The culture of an organization is the byproduct of how all the individuals interact. You do not want to roll the dice here.Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.Personally, I’m working on building out a few more spots in a core post-training methods team at Ai2. Post-training recipes have gotten very complicated, and we’re working on making them easier to run while doing research on fundamentals such as post-training data mixing and scaling laws. To be a little vague, getting the post-training recipes done for both Olmo 3 and Olmo 2 was... very hard on the team. At the same time, post-training hasn’t gotten much more open, so hiring through it and doing the hard work is the only way.Ideally I would hire one engineer and one researcher, both fairly senior, meaning at least having a Ph.D. or a similar number of years working in technology. Junior engineers with some experience and the aforementioned obsession would definitely work.This callout serves as a good lesson for hiring. It is intentional that people should self-filter for this, no one likes when you way overreach on selling yourself for a job. I also intentionally make people find my email for this as an exercise. The art of cold emailing and approaching people in the correct pipelines is essential to getting hired. Many people you look up to in AI read their emails, the reason you don’t get a response is because you didn’t format your email correctly. The best cold emails show the recipient that they learned from it or obviously benefitted from getting it. Platitudes and compliments are of course nice to receive, but the best cold emails inspire action.Two of the most recent people I helped hire at Ai2 I learned of through these side-door job applications (i.e. not found through the pile of careers page applications). I learned of

Arcee AI is a the startup I’ve found to be taking the most real approach to monetizing their open models. With a bunch of experience (and revenue) in the past in post-training open models for specific customer domains, they realized they needed to both prove themselves and fill a niche by pretraining larger, higher performance open models built in the U.S.A. They’re a group of people that are most eagerly answering my call to action for The ATOM Project, and I’ve quickly become friends with them.Today, they’re releasing their flagship model — Trinity Large — as the culmination of this pivot. In anticipation of this release, I sat down with their CEO Mark McQuade, CTO Lucas Atkins, and pretraining lead, Varun Singh, to have a wide ranging conversation on:* The state (and future) of open vs. closed models,* The business of selling open models for on-prem deployments,* The story of Arcee AI & going “all-in” on this training run,* The ATOM project,* Building frontier model training teams in 6 months,* and other great topics. I really loved this one, and think you well too.The blog post linked above and technical report have many great details on training the model that I’m still digging into. One of the great things Arcee has been doing is releasing “true base models,” which don’t contain any SFT data or learning rate annealing. The Trinity Large model, an MoE with 400B total and 13B active tokens trained to 17 trillion tokens is the first publicly shared training run at this scale on B300 Nvidia Blackwell machines. As a preview, they shared the scores for the underway reasoning model relative to the who’s-who of today’s open models. It’s a big step for open models built in the U.S. to scale up like this. I won’t spoil all the details, so you still listen to the podcast, but their section of the blogpost on cost sets the tone well for the podcast, which is a very frank discussion on how and why to build open models:When we started this run, we had never pretrained anything remotely like this before.There was no guarantee this would work. Not the modeling, not the data, not the training itself, not the operational part where you wake up, and a job that costs real money is in a bad state, and you have to decide whether to restart or try to rescue it.All in—compute, salaries, data, storage, ops—we pulled off this entire effort for $20 million. 4 Models got us here in 6 months.That number is big for us. It’s also small compared to what frontier labs spend just to keep the lights on. We don’t have infinite retries.Once I post this, I’m going to dive right into trying the model, and I’m curious what you find too.Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and where ever you get your podcasts. For other Interconnects interviews, go here.GuestsLucas Atkins —X,LinkedIn — CTO; leads pretraining/architecture, wrote the Trinity Manifesto.Mark McQuade — X, LinkedIn — Founder/CEO; previously at Hugging Face (monetization), Roboflow. Focused on shipping enterprise-grade open-weight models + tooling.Varun Singh — LinkedIn — pretraining lead.Most of this interview is conducted with Lucas, but Mark and Varun make great additions at the right times.LinksCore:* Trinity Large (400B total, 13B active) collection, blog post. Instruct model today, reasoning models soon.* Trinity Mini, 26B total 3B active (base, including releasing pre-anneal checkpoint)* Trinity Nano Preview, 6B total 1B active (base)* Open Source Catalog: https://www.arcee.ai/open-source-catalog* API Docs and Playground (demo)* Socials: GitHub, Hugging Face, X, LinkedIn, YouTubeTrinity Models:* Trinity models page: https://www.arcee.ai/trinity* The Trinity Manifesto (I recommend you read it): https://www.arcee.ai/blog/the-trinity-manifesto* Trinity HF collection — (Trinity Mini & Trinity Nano Preview)Older models:* AFM-4.5B (and base model) — their first open, pretrained in-house model (blog post).* Five open-weights models (blog): three production models previously exclusive to their SaaS platform plus two research models, released as they shifted focus to AFM — Arcee-SuperNova-v1, Virtuoso-Large, Caller, GLM-4-32B-Base-32K, HomunculusOpen source tools:* MergeKit — model merging toolkit (LGPL license return)* DistillKit — knowledge distillation library* EvolKit — synthetic data generation via evolutionary methodsRelated:* Datology case study w/ ArceeChapters* 00:00:00 Intro: Arcee AI, Trinity Models & Trinity Large* 00:08:26 Transitioning a Company to Pre-training* 00:13:00 Technical Decisions: Muon and MoE* 00:18:41 Scaling and MoE Training Pain* 00:23:14 Post-training and RL Strategies* 00:28:09 Team Structure and Data Scaling* 00:31:31 The Trinity Manifesto: US Open Weights* 00:42:31 Specialized Models and Distillation* 00:47:12 Infrastructure and Hosting 400B* 00:50:53 Open Source as a Business Moat* 00:56:31 Predictions: Best Model in 2026* 01:02:29 Lightning Round & ConclusionsTranscriptTranscript generated with ElevenLabs Scribe v2 and cleaned with Claude Code with Opus 4.5.00:00:06 Nathan Lambert: I’m here with the Arcee AI team. I personally have become a bit of a fan of Arcee, ‘cause I think what they’re doing in trying to build a company around building open models is a valiant and very reasonable way to do this, ‘cause nobody really has a good business plan for open models, and you just gotta try to figure it out, and you gotta build better models over time. And like open-source software, building in public, I think, is the best way to do this. So this kind of gives you the wheels to get the, um... You get to hit the ground running on whatever you’re doing. And this week, they’re launching their biggest model to date, which I’m very excited to see more kind of large-scale MoE open models. I think we’ve seen, I don’t know, at least ten of these from different providers from China last year, and it’s obviously a thing that’s gonna be international, and a lot of people building models, and the US kind of, for whatever reason, has fewer people building, um, open models here. And I think that wherever people are building models, they can stand on the quality of the work. But whatever. I’ll stop rambling. I’ve got Lucas, Mark, um, Varun on the, on the phone here. I’ve known some of them, and I consider us friends. We’re gonna kind of talk through this model, talk through building open models in the US, so thanks for hopping on the pod.00:01:16 Mark McQuade: Thanks for having us.00:01:18 Lucas Atkins: Yeah, yeah. Thanks for having us. Excited.00:01:20 Varun Singh: Nice to be here.00:01:20 Nathan Lambert: What- what should people know about this Trinity Large? What’s the actual name of this model? Like, how stoked are you?00:01:29 Lucas Atkins: So to- yeah.00:01:29 Nathan Lambert: Like, are you, like, finally made it?00:01:32 Lucas Atkins: Uh, you know, we’re recording this a little bit before release, so it’s still like, you know, getting everything buttoned up, and inference going at that size is always a challenge, but we’re-- This has been, like, a six-month sprint since we released our first dense model, which is 4.5B, uh, in, in July of last year, 2025. So, um, it’s always been in service of releasing large. I- it’s a 400B, um, thirteen billion active sparse MoE, and, uh, yeah, we’re, we’re super excited. This has just been the entire thing the company’s focused on the last six months, so really nice to have kind of the fruits of that, uh, start to, start to be used by the people that you’re building it for.00:02:16 Nathan Lambert: Yeah, I would say, like, the realistic question: do you think this is landing in the ballpark of the models in the last six months? Like, that has to be what you shop for, is there’s a high bar- ... of open models out there and, like, on what you’re targeting. Do you feel like these hit these, and somebody that’s familiar, or like MiniMax is, like, two thirty total, something less. I, I don’t know what it is. It’s like ten to twenty B active, probably. Um, you have DeepSeeks in the six hundred range, and then you have Kimi at the one trillion range. So this is still, like, actually on the smaller side of some of the big MoEs- ... that people know, which is, like, freaking crazy, especially you said 13B active. It’s, like- ... very high on the sparsity side. So I don’t actually know how you think about comparing it among those. I was realizing that MiniMax is smaller, doing some data analysis. So I think that it’s like, actually, the comparison might be a little bit too forced, where you just have to make something that is good and figure out if people use it.00:03:06 Lucas Atkins: Yeah, I mean, if, if from raw compute, we’re, we’re roughly in the middle of MiniMax and then GLM 4.5, as far as, like, size. Right, GLM’s, like, three eighty, I believe, and, and thirty-four active. Um, so it-- you know, we go a little bit higher on the total, but we, we cut the, uh, the active in half. Um, it was definitely tricky when we decided we wanted to do this. Again, it was July when... It, it was July when we released, uh, the dense model, and then we immediately knew we wanted to kind of go, go for a really big one, and the, the tricky thing with that is knowing that it’s gonna take six months. You, you can’t really be tr-- you can’t be building the model to be competitive when you started designing it, because, you know, that, obviously, a lot happens in this industry in six months. So, um, when we threw out pre-training and, and a lot of our targets were the GLM 4.5 base model, um, because 4.6 and 4.7 have been, you know, post-training on top of that. Um, and, like, in performance-wise, it’s well within where we want it to be. Um, it’s gonna be... Technically, we’re calling it Trinity Large Preview because we just have a whole month of extra RL that we want to do. Um- But-00:04:29 Nathan Lambert: I’ve been, I’ve been there.00:04:31 Lucas Atkins: Yeah, yeah. But i- you know, we’re, we’re in the, um, you know, mid-eighties on AIME 2025, uh,

Two weeks ago, I wrote a review of how Claude Code is taking the AI world by storm, saying that “software engineering is going to look very different by the end of 2026." That article captured the power of Claude as a tool and a product, and I still stand by it, but it undersold the changes that are coming in how we use these products in careers that interface with software. The more personal angle was how “I’d rather do my work if it fits the Claude form factor, and soon I’ll modify my approaches so that Claude will be able to help.” Since writing that, I’m stuck with a growing sense that taking my approach to work from the last few years and applying it to working with agents is fundamentally wrong. Today’s habits in the era of agents would limit the uplift I get by micromanaging them too much, tiring myself out, and setting the agents on too small of tasks. What would be better is more open ended, more ambitious, more asynchronous. I don’t yet know what to prescribe myself, but I know the direction to go, and I know that searching is my job. It seems like the direction will involve working less, spending more time cultivating peace, so the brain can do its best directing — let the agents do most of the hard work.Since trying Claude Code with Opus 4.5, my work life has shifted closer to trying to adapt to a new way of working with agents. This new style of work feels like a larger shift than the era of learning to work with chat-based AI assistants. ChatGPT let me instantly get relevant information or a potential solution to the problems I was already working on. Claude Code has me considering what should I work on now that I know I can have AI independently solve or implement many sub-components. Every engineer needs to learn how to design systems. Every researcher needs to learn how to run a lab. Agents push the humans up the org chart.I feel like I have an advantage by being early to this wave, but no longer feel like just working hard will be an lasting edge. When I can have multiple agents working productively in parallel on my projects, my role is shifting more to pointing the army rather than using the power-tool. Pointing the agents more effectively is far more useful than me spending a few more hours grinding on a problem. My default workflow now is GPT 5 Pro for planning, Claude Code with Opus 4.5 for implementation. I often have Claude Code pass information back to GPT 5 Pro for a deep search when stuck with a very detailed prompt. Codex with GPT 5.2 on xhigh thinking effort alone feels very capable, more meticulous than Claude even, but I haven’t yet figured out how to get the best out of it. GPT Pro feels itself to be a strong agent trapped in the wrong UX — it needs to be able to think longer and have a place to work on research tasks.It seems like all of my friends (including the nominally “non-technical” ones) have accepted that Claude can rapidly build incredible, bespoke software for you. Claude updated one of my old research projects to uv so it’s easier to maintain, made a verification bot for my Discord, crafted numerous figures for my RLHF book, feels close to landing a substantial feature in our RL research codebase, and did countless other tasks that would’ve taken me days. It’s the thing de jour — tell your friends and family what trinket you built with Claude. It undersells what’s coming.I’ve taken to leaving Claude Code instances running on my DGX Spark trying to implement new features in our RL codebase when I’m at dinner or work. They make mistakes, they catch most of their own mistakes, and they’re fairly slow too, but they’re capable. I can’t wait to go home and check on what my Claudes were up to.Interconnects is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.The feeling that I can’t shake is a deep urgency to move my agents from working on toy software to doing meaningful long-term tasks. We know Claude can do hours, days, or weeks, of fun work for us, but how do we stack these bricks into coherent long-term projects? This is the crucial skill for the next era of work.There are no hints or guides on working with agents at the frontier — the only way is to play with them. Instead of using them for cleanup, give them one of your hardest tasks and see what it gets stuck on, see what you can use it for.Software is becoming free, good decision making in research, design, and product has never been so valuable.Being good at using AI today is a better moat than working hard.Here are a collection of pieces that I feel like suitably grapple with the coming wave or detail real practices for using agents. It’s rare that so many of the thinkers in the AI space that I respect are all fixated on a single new tool, a transition period, and a feeling of immense change:* Import AI 441: My agents are working. Are yours? This helped me motivate to write this and focus on how important of a moment this is.* Steve Newman on Hyperproductivity with AI coding agents — importantly written before Claude Opus 4.5, which was a major step change.* Tim Dettmers on working with agents: Use Agents or Be Left Behind? * Steve Yegge on Latent Space on vibe coding (and how you’ll be left behind if you don’t understand how to do it).* Dean W. Ball: Among the Agents — why coding agents aren’t just for programmers. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe

I’ll start by explaining my current AI stack and how it’s changed in recent months. For chat, I’m using a mix of:* GPT 5.2 Thinking / Pro: My most frequent AI use is getting information. This is often a detail about a paper I’m remembering, a method I’m verifying for my RLHF Book, or some other niche fact. I know GPT 5.2 can find it if it exists, and I use Thinking for queries that I think are easier and Pro when I want to make sure the answer is right. Particularly GPT Pro has been the indisputable king for research for quite some time — Simon Willison’s coining of it as his “research goblin” still feels right.I never use GPT 5 without thinking or other OpenAI chat models. Maybe I need to invest more in custom instructions, but the non-thinking models always come across a bit sloppy relative to the competition out there and I quickly churn. I’ve heard gossip that the Thinking and non-Thinking GPT models are even developed by different teams, so it would make sense that they can end up being meaningfully different.I also rarely use Deep Research from any provider, opting for GPT 5.2 Pro and more specific instructions. In the first half of 2025 I almost exclusively used ChatGPT’s thinking models — Anthropic and Google have done good work to win back some of my attention.* Claude 4.5 Opus: Chatting with Claude is where I go for basic code questions, visualizing simple data, and getting richer feedback on my work or decisions. Opus’s tone is particularly refreshing when trying to push the models a bit (in a way that GPT 4.5 used to provide for me, as I was a power user of that model in H1 2025). Claude Opus 4.5 isn’t particularly fast relative to a lot of models out there, but when you’re used to using the GPT Thinking models like me, it feels way faster (even with extended thinking always on, as I do) and sufficient for this type of work.* Gemini 3 Pro: Gemini is for everything else — explaining concepts I know are well covered in the training data (and minor hallucinations are okay, e.g. my former Google rabbit holes), multimodality, and sometimes very long-context capabilities (but GPT 5.2 Thinking took a big step here, so it’s a bit closer). I still open and use the Gemini app regularly, but it’s a bit less locked-in than the other two.Relative to ChatGPT, sometimes I feel like the search mode of Gemini is a bit off. It could be a product decision with how the information is presented to the user, but GPT’s thorough, repeated search over multiple sources instills a confidence I don’t get from Gemini for recent or research information.* Grok 4: I use Grok ~monthly to try and find some piece of AI news or Alpha I recall from browsing X. Grok is likely underrated in terms of its intelligence (particularly Grok 4 was an impressive technical release), but it hasn’t had sticky product or differentiating features for me.For images I’m using a mix of mostly Nano Banana Pro and sometimes GPT Image 1.5 when Gemini can’t quite get it. For coding, I’m primarily using Claude Opus 4.5 in Claude Code, but still sometimes find myself needing OpenAI’s Codex or even multi-LLM setups like Amp. Over the holiday break, Claude Opus helped me update all the plots for The ATOM Project, which included substantial processing of our raw data from scraping HuggingFace, perform substantive edits for the RLHF Book (where I felt it was a quite good editor when provided with detailed instructions on what it should do), and other side projects and life organization tasks. I recently published a piece explaining my current obsession with Claude Opus 4.5, I recommend you read it if you haven’t had the chance:A summary of this is that I pay for the best models and greatly value the marginal intelligence over speed — particularly because, for a lot of the tasks I do, I find that the models are just starting to be able to do them well. As these capabilities diffuse in 2026, speed will become more of a determining factor in model selection.Peter Wildeford had a post on X with a nice graphic that reflected a very similar usage pattern:Across all of these categories, it doesn’t feel like I could get away with just using one of these models without taking a substantial haircut in capabilities. This is a very strong endorsement for the notion of AI being jagged — i.e. with very strong capabilities spread out unevenly — while also being a bit of an unusual way to need to use a product. Each model is jagged in its own way. Through 2023, 2024, and the earlier days of modern AI, it quite often felt like there was always just one winning model and keeping up was easier. Today, it takes a lot of work and fiddling to make sure you’re not missing out on capabilities.The working pattern that I’ve formed that most reinforces this using multiple models era is how often my problem with an AI model is solved by passing the same query to a peer model. Models get stuck, some can’t find bugs, some coding agents keep getting stuck on some weird, suboptimal approach, and so on. In these cases, it feels quite common to boot up a peer model or agent and get it to unblock project.This multi-model approach or agent-switching happening occasionally would be what I’d expect, but with it happening regularly it means that the models are actually all quite close to being able to solve the tasks I’m throwing at them — they’re just not quite there. The intuition here is that if we view each task as having a probability of success, if said the probability was low for each model, switching would almost always fail. For switching to regularly solve the task, each model must have a fairly high probability of success.For the time being, it seems like tasks at the frontier of AI capabilities will always keep this model-switching meta, but it’s a moving suite of capabilities. The things I need to switch on now will soon be solved by all the next-generation of models.I’m very happy with the value I’m getting out of my hundreds of dollars of AI subscriptions, and you should likely consider doing the same if you work in a domain that sounds similar to mine.Interconnects is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.On the opposite side of the frontier models pushing to make current cutting edge tasks 100% reliable are open models pushing to undercut the price of frontier models. The coding plans on open models tend to cost 10X (or more) less than the frontier lab plans. It’s a boring take, but for the next few years I expect this gap to largely remain steady, where a lot of people get an insane value out of the cutting edge of models. It’ll take longer for the open model undercut to hit the frontier labs, even though from basic principles it looks like a precarious position for them to be in, in terms of costs of R&D and deployment. Open models haven’t been remotely close to Claude 4.5 Opus or GPT 5.2 Thinking in my use.The other factor is that 2025 gave us all of Deep Research agents, code/CLI agents, search (and Pro) tool use models, and there will almost certainly be new form factors we end up using almost every day in released 2026. Historically, closed labs have been better at shipping new products into the world, but with better open models this should be more diffused, as good product capabilities are very diffuse across the tech ecosystem. To capitalize on this, you need to invest time (and money) trying all the cutting-edge AI tools you can get your hands on. Don’t be loyal to one provider. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe

There is an incredible amount of hype for Claude Code with Opus 4.5 across the web right now, which I for better or worse entirely agree with. Having used coding agents extensively for the past 6-9 months, where it felt like sometimes OpenAI’s Codex was the best and sometimes Claude, there was some meaningful jump over the last few weeks. The jump is well captured by this post, which called it the move of “software creation from an artisanal, craftsman activity to a true industrial process.” Translation: Software is becoming free and human design, specification, and entrepreneurship is the only limiting factor.What is odd is that this latest Opus model was released on November 24, 2025, and the performance jump in Claude Code seemed to come at least weeks after its integration — I wouldn’t be surprised if a small product change unlocked massive real (or perceived) gains in performance.Interconnects is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.The joy and excitement I feel when using this latest model in Claude Code is so simple that it necessitates writing about it. It feels right in line with trying ChatGPT for the first time or realizing o3 could find any information I was looking for, but in an entirely new direction. This time, it is the commodification of building. I type and outputs are constructed directly. Claude’s perfect mix of light sycophancy, extreme productivity, and an elegantly crafted application has me coming up with things to do with Claude. I’d rather do my work if it fits the Claude form factor, and soon I’ll modify my approaches so that Claude will be able to help. In a near but obvious future I’ll just manage my Claudes from my phone at the coffee shop.Where Claude is an excellent model, maybe the best, its product is where the magic happens for building with AI that instills confidence. We could see the interfaces the models are used in being so important to performance, such that Anthropic’s approach with Claude feels like Apple’s integration of hardware, software, and everything in between. This sort of magical experience is not one I expect to be only buildable by Anthropic — they’re just the first to get there. The fact that Claude makes people want to go back to it is going to create new ways of working with these models and software engineering is going to look very different by the end of 2026. Right now Claude (and other models) can replicate the most-used software fairly easily. We’re in a weird spot where I’d guess they can add features to fairly complex applications like Slack, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through in landing the feature (including very understandable code quality standards within production code-bases), so the models are way easier to use when building from scratch than in production code-bases. This dynamic amplifies the transition and power shift of software, where countless people who have never fully built something with code before can get more value out of it. It will rebalance the software and tech industry to favor small organizations and startups like Interconnects that have flexibility and can build from scratch in new repositories designed for AI agents. It’s an era to be first defined by bespoke software rather than a handful of mega-products used across the world. The list of what’s already commoditized is growing in scope and complexity fast — website frontends, mini applications on any platform, data analysis tools — all without having to know how to write code.I expect mental barriers people have about Claude’s ability to handle complex codebases to come crashing down throughout the year, as more and more Claude-pilled engineers just tell their friends “skill issue.” With these coding agents all coming out last year, the labs are still learning how to best train models to be well-expressed in the form factor. It’ll be a defining story of 2026 as the commodification of software expands outside of the bubble of people deeply obsessed with AI. There are things that Claude can’t do well and will take longer to solve, but these are more like corner cases and for most people immense value can be built around these blockers. The other part that many people will miss is that Claude Code doesn’t need to be restricted to just software development — it can control your entire computer. People are starting to use it for managing their email, calendars, decision making, referencing their notes, and everything in between. The crucial aspect is that Claude is designed around the command line interface (CLI), which is an open door into the digital world. The DGX Spark on my desk can be a mini AI research and development station managed by Claude.This complete interface managing my entire internet life is the beginnings of current AI models feeling like they’re continually learning. Whenever Claude makes a mistake or does something that doesn’t match your taste, dump a reminder into CLAUDE.md, it’s as simple as that. To quote Doug OLaughlin, my brother in arms of Claude fandom, Claude with a 100X context window and 100X the speed will be AGI. By the end of 2026 we definitely could get the first 10X of both with the massive buildout of compute starting to become available.Happy building. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe

Nathan sits down with Florian, our open model analyst to get spicy into debates of which labs won and lost momentum in open models of 2025. Reflection 70B, Huawei repackaging someone else's model as their own, the fall of Llama — no drama is left unturned. We also dig into the nuances that we didn't get to in our post, predict GPT-OSS 2, the American v. China balance at the end of 2026, and many other fun topics.Enjoy & let us know if we should do more of this.For the full year in review post, and to see our tier list, click here: Watch on YouTube here: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.interconnects.ai/subscribe