“we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models.” i mean props to them for straight coming clean. (so far the proof looks more along the lines of another euler blowup proof we had, off of whose ansatz naming we were making really stupid puns like “smooth criminale”, unlike the much better “ideal fluids explode”, Tristan) so i’ll now give a bit on my thinking here. i actually woulda been pumped to collaborate on this, there are a lot of people at oai i like (ok, clearly some were indirectly dicks to me because of being part of the whole situation, but im a big boy, i still like them), idgaf about authorship on that step anyway, coulda been me Tristan and every fte at oai for all i care (on that Tristan would disagree:p). but on hearing the loud convo in the hallway, especially the part where a millennium prize was offered if i’d just be removed from the paper, it was kinda clear the die had been cast and things were locked. pretty wacky, unstrategic, and unnecessary, since on my side things were mostly me and claude having a good time yoloing random stuff in the corner rather than anything institutional. i also like the idea of the labs cooperating, and even better on scientific progress. it’s a shame!

I would like to clarify a few things: 1) The screenshot is my reaching out to Levent to coordinate our releases. I hope it’s clear from the message that we came in with the best possible intentions. 2) I never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship of his own work (as indicated by my text). I was surprised to learn during the call with Tristan that they had only solved Euler and not Navier-Stokes; after learning this we brainstormed possible paths forward. One option we discussed was that Tristan could be the lead author on a rewrite of OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes proof. It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. Importantly it was admitted that internal Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic. Another option I wanted to propose (but got cut short) is to offer access to our internal model so that they could try to finish their proof and bridge the gap between Euler and NS. Again I did not know how to navigate giving access to internal OpenAI IP to an Anthropic employee. 3) To reiterate it plainly: as my text clearly indicates, and as I said during our call, OpenAI's intention was to do everything possible to celebrate their mathematical achievements and the heroic efforts that they made on Euler. In the call I was immediately met with a litany of slander, including direct threats that if we were to announce Navier-Stokes he would immediately go to the press with a barrage of unfounded accusations. I refuted all these accusations but he replied “there is nothing you can do, I simply do not trust you”. I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering, which is when I said that I did not understand why one would risk their career [over unfounded accusations]. Genuinely, at that moment, I was trying to care for him and do a last ditch attempt to get a chance to give them all the credits that they deserve. I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey. (I should say that I retracted them on the spot by the way.) 4) Overall, on a personal level, it was incredibly difficult to have these conversations. Levent refused to attend any of the meetings despite my repeated asking. As Sholto Douglas said, there will need to be coordination between Anthropic and OpenAI in the future; I felt I was doing a proxy negotiation with Anthropic while the Anthropic employee refused to directly participate.

We’re sharing a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, one of the deepest problems at the frontier of mathematics. The proof was produced by a group of agents, using an OpenAI next-generation model significantly more capable than GPT-6 Astra. The problem concerns whether the description of smooth three-dimensional fluid motion modeled by the Navier-Stokes equations can break down. It has remained unresolved for roughly 90 years.

The H100 is a three-year-old training chip. Its rental price is up 22 percent on the month, to $3.28 an hour. Every depreciation schedule assumes a chip this old only loses value. The market is paying up for it instead.

@ChaseLochmiller @OpenAI GPT-6 Astra, trained on ~100K+ NVIDIA Grace Blackwell NVLink72. From ChatGPT to o1 to Astra in 4 years. AGI has arrived. Congratulations @OpenAI team. 400K GPUs coming online next.

World Labs co-founders Fei-Fei Li, Justin Johnson, Ben Mildenhall, and a16z's Martin Casado on Atlas, a world model for spatial intelligence: LLMs are built on next token prediction. Video models are built on next frame prediction. Atlas is built on new view prediction, and it's the first model to unify pixel generation and pixel reconstruction, two problems computer vision has kept in separate tracks for half a century. The practical result is a 50 to 100x reduction in what it takes to digitally capture a 3D representation of a space. Previously, you needed 100 to 300 photos of a single room. Atlas can work from just three. In this conversation, they get into the slow motion shot from The Matrix that took hundreds of cameras and now takes three iPhones, the overnight Slack message that made them bet the company in five seconds, why robotics is bottlenecked on data rather than chips, and the case that new view prediction is AI-complete. 00:00 Intro 01:50 The Matrix slow motion scene now takes three iPhones 02:48 Why new view prediction is the primitive 07:10 Unifying generation and reconstruction 11:15 Gaussian splats became the bottleneck 14:17 Dense capture used to mean 300 photos 17:30 Why reconstruction needs generation to fill the gaps 18:44 The LLM lesson image models missed 23:39 The video that made them go all in 28:04 3D design is 95% revisions 30:50 The problem in robotics is data, not chips 32:48 Why a robot policy can't be trained like an image model 34:44 When the simulator becomes the planner 36:45 Frozen time required footage full of movement 40:57 Why new view prediction is AI-complete 42:43 Nature gave animals eyes but not trees YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn1QDDBnTA0 @drfeifei @jcjohnss @BenMildenhall @theworldlabs @martin_casado

We spent >20B tokens throwing @openai's Astra at every AI Engineering task we could think of, beyond cute Blender demos and fun games. https://latent.space/p/astra Here's everything Astra can do, and do so at <$6 an hour (serious): - choose and train models - label data (both helping you label and then using your labels for active learning) - keep pipelines saturated - instrument and read logs - deploy and debug entire systems in one shot - fan out and command and eval subagents (including agents running other models) - keep coherence over billions of tokens of a single agent thread. more to come on @swyx's coverage of the Fable- and Astra-class of 2026!

Regret the tone of my post on data centers yesterday. What I should have said: There were reasonable concerns about data centers 18ish months ago: water, taxes, jobs, electricity prices, the environment and what they would do to small towns. Well-structured data center projects have largely addressed these concerns today and we should be celebrating this. On balance, data centers are awesome for America in every way. On water: U.S. data centers use a fraction of what golf courses use. A lot of the numbers from 18 months ago were off by over 1000x. Newer data centers use closed-loop systems or recycled water. Should be required by every town approving a data center project. On taxes: looking only at sales-tax exemptions, as Ronan Farrow did, is the wrong way to evaluate this. Data centers pay significant property taxes. Loudoun County, which is the wealthiest county in America, now collects on the order of $1 billion a year from data centers. In Quincy, WA, data centers are more than half the property-tax roll. Over time, property taxes can go to zero while government spending increases in these towns. On jobs: this has been unambiguously awesome for blue collar Americans. Demand for electricians, plumbers, welders, HVAC techs, and contractors has gone vertical, and it is not a one-time construction job. These buildings get upgraded and expanded over time. That is why the building trades are fighting for them, and why some unions are now treating opposition to data centers as a reason not to endorse politicians. On power: the original fear was that households would pay for the incremental electricity demand in the form of higher prices. That is why the ratepayer-protection deals and the new large-load tariffs exist. The right structure is: the data center brings or pays for new generation and signs a contract long enough that existing customers are protected. Where that is happening, utilities are cutting or freezing residential rates and saying so on the record. Where it is not, people are right to object. Electricity prices are going down *today* in a number of large states because of data centers. 
On the environment: data centers overwhelming use natural gas today, which is the cleanest power source outside of nuclear, solar and wind. And the companies that are building the data centers are committed to carbon neutrality such that an equivalent amount of solar will likely be built. Maybe more importantly, the data centers need batteries to function effectively and these batteries can also sell energy back into the grid (which recently prevented blackouts in Texas). Over time, data centers will run on solar plus batteries. On the towns: Poverty in Quincy, WA fell from 29% to 6%. Data center taxes paid for a new high school, a hospital, a library, police and fire stations. This is happening in many left for dead former mill and farm towns that had no other bidder for the land. Data centers are actually reindustrializing parts of America and creating the kind of working-class jobs both parties have spent decades claiming to support. That should not be a partisan issue. Data centers can and should be awesome for America and they increasingly, overwhelmingly are. Supporting the outsourcing of data centers to China will likely age just as well as support for the outsourcing of high quality, blue collar manufacturing jobs to China has aged. When the facts change, I change my mind. I hope that reasonable people who had good faith reasons to oppose data centers at least consider updating their beliefs given the change in the facts over the last 18 months. This really matters for America. I will say I also think the idea of making data centers beautiful is a good one that has yet to be implemented. Data centers should be just as beautiful as Grand Central Station. We can learn a lot from the railroad buildout. Neoclassical revival ftw. Might write up open-weight AI tomorrow as this is equally essential to America.

Grok @Bot has made a few simple yet powerful technical decisions that I believe make it easy and enjoyable to use. 1. The best UI is none at all. The product interface is dramatically simpler than alternatives without sacrificing functionality. How is this possible? It's one of the first products designed for current frontier model capabilities and has a UI restrained enough to remain easy to use as models improve exponentially. Everyone knows how to text. 2. A thin harness for the client, a thick harness for the server. You might have noticed the app feels very fluid to use, even for a beta product. This is primarily because of everything we didn't have to build. The app harness is essentially a single tool to send messages between the client and server. The complexity moves to the server, where you can still use the coding agent harness with specialized tools as needed. This helps make the UI fast and responsive on desktop and mobile. 3. An always-on computer. Most coding agents and assistants today start fresh with every question you ask. Some of these sessions are on your local machine and others happen in the cloud. We believe strongly that cloud is the future, which is why it's the only option. Further, rather than spinning up virtual machines for every conversation, your bots connect to their own computer. This means you can still run agents on the bot's persistent filesystem. It's closer to what programmers have been doing by using Tailscale from their phones to connect to a remote computer and run an agent TUI. You get those capabilities without the hassle. 4. Your bots can use the browser. Coding agents have shown that most work on a computer can be expressed and run as code. You can ask for a task in natural language and the agent will decide to write a script to complete it. This is amazing, but there's still many tasks which can't be completed without logging into a website and clicking around the browser. Models and harnesses are now good enough to reliably handle this. The combination of writing code and using browsers means you can automate almost any task on a computer. Further, you can ask Grok Bot to record you doing the task, and then turn it into something repeatable.