Latent Space: The AI Engineer Podcast

• Outlasting Noam Shazeer, crowdsourcing Chat + AI with >1.4m DAU, and becoming the "Western DeepSeek" — with William Beauchamp, Chai Research

  One last Gold sponsor slot is available for the AI Engineer Summit in NYC. Our last round of invites is going out soon - apply here - If you are building AI agents or AI eng teams, this will be the single highest-signal conference of the year for you!While the world melts down over DeepSeek, few are talking about the OTHER notable group of former hedge fund traders who pivoted into AI and built a remarkably profitable consumer AI business with a tiny team with incredibly cracked engineering team — Chai Research. In short order they have:* Started a Chat AI company well before Noam Shazeer started Character AI, and outlasted his departure.* Crossed 1m DAU in 2.5 years - William updates us on the pod that they’ve hit 1.4m DAU now, another +40% from a few months ago. Revenue crossed >$22m. * Launched the Chaiverse model crowdsourcing platform - taking 3-4 week A/B testing cycles down to 3-4 hours, and deploying >100 models a week.While they’re not paying million dollar salaries, you can tell they’re doing pretty well for an 11 person startup:The Chai Recipe: Building infra for rapid evalsRemember how the central thesis of LMarena (formerly LMsys) is that the only comprehensive way to evaluate LLMs is to let users try them out and pick winners?At the core of Chai is a mobile app that looks like Character AI, but is actually the largest LLM A/B testing arena in the world, specialized on retaining chat users for Chai’s usecases (therapy, assistant, roleplay, etc). It’s basically what LMArena would be if taken very, very seriously at one company (with $1m in prizes to boot):Chai publishes occasional research on how they think about this, including talks at their Palo Alto office:William expands upon this in today’s podcast (34 mins in):Fundamentally, the way I would describe it is when you're building anything in life, you need to be able to evaluate it. And through evaluation, you can iterate, we can look at benchmarks, and we can say the issues with benchmarks and why they may not generalize as well as one would hope in the challenges of working with them. But something that works incredibly well is getting feedback from humans. And so we built this thing where anyone can submit a model to our developer backend, and it gets put in front of 5000 users, and the users can rate it. And we can then have a really accurate ranking of like which model, or users finding more engaging or more entertaining. And it gets, you know, it's at this point now, where every day we're able to, I mean, we evaluate between 20 and 50 models, LLMs, every single day, right. So even though we've got only got a team of, say, five AI researchers, they're able to iterate a huge quantity of LLMs, right. So our team ships, let's just say minimum 100 LLMs a week is what we're able to iterate through. Now, before that moment in time, we might iterate through three a week, we might, you know, there was a time when even doing like five a month was a challenge, right? By being able to change the feedback loops to the point where it's not, let's launch these three models, let's do an A-B test, let's assign, let's do different cohorts, let's wait 30 days to see what the day 30 retention is, which is the kind of the, if you're doing an app, that's like A-B testing 101 would be, do a 30-day retention test, assign different treatments to different cohorts and come back in 30 days. So that's insanely slow. That's just, it's too slow. And so we were able to get that 30-day feedback loop all the way down to something like three hours.In Crowdsourcing the leap to Ten Trillion-Parameter AGI, William describes Chai’s routing as a recommender system, which makes a lot more sense to us than previous pitches for model routing startups:William is notably counter-consensus in a lot of his AI product principles:* No streaming: Chats appear all at once to allow rejection sampling* No voice: Chai actually beat Character AI to introducing voice - but removed it after finding that it was far from a killer feature.* Blending: “Something that we love to do at Chai is blending, which is, you know, it's the simplest way to think about it is you're going to end up, and you're going to pretty quickly see you've got one model that's really smart, one model that's really funny. How do you get the user an experience that is both smart and funny? Well, just 50% of the requests, you can serve them the smart model, 50% of the requests, you serve them the funny model.” (that’s it!)But chief above all is the recommender system.We also referenced Exa CEO Will Bryk’s concept of SuperKnowlege:Full Video versionOn YouTube. please like and subscribe!Timestamps* 00:00:04 Introductions and background of William Beauchamp* 00:01:19 Origin story of Chai AI* 00:04:40 Transition from finance to AI* 00:11:36 Initial product development and idea maze for Chai* 00:16:29 User psychology and engagement with AI companions* 00:20:00 Origin of the Chai name* 00:22:01 Comparison with Character AI and funding challenges* 00:25:59 Chai's growth and user numbers* 00:34:53 Key inflection points in Chai's growth* 00:42:10 Multi-modality in AI companions and focus on user-generated content* 00:46:49 Chaiverse developer platform and model evaluation* 00:51:58 Views on AGI and the nature of AI intelligence* 00:57:14 Evaluation methods and human feedback in AI development* 01:02:01 Content creation and user experience in Chai* 01:04:49 Chai Grant program and company culture* 01:07:20 Inference optimization and compute costs* 01:09:37 Rejection sampling and reward models in AI generation* 01:11:48 Closing thoughts and recruitmentTranscriptAlessio [00:00:04]: Hey everyone, welcome to the Latent Space podcast. This is Alessio, partner and CTO at Decibel, and today we're in the Chai AI office with my usual co-host, Swyx.swyx [00:00:14]: Hey, thanks for having us. It's rare that we get to get out of the office, so thanks for inviting us to your home. We're in the office of Chai with William Beauchamp. Yeah, that's right. You're founder of Chai AI, but previously, I think you're concurrently also running your fund?William [00:00:29]: Yep, so I was simultaneously running an algorithmic trading company, but I fortunately was able to kind of exit from that, I think just in Q3 last year. Yeah, congrats. Yeah, thanks.swyx [00:00:43]: So Chai has always been on my radar because, well, first of all, you do a lot of advertising, I guess, in the Bay Area, so it's working. Yep. And second of all, the reason I reached out to a mutual friend, Joyce, was because I'm just generally interested in the... ...consumer AI space, chat platforms in general. I think there's a lot of inference insights that we can get from that, as well as human psychology insights, kind of a weird blend of the two. And we also share a bit of a history as former finance people crossing over. I guess we can just kind of start it off with the origin story of Chai.William [00:01:19]: Why decide working on a consumer AI platform rather than B2B SaaS? So just quickly touching on the background in finance. Sure. Originally, I'm from... I'm from the UK, born in London. And I was fortunate enough to go study economics at Cambridge. And I graduated in 2012. And at that time, everyone in the UK and everyone on my course, HFT, quant trading was really the big thing. It was like the big wave that was happening. So there was a lot of opportunity in that space. And throughout college, I'd sort of played poker. So I'd, you know, I dabbled as a professional poker player. And I was able to accumulate this sort of, you know, say $100,000 through playing poker. And at the time, as my friends would go work at companies like ChangeStreet or Citadel, I kind of did the maths. And I just thought, well, maybe if I traded my own capital, I'd probably come out ahead. I'd make more money than just going to work at ChangeStreet.swyx [00:02:20]: With 100k base as capital?William [00:02:22]: Yes, yes. That's not a lot. Well, it depends what strategies you're doing. And, you know, there is an advantage. There's an advantage to being small, right? Because there are, if you have a 10... Strategies that don't work in size. Exactly, exactly. So if you have a fund of $10 million, if you find a little anomaly in the market that you might be able to make 100k a year from, that's a 1% return on your 10 million fund. If your fund is 100k, that's 100% return, right? So being small, in some sense, was an advantage. So started off, and the, taught myself Python, and machine learning was like the big thing as well. Machine learning had really, it was the first, you know, big time machine learning was being used for image recognition, neural networks come out, you get dropout. And, you know, so this, this was the big thing that's going on at the time. So I probably spent my first three years out of Cambridge, just building neural networks, building random forests to try and predict asset prices, right, and then trade that using my own money. And that went well. And, you know, if you if you start something, and it goes well, you You try and hire more people. And the first people that came to mind was the talented people I went to college with. And so I hired some friends. And that went well and hired some more. And eventually, I kind of ran out of friends to hire. And so that was when I formed the company. And from that point on, we had our ups and we had our downs. And that was a whole long story and journey in itself. But after doing that for about eight or nine years, on my 30th birthday, which was four years ago now, I kind of took a step back to just evaluate my life, right? This is what one does when one turns 30. You know, I just heard it. I hear you. And, you know, I looked at my 20s and I loved it. It was a really special time. I was really lucky and fortunate to have worked with this amazing team, been successful, had a lot of hard times. And through the hard times, learned wisdom and then a lot of success and, you know, was able to enjoy it. And so the company was making about five million pounds a year. And it was just me and a team of, say, 15, like, Oxford and Cambridge educated mathematicians and physicists. It was like the real dream that you'd have if you wanted to start a quant trading firm. It was like...swyx [00:04:40]: Your own, all your own money?William [00:04:41]: Yeah, exactly. It was all the team's own money. We had no customers complaining to us about issues. There's no investors, you know, saying, you know, they don't like the risk that we're taking. We could. We could really run the thing exactly as we wanted it. It's like Susquehanna or like Rintec. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And they're the companies that we would kind of look towards as we were building that thing out. But on my 30th birthday, I look and I say, OK, great. This thing is making as much money as kind of anyone would really need. And I thought, well, what's going to happen if we keep going in this direction? And it was clear that we would never have a kind of a big, big impact on the world. We can enrich ourselves. We can make really good money. Everyone on the team would be paid very, very well. Presumably, I can make enough money to buy a yacht or something. But this stuff wasn't that important to me. And so I felt a sort of obligation that if you have this much talent and if you have a talented team, especially as a founder, you want to be putting all that talent towards a good use. I looked at the time of like getting into crypto and I had a really strong view on crypto, which was that as far as a gambling device. This is like the most fun form of gambling invented in like ever super fun, I thought as a way to evade monetary regulations and banking restrictions. I think it's also absolutely amazing. So it has two like killer use cases, not so much banking the unbanked, but everything else, but everything else to do with like the blockchain and, and you know, web, was it web 3.0 or web, you know, that I, that didn't, it didn't really make much sense. And so instead of going into crypto, which I thought, even if I was successful, I'd end up in a lot of trouble. I thought maybe it'd be better to build something that governments wouldn't have a problem with. I knew that LLMs were like a thing. I think opening. I had said they hadn't released GPT-3 yet, but they'd said GPT-3 is so powerful. We can't release it to the world or something. Was it GPT-2? And then I started interacting with, I think Google had open source, some language models. They weren't necessarily LLMs, but they, but they were. But yeah, exactly. So I was able to play around with, but nowadays so many people have interacted with the chat GPT, they get it, but it's like the first time you, you can just talk to a computer and it talks back. It's kind of a special moment and you know, everyone who's done that goes like, wow, this is how it should be. Right. It should be like, rather than having to type on Google and search, you should just be able to ask Google a question. When I saw that I read the literature, I kind of came across the scaling laws and I think even four years ago. All the pieces of the puzzle were there, right? Google had done this amazing research and published, you know, a lot of it. Open AI was still open. And so they'd published a lot of their research. And so you really could be fully informed on, on the state of AI and where it was going. And so at that point I was confident enough, it was worth a shot. I think LLMs are going to be the next big thing. And so that's the thing I want to be building in, in that space. And I thought what's the most impactful product I can possibly build. And I thought it should be a platform. So I myself love platforms. I think they're fantastic because they open up an ecosystem where anyone can contribute to it. Right. So if you think of a platform like a YouTube, instead of it being like a Hollywood situation where you have to, if you want to make a TV show, you have to convince Disney to give you the money to produce it instead, anyone in the world can post any content they want to YouTube. And if people want to view it, the algorithm is going to promote it. Nowadays. You can look at creators like Mr. Beast or Joe Rogan. They would have never have had that opportunity unless it was for this platform. Other ones like Twitter's a great one, right? But I would consider Wikipedia to be a platform where instead of the Britannica encyclopedia, which is this, it's like a monolithic, you get all the, the researchers together, you get all the data together and you combine it in this, in this one monolithic source. Instead. You have this distributed thing. You can say anyone can host their content on Wikipedia. Anyone can contribute to it. And anyone can maybe their contribution is they delete stuff. When I was hearing like the kind of the Sam Altman and kind of the, the Muskian perspective of AI, it was a very kind of monolithic thing. It was all about AI is basically a single thing, which is intelligence. Yeah. Yeah. The more intelligent, the more compute, the more intelligent, and the more and better AI researchers, the more intelligent, right? They would speak about it as a kind of erased, like who can get the most data, the most compute and the most researchers. And that would end up with the most intelligent AI. But I didn't believe in any of that. I thought that's like the total, like I thought that perspective is the perspective of someone who's never actually done machine learning. Because with machine learning, first of all, you see that the performance of the models follows an S curve. So it's not like it just goes off to infinity, right? And the, the S curve, it kind of plateaus around human level performance. And you can look at all the, all the machine learning that was going on in the 2010s, everything kind of plateaued around the human level performance. And we can think about the self-driving car promises, you know, how Elon Musk kept saying the self-driving car is going to happen next year, it's going to happen next, next year. Or you can look at the image recognition, the speech recognition. You can look at. All of these things, there was almost nothing that went superhuman, except for something like AlphaGo. And we can speak about why AlphaGo was able to go like super superhuman. So I thought the most likely thing was going to be this, I thought it's not going to be a monolithic thing. That's like an encyclopedia Britannica. I thought it must be a distributed thing. And I actually liked to look at the world of finance for what I think a mature machine learning ecosystem would look like. So, yeah. So finance is a machine learning ecosystem because all of these quant trading firms are running machine learning algorithms, but they're running it on a centralized platform like a marketplace. And it's not the case that there's one giant quant trading company of all the data and all the quant researchers and all the algorithms and compute, but instead they all specialize. So one will specialize on high frequency training. Another will specialize on mid frequency. Another one will specialize on equity. Another one will specialize. And I thought that's the way the world works. That's how it is. And so there must exist a platform where a small team can produce an AI for a unique purpose. And they can iterate and build the best thing for that, right? And so that was the vision for Chai. So we wanted to build a platform for LLMs.Alessio [00:11:36]: That's kind of the maybe inside versus contrarian view that led you to start the company. Yeah. And then what was maybe the initial idea maze? Because if somebody told you that was the Hugging Face founding story, people might believe it. It's kind of like a similar ethos behind it. How did you land on the product feature today? And maybe what were some of the ideas that you discarded that initially you thought about?William [00:11:58]: So the first thing we built, it was fundamentally an API. So nowadays people would describe it as like agents, right? But anyone could write a Python script. They could submit it to an API. They could send it to the Chai backend and we would then host this code and execute it. So that's like the developer side of the platform. On their Python script, the interface was essentially text in and text out. An example would be the very first bot that I created. I think it was a Reddit news bot. And so it would first, it would pull the popular news. Then it would prompt whatever, like I just use some external API for like Burr or GPT-2 or whatever. Like it was a very, very small thing. And then the user could talk to it. So you could say to the bot, hi bot, what's the news today? And it would say, this is the top stories. And you could chat with it. Now four years later, that's like perplexity or something. That's like the, right? But back then the models were first of all, like really, really dumb. You know, they had an IQ of like a four year old. And users, there really wasn't any demand or any PMF for interacting with the news. So then I was like, okay. Um. So let's make another one. And I made a bot, which was like, you could talk to it about a recipe. So you could say, I'm making eggs. Like I've got eggs in my fridge. What should I cook? And it'll say, you should make an omelet. Right. There was no PMF for that. No one used it. And so I just kept creating bots. And so every single night after work, I'd be like, okay, I like, we have AI, we have this platform. I can create any text in textile sort of agent and put it on the platform. And so we just create stuff night after night. And then all the coders I knew, I would say, yeah, this is what we're going to do. And then I would say to them, look, there's this platform. You can create any like chat AI. You should put it on. And you know, everyone's like, well, chatbots are super lame. We want absolutely nothing to do with your chatbot app. No one who knew Python wanted to build on it. I'm like trying to build all these bots and no consumers want to talk to any of them. And then my sister who at the time was like just finishing college or something, I said to her, I was like, if you want to learn Python, you should just submit a bot for my platform. And she, she built a therapy for me. And I was like, okay, cool. I'm going to build a therapist bot. And then the next day I checked the performance of the app and I'm like, oh my God, we've got 20 active users. And they spent, they spent like an average of 20 minutes on the app. I was like, oh my God, what, what bot were they speaking to for an average of 20 minutes? And I looked and it was the therapist bot. And I went, oh, this is where the PMF is. There was no demand for, for recipe help. There was no demand for news. There was no demand for dad jokes or pub quiz or fun facts or what they wanted was they wanted the therapist bot. the time I kind of reflected on that and I thought, well, if I want to consume news, the most fun thing, most fun way to consume news is like Twitter. It's not like the value of there being a back and forth, wasn't that high. Right. And I thought if I need help with a recipe, I actually just go like the New York times has a good recipe section, right? It's not actually that hard. And so I just thought the thing that AI is 10 X better at is a sort of a conversation right. That's not intrinsically informative, but it's more about an opportunity. You can say whatever you want. You're not going to get judged. If it's 3am, you don't have to wait for your friend to text back. It's like, it's immediate. They're going to reply immediately. You can say whatever you want. It's judgment-free and it's much more like a playground. It's much more like a fun experience. And you could see that if the AI gave a person a compliment, they would love it. It's much easier to get the AI to give you a compliment than a human. From that day on, I said, okay, I get it. Humans want to speak to like humans or human like entities and they want to have fun. And that was when I started to look less at platforms like Google. And I started to look more at platforms like Instagram. And I was trying to think about why do people use Instagram? And I could see that I think Chai was, was filling the same desire or the same drive. If you go on Instagram, typically you want to look at the faces of other humans, or you want to hear about other people's lives. So if it's like the rock is making himself pancakes on a cheese plate. You kind of feel a little bit like you're the rock's friend, or you're like having pancakes with him or something, right? But if you do it too much, you feel like you're sad and like a lonely person, but with AI, you can talk to it and tell it stories and tell you stories, and you can play with it for as long as you want. And you don't feel like you're like a sad, lonely person. You feel like you actually have a friend.Alessio [00:16:29]: And what, why is that? Do you have any insight on that from using it?William [00:16:33]: I think it's just the human psychology. I think it's just the idea that, with old school social media. You're just consuming passively, right? So you'll just swipe. If I'm watching TikTok, just like swipe and swipe and swipe. And even though I'm getting the dopamine of like watching an engaging video, there's this other thing that's building my head, which is like, I'm feeling lazier and lazier and lazier. And after a certain period of time, I'm like, man, I just wasted 40 minutes. I achieved nothing. But with AI, because you're interacting, you feel like you're, it's not like work, but you feel like you're participating and contributing to the thing. You don't feel like you're just. Consuming. So you don't have a sense of remorse basically. And you know, I think on the whole people, the way people talk about, try and interact with the AI, they speak about it in an incredibly positive sense. Like we get people who say they have eating disorders saying that the AI helps them with their eating disorders. People who say they're depressed, it helps them through like the rough patches. So I think there's something intrinsically healthy about interacting that TikTok and Instagram and YouTube doesn't quite tick. From that point on, it was about building more and more kind of like human centric AI for people to interact with. And I was like, okay, let's make a Kanye West bot, right? And then no one wanted to talk to the Kanye West bot. And I was like, ah, who's like a cool persona for teenagers to want to interact with. And I was like, I was trying to find the influencers and stuff like that, but no one cared. Like they didn't want to interact with the, yeah. And instead it was really just the special moment was when we said the realization that developers and software engineers aren't interested in building this sort of AI, but the consumers are right. And rather than me trying to guess every day, like what's the right bot to submit to the platform, why don't we just create the tools for the users to build it themselves? And so nowadays this is like the most obvious thing in the world, but when Chai first did it, it was not an obvious thing at all. Right. Right. So we took the API for let's just say it was, I think it was GPTJ, which was this 6 billion parameter open source transformer style LLM. We took GPTJ. We let users create the prompt. We let users select the image and we let users choose the name. And then that was the bot. And through that, they could shape the experience, right? So if they said this bot's going to be really mean, and it's going to be called like bully in the playground, right? That was like a whole category that I never would have guessed. Right. People love to fight. They love to have a disagreement, right? And then they would create, there'd be all these romantic archetypes that I didn't know existed. And so as the users could create the content that they wanted, that was when Chai was able to, to get this huge variety of content and rather than appealing to, you know, 1% of the population that I'd figured out what they wanted, you could appeal to a much, much broader thing. And so from that moment on, it was very, very crystal clear. It's like Chai, just as Instagram is this social media platform that lets people create images and upload images, videos and upload that, Chai was really about how can we let the users create this experience in AI and then share it and interact and search. So it's really, you know, I say it's like a platform for social AI.Alessio [00:20:00]: Where did the Chai name come from? Because you started the same path. I was like, is it character AI shortened? You started at the same time, so I was curious. The UK origin was like the second, the Chai.William [00:20:15]: We started way before character AI. And there's an interesting story that Chai's numbers were very, very strong, right? So I think in even 20, I think late 2022, was it late 2022 or maybe early 2023? Chai was like the number one AI app in the app store. So we would have something like 100,000 daily active users. And then one day we kind of saw there was this website. And we were like, oh, this website looks just like Chai. And it was the character AI website. And I think that nowadays it's, I think it's much more common knowledge that when they left Google with the funding, I think they knew what was the most trending, the number one app. And I think they sort of built that. Oh, you found the people.swyx [00:21:03]: You found the PMF for them.William [00:21:04]: We found the PMF for them. Exactly. Yeah. So I worked a year very, very hard. And then they, and then that was when I learned a lesson, which is that if you're VC backed and if, you know, so Chai, we'd kind of ran, we'd got to this point, I was the only person who'd invested. I'd invested maybe 2 million pounds in the business. And you know, from that, we were able to build this thing, get to say a hundred thousand daily active users. And then when character AI came along, the first version, we sort of laughed. We were like, oh man, this thing sucks. Like they don't know what they're building. They're building the wrong thing anyway, but then I saw, oh, they've raised a hundred million dollars. Oh, they've raised another hundred million dollars. And then our users started saying, oh guys, your AI sucks. Cause we were serving a 6 billion parameter model, right? How big was the model that character AI could afford to serve, right? So we would be spending, let's say we would spend a dollar per per user, right? Over the, the, you know, the entire lifetime.swyx [00:22:01]: A dollar per session, per chat, per month? No, no, no, no.William [00:22:04]: Let's say we'd get over the course of the year, we'd have a million users and we'd spend a million dollars on the AI throughout the year. Right. Like aggregated. Exactly. Exactly. Right. They could spend a hundred times that. So people would say, why is your AI much dumber than character AIs? And then I was like, oh, okay, I get it. This is like the Silicon Valley style, um, hyper scale business. And so, yeah, we moved to Silicon Valley and, uh, got some funding and iterated and built the flywheels. And, um, yeah, I, I'm very proud that we were able to compete with that. Right. So, and I think the reason we were able to do it was just customer obsession. And it's similar, I guess, to how deep seek have been able to produce such a compelling model when compared to someone like an open AI, right? So deep seek, you know, their latest, um, V2, yeah, they claim to have spent 5 million training it.swyx [00:22:57]: It may be a bit more, but, um, like, why are you making it? Why are you making such a big deal out of this? Yeah. There's an agenda there. Yeah. You brought up deep seek. So we have to ask you had a call with them.William [00:23:07]: We did. We did. We did. Um, let me think what to say about that. I think for one, they have an amazing story, right? So their background is again in finance.swyx [00:23:16]: They're the Chinese version of you. Exactly.William [00:23:18]: Well, there's a lot of similarities. Yes. Yes. I have a great affinity for companies which are like, um, founder led, customer obsessed and just try and build something great. And I think what deep seek have achieved. There's quite special is they've got this amazing inference engine. They've been able to reduce the size of the KV cash significantly. And then by being able to do that, they're able to significantly reduce their inference costs. And I think with kind of with AI, people get really focused on like the kind of the foundation model or like the model itself. And they sort of don't pay much attention to the inference. To give you an example with Chai, let's say a typical user session is 90 minutes, which is like, you know, is very, very long for comparison. Let's say the average session length on TikTok is 70 minutes. So people are spending a lot of time. And in that time they're able to send say 150 messages. That's a lot of completions, right? It's quite different from an open AI scenario where people might come in, they'll have a particular question in mind. And they'll ask like one question. And a few follow up questions, right? So because they're consuming, say 30 times as many requests for a chat, or a conversational experience, you've got to figure out how to how to get the right balance between the cost of that and the quality. And so, you know, I think with AI, it's always been the case that if you want a better experience, you can throw compute at the problem, right? So if you want a better model, you can just make it bigger. If you want it to remember better, give it a longer context. And now, what open AI is doing to great fanfare is with projection sampling, you can generate many candidates, right? And then with some sort of reward model or some sort of scoring system, you can serve the most promising of these many candidates. And so that's kind of scaling up on the inference time compute side of things. And so for us, it doesn't make sense to think of AI is just the absolute performance. So. But what we're seeing, it's like the MML you score or the, you know, any of these benchmarks that people like to look at, if you just get that score, it doesn't really tell tell you anything. Because it's really like progress is made by improving the performance per dollar. And so I think that's an area where deep seek have been able to form very, very well, surprisingly so. And so I'm very interested in what Lama four is going to look like. And if they're able to sort of match what deep seek have been able to achieve with this performance per dollar gain.Alessio [00:25:59]: Before we go into the inference, some of the deeper stuff, can you give people an overview of like some of the numbers? So I think last I checked, you have like 1.4 million daily active now. It's like over 22 million of revenue. So it's quite a business.William [00:26:12]: Yeah, I think we grew by a factor of, you know, users grew by a factor of three last year. Revenue over doubled. You know, it's very exciting. We're competing with some really big, really well funded companies. Character AI got this, I think it was almost a $3 billion valuation. And they have 5 million DAU is a number that I last heard. Torquay, which is a Chinese built app owned by a company called Minimax. They're incredibly well funded. And these companies didn't grow by a factor of three last year. Right. And so when you've got this company and this team that's able to keep building something that gets users excited, and they want to tell their friend about it, and then they want to come and they want to stick on the platform. I think that's very special. And so last year was a great year for the team. And yeah, I think the numbers reflect the hard work that we put in. And then fundamentally, the quality of the app, the quality of the content, the quality of the content, the quality of the content, the quality of the content, the quality of the content. AI is the quality of the experience that you have. You actually published your DAU growth chart, which is unusual. And I see some inflections. Like, it's not just a straight line. There's some things that actually inflect. Yes. What were the big ones? Cool. That's a great, great, great question. Let me think of a good answer. I'm basically looking to annotate this chart, which doesn't have annotations on it. Cool. The first thing I would say is this is, I think the most important thing to know about success is that success is born out of failures. Right? Through failures that we learn. You know, if you think something's a good idea, and you do and it works, great, but you didn't actually learn anything, because everything went exactly as you imagined. But if you have an idea, you think it's going to be good, you try it, and it fails. There's a gap between the reality and expectation. And that's an opportunity to learn. The flat periods, that's us learning. And then the up periods is that's us reaping the rewards of that. So I think the big, of the growth shot of just 2024, I think the first thing that really kind of put a dent in our growth was our backend. So we just reached this scale. So we'd, from day one, we'd built on top of Google's GCP, which is Google's cloud platform. And they were fantastic. We used them when we had one daily active user, and they worked pretty good all the way up till we had about 500,000. It was never the cheapest, but from an engineering perspective, man, that thing scaled insanely good. Like, not Vertex? Not Vertex. Like GKE, that kind of stuff? We use Firebase. So we use Firebase. I'm pretty sure we're the biggest user ever on Firebase. That's expensive. Yeah, we had calls with engineers, and they're like, we wouldn't recommend using this product beyond this point, and you're 3x over that. So we pushed Google to their absolute limits. You know, it was fantastic for us, because we could focus on the AI. We could focus on just adding as much value as possible. But then what happened was, after 500,000, just the thing, the way we were using it, and it would just, it wouldn't scale any further. And so we had a really, really painful, at least three-month period, as we kind of migrated between different services, figuring out, like, what requests do we want to keep on Firebase, and what ones do we want to move on to something else? And then, you know, making mistakes. And learning things the hard way. And then after about three months, we got that right. So that, we would then be able to scale to the 1.5 million DAE without any further issues from the GCP. But what happens is, if you have an outage, new users who go on your app experience a dysfunctional app, and then they're going to exit. And so your next day, the key metrics that the app stores track are going to be something like retention rates. And so your next day, the key metrics that the app stores track are going to be something like retention rates. Money spent, and the star, like, the rating that they give you. In the app store. In the app store, yeah. Tyranny. So if you're ranked top 50 in entertainment, you're going to acquire a certain rate of users organically. If you go in and have a bad experience, it's going to tank where you're positioned in the algorithm. And then it can take a long time to kind of earn your way back up, at least if you wanted to do it organically. If you throw money at it, you can jump to the top. And I could talk about that. But broadly speaking, if we look at 2024, the first kink in the graph was outages due to hitting 500k DAU. The backend didn't want to scale past that. So then we just had to do the engineering and build through it. Okay, so we built through that, and then we get a little bit of growth. And so, okay, that's feeling a little bit good. I think the next thing, I think it's, I'm not going to lie, I have a feeling that when Character AI got... I was thinking. I think so. I think... So the Character AI team fundamentally got acquired by Google. And I don't know what they changed in their business. I don't know if they dialed down that ad spend. Products don't change, right? Products just what it is. I don't think so. Yeah, I think the product is what it is. It's like maintenance mode. Yes. I think the issue that people, you know, some people may think this is an obvious fact, but running a business can be very competitive, right? Because other businesses can see what you're doing, and they can imitate you. And then there's this... There's this question of, if you've got one company that's spending $100,000 a day on advertising, and you've got another company that's spending zero, if you consider market share, and if you're considering new users which are entering the market, the guy that's spending $100,000 a day is going to be getting 90% of those new users. And so I have a suspicion that when the founders of Character AI left, they dialed down their spending on user acquisition. And I think that kind of gave oxygen to like the other apps. And so Chai was able to then start growing again in a really healthy fashion. I think that's kind of like the second thing. I think a third thing is we've really built a great data flywheel. Like the AI team sort of perfected their flywheel, I would say, in end of Q2. And I could speak about that at length. But fundamentally, the way I would describe it is when you're building anything in life, you need to be able to evaluate it. And through evaluation, you can iterate, we can look at benchmarks, and we can say the issues with benchmarks and why they may not generalize as well as one would hope in the challenges of working with them. But something that works incredibly well is getting feedback from humans. And so we built this thing where anyone can submit a model to our developer backend, and it gets put in front of 5000 users, and the users can rate it. And we can then have a really accurate ranking of like which model, or users finding more engaging or more entertaining. And it gets, you know, it's at this point now, where every day we're able to, I mean, we evaluate between 20 and 50 models, LLMs, every single day, right. So even though we've got only got a team of, say, five AI researchers, they're able to iterate a huge quantity of LLMs, right. So our team ships, let's just say minimum 100 LLMs a week is what we're able to iterate through. Now, before that moment in time, we might iterate through three a week, we might, you know, there was a time when even doing like five a month was a challenge, right? By being able to change the feedback loops to the point where it's not, let's launch these three models, let's do an A-B test, let's assign, let's do different cohorts, let's wait 30 days to see what the day 30 retention is, which is the kind of the, if you're doing an app, that's like A-B testing 101 would be, do a 30-day retention test, assign different treatments to different cohorts and come back in 30 days. So that's insanely slow. That's just, it's too slow. And so we were able to get that 30-day feedback loop all the way down to something like three hours. And when we did that, we could really, really, really perfect techniques like DPO, fine tuning, prompt engineering, blending, rejection sampling, training a reward model, right, really successfully, like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And so I think in Q3 and Q4, we got, the amount of AI improvements we got was like astounding. It was getting to the point, I thought like how much more, how much more edge is there to be had here? But the team just could keep going and going and going. That was like number three for the inflection point.swyx [00:34:53]: There's a fourth?William [00:34:54]: The important thing about the third one is if you go on our Reddit or you talk to users of AI, there's like a clear date. It's like somewhere in October or something. The users, they flipped. Before October, the users... The users would say character AI is better than you, for the most part. Then from October onwards, they would say, wow, you guys are better than character AI. And that was like a really clear positive signal that we'd sort of done it. And I think people, you can't cheat consumers. You can't trick them. You can't b******t them. They know, right? If you're going to spend 90 minutes on a platform, and with apps, there's the barriers to switching is pretty low. Like you can try character AI, you can't cheat consumers. You can't cheat them. You can't cheat them. You can't cheat AI for a day. If you get bored, you can try Chai. If you get bored of Chai, you can go back to character. So the users, the loyalty is not strong, right? What keeps them on the app is the experience. If you deliver a better experience, they're going to stay and they can tell. So that was the fourth one was we were fortunate enough to get this hire. He was hired one really talented engineer. And then they said, oh, at my last company, we had a head of growth. He was really, really good. And he was the head of growth for ByteDance for two years. Would you like to speak to him? And I was like, yes. Yes, I think I would. And so I spoke to him. And he just blew me away with what he knew about user acquisition. You know, it was like a 3D chessswyx [00:36:21]: sort of thing. You know, as much as, as I know about AI. Like ByteDance as in TikTok US. Yes.William [00:36:26]: Not ByteDance as other stuff. Yep. He was interviewing us as we were interviewing him. Right. And so pick up options. Yeah, exactly. And so he was kind of looking at our metrics. And he was like, I saw him get really excited when he said, guys, you've got a million daily active users and you've done no advertising. I said, correct. And he was like, that's unheard of. He's like, I've never heard of anyone doing that. And then he started looking at our metrics. And he was like, if you've got all of this organically, if you start spending money, this is going to be very exciting. I was like, let's give it a go. So then he came in, we've just started ramping up the user acquisition. So that looks like spending, you know, let's say we're spending, we started spending $20,000 a day, it looked very promising than 20,000. Right now we're spending $40,000 a day on user acquisition. That's still only half of what like character AI or talkie may be spending. But from that, it's sort of, we were growing at a rate of maybe say, 2x a year. And that got us growing at a rate of 3x a year. So I'm growing, I'm evolving more and more to like a Silicon Valley style hyper growth, like, you know, you build something decent, and then you canswyx [00:37:33]: slap on a huge... You did the important thing, you did the product first.William [00:37:36]: Of course, but then you can slap on like, like the rocket or the jet engine or something, which is just this cash in, you pour in as much cash, you buy a lot of ads, and your growth is faster.swyx [00:37:48]: Not to, you know, I'm just kind of curious what's working right now versus what surprisinglyWilliam [00:37:52]: doesn't work. Oh, there's a long, long list of surprising stuff that doesn't work. Yeah. The surprising thing, like the most surprising thing, what doesn't work is almost everything doesn't work. That's what's surprising. And I'll give you an example. So like a year and a half ago, I was working at a company, we were super excited by audio. I was like, audio is going to be the next killer feature, we have to get in the app. And I want to be the first. So everything Chai does, I want us to be the first. We may not be the company that's strongest at execution, but we can always be theswyx [00:38:22]: most innovative. Interesting. Right? So we can... You're pretty strong at execution.William [00:38:26]: We're much stronger, we're much stronger. A lot of the reason we're here is because we were first. If we launched today, it'd be so hard to get the traction. Because it's like to get the flywheel, to get the users, to build a product people are excited about. If you're first, people are naturally excited about it. But if you're fifth or 10th, man, you've got to beswyx [00:38:46]: insanely good at execution. So you were first with voice? We were first. We were first. I only knowWilliam [00:38:51]: when character launched voice. They launched it, I think they launched it at least nine months after us. Okay. Okay. But the team worked so hard for it. At the time we did it, latency is a huge problem. Cost is a huge problem. Getting the right quality of the voice is a huge problem. Right? Then there's this user interface and getting the right user experience. Because you don't just want it to start blurting out. Right? You want to kind of activate it. But then you don't have to keep pressing a button every single time. There's a lot that goes into getting a really smooth audio experience. So we went ahead, we invested the three months, we built it all. And then when we did the A-B test, there was like, no change in any of the numbers. And I was like, this can't be right, there must be a bug. And we spent like a week just checking everything, checking again, checking again. And it was like, the users just did not care. And it was something like only 10 or 15% of users even click the button to like, they wanted to engage the audio. And they would only use it for 10 or 15% of the time. So if you do the math, if it's just like something that one in seven people use it for one seventh of their time. You've changed like 2% of the experience. So even if that that 2% of the time is like insanely good, it doesn't translate much when you look at the retention, when you look at the engagement, and when you look at the monetization rates. So audio did not have a big impact. I'm pretty big on audio. But yeah, I like it too. But it's, you know, so a lot of the stuff which I do, I'm a big, you can have a theory. And you resist. Yeah. Exactly, exactly. So I think if you want to make audio work, it has to be a unique, compelling, exciting experience that they can't have anywhere else.swyx [00:40:37]: It could be your models, which just weren't good enough.William [00:40:39]: No, no, no, they were great. Oh, yeah, they were very good. it was like, it was kind of like just the, you know, if you listen to like an audible or Kindle, or something like, you just hear this voice. And it's like, you don't go like, wow, this is this is special, right? It's like a convenience thing. But the idea is that if you can, if Chai is the only platform, like, let's say you have a Mr. Beast, and YouTube is the only platform you can use to make audio work, then you can watch a Mr. Beast video. And it's the most engaging, fun video that you want to watch, you'll go to a YouTube. And so it's like for audio, you can't just put the audio on there. And people go, oh, yeah, it's like 2% better. Or like, 5% of users think it's 20% better, right? It has to be something that the majority of people, for the majority of the experience, go like, wow, this is a big deal. That's the features you need to be shipping. If it's not going to appeal to the majority of people, for the majority of the experience, and it's not a big deal, it's not going to move you. Cool. So you killed it. I don't see it anymore. Yep. So I love this. The longer, it's kind of cheesy, I guess, but the longer I've been working at Chai, and I think the team agrees with this, all the platitudes, at least I thought they were platitudes, that you would get from like the Steve Jobs, which is like, build something insanely great, right? Or be maniacally focused, or, you know, the most important thing is saying no to, not to work on. All of these sort of lessons, they just are like painfully true. They're painfully true. So now I'm just like, everything I say, I'm either quoting Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg. I'm like, guys, move fast and break free.swyx [00:42:10]: You've jumped the Apollo to cool it now.William [00:42:12]: Yeah, it's just so, everything they said is so, so true. The turtle neck. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everything is so true.swyx [00:42:18]: This last question on my side, and I want to pass this to Alessio, is on just, just multi-modality in general. This actually comes from Justine Moore from A16Z, who's a friend of ours. And a lot of people are trying to do voice image video for AI companions. Yes. You just said voice didn't work. Yep. What would make you revisit?William [00:42:36]: So Steve Jobs, he was very, listen, he was very, very clear on this. There's a habit of engineers who, once they've got some cool technology, they want to find a way to package up the cool technology and sell it to consumers, right? That does not work. So you're free to try and build a startup where you've got your cool tech and you want to find someone to sell it to. That's not what we do at Chai. At Chai, we start with the consumer. What does the consumer want? What is their problem? And how do we solve it? So right now, the number one problems for the users, it's not the audio. That's not the number one problem. It's not the image generation either. That's not their problem either. The number one problem for users in AI is this. All the AI is being generated by middle-aged men in Silicon Valley, right? That's all the content. You're interacting with this AI. You're speaking to it for 90 minutes on average. It's being trained by middle-aged men. The guys out there, they're out there. They're talking to you. They're talking to you. They're like, oh, what should the AI say in this situation, right? What's funny, right? What's cool? What's boring? What's entertaining? That's not the way it should be. The way it should be is that the users should be creating the AI, right? And so the way I speak about it is this. Chai, we have this AI engine in which sits atop a thin layer of UGC. So the thin layer of UGC is absolutely essential, right? It's just prompts. But it's just prompts. It's just an image. It's just a name. It's like we've done 1% of what we could do. So we need to keep thickening up that layer of UGC. It must be the case that the users can train the AI. And if reinforcement learning is powerful and important, they have to be able to do that. And so it's got to be the case that there exists, you know, I say to the team, just as Mr. Beast is able to spend 100 million a year or whatever it is on his production company, and he's got a team building the content, the Mr. Beast company is able to spend 100 million a year on his production company. And he's got a team building the content, which then he shares on the YouTube platform. Until there's a team that's earning 100 million a year or spending 100 million on the content that they're producing for the Chai platform, we're not finished, right? So that's the problem. That's what we're excited to build. And getting too caught up in the tech, I think is a fool's errand. It does not work.Alessio [00:44:52]: As an aside, I saw the Beast Games thing on Amazon Prime. It's not doing well. And I'mswyx [00:44:56]: curious. It's kind of like, I mean, the audience reading is high. The run-to-meet-all sucks, but the audience reading is high.Alessio [00:45:02]: But it's not like in the top 10. I saw it dropped off of like the... Oh, okay. Yeah, that one I don't know. I'm curious, like, you know, it's kind of like similar content, but different platform. And then going back to like, some of what you were saying is like, you know, people come to ChaiWilliam [00:45:13]: expecting some type of content. Yeah, I think it's something that's interesting to discuss is like, is moats. And what is the moat? And so, you know, if you look at a platform like YouTube, the moat, I think is in first is really is in the ecosystem. And the ecosystem, is comprised of you have the content creators, you have the users, the consumers, and then you have the algorithms. And so this, this creates a sort of a flywheel where the algorithms are able to be trained on the users, and the users data, the recommend systems can then feed information to the content creators. So Mr. Beast, he knows which thumbnail does the best. He knows the first 10 seconds of the video has to be this particular way. And so his content is super optimized for the YouTube platform. So that's why it doesn't do well on Amazon. If he wants to do well on Amazon, how many videos has he created on the YouTube platform? By thousands, 10s of 1000s, I guess, he needs to get those iterations in on the Amazon. So at Chai, I think it's all about how can we get the most compelling, rich user generated content, stick that on top of the AI engine, the recommender systems, in such that we get this beautiful data flywheel, more users, better recommendations, more creative, more content, more users.Alessio [00:46:34]: You mentioned the algorithm, you have this idea of the Chaiverse on Chai, and you have your own kind of like LMSYS-like ELO system. Yeah, what are things that your models optimize for, like your users optimize for, and maybe talk about how you build it, how people submit models?William [00:46:49]: So Chaiverse is what I would describe as a developer platform. More often when we're speaking about Chai, we're thinking about the Chai app. And the Chai app is really this product for consumers. And so consumers can come on the Chai app, they can come on the Chai app, they can come on the Chai app, they can interact with our AI, and they can interact with other UGC. And it's really just these kind of bots. And it's a thin layer of UGC. Okay. Our mission is not to just have a very thin layer of UGC. Our mission is to have as much UGC as possible. So we must have, I don't want people at Chai training the AI. I want people, not middle aged men, building AI. I want everyone building the AI, as many people building the AI as possible. Okay, so what we built was we built Chaiverse. And Chaiverse is kind of, it's kind of like a prototype, is the way to think about it. And it started with this, this observation that, well, how many models get submitted into Hugging Face a day? It's hundreds, it's hundreds, right? So there's hundreds of LLMs submitted each day. Now consider that, what does it take to build an LLM? It takes a lot of work, actually. It's like someone devoted several hours of compute, several hours of their time, prepared a data set, launched it, ran it, evaluated it, submitted it, right? So there's a lot of, there's a lot of, there's a lot of work that's going into that. So what we did was we said, well, why can't we host their models for them and serve them to users? And then what would that look like? The first issue is, well, how do you know if a model is good or not? Like, we don't want to serve users the crappy models, right? So what we would do is we would, I love the LMSYS style. I think it's really cool. It's really simple. It's a very intuitive thing, which is you simply present the users with two completions. You can say, look, this is from model one. This is from model two. This is from model three. This is from model A. This is from model B, which is better. And so if someone submits a model to Chaiverse, what we do is we spin up a GPU. We download the model. We're going to now host that model on this GPU. And we're going to start routing traffic to it. And we're going to send, we think it takes about 5,000 completions to get an accurate signal. That's roughly what LMSYS does. And from that, we're able to get an accurate ranking. And we're able to get an accurate ranking. And we're able to get an accurate ranking of which models are people finding entertaining and which models are not entertaining. If you look at the bottom 80%, they'll suck. You can just disregard them. They totally suck. Then when you get the top 20%, you know you've got a decent model, but you can break it down into more nuance. There might be one that's really descriptive. There might be one that's got a lot of personality to it. There might be one that's really illogical. Then the question is, well, what do you do with these top models? From that, you can do more sophisticated things. You can try and do like a routing thing where you say for a given user request, we're going to try and predict which of these end models that users enjoy the most. That turns out to be pretty expensive and not a huge source of like edge or improvement. Something that we love to do at Chai is blending, which is, you know, it's the simplest way to think about it is you're going to end up, and you're going to pretty quickly see you've got one model that's really smart, one model that's really funny. How do you get the user an experience that is both smart and funny? Well, just 50% of the requests, you can serve them the smart model, 50% of the requests, you serve them the funny model. Just a random 50%? Just a random, yeah. And then... That's blending? That's blending. You can do more sophisticated things on top of that, as in all things in life, but the 80-20 solution, if you just do that, you get a pretty powerful effect out of the gate. Random number generator. I think it's like the robustness of randomness. Random is a very powerful optimization technique, and it's a very robust thing. So you can explore a lot of the space very efficiently. There's one thing that's really, really important to share, and this is the most exciting thing for me, is after you do the ranking, you get an ELO score, and you can track a user's first join date, the first date they submit a model to Chaiverse, they almost always get a terrible ELO, right? So let's say the first submission they get an ELO of 1,100 or 1,000 or something, and you can see that they iterate and they iterate and iterate, and it will be like, no improvement, no improvement, no improvement, and then boom. Do you give them any data, or do you have to come up with this themselves? We do, we do, we do, we do. We try and strike a balance between giving them data that's very useful, you've got to be compliant with GDPR, which is like, you have to work very hard to preserve the privacy of users of your app. So we try to give them as much signal as possible, to be helpful. The minimum is we're just going to give you a score, right? That's the minimum. But that alone is people can optimize a score pretty well, because they're able to come up with theories, submit it, does it work? No. A new theory, does it work? No. And then boom, as soon as they figure something out, they keep it, and then they iterate, and then boom,Alessio [00:51:46]: they figure something out, and they keep it. Last year, you had this post on your blog, cross-sourcing the lead to the 10 trillion parameter, AGI, and you call it a mixture of experts, recommenders. Yep. Any insights?William [00:51:58]: Updated thoughts, 12 months later? I think the odds, the timeline for AGI has certainly been pushed out, right? Now, this is in, I'm a controversial person, I don't know, like, I just think... You don't believe in scaling laws, you think AGI is further away. I think it's an S-curve. I think everything's an S-curve. And I think that the models have proven to just be far worse at reasoning than people sort of thought. And I think whenever I hear people talk about LLMs as reasoning engines, I sort of cringe a bit. I don't think that's what they are. I think of them more as like a simulator. I think of them as like a, right? So they get trained to predict the next most likely token. It's like a physics simulation engine. So you get these like games where you can like construct a bridge, and you drop a car down, and then it predicts what should happen. And that's really what LLMs are doing. It's not so much that they're reasoning, it's more that they're just doing the most likely thing. So fundamentally, the ability for people to add in intelligence, I think is very limited. What most people would consider intelligence, I think the AI is not a crowdsourcing problem, right? Now with Wikipedia, Wikipedia crowdsources knowledge. It doesn't crowdsource intelligence. So it's a subtle distinction. AI is fantastic at knowledge. I think it's weak at intelligence. And a lot, it's easy to conflate the two because if you ask it a question and it gives you, you know, if you said, who was the seventh president of the United States, and it gives you the correct answer, I'd say, well, I don't know the answer to that. And you can conflate that with intelligence. But really, that's a question of knowledge. And knowledge is really this thing about saying, how can I store all of this information? And then how can I retrieve something that's relevant? Okay, they're fantastic at that. They're fantastic at storing knowledge and retrieving the relevant knowledge. They're superior to humans in that regard. And so I think we need to come up for a new word. How does one describe AI should contain more knowledge than any individual human? It should be more accessible than any individual human. That's a very powerful thing. That's superswyx [00:54:07]: powerful. But what words do we use to describe that? We had a previous guest on Exa AI that does search. And he tried to coin super knowledge as the opposite of super intelligence.William [00:54:20]: Exactly. I think super knowledge is a more accurate word for it.swyx [00:54:24]: You can store more things than any human can.William [00:54:26]: And you can retrieve it better than any human can as well. And I think it's those two things combined that's special. I think that thing will exist. That thing can be built. And I think you can start with something that's entertaining and fun. And I think, I often think it's like, look, it's going to be a 20 year journey. And we're in like, year four, or it's like the web. And this is like 1998 or something. You know, you've got a long, long way to go before the Amazon.coms are like these huge, multi trillion dollar businesses that every single person uses every day. And so AI today is very simplistic. And it's fundamentally the way we're using it, the flywheels, and this ability for how can everyone contribute to it to really magnify the value that it brings. Right now, like, I think it's a bit sad. It's like, right now you have big labs, I'm going to pick on open AI. And they kind of go to like these human labelers. And they say, we're going to pay you to just label this like subset of questions that we want to get a really high quality data set, then we're going to get like our own computers that are really powerful. And that's kind of like the thing. For me, it's so much like Encyclopedia Britannica. It's like insane. All the people that were interested in blockchain, it's like, well, this is this is what needs to be decentralized, you need to decentralize that thing. Because if you distribute it, people can generate way more data in a distributed fashion, way more, right? You need the incentive. Yeah, of course. Yeah. But I mean, the, the, that's kind of the exciting thing about Wikipedia was it's this understanding, like the incentives, you don't need money to incentivize people. You don't need dog coins. No. Sometimes, sometimes people get the satisfaction from just seeing the correct thing. Number go up. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you do pay money for Chai vs. Weed. We've, we've paid out over $100,000 to model creators. But do you know what we saw? It's not motivating. We saw that it didn't really make a difference. Like if they were submitting models at a certain rate, if you pay them a bunch of money, they didn't change the rate. What the money let them do was if they wanted to fine tune Alarma 70B on eight H100s overnight, if you give them money, then they can do it. Or you could give them compute. Yeah. So, so I think the most exciting person we ever saw from interacting with Chai, Chai vs. was we gave some kid who was like, like 17 years old, I think we gave him $1,000 and he spent all the money on buying a physical computer. And he took a picture of it and said, this is what I bought. And I'm going to be training more models with it. So that's why, that's why I love platforms.swyx [00:57:00]: Should you hire him or?William [00:57:02]: That's the temptation. Yeah. That's the temptation. But you want to keep the team small? No, no. As a platform, we can't just hire every good content creator. We've got to build the systems and the best content creator today isn't going to be the best content creator next year.Alessio [00:57:14]: What about Eva? So you've talked about reasoning and knowledge. Most of the benchmarks that people use want to mimic reasoning. Yep. I want to register, I disagree on the reasoning, but we have to keep going. Yeah, I'm curious, like how, how do you think about the evals that matter to you?swyx [00:57:29]: So yeah, like Elo cannot be the only eval. You must have internal evals. You mentioned evals.William [00:57:34]: I think Elo is a fantastic north star and the reason for it, or like it's the main one we want to see go up because it's this human feedback. The humans know what they want. It's beautiful because when you come up with an eval, you're further removing yourself away from the true problem. Right? So whatever it is you're trying to optimize or figure out, you kind of have to, have to slice it. And then you've got this, it's like a snapshot. Like as soon as you saturate one eval, you need to figure out a new eval. But with, by saying to humans, just which is better, A or B, it's super robust. It's super generalizable. It just keeps, keeps scaling. So we've in the past used evals to get through a, to get through a blocker. I mean, a great example is, you know, is like having like a safety filter or something. Yeah. Where you want to make sure your models, because listen, users find, you'll be shocked the correlation between not family friendly content, whether that's just like swearing, like people find it funny when the AI swears. So if you have two completions, A or B, like if you give me any LLM, I can make it 20% funnier just by training it to throw in swear words. So the issue with that is it's like, how are we measuring like quality improvements? Are we measuring superficial improvements? Right. And this actually links back to the LLM sys. They did a style control.swyx [00:58:54]: We actually had them on the podcast.William [00:58:56]: Yeah. Yeah. And so that's the way I, I would rather just lean on human feedback and just continue to make that more and more robust and more and more useful. And, you know, you can say some people are like GPU poor and GPU rich. We're like, we're feedback rich. Like when you've got one and a half million people a day, we get as much feedback from humans as we want. So we're not in a position where we needed to have the evals very much. Yeah. And when we do, we saturate them pretty quick. So a safety one, you know, within a month, we don't need to use it anymore because it's sort of, it's, you know, the issue has been addressed.swyx [00:59:29]: I think one problem I have, and this is a broader products question maybe, is that the ELOs apply to the whole user population. That's right. Clearly the user behavior, there's segments that have like, I'm a role play person, I'm a therapy person, I'm a not safe for work person. You don't split them?William [00:59:44]: This is why I say like, I think we're in year four of like a 20 year thing where it's like, at the end of the day, I'm a role play person. And I think if we all go on like Spotify or like, imagine if Spotify only had the top five musicians, I think it would retain over 85% of its existing users. Yeah. Right. And I think if YouTube, if YouTube only kept the top five content creators, it would be enough for the vast majority of people. The thing I'm just trying to share here is there's one surprising thing about humans is their preferences are pretty correlated. What you find funny and entertaining, I find funny and entertaining, and he finds funny and entertaining. There might be degrees of variation in it, I might find it super funny, you might find it only slightly funny, but optimizing to a global works very, very well. And for segmentation to be really powerful, segmentation will work amazing if you found a comment super boring, and I found it super fun. If we could segment that, then that would unlock really powerful stuff. But unfortunately, that's not the shape of human behavior, right? It's like, I might rank it 10 out of 10 funny, you might rank it 7 out of 10 funny. And it's like, it doesn't give you... It doesn't give you as much space to play as you would hope. It's an element of the diversity of content that AI can produce right now, which is it's not as diverse as if you consider a platform like YouTube, you can watch a Mr. Beast video, that's totally different to a makeup tutorial. So there's enough diversity there where if you go on my YouTube feed, it is totally different to my sister's one. My sister's one, it's all like women, and if you go on mine, it's all like bald, middle-aged men, either talking about MMA or, right? I think with AI, it's still a bit too early for that degree of segmentation. So I think it all comes, the recommender systems, the personalization. But this is why I like the, don't start with the technology, start with the problem. The problem is UGC. We must give users the tools to build more variety and more engaging content.swyx [01:01:42]: Yeah. I feel like there's... I was surprised at how thin it was when I tried out Chai. Yeah. It's very thin. Haven't you been tempted? Like there's this ecosystem of Cobalt, Silly Tavern, those guys. They have model cards. It seems like an industry standard almost. Yeah, agreed. Can I just import those? I don't think I want to say.William [01:02:01]: Oh, you're already working on it. No, it's like, I remember when Chai meant, Chai, Silly Tavern, and like Cobalt, Cobalt AI is basically as old as Chai. So when Chai was, when we just existed, they just existed. And both of us were using GPT. Chai, yeah, yeah, yeah. And I remember very early on, I was like, these guys shouldn't even exist. Because if we build a good enough platform, they should just be posting their content on our platform.swyx [01:02:28]: Yeah, but they're open source. No, exactly.William [01:02:30]: That was what I learned. Eventually, I learned like they're, what they're excited about is slightly different from a typical consumer. My answer is, it's kind of like a complex thing where it's really down to the content creator wants, typically they're building it for themselves. And typically they want to create an experience for themselves. So one content creator might have to write a thousand words describing, let's take a science fiction scenario. Let's say, okay, you're on a spaceship and you're going off into space and your crew, these are your crew members. You've got one that's really friendly, one that's really mean, and you're the new cadet and you want to rise to the top. And they can really go into great detail, right? And then you can give that to like a Lama 70B. And Lama 70B will do a pretty good job of adhering to the prompt and the user will have a good experience. Okay. Very few users will ever go to that level of content creation. If instead the user, we can really make the AI understand the user more so that rather than having to use a thousand characters or a thousand tokens to describe the scenario, we can just say, look, you're on a spaceship. You've got three crewmate. It's going to be dramatic and there should be some fighting. And then the AI gives you an even better experience. Then the content creator is happier. And so fundamentally, the way I'd kind of think about it. Is there's the sterability of the AI. And so a lot of the work we do at Chai is really about saying we want the AI to react to the user and react to the content creator in the way that they most want. One kind of like analog would be TikTok. I think the thing that TikTok did insanely good was they made it really easy for like anyone. If you make a video on TikTok, almost anyone can make a kind of fun video really easy. You just put some music on the top of it. You throw some of the. Animations on top and it's not hard to have a pretty fun thing. And I think that's much more like the Chai style where it's like users don't want to have to work. You know, if your content is only good, if you have like Shakespeare, it's better if, if just anyone at home can make the, can make the thing. So that's, that's kind of like my answer to the silly talent style. And I think the right answer is how do you get the silly time people fine tuning models that create a really special effect.Alessio [01:04:46]: As we wrap this is kind of the call for action.William [01:04:49]: Uh, part one, you have Chai Grant, which I think a lot of people don't know about, which is grants for open source projects, any ideas, any projects that you want to see people work on the should apply or let me think, I think, um, so we do try Chai Grant and fundamentally, you know, we give cash, no strings attached. It's kind of our way of doing two things. One, giving back and support in the community. We've benefited from a lot of open source packages. A lot of our developers and engineers are like. Really? Really pro open source. And then also it's a great way to just meet talented people and, and like expand connections. So with respect to Chai Grant, if anyone's got any sort of, um, GitHub project, any sort of thing they built that they're proud of, just apply, just apply. It's like no strings attached cash and people have a pretty high success rate. So that's the first thing. Other call to actions would be, I think Chai is this, you know, it's a startup. We're a small team. It's like 15 people. We work very intense. It's a very hardcore. Sort of environment, which we found that a lot of people don't like. They don't like the, you know, they'll ask us this concept of what life balance one time. A person said, they said something like, I can't get this done because I'm taking PTO on Friday. And I said, what is PTO? Okay. Um, it stands for paid time off and this, I know what it is and this person was gone. They didn't like, they were no longer in the company four weeks on legally. I think you have to, oh, it's true. There's no problem. Look, if you've got. You've got to take a day off, right? We all have personal lives, right? But it's about this idea of responsibility. If you're not in the office on Friday, you still have your responsibilities. So I don't care if you work hard Thursday to get it wrapped up. I don't care if you're working hard Saturday to get it wrapped up. It's not an excuse to, it's not an excuse. The way this individual spoke about it, it was like an excuse. I think it's an environment, very talented engineers working very hard in an intense space. It's the thing that gets me excited. It's, it's why I think, you know, I really love working at Chai is because it's a place of talent. It's a place of people working super hard. So yeah, I think people who have got, who've worked at startups and they, they love that. That's what they, they want the taste of, I think they should reach out, they should apply. And I think 90% of people can say that sounds terrible. Don't apply.swyx [01:07:03]: It's not for them.Alessio [01:07:03]: Yeah, it's exactly, exactly. Yeah. I just realized we skipped one important part. So you spent $10 million on compute last year. You say you're going to probably triple that. Yeah. I'm sure you're doing a lot of work on custom kernels, kind of like inference optimization, any cool stuff. Yeah. That you want to share there. Yeah.William [01:07:20]: Lots of cool stuff. So really quickly, I think inference is very, very important. It's super important. It's massively underlooked and we can look at all the different foundation models and the techniques, the differences in the foundation models on how well they perform from a cost perspective with inference. Mixture of experts, for example, tend to do really, really good from like a cost perspective. We've worked with a very talented team called.swyx [01:07:49]: MK1 and we, so I saw, I saw them in the Chaiverse logs. What are they?William [01:07:54]: We were using, we were running VLLM for a while and VLLM is really fantastic. Absolutely amazing. The work that they've done and achieved. And at some point I got introduced to the founder's name is Paul Marola. And he was a co-founder at Neuralink, really, really expert in like hardware. He kind of explained to me, he was like, look, if you know, hardware really well, you can write the CUDA kernels really well. He said, you should check out our inference engine. And they kind of blew VLLM out the water when we evaluated it much, much, much faster. And I think the special thing that he was able to do with us is we love rejection sampling. So we do much more rejection sampling than maybe typical and, you know, generate it. So we, we never, ever, ever just generate a single completion, right? This is why we don't do streaming. A lot of people like ChatGPT used to do a lot of streaming. Like the completion would come out one thing at a time. I did. I didn't notice that in your UX. Normally chat, you have to stream. Exactly. But Chai has never done streaming because if you stream, you're unable to do rejection sampling. The benefit of that is you can serve a larger model. The reason why you can serve a larger model is because they're saying instead of generating a completion in four seconds, because the user gets the first token faster, you can generate in 10 seconds. Well, if you've got 10 seconds to generate completion, you can serve a much larger model. So typically the people that are streaming, the benefit that they're getting is they're, you know, serving a larger model with Chai, we give you, you know, the second answer comes, boom, you get the full completion. And the reason for that is because we want to generate 16 completions, see the entire response, and then we want to evaluate which one we think is the best.swyx [01:09:34]: Do you have a separate LLM evaluator? Yes, we do. Yeah.William [01:09:37]: So, um, typically they're referred to as a reward model and that's a, you know, that's like a term from reinforcement learning. And for that, you can start off with something very simple, which is, do you think the user is going to respond to it? That's a simple one. So you can, you can train, you can take 50 million messages and, and look at all the sorts of messages users reply to, which ones they don't. And then you can train this, this reward model to evaluate completions. And so it knows like, okay, if you say this, the user is not going to respond. So don't bother sending it to the user. If you say this, the user is definitely going to engage with it. So send them, send them that.swyx [01:10:11]: There's an interesting parallel between MLAs and MLAs. I think we use at the top, spreading out to different experts and then at the bottom with rejection sampling, choosing from different paths.William [01:10:21]: I totally agree. That's the stuff that is the future of AI. I think that's the exciting stuff. And there's a parallel between that. Why was AlphaGo able to be superhuman? Right. It's this ability to generate many different paths. Tree search. And tree search. Exactly. So I think if you want to talk about what would intelligence look like, it looks much more like tree search. Combining the generative nature of these LLMs with a really good tree search. And that's what opening I've done with O1 and O3.swyx [01:10:51]: I don't know that they do tree search. They never said they do. It's implied. Yes. Okay. Yes. Yes. Are you comfortable with O1 being a reasoning engine? No, no, no, no.William [01:11:01]: I'm saying it's better at reasoning because they leverage the tree search well. And the, the issue of the reasoning is they're saying, is this like they train, they have the models to say, is this logically correct? And what's the likelihood of it being logically correct? So you can build up the sophisticated mechanisms to get it less bad at reasoning, but you'll see like eventually what, what AI is really, really good at. People won't say it's, it's always going to be better at retrieving. It's always going to be better at storing knowledge, which is so highly correlated with intelligence that we often assume it's the same. What, what AI is truly special at and gets consumers really excited is it's generative. It can just make stuff. We've never had a technology. Before that can just make stuff simulate.Alessio [01:11:45]: Yeah.William [01:11:45]: Yeah. So that's the special, that's the exciting thing.Alessio [01:11:48]: Awesome. Well, any parting parting thoughts?William [01:11:51]: No, it's been, it's been a pleasure. I guess the only thing I'd add is like our office is in Palo Alto. So, um, yeah, you know, people with startup experience looking to join a fast growing high impact startup. Yeah.swyx [01:12:03]: Uh, we'll find your culture deck, which is great. Fantastic. And then also, yeah. Yeah.Alessio [01:12:07]: What's the story where if you made a hundred K trading, we'll fast track your application. Like, I mean, I kind of qualify.William [01:12:15]: just looked at the team and it got to the point where almost every single person on the team you could point to, and they had done something special before joining the team. Like they, they had strong markers of like, there was something special about them. That's not to say it's like, like an exclusive thing. You have to have achieved something special, but it's just, uh, we got this one engineer and she, she started going to college. She went to CMU when she was like 15 years old or something. And it's like, that's a bit special. There's another engineer. He created a Git repo and I think he got like 1500 stars and it was like a repo for like, there was some drivers that he wrote. It was like a super low, low level thing. I was like, that's a bit special. We had this other guy, he joined the team and he'd, he had made a hundred K buying and selling sneakers, right? Trading. Yeah. So, so it's like, it's just this thing, like if you've been to Harvard, cool, that's great. It shows that you're really smart and you work really hard. Cool. That's good. But if you've actually built something and done something. I think there's a bit more tangible that gets us even more excited.Alessio [01:13:16]: Cool. Well, thanks for having us at ChaiHQ. Yeah.William [01:13:19]: Thanks guys. Get full access to Latent Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

  --------  

  1:15:46
• Everything you need to run Mission Critical Inference (ft. DeepSeek v3 + SGLang)

  Sponsorships and applications for the AI Engineer Summit in NYC are live! (Speaker CFPs have closed) If you are building AI agents or leading teams of AI Engineers, this will be the single highest-signal conference of the year for you.Right after Christmas, the Chinese Whale Bros ended 2024 by dropping the last big model launch of the year: DeepSeek v3. Right now on LM Arena, DeepSeek v3 has a score of 1319, right under the full o1 model, Gemini 2, and 4o latest. This makes it the best open weights model in the world in January 2025.There has been a big recent trend in Chinese labs releasing very large open weights models, with TenCent releasing Hunyuan-Large in November and Hailuo releasing MiniMax-Text this week, both over 400B in size. However these extra-large language models are very difficult to serve.Baseten was the first of the Inference neocloud startups to get DeepSeek V3 online, because of their H200 clusters, their close collaboration with the DeepSeek team and early support of SGLang, a relatively new VLLM alternative that is also used at frontier labs like X.ai. Each H200 has 141 GB of VRAM with 4.8 TB per second of bandwidth, meaning that you can use 8 H200's in a node to inference DeepSeek v3 in FP8, taking into account KV Cache needs. We have been close to Baseten since Sarah Guo introduced Amir Haghighat to swyx, and they supported the very first Latent Space Demo Day in San Francisco, which was effectively the trial run for swyx and Alessio to work together! Since then, Philip Kiely also led a well attended workshop on TensorRT LLM at the 2024 World's Fair. We worked with him to get two of their best representatives, Amir and Lead Model Performance Engineer Yineng Zhang, to discuss DeepSeek, SGLang, and everything they have learned running Mission Critical Inference workloads at scale for some of the largest AI products in the world.The Three Pillars of Mission Critical InferenceWe initially planned to focus the conversation on SGLang, but Amir and Yineng were quick to correct us that the choice of inference framework is only the simplest, first choice of 3 things you need for production inference at scale:“I think it takes three things, and each of them individually is necessary but not sufficient: * Performance at the model level: how fast are you running this one model running on a single GPU, let's say. The framework that you use there can, can matter. The techniques that you use there can matter. The MLA technique, for example, that Yineng mentioned, or the CUDA kernels that are being used. But there's also techniques being used at a higher level, things like speculative decoding with draft models or with Medusa heads. And these are implemented in the different frameworks, or you can even implement it yourself, but they're not necessarily tied to a single framework. But using speculative decoding gets you massive upside when it comes to being able to handle high throughput. But that's not enough. Invariably, that one model running on a single GPU, let's say, is going to get too much traffic that it cannot handle.* Horizontal scaling at the cluster/region level: And at that point, you need to horizontally scale it. That's not an ML problem. That's not a PyTorch problem. That's an infrastructure problem. How quickly do you go from, a single replica of that model to 5, to 10, to 100. And so that's the second, that's the second pillar that is necessary for running these machine critical inference workloads.And what does it take to do that? It takes, some people are like, Oh, You just need Kubernetes and Kubernetes has an autoscaler and that just works. That doesn't work for, for these kinds of mission critical inference workloads. And you end up catching yourself wanting to bit by bit to rebuild those infrastructure pieces from scratch. This has been our experience. * And then going even a layer beyond that, Kubernetes runs in a single. cluster. It's a single cluster. It's a single region tied to a single region. And when it comes to inference workloads and needing GPUs more and more, you know, we're seeing this that you cannot meet the demand inside of a single region. A single cloud's a single region. In other words, a single model might want to horizontally scale up to 200 replicas, each of which is, let's say, 2H100s or 4H100s or even a full node, you run into limits of the capacity inside of that one region. And what we had to build to get around that was the ability to have a single model have replicas across different regions. So, you know, there are models on Baseten today that have 50 replicas in GCP East and, 80 replicas in AWS West and Oracle in London, etc.* Developer experience for Compound AI Systems: The final one is wrapping the power of the first two pillars in a very good developer experience to be able to afford certain workflows like the ones that I mentioned, around multi step, multi model inference workloads, because more and more we're seeing that the market is moving towards those that the needs are generally in these sort of more complex workflows. We think they said it very well.Show Notes* Amir Haghighat, Co-Founder, Baseten* Yineng Zhang, Lead Software Engineer, Model Performance, BasetenFull YouTube EpisodePlease like and subscribe!Timestamps* 00:00 Introduction and Latest AI Model Launch* 00:11 DeepSeek v3: Specifications and Achievements* 03:10 Latent Space Podcast: Special Guests Introduction* 04:12 DeepSeek v3: Technical Insights* 11:14 Quantization and Model Performance* 16:19 MOE Models: Trends and Challenges* 18:53 Baseten's Inference Service and Pricing* 31:13 Optimization for DeepSeek* 31:45 Three Pillars of Mission Critical Inference Workloads* 32:39 Scaling Beyond Single GPU* 33:09 Challenges with Kubernetes and Infrastructure* 33:40 Multi-Region Scaling Solutions* 35:34 SG Lang: A New Framework* 38:52 Key Techniques Behind SG Lang* 48:27 Speculative Decoding and Performance* 49:54 Future of Fine-Tuning and RLHF* 01:00:28 Baseten's V3 and Industry TrendsBaseten’s previous TensorRT LLM workshop: Get full access to Latent Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

  --------  

  1:00:04
• [Ride Home] Simon Willison: Things we learned about LLMs in 2024

  Due to overwhelming demand (>15x applications:slots), we are closing CFPs for AI Engineer Summit NYC today. Last call! Thanks, we’ll be reaching out to all shortly!The world’s top AI blogger and friend of every pod, Simon Willison, dropped a monster 2024 recap: Things we learned about LLMs in 2024. Brian of the excellent TechMeme Ride Home pinged us for a connection and a special crossover episode, our first in 2025. The target audience for this podcast is a tech-literate, but non-technical one. You can see Simon’s notes for AI Engineers in his World’s Fair Keynote.Timestamp* 00:00 Introduction and Guest Welcome* 01:06 State of AI in 2025* 01:43 Advancements in AI Models* 03:59 Cost Efficiency in AI* 06:16 Challenges and Competition in AI* 17:15 AI Agents and Their Limitations* 26:12 Multimodal AI and Future Prospects* 35:29 Exploring Video Avatar Companies* 36:24 AI Influencers and Their Future* 37:12 Simplifying Content Creation with AI* 38:30 The Importance of Credibility in AI* 41:36 The Future of LLM User Interfaces* 48:58 Local LLMs: A Growing Interest* 01:07:22 AI Wearables: The Next Big Thing* 01:10:16 Wrapping Up and Final ThoughtsTranscript[00:00:00] Introduction and Guest Welcome[00:00:00] Brian: Welcome to the first bonus episode of the Tech Meme Write Home for the year 2025. I'm your host as always, Brian McCullough. Listeners to the pod over the last year know that I have made a habit of quoting from Simon Willison when new stuff happens in AI from his blog. Simon has been, become a go to for many folks in terms of, you know, Analyzing things, criticizing things in the AI space.[00:00:33] Brian: I've wanted to talk to you for a long time, Simon. So thank you for coming on the show. No, it's a privilege to be here. And the person that made this connection happen is our friend Swyx, who has been on the show back, even going back to the, the Twitter Spaces days but also an AI guru in, in their own right Swyx, thanks for coming on the show also.[00:00:54] swyx (2): Thanks. I'm happy to be on and have been a regular listener, so just happy to [00:01:00] contribute as well.[00:01:00] Brian: And a good friend of the pod, as they say. Alright, let's go right into it.[00:01:06] State of AI in 2025[00:01:06] Brian: Simon, I'm going to do the most unfair, broad question first, so let's get it out of the way. The year 2025. Broadly, what is the state of AI as we begin this year?[00:01:20] Brian: Whatever you want to say, I don't want to lead the witness.[00:01:22] Simon: Wow. So many things, right? I mean, the big thing is everything's got really good and fast and cheap. Like, that was the trend throughout all of 2024. The good models got so much cheaper, they got so much faster, they got multimodal, right? The image stuff isn't even a surprise anymore.[00:01:39] Simon: They're growing video, all of that kind of stuff. So that's all really exciting.[00:01:43] Advancements in AI Models[00:01:43] Simon: At the same time, they didn't get massively better than GPT 4, which was a bit of a surprise. So that's sort of one of the open questions is, are we going to see huge, but I kind of feel like that's a bit of a distraction because GPT 4, but way cheaper, much larger context lengths, and it [00:02:00] can do multimodal.[00:02:01] Simon: is better, right? That's a better model, even if it's not.[00:02:05] Brian: What people were expecting or hoping, maybe not expecting is not the right word, but hoping that we would see another step change, right? Right. From like GPT 2 to 3 to 4, we were expecting or hoping that maybe we were going to see the next evolution in that sort of, yeah.[00:02:21] Brian: We[00:02:21] Simon: did see that, but not in the way we expected. We thought the model was just going to get smarter, and instead we got. Massive drops in, drops in price. We got all of these new capabilities. You can talk to the things now, right? They can do simulated audio input, all of that kind of stuff. And so it's kind of, it's interesting to me that the models improved in all of these ways we weren't necessarily expecting.[00:02:43] Simon: I didn't know it would be able to do an impersonation of Santa Claus, like a, you know, Talked to it through my phone and show it what I was seeing by the end of 2024. But yeah, we didn't get that GPT 5 step. And that's one of the big open questions is, is that actually just around the corner and we'll have a bunch of GPT 5 class models drop in the [00:03:00] next few months?[00:03:00] Simon: Or is there a limit?[00:03:03] Brian: If you were a betting man and wanted to put money on it, do you expect to see a phase change, step change in 2025?[00:03:11] Simon: I don't particularly for that, like, the models, but smarter. I think all of the trends we're seeing right now are going to keep on going, especially the inference time compute, right?[00:03:21] Simon: The trick that O1 and O3 are doing, which means that you can solve harder problems, but they cost more and it churns away for longer. I think that's going to happen because that's already proven to work. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe there will be a step change to a GPT 5 level, but honestly, I'd be completely happy if we got what we've got right now.[00:03:41] Simon: But cheaper and faster and more capabilities and longer contexts and so forth. That would be thrilling to me.[00:03:46] Brian: Digging into what you've just said one of the things that, by the way, I hope to link in the show notes to Simon's year end post about what, what things we learned about LLMs in 2024. Look for that in the show notes.[00:03:59] Cost Efficiency in AI[00:03:59] Brian: One of the things that you [00:04:00] did say that you alluded to even right there was that in the last year, you felt like the GPT 4 barrier was broken, like IE. Other models, even open source ones are now regularly matching sort of the state of the art.[00:04:13] Simon: Well, it's interesting, right? So the GPT 4 barrier was a year ago, the best available model was OpenAI's GPT 4 and nobody else had even come close to it.[00:04:22] Simon: And they'd been at the, in the lead for like nine months, right? That thing came out in what, February, March of, of 2023. And for the rest of 2023, nobody else came close. And so at the start of last year, like a year ago, the big question was, Why has nobody beaten them yet? Like, what do they know that the rest of the industry doesn't know?[00:04:40] Simon: And today, that I've counted 18 organizations other than GPT 4 who've put out a model which clearly beats that GPT 4 from a year ago thing. Like, maybe they're not better than GPT 4. 0, but that's, that, that, that barrier got completely smashed. And yeah, a few of those I've run on my laptop, which is wild to me.[00:04:59] Simon: Like, [00:05:00] it was very, very wild. It felt very clear to me a year ago that if you want GPT 4, you need a rack of 40, 000 GPUs just to run the thing. And that turned out not to be true. Like the, the, this is that big trend from last year of the models getting more efficient, cheaper to run, just as capable with smaller weights and so forth.[00:05:20] Simon: And I ran another GPT 4 model on my laptop this morning, right? Microsoft 5. 4 just came out. And that, if you look at the benchmarks, it's definitely, it's up there with GPT 4. 0. It's probably not as good when you actually get into the vibes of the thing, but it, it runs on my, it's a 14 gigabyte download and I can run it on a MacBook Pro.[00:05:38] Simon: Like who saw that coming? The most exciting, like the close of the year on Christmas day, just a few weeks ago, was when DeepSeek dropped their DeepSeek v3 model on Hugging Face without even a readme file. It was just like a giant binary blob that I can't run on my laptop. It's too big. But in all of the benchmarks, it's now by far the best available [00:06:00] open, open weights model.[00:06:01] Simon: Like it's, it's, it's beating the, the metalamas and so forth. And that was trained for five and a half million dollars, which is a tenth of the price that people thought it costs to train these things. So everything's trending smaller and faster and more efficient.[00:06:15] Brian: Well, okay.[00:06:16] Challenges and Competition in AI[00:06:16] Brian: I, I kind of was going to get to that later, but let's, let's combine this with what I was going to ask you next, which is, you know, you're talking, you know, Also in the piece about the LLM prices crashing, which I've even seen in projects that I'm working on, but explain Explain that to a general audience, because we hear all the time that LLMs are eye wateringly expensive to run, but what we're suggesting, and we'll come back to the cheap Chinese LLM, but first of all, for the end user, what you're suggesting is that we're starting to see the cost come down sort of in the traditional technology way of Of costs coming down over time,[00:06:49] Simon: yes, but very aggressively.[00:06:51] Simon: I mean, my favorite thing, the example here is if you look at GPT-3, so open AI's g, PT three, which was the best, a developed model in [00:07:00] 2022 and through most of 20 2023. That, the models that we have today, the OpenAI models are a hundred times cheaper. So there was a 100x drop in price for OpenAI from their best available model, like two and a half years ago to today.[00:07:13] Simon: And[00:07:14] Brian: just to be clear, not to train the model, but for the use of tokens and things. Exactly,[00:07:20] Simon: for running prompts through them. And then When you look at the, the really, the top tier model providers right now, I think, are OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta. And there are a bunch of others that I could list there as well.[00:07:32] Simon: Mistral are very good. The, the DeepSeq and Quen models have got great. There's a whole bunch of providers serving really good models. But even if you just look at the sort of big brand name providers, they all offer models now that are A fraction of the price of the, the, of the models we were using last year.[00:07:49] Simon: I think I've got some numbers that I threw into my blog entry here. Yeah. Like Gemini 1. 5 flash, that's Google's fast high quality model is [00:08:00] how much is that? It's 0. 075 dollars per million tokens. Like these numbers are getting, So we just do cents per million now,[00:08:09] swyx (2): cents per million,[00:08:10] Simon: cents per million makes, makes a lot more sense.[00:08:12] Simon: Yeah they have one model 1. 5 flash 8B, the absolute cheapest of the Google models, is 27 times cheaper than GPT 3. 5 turbo was a year ago. That's it. And GPT 3. 5 turbo, that was the cheap model, right? Now we've got something 27 times cheaper, and the Google, this Google one can do image recognition, it can do million token context, all of those tricks.[00:08:36] Simon: But it's, it's, it's very, it's, it really is startling how inexpensive some of this stuff has got.[00:08:41] Brian: Now, are we assuming that this, that happening is directly the result of competition? Because again, you know, OpenAI, and probably they're doing this for their own almost political reasons, strategic reasons, keeps saying, we're losing money on everything, even the 200.[00:08:56] Brian: So they probably wouldn't, the prices wouldn't be [00:09:00] coming down if there wasn't intense competition in this space.[00:09:04] Simon: The competition is absolutely part of it, but I have it on good authority from sources I trust that Google Gemini is not operating at a loss. Like, the amount of electricity to run a prompt is less than they charge you.[00:09:16] Simon: And the same thing for Amazon Nova. Like, somebody found an Amazon executive and got them to say, Yeah, we're not losing money on this. I don't know about Anthropic and OpenAI, but clearly that demonstrates it is possible to run these things at these ludicrously low prices and still not be running at a loss if you discount the Army of PhDs and the, the training costs and all of that kind of stuff.[00:09:36] Brian: One, one more for me before I let Swyx jump in here. To, to come back to DeepSeek and this idea that you could train, you know, a cutting edge model for 6 million. I, I was saying on the show, like six months ago, that if we are getting to the point where each new model It would cost a billion, ten billion, a hundred billion to train that.[00:09:54] Brian: At some point it would almost, only nation states would be able to train the new models. Do you [00:10:00] expect what DeepSeek and maybe others are proving to sort of blow that up? Or is there like some sort of a parallel track here that maybe I'm not technically, I don't have the mouse to understand the difference.[00:10:11] Brian: Is the model, are the models going to go, you know, Up to a hundred billion dollars or can we get them down? Sort of like DeepSeek has proven[00:10:18] Simon: so I'm the wrong person to answer that because I don't work in the lab training these models. So I can give you my completely uninformed opinion, which is, I felt like the DeepSeek thing.[00:10:27] Simon: That was a bomb shell. That was an absolute bombshell when they came out and said, Hey, look, we've trained. One of the best available models and it cost us six, five and a half million dollars to do it. I feel, and they, the reason, one of the reasons it's so efficient is that we put all of these export controls in to stop Chinese companies from giant buying GPUs.[00:10:44] Simon: So they've, were forced to be, go as efficient as possible. And yet the fact that they've demonstrated that that's possible to do. I think it does completely tear apart this, this, this mental model we had before that yeah, the training runs just keep on getting more and more expensive and the number of [00:11:00] organizations that can afford to run these training runs keeps on shrinking.[00:11:03] Simon: That, that's been blown out of the water. So yeah, that's, again, this was our Christmas gift. This was the thing they dropped on Christmas day. Yeah, it makes me really optimistic that we can, there are, It feels like there was so much low hanging fruit in terms of the efficiency of both inference and training and we spent a whole bunch of last year exploring that and getting results from it.[00:11:22] Simon: I think there's probably a lot left. I think there's probably, well, I would not be surprised to see even better models trained spending even less money over the next six months.[00:11:31] swyx (2): Yeah. So I, I think there's a unspoken angle here on what exactly the Chinese labs are trying to do because DeepSea made a lot of noise.[00:11:41] swyx (2): so much for joining us for around the fact that they train their model for six million dollars and nobody quite quite believes them. Like it's very, very rare for a lab to trumpet the fact that they're doing it for so cheap. They're not trying to get anyone to buy them. So why [00:12:00] are they doing this? They make it very, very obvious.[00:12:05] swyx (2): Deepseek is about 150 employees. It's an order of magnitude smaller than at least Anthropic and maybe, maybe more so for OpenAI. And so what's, what's the end game here? Are they, are they just trying to show that the Chinese are better than us?[00:12:21] Simon: So Deepseek, it's the arm of a hedge, it's a, it's a quant fund, right?[00:12:25] Simon: It's an algorithmic quant trading thing. So I, I, I would love to get more insight into how that organization works. My assumption from what I've seen is it looks like they're basically just flexing. They're like, hey, look at how utterly brilliant we are with this amazing thing that we've done. And it's, it's working, right?[00:12:43] Simon: They but, and so is that it? Are they, is this just their kind of like, this is, this is why our company is so amazing. Look at this thing that we've done, or? I don't know. I'd, I'd love to get Some insight from, from within that industry as to, as to how that's all playing out.[00:12:57] swyx (2): The, the prevailing theory among the Local Llama [00:13:00] crew and the Twitter crew that I indexed for my newsletter is that there is some amount of copying going on.[00:13:06] swyx (2): It's like Sam Altman you know, tweet, tweeting about how they're being copied. And then also there's this, there, there are other sort of opening eye employees that have said, Stuff that is similar that DeepSeek's rate of progress is how U. S. intelligence estimates the number of foreign spies embedded in top labs.[00:13:22] swyx (2): Because a lot of these ideas do spread around, but they surprisingly have a very high density of them in the DeepSeek v3 technical report. So it's, it's interesting. We don't know how much, how many, how much tokens. I think that, you know, people have run analysis on how often DeepSeek thinks it is cloud or thinks it is opening GPC 4.[00:13:40] swyx (2): Thanks for watching! And we don't, we don't know. We don't know. I think for me, like, yeah, we'll, we'll, we basically will never know as, as external commentators. I think what's interesting is how, where does this go? Is there a logical floor or bottom by my estimations for the same amount of ELO started last year to the end of last year cost went down by a thousand X for the [00:14:00] GPT, for, for GPT 4 intelligence.[00:14:02] swyx (2): Would, do they go down a thousand X this year?[00:14:04] Simon: That's a fascinating question. Yeah.[00:14:06] swyx (2): Is there a Moore's law going on, or did we just get a one off benefit last year for some weird reason?[00:14:14] Simon: My uninformed hunch is low hanging fruit. I feel like up until a year ago, people haven't been focusing on efficiency at all. You know, it was all about, what can we get these weird shaped things to do?[00:14:24] Simon: And now once we've sort of hit that, okay, we know that we can get them to do what GPT 4 can do, When thousands of researchers around the world all focus on, okay, how do we make this more efficient? What are the most important, like, how do we strip out all of the weights that have stuff in that doesn't really matter?[00:14:39] Simon: All of that kind of thing. So yeah, maybe that was it. Maybe 2024 was a freak year of all of the low hanging fruit coming out at once. And we'll actually see a reduction in the, in that rate of improvement in terms of efficiency. I wonder, I mean, I think we'll know for sure in about three months time if that trend's going to continue or not.[00:14:58] swyx (2): I agree. You know, I [00:15:00] think the other thing that you mentioned that DeepSeq v3 was the gift that was given from DeepSeq over Christmas, but I feel like the other thing that might be underrated was DeepSeq R1,[00:15:11] Speaker 4: which is[00:15:13] swyx (2): a reasoning model you can run on your laptop. And I think that's something that a lot of people are looking ahead to this year.[00:15:18] swyx (2): Oh, did they[00:15:18] Simon: release the weights for that one?[00:15:20] swyx (2): Yeah.[00:15:21] Simon: Oh my goodness, I missed that. I've been playing with the quen. So the other great, the other big Chinese AI app is Alibaba's quen. Actually, yeah, I, sorry, R1 is an API available. Yeah. Exactly. When that's really cool. So Alibaba's Quen have released two reasoning models that I've run on my laptop.[00:15:38] Simon: Now there was, the first one was Q, Q, WQ. And then the second one was QVQ because the second one's a vision model. So you can like give it vision puzzles and a prompt that these things, they are so much fun to run. Because they think out loud. It's like the OpenAR 01 sort of hides its thinking process. The Query ones don't.[00:15:59] Simon: They just, they [00:16:00] just churn away. And so you'll give it a problem and it will output literally dozens of paragraphs of text about how it's thinking. My favorite thing that happened with QWQ is I asked it to draw me a pelican on a bicycle in SVG. That's like my standard stupid prompt. And for some reason it thought in Chinese.[00:16:18] Simon: It spat out a whole bunch of like Chinese text onto my terminal on my laptop, and then at the end it gave me quite a good sort of artistic pelican on a bicycle. And I ran it all through Google Translate, and yeah, it was like, it was contemplating the nature of SVG files as a starting point. And the fact that my laptop can think in Chinese now is so delightful.[00:16:40] Simon: It's so much fun watching you do that.[00:16:43] swyx (2): Yeah, I think Andrej Karpathy was saying, you know, we, we know that we have achieved proper reasoning inside of these models when they stop thinking in English, and perhaps the best form of thought is in Chinese. But yeah, for listeners who don't know Simon's blog he always, whenever a new model comes out, you, I don't know how you do it, but [00:17:00] you're always the first to run Pelican Bench on these models.[00:17:02] swyx (2): I just did it for 5.[00:17:05] Simon: Yeah.[00:17:07] swyx (2): So I really appreciate that. You should check it out. These are not theoretical. Simon's blog actually shows them.[00:17:12] Brian: Let me put on the investor hat for a second.[00:17:15] AI Agents and Their Limitations[00:17:15] Brian: Because from the investor side of things, a lot of the, the VCs that I know are really hot on agents, and this is the year of agents, but last year was supposed to be the year of agents as well. Lots of money flowing towards, And Gentic startups.[00:17:32] Brian: But in in your piece that again, we're hopefully going to have linked in the show notes, you sort of suggest there's a fundamental flaw in AI agents as they exist right now. Let me let me quote you. And then I'd love to dive into this. You said, I remain skeptical as to their ability based once again, on the Challenge of gullibility.[00:17:49] Brian: LLMs believe anything you tell them, any systems that attempt to make meaningful decisions on your behalf, will run into the same roadblock. How good is a travel agent, or a digital assistant, or even a research tool, if it [00:18:00] can't distinguish truth from fiction? So, essentially, what you're suggesting is that the state of the art now that allows agents is still, it's still that sort of 90 percent problem, the edge problem, getting to the Or, or, or is there a deeper flaw?[00:18:14] Brian: What are you, what are you saying there?[00:18:16] Simon: So this is the fundamental challenge here and honestly my frustration with agents is mainly around definitions Like any if you ask anyone who says they're working on agents to define agents You will get a subtly different definition from each person But everyone always assumes that their definition is the one true one that everyone else understands So I feel like a lot of these agent conversations, people talking past each other because one person's talking about the, the sort of travel agent idea of something that books things on your behalf.[00:18:41] Simon: Somebody else is talking about LLMs with tools running in a loop with a cron job somewhere and all of these different things. You, you ask academics and they'll laugh at you because they've been debating what agents mean for over 30 years at this point. It's like this, this long running, almost sort of an in joke in that community.[00:18:57] Simon: But if we assume that for this purpose of this conversation, an [00:19:00] agent is something that, Which you can give a job and it goes off and it does that thing for you like, like booking travel or things like that. The fundamental challenge is, it's the reliability thing, which comes from this gullibility problem.[00:19:12] Simon: And a lot of my, my interest in this originally came from when I was thinking about prompt injections as a source of this form of attack against LLM systems where you deliberately lay traps out there for this LLM to stumble across,[00:19:24] Brian: and which I should say you have been banging this drum that no one's gotten any far, at least on solving this, that I'm aware of, right.[00:19:31] Brian: Like that's still an open problem. The two years.[00:19:33] Simon: Yeah. Right. We've been talking about this problem and like, a great illustration of this was Claude so Anthropic released Claude computer use a few months ago. Fantastic demo. You could fire up a Docker container and you could literally tell it to do something and watch it open a web browser and navigate to a webpage and click around and so forth.[00:19:51] Simon: Really, really, really interesting and fun to play with. And then, um. One of the first demos somebody tried was, what if you give it a web page that says download and run this [00:20:00] executable, and it did, and the executable was malware that added it to a botnet. So the, the very first most obvious dumb trick that you could play on this thing just worked, right?[00:20:10] Simon: So that's obviously a really big problem. If I'm going to send something out to book travel on my behalf, I mean, it's hard enough for me to figure out which airlines are trying to scam me and which ones aren't. Do I really trust a language model that believes the literal truth of anything that's presented to it to go out and do those things?[00:20:29] swyx (2): Yeah I definitely think there's, it's interesting to see Anthropic doing this because they used to be the safety arm of OpenAI that split out and said, you know, we're worried about letting this thing out in the wild and here they are enabling computer use for agents. Thanks. The, it feels like things have merged.[00:20:49] swyx (2): You know, I'm, I'm also fairly skeptical about, you know, this always being the, the year of Linux on the desktop. And this is the equivalent of this being the year of agents that people [00:21:00] are not predicting so much as wishfully thinking and hoping and praying for their companies and agents to work.[00:21:05] swyx (2): But I, I feel like things are. Coming along a little bit. It's to me, it's kind of like self driving. I remember in 2014 saying that self driving was just around the corner. And I mean, it kind of is, you know, like in, in, in the Bay area. You[00:21:17] Simon: get in a Waymo and you're like, Oh, this works. Yeah, but it's a slow[00:21:21] swyx (2): cook.[00:21:21] swyx (2): It's a slow cook over the next 10 years. We're going to hammer out these things and the cynical people can just point to all the flaws, but like, there are measurable or concrete progress steps that are being made by these builders.[00:21:33] Simon: There is one form of agent that I believe in. I believe, mostly believe in the research assistant form of agents.[00:21:39] Simon: The thing where you've got a difficult problem and, and I've got like, I'm, I'm on the beta for the, the Google Gemini 1. 5 pro with deep research. I think it's called like these names, these names. Right. But. I've been using that. It's good, right? You can give it a difficult problem and it tells you, okay, I'm going to look at 56 different websites [00:22:00] and it goes away and it dumps everything to its context and it comes up with a report for you.[00:22:04] Simon: And it's not, it won't work against adversarial websites, right? If there are websites with deliberate lies in them, it might well get caught out. Most things don't have that as a problem. And so I've had some answers from that which were genuinely really valuable to me. And that feels to me like, I can see how given existing LLM tech, especially with Google Gemini with its like million token contacts and Google with their crawl of the entire web and their, they've got like search, they've got search and cache, they've got a cache of every page and so forth.[00:22:35] Simon: That makes sense to me. And that what they've got right now, I don't think it's, it's not as good as it can be, obviously, but it's, it's, it's, it's a real useful thing, which they're going to start rolling out. So, you know, Perplexity have been building the same thing for a couple of years. That, that I believe in.[00:22:50] Simon: You know, if you tell me that you're going to have an agent that's a research assistant agent, great. The coding agents I mean, chat gpt code interpreter, Nearly two years [00:23:00] ago, that thing started writing Python code, executing the code, getting errors, rewriting it to fix the errors. That pattern obviously works.[00:23:07] Simon: That works really, really well. So, yeah, coding agents that do that sort of error message loop thing, those are proven to work. And they're going to keep on getting better, and that's going to be great. The research assistant agents are just beginning to get there. The things I'm critical of are the ones where you trust, you trust this thing to go out and act autonomously on your behalf, and make decisions on your behalf, especially involving spending money, like that.[00:23:31] Simon: I don't see that working for a very long time. That feels to me like an AGI level problem.[00:23:37] swyx (2): It's it's funny because I think Stripe actually released an agent toolkit which is one of the, the things I featured that is trying to enable these agents each to have a wallet that they can go and spend and have, basically, it's a virtual card.[00:23:49] swyx (2): It's not that, not that difficult with modern infrastructure. can[00:23:51] Simon: stick a 50 cap on it, then at least it's an honor. Can't lose more than 50.[00:23:56] Brian: You know I don't, I don't know if either of you know Rafat Ali [00:24:00] he runs Skift, which is a, a travel news vertical. And he, he, he constantly laughs at the fact that every agent thing is, we're gonna get rid of booking a, a plane flight for you, you know?[00:24:11] Brian: And, and I would point out that, like, historically, when the web started, the first thing everyone talked about is, You can go online and book a trip, right? So it's funny for each generation of like technological advance. The thing they always want to kill is the travel agent. And now they want to kill the webpage travel agent.[00:24:29] Simon: Like it's like I use Google flight search. It's great, right? If you gave me an agent to do that for me, it would save me, I mean, maybe 15 seconds of typing in my things, but I still want to see what my options are and go, yeah, I'm not flying on that airline, no matter how cheap they are.[00:24:44] swyx (2): Yeah. For listeners, go ahead.[00:24:47] swyx (2): For listeners, I think, you know, I think both of you are pretty positive on NotebookLM. And you know, we, we actually interviewed the NotebookLM creators, and there are actually two internal agents going on internally. The reason it takes so long is because they're running an agent loop [00:25:00] inside that is fairly autonomous, which is kind of interesting.[00:25:01] swyx (2): For one,[00:25:02] Simon: for a definition of agent loop, if you picked that particularly well. For one definition. And you're talking about the podcast side of this, right?[00:25:07] swyx (2): Yeah, the podcast side of things. They have a there's, there's going to be a new version coming out that, that we'll be featuring at our, at our conference.[00:25:14] Simon: That one's fascinating to me. Like NotebookLM, I think it's two products, right? On the one hand, it's actually a very good rag product, right? You dump a bunch of things in, you can run searches, that, that, it does a good job of. And then, and then they added the, the podcast thing. It's a bit of a, it's a total gimmick, right?[00:25:30] Simon: But that gimmick got them attention, because they had a great product that nobody paid any attention to at all. And then you add the unfeasibly good voice synthesis of the podcast. Like, it's just, it's, it's, it's the lesson.[00:25:43] Brian: It's the lesson of mid journey and stuff like that. If you can create something that people can post on socials, you don't have to lift a finger again to do any marketing for what you're doing.[00:25:53] Brian: Let me dig into Notebook LLM just for a second as a podcaster. As a [00:26:00] gimmick, it makes sense, and then obviously, you know, you dig into it, it sort of has problems around the edges. It's like, it does the thing that all sort of LLMs kind of do, where it's like, oh, we want to Wrap up with a conclusion.[00:26:12] Multimodal AI and Future Prospects[00:26:12] Brian: I always call that like the the eighth grade book report paper problem where it has to have an intro and then, you know But that's sort of a thing where because I think you spoke about this again in your piece at the year end About how things are going multimodal and how things are that you didn't expect like, you know vision and especially audio I think So that's another thing where, at least over the last year, there's been progress made that maybe you, you didn't think was coming as quick as it came.[00:26:43] Simon: I don't know. I mean, a year ago, we had one really good vision model. We had GPT 4 vision, was, was, was very impressive. And Google Gemini had just dropped Gemini 1. 0, which had vision, but nobody had really played with it yet. Like Google hadn't. People weren't taking Gemini [00:27:00] seriously at that point. I feel like it was 1.[00:27:02] Simon: 5 Pro when it became apparent that actually they were, they, they got over their hump and they were building really good models. And yeah, and they, to be honest, the video models are mostly still using the same trick. The thing where you divide the video up into one image per second and you dump that all into the context.[00:27:16] Simon: So maybe it shouldn't have been so surprising to us that long context models plus vision meant that the video was, was starting to be solved. Of course, it didn't. Not being, you, what you really want with videos, you want to be able to do the audio and the images at the same time. And I think the models are beginning to do that now.[00:27:33] Simon: Like, originally, Gemini 1. 5 Pro originally ignored the audio. It just did the, the, like, one frame per second video trick. As far as I can tell, the most recent ones are actually doing pure multimodal. But the things that opens up are just extraordinary. Like, the the ChatGPT iPhone app feature that they shipped as one of their 12 days of, of OpenAI, I really can be having a conversation and just turn on my video camera and go, Hey, what kind of tree is [00:28:00] this?[00:28:00] Simon: And so forth. And it works. And for all I know, that's just snapping a like picture once a second and feeding it into the model. The, the, the things that you can do with that as an end user are extraordinary. Like that, that to me, I don't think most people have cottoned onto the fact that you can now stream video directly into a model because it, it's only a few weeks old.[00:28:22] Simon: Wow. That's a, that's a, that's a, that's Big boost in terms of what kinds of things you can do with this stuff. Yeah. For[00:28:30] swyx (2): people who are not that close I think Gemini Flashes free tier allows you to do something like capture a photo, one photo every second or a minute and leave it on 24, seven, and you can prompt it to do whatever.[00:28:45] swyx (2): And so you can effectively have your own camera app or monitoring app that that you just prompt and it detects where it changes. It detects for, you know, alerts or anything like that, or describes your day. You know, and, and, and the fact that this is free I think [00:29:00] it's also leads into the previous point of it being the prices haven't come down a lot.[00:29:05] Simon: And even if you're paying for this stuff, like a thing that I put in my blog entry is I ran a calculation on what it would cost to process 68, 000 photographs in my photo collection, and for each one just generate a caption, and using Gemini 1. 5 Flash 8B, it would cost me 1. 68 to process 68, 000 images, which is, I mean, that, that doesn't make sense.[00:29:28] Simon: None of that makes sense. Like it's, it's a, for one four hundredth of a cent per image to generate captions now. So you can see why feeding in a day's worth of video just isn't even very expensive to process.[00:29:40] swyx (2): Yeah, I'll tell you what is expensive. It's the other direction. So we're here, we're talking about consuming video.[00:29:46] swyx (2): And this year, we also had a lot of progress, like probably one of the most excited, excited, anticipated launches of the year was Sora. We actually got Sora. And less exciting.[00:29:55] Simon: We did, and then VO2, Google's Sora, came out like three [00:30:00] days later and upstaged it. Like, Sora was exciting until VO2 landed, which was just better.[00:30:05] swyx (2): In general, I feel the media, or the social media, has been very unfair to Sora. Because what was released to the world, generally available, was Sora Lite. It's the distilled version of Sora, right? So you're, I did not[00:30:16] Simon: realize that you're absolutely comparing[00:30:18] swyx (2): the, the most cherry picked version of VO two, the one that they published on the marketing page to the, the most embarrassing version of the soa.[00:30:25] swyx (2): So of course it's gonna look bad, so, well, I got[00:30:27] Simon: access to the VO two I'm in the VO two beta and I've been poking around with it and. Getting it to generate pelicans on bicycles and stuff. I would absolutely[00:30:34] swyx (2): believe that[00:30:35] Simon: VL2 is actually better. Is Sora, so is full fat Sora coming soon? Do you know, when, when do we get to play with that one?[00:30:42] Simon: No one's[00:30:43] swyx (2): mentioned anything. I think basically the strategy is let people play around with Sora Lite and get info there. But the, the, keep developing Sora with the Hollywood studios. That's what they actually care about. Gotcha. Like the rest of us. Don't really know what to do with the video anyway. Right.[00:30:59] Simon: I mean, [00:31:00] that's my thing is I realized that for generative images and images and video like images We've had for a few years and I don't feel like they've broken out into the talented artist community yet Like lots of people are having fun with them and doing and producing stuff. That's kind of cool to look at but what I want you know that that movie everything everywhere all at once, right?[00:31:20] Simon: One, one ton of Oscars, utterly amazing film. The VFX team for that were five people, some of whom were watching YouTube videos to figure out what to do. My big question for, for Sora and and and Midjourney and stuff, what happens when a creative team like that starts using these tools? I want the creative geniuses behind everything, everywhere all at once.[00:31:40] Simon: What are they going to be able to do with this stuff in like a few years time? Because that's really exciting to me. That's where you take artists who are at the very peak of their game. Give them these new capabilities and see, see what they can do with them.[00:31:52] swyx (2): I should, I know a little bit here. So it should mention that, that team actually used RunwayML.[00:31:57] swyx (2): So there was, there was,[00:31:57] Simon: yeah.[00:31:59] swyx (2): I don't know how [00:32:00] much I don't. So, you know, it's possible to overstate this, but there are people integrating it. Generated video within their workflow, even pre SORA. Right, because[00:32:09] Brian: it's not, it's not the thing where it's like, okay, tomorrow we'll be able to do a full two hour movie that you prompt with three sentences.[00:32:15] Brian: It is like, for the very first part of, of, you know video effects in film, it's like, if you can get that three second clip, if you can get that 20 second thing that they did in the matrix that blew everyone's minds and took a million dollars or whatever to do, like, it's the, it's the little bits and pieces that they can fill in now that it's probably already there.[00:32:34] swyx (2): Yeah, it's like, I think actually having a layered view of what assets people need and letting AI fill in the low value assets. Right, like the background video, the background music and, you know, sometimes the sound effects. That, that maybe, maybe more palatable maybe also changes the, the way that you evaluate the stuff that's coming out.[00:32:57] swyx (2): Because people tend to, in social media, try to [00:33:00] emphasize foreground stuff, main character stuff. So you really care about consistency, and you, you really are bothered when, like, for example, Sorad. Botch's image generation of a gymnast doing flips, which is horrible. It's horrible. But for background crowds, like, who cares?[00:33:18] Brian: And by the way, again, I was, I was a film major way, way back in the day, like, that's how it started. Like things like Braveheart, where they filmed 10 people on a field, and then the computer could turn it into 1000 people on a field. Like, that's always been the way it's around the margins and in the background that first comes in.[00:33:36] Brian: The[00:33:36] Simon: Lord of the Rings movies were over 20 years ago. Although they have those giant battle sequences, which were very early, like, I mean, you could almost call it a generative AI approach, right? They were using very sophisticated, like, algorithms to model out those different battles and all of that kind of stuff.[00:33:52] Simon: Yeah, I know very little. I know basically nothing about film production, so I try not to commentate on it. But I am fascinated to [00:34:00] see what happens when, when these tools start being used by the real, the people at the top of their game.[00:34:05] swyx (2): I would say like there's a cultural war that is more that being fought here than a technology war.[00:34:11] swyx (2): Most of the Hollywood people are against any form of AI anyway, so they're busy Fighting that battle instead of thinking about how to adopt it and it's, it's very fringe. I participated here in San Francisco, one generative AI video creative hackathon where the AI positive artists actually met with technologists like myself and then we collaborated together to build short films and that was really nice and I think, you know, I'll be hosting some of those in my events going forward.[00:34:38] swyx (2): One thing that I think like I want to leave it. Give people a sense of it's like this is a recap of last year But then sometimes it's useful to walk away as well with like what can we expect in the future? I don't know if you got anything. I would also call out that the Chinese models here have made a lot of progress Hyde Law and Kling and God knows who like who else in the video arena [00:35:00] Also making a lot of progress like surprising him like I think maybe actually Chinese China is surprisingly ahead with regards to Open8 at least, but also just like specific forms of video generation.[00:35:12] Simon: Wouldn't it be interesting if a film industry sprung up in a country that we don't normally think of having a really strong film industry that was using these tools? Like, that would be a fascinating sort of angle on this. Mm hmm. Mm hmm.[00:35:25] swyx (2): Agreed. I, I, I Oh, sorry. Go ahead.[00:35:29] Exploring Video Avatar Companies[00:35:29] swyx (2): Just for people's Just to put it on people's radar as well, Hey Jen, there's like there's a category of video avatar companies that don't specifically, don't specialize in general video.[00:35:41] swyx (2): They only do talking heads, let's just say. And HeyGen sings very well.[00:35:45] Brian: Swyx, you know that that's what I've been using, right? Like, have, have I, yeah, right. So, if you see some of my recent YouTube videos and things like that, where, because the beauty part of the HeyGen thing is, I, I, I don't want to use the robot voice, so [00:36:00] I record the mp3 file for my computer, And then I put that into HeyGen with the avatar that I've trained it on, and all it does is the lip sync.[00:36:09] Brian: So it looks, it's not 100 percent uncanny valley beatable, but it's good enough that if you weren't looking for it, it's just me sitting there doing one of my clips from the show. And, yeah, so, by the way, HeyGen. Shout out to them.[00:36:24] AI Influencers and Their Future[00:36:24] swyx (2): So I would, you know, in terms of like the look ahead going, like, looking, reviewing 2024, looking at trends for 2025, I would, they basically call this out.[00:36:33] swyx (2): Meta tried to introduce AI influencers and failed horribly because they were just bad at it. But at some point that there will be more and more basically AI influencers Not in a way that Simon is but in a way that they are not human.[00:36:50] Simon: Like the few of those that have done well, I always feel like they're doing well because it's a gimmick, right?[00:36:54] Simon: It's a it's it's novel and fun to like Like that, the AI Seinfeld thing [00:37:00] from last year, the Twitch stream, you know, like those, if you're the only one or one of just a few doing that, you'll get, you'll attract an audience because it's an interesting new thing. But I just, I don't know if that's going to be sustainable longer term or not.[00:37:11] Simon: Like,[00:37:12] Simplifying Content Creation with AI[00:37:12] Brian: I'm going to tell you, Because I've had discussions, I can't name the companies or whatever, but, so think about the workflow for this, like, now we all know that on TikTok and Instagram, like, holding up a phone to your face, and doing like, in my car video, or walking, a walk and talk, you know, that's, that's very common, but also, if you want to do a professional sort of talking head video, you still have to sit in front of a camera, you still have to do the lighting, you still have to do the video editing, versus, if you can just record, what I'm saying right now, the last 30 seconds, If you clip that out as an mp3 and you have a good enough avatar, then you can put that avatar in front of Times Square, on a beach, or whatever.[00:37:50] Brian: So, like, again for creators, the reason I think Simon, we're on the verge of something, it, it just, it's not going to, I think it's not, oh, we're going to have [00:38:00] AI avatars take over, it'll be one of those things where it takes another piece of the workflow out and simplifies it. I'm all[00:38:07] Simon: for that. I, I always love this stuff.[00:38:08] Simon: I like tools. Tools that help human beings do more. Do more ambitious things. I'm always in favor of, like, that, that, that's what excites me about this entire field.[00:38:17] swyx (2): Yeah. We're, we're looking into basically creating one for my podcast. We have this guy Charlie, he's Australian. He's, he's not real, but he pre, he opens every show and we are gonna have him present all the shorts.[00:38:29] Simon: Yeah, go ahead.[00:38:30] The Importance of Credibility in AI[00:38:30] Simon: The thing that I keep coming back to is this idea of credibility like in a world that is full of like AI generated everything and so forth It becomes even more important that people find the sources of information that they trust and find people and find Sources that are credible and I feel like that's the one thing that LLMs and AI can never have is credibility, right?[00:38:49] Simon: ChatGPT can never stake its reputation on telling you something useful and interesting because That means nothing, right? It's a matrix multiplication. It depends on who prompted it and so forth. So [00:39:00] I'm always, and this is when I'm blogging as well, I'm always looking for, okay, who are the reliable people who will tell me useful, interesting information who aren't just going to tell me whatever somebody's paying them to tell, tell them, who aren't going to, like, type a one sentence prompt into an LLM and spit out an essay and stick it online.[00:39:16] Simon: And that, that to me, Like, earning that credibility is really important. That's why a lot of my ethics around the way that I publish are based on the idea that I want people to trust me. I want to do things that, that gain credibility in people's eyes so they will come to me for information as a trustworthy source.[00:39:32] Simon: And it's the same for the sources that I'm, I'm consulting as well. So that's something I've, I've been thinking a lot about that sort of credibility focus on this thing for a while now.[00:39:40] swyx (2): Yeah, you can layer or structure credibility or decompose it like so one thing I would put in front of you I'm not saying that you should Agree with this or accept this at all is that you can use AI to generate different Variations and then and you pick you as the final sort of last mile person that you pick The last output and [00:40:00] you put your stamp of credibility behind that like that everything's human reviewed instead of human origin[00:40:04] Simon: Yeah, if you publish something you need to be able to put it on the ground Publishing it.[00:40:08] Simon: You need to say, I will put my name to this. I will attach my credibility to this thing. And if you're willing to do that, then, then that's great.[00:40:16] swyx (2): For creators, this is huge because there's a fundamental asymmetry between starting with a blank slate versus choosing from five different variations.[00:40:23] Brian: Right.[00:40:24] Brian: And also the key thing that you just said is like, if everything that I do, if all of the words were generated by an LLM, if the voice is generated by an LLM. If the video is also generated by the LLM, then I haven't done anything, right? But if, if one or two of those, you take a shortcut, but it's still, I'm willing to sign off on it.[00:40:47] Brian: Like, I feel like that's where I feel like people are coming around to like, this is maybe acceptable, sort of.[00:40:53] Simon: This is where I've been pushing the definition. I love the term slop. Where I've been pushing the definition of slop as AI generated [00:41:00] content that is both unrequested and unreviewed and the unreviewed thing is really important like that's the thing that elevates something from slop to not slop is if A human being has reviewed it and said, you know what, this is actually worth other people's time.[00:41:12] Simon: And again, I'm willing to attach my credibility to it and say, hey, this is worthwhile.[00:41:16] Brian: It's, it's, it's the cura curational, curatorial and editorial part of it that no matter what the tools are to do shortcuts, to do, as, as Swyx is saying choose between different edits or different cuts, but in the end, if there's a curatorial mind, Or editorial mind behind it.[00:41:32] Brian: Let me I want to wedge this in before we start to close.[00:41:36] The Future of LLM User Interfaces[00:41:36] Brian: One of the things coming back to your year end piece that has been a something that I've been banging the drum about is when you're talking about LLMs. Getting harder to use. You said most users are thrown in at the deep end.[00:41:48] Brian: The default LLM chat UI is like taking brand new computer users, dropping them into a Linux terminal and expecting them to figure it all out. I mean, it's, it's literally going back to the command line. The command line was defeated [00:42:00] by the GUI interface. And this is what I've been banging the drum about is like, this cannot be.[00:42:05] Brian: The user interface, what we have now cannot be the end result. Do you see any hints or seeds of a GUI moment for LLM interfaces?[00:42:17] Simon: I mean, it has to happen. It absolutely has to happen. The the, the, the, the usability of these things is turning into a bit of a crisis. And we are at least seeing some really interesting innovation in little directions.[00:42:28] Simon: Just like OpenAI's chat GPT canvas thing that they just launched. That is at least. Going a little bit more interesting than just chat, chats and responses. You know, you can, they're exploring that space where you're collaborating with an LLM. You're both working in the, on the same document. That makes a lot of sense to me.[00:42:44] Simon: Like that, that feels really smart. The one of the best things is still who was it who did the, the UI where you could, they had a drawing UI where you draw an interface and click a button. TL draw would then make it real thing. That was spectacular, [00:43:00] absolutely spectacular, like, alternative vision of how you'd interact with these models.[00:43:05] Simon: Because yeah, the and that's, you know, so I feel like there is so much scope for innovation there and it is beginning to happen. Like, like, I, I feel like most people do understand that we need to do better in terms of interfaces that both help explain what's going on and give people better tools for working with models.[00:43:23] Simon: I was going to say, I want to[00:43:25] Brian: dig a little deeper into this because think of the conceptual idea behind the GUI, which is instead of typing into a command line open word. exe, it's, you, you click an icon, right? So that's abstracting away sort of the, again, the programming stuff that like, you know, it's, it's a, a, a child can tap on an iPad and, and make a program open, right?[00:43:47] Brian: The problem it seems to me right now with how we're interacting with LLMs is it's sort of like you know a dumb robot where it's like you poke it and it goes over here, but no, I want it, I want to go over here so you poke it this way and you can't get it exactly [00:44:00] right, like, what can we abstract away from the From the current, what's going on that, that makes it more fine tuned and easier to get more precise.[00:44:12] Brian: You see what I'm saying?[00:44:13] Simon: Yes. And the this is the other trend that I've been following from the last year, which I think is super interesting. It's the, the prompt driven UI development thing. Basically, this is the pattern where Claude Artifacts was the first thing to do this really well. You type in a prompt and it goes, Oh, I should answer that by writing a custom HTML and JavaScript application for you that does a certain thing.[00:44:35] Simon: And when you think about that take and since then it turns out This is easy, right? Every decent LLM can produce HTML and JavaScript that does something useful. So we've actually got this alternative way of interacting where they can respond to your prompt with an interactive custom interface that you can work with.[00:44:54] Simon: People haven't quite wired those back up again. Like, ideally, I'd want the LLM ask me a [00:45:00] question where it builds me a custom little UI, For that question, and then it gets to see how I interacted with that. I don't know why, but that's like just such a small step from where we are right now. But that feels like such an obvious next step.[00:45:12] Simon: Like an LLM, why should it, why should you just be communicating with, with text when it can build interfaces on the fly that let you select a point on a map or or move like sliders up and down. It's gonna create knobs and dials. I keep saying knobs and dials. right. We can do that. And the LLMs can build, and Claude artifacts will build you a knobs and dials interface.[00:45:34] Simon: But at the moment they haven't closed the loop. When you twiddle those knobs, Claude doesn't see what you were doing. They're going to close that loop. I'm, I'm shocked that they haven't done it yet. So yeah, I think there's so much scope for innovation and there's so much scope for doing interesting stuff with that model where the LLM, anything you can represent in SVG, which is almost everything, can now be part of that ongoing conversation.[00:45:59] swyx (2): Yeah, [00:46:00] I would say the best executed version of this I've seen so far is Bolt where you can literally type in, make a Spotify clone, make an Airbnb clone, and it actually just does that for you zero shot with a nice design.[00:46:14] Simon: There's a benchmark for that now. The LMRena people now have a benchmark that is zero shot app, app generation, because all of the models can do it.[00:46:22] Simon: Like it's, it's, I've started figuring out. I'm building my own version of this for my own project, because I think within six months. I think it'll just be an expected feature. Like if you have a web application, why don't you have a thing where, oh, look, the, you can add a custom, like, so for my dataset data exploration project, I want you to be able to do things like conjure up a dashboard, just via a prompt.[00:46:43] Simon: You say, oh, I need a pie chart and a bar chart and put them next to each other, and then have a form where submitting the form inserts a row into my database table. And this is all suddenly feasible. It's, it's, it's not even particularly difficult to do, which is great. Utterly bizarre that these things are now easy.[00:47:00][00:47:00] swyx (2): I think for a general audience, that is what I would highlight, that software creation is becoming easier and easier. Gemini is now available in Gmail and Google Sheets. I don't write my own Google Sheets formulas anymore, I just tell Gemini to do it. And so I think those are, I almost wanted to basically somewhat disagree with, with your assertion that LMS got harder to use.[00:47:22] swyx (2): Like, yes, we, we expose more capabilities, but they're, they're in minor forms, like using canvas, like web search in, in in chat GPT and like Gemini being in, in Excel sheets or in Google sheets, like, yeah, we're getting, no,[00:47:37] Simon: no, no, no. Those are the things that make it harder, because the problem is that for each of those features, they're amazing.[00:47:43] Simon: If you understand the edges of the feature, if you're like, okay, so in Google, Gemini, Excel formulas, I can get it to do a certain amount of things, but I can't get it to go and read a web. You probably can't get it to read a webpage, right? But you know, there are, there are things that it can do and things that it can't do, which are completely undocumented.[00:47:58] Simon: If you ask it what it [00:48:00] can and can't do, they're terrible at answering questions about that. So like my favorite example is Claude artifacts. You can't build a Claude artifact that can hit an API somewhere else. Because the cause headers on that iframe prevents accessing anything outside of CDNJS. So, good luck learning cause headers as an end user in order to understand why Like, I've seen people saying, oh, this is rubbish.[00:48:26] Simon: I tried building an artifact that would run a prompt and it couldn't because Claude didn't expose an API with cause headers that all of this stuff is so weird and complicated. And yeah, like that, that, the more that with the more tools we add, the more expertise you need to really, To understand the full scope of what you can do.[00:48:44] Simon: And so it's, it's, I wouldn't say it's, it's, it's, it's like, the question really comes down to what does it take to understand the full extent of what's possible? And honestly, that, that's just getting more and more involved over time.[00:48:58] Local LLMs: A Growing Interest[00:48:58] swyx (2): I have one more topic that I, I [00:49:00] think you, you're kind of a champion of and we've touched on it a little bit, which is local LLMs.[00:49:05] swyx (2): And running AI applications on your desktop, I feel like you are an early adopter of many, many things.[00:49:12] Simon: I had an interesting experience with that over the past year. Six months ago, I almost completely lost interest. And the reason is that six months ago, the best local models you could run, There was no point in using them at all, because the best hosted models were so much better.[00:49:26] Simon: Like, there was no point at which I'd choose to run a model on my laptop if I had API access to Cloud 3. 5 SONNET. They just, they weren't even comparable. And that changed, basically, in the past three months, as the local models had this step changing capability, where now I can run some of these local models, and they're not as good as Cloud 3.[00:49:45] Simon: 5 SONNET, but they're not so far away that It's not worth me even using them. The other, the, the, the, the continuing problem is I've only got 64 gigabytes of RAM, and if you run, like, LLAMA370B, it's not going to work. Most of my RAM is gone. So now I have to shut down my Firefox tabs [00:50:00] and, and my Chrome and my VS Code windows in order to run it.[00:50:03] Simon: But it's got me interested again. Like, like the, the efficiency improvements are such that now, if you were to like stick me on a desert island with my laptop, I'd be very productive using those local models. And that's, that's pretty exciting. And if those trends continue, and also, like, I think my next laptop, if when I buy one is going to have twice the amount of RAM, At which point, maybe I can run the, almost the top tier, like open weights models and still be able to use it as a computer as well.[00:50:32] Simon: NVIDIA just announced their 3, 000 128 gigabyte monstrosity. That's pretty good price. You know, that's that's, if you're going to buy it,[00:50:42] swyx (2): custom OS and all.[00:50:46] Simon: If I get a job, if I, if, if, if I have enough of an income that I can justify blowing $3,000 on it, then yes.[00:50:52] swyx (2): Okay, let's do a GoFundMe to get Simon one it.[00:50:54] swyx (2): Come on. You know, you can get a job anytime you want. Is this, this is just purely discretionary .[00:50:59] Simon: I want, [00:51:00] I want a job that pays me to do exactly what I'm doing already and doesn't tell me what else to do. That's, thats the challenge.[00:51:06] swyx (2): I think Ethan Molik does pretty well. Whatever, whatever it is he's doing.[00:51:11] swyx (2): But yeah, basically I was trying to bring in also, you know, not just local models, but Apple intelligence is on every Mac machine. You're, you're, you seem skeptical. It's rubbish.[00:51:21] Simon: Apple intelligence is so bad. It's like, it does one thing well.[00:51:25] swyx (2): Oh yeah, what's that? It summarizes notifications. And sometimes it's humorous.[00:51:29] Brian: Are you sure it does that well? And also, by the way, the other, again, from a sort of a normie point of view. There's no indication from Apple of when to use it. Like, everybody upgrades their thing and it's like, okay, now you have Apple Intelligence, and you never know when to use it ever again.[00:51:47] swyx (2): Oh, yeah, you consult the Apple docs, which is MKBHD.[00:51:49] swyx (2): The[00:51:51] Simon: one thing, the one thing I'll say about Apple Intelligence is, One of the reasons it's so disappointing is that the models are just weak, but now, like, Llama 3b [00:52:00] is Such a good model in a 2 gigabyte file I think give Apple six months and hopefully they'll catch up to the state of the art on the small models And then maybe it'll start being a lot more interesting.[00:52:10] swyx (2): Yeah. Anyway, I like This was year one And and you know just like our first year of iPhone maybe maybe not that much of a hit and then year three They had the App Store so Hey I would say give it some time, and you know, I think Chrome also shipping Gemini Nano I think this year in Chrome, which means that every app, every web app will have for free access to a local model that just ships in the browser, which is kind of interesting.[00:52:38] swyx (2): And then I, I think I also wanted to just open the floor for any, like, you know, any of us what are the apps that, you know, AI applications that we've adopted that have, that we really recommend because these are all, you know, apps that are running on our browser that like, or apps that are running locally that we should be, that, that other people should be trying.[00:52:55] swyx (2): Right? Like, I, I feel like that's, that's one always one thing that is helpful at the start of the [00:53:00] year.[00:53:00] Simon: Okay. So for running local models. My top picks, firstly, on the iPhone, there's this thing called MLC Chat, which works, and it's easy to install, and it runs Llama 3B, and it's so much fun. Like, it's not necessarily a capable enough novel that I use it for real things, but my party trick right now is I get my phone to write a Netflix Christmas movie plot outline where, like, a bunch of Jeweller falls in love with the King of Sweden or whatever.[00:53:25] Simon: And it does a good job and it comes up with pun names for the movies. And that's, that's deeply entertaining. On my laptop, most recently, I've been getting heavy into, into Olama because the Olama team are very, very good at finding the good models and patching them up and making them work well. It gives you an API.[00:53:42] Simon: My little LLM command line tool that has a plugin that talks to Olama, which works really well. So that's my, my Olama is. I think the easiest on ramp to to running models locally, if you want a nice user interface, LMStudio is, I think, the best user interface [00:54:00] thing at that. It's not open source. It's good.[00:54:02] Simon: It's worth playing with. The other one that I've been trying with recently, there's a thing called, what's it called? Open web UI or something. Yeah. The UI is fantastic. It, if you've got Olama running and you fire this thing up, it spots Olama and it gives you an interface onto your Olama models. And that's really nicely done.[00:54:19] Simon: That's that, that, that, that's, that's my current favorite, like open source UI for these things. But yeah, so there's lots of good options. You do need a lot of disk space. Like the, the, the models are, the, the best, the, the models start at two gigabytes for like the 3B models that are actually worth playing with.[00:54:35] Simon: The, the really impressive ones tend to be in the sort of 20 to 30 gigabyte range in my experience.[00:54:40] swyx (2): Yeah, I think my, my struggle here is I'm not that much of a absolutist in terms of running things locally. Like I'm happy to call an API. Same here. I do it to play.[00:54:53] Simon: It's my research interest, yeah. When people[00:54:55] swyx (2): get so excited[00:54:56] Brian: Answer your own question.[00:54:59] swyx (2): Like, give us [00:55:00] more apps that you wanna Yeah, sometimes it's like, it's just nice to recommend apps. So, I use SuperWhisperer now. I tried WhisperFlow, didn't really work for me. SuperWhisperer is one of them, which basically replaces typing. Like, you should just type. Talk, most of the time, especially if you're doing anything long form.[00:55:19] swyx (2): You hold, I hold down caps lock and I, and I talk. And then when I'm done, I lift it up and it uses, it doesn't, it's not just about writing down your transcripts because I make ums and ahs all the time. I restate myself, myself all the time, but it uses GPT 4 to rewrite. And that's what these guys are doing.[00:55:33] swyx (2): They're all doing some form of state of the art ASR, automatic speech recognition, and then, and then and LLM to rewrite. And then I think I would also recommend. For people to check out Rosebud for journaling. I think AI for mental health is quite unexplored and it's not because we are trying to build AI therapists.[00:55:51] swyx (2): I think the therapists really hate that. You'll, you'll never be on the level of therapist that, that gets back to the human[00:55:57] Brian: thing that we were discussing, you know, on, on, [00:56:00] on some level. There are certain things and disciplines that require the human touch and that might be sure.[00:56:05] swyx (2): But the human touch cost me 300 an hour, right?[00:56:09] swyx (2): And then this thing's, this thing's 3 a month, you know. So there's a, there's a spectrum of people for, for whom that will work. And I think it's, it's cheap now to try all these things.[00:56:21] Simon: I'm going to throw in a quick recommendation for an app. Mac Whisper is my favorite desktop app. I love that thing.[00:56:29] Simon: It runs Whisper, and you can do things like you can paste in the URL to a YouTube video and it'll pull the audio and give you a transcript. So, that's how I watch YouTube now, is I slap it into Mac Whisper, and then I hit copy and paste into Claude, and then I use the Claude web app to do things. But Mac Whisper, it works with mp3 files.[00:56:46] Simon: Every time I'm on a podcast, I dump the mp3 into Mac Whisper, then I dump the transcript into Claude and say, And What should I put in the show notes? And it spits out a bullet point list where it says, Oh, you mentioned, like, data set that you should link to that, that kind of thing. [00:57:00] Stuff like that, that's Mac Whisperer, I use it several times a day, to be honest.[00:57:03] Simon: Like, it's, it's, it's great. Yeah.[00:57:05] Brian: I'm actually, I'm going to say one that is incredibly super basic, and again, coming back to just my workflow, but we are currently recording this on Riverside. Riverside is a great tool for recording video, audio things like we're doing right now, but I always use this as an example to folks when they're like, well, how, what will AI do for me when I first started using Riverside, like we're recording three different channels right now.[00:57:29] Brian: Right. You guys are recording locally, so there's three audio files, three video files. And then, when I first started using Riverside, you had to pump three tracks into Adobe and then edit. Okay, now we focus on Simon, now we focus on Swyx, now we focus on Brian, now we do all three. And then one day, a tool popped up that says hit this button, and it's smart edit.[00:57:52] Brian: And then, the AI determines, okay, Simon has been talking for 30 minutes, so go to the full shot of him. [00:58:00] And Brian is now talking, or there's overtalk, so let's have all three talking heads. With one button, for anything I posted, it saved me Three or four hours worth of work. That, to me, is like, again, if normies are listening[00:58:14] Simon: Riverside has that feature now.[00:58:15] Brian: Yeah.[00:58:15] swyx (2): Yeah. Yeah.[00:58:17] Simon: Damn. I don't use it. Oh, that[00:58:18] swyx (2): sounds fantastic. I still use a human editor.[00:58:21] Brian: The day it came out, I was running around the house, telling my wife, telling anyone that would listen, you don't know, I just saved three hours because they had a new feature. Like, that's That's exciting. Brian's[00:58:32] swyx (2): basically crying with joy right now.[00:58:35] Brian: Alright let's, let's try to bring this to a landing a little bit. Simon, I have about maybe two or three more. We can do these rapid fire. Cool. One of my shows, one of the things of my show is, it's sort of like Silicon Valley writ large, so it's sort of like the horse race of who's up and who's down or whatever.[00:58:52] Brian: To the degree that you're interested in pontificating on this, OpenAI is a company in 2025. Do you [00:59:00] see challenges coming? Are you bearish, bullish? I almost, I'm doing a CNBC sort of thing, but like, how do you feel about OpenAI this year?[00:59:06] Simon: I think, I think they're in a bit of trouble. They seem to have lost a lot of talent.[00:59:10] Simon: Like, they're losing, and they don't have that, if it wasn't for O3, they'd be in massive trouble, because they'd have lost that, like, top of the pile thing. I think O3 clawed them back up again, but one of the big stories of 2024 is OpenAI started as the clear leader. And now, Google Gemini is really good, like, Google Gemini had an amazing year.[00:59:28] Simon: Anthropic Claude, Claude 3. 5 Sonnet is still my personal favorite model. And that feels notable, like, like, OpenAI went from, like, nobody would argue they were not the, the leader in all of this stuff a year ago, and today, They're still doing great, but they're not, like, as far ahead as they were.[00:59:47] Brian: Next question, and maybe this couldn't be as rapid fire, but I loved, finally, from your piece, the idea that LLMs need better criticism, which I'd love you to expand on, because as I sort of straddle this world of tech journalism and [01:00:00] creator and investor and all that stuff I thought that you had a really interesting thing to say about how, and we even alluded to this about, like, Hollywood being against it, like, Better criticism in the sense that, as I took it, everybody is sort of, they've got their hackles up, they're trying to defend their livelihoods and things like that.[01:00:19] Brian: But it's either, this is gonna destroy my job and destroy the world, or, like, I'm, sorry, I'm again leading the witness. What did you mean by LLMs need better criticism?[01:00:30] Simon: So this is a frustration I have, that I, like, if I read a discussion thread somewhere about, on this topic, I can predict exactly what everyone's going to say.[01:00:38] Simon: People talk about the environmental impact, they talk about the plagiarism of the training data, the unlicensed training data. They'll, there's often this sort of, oh, and these things are completely useless thing. That's the one that I will push back against. The other things are true, right? The, the idea that LLMs are just completely useless, that the, the argument I always make there is, they are Very useful, if you understand how to use them, which is distinctly [01:01:00] unintuitive.[01:01:00] Simon: Like, you have to learn how to deal with something that will just wildly hallucinate and make things up, and all of those kinds of things. If you can learn how to, what they're good at and what they're bad at, I use them dozens of times a day, and I get enormous value out of them. So I'll push back on people who say, no, they're just useless.[01:01:16] Simon: But the other things, you know, the environmental impact of the, the way the training data works, I feel like the training data one's interesting, because It's probably legal under fair use, but it's clearly unfair if somebody takes your work without your permission and trains a model which then competes with you in the marketplace.[01:01:33] Simon: Like, like, legal or not, that, that, that's, that's, I, I understand why people are upset about that, that, that's a reasonable thing to be upset by. So What I want, and I also feel like the impact that this stuff can have on society, especially as it starts undermining all sorts of jobs that we never thought were going to be undermined by technology.[01:01:50] Simon: Like, who thought it would come for artists and lawyers first, right? That's bizarre. We need to have really high quality conversations where we help people figure out what works, what doesn't [01:02:00] work. We need people to be able to make good decisions about what to do with their careers to embrace this stuff and all of that sort of stuff.[01:02:06] Simon: And if we just get distracted by saying, yeah, but it's, it's, it's useless plagiarism driven, like environmental vent, vently contrast catastrophic. Even though those things represent quite a lot of truth, I don't think that that's a useful message to, to lead with. Like, I want to be having the much more interesting high level conversations.[01:02:24] Simon: Oh, okay. Well, if there are negatives, how do we, what do we do to counter those negatives? If there are positives, how do we encourage those? How do we help people make good decisions about how to use this technology?[01:02:36] swyx (2): I, I think, I, where I see this the most is for people who are kind of very in internal, like sort of you and I are immersed in this every single day, so we're frankly tired of the same debates being recycled again and again.[01:02:50] swyx (2): I think what might be more useful or, you know, More impactful is the level at which it starts to hit regulation. Last year, we had a couple [01:03:00] of very notable attempts at the White House level and in the California level to regulate AI, and those did not come to pass. But at some point, these criticisms bubble up to law, to matters of national security or national Science in progress.[01:03:17] swyx (2): And I, like, I feel like there needs to be more information or enlightenment there, maybe? If only because it tends to be that they're very trailing. Like the, you know, my favorite example to pick on, which is very unfair of me, but whatever you know, the, the California SB 1047 Act tried to cap compute at 10 to the power 25.[01:03:38] swyx (2): So that's a deep sink. Exactly. Well, it also is exactly at the point at which we pivoted from training GPT 5 to O1, where there is no longer scaling pre trained compute. What I'm saying is like, we're always trying to regulate the last war, and I don't think that works in a field that is basically 8 years old.[01:04:00][01:04:00] Simon: I think I've got, there are two, there are two areas of regulation I'm super interested in that, that, that one of them is I do think that regulating the way these things are used can work. The big example is I don't want somebody's insurance claim denied by a black box LLM where nobody can explain what it did.[01:04:16] Simon: Like that just feels Oh, we have laws for[01:04:17] Speaker 4: that. Exactly.[01:04:18] Simon: This is like gridlining. Well Yeah, take those laws, reinforce them, update them for modern capabilities. And then the other one there's some really interesting stuff around privacy. Like we've got this huge problem right now where People will refuse to use any of these tools because they don't trust that the things they say to it won't be trained on and then exposed to other people.[01:04:37] Simon: And there are lots of terms and conditions that you can read through and try and navigate around. I would love there to be just really straightforward laws that people understand where They know that it's not going to train on their input because there's a law that says under these circumstances that that can't happen.[01:04:52] Simon: Like that sort of stuff, like, like, it's basically taking our existing privacy laws and giving them a few more teeth and just reinforcing them without [01:05:00] introducing cookie banners a la the European Union, right? There's, these things are always very, it's very risky to try and get this stuff right because you can have all sorts of bad results if you don't design them correctly, but that, that's, there's space for that, I think.[01:05:15] Brian: Yeah, I, when I read that piece, and then when you just said you know Swyx said we, we're in the weeds on this every single day, so we're tired of hearing these arguments. It reminds me of folks that are always into politics, and then they're like, They're mad at the people that don't care about politics until it's an election year.[01:05:34] Brian: And then they're like, well, you're a low information voter because all you know is that the factory in your town got shut down or there's inflation or whatever. And so you vote one way or the other, but you haven't been paying attention. But that's kind of the point. So, what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't expect normal people to pay attention, except for the fact that, oh, this might lose me my job.[01:05:52] Brian: So you can't, you can't blame them for being, I don't know, reactionary is the word, or emotional. But, [01:06:00] right if you're in the weeds, it's harder to, to keep up. Everybody informed, and this is gonna touch everybody. So I dunno. Okay, so this is the very last one. And then, and then we can wrap and, and do plugs and everything.[01:06:12] Brian: But Simon, this is for you. It was kind of alluded to a little bit, and you might not have one, but if there's something this year that an a generalist like me is not aware that is coming down the pike that you think is gonna be big in the AI space. And maybe Shawn, if you've got one too what do you think it would be?[01:06:31] Simon: I think for most people who haven't been paying attention, we know these things already. We know that the models are now almost free to run things against. The the fact that you can now do video, like stream video to a model, the one that I've not played with nearly as much, but the thing where you can share your entire screen with a model and get feedback there, that's going to be really useful.[01:06:49] Simon: Like that's, Again, the privacy side of things really matters though. I do not want some model just training on everything that it sees on my screen, but no, there's that, that I feel like, like, the [01:07:00] stuff that is now possible as of a few months ago is, is, that's enough. I don't need anything new. That's going to keep me busy all year.[01:07:07] swyx (2): Swyx are you going? Simon's always too content, and then he sees the next thing and he's like, Oh yeah, that's great too. Okay, I love trying to be contrarian by saying, What does everyone hate right now?[01:07:22] AI Wearables: The Next Big Thing[01:07:22] swyx (2): Remember this time last year, we just had CES, Rabbit R1, we had the humane, Wearables, wearables, yep.[01:07:29] swyx (2): Those are completely in the gutter, no one will touch them, they're toxic nuclear waste. Okay, this year is the year of wearables.[01:07:36] Brian: Yep, yep. I agree with you. By the way, that cycle, that cycle always works out where, like, you go to a CES and it's everything, hype, hype, hype, hype, and then three years later it becomes the thing, unless it's 3D TVs, in which case that was a mistake anyway.[01:07:52] Brian: But yeah.[01:07:53] Simon: Transparent TVs are the big thing for the last couple of years. What the hell?[01:07:56] swyx (2): Yeah you know, so I think Simon may have got one of these, [01:08:00] but there are a lot of people working on AI wearables here in SF. They are surprisingly cheap, surprisingly capable and with decent battery life, and they do useful things.[01:08:09] swyx (2): We have to work out the privacy aspect, of course. But people like Limitless which used to be called re privacy. I think they're shipping one of these wearables that based on your voice only records your voice. So you opted. Interesting. Right. Right. And so you can have perfect memory if you want.[01:08:26] swyx (2): You can have perfect memory at work. Your employer can buy these for you that only, it only applies at work and it's fine. It's, it's just a meeting aid. Lots of people use granola or some kind of fireflies or like some of these meeting recorders only for, for meetings. Online meetings. But what about in person meetings?[01:08:41] swyx (2): What about conversations and locations? That you've been? And some of that should be a choice. Right now you have zero choice you, and I think these wearables will enable some of that. And it's, it's up to us as a society to determine what's Acceptable and what's not. I really like these gray areas where we still don't know [01:09:00] yet.[01:09:00] swyx (2): People, whenever I tell people about this, they're like, I don't know, like, I'm sure I guess it's like, as though you have perfect memory. But some people have better memory than others. Like, Where's the light?[01:09:12] Brian: And there will be a lot more of these. I would add to that because Swyx, as you know, because you listen to my show the idea that AI has taken the smart glasses and completely changed everyone's mind about that as a product category and form factor.[01:09:28] Brian: And I should say this. From things that I've been looking at investing in wait till you see what they can add on to earbuds. Like, like the earbuds in your ear can do a lot more things than they're doing now and then you combine that with smart glasses, And you combine that with an LLM that you can access, maybe with a a phone as like the, the mothership.[01:09:48] Brian: There's some interesting things. The CES next year is gonna be crazy if you think wearables are crazy. AI wearables are a thing. Anyway, this year they were not a thing.[01:09:57] swyx (2): There[01:09:57] Brian: were[01:09:57] swyx (2): very much no wearables this[01:09:59] Simon: [01:10:00] year. This one's interesting as well, because the thing that makes these interesting is multimodal, like audio input, video input, image input, which a year ago was hardly a thing, and now it's dirt cheap.[01:10:11] Simon: So yeah, we're 12 months ago to build the software behind this stuff.[01:10:16] Brian: Yeah, all right.[01:10:16] Wrapping Up and Final Thoughts[01:10:16] Brian: Let's let's let's bring this to a landing. Swyx, go first. Tell everybody about obviously your podcast, which hopefully we're simulcasting, but also your conferences, events, everything.[01:10:30] swyx (2): Sure, yeah, you can find my work on latent.[01:10:33] swyx (2): space, it's the AI engineer podcast much more sort of focused on serving engineers and developers than the general audience, but you know, feel free to dive in to the deep end with us, and we are also hosting a conference in New York in February. The AI engineers summit where we gather people and this one is entirely focused on agents.[01:10:54] swyx (2): As much as you know, people like to make fun of the idea that every year is the year of agents at work I think people at [01:11:00] least want to gather to figure out what are the open problems to solve. And so these are the These are the community of builders that get together, they show their latest work like, like I have Instacart coming to show how they use agents for their recommendation system and their, their sort of background jobs and internal jobs and we have a whole bunch of like sort of financial tech company FinTech or finance companies also showing off their work that I cannot name yet, but it'll be lots of fun.[01:11:23] swyx (2): We, we, we do high quality events that sometimes people like Simon speak at.[01:11:28] Brian: And that right as I said, or I think I said online or on air that I saw Simon speak at one of your events last year. Wait Swyx, just say again, it's in February. It's in New York City. I'm going to be there if that matters to anybody, if that's an attraction, but what's the dates on that and how to apply.[01:11:43] swyx (2): I'm horrible at this. February 20th is the leadership day for management, like VPs of AI CTOs. And 21st is the engineer day, the individual contributors, hands on keyboard people. And that's when I'll have the big labs. So DeepMind, Anthropic, Meta, [01:12:00] OpenAI, all coming to share their agents work. And then we'll have some new launches as well that you haven't heard of.[01:12:06] Brian: And to sign up to attend what website can I go to? Yeah, it's apply. ai. engineer. All right, Simon, I'm gonna, I'm gonna hold hand you, or handhold you even more. Your weblog is simonwillison. net, but what else would you like us to know or, or go find out about what you're doing?[01:12:22] Simon: Yeah, I was gonna say my blog my other, my, my day, my day job, I call it a job is I work on open source tools for data journalism.[01:12:29] Simon: That's my project. Dataset, spelt like the word cassette, but data dataset. io. And that's beginning to grow some interesting AI tools. Like originally it was all about data publishing and exploration and analysis. And now I'm like, okay, well, what plugins for that can I build that you use, let you use LLMs to craft queries and build dashboards and all sorts of bits and pieces like that.[01:12:50] Simon: So I'm expecting to have some really interesting product features along those lines in the, in the next few months.[01:12:56] Brian: And I'll end by saying, if anyone's listening to this on SWYX's [01:13:00] show I do the TechMeme Ride Home every single weekday, 15 minute long tech news podcast. Look up Ride Home on your podcast app of choice.[01:13:08] Brian: TechMeme Ride Home. Gentlemen, thank you for your time. Thank you. This was fantastic. What a great way to start the year for, for this show.[01:13:16] Simon: Cool. Thanks a lot for having me. This has been really fun. Yeah, thanks for having us. Honored to be on. Get full access to Latent Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

  --------  

  1:13:23
• Beating Google at Search with Neural PageRank and $5M of H200s — with Will Bryk of Exa.ai

  Applications close Monday for the NYC AI Engineer Summit focusing on AI Leadership and Agent Engineering! If you applied, invites should be rolling out shortly.The search landscape is experiencing a fundamental shift. Google built a >$2T company with the “10 blue links” experience, driven by PageRank as the core innovation for ranking. This was a big improvement from the previous directory-based experiences of AltaVista and Yahoo. Almost 4 decades later, Google is now stuck in this links-based experience, especially from a business model perspective. This legacy architecture creates fundamental constraints:* Must return results in ~400 milliseconds* Required to maintain comprehensive web coverage* Tied to keyword-based matching algorithms* Cost structures optimized for traditional indexingAs we move from the era of links to the era of answers, the way search works is changing. You’re not showing a user links, but the goal is to provide context to an LLM. This means moving from keyword based search to more semantic understanding of the content:The link prediction objective can be seen as like a neural PageRank because what you're doing is you're predicting the links people share... but it's more powerful than PageRank. It's strictly more powerful because people might refer to that Paul Graham fundraising essay in like a thousand different ways. And so our model learns all the different ways.All of this is now powered by a $5M cluster with 144 H200s:This architectural choice enables entirely new search capabilities:* Comprehensive result sets instead of approximations* Deep semantic understanding of queries* Ability to process complex, natural language requestsAs search becomes more complex, time to results becomes a variable:People think of searches as like, oh, it takes 500 milliseconds because we've been conditioned... But what if searches can take like a minute or 10 minutes or a whole day, what can you then do?Unlike traditional search engines' fixed-cost indexing, Exa employs a hybrid approach:* Front-loaded compute for indexing and embeddings* Variable inference costs based on query complexity* Mix of owned infrastructure ($5M H200 cluster) and cloud resourcesExa sees a lot of competition from products like Perplexity and ChatGPT Search which layer AI on top of traditional search backends, but Exa is betting that true innovation requires rethinking search from the ground up. For example, the recently launched Websets, a way to turn searches into structured output in grid format, allowing you to create lists and databases out of web pages. The company raised a $17M Series A to build towards this mission, so keep an eye out for them in 2025. Chapters* 00:00:00 Introductions* 00:01:12 ExaAI's initial pitch and concept* 00:02:33 Will's background at SpaceX and Zoox* 00:03:45 Evolution of ExaAI (formerly Metaphor Systems)* 00:05:38 Exa's link prediction technology* 00:09:20 Meaning of the name "Exa"* 00:10:36 ExaAI's new product launch and capabilities* 00:13:33 Compute budgets and variable compute products* 00:14:43 Websets as a B2B offering* 00:19:28 How do you build a search engine?* 00:22:43 What is Neural PageRank?* 00:27:58 Exa use cases * 00:35:00 Auto-prompting* 00:38:42 Building agentic search* 00:44:19 Is o1 on the path to AGI?* 00:49:59 Company culture and nap pods* 00:54:52 Economics of AI search and the future of search technologyFull YouTube TranscriptPlease like and subscribe!Show Notes* ExaAI* Web Search Product* Websets* Series A Announcement* Exa Nap Pods* Perplexity AI* Character.AITranscriptAlessio [00:00:00]: Hey, everyone. Welcome to the Latent Space podcast. This is Alessio, partner and CTO at Decibel Partners, and I'm joined by my co-host Swyx, founder of Smol.ai.Swyx [00:00:10]: Hey, and today we're in the studio with my good friend and former landlord, Will Bryk. Roommate. How you doing? Will, you're now CEO co-founder of ExaAI, used to be Metaphor Systems. What's your background, your story?Will [00:00:30]: Yeah, sure. So, yeah, I'm CEO of Exa. I've been doing it for three years. I guess I've always been interested in search, whether I knew it or not. Like, since I was a kid, I've always been interested in, like, high-quality information. And, like, you know, even in high school, wanted to improve the way we get information from news. And then in college, built a mini search engine. And then with Exa, like, you know, it's kind of like fulfilling the dream of actually being able to solve all the information needs I wanted as a kid. Yeah, I guess. I would say my entire life has kind of been rotating around this problem, which is pretty cool. Yeah.Swyx [00:00:50]: What'd you enter YC with?Will [00:00:53]: We entered YC with, uh, we are better than Google. Like, Google 2.0.Swyx [00:01:12]: What makes you say that? Like, that's so audacious to come out of the box with.Will [00:01:16]: Yeah, okay, so you have to remember the time. This was summer 2021. And, uh, GPT-3 had come out. Like, here was this magical thing that you could talk to, you could enter a whole paragraph, and it understands what you mean, understands the subtlety of your language. And then there was Google. Uh, which felt like it hadn't changed in a decade, uh, because it really hadn't. And it, like, you would give it a simple query, like, I don't know, uh, shirts without stripes, and it would give you a bunch of results for the shirts with stripes. And so, like, Google could barely understand you, and GBD3 could. And the theory was, what if you could make a search engine that actually understood you? What if you could apply the insights from LLMs to a search engine? And it's really been the same idea ever since. And we're actually a lot closer now, uh, to doing that. Yeah.Alessio [00:01:55]: Did you have any trouble making people believe? Obviously, there's the same element. I mean, YC overlap, was YC pretty AI forward, even 2021, or?Will [00:02:03]: It's nothing like it is today. But, um, uh, there were a few AI companies, but, uh, we were definitely, like, bold. And I think people, VCs generally like boldness, and we definitely had some AI background, and we had a working demo. So there was evidence that we could build something that was going to work. But yeah, I think, like, the fundamentals were there. I think people at the time were talking about how, you know, Google was failing in a lot of ways. And so there was a bit of conversation about it, but AI was not a big, big thing at the time. Yeah. Yeah.Alessio [00:02:33]: Before we jump into Exa, any fun background stories? I know you interned at SpaceX, any Elon, uh, stories? I know you were at Zoox as well, you know, kind of like robotics at Harvard. Any stuff that you saw early that you thought was going to get solved that maybe it's not solved today?Will [00:02:48]: Oh yeah. I mean, lots of things like that. Like, uh, I never really learned how to drive because I believed Elon that self-driving cars would happen. It did happen. And I take them every night to get home. But it took like 10 more years than I thought. Do you still not know how to drive? I know how to drive now. I learned it like two years ago. That would have been great to like, just, you know, Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know? Um, I was obsessed with Elon. Yeah. I mean, I worked at SpaceX because I really just wanted to work at one of his companies. And I remember they had a rule, like interns cannot touch Elon. And, um, that rule actually influenced my actions.Swyx [00:03:18]: Is it, can Elon touch interns? Ooh, like physically?Will [00:03:22]: Or like talk? Physically, physically, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, interesting. He's changed a lot, but, um, I mean, his companies are amazing. Um,Swyx [00:03:28]: What if you beat him at Diablo 2, Diablo 4, you know, like, Ah, maybe.Alessio [00:03:34]: I want to jump into, I know there's a lot of backstory used to be called metaphor system. So, um, and it, you've always been kind of like a prominent company, maybe at least RAI circles in the NSF.Swyx [00:03:45]: I'm actually curious how Metaphor got its initial aura. You launched with like, very little. We launched very little. Like there was, there was this like big splash image of like, this is Aurora or something. Yeah. Right. And then I was like, okay, what this thing, like the vibes are good, but I don't know what it is. And I think, I think it was much more sort of maybe consumer facing than what you are today. Would you say that's true?Will [00:04:06]: No, it's always been about building a better search algorithm, like search, like, just like the vision has always been perfect search. And if you do that, uh, we will figure out the downstream use cases later. It started on this fundamental belief that you could have perfect search over the web and we could talk about what that means. And like the initial thing we released was really just like our first search engine, like trying to get it out there. Kind of like, you know, an open source. So when OpenAI released, uh, ChachBt, like they didn't, I don't know how, how much of a game plan they had. They kind of just wanted to get something out there.Swyx [00:04:33]: Spooky research preview.Will [00:04:34]: Yeah, exactly. And it kind of morphed from a research company to a product company at that point. And I think similarly for us, like we were research, we started as a research endeavor with a, you know, clear eyes that like, if we succeed, it will be a massive business to make out of it. And that's kind of basically what happened. I think there are actually a lot of parallels to, of w between Exa and OpenAI. I often say we're the OpenAI of search. Um, because. Because we're a research company, we're a research startup that does like fundamental research into, uh, making like AGI for search in a, in a way. Uh, and then we have all these like, uh, business products that come out of that.Swyx [00:05:08]: Interesting. I want to ask a little bit more about Metaforesight and then we can go full Exa. When I first met you, which was really funny, cause like literally I stayed in your house in a very historic, uh, Hayes, Hayes Valley place. You said you were building sort of like link prediction foundation model, and I think there's still a lot of foundation model work. I mean, within Exa today, but what does that even mean? I cannot be the only person confused by that because like there's a limited vocabulary or tokens you're telling me, like the tokens are the links or, you know, like it's not, it's not clear. Yeah.Will [00:05:38]: Uh, what we meant by link prediction is that you are literally predicting, like given some texts, you're predicting the links that follow. Yes. That refers to like, it's how we describe the training procedure, which is that we find links on the web. Uh, we take the text surrounding the link. And then we predict. Which link follows you, like, uh, you know, similar to transformers where, uh, you're trying to predict the next token here, you're trying to predict the next link. And so you kind of like hide the link from the transformer. So if someone writes, you know, imagine some article where someone says, Hey, check out this really cool aerospace startup. And they, they say spacex.com afterwards, uh, we hide the spacex.com and ask the model, like what link came next. And by doing that many, many times, you know, billions of times, you could actually build a search engine out of that because then, uh, at query time at search time. Uh, you type in, uh, a query that's like really cool aerospace startup and the model will then try to predict what are the most likely links. So there's a lot of analogs to transformers, but like to actually make this work, it does require like a different architecture than, but it's transformer inspired. Yeah.Alessio [00:06:41]: What's the design decision between doing that versus extracting the link and the description and then embedding the description and then using, um, yeah. What do you need to predict the URL versus like just describing, because you're kind of do a similar thing in a way. Right. It's kind of like based on this description, it was like the closest link for it. So one thing is like predicting the link. The other approach is like I extract the link and the description, and then based on the query, I searched the closest description to it more. Yeah.Will [00:07:09]: That, that, by the way, that is, that is the link refers here to a document. It's not, I think one confusing thing is it's not, you're not actually predicting the URL, the URL itself that would require like the, the system to have memorized URLs. You're actually like getting the actual document, a more accurate name could be document prediction. I see. This was the initial like base model that Exo was trained on, but we've moved beyond that similar to like how, you know, uh, to train a really good like language model, you might start with this like self-supervised objective of predicting the next token and then, uh, just from random stuff on the web. But then you, you want to, uh, add a bunch of like synthetic data and like supervised fine tuning, um, stuff like that to make it really like controllable and robust. Yeah.Alessio [00:07:48]: Yeah. We just have flow from Lindy and, uh, their Lindy started to like hallucinate recrolling YouTube links instead of like, uh, something. Yeah. Support guide. So. Oh, interesting. Yeah.Swyx [00:07:57]: So round about January, you announced your series A and renamed to Exo. I didn't like the name at the, at the initial, but it's grown on me. I liked metaphor, but apparently people can spell metaphor. What would you say are the major components of Exo today? Right? Like, I feel like it used to be very model heavy. Then at the AI engineer conference, Shreyas gave a really good talk on the vector database that you guys have. What are the other major moving parts of Exo? Okay.Will [00:08:23]: So Exo overall is a search engine. Yeah. We're trying to make it like a perfect search engine. And to do that, you have to build lots of, and we're doing it from scratch, right? So to do that, you have to build lots of different. The crawler. Yeah. You have to crawl a bunch of the web. First of all, you have to find the URLs to crawl. Uh, it's connected to the crawler, but yeah, you find URLs, you crawl those URLs. Then you have to process them with some, you know, it could be an embedding model. It could be something more complex, but you need to take, you know, or like, you know, in the past it was like a keyword inverted index. Like you would process all these documents you gather into some processed index, and then you have to serve that. Uh, you had high throughput at low latency. And so that, and that's like the vector database. And so it's like the crawling system, the AI processing system, and then the serving system. Those are all like, you know, teams of like hundreds, maybe thousands of people at Google. Um, but for us, it's like one or two people each typically, but yeah.Alessio [00:09:13]: Can you explain the meaning of, uh, Exo, just the story 10 to the 16th, uh, 18, 18.Will [00:09:20]: Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure. So. Exo means 10 to the 18th, which is in stark contrast to. To Google, which is 10 to the hundredth. Uh, we actually have these like awesome shirts that are like 10th to 18th is greater than 10th to the hundredth. Yeah, it's great. And it's great because it's provocative. It's like every engineer in Silicon Valley is like, what? No, it's not true. Um, like, yeah. And, uh, and then you, you ask them, okay, what does it actually mean? And like the creative ones will, will recognize it. But yeah, I mean, 10 to the 18th is better than 10 to the hundredth when it comes to search, because with search, you want like the actual list of, of things that match what you're asking for. You don't want like the whole web. You want to basically with search filter, the, like everything that humanity has ever created to exactly what you want. And so the idea is like smaller is better there. You want like the best 10th to the 18th and not the 10th to the hundredth. I'm like, one way to say this is like, you know how Google often says at the top, uh, like, you know, 30 million results found. And it's like crazy. Cause you're looking for like the first startups in San Francisco that work on hardware or something. And like, they're not 30 million results like that. What you want is like 325 results found. And those are all the results. That's what you really want with search. And that's, that's our vision. It's like, it just gives you. Perfectly what you asked for.Swyx [00:10:24]: We're recording this ahead of your launch. Uh, we haven't released, we haven't figured out the, the, the name of the launch yet, but what is the product that you're launching? I guess now that we're coinciding this podcast with. Yeah.Will [00:10:36]: So we've basically developed the next version of Exa, which is the ability to get a near perfect list of results of whatever you want. And what that means is you can make a complex query now to Exa, for example, startups working on hardware in SF, and then just get a huge list of all the things that match. And, you know, our goal is if there are 325 startups that match that we find you all of them. And this is just like, there's just like a new experience that's never existed before. It's really like, I don't know how you would go about that right now with current tools and you can apply this same type of like technology to anything. Like, let's say you want, uh, you want to find all the blog posts that talk about Alessio's podcast, um, that have come out in the past year. That is 30 million results. Yeah. Right.Will [00:11:24]: But that, I mean, that would, I'm sure that would be extremely useful to you guys. And like, I don't really know how you would get that full comprehensive list.Swyx [00:11:29]: I just like, how do you, well, there's so many questions with regards to how do you know it's complete, right? Cause you're saying there's only 30 million, 325, whatever. And then how do you do the semantic understanding that it might take, right? So working in hardware, like I might not use the words hardware. I might use the words robotics. I might use the words wearables. I might use like whatever. Yes. So yeah, just tell us more. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Sure.Will [00:11:53]: So one aspect of this, it's a little subjective. So like certainly providing, you know, at some point we'll provide parameters to the user to like, you know, some sort of threshold to like, uh, gauge like, okay, like this is a cutoff. Like, this is actually not what I mean, because sometimes it's subjective and there needs to be a feedback loop. Like, oh, like it might give you like a few examples and you say, yeah, exactly. And so like, you're, you're kind of like creating a classifier on the fly, but like, that's ultimately how you solve the problem. So the subject, there's a subjectivity problem and then there's a comprehensiveness problem. Those are two different problems. So. Yeah. So you have the comprehensiveness problem. What you basically have to do is you have to put more compute into the query, into the search until you get the full comprehensiveness. Yeah. And I think there's an interesting point here, which is that not all queries are made equal. Some queries just like this blog post one might require scanning, like scavenging, like throughout the whole web in a way that just, just simply requires more compute. You know, at some point there's some amount of compute where you will just be comprehensive. You could imagine, for example, running GPT-4 over the internet. You could imagine running GPT-4 over the entire web and saying like, is this a blog post about Alessio's podcast, like, is this a blog post about Alessio's podcast? And then that would work, right? It would take, you know, a year, maybe cost like a million dollars, but, or many more, but, um, it would work. Uh, the point is that like, given sufficient compute, you can solve the query. And so it's really a question of like, how comprehensive do you want it given your compute budget? I think it's very similar to O1, by the way. And one way of thinking about what we built is like O1 for search, uh, because O1 is all about like, you know, some, some, some questions require more compute than others, and we'll put as much compute into the question as we need to solve it. So similarly with our search, we will put as much compute into the query in order to get comprehensiveness. Yeah.Swyx [00:13:33]: Does that mean you have like some kind of compute budget that I can specify? Yes. Yes. Okay. And like, what are the upper and lower bounds?Will [00:13:42]: Yeah, there's something we're still figuring out. I think like, like everyone is a new paradigm of like variable compute products. Yeah. How do you specify the amount of compute? Like what happens when you. Run out? Do you just like, ah, do you, can you like keep going with it? Like, do you just put in more credits to get more, um, for some, like this can get complex at like the really large compute queries. And like, one thing we do is we give you a preview of what you're going to get, and then you could then spin up like a much larger job, uh, to get like way more results. But yes, there is some compute limit, um, at, at least right now. Yeah. People think of searches as like, oh, it takes 500 milliseconds because we've been conditioned, uh, to have search that takes 500 milliseconds. But like search engines like Google, right. No matter how complex your query to Google, it will take like, you know, roughly 400 milliseconds. But what if searches can take like a minute or 10 minutes or a whole day, what can you then do? And you can do very powerful things. Um, you know, you can imagine, you know, writing a search, going and get a cup of coffee, coming back and you have a perfect list. Like that's okay for a lot of use cases. Yeah.Alessio [00:14:43]: Yeah. I mean, the use case closest to me is venture capital, right? So, uh, no, I mean, eight years ago, I built one of the first like data driven sourcing platforms. So we were. You look at GitHub, Twitter, Product Hunt, all these things, look at interesting things, evaluate them. If you think about some jobs that people have, it's like literally just make a list. If you're like an analyst at a venture firm, your job is to make a list of interesting companies. And then you reach out to them. How do you think about being infrastructure versus like a product you could say, Hey, this is like a product to find companies. This is a product to find things versus like offering more as a blank canvas that people can build on top of. Oh, right. Right.Will [00:15:20]: Uh, we are. We are a search infrastructure company. So we want people to build, uh, on top of us, uh, build amazing products on top of us. But with this one, we try to build something that makes it really easy for users to just log in, put a few, you know, put some credits in and just get like amazing results right away and not have to wait to build some API integration. So we're kind of doing both. Uh, we, we want, we want people to integrate this into all their applications at the same time. We want to just make it really easy to use very similar again to open AI. Like they'll have, they have an API, but they also have. Like a ChatGPT interface so that you could, it's really easy to use, but you could also build it in your applications. Yeah.Alessio [00:15:56]: I'm still trying to wrap my head around a lot of the implications. So, so many businesses run on like information arbitrage, you know, like I know this thing that you don't, especially in investment and financial services. So yeah, now all of a sudden you have these tools for like, oh, actually everybody can get the same information at the same time, the same quality level as an API call. You know, it just kind of changes a lot of things. Yeah.Will [00:16:19]: I think, I think what we're grappling with here. What, what you're just thinking about is like, what is the world like if knowledge is kind of solved, if like any knowledge request you want is just like right there on your computer, it's kind of different from when intelligence is solved. There's like a good, I've written before about like a different super intelligence, super knowledge. Yeah. Like I think that the, the distinction between intelligence and knowledge is actually a pretty good one. They're definitely connected and related in all sorts of ways, but there is a distinction. You could have a world and we are going to have this world where you have like GP five level systems and beyond that could like answer any complex request. Um, unless it requires some. Like, if you say like, uh, you know, give me a list of all the PhDs in New York city who, I don't know, have thought about search before. And even though this, this super intelligence is going to be like, I can't find it on Google, right. Which is kind of crazy. Like we're literally going to have like super intelligences that are using Google. And so if Google can't find them information, there's nothing they could do. They can't find it. So, but if you also have a super knowledge system where it's like, you know, I'm calling this term super knowledge where you just get whatever knowledge you want, then you can pair with a super intelligence system. And then the super intelligence can, we'll never. Be blocked by lack of knowledge.Alessio [00:17:23]: Yeah. You told me this, uh, when we had lunch, I forget how it came out, but we were talking about AGI and whatnot. And you were like, even AGI is going to need search. Yeah.Swyx [00:17:32]: Yeah. Right. Yeah. Um, so we're actually referencing a blog post that you wrote super intelligence and super knowledge. Uh, so I would refer people to that. And this is actually a discussion we've had on the podcast a couple of times. Um, there's so much of model weights that are just memorizing facts. Some of the, some of those might be outdated. Some of them are incomplete or not. Yeah. So like you just need search. So I do wonder, like, is there a maximum language model size that will be the intelligence layer and then the rest is just search, right? Like maybe we should just always use search. And then that sort of workhorse model is just like, and it like, like, like one B or three B parameter model that just drives everything. Yes.Will [00:18:13]: I believe this is a much more optimal system to have a smaller LM. That's really just like an intelligence module. And it makes a call to a search. Tool that's way more efficient because if, okay, I mean the, the opposite of that would be like the LM is so big that can memorize the whole web. That would be like way, but you know, it's not practical at all. I don't, it's not possible to train that at least right now. And Carpathy has actually written about this, how like he could, he could see models moving more and more towards like intelligence modules using various tools. Yeah.Swyx [00:18:39]: So for listeners, that's the, that was him on the no priors podcast. And for us, we talked about this and the, on the Shin Yu and Harrison chase podcasts. I'm doing search in my head. I told you 30 million results. I forgot about our neural link integration. Self-hosted exit.Will [00:18:54]: Yeah. Yeah. No, I do see that that is a much more, much more efficient world. Yeah. I mean, you could also have GB four level systems calling search, but it's just because of the cost of inference. It's just better to have a very efficient search tool and a very efficient LM and they're built for different things. Yeah.Swyx [00:19:09]: I'm just kind of curious. Like it is still something so audacious that I don't want to elide, which is you're, you're, you're building a search engine. Where do you start? How do you, like, are there any reference papers or implementation? That would really influence your thinking, anything like that? Because I don't even know where to start apart from just crawl a bunch of s**t, but there's gotta be more insight than that.Will [00:19:28]: I mean, yeah, there's more insight, but I'm always surprised by like, if you have a group of people who are really focused on solving a problem, um, with the tools today, like there's some in, in software, like there are all sorts of creative solutions that just haven't been thought of before, particularly in the information retrieval field. Yeah. I think a lot of the techniques are just very old, frankly. Like I know how Google and Bing work and. They're just not using new methods. There are all sorts of reasons for that. Like one, like Google has to be comprehensive over the web. So they're, and they have to return in 400 milliseconds. And those two things combined means they are kind of limit and it can't cost too much. They're kind of limited in, uh, what kinds of algorithms they could even deploy at scale. So they end up using like a limited keyword based algorithm. Also like Google was built in a time where like in, you know, in 1998, where we didn't have LMS, we didn't have embeddings. And so they never thought to build those things. And so now they have this like gigantic system that is built on old technology. Yeah. And so a lot of the information retrieval field we found just like thinks in terms of that framework. Yeah. Whereas we came in as like newcomers just thinking like, okay, there here's GB three. It's magical. Obviously we're going to build search that is using that technology. And we never even thought about using keywords really ever. Uh, like we were neural all the way we're building an end to end neural search engine. And just that whole framing just makes us ask different questions, like pursue different lines of work. And there's just a lot of low hanging fruit because no one else is thinking about it. We're just on the frontier of neural search. We just are, um, for, for at web scale, um, because there's just not a lot of people thinking that way about it.Swyx [00:20:57]: Yeah. Maybe let's spell this out since, uh, we're already on this topic, elephants in the room are Perplexity and SearchGPT. That's the, I think that it's all, it's no longer called SearchGPT. I think they call it ChatGPT Search. How would you contrast your approaches to them based on what we know of how they work and yeah, just any, anything in that, in that area? Yeah.Will [00:21:15]: So these systems, there are a few of them now, uh, they basically rely on like traditional search engines like Google or Bing, and then they combine them with like LLMs at the end to, you know, output some power graphics, uh, answering your question. So they like search GPT perplexity. I think they have their own crawlers. No. So there's this important distinction between like having your own search system and like having your own cache of the web. Like for example, so you could create, you could crawl a bunch of the web. Imagine you crawl a hundred billion URLs, and then you create a key value store of like mapping from URL to the document that is technically called an index, but it's not a search algorithm. So then to actually like, when you make a query to search GPT, for example, what is it actually doing it? Let's say it's, it's, it could, it's using the Bing API, uh, getting a list of results and then it could go, it has this cache of like all the contents of those results and then could like bring in the cache, like the index cache, but it's not actually like, it's not like they've built a search engine from scratch over, you know, hundreds of billions of pages. It's like, does that distinction clear? It's like, yeah, you could have like a mapping from URL to documents, but then rely on traditional search engines to actually get the list of results because it's a very hard problem to take. It's not hard. It's not hard to use DynamoDB and, and, and map URLs to documents. It's a very hard problem to take a hundred billion or more documents and given a query, like instantly get the list of results that match. That's a much harder problem that very few entities on, in, on the planet have done. Like there's Google, there's Bing, uh, you know, there's Yandex, but you know, there are not that many companies that are, that are crazy enough to actually build their search engine from scratch when you could just use traditional search APIs.Alessio [00:22:43]: So Google had PageRank as like the big thing. Is there a LLM equivalent or like any. Stuff that you're working on that you want to highlight?Will [00:22:51]: The link prediction objective can be seen as like a neural PageRank because what you're doing is you're predicting the links people share. And so if everyone is sharing some Paul Graham essay about fundraising, then like our model is more likely to predict it. So like inherent in our training objective is this, uh, a sense of like high canonicity and like high quality, but it's more powerful than PageRank. It's strictly more powerful because people might refer to that Paul Graham fundraising essay in like a thousand different ways. And so our model learns all the different ways. That someone refers that Paul Graham, I say, while also learning how important that Paul Graham essay is. Um, so it's like, it's like PageRank on steroids kind of thing. Yeah.Alessio [00:23:26]: I think to me, that's the most interesting thing about search today, like with Google and whatnot, it's like, it's mostly like domain authority. So like if you get back playing, like if you search any AI term, you get this like SEO slop websites with like a bunch of things in them. So this is interesting, but then how do you think about more timeless maybe content? So if you think about, yeah. You know, maybe the founder mode essay, right. It gets shared by like a lot of people, but then you might have a lot of other essays that are also good, but they just don't really get a lot of traction. Even though maybe the people that share them are high quality. How do you kind of solve that thing when you don't have the people authority, so to speak of who's sharing, whether or not they're worth kind of like bumping up? Yeah.Will [00:24:10]: I mean, you do have a lot of control over the training data, so you could like make sure that the training data contains like high quality sources so that, okay. Like if you, if you're. Training data, I mean, it's very similar to like language, language model training. Like if you train on like a bunch of crap, your prediction will be crap. Our model will match the training distribution is trained on. And so we could like, there are lots of ways to tweak the training data to refer to high quality content that we want. Yeah. I would say also this, like this slop that is returned by, by traditional search engines, like Google and Bing, you have the slop is then, uh, transferred into the, these LLMs in like a search GBT or, you know, our other systems like that. Like if slop comes in, slop will go out. And so, yeah, that's another answer to how we're different is like, we're not like traditional search engines. We want to give like the highest quality results and like have full control over whatever you want. If you don't want slop, you get that. And then if you put an LM on top of that, which our customers do, then you just get higher quality results or high quality output.Alessio [00:25:06]: And I use Excel search very often and it's very good. Especially.Swyx [00:25:09]: Wave uses it too.Alessio [00:25:10]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Like the slop is everywhere, especially when it comes to AI, when it comes to investment. When it comes to all of these things for like, it's valuable to be at the top. And this problem is only going to get worse because. Yeah, no, it's totally. What else is in the toolkit? So you have search API, you have ExaSearch, kind of like the web version. Now you have the list builder. I think you also have web scraping. Maybe just touch on that. Like, I guess maybe people, they want to search and then they want to scrape. Right. So is that kind of the use case that people have? Yeah.Will [00:25:41]: A lot of our customers, they don't just want, because they're building AI applications on top of Exa, they don't just want a list of URLs. They actually want. Like the full content, like cleans, parsed. Markdown. Markdown, maybe chunked, whatever they want, we'll give it to them. And so that's been like huge for customers. Just like getting the URLs and instantly getting the content for each URL is like, and you can do this for 10 or 100 or 1,000 URLs, wherever you want. That's very powerful.Swyx [00:26:05]: Yeah. I think this is the first thing I asked you for when I tried using Exa.Will [00:26:09]: Funny story is like when I built the first version of Exa, it's like, we just happened to store the content. Yes. Like the first 1,024 tokens. Because I just kind of like kept it because I thought of, you know, I don't know why. Really for debugging purposes. And so then when people started asking for content, it was actually pretty easy to serve it. But then, and then we did that, like Exa took off. So the computer's content was so useful. So that was kind of cool.Swyx [00:26:30]: It is. I would say there are other players like Gina, I think is in this space. Firecrawl is in this space. There's a bunch of scraper companies. And obviously scraper is just one part of your stack, but you might as well offer it since you already do it.Will [00:26:43]: Yeah, it makes sense. It's just easy to have an all-in-one solution. And like. We are, you know, building the best scraper in the world. So scraping is a hard problem and it's easy to get like, you know, a good scraper. It's very hard to get a great scraper and it's super hard to get a perfect scraper. So like, and, and scraping really matters to people. Do you have a perfect scraper? Not yet. Okay.Swyx [00:27:05]: The web is increasingly closing to the bots and the scrapers, Twitter, Reddit, Quora, Stack Overflow. I don't know what else. How are you dealing with that? How are you navigating those things? Like, you know. You know, opening your eyes, like just paying them money.Will [00:27:19]: Yeah, no, I mean, I think it definitely makes it harder for search engines. One response is just that there's so much value in the long tail of sites that are open. Okay. Um, and just like, even just searching over those well gets you most of the value. But I mean, there, there is definitely a lot of content that is increasingly not unavailable. And so you could get through that through data partnerships. The bigger we get as a company, the more, the easier it is to just like, uh, make partnerships. But I, I mean, I do see the world as like the future where the. The data, the, the data producers, the content creators will make partnerships with the entities that find that data.Alessio [00:27:53]: Any other fun use case that maybe people are not thinking about? Yeah.Will [00:27:58]: Oh, I mean, uh, there are so many customers. Yeah. What are people doing on AXA? Well, I think dating is a really interesting, uh, application of search that is completely underserved because there's a lot of profiles on the web and a lot of people who want to find love and that I'll use it. They give me. Like, you know, age boundaries, you know, education level location. Yeah. I mean, you want to, what, what do you want to do with data? You want to find like a partner who matches this education level, who like, you know, maybe has written about these types of topics before. Like if you could get a list of all the people like that, like, I think you will unblock a lot of people. I mean, there, I mean, I think this is a very Silicon Valley view of dating for sure. And I'm, I'm well aware of that, but it's just an interesting application of like, you know, I would love to meet like an intellectual partner, um, who like shares a lot of ideas. Yeah. Like if you could do that through better search and yeah.Swyx [00:28:48]: But what is it with Jeff? Jeff has already set me up with a few people. So like Jeff, I think it's my personal exit.Will [00:28:55]: my mom's actually a matchmaker and has got a lot of married. Yeah. No kidding. Yeah. Yeah. Search is built into the book. It's in your jeans. Yeah. Yeah.Swyx [00:29:02]: Yeah. Other than dating, like I know you're having quite some success in colleges. I would just love to map out some more use cases so that our listeners can just use those examples to think about use cases for XR, right? Because it's such a general technology that it's hard to. Uh, really pin down, like, what should I use it for and what kind of products can I build with it?Will [00:29:20]: Yeah, sure. So, I mean, there are so many applications of XR and we have, you know, many, many companies using us for very diverse range of use cases, but I'll just highlight some interesting ones. Like one customer, a big customer is using us to, um, basically build like a, a writing assistant for students who want to write, uh, research papers. And basically like XR will search for, uh, like a list of research papers related to what the student is writing. And then this product has. Has like an LLM that like summarizes the papers to basically it's like a next word prediction, but in, uh, you know, prompted by like, you know, 20 research papers that X has returned. It's like literally just doing their homework for them. Yeah. Yeah. the key point is like, it's, it's, uh, you know, it's, it's, you know, research is, is a really hard thing to do and you need like high quality content as input.Swyx [00:30:08]: Oh, so we've had illicit on the podcast. I think it's pretty similar. Uh, they, they do focus pretty much on just, just research papers and, and that research. Basically, I think dating, uh, research, like I just wanted to like spell out more things, like just the big verticals.Will [00:30:23]: Yeah, yeah, no, I mean, there, there are so many use cases. So finance we talked about, yeah. I mean, one big vertical is just finding a list of companies, uh, so it's useful for VCs, like you said, who want to find like a list of competitors to a specific company they're investigating or just a list of companies in some field. Like, uh, there was one VC that told me that him and his team, like we're using XR for like eight hours straight. Like, like that. For many days on end, just like, like, uh, doing like lots of different queries of different types, like, oh, like all the companies in AI for law or, uh, all the companies for AI for, uh, construction and just like getting lists of things because you just can't find this information with, with traditional search engines. And then, you know, finding companies is also useful for, for selling. If you want to find, you know, like if we want to find a list of, uh, writing assistants to sell to, then we can just, we just use XR ourselves to find that is actually how we found a lot of our customers. Ooh, you can find your own customers using XR. Oh my God. I, in the spirit of. Uh, using XR to bolster XR, like recruiting is really helpful. It is really great use case of XR, um, because we can just get like a list of, you know, people who thought about search and just get like a long list and then, you know, reach out to those people.Swyx [00:31:29]: When you say thought about, are you, are you thinking LinkedIn, Twitter, or are you thinking just blogs?Will [00:31:33]: Or they've written, I mean, it's pretty general. So in that case, like ideally XR would return like the, the really blogs written by people who have just. So if I don't blog, I don't show up to XR, right? Like I have to blog. well, I mean, you could show up. That's like an incentive for people to blog.Swyx [00:31:47]: Well, if you've written about, uh, search in on Twitter and we, we do, we do index a bunch of tweets and then we, we should be able to service that. Yeah. Um, I mean, this is something I tell people, like you have to make yourself discoverable to the web, uh, you know, it's called learning in public, but like, it's even more imperative now because otherwise you don't exist at all.Will [00:32:07]: Yeah, no, no, this is a huge, uh, thing, which is like search engines completely influence. They have downstream effects. They influence the internet itself. They influence what people. Choose to create. And so Google, because they're a keyword based search engine, people like kind of like keyword stuff. Yeah. They're, they're, they're incentivized to create things that just match a lot of keywords, which is not very high quality. Uh, whereas XR is a search algorithm that, uh, optimizes for like high quality and actually like matching what you mean. And so people are incentivized to create content that is high quality, that like the create content that they know will be found by the right person. So like, you know, if I am a search researcher and I want to be found. By XR, I should blog about search and all the things I'm building because, because now we have a search engine like XR that's powerful enough to find them. And so the search engine will influence like the downstream internet in all sorts of amazing ways. Yeah. Uh, whatever the search engine optimizes for is what the internet looks like. Yeah.Swyx [00:33:01]: Are you familiar with the term? McLuhanism? No, it's not. Uh, it's this concept that, uh, like first we shape tools and then the tools shape us. Okay. Yeah. Uh, so there's like this reflexive connection between the things we search for and the things that get searched. Yes. So like once you change the tool. The tool that searches the, the, the things that get searched also change. Yes.Will [00:33:18]: I mean, there was a clear example of that with 30 years of Google. Yeah, exactly. Google has basically trained us to think of search and Google has Google is search like in people's heads. Right. It's one, uh, hard part about XR is like, uh, ripping people away from that notion of search and expanding their sense of what search could be. Because like when people think search, they think like a few keywords, or at least they used to, they think of a few keywords and that's it. They don't think to make these like really complex paragraph long requests for information and get a perfect list. ChatGPT was an interesting like thing that expanded people's understanding of search because you start using ChatGPT for a few hours and you go back to Google and you like paste in your code and Google just doesn't work and you're like, oh, wait, it, Google doesn't do work that way. So like ChatGPT expanded our understanding of what search can be. And I think XR is, uh, is part of that. We want to expand people's notion, like, Hey, you could actually get whatever you want. Yeah.Alessio [00:34:06]: I search on XR right now, people writing about learning in public. I was like, is it gonna come out with Alessio? Am I, am I there? You're not because. Bro. It's. So, no, it's, it's so about, because it thinks about learning, like in public, like public schools and like focuses more on that. You know, it's like how, when there are like these highly overlapping things, like this is like a good result based on the query, you know, but like, how do I get to Alessio? Right. So if you're like in these subcultures, I don't think this would work in Google well either, you know, but I, I don't know if you have any learnings.Swyx [00:34:40]: No, I'm the first result on Google.Alessio [00:34:42]: People writing about learning. In public, you're not first result anymore, I guess.Swyx [00:34:48]: Just type learning public in Google.Alessio [00:34:49]: Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But this is also like, this is in Google, it doesn't work either. That's what I'm saying. It's like how, when you have like a movement.Will [00:34:56]: There's confusion about the, like what you mean, like your intention is a little, uh. Yeah.Alessio [00:35:00]: It's like, yeah, I'm using, I'm using a term that like I didn't invent, but I'm kind of taking over, but like, they're just so much about that term already that it's hard to overcome. If that makes sense, because public schools is like, well, it's, it's hard to overcome.Will [00:35:14]: Public schools, you know, so there's the right solution to this, which is to specify more clearly what you mean. And I'm not expecting you to do that, but so the, the right interface to search is actually an LLM.Swyx [00:35:25]: Like you should be talking to an LLM about what you want and the LLM translates its knowledge of you or knowledge of what people usually mean into a query that excellent uses, which you have called auto prompts, right?Will [00:35:35]: Or, yeah, but it's like a very light version of that. And really it's just basically the right answer is it's the wrong interface and like very soon interface to search and really to everything will be LLM. And the LLM just has a full knowledge of you, right? So we're kind of building for that world. We're skating to where the puck is going to be. And so since we're moving to a world where like LLMs are interfaced to everything, you should build a search engine that can handle complex LLM queries, queries that come from LLMs. Because you're probably too lazy, I'm too lazy too, to write like a whole paragraph explaining, okay, this is what I mean by this word. But an LLM is not lazy. And so like the LLM will spit out like a paragraph or more explaining exactly what it wants. You need a search engine that can handle that. Traditional search engines like Google or Bing, they're actually... Designed for humans typing keywords. If you give a paragraph to Google or Bing, they just completely fail. And so Exa can handle paragraphs and we want to be able to handle it more and more until it's like perfect.Alessio [00:36:24]: What about opinions? Do you have lists? When you think about the list product, do you think about just finding entries? Do you think about ranking entries? I'll give you a dumb example. So on Lindy, I've been building the spot that every week gives me like the top fantasy football waiver pickups. But every website is like different opinions. I'm like, you should pick up. These five players, these five players. When you're making lists, do you want to be kind of like also ranking and like telling people what's best? Or like, are you mostly focused on just surfacing information?Will [00:36:56]: There's a really good distinction between filtering to like things that match your query and then ranking based on like what is like your preferences. And ranking is like filtering is objective. It's like, does this document match what you asked for? Whereas ranking is more subjective. It's like, what is the best? Well, it depends what you mean by best, right? So first, first table stakes is let's get the filtering into a perfect place where you actually like every document matches what you asked for. No surgeon can do that today. And then ranking, you know, there are all sorts of interesting ways to do that where like you've maybe for, you know, have the user like specify more clearly what they mean by best. You could do it. And if the user doesn't specify, you do your best, you do your best based on what people typically mean by best. But ideally, like the user can specify, oh, when I mean best, I actually mean ranked by the, you know, the number of people who visited that site. Let's say is, is one example ranking or, oh, what I mean by best, let's say you're listing companies. What I mean by best is like the ones that have, uh, you know, have the most employees or something like that. Like there are all sorts of ways to rank a list of results that are not captured by something as subjective as best. Yeah. Yeah.Alessio [00:38:00]: I mean, it's like, who are the best NBA players in the history? It's like everybody has their own. Right.Will [00:38:06]: Right. But I mean, the, the, the search engine should definitely like, even if you don't specify it, it should do as good of a job as possible. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, totally. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a new topic to people because we're not used to a search engine that can handle like a very complex ranking system. Like you think to type in best basketball players and not something more specific because you know, that's the only thing Google could handle. But if Google could handle like, oh, basketball players ranked by like number of shots scored on average per game, then you would do that. But you know, they can't do that. So.Swyx [00:38:32]: Yeah. That's fascinating. So you haven't used the word agents, but you're kind of building a search agent. Do you believe that that is agentic in feature? Do you think that term is distracting?Will [00:38:42]: I think it's a good term. I do think everything will eventually become agentic. And so then the term will lose power, but yes, like what we're building is agentic it in a sense that it takes actions. It decides when to go deeper into something, it has a loop, right? It feels different from traditional search, which is like an algorithm, not an agent. Ours is a combination of an algorithm and an agent.Swyx [00:39:05]: I think my reflection from seeing this in the coding space where there's basically sort of classic. Framework for thinking about this stuff is the self-driving levels of autonomy, right? Level one to five, typically the level five ones all failed because there's full autonomy and we're not, we're not there yet. And people like control. People like to be in the loop. So the, the, the level ones was co-pilot first and now it's like cursor and whatever. So I feel like if it's too agentic, it's too magical, like, like a, like a one shot, I stick a, stick a paragraph into the text box and then it spits it back to me. It might feel like I'm too disconnected from the process and I don't trust it. As opposed to something where I'm more intimately involved with the research product. I see. So like, uh, wait, so the earlier versions are, so if trying to stick to the example of the basketball thing, like best basketball player, but instead of best, you, you actually get to customize it with like, whatever the metric is that you, you guys care about. Yeah. I'm still not a basketballer, but, uh, but, but, you know, like, like B people like to be in my, my thesis is that agents level five agents failed because people like to. To kind of have drive assist rather than full self-driving.Will [00:40:15]: I mean, a lot of this has to do with how good agents are. Like at some point, if agents for coding are better than humans at all tests and then humans block, yeah, we're not there yet.Swyx [00:40:25]: So like in a world where we're not there yet, what you're pitching us is like, you're, you're kind of saying you're going all the way there. Like I kind of, I think all one is also very full, full self-driving. You don't get to see the plan. You don't get to affect the plan yet. You just fire off a query and then it goes away for a couple of minutes and comes back. Right. Which is effectively what you're saying you're going to do too. And you think there's.Will [00:40:42]: There's a, there's an in-between. I saw. Okay. So in building this product, we're exploring new interfaces because what does it mean to kick off a search that goes and takes 10 minutes? Like, is that a good interface? Because what if the search is actually wrong or it's not exactly, exactly specified to what you mean, which is why you get previews. Yeah. You get previews. So it is iterative, but ultimately once you've specified exactly what you mean, then you kind of do just want to kick off a batch job. Right. So perhaps what you're getting at is like, uh, there's this barrier with agents where you have to like explain the full context of what you mean, and a lot of failure modes happen when you have, when you don't. Yeah. There's failure modes from the agent, just not being smart enough. And then there's failure modes from the agent, not understanding exactly what you mean. And there's a lot of context that is shared between humans that is like lost between like humans and, and this like new creature.Alessio [00:41:32]: Yeah. Yeah. Because people don't know what's going on. I mean, to me, the best example of like system prompts is like, why are you writing? You're a helpful assistant. Like. Of course you should be an awful, but people don't yet know, like, can I assume that, you know, that, you know, it's like, why did the, and now people write, oh, you're a very smart software engineer, but like, you never made, you never make mistakes. Like, were you going to try and make mistakes before? So I think people don't yet have an understanding, like with, with driving people know what good driving is. It's like, don't crash, stay within kind of like a certain speed range. It's like, follow the directions. It's like, I don't really have to explain all of those things. I hope. But with. AI and like models and like search, people are like, okay, what do you actually know? What are like your assumptions about how search, how you're going to do search? And like, can I trust it? You know, can I influence it? So I think that's kind of the, the middle ground, like before you go ahead and like do all the search, it's like, can I see how you're doing it? And then maybe help show your work kind of like, yeah, steer you. Yeah. Yeah.Will [00:42:32]: No, I mean, yeah. Sure. Saying, even if you've crafted a great system prompt, you want to be part of the process itself. Uh, because the system prompt doesn't, it doesn't capture everything. Right. So yeah. A system prompt is like, you get to choose the person you work with. It's like, oh, like I want, I want a software engineer who thinks this way about code. But then even once you've chosen that person, you can't just give them a high level command and they go do it perfectly. You have to be part of that process. So yeah, I agree.Swyx [00:42:58]: Just a side note for my system, my favorite system, prompt programming anecdote now is the Apple intelligence system prompt that someone, someone's a prompt injected it and seen it. And like the Apple. Intelligence has the words, like, please don't, don't hallucinate. And it's like, of course we don't want you to hallucinate. Right. Like, so it's exactly that, that what you're talking about, like we should train this behavior into the model, but somehow we still feel the need to inject into the prompt. And I still don't even think that we are very scientific about it. Like it, I think it's almost like cargo culting. Like we have this like magical, like turn around three times, throw salt over your shoulder before you do something. And like, it worked the last time. So let's just do it the same time now. And like, we do, there's no science to this.Will [00:43:35]: I do think a lot of these problems might be ironed out in future versions. Right. So, and like, they might, they might hide the details from you. So it's like, they actually, all of them have a system prompt. That's like, you are a helpful assistant. You don't actually have to include it, even though it might actually be the way they've implemented in the backend. It should be done in RLE AF.Swyx [00:43:52]: Okay. Uh, one question I was just kind of curious about this episode is I'm going to try to frame this in terms of this, the general AI search wars, you know, you're, you're one player in that, um, there's perplexity, chat, GPT, search, and Google, but there's also like the B2B side, uh, we had. Drew Houston from Dropbox on, and he's competing with Glean, who've, uh, we've also had DD from, from Glean on, is there an appetite for Exa for my company's documents?Will [00:44:19]: There is appetite, but I think we have to be disciplined, focused, disciplined. I mean, we're already taking on like perfect web search, which is a lot. Um, but I mean, ultimately we want to build a perfect search engine, which definitely for a lot of queries involves your, your personal information, your company's information. And so, yeah, I mean, the grandest vision of Exa is perfect search really over everything, every domain, you know, we're going to have an Exa satellite, uh, because, because satellites can gather information that, uh, is not available publicly. Uh, gotcha. Yeah.Alessio [00:44:51]: Can we talk about AGI? We never, we never talk about AGI, but you had, uh, this whole tweet about, oh, one being the biggest kind of like AI step function towards it. Why does it feel so important to you? I know there's kind of like always criticism and saying, Hey, it's not the smartest son is better. It's like, blah, blah, blah. What? You choose C. So you say, this is what Ilias see or Sam see what they will see.Will [00:45:13]: I've just, I've just, you know, been connecting the dots. I mean, this was the key thing that a bunch of labs were working on, which is like, can you create a reward signal? Can you teach yourself based on a reward signal? Whether you're, if you're trying to learn coding or math, if you could have one model say, uh, be a grading system that says like you have successfully solved this programming assessment and then one model, like be the generative system. That's like, here are a bunch of programming assessments. You could train on that. It's basically whenever you could create a reward signal for some task, you could just generate a bunch of tasks for yourself. See that like, oh, on two of these thousand, you did well. And then you just train on that data. It's basically like, I mean, creating your own data for yourself and like, you know, all the labs working on that opening, I built the most impressive product doing that. And it's just very, it's very easy now to see how that could like scale to just solving, like, like solving programming or solving mathematics, which sounds crazy, but everything about our world right now is crazy.Alessio [00:46:07]: Um, and so I think if you remove that whole, like, oh, that's impossible, and you just think really clearly about like, what's now possible with like what, what they've done with O1, it's easy to see how that scales. How do you think about older GPT models then? Should people still work on them? You know, if like, obviously they just had the new Haiku, like, is it even worth spending time, like making these models better versus just, you know, Sam talked about O2 at that day. So obviously they're, they're spending a lot of time in it, but then you have maybe. The GPU poor, which are still working on making Lama good. Uh, and then you have the follower labs that do not have an O1 like model out yet. Yeah.Will [00:46:47]: This kind of gets into like, uh, what will the ecosystem of, of models be like in the future? And is there room is, is everything just gonna be O1 like models? I think, well, I mean, there's definitely a question of like inference speed and if certain things like O1 takes a long time, because that's the thing. Well, I mean, O1 is, is two things. It's like one it's it's use it's bootstrapping itself. It's teaching itself. And so the base model is smarter. But then it also has this like inference time compute where it could like spend like many minutes or many hours thinking. And so even the base model, which is also fast, it doesn't have to take minutes. It could take is, is better, smarter. I believe all models will be trained with this paradigm. Like you'll want to train on the best data, but there will be many different size models from different, very many different like companies, I believe. Yeah. Because like, I don't, yeah, I mean, it's hard, hard to predict, but I don't think opening eye is going to dominate like every possible LLM for every possible. Use case. I think for a lot of things, like you just want the fastest model and that might not involve O1 methods at all.Swyx [00:47:42]: I would say if you were to take the exit being O1 for search, literally, you really need to prioritize search trajectories, like almost maybe paying a bunch of grad students to go research things. And then you kind of track what they search and what the sequence of searching is, because it seems like that is the gold mine here, like the chain of thought or the thinking trajectory. Yeah.Will [00:48:05]: When it comes to search, I've always been skeptical. I've always been skeptical of human labeled data. Okay. Yeah, please. We tried something at our company at Exa recently where me and a bunch of engineers on the team like labeled a bunch of queries and it was really hard. Like, you know, you have all these niche queries and you're looking at a bunch of results and you're trying to identify which is matched to query. It's talking about, you know, the intricacies of like some biological experiment or something. I have no idea. Like, I don't know what matches and what, what labelers like me tend to do is just match by keyword. I'm like, oh, I don't know. Oh, like this document matches a bunch of keywords, so it must be good. But then you're actually completely missing the meaning of the document. Whereas an LLM like GB4 is really good at labeling. And so I actually think like you just we get by, which we are right now doing using like LLMs as the labelers specifically for search. I think it's interesting. It's different between like search and like GB5 are different because GB5 might benefit from training on a lot of PhD notes because like GB5 might have to do like very, very complex, like, uh, problem-solving in after when it was given an input, but with search, it's actually a very different problem. You're, you're asking simple questions about billions of things. So like, whereas like GB5 is asking a really hard, it's like solving a really hard question, but it's one, it's like one question, a PhD level question with search. You're asking like simple questions about billions of things. Like, is this a startup? Did this person write a blog post about search? You know, those are actually simple questions. You don't need like PhD level training data. Does that make sense? Yeah.Alessio [00:49:33]: What else we got here? Uh, nap pods. Oh, yeah.Swyx [00:49:38]: What's the, yeah. So like just generally, I think, uh, EXA has a very interesting company building vibe. Like you, you have a meme Lord CTO, um, I guess, I don't know. Like, and, and you, you have, you just generally, um, are counter consensus in a bunch of things. What is the culture at EXA?Will [00:49:59]: Like, yeah, I, me and Jeff are, I mean, we've been best friends. It's like, like we met, like met like first day of college. I've been best friends ever since. And we have a really good vibe. I think that's like intense, but also really fun. And like, like funny, honestly, we have a ton of like, we just laugh a lot, a ton at EXA. And I think that's just like, you see that in every part of our culture. We don't really care about how the world sees anything. Like me and Jeff are just like that. Like, we're just thinking really just like, like, what should we do here? Like, what do we need? And so in the nap pod case, it was like, people get tired a lot when they're coding or doing anything really. And like, why can't we just sleep here or, or like nap? And, uh, okay, if we need a nap, then we should get a nap pod. It's crazy to me that there aren't nap pods in lots of companies because like I get tired all the time. I take a nap like every other day, probably for like 20 minutes. I'm actually never actually napping. I'm just thinking about a problem, but closing my eyes really like, um, first of all, it makes me come up with more creative solutions. And then also actually it gives me some rest. So, which is awesome.Swyx [00:50:54]: Google was the original company that had the nap pods at work, right? Oh, okay.Will [00:50:56]: Well, then at one point Google was thinking for first principles and everything too. Um, and that was reflected in their nap pods.Swyx [00:51:02]: So you, you like, you like didn't just get a nap pod for your office. You like found something from China and you're like, who wants to get in on this? Let's get a container full of them. Yeah.Will [00:51:11]: Well, we're trying, we try to be frugal. So like we were, we were looking at like different nap pods. And then, uh, at some point we were like, wait, China probably has solved this problem. And so then we ordered it from China and then it was actually so heavy. Like when it came off the truck, it was like 500 pounds. And I like the truck was like having trouble, like putting it on the ground. And so like me and the delivery guy were like trying to hold it. And then we couldn't, we were struggling. So someone came out from on the street and like heart started helping us hurt yourself. I know it was really dangerous, but we did it. And then it was awesome.Alessio [00:51:37]: And it's funny. I was reading the tech crunch article about it. It was a tech crunch article on the nap pods. Yeah. And then Jeff explained, well, they quote Jeff and this paragraph says, so the nap pods maintain employees ability to stop work and sleep rather than the idea that in quotes, employees are slaves. Close quote, I don't know what I'm. I'm like, I'm sure there's not what event, you know, but I'm curious, like, just like how people there's always like this, I think for a little bit, it went away about like startups and kind of like hustle culture and like all of that.Swyx [00:52:10]: And I think now with AI, people are like, have all these feelings towards AI that are kind of like, I think it's a pro hustle culture, right? Yeah.Will [00:52:17]: But I mean, I mean, ideally the hustle is like people are just having fun, which is people, people are just having fun.Alessio [00:52:23]: Yeah. But I would say from the outside, it's like, people don't like it, you know, I'm saying people not in, in AI and kind of like intact. They're kind of like. Oh, these guys are at it again. These are like the same people that gave us underpaid drivers, like whatever it's like. So it was just funny to see somehow they wanted to make it sound like Jeff was saying employees are slaves, but like, oh, yeah, I don't know. That doesn't make sense.Will [00:52:45]: But yeah, I mean, okay. I can't imagine a more exciting experience than like building something from scratch. That's like a huge deal with a bunch of your friends. Our team is going to look back in 10 years and think this was like the most beautiful experience that you could have in life. And like. That's how I think about it. And yeah, that's just so it's not, it's not a hustle or not. It's like, is this like, like, does this satisfy your core desire to like build things in the world? And it does. Yeah.Alessio [00:53:10]: Anything else we didn't cover any parting thoughts? Are you hiring?Will [00:53:16]: Are you, obviously you're looking for more people to use it, but yeah, yeah, we're definitely hiring. We're, we're growing quite fast and we have a really smart team of engineers and researchers. And we now have a, we just purchased a $5 million H 200 cluster. So we have a lot more compute to play with. Do you run all your own inference? We do a mix of our cluster and like AWS inference that we, we use these are, so we have our current cluster, which is like a one hundreds and now we've updated the new one. We use it for training and research.Swyx [00:53:43]: What's the training versus inference budget? Like, is it like a, is it 50, 50? Is it?Will [00:53:48]: Yeah, we, there will be more inference for search for sure.Swyx [00:53:51]: The other thing I mentioned, so by the way, I'm like sidetracking, but I'm just kind of throwing this in there because I always think about the economics of AI search, like for those, I think, I think if you look up, there's the upper limit is going to be whatever you can monetize off of ads, right? So for Google, let's say it's like a one cent per thousand views, something like that. I don't know the exact number, the exact numbers floating around out there. That means that's your revenue, right? Then your cost has to be lower than that. And so at some point, like for an LLM inference call to be made for every page view, you need to get it lower than. The money that you would take in for, for that. And like, one of the things that I was very surprised, surprised for perplexity and character as well was that they couldn't get it so low that it would be reasonable. I think for you guys, it is a mix of front loading it by indexing. So you only run that compute like once a month, once a, once a quarter, whatever you do re-indexing. And then it's just a little bit more when you, when you do inference, when this search actually gets done, right? Like, so I think when people work out like the economics of such a business, they have to kind of think about where do you put the. The costs. Yes.Will [00:54:52]: Yes. I mean, uh, definitely you have to, you cannot run LLMs over the whole index, you know, billions of things at query time. So you have to pre-process things usually with LLMs, but then you, you can do a re-rank over like, you know, 10, 30, a hundred, depending on a thousand, depending on how. You know, you could, you could play with different sizes of L of transformers to get the cost to work out. I mean, one really interesting thing is like, we're building a search engine at a time where LLM costs are going down like crazy when some very useful. Tool goes down in cost by 200 X in like the space of, I don't know, a couple of years, there are going to be new opportunities in search, right? So like to, to not integrate this and build off, to not like rethink search from scratch, the search algorithm itself, given the fact that things are going down 200 X is crazy.Alessio [00:55:37]: Thank you so much for coming on, man. It was fun.Will [00:55:39]: Thank you. This was so fun. Really fun. Get full access to Latent Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

  --------  

  56:00
• AI Engineering for Art — with comfyanonymous, of ComfyUI

  Applications for the NYC AI Engineer Summit, focused on Agents at Work, are open!When we first started Latent Space, in the lightning round we’d always ask guests: “What’s your favorite AI product?”. The majority would say Midjourney. The simple UI of prompt → very aesthetic image turned it into a $300M+ ARR bootstrapped business as it rode the first wave of AI image generation.In open source land, StableDiffusion was congregating around AUTOMATIC1111 as the de-facto web UI. Unlike Midjourney, which offered some flags but was mostly prompt-driven, A1111 let users play with a lot more parameters, supported additional modalities like img2img, and allowed users to load in custom models. If you’re interested in some of the SD history, you can look at our episodes with Lexica, Replicate, and Playground.One of the people involved with that community was comfyanonymous, who was also part of the Stability team in 2023, decided to build an alternative called ComfyUI, now one of the fastest growing open source projects in generative images, and is now the preferred partner for folks like Black Forest Labs’s Flux Tools on Day 1. The idea behind it was simple: “Everyone is trying to make easy to use interfaces. Let me try to make a powerful interface that's not easy to use.”Unlike its predecessors, ComfyUI does not have an input text box. Everything is based around the idea of a node: there’s a text input node, a CLIP node, a checkpoint loader node, a KSampler node, a VAE node, etc. While daunting for simple image generation, the tool is amazing for more complex workflows since you can break down every step of the process, and then chain many of them together rather than manually switching between tools. You can also re-start execution halfway instead of from the beginning, which can save a lot of time when using larger models.To give you an idea of some of the new use cases that this type of UI enables:* Sketch something → Generate an image with SD from sketch → feed it into SD Video to animate* Generate an image of an object → Turn into a 3D asset → Feed into interactive experiences* Input audio → Generate audio-reactive videosTheir Examples page also includes some of the more common use cases like AnimateDiff, etc. They recently launched the Comfy Registry, an online library of different nodes that users can pull from rather than having to build everything from scratch. The project has >60,000 Github stars, and as the community grows, some of the projects that people build have gotten quite complex:The most interesting thing about Comfy is that it’s not a UI, it’s a runtime. You can build full applications on top of image models simply by using Comfy. You can expose Comfy workflows as an endpoint and chain them together just like you chain a single node. We’re seeing the rise of AI Engineering applied to art.Major Tom’s ComfyUI Resources from the Latent Space DiscordMajor shoutouts to Major Tom on the LS Discord who is a image generation expert, who offered these pointers:* “best thing about comfy is the fact it supports almost immediately every new thing that comes out - unlike A1111 or forge, which still don't support flux cnet for instance. It will be perfect tool when conflicting nodes will be resolved”* AP Workflows from Alessandro Perili are a nice example of an all-in-one train-evaluate-generate system built atop Comfy* ComfyUI YouTubers to learn from:* @sebastiankamph* @NerdyRodent* @OlivioSarikas* @sedetweiler* @pixaroma* ComfyUI Nodes to check out:* https://github.com/kijai/ComfyUI-IC-Light* https://github.com/MrForExample/ComfyUI-3D-Pack* https://github.com/PowerHouseMan/ComfyUI-AdvancedLivePortrait* https://github.com/pydn/ComfyUI-to-Python-Extension* https://github.com/THtianhao/ComfyUI-Portrait-Maker* https://github.com/ssitu/ComfyUI_NestedNodeBuilder* https://github.com/longgui0318/comfyui-magic-clothing* https://github.com/atmaranto/ComfyUI-SaveAsScript* https://github.com/ZHO-ZHO-ZHO/ComfyUI-InstantID* https://github.com/AIFSH/ComfyUI-FishSpeech* https://github.com/coolzilj/ComfyUI-Photopea* https://github.com/lks-ai/anynode* Sarav: https://www.youtube.com/@mickmumpitz/videos ( applied stuff )* Sarav: https://www.youtube.com/@latentvision (technical, but infrequent)* look for comfyui node for https://github.com/magic-quill/MagicQuill* “Comfy for Video” resources* Kijai (https://github.com/kijai) pushing out support for Mochi, CogVideoX, AnimateDif, LivePortrait etc* Comfyui node support like LTX https://github.com/Lightricks/ComfyUI-LTXVideo , and HunyuanVideo* FloraFauna AI and Krea.ai* Communities: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/, https://www.reddit.com/r/comfyui/Full YouTube EpisodeAs usual, you can find the full video episode on our YouTube (and don’t forget to like and subscribe!)Timestamps* 00:00:04 Introduction of hosts and anonymous guest* 00:00:35 Origins of Comfy UI and early Stable Diffusion landscape* 00:02:58 Comfy's background and development of high-res fix* 00:05:37 Area conditioning and compositing in image generation* 00:07:20 Discussion on different AI image models (SD, Flux, etc.)* 00:11:10 Closed source model APIs and community discussions on SD versions* 00:14:41 LoRAs and textual inversion in image generation* 00:18:43 Evaluation methods in the Comfy community* 00:20:05 CLIP models and text encoders in image generation* 00:23:05 Prompt weighting and negative prompting* 00:26:22 Comfy UI's unique features and design choices* 00:31:00 Memory management in Comfy UI* 00:33:50 GPU market share and compatibility issues* 00:35:40 Node design and parameter settings in Comfy UI* 00:38:44 Custom nodes and community contributions* 00:41:40 Video generation models and capabilities* 00:44:47 Comfy UI's development timeline and rise to popularity* 00:48:13 Current state of Comfy UI team and future plans* 00:50:11 Discussion on other Comfy startups and potential text generation supportTranscriptAlessio [00:00:04]: Hey everyone, welcome to the Latent Space podcast. This is Alessio, partner and CTO at Decibel Partners, and I'm joined by my co-host Swyx, founder of Small AI.swyx [00:00:12]: Hey everyone, we are in the Chroma Studio again, but with our first ever anonymous guest, Comfy Anonymous, welcome.Comfy [00:00:19]: Hello.swyx [00:00:21]: I feel like that's your full name, you just go by Comfy, right?Comfy [00:00:24]: Yeah, well, a lot of people just call me Comfy, even when they know my real name. Hey, Comfy.Alessio [00:00:32]: Swyx is the same. You know, not a lot of people call you Shawn.swyx [00:00:35]: Yeah, you have a professional name, right, that people know you by, and then you have a legal name. Yeah, it's fine. How do I phrase this? I think people who are in the know, know that Comfy is like the tool for image generation and now other multimodality stuff. I would say that when I first got started with Stable Diffusion, the star of the show was Automatic 111, right? And I actually looked back at my notes from 2022-ish, like Comfy was already getting started back then, but it was kind of like the up and comer, and your main feature was the flowchart. Can you just kind of rewind to that moment, that year and like, you know, how you looked at the landscape there and decided to start Comfy?Comfy [00:01:10]: Yeah, I discovered Stable Diffusion in 2022, in October 2022. And, well, I kind of started playing around with it. Yes, I, and back then I was using Automatic, which was what everyone was using back then. And so I started with that because I had, it was when I started, I had no idea like how Diffusion works. I didn't know how Diffusion models work, how any of this works, so.swyx [00:01:36]: Oh, yeah. What was your prior background as an engineer?Comfy [00:01:39]: Just a software engineer. Yeah. Boring software engineer.swyx [00:01:44]: But like any, any image stuff, any orchestration, distributed systems, GPUs?Comfy [00:01:49]: No, I was doing basically nothing interesting. Crud, web development? Yeah, a lot of web development, just, yeah, some basic, maybe some basic like automation stuff. Okay. Just. Yeah, no, like, no big companies or anything.swyx [00:02:08]: Yeah, but like already some interest in automations, probably a lot of Python.Comfy [00:02:12]: Yeah, yeah, of course, Python. But I wasn't actually used to like the Node graph interface before I started Comfy UI. It was just, I just thought it was like, oh, like, what's the best way to represent the Diffusion process in the user interface? And then like, oh, well. Well, like, naturally, oh, this is the best way I've found. And this was like with the Node interface. So how I got started was, yeah, so basic October 2022, just like I hadn't written a line of PyTorch before that. So it's completely new. What happened was I kind of got addicted to generating images.Alessio [00:02:58]: As we all did. Yeah.Comfy [00:03:00]: And then I started. I started experimenting with like the high-res fixed in auto, which was for those that don't know, the high-res fix is just since the Diffusion models back then could only generate that low-resolution. So what you would do, you would generate low-resolution image, then upscale, then refine it again. And that was kind of the hack to generate high-resolution images. I really liked generating. Like higher resolution images. So I was experimenting with that. And so I modified the code a bit. Okay. What happens if I, if I use different samplers on the second pass, I was edited the code of auto. So what happens if I use a different sampler? What happens if I use a different, like a different settings, different number of steps? And because back then the. The high-res fix was very basic, just, so. Yeah.swyx [00:04:05]: Now there's a whole library of just, uh, the upsamplers.Comfy [00:04:08]: I think, I think they added a bunch of, uh, of options to the high-res fix since, uh, since, since then. But before that was just so basic. So I wanted to go further. I wanted to try it. What happens if I use a different model for the second, the second pass? And then, well, then the auto code base was, wasn't good enough for. Like, it would have been, uh, harder to implement that in the auto interface than to create my own interface. So that's when I decided to create my own. And you were doing that mostly on your own when you started, or did you already have kind of like a subgroup of people? No, I was, uh, on my own because, because it was just me experimenting with stuff. So yeah, that was it. Then, so I started writing the code January one. 2023, and then I released the first version on GitHub, January 16th, 2023. That's how things got started.Alessio [00:05:11]: And what's, what's the name? Comfy UI right away or? Yeah.Comfy [00:05:14]: Comfy UI. The reason the name, my name is Comfy is people thought my pictures were comfy, so I just, uh, just named it, uh, uh, it's my Comfy UI. So yeah, that's, uh,swyx [00:05:27]: Is there a particular segment of the community that you targeted as users? Like more intensive workflow artists, you know, compared to the automatic crowd or, you know,Comfy [00:05:37]: This was my way of like experimenting with, uh, with new things, like the high risk fixed thing I mentioned, which was like in Comfy, the first thing you could easily do was just chain different models together. And then one of the first things, I think the first times it got a bit of popularity was when I started experimenting with the different, like applying. Prompts to different areas of the image. Yeah. I called it area conditioning, posted it on Reddit and it got a bunch of upvotes. So I think that's when, like, when people first learned of Comfy UI.swyx [00:06:17]: Is that mostly like fixing hands?Comfy [00:06:19]: Uh, no, no, no. That was just, uh, like, let's say, well, it was very, well, it still is kind of difficult to like, let's say you want a mountain, you have an image and then, okay. I'm like, okay. I want the mountain here and I want the, like a, a Fox here.swyx [00:06:37]: Yeah. So compositing the image. Yeah.Comfy [00:06:40]: My way was very easy. It was just like, oh, when you run the diffusion process, you kind of generate, okay. You do pass one pass through the diffusion, every step you do one pass. Okay. This place of the image with this brand, this space, place of the image with the other prop. And then. The entire image with another prop and then just average everything together, every step, and that was, uh, area composition, which I call it. And then, then a month later, there was a paper that came out called multi diffusion, which was the same thing, but yeah, that's, uh,Alessio [00:07:20]: could you do area composition with different models or because you're averaging out, you kind of need the same model.Comfy [00:07:26]: Could do it with, but yeah, I hadn't implemented it. For different models, but, uh, you, you can do it with, uh, with different models if you want, as long as the models share the same latent space, like we, we're supposed to ring a bell every time someone says, yeah, like, for example, you couldn't use like Excel and SD 1.5, because those have a different latent space, but like, uh, yeah, like SD 1.5 models, different ones. You could, you could do that.swyx [00:07:59]: There's some models that try to work in pixel space, right?Comfy [00:08:03]: Yeah. They're very slow. Of course. That's the problem. That that's the, the reason why stable diffusion actually became like popular, like, cause was because of the latent space.swyx [00:08:14]: Small and yeah. Because it used to be latent diffusion models and then they trained it up.Comfy [00:08:19]: Yeah. Cause a pixel pixel diffusion models are just too slow. So. Yeah.swyx [00:08:25]: Have you ever tried to talk to like, like stability, the latent diffusion guys, like, you know, Robin Rombach, that, that crew. Yeah.Comfy [00:08:32]: Well, I used to work at stability.swyx [00:08:34]: Oh, I actually didn't know. Yeah.Comfy [00:08:35]: I used to work at stability. I got, uh, I got hired, uh, in June, 2023.swyx [00:08:42]: Ah, that's the part of the story I didn't know about. Okay. Yeah.Comfy [00:08:46]: So the, the reason I was hired is because they were doing, uh, SDXL at the time and they were basically SDXL. I don't know if you remember it was a base model and then a refiner model. Basically they wanted to experiment, like chaining them together. And then, uh, they saw, oh, right. Oh, this, we can use this to do that. Well, let's hire that guy.swyx [00:09:10]: But they didn't, they didn't pursue it for like SD3. What do you mean? Like the SDXL approach. Yeah.Comfy [00:09:16]: The reason for that approach was because basically they had two models and then they wanted to publish both of them. So they, they trained one on. Lower time steps, which was the refiner model. And then they, the first one was trained normally. And then they went during their test, they realized, oh, like if we string these models together are like quality increases. So let's publish that. It worked. Yeah. But like right now, I don't think many people actually use the refiner anymore, even though it is actually a full diffusion model. Like you can use it on its own. And it's going to generate images. I don't think anyone, people have mostly forgotten about it. But, uh.Alessio [00:10:05]: Can we talk about models a little bit? So stable diffusion, obviously is the most known. I know flux has gotten a lot of traction. Are there any underrated models that people should use more or what's the state of the union?Comfy [00:10:17]: Well, the, the latest, uh, state of the art, at least, yeah, for images there's, uh, yeah, there's flux. There's also SD3.5. SD3.5 is two models. There's a, there's a small one, 2.5B and there's the bigger one, 8B. So it's, it's smaller than flux. So, and it's more, uh, creative in a way, but flux, yeah, flux is the best. People should give SD3.5 a try cause it's, uh, it's different. I won't say it's better. Well, it's better for some like specific use cases. Right. If you want some to make something more like creative, maybe SD3.5. If you want to make something more consistent and flux is probably better.swyx [00:11:06]: Do you ever consider supporting the closed source model APIs?Comfy [00:11:10]: Uh, well, they, we do support them as custom nodes. We actually have some, uh, official custom nodes from, uh, different. Ideogram.swyx [00:11:20]: Yeah. I guess DALI would have one. Yeah.Comfy [00:11:23]: That's, uh, it's just not, I'm not the person that handles that. Sure.swyx [00:11:28]: Sure. Quick question on, on SD. There's a lot of community discussion about the transition from SD1.5 to SD2 and then SD2 to SD3. People still like, you know, very loyal to the previous generations of SDs?Comfy [00:11:41]: Uh, yeah. SD1.5 then still has a lot of, a lot of users.swyx [00:11:46]: The last based model.Comfy [00:11:49]: Yeah. Then SD2 was mostly ignored. It wasn't, uh, it wasn't a big enough improvement over the previous one. Okay.swyx [00:11:58]: So SD1.5, SD3, flux and whatever else. SDXL. SDXL.Comfy [00:12:03]: That's the main one. Stable cascade. Stable cascade. That was a good model. But, uh, that's, uh, the problem with that one is, uh, it got, uh, like SD3 was announced one week after. Yeah.swyx [00:12:16]: It was like a weird release. Uh, what was it like inside of stability actually? I mean, statute of limitations. Yeah. The statute of limitations expired. You know, management has moved. So it's easier to talk about now. Yeah.Comfy [00:12:27]: And inside stability, actually that model was ready, uh, like three months before, but it got, uh, stuck in, uh, red teaming. So basically the product, if that model had released or was supposed to be released by the authors, then it would probably have gotten very popular since it's a, it's a step up from SDXL. But it got all of its momentum stolen. It got stolen by the SD3 announcement. So people kind of didn't develop anything on top of it, even though it's, uh, yeah. It was a good model, at least, uh, completely mostly ignored for some reason. Likeswyx [00:13:07]: I think the naming as well matters. It seemed like a branch off of the main, main tree of development. Yeah.Comfy [00:13:15]: Well, it was different researchers that did it. Yeah. Yeah. Very like, uh, good model. Like it's the Worcestershire authors. I don't know if I'm pronouncing it correctly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.swyx [00:13:28]: I actually met them in Vienna. Yeah.Comfy [00:13:30]: They worked at stability for a bit and they left right after the Cascade release.swyx [00:13:35]: This is Dustin, right? No. Uh, Dustin's SD3. Yeah.Comfy [00:13:38]: Dustin is a SD3 SDXL. That's, uh, Pablo and Dome. I think I'm pronouncing his name correctly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's very good.swyx [00:13:51]: It seems like the community is very, they move very quickly. Yeah. Like when there's a new model out, they just drop whatever the current one is. And they just all move wholesale over. Like they don't really stay to explore the full capabilities. Like if, if the stable cascade was that good, they would have AB tested a bit more. Instead they're like, okay, SD3 is out. Let's go. You know?Comfy [00:14:11]: Well, I find the opposite actually. The community doesn't like, they only jump on a new model when there's a significant improvement. Like if there's a, only like a incremental improvement, which is what, uh, most of these models are going to have, especially if you, cause, uh, stay the same parameter count. Yeah. Like you're not going to get a massive improvement, uh, into like, unless there's something big that, that changes. So, uh. Yeah.swyx [00:14:41]: And how are they evaluating these improvements? Like, um, because there's, it's a whole chain of, you know, comfy workflows. Yeah. How does, how does one part of the chain actually affect the whole process?Comfy [00:14:52]: Are you talking on the model side specific?swyx [00:14:54]: Model specific, right? But like once you have your whole workflow based on a model, it's very hard to move.Comfy [00:15:01]: Uh, not, well, not really. Well, it depends on your, uh, depends on their specific kind of the workflow. Yeah.swyx [00:15:09]: So I do a lot of like text and image. Yeah.Comfy [00:15:12]: When you do change, like most workflows are kind of going to be complete. Yeah. It's just like, you might have to completely change your prompt completely change. Okay.swyx [00:15:24]: Well, I mean, then maybe the question is really about evals. Like what does the comfy community do for evals? Just, you know,Comfy [00:15:31]: Well, that they don't really do that. It's more like, oh, I think this image is nice. So that's, uh,swyx [00:15:38]: They just subscribe to Fofr AI and just see like, you know, what Fofr is doing. Yeah.Comfy [00:15:43]: Well, they just, they just generate like it. Like, I don't see anyone really doing it. Like, uh, at least on the comfy side, comfy users, they, it's more like, oh, generate images and see, oh, this one's nice. It's like, yeah, it's not, uh, like the, the more, uh, like, uh, scientific, uh, like, uh, like checking that's more on specifically on like model side. If, uh, yeah, but there is a lot of, uh, vibes also, cause it is a like, uh, artistic, uh, you can create a very good model that doesn't generate nice images. Cause most images on the internet are ugly. So if you, if that's like, if you just, oh, I have the best model at 10th giant, it's super smart. I created on all the, like I've trained on just all the images on the internet. The images are not going to look good. So yeah.Alessio [00:16:42]: Yeah.Comfy [00:16:43]: They're going to be very consistent. But yeah. People like, it's not going to be like the, the look that people are going to be expecting from, uh, from a model. So. Yeah.swyx [00:16:54]: Can we talk about LoRa's? Cause we thought we talked about models then like the next step is probably LoRa's. Before, I actually, I'm kind of curious how LoRa's entered the tool set of the image community because the LoRa paper was 2021. And then like, there was like other methods like textual inversion that was popular at the early SD stage. Yeah.Comfy [00:17:13]: I can't even explain the difference between that. Yeah. Textual inversions. That's basically what you're doing is you're, you're training a, cause well, yeah. Stable diffusion. You have the diffusion model, you have text encoder. So basically what you're doing is training a vector that you're going to pass to the text encoder. It's basically you're training a new word. Yeah.swyx [00:17:37]: It's a little bit like representation engineering now. Yeah.Comfy [00:17:40]: Yeah. Basically. Yeah. You're just, so yeah, if you know how like the text encoder works, basically you have, you take your, your words of your product, you convert those into tokens with the tokenizer and those are converted into vectors. Basically. Yeah. Each token represents a different vector. So each word presents a vector. And those, depending on your words, that's the list of vectors that get passed to the text encoder, which is just. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just a stack of, of attention. Like basically it's a very close to LLM architecture. Yeah. Yeah. So basically what you're doing is just training a new vector. We're saying, well, I have all these images and I want to know which word does that represent? And it's going to get like, you train this vector and then, and then when you use this vector, it hopefully generates. Like something similar to your images. Yeah.swyx [00:18:43]: I would say it's like surprisingly sample efficient in picking up the concept that you're trying to train it on. Yeah.Comfy [00:18:48]: Well, people have kind of stopped doing that even though back as like when I was at Stability, we, we actually did train internally some like textual versions on like T5 XXL actually worked pretty well. But for some reason, yeah, people don't use them. And also they might also work like, like, yeah, this is something and probably have to test, but maybe if you train a textual version, like on T5 XXL, it might also work with all the other models that use T5 XXL because same thing with like, like the textual inversions that, that were trained for SD 1.5, they also kind of work on SDXL because SDXL has the, has two text encoders. And one of them is the same as the, as the SD 1.5 CLIP-L. So those, they actually would, they don't work as strongly because they're only applied to one of the text encoders. But, and the same thing for SD3. SD3 has three text encoders. So it works. It's still, you can still use your textual version SD 1.5 on SD3, but it's just a lot weaker because now there's three text encoders. So it gets even more diluted. Yeah.swyx [00:20:05]: Do people experiment a lot on, just on the CLIP side, there's like Siglip, there's Blip, like do people experiment a lot on those?Comfy [00:20:12]: You can't really replace. Yeah.swyx [00:20:14]: Because they're trained together, right? Yeah.Comfy [00:20:15]: They're trained together. So you can't like, well, what I've seen people experimenting with is a long CLIP. So basically someone fine tuned the CLIP model to accept longer prompts.swyx [00:20:27]: Oh, it's kind of like long context fine tuning. Yeah.Comfy [00:20:31]: So, so like it's, it's actually supported in Core Comfy.swyx [00:20:35]: How long is long?Comfy [00:20:36]: Regular CLIP is 77 tokens. Yeah. Long CLIP is 256. Okay. So, but the hack that like you've, if you use stable diffusion 1.5, you've probably noticed, oh, it still works if I, if I use long prompts, prompts longer than 77 words. Well, that's because the hack is to just, well, you split, you split it up in chugs of 77, your whole big prompt. Let's say you, you give it like the massive text, like the Bible or something, and it would split it up in chugs of 77 and then just pass each one through the CLIP and then just cut anything together at the end. It's not ideal, but it actually works.swyx [00:21:26]: Like the positioning of the words really, really matters then, right? Like this is why order matters in prompts. Yeah.Comfy [00:21:33]: Yeah. Like it, it works, but it's, it's not ideal, but it's what people expect. Like if, if someone gives a huge prompt, they expect at least some of the concepts at the end to be like present in the image. But usually when they give long prompts, they, they don't, they like, they don't expect like detail, I think. So that's why it works very well.swyx [00:21:58]: And while we're on this topic, prompts waiting, negative comments. Negative prompting all, all sort of similar part of this layer of the stack. Yeah.Comfy [00:22:05]: The, the hack for that, which works on CLIP, like it, basically it's just for SD 1.5, well, for SD 1.5, the prompt waiting works well because CLIP L is a, is not a very deep model. So you have a very high correlation between, you have the input token, the index of the input token vector. And the output token, they're very, the concepts are very close, closely linked. So that means if you interpolate the vector from what, well, the, the way Comfy UI does it is it has, okay, you have the vector, you have an empty prompt. So you have a, a chunk, like a CLIP output for the empty prompt, and then you have the one for your prompt. And then it interpolates from that, depending on your prompt. Yeah.Comfy [00:23:07]: So that's how it, how it does prompt waiting. But this stops working the deeper your text encoder is. So on T5X itself, it doesn't work at all. So. Wow.swyx [00:23:20]: Is that a problem for people? I mean, cause I'm used to just move, moving up numbers. Probably not. Yeah.Comfy [00:23:25]: Well.swyx [00:23:26]: So you just use words to describe, right? Cause it's a bigger language model. Yeah.Comfy [00:23:30]: Yeah. So. Yeah. So honestly it might be good, but I haven't seen many complaints on Flux that it's not working. So, cause I guess people can sort of get around it with, with language. So. Yeah.swyx [00:23:46]: Yeah. And then coming back to LoRa's, now the, the popular way to, to customize models is LoRa's. And I saw you also support Locon and LoHa, which I've never heard of before.Comfy [00:23:56]: There's a bunch of, cause what, what the LoRa is essentially is. Instead of like, okay, you have your, your model and then you want to fine tune it. So instead of like, what you could do is you could fine tune the entire thing, but that's a bit heavy. So to speed things up and make things less heavy, what you can do is just fine tune some smaller weights, like basically two, two matrices that when you multiply like two low rank matrices and when you multiply them together, gives a, represents a difference between trained weights and your base weights. So by training those two smaller matrices, that's a lot less heavy. Yeah.Alessio [00:24:45]: And they're portable. So you're going to share them. Yeah. It's like easier. And also smaller.Comfy [00:24:49]: Yeah. That's the, how LoRa's work. So basically, so when, when inferencing you, you get an inference with them pretty efficiently, like how ComputeWrite does it. It just, when you use a LoRa, it just applies it straight on the weights so that there's only a small delay at the base, like before the sampling to when it applies the weights and then it just same speed as, as before. So for, for inference, it's, it's not that bad, but, and then you have, so basically all the LoRa types like LoHa, LoCon, everything, that's just different ways of representing that like. Basically, you can call it kind of like compression, even though it's not really compression, it's just different ways of represented, like just, okay, I want to train a different on the difference on the weights. What's the best way to represent that difference? There's the basic LoRa, which is just, oh, let's multiply these two matrices together. And then there's all the other ones, which are all different algorithms. So. Yeah.Alessio [00:25:57]: So let's talk about LoRa. Let's talk about what comfy UI actually is. I think most people have heard of it. Some people might've seen screenshots. I think fewer people have built very complex workflows. So when you started, automatic was like the super simple way. What were some of the choices that you made? So the node workflow, is there anything else that stands out as like, this was like a unique take on how to do image generation workflows?Comfy [00:26:22]: Well, I feel like, yeah, back then everyone was trying to make like easy to use interface. Yeah. So I'm like, well, everyone's trying to make an easy to use interface.swyx [00:26:32]: Let's make a hard to use interface.Comfy [00:26:37]: Like, so like, I like, I don't need to do that, everyone else doing it. So let me try something like, let me try to make a powerful interface that's not easy to use. So.swyx [00:26:52]: So like, yeah, there's a sort of node execution engine. Yeah. Yeah. And it actually lists, it has this really good list of features of things you prioritize, right? Like let me see, like sort of re-executing from, from any parts of the workflow that was changed, asynchronous queue system, smart memory management, like all this seems like a lot of engineering that. Yeah.Comfy [00:27:12]: There's a lot of engineering in the back end to make things, cause I was always focused on making things work locally very well. Cause that's cause I was using it locally. So everything. So there's a lot of, a lot of thought and working by getting everything to run as well as possible. So yeah. ConfUI is actually more of a back end, at least, well, not all the front ends getting a lot more development, but, but before, before it was, I was pretty much only focused on the backend. Yeah.swyx [00:27:50]: So v0.1 was only August this year. Yeah.Comfy [00:27:54]: With the new front end. Before there was no versioning. So yeah. Yeah. Yeah.swyx [00:27:57]: And so what was the big rewrite for the 0.1 and then the 1.0?Comfy [00:28:02]: Well, that's more on the front end side. That's cause before that it was just like the UI, what, cause when I first wrote it, I just, I said, okay, how can I make, like, I can do web development, but I don't like doing it. Like what's the easiest way I can slap a node interface on this. And then I found this library. Yeah. Like JavaScript library.swyx [00:28:26]: Live graph?Comfy [00:28:27]: Live graph.swyx [00:28:28]: Usually people will go for like react flow for like a flow builder. Yeah.Comfy [00:28:31]: But that seems like too complicated. So I didn't really want to spend time like developing the front end. So I'm like, well, oh, light graph. This has the whole node interface. So, okay. Let me just plug that into, to my backend.swyx [00:28:49]: I feel like if Streamlit or Gradio offered something that you would have used Streamlit or Gradio cause it's Python. Yeah.Comfy [00:28:54]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.Comfy [00:29:00]: Yeah.Comfy [00:29:14]: Yeah. logic and your backend logic and just sticks them together.swyx [00:29:20]: It's supposed to be easy for you guys. If you're a Python main, you know, I'm a JS main, right? Okay. If you're a Python main, it's supposed to be easy.Comfy [00:29:26]: Yeah, it's easy, but it makes your whole software a huge mess.swyx [00:29:30]: I see, I see. So you're mixing concerns instead of separating concerns?Comfy [00:29:34]: Well, it's because... Like frontend and backend. Frontend and backend should be well separated with a defined API. Like that's how you're supposed to do it. Smart people disagree. It just sticks everything together. It makes it easy to like a huge mess. And also it's, there's a lot of issues with Gradio. Like it's very good if all you want to do is just get like slap a quick interface on your, like to show off your ML project. Like that's what it's made for. Yeah. Like there's no problem using it. Like, oh, I have my, I have my code. I just wanted a quick interface on it. That's perfect. Like use Gradio. But if you want to make something that's like a real, like real software that will last a long time and will be easy to maintain, then I would avoid it. Yeah.swyx [00:30:32]: So your criticism is Streamlit and Gradio are the same. I mean, those are the same criticisms.Comfy [00:30:37]: Yeah, Streamlit I haven't used as much. Yeah, I just looked a bit.swyx [00:30:43]: Similar philosophy.Comfy [00:30:44]: Yeah, it's similar. It's just, it just seems to me like, okay, for quick, like AI demos, it's perfect.swyx [00:30:51]: Yeah. Going back to like the core tech, like asynchronous queues, slow re-execution, smart memory management, you know, anything that you were very proud of or was very hard to figure out?Comfy [00:31:00]: Yeah. The thing that's the biggest pain in the ass is probably the memory management. Yeah.swyx [00:31:05]: Were you just paging models in and out or? Yeah.Comfy [00:31:08]: Before it was just, okay, load the model, completely unload it. Then, okay, that, that works well when you, your model are small, but if your models are big and it takes sort of like, let's say someone has a, like a, a 4090, and the model size is 10 gigabytes, that can take a few seconds to like load and load, load and load, so you want to try to keep things like in memory, in the GPU memory as much as possible. What Comfy UI does right now is it. It tries to like estimate, okay, like, okay, you're going to sample this model, it's going to take probably this amount of memory, let's remove the models, like this amount of memory that's been loaded on the GPU and then just execute it. But so there's a fine line between just because try to remove the least amount of models that are already loaded. Because as fans, like Windows drivers, and one other problem is the NVIDIA driver on Windows by default, because there's a way to, there's an option to disable that feature, but by default it, like, if you start loading, you can overflow your GPU memory and then it's, the driver's going to automatically start paging to RAM. But the problem with that is it's, it makes everything extremely slow. So when you see people complaining, oh, this model, it works, but oh, s**t, it starts slowing down a lot, that's probably what's happening. So it's basically you have to just try to get, use as much memory as possible, but not too much, or else things start slowing down, or people get out of memory, and then just find, try to find that line where, oh, like the driver on Windows starts paging and stuff. Yeah. And the problem with PyTorch is it's, it's high levels, don't have that much fine-grained control over, like, specific memory stuff, so kind of have to leave, like, the memory freeing to, to Python and PyTorch, which is, can be annoying sometimes.swyx [00:33:32]: So, you know, I think one thing is, as a maintainer of this project, like, you're designing for a very wide surface area of compute, like, you even support CPUs.Comfy [00:33:42]: Yeah, well, that's... That's just, for PyTorch, PyTorch supports CPUs, so, yeah, it's just, that's not, that's not hard to support.swyx [00:33:50]: First of all, is there a market share estimate, like, is it, like, 70% NVIDIA, like, 30% AMD, and then, like, miscellaneous on Apple, Silicon, or whatever?Comfy [00:33:59]: For Comfy? Yeah. Yeah, and, yeah, I don't know the market share.swyx [00:34:03]: Can you guess?Comfy [00:34:04]: I think it's mostly NVIDIA. Right. Because, because AMD, the problem, like, AMD works horribly on Windows. Like, on Linux, it works fine. It's, it's lower than the price equivalent NVIDIA GPU, but it works, like, you can use it, you generate images, everything works. On Linux, on Windows, you might have a hard time, so, that's the problem, and most people, I think most people who bought AMD probably use Windows. They probably aren't going to switch to Linux, so... Yeah. So, until AMD actually, like, ports their, like, raw cam to, to Windows properly, and then there's actually PyTorch, I think they're, they're doing that, they're in the process of doing that, but, until they get it, they get a good, like, PyTorch raw cam build that works on Windows, it's, like, they're going to have a hard time. Yeah.Alessio [00:35:06]: We got to get George on it. Yeah. Well, he's trying to get Lisa Su to do it, but... Let's talk a bit about, like, the node design. So, unlike all the other text-to-image, you have a very, like, deep, so you have, like, a separate node for, like, clip and code, you have a separate node for, like, the case sampler, you have, like, all these nodes. Going back to, like, the making it easy versus making it hard, but, like, how much do people actually play with all the settings, you know? Kind of, like, how do you guide people to, like, hey, this is actually going to be very impactful versus this is maybe, like, less impactful, but we still want to expose it to you?Comfy [00:35:40]: Well, I try to... I try to expose, like, I try to expose everything or, but, yeah, at least for the, but for things, like, for example, for the samplers, like, there's, like, yeah, four different sampler nodes, which go in easiest to most advanced. So, yeah, if you go, like, the easy node, the regular sampler node, that's, you have just the basic settings. But if you use, like, the sampler advanced... If you use, like, the custom advanced node, that, that one you can actually, you'll see you have, like, different nodes.Alessio [00:36:19]: I'm looking it up now. Yeah. What are, like, the most impactful parameters that you use? So, it's, like, you know, you can have more, but, like, which ones, like, really make a difference?Comfy [00:36:30]: Yeah, they all do. They all have their own, like, they all, like, for example, yeah, steps. Usually you want steps, you want them to be as low as possible. But you want, if you're optimizing your workflow, you want to, you lower the steps until, like, the images start deteriorating too much. Because that, yeah, that's the number of steps you're running the diffusion process. So, if you want things to be faster, lower is better. But, yeah, CFG, that's more, you can kind of see that as the contrast of the image. Like, if your image looks too bursty. Then you can lower the CFG. So, yeah, CFG, that's how, yeah, that's how strongly the, like, the negative versus positive prompt. Because when you sample a diffusion model, it's basically a negative prompt. It's just, yeah, positive prediction minus negative prediction.swyx [00:37:32]: Contrastive loss. Yeah.Comfy [00:37:34]: It's positive minus negative, and the CFG does the multiplier. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so.Alessio [00:37:41]: What are, like, good resources to understand what the parameters do? I think most people start with automatic, and then they move over, and it's, like, snap, CFG, sampler, name, scheduler, denoise. Read it.Comfy [00:37:53]: But, honestly, well, it's more, it's something you should, like, try out yourself. I don't know, you don't necessarily need to know how it works to, like, what it does. Because even if you know, like, CFGO, it's, like, positive minus negative prompt. Yeah. So the only thing you know at CFG is if it's 1.0, then that means the negative prompt isn't applied. It also means sampling is two times faster. But, yeah. But other than that, it's more, like, you should really just see what it does to the images yourself, and you'll probably get a more intuitive understanding of what these things do.Alessio [00:38:34]: Any other nodes or things you want to shout out? Like, I know the animate diff IP adapter. Those are, like, some of the most popular ones. Yeah. What else comes to mind?Comfy [00:38:44]: Not nodes, but there's, like, what I like is when some people, sometimes they make things that use ComfyUI as their backend. Like, there's a plugin for Krita that uses ComfyUI as its backend. So you can use, like, all the models that work in Comfy in Krita. And I think I've tried it once. But I know a lot of people use it, and it's probably really nice, so.Alessio [00:39:15]: What's the craziest node that people have built, like, the most complicated?Comfy [00:39:21]: Craziest node? Like, yeah. I know some people have made, like, video games in Comfy with, like, stuff like that. So, like, someone, like, I remember, like, yeah, last, I think it was last year, someone made, like, a, like, Wolfenstein 3D in Comfy. Of course. And then one of the inputs was, oh, you can generate a texture, and then it changes the texture in the game. So you can plug it to, like, the workflow. And there's a lot of, if you look there, there's a lot of crazy things people do, so. Yeah.Alessio [00:39:59]: And now there's, like, a node register that people can use to, like, download nodes. Yeah.Comfy [00:40:04]: Like, well, there's always been the, like, the ComfyUI manager. Yeah. But we're trying to make this more, like, I don't know, official, like, with, yeah, with the node registry. Because before the node registry, the, like, okay, how did your custom node get into ComfyUI manager? That's the guy running it who, like, every day he searched GitHub for new custom nodes and added dev annually to his custom node manager. So we're trying to make it less effortless. So we're trying to make it less effortless for him, basically. Yeah.Alessio [00:40:40]: Yeah. But I was looking, I mean, there's, like, a YouTube download node. There's, like, this is almost like, you know, a data pipeline more than, like, an image generation thing at this point. It's, like, you can get data in, you can, like, apply filters to it, you can generate data out.Comfy [00:40:54]: Yeah. You can do a lot of different things. Yeah. So I'm thinking, I think what I did is I made it easy to make custom nodes. So I think that helped a lot. I think that helped a lot for, like, the ecosystem because it is very easy to just make a node. So, yeah, a bit too easy sometimes. Then we have the issue where there's a lot of custom node packs which share similar nodes. But, well, that's, yeah, something we're trying to solve by maybe bringing some of the functionality into the core. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.Alessio [00:41:36]: And then there's, like, video. People can do video generation. Yeah.Comfy [00:41:40]: Video, that's, well, the first video model was, like, stable video diffusion, which was last, yeah, exactly last year, I think. Like, one year ago. But that wasn't a true video model. So it was...swyx [00:41:55]: It was, like, moving images? Yeah.Comfy [00:41:57]: I generated video. What I mean by that is it's, like, it's still 2D Latents. It's basically what I'm trying to do. So what they did is they took SD2, and then they added some temporal attention to it, and then trained it on videos and all. So it's kind of, like, animated, like, same idea, basically. Why I say it's not a true video model is that you still have, like, the 2D Latents. Like, a true video model, like Mochi, for example, would have 3D Latents. Mm-hmm.Alessio [00:42:32]: Which means you can, like, move through the space, basically. It's the difference. You're not just kind of, like, reorienting. Yeah.Comfy [00:42:39]: And it's also, well, it's also because you have a temporal VAE. Mm-hmm. Also, like, Mochi has a temporal VAE that compresses on, like, the temporal direction, also. So that's something you don't have with, like, yeah, animated diff and stable video diffusion. They only, like, compress spatially, not temporally. Mm-hmm. Right. So, yeah. That's why I call that, like, true video models. There's, yeah, there's actually a few of them, but the one I've implemented in comfy is Mochi, because that seems to be the best one so far. Yeah.swyx [00:43:15]: We had AJ come and speak at the stable diffusion meetup. The other open one I think I've seen is COG video. Yeah.Comfy [00:43:21]: COG video. Yeah. That one's, yeah, it also seems decent, but, yeah. Chinese, so we don't use it. No, it's fine. It's just, yeah, I could. Yeah. It's just that there's a, it's not the only one. There's also a few others, which I.swyx [00:43:36]: The rest are, like, closed source, right? Like, Cling. Yeah.Comfy [00:43:39]: Closed source, there's a bunch of them. But I mean, open. I've seen a few of them. Like, I can't remember their names, but there's COG videos, the big, the big one. Then there's also a few of them that released at the same time. There's one that released at the same time as SSD 3.5, same day, which is why I don't remember the name.swyx [00:44:02]: We should have a release schedule so we don't conflict on each of these things. Yeah.Comfy [00:44:06]: I think SD 3.5 and Mochi released on the same day. So everything else was kind of drowned, completely drowned out. So for some reason, lots of people picked that day to release their stuff.Comfy [00:44:21]: Yeah. Which is, well, shame for those. And I think Omnijet also released the same day, which also seems interesting. Yeah. Yeah.Alessio [00:44:30]: What's Comfy? So you are Comfy. And then there's like, comfy.org. I know we do a lot of things for, like, news research and those guys also have kind of like a more open source thing going on. How do you work? Like you mentioned, you mostly work on like, the core piece of it. And then what...Comfy [00:44:47]: Maybe I should fade it in because I, yeah, I feel like maybe, yeah, I only explain part of the story. Right. Yeah. Maybe I should explain the rest. So yeah. So yeah. Basically, January, that's when the first January 2023, January 16, 2023, that's when Amphi was first released to the public. Then, yeah, did a Reddit post about the area composition thing somewhere in, I don't remember exactly, maybe end of January, beginning of February. And then someone, a YouTuber, made a video about it, like Olivio, he made a video about Amphi in March 2023. I think that's when it was a real burst of attention. And by that time, I was continuing to develop it and it was getting, people were starting to use it more, which unfortunately meant that I had first written it to do like experiments, but then my time to do experiments went down. It started going down, because people were actually starting to use it then. Like, I had to, and I said, well, yeah, time to add all these features and stuff. Yeah, and then I got hired by Stability June, 2023. Then I made, basically, yeah, they hired me because they wanted the SD-XL. So I got the SD-XL working very well withітhe UI, because they were experimenting withámphi.house.com. Actually, the SDX, how the SDXL released worked is they released, for some reason, like they released the code first, but they didn't release the model checkpoint. So they released the code. And then, well, since the research was related to code, I released the code in Compute 2. And then the checkpoints were basically early access. People had to sign up and they only allowed a lot of people from edu emails. Like if you had an edu email, like they gave you access basically to the SDXL 0.9. And, well, that leaked. Right. Of course, because of course it's going to leak if you do that. Well, the only way people could easily use it was with Comfy. So, yeah, people started using. And then I fixed a few of the issues people had. So then the big 1.0 release happened. And, well, Comfy UI was the only way a lot of people could actually run it on their computers. Because it just like automatic was so like inefficient and bad that most people couldn't actually, like it just wouldn't work. Like because he did a quick implementation. So people were forced. To use Comfy UI, and that's how it became popular because people had no choice.swyx [00:47:55]: The growth hack.Comfy [00:47:56]: Yeah.swyx [00:47:56]: Yeah.Comfy [00:47:57]: Like everywhere, like people who didn't have the 4090, they had like, who had just regular GPUs, they didn't have a choice.Alessio [00:48:05]: So yeah, I got a 4070. So think of me. And so today, what's, is there like a core Comfy team or?Comfy [00:48:13]: Uh, yeah, well, right now, um, yeah, we are hiring. Okay. Actually, so right now core, like, um, the core core itself, it's, it's me. Uh, but because, uh, the reason where folks like all the focus has been mostly on the front end right now, because that's the thing that's been neglected for a long time. So, uh, so most of the focus right now is, uh, all on the front end, but we are, uh, yeah, we will soon get, uh, more people to like help me with the actual backend stuff. Yeah. So, no, I'm not going to say a hundred percent because that's why once the, once we have our V one release, which is because it'd be the package, come fee-wise with the nice interface and easy to install on windows and hopefully Mac. Uh, yeah. Yeah. Once we have that, uh, we're going to have to, lots of stuff to do on the backend side and also the front end side, but, uh.Alessio [00:49:14]: What's the release that I'm on the wait list. What's the timing?Comfy [00:49:18]: Uh, soon. Uh, soon. Yeah, I don't want to promise a release date. We do have a release date we're targeting, but I'm not sure if it's public. Yeah, and we're still going to continue doing the open source, making MPUI the best way to run stable infusion models. At least the open source side, it's going to be the best way to run models locally. But we will have a few things to make money from it, like cloud inference or that type of thing. And maybe some things for some enterprises.swyx [00:50:08]: I mean, a few questions on that. How do you feel about the other comfy startups?Comfy [00:50:11]: I mean, I think it's great. They're using your name. Yeah, well, it's better they use comfy than they use something else. Yeah, that's true. It's fine. We're going to try not to... We don't want to... We want people to use comfy. Like I said, it's better that people use comfy than something else. So as long as they use comfy, I think it helps the ecosystem. Because more people, even if they don't contribute directly, the fact that they are using comfy means that people are more likely to join the ecosystem. So, yeah.swyx [00:50:57]: And then would you ever do text?Comfy [00:50:59]: Yeah, well, you can already do text with some custom nodes. So, yeah, it's something we like. Yeah, it's something I've wanted to eventually add to core, but it's more like not a very... It's a very high priority. But because a lot of people use text for prompt enhancement and other things like that. So, yeah, it's just that my focus has always been on diffusion models. Yeah, unless some text diffusion model comes out.swyx [00:51:30]: Yeah, David Holtz is investing a lot in text diffusion.Comfy [00:51:34]: Yeah, well, if a good one comes out, then we'll probably implement it since it fits with the whole...swyx [00:51:39]: Yeah, I mean, I imagine it's going to be a close source to Midjourney. Yeah.Comfy [00:51:43]: Well, if an open one comes out, then I'll probably implement it.Alessio [00:51:54]: Cool, comfy. Thanks so much for coming on. This was fun. Bye. Get full access to Latent Space at www.latent.space/subscribe

  --------  

  55:04

Mais podcasts de TecnologiaMais podcasts de Tecnologia

Podcasts em tendência em Tecnologia

Sobre Latent Space: The AI Engineer Podcast