A number of people are talking about implications of AI to schools. I spoke about some of my thoughts to a school board earlier, some highlights: 1. You will never be able to detect the use of AI in homework. Full stop. All "detectors" of AI imo don't really work, can be defeated in various ways, and are in principle doomed to fail. You have to assume that any work done outside classroom has used AI. 2. Therefore, the majority of grading has to shift to in-class work (instead of at-home assignments), in settings where teachers can physically monitor students. The students remain motivated to learn how to solve problems without AI because they know they will be evaluated without it in class later. 3. We want students to be able to use AI, it is here to stay and it is extremely powerful, but we also don't want students to be naked in the world without it. Using the calculator as an example of a historically disruptive technology, school teaches you how to do all the basic math & arithmetic so that you can in principle do it by hand, even if calculators are pervasive and greatly speed up work in practical settings. In addition, you understand what it's doing for you, so should it give you a wrong answer (e.g. you mistyped "prompt"), you should be able to notice it, gut check it, verify it in some other way, etc. The verification ability is especially important in the case of AI, which is presently a lot more fallible in a great variety of ways compared to calculators. 4. A lot of the evaluation settings remain at teacher's discretion and involve a creative design space of no tools, cheatsheets, open book, provided AI responses, direct internet/AI access, etc. TLDR the goal is that the students are proficient in the use of AI, but can also exist without it, and imo the only way to get there is to flip classes around and move the majority of testing to in class settings.

Sharing an interesting recent conversation on AI's impact on the economy. AI has been compared to various historical precedents: electricity, industrial revolution, etc., I think the strongest analogy is that of AI as a new computing paradigm (Software 2.0) because both are fundamentally about the automation of digital information processing. If you were to forecast the impact of computing on the job market in ~1980s, the most predictive feature of a task/job you'd look at is to what extent the algorithm of it is fixed, i.e. are you just mechanically transforming information according to rote, easy to specify rules (e.g. typing, bookkeeping, human calculators, etc.)? Back then, this was the class of programs that the computing capability of that era allowed us to write (by hand, manually). With AI now, we are able to write new programs that we could never hope to write by hand before. We do it by specifying objectives (e.g. classification accuracy, reward functions), and we search the program space via gradient descent to find neural networks that work well against that objective. This is my Software 2.0 blog post from a while ago. In this new programming paradigm then, the new most predictive feature to look at is verifiability. If a task/job is verifiable, then it is optimizable directly or via reinforcement learning, and a neural net can be trained to work extremely well. It's about to what extent an AI can "practice" something. The environment has to be resettable (you can start a new attempt), efficient (a lot attempts can be made), and rewardable (there is some automated process to reward any specific attempt that was made). The more a task/job is verifiable, the more amenable it is to automation in the new programming paradigm. If it is not verifiable, it has to fall out from neural net magic of generalization fingers crossed, or via weaker means like imitation. This is what's driving the "jagged" frontier of progress in LLMs. Tasks that are verifiable progress rapidly, including possibly beyond the ability of top experts (e.g. math, code, amount of time spent watching videos, anything that looks like puzzles with correct answers), while many others lag by comparison (creative, strategic, tasks that combine real-world knowledge, state, context and common sense). Software 1.0 easily automates what you can specify. Software 2.0 easily automates what you can verify.

My pleasure to come on Dwarkesh last week, I thought the questions and conversation were really good. I re-watched the pod just now too. First of all, yes I know, and I'm sorry that I speak so fast :). It's to my detriment because sometimes my speaking thread out-executes my thinking thread, so I think I botched a few explanations due to that, and sometimes I was also nervous that I'm going too much on a tangent or too deep into something relatively spurious. Anyway, a few notes/pointers: AGI timelines. My comments on AGI timelines looks to be the most trending part of the early response. This is the "decade of agents" is a reference to this earlier tweet https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1882544526033924438 … Basically my AI timelines are about 5-10X pessimistic w.r.t. what you'll find in your neighborhood SF AI house party or on your twitter timeline, but still quite optimistic w.r.t. a rising tide of AI deniers and skeptics. The apparent conflict is not: imo we simultaneously 1) saw a huge amount of progress in recent years with LLMs while 2) there is still a lot of work remaining (grunt work, integration work, sensors and actuators to the physical world, societal work, safety and security work (jailbreaks, poisoning, etc.)) and also research to get done before we have an entity that you'd prefer to hire over a person for an arbitrary job in the world. I think that overall, 10 years should otherwise be a very bullish timeline for AGI, it's only in contrast to present hype that it doesn't feel that way. Animals vs Ghosts. My earlier writeup on Sutton's podcast https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1973435013875314729 … . I am suspicious that there is a single simple algorithm you can let loose on the world and it learns everything from scratch. If someone builds such a thing, I will be wrong and it will be the most incredible breakthrough in AI. In my mind, animals are not an example of this at all - they are prepackaged with a ton of intelligence by evolution and the learning they do is quite minimal overall (example: Zebra at birth). Putting our engineering hats on, we're not going to redo evolution. But with LLMs we have stumbled by an alternative approach to "prepackage" a ton of intelligence in a neural network - not by evolution, but by predicting the next token over the internet. This approach leads to a different kind of entity in the intelligence space. Distinct from animals, more like ghosts or spirits. But we can (and should) make them more animal like over time and in some ways that's what a lot of frontier work is about. On RL. I've critiqued RL a few times already, e.g. https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1944435412489171119 … . First, you're "sucking supervision through a straw", so I think the signal/flop is very bad. RL is also very noisy because a completion might have lots of errors that might get encourages (if you happen to stumble to the right answer), and conversely brilliant insight tokens that might get discouraged (if you happen to screw up later). Process supervision and LLM judges have issues too. I think we'll see alternative learning paradigms. I am long "agentic interaction" but short "reinforcement learning" https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1960803117689397543 …. I've seen a number of papers pop up recently that are imo barking up the right tree along the lines of what I called "system prompt learning" https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1921368644069765486 … , but I think there is also a gap between ideas on arxiv and actual, at scale implementation at an LLM frontier lab that works in a general way. I am overall quite optimistic that we'll see good progress on this dimension of remaining work quite soon, and e.g. I'd even say ChatGPT memory and so on are primordial deployed examples of new learning paradigms. Cognitive core. My earlier post on "cognitive core": https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1938626382248149433 … , the idea of stripping down LLMs, of making it harder for them to memorize, or actively stripping away their memory, to make them better at generalization. Otherwise they lean too hard on what they've memorized. Humans can't memorize so easily, which now looks more like a feature than a bug by contrast. Maybe the inability to memorize is a kind of regularization. Also my post from a while back on how the trend in model size is "backwards" and why "the models have to first get larger before they can get smaller" https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1814038096218083497 … Time travel to Yann LeCun 1989. This is the post that I did a very hasty/bad job of describing on the pod: https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1503394811188973569 … . Basically - how much could you improve Yann LeCun's results with the knowledge of 33 years of algorithmic progress? How constrained were the results by each of algorithms, data, and compute? Case study there of. nanochat. My end-to-end implementation of the ChatGPT training/inference pipeline (the bare essentials) https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1977755427569111362 … On LLM agents. My critique of the industry is more in overshooting the tooling w.r.t. present capability. I live in what I view as an intermediate world where I want to collaborate with LLMs and where our pros/cons are matched up. The industry lives in a future where fully autonomous entities collaborate in parallel to write all the code and humans are useless. For example, I don't want an Agent that goes off for 20 minutes and comes back with 1,000 lines of code. I certainly don't feel ready to supervise a team of 10 of them. I'd like to go in chunks that I can keep in my head, where an LLM explains the code that it is writing. I'd like it to prove to me that what it did is correct, I want it to pull the API docs and show me that it used things correctly. I want it to make fewer assumptions and ask/collaborate with me when not sure about something. I want to learn along the way and become better as a programmer, not just get served mountains of code that I'm told works. I just think the tools should be more realistic w.r.t. their capability and how they fit into the industry today, and I fear that if this isn't done well we might end up with mountains of slop accumulating across software, and an increase in vulnerabilities, security breaches and etc. https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1915581920022585597 … Job automation. How the radiologists are doing great https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1971220449515516391 … and what jobs are more susceptible to automation and why. Physics. Children should learn physics in early education not because they go on to do physics, but because it is the subject that best boots up a brain. Physicists are the intellectual embryonic stem cell https:// x.com/karpathy/statu s/1929699637063307286 … I have a longer post that has been half-written in my drafts for ~year, which I hope to finish soon. Thanks again Dwarkesh for having me over!

Gemini Nano Banana Pro can solve exam questions *in* the exam page image. With doodles, diagrams, all that. ChatGPT thinks these solutions are all correct except Se_2P_2 should be "diselenium diphosphide" and a spelling mistake (should be "thiocyanic acid" not "thoicyanic") :O

I am unreasonably excited about self-driving. It will be the first technology in many decades to visibly terraform outdoor physical spaces and way of life. Less parked cars. Less parking lots. Much greater safety for people in and out of cars. Less noise pollution. More space reclaimed for humans. Human brain cycles and attention capital freed up from “lane following” to other pursuits. Cheaper, faster, programmable delivery of physical items and goods. It won’t happen overnight but there will be the era before and the era after.

TV in the 90s: you turn it on, you watch. TV 2025: - turn on, wait for it to load - popup: TV wants to update, 1.5GB. No. - scroll sideways, find prime video app or etc - popup: now app wants to update, 500MB. No!! - App launching... App loading… - select account screen -

I’m starting to get into a habit of reading everything (blogs, articles, book chapters,…) with LLMs. Usually pass 1 is manual, then pass 2 “explain/summarize”, pass 3 Q&A. I usually end up with a better/deeper understanding than if I moved on. Growing to among top use cases. On the flip side, if you’re a writer trying to explain/communicate something, we may increasingly see less of a mindset of “I’m writing this for another human” and more “I’m writing this for an LLM”. Because once an LLM “gets it”, it can then target, personalize and serve the idea to its user.

Tbh I never really got 10+ year timelines. To me they just mean that we need 1 or more breakthroughs and we just assume a decade is enough to find them

Excited to release new repo: nanochat! (it's among the most unhinged I've written). Unlike my earlier similar repo nanoGPT which only covered pretraining, nanochat is a minimal, from scratch, full-stack training/inference pipeline of a simple ChatGPT clone in a single, dependency-minimal codebase. You boot up a cloud GPU box, run a single script and in as little as 4 hours later you can talk to your own LLM in a ChatGPT-like web UI. It weighs ~8,000 lines of imo quite clean code to: - Train the tokenizer using a new Rust implementation - Pretrain a Transformer LLM on FineWeb, evaluate CORE score across a number of metrics - Midtrain on user-assistant conversations from SmolTalk, multiple choice questions, tool use. - SFT, evaluate the chat model on world knowledge multiple choice (ARC-E/C, MMLU), math (GSM8K), code (HumanEval) - RL the model optionally on GSM8K with "GRPO" - Efficient inference the model in an Engine with KV cache, simple prefill/decode, tool use (Python interpreter in a lightweight sandbox), talk to it over CLI or ChatGPT-like WebUI. - Write a single markdown report card, summarizing and gamifying the whole thing. Even for as low as ~$100 in cost (~4 hours on an 8XH100 node), you can train a little ChatGPT clone that you can kind of talk to, and which can write stories/poems, answer simple questions. About ~12 hours surpasses GPT-2 CORE metric. As you further scale up towards ~$1000 (~41.6 hours of training), it quickly becomes a lot more coherent and can solve simple math/code problems and take multiple choice tests. E.g. a depth 30 model trained for 24 hours (this is about equal to FLOPs of GPT-3 Small 125M and 1/1000th of GPT-3) gets into 40s on MMLU and 70s on ARC-Easy, 20s on GSM8K, etc. My goal is to get the full "strong baseline" stack into one cohesive, minimal, readable, hackable, maximally forkable repo. nanochat will be the capstone project of LLM101n (which is still being developed). I think it also has potential to grow into a research harness, or a benchmark, similar to nanoGPT before it. It is by no means finished, tuned or optimized (actually I think there's likely quite a bit of low-hanging fruit), but I think it's at a place where the overall skeleton is ok enough that it can go up on GitHub where all the parts of it can be improved. Link to repo and a detailed walkthrough of the nanochat speedrun is in the reply.