Building autonomous AI agents that mutate production state requires moving beyond soft system prompts to a robust zero-trust architecture. To secure Google Agent Development Kit (ADK) workflows against prompt injections and malicious execution, developers must implement hardware-backed cryptographic signatures for database writes, kernel-level sandboxing with gVisor for dynamic code, and deterministic semantic gateways for I/O validation. By enforcing these hard security boundaries at the infrastructure level, you can safely deploy multi-tool AI agents without risking unauthorized data manipulation or server compromise.
Although much smaller than Cursor, OpenRouter likely has better economics. Its costs to serve its model-routing product were recently about $40 million on an annualized basis, or 28.5% of its revenue, meaning it was generating $100 million in annualized gross profit. With a roughly 70% gross profit margin, OpenRouter was near the level of high-performing, publicly traded software firms in that regard…. … Overall, OpenRouter is facilitating AI model usage at a rate of 250 trillion tokens per month, up from 50 trillion tokens per month in February.
AI Infrastructure, Compute, and the Platform Stack
OpenAI’s power-and-compute strategy is getting very literal: Two related posts suggest OpenAI is moving beyond “GPU supply” narratives into long-horizon control of the full infrastructure stack. @markchen90 described a 4+ GW NVIDIA capacity commitment; @kimmonismus added detail on an 8 GW Ohio campus, with SB Energy building and operating the site, NVIDIA backing the initial 4.25 GW, and a multi-year buildout through 2032. For infra engineers, the notable point is not just scale, but vertical coupling across power, data centers, chips, and long-dated access.
The model access/routing layer is being repriced in real time: The reported Stripe–OpenRouter deal crystallizes how valuable the aggregation/routing API layer has become, but reaction from @kimmonismus also underscored how fragile that position could be if markup compresses to zero. In parallel, OpenRouter cut GPT-5.6 Sol pricing while Vercel did the same on AI Gateway, reinforcing that model brokerage is becoming a pricing battlefield rather than a stable tollbooth.
Developer Platforms, Coding Agents, and Agentic Tooling
Cursor’s Origin points toward the AI-native IDE becoming the system of record: Origin’s launch is more than a GitHub competitor headline. It suggests Cursor wants first-party control over the full loop: repository, agent, review surface, and deployment hooks. @kimmonismus notes GitHub remains syncable and source-of-truth-compatible, but the strategic direction is clear: agentic coding products are trying to absorb the surrounding platform, not just autocomplete against it.
Multi-agent orchestration is shifting from demoware toward operating patterns: Several posts converged on the same motif. @tonbistudio showed Hermes Desktop bots self-assigning game-dev work based on inferred specialties; @Teknium formally reintroduced Bot Mode, where agents maintain distinct memory, skills, tools, and inter-bot communication; and @omarsar0 recommended material on orchestrating multiple agents in Codex. The common thread is specialization plus persistent context, not generic “agents talking to agents.”
Evaluation and harness work remains the real leverage point: Hamel Husain’s updated eval-skills plugin adds an error-discovery workflow that turns model outputs/traces into annotated failure modes and clustered review surfaces. That pairs well with Agent Arena’s new cost-per-task and category filters, which are based on 1.7M+ real-world sessions. The field is slowly moving from model-level evals to harness-level measurement: routing, decomposition, memory, verifier loops, and total completion cost.
Computer-use and sandboxing are getting productized: Vanta’s new computer-use capability for its TrustVanta agent addresses a real enterprise workflow gap: screenshot evidence capture when there is no API surface. Likewise, LangChain’s monday.com case study highlights isolated workspaces via LangSmith Sandboxes for agents doing iterative work like CSV analysis or map generation. “Agent” product quality is increasingly about permissioning and execution isolation, not just reasoning quality.
Model Efficiency, Post-Training, and Small/Open Model Progress
Open models continue to compress the capability frontier: The strongest signal here was @cline’s note that Qwen3.8-27B now scores at DeepSeek V4-Pro / GPT-5.6 Luna territory on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, described as the first time a local model has reached that capability tier. Ollama immediately positioned deployment paths for local users, and anecdotal reports like @rishdotblog’s suggest the model is already practical for long-context local coding setups.
Inference efficiency is becoming architecture-level, not just quantization-level: @cwolferesearch’s discussion of Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is a good example: a 30B MoE with 3B active, trained for high-throughput agent execution, with multi-token prediction support for speculative decoding and additional drafters/quantized checkpoints. Similarly, @PandaAshwinee reported RL for large MoEs with zero train-infer mismatch, highlighting open ablations around post-training sparse models.
Latent reasoning and memory are emerging as a separate scaling track: The BDH-CQ writeup shared by @TheTuringPost is notable less for raw benchmark strength than for the recipe: a 150M model doing latent-space reasoning with temporary memory, hitting 29.5% pass@2 on ARC-AGI-1 at around $0.0007 per task. In parallel, OpenAI Devs reported that with retained reasoning and compaction, GPT-5.6 Sol improved from 13.3% to 38.3% on ARC-AGI-3 while using roughly 6× fewer output tokens. The shared idea is that memory/compaction strategy is now a first-class capability multiplier.
Retrieval, Skills, Memory, and Research Tooling
Search/retrieval people are questioning the “retrieve more, rerank more” reflex: The Weaviate podcast episode with Mathew Jacob revisits “Drowning in Documents”, phantom hits, listwise reranking, and ranking cascades. The practical implication for RAG systems is that naively increasing retrieved set size can degrade final quality, and future systems likely need per-query effort prediction and smarter scoring cascades rather than brute-force retrieval volume.
Agent skills are being demystified and operationalized: @omarsar0’s summary of “Demystifying Agent Skills” is useful because it quantifies a common intuition: skills help mostly through procedural anchoring (65.7%), not factual knowledge injection (4.5%). Precision also collapses as skill pools expand. Related posts on the “skills” paper and GitSkills dataset mining ~3.8M SKILL.md files point to a maturing ecosystem around discoverability, packaging, and trigger management for agent skill libraries.
Native memory is becoming a research object, not just a product feature: Engram Lab’s first research blog frames a future where agents are trained with native memory, while @jxmnop emphasizes the hard parts: memory calibration, self-generated training data, and getting models to actually exploit remembered information efficiently. This lines up with the broader move from stateless prompt engineering toward persistent internal/external memory systems.
Multimodal Models: Video, Audio, and Speech
Speech/TTS quality is moving fast, with Cartesia now leading key public leaderboards: Artificial Analysis reported Sonic 3.6 at #1 on both Provider Voice and Controlled Voice leaderboards, with Cartesia’s launch post claiming improved naturalness across 44 languages. The technical takeaway is the combination of quality and throughput: AA cites 136.1 chars/sec, materially faster than several competing premium systems.
Video generation is becoming more production-usable for narrow workflows: Multiple posts highlighted MiniMax H3 as a practical asset-generation model rather than just a demo model. @victormustar described a low-cost pipeline for generating game sprite atlases from short clips; @multimodalart demonstrated image+audio-to-video lipsync through diffusers; and MiniMax’s own account amplified game-sprite use cases. Separately, Video Arena showed Dreamina Seedance-2.5 reaching #1 in Video Edit, suggesting the leaderboard fragmentation by subtask is starting to matter.
Watermarking, Trust, and the AI Content Layer
Anthropic’s Claude watermarking rollout triggered a serious technical-policy debate: The most substantive synthesis came from @random_walker, arguing that quality-preserving text watermarking is technically feasible and has precedent, but that Anthropic’s rollout failed on communications, verifier transparency, and user-trust framing. Supporting commentary from @dbreunig, @suchenzang, and @SamuelFitouss10 shows the fault line clearly: not just “can this work,” but whether mandatory invisible provenance marks alter writing norms, authorship expectations, and user autonomy.
The deeper issue is trust in the content market, not just model output: Several posts implicitly converged on the same question: what happens to mixed human/AI text ecosystems when provenance is unclear? @SamuelFitouss10 cast the issue in “market for lemons” terms, while @random_walker raised the unresolved gray area of AI-assisted editing versus AI-authored prose. For engineers building content systems, this is drifting out of abstract policy into product architecture: verifier access, provenance semantics, and what exactly counts as authored output.
Top Tweets (by engagement)
Cursor launches its own code hosting platform: The highest-signal product launch in the set was Cursor’s Origin, a repository hosting product integrated directly into Cursor for repo management, PRs, review, and deploy integrations, with GitHub sync. The launch landed in the middle of a major GitHub outage, which amplified discussion from @kimmonismus and @Yuchenj_UW about timing and the strategic move toward vertically integrated AI-native dev environments.
OpenRouter acquisition report: Bloomberg-reported news that Stripe agreed to acquire OpenRouter for over $7B dominated business/infra chatter. Follow-on commentary from @kimmonismus framed it as a striking monetization outcome for a routing layer taking ~5% of spend, and raised the obvious question of margin durability as zero-markup competitors emerge.
Qwen ecosystem scale and local model progress: Alibaba’s “3,000,000,000 downloads” milestone for Qwen paired with growing evidence that local/open models are closing capability gaps. @cline pointed to Qwen3.8-27B reaching frontier-tier placement on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, while @skalskip92 showed emerging multimodal/vision utility such as instance segmentation via JSON polygon outputs.
AI Reddit Recap
/r/LocalLlama + /r/localLLM Recap
1. Qwen 3.8 27B Benchmarks and Reasoning Tradeoffs
Artificial Analysis’ Qwen3.8-27B benchmarks put it neck and neck with DeepSeek V4 and GPT-5.6 Luna Max (Activity: 1192): Artificial Analysis benchmarked Qwen3.8-27B on its Intelligence Index v4.1.1, an aggregate of 9 evals: GDPval-AA v2, τ³-Banking, Terminal-Bench v2.1, SciCode, Humanity’s Last Exam, GPQA Diamond, CritPt, AA-Omniscience, and AA-LCR. The Reddit post highlights that the 27B model is reportedly scoring roughly in the same band as DeepSeek V4 and GPT-5.6 Luna Max, with the page also tracking openness, AA-Omniscience hallucination/knowledge reliability, cost per benchmark task, output-token usage, full index run cost, token pricing, context length, and open-weight parameter counts. Comments were mostly surprise that a relatively small model can be discussed alongside frontier-scale systems at all, while one commenter preemptively mocked the common “overthinking” criticism and noted the result was tested at q2.
A commenter highlighted Artificial Analysis’ open-source Pareto frontier chart for intelligence index vs. total parameters, implying Qwen3.8-27B is unusually efficient for its size and competitive with much larger frontier models. Source chart/model comparison: Artificial Analysis open-source models.
One technical deployment point raised was that larger models may perform better qualitatively—especially at “reading between the lines” and avoiding simple mistakes—but org-scale evaluation should include tokens consumed per task, not just benchmark score. The commenter suggested DeepSeek v4 Flash 0731 may be preferable at scale despite weaker local usability tradeoffs.
A local inference report for DeepSeek v4 Flash 0731 noted it was “slow as shit” when run with CPU offloading, highlighting that practical throughput can diverge sharply from benchmark attractiveness when the model cannot fit fully in GPU memory.
Long Review: Qwen 3.8 27B is VERY good at tapping into it’s real-world knowledge. It’s “overthinking” brings it to Sonnet level performance with the potential for Opus level results. (Activity: 536): The post reports qualitative local testing of Qwen 3.8 27B via Unsloth UD-Q8_K_XL on 3× RTX 3090 + 1× Tesla P40 + 128 GB RAM, using single-file HTML/Tailwind/JS arcade-game recreation as a knowledge/coding stress test. Compared with Qwen 3.6 27B, Qwen 3.8 produced a much more faithful Galaga clone, including bitmap-like dynamic sprites, two-frame animations, CRT/power-on effects, sound, enemy swooping/shooting, attract/insert-coin screens, and a partial capture mechanic; however xHigh reasoning took ~15 min versus Qwen 3.6’s ~8 s. The author found medium reasoning (~3 min, output speed rising from ~62 to 91 tok/s) delivered ~90% of xHigh quality and could add missing capture behavior with a follow-up, while tool-style prompting with a Python image-analysis script let Qwen extract reference sprites nearly 1:1, approaching the tool-assisted behavior observed from Claude Opus 5. Commenters pushed back that “make Galaga/Pac-Man/Flappy Bird” may overestimate competence because these tasks are heavily represented in training data and test memorization/replication more than novel game design. Others summarized it as “Opus at home” and one user said Qwen 3.8 27B feels like a major size-class jump, matching their non-coding agent evals against full GLM-5.2 even with a Q4 quant and Q8 KV cache.
A commenter cautioned that demos like “make Flappy Bird / Space Invaders / Pac-Man” may overstate model competence because these are high-frequency training targets with abundant public reference implementations and assets. They argue such prompts test retrieval/reconstruction of known artifacts more than creative generalization, analogous to concerns from the Suno lawsuit where prompts reportedly reproduced Boney M – Daddy Cool lyrics/output rather than generating novel music.
One user reported that on their non-coding agent evals, Qwen 3.8 27B feels like a major jump for its size, performing similarly to full GLM-5.2 despite being run as a Q4 quant with a Q8 KV cache. The key technical claim is that strong agentic/non-coding performance is being retained under aggressive quantization, suggesting useful local deployment efficiency.
Another commenter contrasted Qwen with Claude Opus/Sonnet-style behavior, arguing that Opus-like models distinguish themselves by taking useful initiative—e.g. writing a Python script without being explicitly asked—whereas Qwen can often do comparable work only when directly prompted. This frames the remaining gap as less about raw task ability and more about autonomous planning/default behavior in agent workflows.
Qwen3.8 27B reasoning effort low/medium/xhigh comparison (Activity: 404): A quick SVG-generation benchmark compared Qwen3.8 27B quantized as unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-IQ3_XXS across reasoning-effort settings on an RTX 5080 Laptop GPU 16GB using llama.cpp build 10451 / commit 10bf611e5, 65,536 context, Q8_0 KV cache, Flash Attention, and MTP speculative decoding. For the prompt “Create a polished SVG graphic of a pelican riding a bicycle”, xhigh produced the highest Codex-rated visual score (24.0/25 vs 22.5/25 medium and 21.8/25 low) but used 39,398 reasoning tokens and took 717.8s, roughly 6.4× low’s 111.6s; low and medium were close in output quality and latency. MTP acceptance also declined with effort: 62.1% low, 58.3% medium, 52.7% x-high. Commenters questioned the benchmark’s validity, arguing that common prompts like pelicans/SVGs may be overrepresented in training data and that tests should target less likely memorized tasks. Another notable complaint was that Qwen needs an intermediate mode between medium and x-high because the latency/token gap is disproportionately large.
Several commenters questioned the benchmark validity, arguing that common prompts like “pelicans” / “one shot games” are likely overexposed in training or community testing, making them poor measures of generalization. The suggested improvement was to use novel, less-contaminated tasks where the model is unlikely to have memorized patterns.
A technical concern was raised about Qwen3.8 27B’s reasoning-effort presets: the jump from medium to xhigh was described as roughly a 10x difference, with users suggesting an intermediate mode would be more practical for latency/cost tradeoffs.
One commenter noted that repeated runs on the same model and prompt can produce different outputs unless decoding is made deterministic, e.g. by setting temperature=0. They also pointed out that generation speed looked unusually strong, implying throughput should be reported alongside reasoning-effort comparisons.
2. Qwen 3.8 Local Deployment and Distills
After pushing 1M+ tokens through Qwen 3.8 27B, here is my optimal llama.cpp config for 16GB VRAM (73k Context, Agentic Coding) (Activity: 914): A user reports running Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q3_K_XL.gguf on an RTX 5060 Ti 16GB + Intel N100 via llama.cpp with ctx-size = 73728, cache-type-k/v = q4_1, FlashAttention, and native MTP speculative decoding (spec-type = ngram-mod,draft-mtp, spec-draft-n-max = 2). They claim an agentic coding workflow processed 1M+ total tokens across only 3 prompts, using OpenCode to build a NestJS REST API + MCP server for a legacy vBulletin forum, with autonomous execution for ~2 hours, context-shift summarization, tests/linting, and only one minor automated edge-case fix. Key implementation detail: fit = off on the 27B profile was used to avoid llama.cpp auto-fit misplacing layers onto CPU, while reduced batch-size = 1024 / ubatch-size = 512 mitigated VRAM spikes during long-prefill workloads. Commenters focused on the surprising feasibility of 73k context on 16GB VRAM, attributing it mainly to the aggressive Q3_K_XL weight quant plus q4_1 KV cache. One commenter was skeptical of Q3 quality for serious use, preferring q6-quantized/offloaded MoE models despite similar VRAM limits.
A commenter highlights that the reported 16GB VRAM fit depends heavily on aggressive quantization: Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q3_K_XL.gguf plus KV cache quantization using q4_1 for the main context and q5_1 for the MTP draft context. Another 16GB user expressed reluctance to trust q3 model quality, preferring q6 offloaded MoE setups despite the higher memory cost.
One technical question focused on why the run used sampling parameters different from the official Qwen3.8-27B Hugging Face recommendations: Thinking mode uses temperature=1.0, top_p=0.95, top_k=20, presence_penalty=0.0, while instruct/non-thinking uses temperature=0.7, top_p=0.80, top_k=20, presence_penalty=1.5. The commenter links the official model card: https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B.
An AMD Radeon 6800 user shared a full llama-server config for Qwen3.8-27B-IQ4-MIX.gguf via Vulkan/ROCm, reporting Vulkan max context 86,784 with MTP n=2 at 39.91 tok/s, and ROCm max context 84,480 at 40.58 tok/s. They note major differences between patched and unpatched llama.cpp: Vulkan unpatched max context 78,080, while ROCm unpatched drops to 31,488; their config uses q5_1 KV cache, MTP/ngram speculative decoding, --fit-target 30, --ctx-checkpoints 96, and --cache-ram 6000.
Qwen 3.8 distillations (Activity: 764): The image is a screenshot of an X announcement for “Qwen 3.8 distillations”, claiming Empero distilled Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B into 9B, 4B, and 2B models with reported MMLU CoT gains over base models: 9B 54.6→75.1, 4B 35.4→55.3, and 2B 28.3→54.8. The Reddit OP explicitly says it was “Not tested by me in any way,” so the benchmark claims should be treated as unverified; the screenshot also indicates Hugging Face/GGUF availability, including a preview for empero-ai/Qwen3.8-9B. Commenters were mainly concerned that naming the distilled model exactly like an official Qwen3.8-9B release is misleading and likely to cause namespace/model-identity confusion; one commenter also questioned whether using that name is legally allowed. Another comment suggested the model may still be useful, but possibly “benchmaxxed.”
Commenters raised concerns that the distillation is named too similarly to an apparent official Qwen3.8-9B model, creating provenance ambiguity and possible model-card/search-index confusion. One user noted the previewed benchmark image suggests it “does something” but is not “benchmaxxed,” while another criticized the model card for reporting only 2 weak benchmarks, implying insufficient evaluation coverage for judging the distillation’s actual performance.
3. Open-Model Scaling and Reasoning Efficiency
Based on an accelerating frontier -> local trajectory, expect a ~30b param ‘Mythos at home’ by as soon as Jan 2027 (rationalisation below) (Activity: 956): The image is a timeline chart supporting the post’s claim that the lag between frontier proprietary LLMs and locally runnable ~27–34B open models is shrinking, with examples such as GPT‑3 → LLaMA‑33B at ~33 months, GPT‑3.5 → Yi‑34B at ~12 months, GPT‑4 → Qwen2.5‑32B at ~18 months, and GPT‑4o/Claude 3.5 → Qwen3‑32B at ~12 months. The chart extends this trend to speculative tiers—Claude/GPT‑5-class → Qwen3.6‑27B, Opus 4.5-class → Qwen3.8‑27B—using benchmark comparisons like SWE-bench, GPQA, MMMU, NL2Repo, and LiveCodeBench, then projects a ~30B “Mythos at home” model around Jan–May 2027. The image is technical/speculative rather than a meme: its significance is as an argument about model efficiency, open-weight catch-up speed, and consumer-hardware feasibility, not as a verified forecast. Commenters pushed back on benchmark-based equivalence, arguing that Arena/GPQA/SWE-style scores may miss qualitative failures, benchmark contamination, or product-level gaps such as multimodality and tool use. Another debate centered on information-theoretic limits: some users questioned whether 1–10T-parameter frontier behavior can really be compressed into 27–35B parameters without major architectural changes, sparsity, or large redundancy in frontier models.
Several commenters challenged the post’s benchmark-based equivalences, arguing that aggregate scores can obscure unbalanced or poorly designed benchmark contents and miss failure modes in real use. The core technical objection was that benchmark parity between smaller and frontier models does not necessarily imply equivalent behavior, reasoning robustness, or deployment quality.
One technical rebuttal argued that compressing a 1–10T parameter frontier model into a 27B–35B local model would require either major architecture/encoding improvements, exploitable sparsity, or large redundancy in the bigger model. The commenter framed this as an information-theoretic constraint: a model’s weights encode a world model, and even seemingly unrelated training facts can subtly affect token probabilities and reasoning behavior.
A detailed model-comparison comment disputed the proposed frontier-to-local timeline: they claimed Qwen2.5 32B is far from GPT-4, with Qwen2.5 72B and Llama 3.3 70B closer to GPT-3.5. They suggested GPT-4-level local/open performance emerged only around Mistral Large 123B and DeepSeek R1, Claude 3.5/3.7/4-level around later Qwen3.x releases, and that even Qwen3.8 is not truly Opus 4.5-level despite benchmark results.
Paper claims RL for reasoning only changes 1-3% of tokens, and they replicate the gains without RL at ~1000x less compute (Activity: 710): A paper by Akgül (2026), ReasonMaxxer, claims RL-based reasoning improvements in LLMs mostly come from sparse policy corrections rather than newly learned reasoning: token-level analyses across model families/RL algorithms reportedly find only ~1–3% of token positions change, concentrated at high-entropy “decision points.” It further claims the RL-promoted token is always already within the base model’s top-5 alternatives, and proposes ReasonMaxxer, an RL-free contrastive/entropy-gated method using a few hundred base-model rollouts that allegedly matches or exceeds full RL on math benchmarks at roughly 1000x lower compute. Commenters found the result potentially important but debated the interpretation: one argued this supports the view that LLMs are primarily language models lacking an explicit decision mechanism, while another strongly doubted the paper’s claim that RL-promoted tokens always come from the base model’s top-5, calling it implausible under high-entropy distributions.
One commenter focused on the paper’s central claim that RL improvements are sparse: only 1–3% of token positions change, concentrated at high-entropy “decision points,” with promoted tokens allegedly always within the base model’s top-5 alternatives. They argued the “always top-5” assertion is statistically implausible for high-entropy distributions where ranks 6–10 can have near-identical probabilities, implying the paper may be overclaiming or using a constrained measurement setup.
Several commenters framed the result as evidence that RL for reasoning may be acting less like broad capability learning and more like a sparse token-level reranker over existing base-model alternatives. One technical interpretation was that LLMs are fundamentally language models rather than decision models, suggesting that explicit decision mechanisms—or even separate latent decision modules such as spiking neural networks—might better target the “branch selection” behavior RL appears to modify.
A commenter distinguished RL for reasoning from RL for alignment, arguing that even if reasoning gains can be replicated through supervised or token-level correction, alignment may still require learning policy-like judgments over novel situations. They used the example of self-harm queries to argue that curated data can hard-code known responses, but may fail when users introduce unseen problematic contexts, whereas RL-style training can shape behavior around broader decision boundaries.
For communities in the crosshairs, every extra hour counts.
When Hurricane Melissa made landfall in Jamaica in 2025, it was the strongest storm ever to hit the island. The hurricane’s rapid intensification left forecasters stunned.
But thanks to WeatherNext, an AI model developed by Google DeepMind, the island had an early warning. Working with the National Hurricane Center, the model predicted Melissa’s sudden jump in strength with nearly 100 percent confidence three days in advance. That gave experts more time to help people prepare and evacuate. It was the first time a storm that began with relatively low wind speeds was successfully predicted to reach Category 5.
When it comes to cyclones—including hurricanes and typhoons—every extra hour counts. These storms are among nature’s most destructive weather events and notoriously hard to anticipate. A cyclone’s path and strength can change rapidly. Seemingly tame storms can explode into monsters; those expected to skirt populated areas can suddenly veer towards a city. Longer forecasts gives communities time to mobilize resources and get out of harm’s way.
But cyclones are chaotic systems. Tiny differences can dramatically alter their behavior, making them harder to predict the further out we look. Existing forecasts rely on physics-based simulations that extrapolate two days ahead. But DeepMind says their algorithm extends the warning period to three days without sacrificing accuracy.
An extra day may seem trivial. But “this scale of improvement corresponds roughly to a decade’s worth of meteorological progress,” the team wrote in a blog post.
Beyond cyclones, WeatherNext also generates 15-day weather forecasts faster and using less energy than conventional models. That’s not to say it’ll replace them though. Instead, the two complement each other, giving human forecasters better information to guide critical decisions.
“By combining advanced machine learning with the indispensable real-world expertise of human forecasters, we aim to create a collaborative weather forecasting ecosystem that can save lives and help communities adapt to a changing climate,” the team wrote.
Crystal Ball
Predicting weather has always been challenging. Standard forecasting software uses physical models of the Earth’s atmosphere, incorporating temperature, air pressure, wind, humidity, and many other variables. It then calculates how these factors will evolve. Given current pressure and temperature gradients and moisture levels, for example, how will air move, and how likely is it that moisture will condense into clouds and rain?
Supercomputers crunch the numbers and churn out predictions. Though relatively accurate, the process is slow—often taking hours—costly, and rigid. Weather is one of the most complex physical systems on Earth, and even small changes in conditions can throw these models off.
So DeepMind turned to AI. Five years ago, they developed an AI modeI that outperformed physics-based models at 90-minute forecasts. In 2023, the AI lab’s GraphCast algorithm nailed 10-day predictions from historical data, beating leading systems roughly 90 percent of the time across thousands of scenarios. GenCast soon followed, cutting the time and energy required to generate predictions. Broadly speaking, these systems divide the globe into small geographical chunks called pixels and learn how weather conditions in one area influence neighboring areas.
But extreme weather presents an additional challenge. Massive databases exist to train AI on everyday weather patterns. Cyclones, on the other hand, are relatively rare and highly unpredictable.
One way to tackle this problem it to generate many slightly different versions of what might happen by adding random noise after training. But because the noise affects each pixel differently, it can disrupt their relationships and produce unrealistic weather patterns.
For WeatherNext, DeepMind instead built uncertainty into the AI itself.
Bridging the Gap
There’s traditionally been a tradeoff between accuracy and scale in cyclone prediction.
Coarse global models are best at tracking a cyclone’s trajectory because storms are steered by massive atmospheric currents. But they can’t zoom in on the local turbulence that determines how quickly a storm intensifies. Meanwhile, high-resolution local models are better at predicting a cyclone’s strength but lack the broader context needed to accurately track its path.
One model sees the forest; the other sees the trees. WeatherNext bridges the gap.
DeepMind trained the AI on decades of global weather patterns and an expert-curated dataset of nearly 5,000 extreme cyclones. Rather than producing a single best guess, the model runs thousands of “what-if” scenarios assigning probabilities and a confidence level to each. The team can now predict a thousand possible scenarios for a single cyclone.
The model can generate a 15-day forecast in less than a minute on a single AI chip, and it can look further ahead when tracking cyclones. WeatherNext was as accurate as GenCast, a leading physics-based model, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System at predicting maximum wind speed and trajectory three days ahead, rather than the two-day window current systems produce.
The model’s live predictions are available on Google Weather Lab, although the team stresses people should use local weather agencies or national weather services for official forecasts and warnings.
AI weather prediction is advancing fast, and DeepMind isn’t the only player. Huawei, the Chinese technology giant, and chipmaker Nvidia are also racing to develop faster, more accurate systems. Forecasters are increasingly folding these tools into workflows, and scientists generally agree that AI can make predictions faster and cheaper.
But that doesn’t mean it’s time to abandon physics-based models. Unlike AI, they’re easier to interpret, and they can also reveal previously unknown weather patterns—an increasingly important ability as Earth’s climate changes. These discoveries, in turn, could feed back into AI systems, helping them deal with events that aren’t captured in historical training data. Human expertise also remains indispensable, especially for judging whether AI forecasts make physical sense.
Scientists might next connect weather models with other systems, such as storm-surge modeling. Combining tools could improve predictions of rare but catastrophic outcomes, like whether a cyclone will arrive when sea levels are high or an earthquake-generated tsunami will hit a coast during a major storm. Modeling hazards together could give emergency workers a more realistic picture of the risks.
Evan Thompson at the Meteorological Service Jamaica has already seen how WeatherNext can benefit local communities as Hurricane Melissa charged towards shore.
“With early evacuation and better preparation, that reduction in harm really does make a difference to our people,” he told DeepMind. “It does actually save their lives, and it saves the livelihoods that they want to secure.”
The following article originally appeared on Medium and is being republished here with the author’s permission. Everybody’s talking about the death of developers. I get it. The developer whose job was to write boilerplate or scaffold CRUD apps is done—a model can do that in seconds, and that developer is not coming back. But the […]
The following article has been extended and rewritten by Markus Eisele from The Main Thread and is being republished here with the author’s permission. Open a repository after six months of spec-driven agent work and you may find a second system sitting next to the code. Requirements, research notes, high-level designs, low-level designs, implementation plans, […]
As robots become more intelligent, autonomous and connected, much of the attention naturally falls on increasingly powerful AI models. But underneath those models is an increasingly complex collection of sensors, processors, control systems and security hardware that must operate reliably – often within strict limits on power consumption, size and heat. Lattice Semiconductor is one […]
This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.
Flock, the police-tech giant known for its network of some 120,000 automatic license plate readers around the US, announced some changes to its platform last Thursday. The updates are meant to prevent officers from using the platform for illegal or illegitimate purposes.
That includes stalking. The Washington Postrecently identified 50 cases in which officers misused systems from Flock and its competitors, often to stalk and harass women. One woman in Wisconsin alleged that her officer ex-boyfriend searched for her car 179 times. Another woman was being stalked by the chief of police, with nobody to report him to.
Flock has responded with practices aimed at ensuring that officers have a proper cause for every search, like using software to flag abnormal searches and requiring searchers to enter a criminal case number.
The changes come with big loopholes, though. For example, officers can enter bogus case numbers, just as they’ve lied to get around other Flock safeguards. The policies also don’t address some of the broader concerns from civil liberties and privacy groups that Flock is turning what was sold as a crime-stopping tool into a mass surveillance network. These criticisms have led to a growing backlash that already has some cities canceling contracts and some states trying to pass laws to limit or ban license plate readers entirely.
Amid all this, there have recentlybeenseveral arguments defending Flock: If these cameras help solve crime, what’s the big deal? On a good day they might help catch a kidnapper, and if not, they’re simply snapping pictures of my car that nobody will bother to look at.
Putting aside the unanswered question about the extent to which Flock’s systems actually do solve or prevent crime, this all skips over a more important question: What kind of crime-fighting system has Flock chosen to build?Its network works the way it does because of a series of decisions about what information to collect, who can search it, how long to keep it, and how widely to share it. Those decisions set the terms of the bargain between security and civil liberties. Believing that technology should play a role in solving crime should not mean blindly accepting the terms of that bargain.
Consider, for example, its new requirement that officers enter a case number before running a search on Flock’s platform. This is meant to ensure that searches have a legitimate purpose. But Flock confirmed to MIT Technology Review that it doesn’t verify those case numbers, so an officer can simply enter fake information. One could imagine a system that instead requires case numbers that match the police department’s records—a more intrusive integration, perhaps, but also a far stronger safeguard and one that leaves a more useful audit trail.
Or what about finding people who have been kidnapped or have gone missing, the use case that Flock cites more than any other? Efforts to solve these crimes would hugely benefit from Flock’s nationwide network of cameras. But if Americans want officers to tap into that network only for this purpose, we could design it that way: Searches tied to an active Amber Alert, or a similar emergency, could perhaps access larger amounts of data from surrounding cities. That would preserve the network’s value in emergencies without requiring people to accept mass surveillance.
Finally, there’s the question of how much data Flock collects and how long it’s kept. Flock mostly operates as a national network: Police in one city or state can search data collected in another, and agencies can retain that data for months or years. Yet Flock itself says 90% of searches happen within a week of an incident. That suggests another possible bargain: Keep and share data only as widely and for as long as it’s actually useful for solving crimes. (The company recently changed its recommended retention time to seven days, but in reality agencies can hold onto data for as long as they like or local laws permit.)
In short, Flock could design its surveillance to be much narrower. If it did, some of the company’s critics might not cease. Chad Marlow, a senior policy counsel at the ACLU, half-joked to me that the most acceptable Flock contract by his standards is “one that is never signed” and emphasized that the best way to set limits on surveillance isn’t with new Flock guidelines but with new laws. (Flock CEO Garrett Langley, for his part, said he’ll “probably always have a different view than the ACLU.”)
And narrowing the scope of its technology would threaten the company’s entire pitch to police departments. License plate readers have been around since the 1990s, used for tolls and ticketing. Flock’s business model—and recent $8 billion evaluation—relies on instead leveraging its cameras into a massive network that collects rich amounts of data and offers police departments a modernized way to make sense of not just their own but others’.
Flock’s hand might soon be forced. Cities have canceled contracts with the company. Some have gone to competitors, while others are taking a beat as residents ponder how they want this tech to be used and write new rules for police to abide by. The result might be that communities drive their own bargains about how technology can be used to solve crime and how much surveillance people should have to accept for it to do so.
Kalshi’s new American Power Index takes the question every cable segment fights over (who is really winning the contest for power in Washington) and answers it with a single number.
Login
