Free Daily Podcast Summary
Interconnects: Daily Summaries Delivered
by Nathan Lambert
Audio essays about the latest developments in AI and interviews with leading scientists in the field. Breaking the hype, understanding what's under the hood, and telling stories.
Latest Episodes
The most recent episodes — sign up to get AI-powered summaries of each one.
- 1 weeks ago49 min
Open models recap: more on Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, Xi's WAIC speech, distillation, the open-closed gap, and what's next
Exciting news! My book trying to share post-training knowledge with the world is done and shipping soon. Order on Manning or Amazon. Thanks for the support. It’s currently the #1 AI book on Amazon :).Nathan and Florian sit down to discuss everything happening with open models. Following the Kimi K3 release last week, it feels like everything is accelerating — geopolitics of US v China, economics of open vs. closed models, security at the frontier of AI, and so on.Chapters:00:00 Welcome & context04:38 Living with / using Kimi K308:53 GLM 5.2’s continued role12:47 How are the Chinese models this good?17:41 Data, environments, and a tour of the Chinese labs19:47 Roundup of Chinese providers: Qwen, DeepSeek, MiniMax…24:08 The US open-model ecosystem30:25 Frontier vs. near-frontier, and the cybersecurity case against bans34:58 Distillation and the Ben Thompson debate44:12 Predictions and a frontier tier list48:36 Wrap-upListen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and where ever you get your podcasts. For other Interconnects interviews, go here.For more educational post-training videos, see the course I’m putting together.Transcript00:00:06 Nathan Lambert: Okay, welcome back to Interconnects. We’re doing our quarterly open model roundup, which is mostly us just making fun of or explaining, not making fun, why so many distillation takes are bad and understanding the state of where things stand. I think last Thursday was when Kimi K3 was released. I think we will see much much more in the near future. It seems pretty inevitable. Like over the weekend, Xi gave his speech where he directly committed to openness and open source as a strategy. It wasn’t a detailed layout state of affairs.Qwen announced their next big model is going to be open weight, which is a big change of things. I think there’s just so much to get into. I think Flo you kind of were already going off on some of the performance gap and distillation takes. So we could probably start there and then as I go I have a little bit a little list and we could always go through the topics and the blog that I wrote which all are very nuanced. So I think we have infinite to talk about. So continue rant kind.00:01:17 Florian Brand: Yeah, I think, or the biggest thing at every model release at least at every open model release is how much or how many months it is behind the closed frontier. Um and people love to put a definite uh definitive number onto this uh which is really really mudding because we have so many different benchmark providers these days and such uh so many different benchmarks as well that every site and I’m not innocent in that either um pulls up their favorite benchmarks to show that the current model or the newly released model is at the frontier which is then counted by the other side pulling up another benchmark and showing oh it’s actually a year behind or something. Um and it like a lot of it seemingly hinges on that question how many months we open models are behind.00:02:26 Nathan Lambert: Yeah. So I my provocation is that some of the benchmarks are actually reasonably correlated with what people are doing and this is agentic coding and agentic computer use tasks and some of the benchmarks are correlated with the long tail which is where I think Claude and GPT is so valuable. But if it’s it’s like what is the market for Claude Code and Codex right now and if it is software engineering then like the fact that the models are say a couple months behind on that can be a very, very big deal and then I suspect that this model will be okay disclaimer the model weights aren’t out yet supposedly on 20 July 27th and a lot of the discussion will impinge on the assumption that they come.But like people could post-train this model to very likely match Opus and GPT in many of these kind of niche domains that people want I think watching I mean we both have different views into the post-training open model industry, but there is a ton ton of excitement in progress on making these models like fine-tuned for specific high-value tasks and this has been historically done on a mix of like Qwen and GLM and GLM 5.2 really accelerated this and I I curious on the first person that puts out a blog post like we fine-tuned Kimi K3 on our task because I bet you could get big gains. I think even the you use Kimi K3 more than I
- 1 weeks ago20 min
Kimi K3: The open-weights escalation
On Thursday July 16th, Moonshot AI released their latest flagship model Kimi K3. K3 is a 2.8T parameter MoE model which will have its weights released on July 27th. Much of this article follows as a reflection on the state of the ecosystem, under the assumption that Moonshot keeps their promise of the weights release date. This is a more extreme view of the equilibrium, and many of the results end up in a middle ground if the state of affairs is that China has similarly powerful, but closed models (i.e. K3 is never released). The key fact is that either the open-to-closed or American-to-Chinese model performance gap has been reduced from the debated 6-9 months to something shorter, say 3-5 months.From the release materials, it is clear that K3 is a true frontier model. It will be the closest open models have been to the frontier since DeepSeek R1. DeepSeek R1 was a different story. This was a Chinese lab being extremely quick to pivot to reasoning models and release one faster than many American companies. Kimi K3 an example of a Chinese lab executing on scaling the known areas: data, algorithms, architecture, tools, environments, etc. Kimi K3 comes in at #2 overall on the Vals AI index, #3 overall on Artificial Analysis’s Intelligence Index (only beaten by Claude Fable and GPT-5.6 Sol Max while being cheaper), #1 overall in Frontend Code Arena, and more impressive results. Moonshot AI is going toe to toe with Anthropic and OpenAI with far, far fewer resources.It is clearly the strongest open model ever released. It should be clear looking at this model that if adversarial distillation from the closed frontier models in the U.S. contributed, it is at most to a relatively small degree. AI observers who followed the distillation panic and came away with the wrong conclusion that Chinese AI labs are only producing good models due to IP theft are in for an awakening – that Chinese companies are extremely good at building models in the same way the leading American companies are. Moonshot AI is solving many of the same problems that folks at OpenAI or Anthropic are solving. I’m confident there will be more distillation discussion, and pressure, but the evidence is now out that Chinese companies can do more than just fast following.Meeting some of the core Kimi team on my trip to China, it was clear to me that they had incredible culture, some would say aura, and a freedom to express it – within the constraints of a GPU-limited environment. Where building models is so much of a scaling game, much of the ability to build a good model still comes down individual execution, motivation, and expression. Having visited them, this result is less surprising. Having visited many AI companies, very few have a culture that you can immediately pick up like this.At the same time, China’s AI adoption trends started later than those in the U.S. So, while all the Chinese labs have way less compute than their counterparts in the U.S., more of it can certainly go to training. When I joked around about how much compute an average researcher at OpenAI could have – say a few thousand H100 equivalent machines – the researchers at Kimi were shocked. The org chart and approach to building the Kimi models surely reflect this, but it is difficult to tease out what this looks like without substantial proprietary information.The state of affairs on peak model performance is roughly as follows:* Anthropic – Claude Fable 5* OpenAI – GPT 5.6 Sol* Moonshot AI – Kimi K3 (open weights*)* SpaceXAI – Grok 4.5* Zhipu (Z.ai) – GLM 5.2 (open weights)* Meta – Muse Spark 1.1* DeepMind – Gemini Flash 3.5* Alibaba – Qwen 3.7 Max (3.8 announced, also to be open-weights, when writing)It is astonishing to see DeepMind, and some of the other American giants this low. In many ways, the X AI team deserves more credit. A visual summary from Artificial A
- Jun 22, 20269 min
GLM-5.2 is the step change for open agents
Housekeeping: Following my “State of the blog” post last week, noting a slight increase in paid features, it’s a good time to remind folks that I offer group subscriptions with larger discounts proportional to the number of seats. I also released a new paper today on open RL recipes for terminal agents, read more here.A bit over a week ago, when the AI world was still reeling from the shocking export restriction, and effective banning, of Claude Fable 5, Z.ai released their latest model, GLM-5.2. This model was rolled out unusually on a Saturday, June 13th, to GLM Coding Plan members. This is an unusual release practice, normally when an AI model is released on a weekend it’s for a weird reason (most famously, Llama 4). In this case, it seemed like Z.ai was excited to capitalize on the zeitgeist of “Anthropic being anti open-science” with their silent safeguards on AI researchers. For the past year or two, the Chinese open-weight labs have taken every opportunity they have for easy marketing wins like this.GLM-5.2, in a common naming convention across the industry, looked potentially like an incremental update following the popular GLM-5.1 model. At this point, Moonshot AI, makers of the Kimi models, and Z.ai, makers of the GLM models, have consolidated the top of the reputational market with the most beloved open-weight models among AI researchers. What unfolded is a common lesson in tracking AI models that often minor version numbers can have AI models crossing meaningful user experience thresholds. A small change in benchmarks and training can open a wide range of new use-cases.What has followed is a slow, groundswell of hype for GLM-5.2. The official, MIT-licensed model weights and release blog dropped three days after the initial rollout, on June 16th. One could ramble many technical details, such as the strong benchmark scores, the very popular RL framework that Z.ai uses (SLIME), the recommendation of always using the model on Max thinking effort, and so on, but the initial release blogs usually aren’t the thing to focus on. You can wait and read the ecosystem reaction to know if it’s the real deal. Benchmarks are half dead these days, anyways.What followed on the 16th was a slew of community benchmarks showing better-than-expected results for GLM-5.2. Arena’s agent leaderboard had it as the only open model mixing it up with OpenAI and Anthropic’s latest models (notably matching Opus 4.8’s no-thinking effort to GLM-5.2’s max mode). This is one of many evals GLM-5.2 is crushing Gemini on, but that’s a topic for another time. A benchmark that has mixed perception in the community (particularly among actual designers), Design Arena even had GLM-5.2 besting Claude Fable itself — the recently banned hype machine!Pretty much everyone I respect among the AI commentariat and researcher class has praised the model after using it personally. Such a focal point of discussion among the community has only been so clear with an open model release once before — DeepSeek R1. This is not a comparison I make lightly, and when I compared Kimi K2’s release to a “DeepSeek Moment,” GLM-5.2 has well exceeded that. What made Kimi K2 impressive was that big steps in open model performance could seemingly come from anywhere in China. The step that GLM-5.2 has taken is more of a one way door for AI progress.Anthropic’s record revenue growth rate on the back of Claude Code is heavily driven by being the best model, and the only model that can really do this. GLM-5.2 is the first of many (coming soon) open weight models to offer credible alternatives. The parallel is very clear, to when DeepSeek R1 showed that open-weight labs, with far fewer resources, could als
- Jun 19, 20266 min
Banning Open Source AI Would Be A Mistake
This post was originally an op-ed co-authored with Kevin Xu of Interconnected for a general, non-technical audience. The gatekeepers — the many media outlets we pitched it to — passed on publishing it. Luckily, we have our own platforms to get the message out. Please help us forward this op-ed to any one you know who is on the fence about open source AI or new to the topic and want to learn more. Thank you.The energy to regulate AI is in the air in Washington. With the recently signed executive order to review AI models, a congressional proposal to legislate AI further, the government possibly taking shares of frontier AI labs, and last Friday’s action prohibiting foreign nationals anywhere from accessing Anthropic’s most advanced models, this may be the opening salvo of more AI regulation to come.We are afraid future actions could inadvertently or intentionally regulate or even ban open source, a much maligned and misunderstood topic in AI. That would be a grave mistake.Open source – simply a process that allows technology to be shared, built, and distributed publicly and transparently – is safe, secure, and drives economic growth. More than 90% of the world’s software was already built on open source and produced more than 8 trillion dollars worth of economic benefits, long before AI entered the picture. Today, open source technology is quietly training, improving, deploying, and securing AI everywhere.For more than three decades, open source has been powering three trends, and upholding three values, which the American society holds dear – education, competition, and innovation.Open source is pro-education because its origin was rooted in academic institutions trying to make technology free and open, not held hostage to the profit-maximizing zeal or the menacing lawyers of large corporations.The precursor of open source is the free software movement, which started in 1983 on the campus of MIT. It was a time when every small act of using software, whether it was teaching students or doing research or improving a printer’s performance, meant paying or dealing with big corporations like AT&T or Xerox. After this struggle gave birth to open source, every student in every university, community college, and coding bootcamp in America now taps into the freedom that open source enables to learn how to program, engineer, and build. Open source is at the heart of technical education everywhere.Open source is pro-innovation because it essentially provides a set of tools plus a community of other users to help anyone turn an idea into reality, for free. Combined with its role in education, it has watered most of the seeds of innovation in recent memory. Some of these seeds stayed as hobbies that brought joy and personal learning to the hobbyists. Others blossomed into huge companies, like Meta, where the initial version of Facebook was built entirely on a stack of open source software.Every day, new ideas or solutions are being coded up in a dorm room, garage, or basement, all because open source lets innovators create without fear of a lawsuit or an expensive bill.Open source is pro-competition because it helps the underdogs challenge and compete with the large incumbents, keeping monopolistic threats at bay. Linux, the open source operating system that now runs more than 90% of the world’s cloud computing infrastructure, was the antidote to the Windows monopoly (so much so that former Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer, called Linux “cancer”). Android, the open source mobile system, fostered a long string of competitive smartphones before Apple’s iPhone could control the market. Many other examples exist in the more niche, but no less important, segments of self-driving, databases, and semiconductor design.Without the equalizing and democratizing nature of open source, we would all be living with the rent-seeking consequences of more monopolies and less free market competition.Does AI change any of this? No.The duopoly of Anthropic and OpenAI are rapidly concentrating power between them with their closed, proprietary models. Anthrop
- Jun 17, 20266 min
State of the blog, mid-2026
As I navigate my career change after Ai2, I wanted to share my views of how this blog relates to my missions and broader work. In my farewell post, I summarized my three goals right now as:* Provide clarity in the evolution of frontier models. * Create a vibrant and diverse open (model) ecosystem.* To build institutions that make these goals possible.Within this, Interconnects is at its core a bit different than many of the highly-polished, professional newsletters on this platform – and this is becoming intentional.How Interconnects fits into my career goalsInterconnects is the tip of the spear of all of my missions in AI. It is meant to start a conversation and to let the reader into the mind of someone at the frontier. This insight makes the writing sometimes a bit raw, sometimes a bit too technical, but it is the map of how I progress my thinking in the ever changing world. This style of writing has helped me create very strong relationships with the core group of readers, many of who listen to the voiceovers I do for these posts. The plan is to keep operating and refining the Interconnects experience around those loyal fans. These are to a large part people building the frontier AI ecosystem — researchers at labs, top investors, policymakers obsessed with the frontier, and students aspiring to have one of those roles.I’m very happy with this sort of raw, high-voice outcome for the blog. It is not something I sought out, but rather accepted as I saw it coming and realized it would be disproportionately successful in a near-future of vast AI slop media. With years of trying to squeeze writing into a busy schedule, the only sort of writing I had time for was that which had a style very closely matching how I think.I’m also very happy to be an independent voice. As a person I don’t do well with some power structures like having a boss, and I think there are very few people without extreme financial conflicts of interest that are willing and allowed to write. Through a wide job search, few companies were genuinely excited about me continuing writing.Over the past few months, I considered taking Interconnects in more of a direction like SemiAnalysis or Stratechery, where it is my full-time gig and number one priority, but it didn’t seem like the right fit for what I am trying to achieve. I’m trying to build an open ecosystem and a movement for true open-science at the frontier of AI. These areas are very narrowly populated and trying to influence them with only commentary, analysis, and related research products wouldn’t work for me.These sorts of full-time outcomes are definitely still one of my dreams, and I will do it at some point. The dream of this is also one of the reasons I take conflicts of interest seriously. Though, in this era of AI I can’t be fully on the outside.In this vein, I wanted to disclose two advising agreements I recently signed. I don’t view them as a compromise of the above independence, as I’ll happily quit if I feel like I can’t speak my mind, but as a form of support in accomplishing my missions. If I want to make a true open-science ecosystem I have some catching up to do with how the frontier labs approach post-training. The two companies I’m advising, whose leadership I’ve become friends with, are Arcee AI and Mercor. Arcee should be fairly obvious as the no-nonsense player building open-weight models. Mercor will make more sense over time, but they’re a close ally to a lot of my goals in transparent evaluations, open post-training, and neutrality with respect to the leading labs. These advising agreements are based on me wanting to learn more, and I don’t suspect I will ever engage in the very cursory advising roles that are more of name-stamping.I keep an up-to-date disclosures statement at the end of the Interconnects about page: https://www.interconnects.ai/about.Otherwise, my full-time job should still be in the non-profit sector as long as I get the next few months of logistics right.Interconnects AI is a reader-supported publication. Consider becoming a subscriber.Some operations & audience notesInterconnects has cultivated an excellent, niche, and largely technical audience with representatives of all the top companies and labs (recently crossed 70K subscribers). I intend to protect this niche audience rather than trying to expand to bigger pastures. I think this success in audience alignment is reflected in my ~900 paid subscribers supporting it with infrequent paywalled content. I appreciate the support greatly, as the money has let me expand Interconnects operations and quality over the last 18 months.I created Interconnects AI, LLC last January along with business bank ac
- Jun 16, 202656 min
Frontier post-training recipe review with Finbarr Timbers
As I’ve been recapping fundamentals of post-training to wrap up my RLHF / Post-training book I knew I needed to get Finbarr Timbers back on the podcast to talk about the state of play. Over the last few months we’ve had many discussions on what we’d need to do to take an Olmo-style recipe to the frontier, supported by Finbarr’s extensive reading of recent model technical reports.To prepare for this, I put together a summary slide deck on the key post-training recipes historically — the path from InstructGPT to today — and today — the key open frontier models. This deck is summarized below as the technical summary, but we do spend 20-35 minutes on it in the podcast, so watching on YouTube is likely the best experience for this one.I previously interviewed Finbarr in December of 2024, shortly after the release of o1 and Tülu 3 (and before he joined Ai2) on the “We are so back” era of RL.Chapters:* 00:00 Introduction & Olmo reflections* 06:28 Post-train recipes review (history)* 23:00 2026’s model recipes (MiMo Flash, DeepSeek V4, GLM 5, Kimi K2.6, etc.)* 39:05 Open-ended post-training discussions* 48:22 Career advice in the LLM raceListen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and where ever you get your podcasts. For other Interconnects interviews, go here.For more educational post-training videos, see the course I’m putting together.Technical SummaryThese are notes cleaned up from a slide-deck created with AI assistance — mostly useful as a discussion topic and reference.The shape of a post-training recipe has changed more in the last year than in the prior three.* 2022–2023 (InstructGPT): one pipeline — SFT → reward model → RL.* 2024 (Llama 3, Tülu 3, etc.): open recipes formalize SFT → DPO → RL with verifiable rewards. Closed recipes use many stages of RLHF.* 2025 (DeepSeek R1): reasoning RL (R1) makes large-scale RL the centerpiece.* 2026 (MiMo Flash V2): recipes fragment into many specialist models that are merged back into one.The new thing: MOPDMulti-teacher On-Policy Distillation (MOPD) is the pattern showing up across the 2026 frontier.* Train N domain-specialist teachers (each: SFT, then RL on the relevant domains).* Train one general student by sampling its own trajectories (this is the final post-trained model).* On each rollout, minimize reverse-KL to the relevant teacher’s output distribution, token by token.Lineage: MiMo Flash v2 introduced it → DeepSeek V4 & Nemotron 3 Ultra scale it to >10 teachers.Why did MOPD emerge?* RL got expensive and conflict-prone. Mixing math, code, and agentic RL in one run eventually trades capabilities off against each other.* Specialists are cheap to make / organizationally scalable. SFT-then-RL on a single domain is well understood and parallelizable. As post-training becomes more complex, scaling it across organizations is a big win.* On-policy distillation matured. Literature and know-how continued to emerge through the RLVR renaissance.Sources: DeepSeek V4 §5.1, MiMo-V2-FlashKey historical recipesInstructGPT (Mar. 2022) — the canonical 3 steps · paper* SFT on human demonstrations* Reward model trained on human comparisons* PPO against the reward modelLlama 2 (Jul. 2023) — multi-stage RLHF · paper · interconnects recap* SFT, then iterative RLHF over multiple rounds* Each round: rejection sampling → PPO* Two reward models — separate helpfulness and safetyLlama 3 (Jul. 2024) — a complex multi-stage recipe with simpler optimizers</strong
- Jun 9, 202612 min
Claude Fable 5 and new AI safety fables
Edit Jun. 11: Anthropic changed their silent model manipulation of AI research queries to also use a classifier like the other safety domains. This addresses a key concern I had in the mistreatment of “safety” in the release, and props to Anthropic for a quick change, but it does not fully address the trust that has been broken. I shared more reflections here.Today, Anthropic released their Claude Fable 5 model to consumer and enterprise audiences. This is the general-access variant of their Mythos-class models. With it, Anthropic rolled out a series of safety measures — some explicitly called out to users and some modifying the model without telling the user. It should be less surprising than it is that the next major step in AI capabilities came with heavier-handed safety measures indicating Anthropic’s intention to protect, or entrench, their current lead.The unevenly applied safety policies that Anthropic have rolled out are on track to become a classic cautionary fable in how narrow and self-fulfilling notions of safety and control rarely work out.The smartest model in the worldBefore digging into the nuance of the safety facts, it is important to establish the quality of this model. The quality of the model paints the stakes of today — as these safety features are meaningfully changing the shape of access to frontier AI, something which has never happened with the modern LLMs we know. Second, the capabilities point to this story only accelerating. Recursive self-improvement isn’t quite the right mental model of progress from here, but Claude Fable 5 should make it very clear that there are no immediate walls in training LLMs.To start — Claude Fable 5 is definitely the smartest model available to the general public — a remarkable leap on pretty much every relevant benchmark of the day — at only 2X the price of current Opus models (which is still less than GPT 5.5 Pro’s variant). This alone is a seminal moment for the field. To have a model iteration take such a substantial step in capabilities, a few years into the post-ChatGPT LLM race, is astounding. There’s no clear breakthrough associated with this model, such as inference-time scaling or RL, and public wisdom is that this is achieved by advances across the whole stack (of course, we can’t know for sure — it’s not documented). This is a major technical achievement and the employees who built the model should be very proud of their work.This model was delayed 2+ months after it was done training before it was publicly available. Given the competitive dynamics of the AI economy, the smarter version of this model is already well underway.To continue, the benchmarks for the model are below.An asterisk on these scores is that these aren’t necessarily the scores that the public will get, as some of the prompts will be downgraded to Opus 4.8 with the current safety filters on the model.This is the type of jump in benchmark scores where I don’t even need to substantially test the model to know it’s an incredible tool. Remember that Anthropic is also the AI lab with the track record of caring the least about benchmarks (in particular, when compared to OpenAI and Gemini). Recall a comment I made in June of 2025:This is a different path for the industry and will take a different form of messaging than we’re used to. More releases are going to look like Anthropic’s Claude 4, where the benchmark gains are minor and the real world gains are a big step. There are plenty of more implications for policy, evaluation, and transparency that come with this. It is going to take much more nuance to understand if the pace of progress is continuing, especially as critics of AI are going to seize the opportunity of evaluations flatlining to say that AI is no longer working.Clearly, a few pieces of the progress dynamics have changed, but that’s a post for another day. I’ve written multiple posts about new models this year specifically in how it’s hard to trust benchmarks (and partially because the benchmarks don’t move that much). Altogether, this is a major validation for AI-savvy workers who realized they’re likely never going to write meaningful code again and need to develop new workflo
- Jun 2, 202615 min
Farewell Ai2
I’m departing the Allen Institute for AI (Ai2), where I got the great privilege to work on the Olmo models, to grow, to learn, and to have broad lasting impacts. This post is an attempt to reflect on why what we did was influential, despite obviously being far from the frontier in performance (even when within size buckets), and how this reflects on various paths to impact in AI today.To start, I shared the following note with the company yesterday:Dear Ai2.As many of you know, today is my last day working at Ai2.I joined Ai2 largely as an accident. I met Luca at ICML 2023 in Hawaii and realized I could level up my open post-training work dramatically if I got the chance to join. When I got an offer it was an absolute no-brainer, it was such a welcoming and exciting environment.It has been a wonderful ride that has transformed my life, and I couldn’t be prouder of the work we did together. Ai2 has a wonderful scientific culture at its core and I’m excited to see this continue. I feel very lucky to have been here and that I personally have benefited massively from everyone who has worked so hard to cultivate that culture and environment. It is and has been a team effort. This includes all the people whose longest interactions with me were brief chats at the coffee machine. I drew so much energy and excitement from all the different ways people at Ai2 showed up for the mission.I’ve already thanked much of the OE team directly, but I wanted to thank everyone else that went into this. Legal, IT, Comms, and the Office team all do a great job enabling and leveling up our research work. It’s often work that is forgotten, outside of the lime light, or remembered at the last minute, but it all has been crucial to achieving our goals. I’m excited to keep visiting the wonderful Northlake space in the coming years.Even though I’m leaving, I’m more excited than ever about Ai2’s mission. Ai2 operates in such a rare niche between academia and industry, where we can explore and influence the most important technology of our lifetime. Doing this openly is the best way to ensure the technology diffuses safely to everyone who may benefit. Ai2 needs to stay as ambitious as possible, trying to influence the cutting edge of AI and the biggest issues of the field. Do not shy away from these challenges – AI needs independent voices as it only becomes more geopolitical, socially disruptive, and central to the economy.I will still be working in this space, working to make the open ecosystem better coordinated and more useful.So as I go off to try something new, don’t be strangers. I’ll always be reachable at nathan@natolambert.com and will still live in Seattle for most of the year.NathanI have loved and will still love Ai2. Ai2 has a deep culture of caring about the research process, the outputs that get shared, and most importantly the people who do the work. This is why the institution creates countless wonderful people that go and spread the gospel throughout the research community. This core culture will remain through the rebuild, and there are plenty of resources to do impactful research across the spectrum of AI.In the last two years of my time at Ai2 I’ve done so much meaningful work. Of course Olmo is at the top and has been my priority, but making time for consistent practice here on Interconnects, weekend cram sessions for ATOM, and also the fun RLHF book make for a list that makes me wonder how I did it all. I was obviously obsessed with work, but not in a way that made me lose sleep or lose my overall wellness. It was the right long-term approach.This impressive list is one where I was ruthless in saying no to things that didn’t matter and got all my work out to see the light of day. I had no medium-sized projects that didn’t succeed in the last few years. It makes me wonder if I wasn’t taking enough risk. It shows you can truly do so much with your time, and it’s actually harder to find the right problems and environment to do it. Many people are in environments where their work never becomes public or they’re forced to change topics consistently.From zero to heroTo start, I’d like to do a short recap on my path to Ai2 to show what Ai2 was just as much a growth story for me as an execution story.I studied electrical engineering in undergrad, focusing on linear systems math and microelectronics.I was admitted to the UC Berkeley EECS Ph.D. program to study microelectromechanical systems (MEMS).I showed up at Berkeley in August of 2017 and realized AI was obviously the thing I should be doing. I asked the likes of Sergey Levine or Pieter Abbeel if they could advise me – they said no.I threw all my energy int
Get Interconnects summaries in your inbox
Free AI-powered daily recaps. Key takeaways, quotes, and mentions — in a 5-minute read.
Get Free Summaries →Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
You Might Also Like
Listeners also like.
OpenAI Podcast
Conversations with OpenAI researchers and builders exploring how frontier AI models are developed and used in practice.
The AI Daily Brief: Artificial Intelligence News and Analysis
A daily analysis of artificial intelligence news, exploring its creative potential, industry impacts, and ethical challenges.
Latent Space: The AI Engineer Podcast
Covers advances in AI engineering, including foundation models, code generation, and AI agents, through interviews with researchers and developers.
"The Cognitive Revolution" | AI Builders, Researchers, and Live Player Analysis
Interviews with AI developers and researchers exploring the transformative impact of artificial intelligence on society and technology.
AI For Humans: Weekly AI News, Tools & Trends
A weekly breakdown of major AI news, tools, and breakthroughs for both newcomers and seasoned enthusiasts.
Limitless: An AI Podcast
Explores the frontiers of technology and artificial intelligence.
How I AI
A practical guide to using AI tools in work and life, featuring guests who share specific, actionable techniques and workflows.
NVIDIA AI Podcast
Explores how artificial intelligence and emerging technologies are driving innovation across science, sustainability, and industry.
The AI XR Podcast.
Industry insiders interview top founders and executives on AI, spatial computing, VR/AR, and synthetic media.
This Day in AI Podcast
Two friends discuss artificial intelligence, sharing casual insights, personal experiments, and humorous experiences with AI tools and technology.
Last Week in AI
Summarizes significant AI news on a weekly basis.
Everyday AI Podcast – An AI and ChatGPT Podcast
Practical AI and ChatGPT tips for professionals to improve productivity and grow their careers.
About Interconnects
Audio essays about the latest developments in AI and interviews with leading scientists in the field. Breaking the hype, understanding what's under the hood, and telling stories.
Customized Recaps
AI-powered recaps with compact key takeaways, quotes, and insights.
Straight to Your Inbox
Get key takeaways from Interconnects in a 5-minute read.
Save Hours Every Week
Stay current on your favorite podcasts without falling behind.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Podzilla's Interconnects daily summary?
It's a free AI-powered email that summarizes new episodes of Interconnects as soon as they're published. You get the key takeaways, notable quotes, and links & mentions — all in a quick read.
How does the Interconnects podcast summary work?
When a new episode drops, our AI transcribes and analyzes it, then generates a personalized summary tailored to your interests and profession. It's delivered to your inbox every morning.
Is this an official Interconnects product?
No. Podzilla is an independent service that summarizes publicly available podcast content. We're not affiliated with or endorsed by Nathan Lambert.
Can I get summaries of other podcasts too?
Absolutely! The free plan covers up to 3 podcasts. Upgrade to Pro for 15, or Premium for 50. Browse our full catalog at /podcasts.
How often does Interconnects release new episodes?
Interconnects publishes weekly. Our AI generates a summary within hours of each new episode.
What topics does Interconnects cover?
Interconnects covers topics including Science, Technology. Our AI identifies the specific themes in each episode and highlights what matters most to you.
Start getting Interconnects summaries tomorrow morning.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.