読書

Researchers at Mass General Brigham in the United States recently published a new study in The Lancet Digital Health introducing FAHR-Face, an artificial intelligence model capable of predicting a cancer patient's risk of dying from a single facial photograph. Led by radiation oncologist Ray Mak and his colleagues, the study aims to address the subjectivity inherent in traditional clinical assessments.

Mak noted that medical students are trained to form an impression of a patient's health by observing them, a 'clinical intuition' that directly influences treatment plans such as surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation. However, this assessment is inherently subjective. FAHR-Face attempts to convert this subjective impression into objective data. The team first allowed the algorithm to 'learn' from 40 million facial images without a specific task, then fine-tuned it to perform two functions: estimating biological age and predicting survival odds for cancer patients.

Test results revealed surprising accuracy. In a test group of 3,820 cancer patients, 64 out of the 122 individuals with the highest risk scores died within 90 days of having their photo taken, accounting for more than half. In a larger separate test group of over 38,000 cancer patients, those who appeared older than their chronological age also had a higher risk of dying. The researchers stated this is the first report of an AI algorithm that can directly predict cancer patient survival from a simple face photograph.

To understand how the AI makes these judgments, the team used 'attention mapping' to track where the algorithm focused during analysis. For age prediction, the AI primarily looked at areas like the nasolabial folds (the crease between the nose and mouth) and parts of the forehead. For death risk prediction, it tended to focus on the bridge of the nose and areas below the eyes. While it remains unclear why these specific areas correlate with death risk, the model appears to pick up on facial changes associated with known health risks like smoking and alcohol use. For instance, smokers and heavy drinkers often look older than their actual age. Expressions, makeup, and lighting had little effect on age predictions, but plastic surgery was an exception: people who had rhinoplasty were rated as slightly older in post-surgery photos compared to pre-surgery ones.

Despite its promise, FAHR-Face is not yet ready for clinical use. A major limitation is that the cancer survival model was trained on a Boston-area population that was majority white. The research team is working to expand their training sets to include a wider diversity of faces. Mass General Brigham has filed a patent for the face health algorithms.

The technology also raises ethical questions. Matthew Liao, a professor and director of the Center for Bioethics at New York University, commented that while such tools could help identify patients needing extra care, there is a risk of misidentification, potentially leading to withheld care for those who actually need it. Liao also expressed concern that insurance companies might use this technology to grant or deny coverage, or employers might use it to screen for 'healthier' job candidates. He argued that society must think through the implications before further development.

According to reports from Reuters and the Financial Times, Microsoft has reportedly terminated its data center agreement with UK cloud infrastructure provider Nscale for a site in Loughton, Essex. The facility was originally planned to house approximately 23,000 NVIDIA GB300 chips to support Azure cloud services, but grid operators informed Nscale that power supply would not be available until the 2030s. Microsoft declined to comment and did not explain the exact reasons for the termination.

The Financial Times cited sources familiar with the matter stating that Microsoft had intended to lease the full 50 MW capacity of the site, leaving Nscale to seek new tenants. Nscale told Reuters it remains committed to the Loughton project and is exploring alternative power sources and other expansion sites in the UK, noting that other contracts with Microsoft are unaffected. However, the company has not announced an alternative power solution or a new launch date.

This event underscores that the critical bottleneck for AI infrastructure expansion has shifted from 'acquiring chips' to 'physical grid interconnection.' Despite having capital and chip supply chains, major tech companies face multi-year or decade-long delays due to local grid upgrade cycles, queue times, and regulatory approvals. When power supply cannot meet expected timelines, even announced compute capacities face risks of delay or cancellation. For investors and industry observers, grid interconnection status has become a more urgent limiting factor than chip orders when assessing the feasibility of AI data center projects.

The US State Department announced on October 19, 2026, that it is imposing sanctions under the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act (PAIPA) on five Chinese entities suspected of stealing trade secrets from American companies. The targets include Shanghai Zhisuan Technology, founded by former Google software engineer Ding Linwei, venture capital firm MiraclePlus, and three related entities managed by MiraclePlus.

The sanctions stem from the criminal conviction of Ding Linwei. Ding worked at Google from 2019 to 2023 as a software engineer focusing on supercomputing data centers. Indictments revealed that he secretly uploaded more than 1,000 unique Google files to his personal cloud account between May 2022 and May 2023. These files contained confidential code related to Google’s AI supercomputing infrastructure, including technical details of Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) systems, and networking components used to train large-scale AI models.

This technology is strategically critical for China's AI industry, particularly for efficiently coordinating thousands of chips for large-model training amidst export controls on high-performance hardware. In January 2026, a federal jury in San Francisco convicted Ding on seven counts of economic espionage and seven counts of trade secret theft. However, in August, Federal District Judge Vince Chhabria overturned the economic espionage convictions due to insufficient evidence that Ding intended to benefit the Chinese government, while upholding the trade secret theft convictions. On September 1, Ding was sentenced to 12 months minus one day in prison and ordered to pay approximately $198,000 in restitution.

The State Department stated that Ding used the platform provided by MiraclePlus to showcase his company, Zhisuan, touting his connection to Google technology and his ability to replicate its technology to fit China's national conditions. Shanghai Zhisuan claimed experience with Google’s TPU Superpod, which clusters up to 9,600 chips into a single logical network, and explicitly said it could replicate Google’s super intelligence (SI) infrastructure technology.

Under the sanctions, the five entities face asset freezes, bans on transactions with US individuals and entities, and restrictions on financial services and foreign-exchange licenses. This action signals a shift where US enforcement not only pursues individual criminal liability but also uses financial sanctions to cut off capital networks supporting such technology transfers, raising new compliance risks for cross-border AI startups and investors.

Altimeter founder Brad Gerstner appeared on the All-In Podcast, showed SemiAnalysis's data, and stated that the firm's forecast of +43GW in 2027 is too aggressive. He thought only about 25GW would actually get built, close to half of SemiAnalysis's number, based on his "hunch." SemiAnalysis's response was blunt: let's not operate on hunches.

SemiAnalysis's core argument is not a single announcement or verbal commitment, but two trackable leading indicators: quarterly self-build construction starts (measured in megawatts) and datacenter lease contract value. The logic chain is as follows: SemiAnalysis states that given the capital intensity of building multi-hundred-MW datacenters, developers typically only spend 5% to 10% of project capital without a customer. They need a pre-lease — typically a 15- to 20-year contract with a total contract value of $30 to $50 billion per GW — to fund and develop the whole project. Therefore, signed lease value leads debt raises, which in turn leads the actual buildout. Tracking leases means tracking the front end of the construction pipeline.

From H2 2023 through H1 2025, quarterly datacenter leasing remained relatively stable, largely because Microsoft paused its large-scale rental activity — SemiAnalysis claims it called this out before anyone else in December 2024. The turning point came between August and October 2025: Oracle closed on approximately 4.5GW of datacenter IT capacity across three sites. After that, Meta, AWS, Microsoft, Google, Nvidia, AMD, Anthropic, and OpenAI all entered the market for GW-scale leases, with a long tail of neocloud companies signing hundred-megawatt-scale deals. SemiAnalysis reports that just in 2026 year-to-date, it has identified over $1 trillion in lease value that was signed and closed.

What does this over-$1-trillion in leases mean? At $30 to $50 billion total contract value per GW, it corresponds to roughly 20 to 33GW of IT capacity. Combined with projects already under construction but not yet leased, SemiAnalysis believes this is sufficient to support 50GW of new capacity in 2027 — essentially the entire global cumulative datacenter market through 2024 being built in a single year. Its quarterly self-build construction data also shows that US hyperscalers have never launched more datacenter construction than they are now, with the number going parabolic, driven in particular by two hyperscalers.

But this argument has clear boundaries. First, SemiAnalysis's Datacenter Industry Model is a paid subscription product; the public article displays model conclusions rather than the full underlying data, so readers cannot independently verify the completeness of its building-by-building tracking. Second, the article's most critical section — whether datacenters will face oversupply — is locked behind the paywall; the public portion only poses the question without answering it. Third, leases are contractual obligations, not delivered capacity: from signing to energized delivery still requires construction, equipment arrival, and grid connection, and delays at any stage can push 2027's 50GW back. SemiAnalysis itself acknowledges that its model continues to flag developer timelines that appear overly aggressive, including the Oracle New Mexico force majeure site delay in April.

For AI industry investors, the practical use of this analysis is to provide an actionable judgment framework: when the market produces narratives about datacenter buildout slowing or overheating, checking the pace and dollar value of binding, non-cancellable lease signings reflects the real pipeline state better than tracking single announcements or executive statements. Whether the over-$1-trillion in leases ultimately converts into 50GW of delivered capacity depends on execution; but the transmission logic of leases as a leading indicator is a structural variable worth incorporating when assessing AI compute supply prospects.

AI infrastructure stocks recently faced what appeared to be a straightforward bear case: companies like CoreWeave, Applied Digital, and IREN are pouring enormous capital expenditure into new data center campuses, much of it financed through borrowing, and investors want to know whether that capacity will ever pay for itself. CoreWeave fell about 25% in a matter of days during the recent sell-off, while Applied Digital and IREN slid roughly 50% from their summer highs, seemingly confirming the concern.

But Canadian investor Kevin O'Leary, known as Mr. Wonderful from the television show Shark Tank, argues the market is tracking the wrong variable. He estimates that roughly 65% of data center projects announced across North America in the past two years may never be built—not because demand is insufficient, but because of missing water, fiber, or power, or because of a political moratorium. He expects 60% to 65% could be shut down within 24 months. If this assessment holds, the real scarcity is not compute capacity but sites that have already cleared power and permitting hurdles.

O'Leary splits the opportunity into two verticals: power and compute/storage capacity. On power, he believes the broader economy needs far more grid capacity regardless of AI. On compute, he estimates current demand sits at roughly three times available capacity, with no slowdown in sight for three years. He notes that much of what Amazon, Alphabet, and Microsoft run through their data centers has nothing to do with AI.

The mechanics are concrete: before a tenant rolls in a single rack, the developer needs land, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency air permits, water rights, dark fiber, and power. Planning alone can run $20 million to $30 million per gigawatt. Tenant demand has also jumped—where they once asked for 250 to 500 megawatts, they now want at least 1.4 gigawatts, roughly $16 billion from scratch to operations, split about evenly between equity and debt.

Power is the hardest piece. Former crypto miners pivoted to AI because they already had grid connections, but most U.S. states now require new projects to bring their own power, usually natural gas run through turbines. Time is the hidden cost: internal rate of return depends on speed, and a site facing a three-year permit wait cannot produce a return that anyone will finance. O'Leary says tenants want capacity online by the fourth quarter of 2027, a demand he calls insatiable.

Once the power contract, water permit, and air approval are all signed, a project's value can jump sharply—this is the core of O'Leary's argument. If roughly two-thirds of announced projects fail, permitted and powered capacity becomes the prized asset, and operators already online gain leverage with a short list of about 11 major tenants.

O'Leary holds Bitzero Holdings (NASDAQ: AIBZ) in public markets for liquidity; the company has land, power, and permits in Norway and Finland. He is developing private data center projects in Box Elder County, Utah, and in Alberta, Canada. He says the theme is his largest, at well over 20% of his book. Long term, he treats data centers like commercial real estate with utility-style cash flows, targeting 17% to 22% returns in climate-controlled storage and preferring no more than 30% leverage.

Politics is the sharpest risk, in O'Leary's view. He cites polling showing more than 70% of people oppose a data center in their state, though answers shift when the site sits three miles away and offers jobs paying $150,000. With U.S. midterm elections approaching, blocking data centers can win votes.

The scarcity argument does not need every builder to succeed or AI enthusiasm to hold every quarter. It needs two conditions: compute demand to stay strong and permitting to stay hard. A sudden wave of newly permitted capacity or a hyperscaler pullback in chip spending would weaken it.

The 65% failure-rate estimate, the 3x demand gap, and the figure of about 11 major tenants all come from O'Leary's own judgment; the article provides no independent verification. O'Leary simultaneously holds Bitzero and develops private data center projects, with this theme representing well over 20% of his portfolio—a direct financial interest. The publisher, MarketBeat, also sells a $149-per-year subscription service and stock recommendations. These interests do not automatically invalidate the argument, but readers should keep this context in mind when evaluating the specific figures.

DoubleAI, an artificial intelligence model developer based in Tel Aviv, Israel, officially AA-I Technologies Ltd., announced on October 19, 2026, that it has raised $200 million in Series A funding. The round was co-led by Lightspeed and Bessemer Venture Partners, with participation from Nvidia Corp. and Dell Technologies Inc. According to CTech, the investment values doubleAI at more than $1 billion.

DoubleAI has developed an AI model called Maxwell, designed to automatically optimize software code for greater efficiency. Unlike traditional methods that modify source code, Maxwell applies optimizations directly to a program's binary files, reducing hardware usage and enabling real-time adjustments to applications in production. The company states that Maxwell rewrote parts of Nvidia's open-source cuGraph library, speeding up 55% of its algorithms by a factor of two or more. Additionally, the model optimized the performance of the pandas data science toolkit and recently broke a nearly 50-year-old chess record.

The Wall Street Journal reported that doubleAI plans to use half of the new funding to purchase 1,000 Nvidia B300 Blackwell graphics cards. This move aims to bolster its compute capacity to compete with rivals like OpenAI and Anthropic, whose latest models also demonstrate capabilities in automating research tasks.

NVIDIA is redefining who decides which process node gets used in the AI semiconductor supply chain. According to reports, NVIDIA has asked Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix and Micron to have the base dies—which assist computation beneath the HBM stack—for their next-generation custom memory NVHBM manufactured uniformly on TSMC's 3nm process. The core logic is standardization: when a single GPU must be compatible with HBM products from multiple vendors, verifying each base die's interface and power characteristics individually is extremely costly, while locking all base dies to the same process node dramatically reduces adaptation work.

Samsung had long emphasized its ability to integrate everything from memory to base die in-house as a core competitive strength. Its acceptance of TSMC foundry for NVHBM base dies represents a significant departure from that strategy.

However, this does not mean Samsung is overhauling its entire HBM approach. Samsung plans to continue using its own foundry for the base dies of its proprietary HBM4, HBM4E and products destined for other customers.

TSMC's record third-quarter 2026 results provide context for this landscape. Revenue reached NT$1.4942 trillion and net profit NT$763.1 billion, up roughly 51% and 69% year-on-year respectively, marking the sixth consecutive quarter of record earnings.

The engine behind those results is advanced process nodes. 2nm, which entered mass production at the end of last year, already accounts for 8% of wafer revenue; combined with 3nm and 5nm, advanced processes make up 69% of the total.

TSMC plans to more than double its 2nm-series capacity by 2027. Because advanced chips are designed around a specific manufacturing process from the outset, switching foundry partners after design is prohibitively expensive. Securing capacity early means the next generation of AI chips will naturally remain within TSMC's ecosystem.

In foundry market share, TrendForce data shows TSMC held 72.5% and Samsung only 5.9% in Q2 2026. Samsung is seeking breakthroughs through its Taylor, Texas fab ramp-up and new 2nm orders—last year it secured a roughly $16.5 billion contract with Tesla. Yet the sheer growth in AI chip demand means even TSMC's aggressive expansion cannot absorb every customer, leaving room for second-source suppliers like Samsung.

The deeper shift lies in supply-chain power structure. As AI accelerators evolve from single chips into massive systems, the influence of design firms like NVIDIA now extends to memory manufacturing methods and foundry selection. Previously, Samsung and SK Hynix each optimized their own HBM independently; now GPU, memory, logic chips and packaging must be co-optimized within one design framework.

In this process, competition and cooperation coexist: Samsung and TSMC compete fiercely in the foundry market, yet enter the same supply chain for NVHBM. Part of the explanation for TSMC's record earnings is precisely this—the more advanced process becomes the common substrate for AI semiconductors, the more competitors' products embed TSMC's manufacturing technology.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) released a development tool named TorchNeuron on October 19, 2026, designed to allow AI startups to easily migrate their applications to Amazon's custom AI chip, Trainium. This move is seen as a direct challenge to Nvidia's long-standing software advantage, specifically its CUDA ecosystem. CUDA is the critical software infrastructure that enables applications to run on Nvidia GPUs, and its deep integration has made Nvidia the default hardware choice for AI application development.

TorchNeuron is compatible with the open-source framework PyTorch. According to Amazon, approximately 85% of AI apps are written using PyTorch. The tool allows developers to run PyTorch-based applications on Trainium chips by changing just one line of configuration code, without requiring a complete rewrite. Previously, Nvidia spent years ensuring its CUDA software seamlessly supported PyTorch, creating strong user stickiness. While AMD and Apple have offered similar porting options, Amazon emphasizes that migrating to Trainium not only simplifies operations but also grants startups access to Amazon's entire cloud service ecosystem.

Colin Brace, VP of Technology Software at AWS Annapurna Labs, stated that building on AWS means developers do not need to bet on a single-purpose compute provider and scramble to build everything else around it. He noted that the infrastructure needed to go from prototype to production is already there, helping founders scale quickly. Additionally, Amazon claims that because Trainium handles both training and inference tasks and is tightly integrated with cloud infrastructure, it saves startups money through overall workload economics, even if the per-token price is not the lowest. For instance, voice AI company Deepgram reported that after moving to Trainium, they processed 70% more audio per dollar while maintaining production-grade accuracy.

Beyond providing convenient tools, Amazon plans to contribute code to the main PyTorch project to remove parts that tie the framework to specific chips, aiming to make PyTorch more hardware-agnostic for the entire developer community. If successful, this could have deeper ramifications for Nvidia than simple chip competition, as it undermines the lock-in effect that drives developers to choose Nvidia. However, the actual impact depends on whether developers are willing to accept potential configuration complexities and the real-world performance parity of non-Nvidia hardware.

Morgan Stanley released a report on October 19, 2026, naming Amazon.com Inc (NASDAQ:AMZN) a top pick and raising its price target from $335 to $350. Following this news, Amazon's shares rose more than 5% on Monday.

The investment firm argues that Amazon Web Services' (AWS) growth and profit runway remain under-appreciated by the market. Analysts increased their projected AWS growth rate for 2027 to 47%, up from 41%, and forecast year-over-year growth of 47% and 42% for 2027 and 2028 respectively. The report cites Nvidia's earlier disclosure that 2 million GPUs are headed to AWS as a key catalyst for re-accelerating growth.

Regarding profitability, Morgan Stanley expects AWS to operate as a 'rule of 90' company in 2027 and 2028, with operating margins reaching 42% to 44%. Based on these assumptions, analysts project Amazon could generate approximately $16.50 in earnings per share (EPS) in 2028. Other potential drivers mentioned include greater visibility into Bedrock services, agentic shopping tests during the holiday season, and the ramp-up of robotics in fulfillment centers.

Morgan Stanley emphasized that Meta's launch of Muse does not alter its view of Amazon as a 'key agentic enabler and winner.' The firm believes Amazon's e-commerce infrastructure and loyal user base position it well to monetize agentic commerce.

The internet has long had only two categories of visitors: humans and bots. Websites allow bots to crawl page content but govern their access scope and behavior through rules; human users occasionally solve captchas to prove they are not bots. This binary classification system is being upended by personal AI agents.

MIT Technology Review journalist James O'Donnell, writing on October 19, 2026, argues that personal AI agents unleashed at scale by apps like OpenAI's Dots and Meta's Muse constitute a third category of web visitor: they are not human, operating at machine speed, but they are not quite traditional bots either, because they act on behalf of specific individuals to perform legitimate and useful tasks such as booking flights or negotiating prices. Muse was downloaded five million times in its first month, and agentic web traffic tripled from August to September 2026.

The conflict between this new category and existing systems has already materialized. TechCrunch reported users finding websites from Pizza Hut to Yelp refusing agent access, with Yelp explicitly disallowing AI restaurant reservations. Amazon blocked Muse's agents and is waging a court battle against AI startup Perplexity to block its agents as well; although a US court judge recently ruled in favor of Perplexity, Amazon has filed an appeal arguing that AI agents threaten its advertising business by making it harder to distinguish between ads seen by humans and those served to bots.

Ethan Mollick, an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, predicts that such blocking will soon affect the entire web. He argues that once it becomes common knowledge that AI agents can be sent to request refunds or negotiate prices, agents will overwhelm customer service departments to the point where they become unusable by real people. 'Humans will eventually get very annoyed when their agents aren't allowed to do this on their behalf,' he recently wrote on LinkedIn.

Yet economic incentives are pushing in the opposite direction. O'Donnell notes that the vast majority of agentic web traffic goes to e-commerce sites, meaning platforms have money to be made if they allow legions of new AI agents to shop on behalf of real people. E-commerce giant Shopify is already welcoming agents by giving them their own checkout lanes that bypass pages designed for humans.

The article's core concern is what happens to the experience left for ordinary people as platforms redesign the internet for agents that will eventually outnumber us. O'Donnell sketches several specific possibilities: websites become increasingly neglected as destinations for real people, users who want to browse and compare products themselves encounter worse interfaces; verification systems are imperfect, and humans may constantly be asked to prove they are not agents (perhaps even needing iris scans); the same product displays different prices to different people's agents; users can never tell whether an agent's recommendation is influenced by advertisements or platform commissions.

This stands in tension with the future promised by Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI—in which AI agents give consumers greater power and bargaining leverage. O'Donnell acknowledges that promise is not outlandish; agents are genuinely capable of helping people fight bogus medical bills or research more affordable car insurance. But whether they can actually be used for these purposes depends on what rules are set for how agents interact with websites and what exactly they are allowed to do. These rules are still being written. Some will benefit everyone—neither consumers nor businesses want credit card information waved around by agents wherever they roam the web, for example, and rules keeping agents more secure are a good thing. It is the more contested questions—whether businesses can block agents from their websites or prevent them from negotiating better deals for consumers—that will determine whether the web ultimately becomes a highway for agents working for us or against us.

Toby Walsh is a professor at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia and an AI scholar who has long advocated for an international ban on autonomous lethal weapons. His book God AI: Boom or Doom?, published in September 2026, addresses superintelligence, the singularity, existential risk, and labor markets simultaneously, yet the book's central question is not when machines will surpass humans but whether our institutions are prepared for the growth of capability.

In a written interview with Electronic Times (ETNews), Walsh compressed his position into a single sentence: 'What worries me most is not how intelligent machines become, but how fragile our institutions are. The challenge is power, not intelligence.' He elaborated that while how powerful AI becomes matters, the more urgent question is who owns that capability, who controls it, and who is held responsible when it goes wrong.

His argumentative mechanism rests on a concrete analogy: the aviation industry. Rather than treating accidents as an inevitable cost and leaving them unaddressed, the industry built a cycle of accident investigation, design improvement, and operational rule refinement, establishing public trust through safety, and that trust in turn expanded the market. Walsh argues AI should follow the same path—safety is not an obstacle to growth but a precondition for it.

Walsh also identified a specific failure mode in current institutional design. He criticized the widespread adoption of 'human-in-the-loop': if a machine generates a target list and a human has only seconds to approve it, that human review carries the risk of becoming a rubber stamp. His criterion is that humans must have actual time and authority to review information and must be able to reject AI's judgment when necessary—merely being 'in the process' does not mean being 'in control.'

This distinction has real-world context. Walsh recalled leading a boycott in 2018 with AI and robotics researchers from 30 countries against South Korea's KAIST, after the university partnered with Hanwha Systems to establish a defense AI research center. The boycott was lifted after KAIST committed not to develop autonomous weapons and to maintain human control. He also cited reports that the US Maven system fused intelligence data to recommend weapons during the war with Iran, striking approximately 1,000 targets on the first day, arguing that the scenario he had warned about for years had materialized.

Walsh does not shy away from superintelligence or existential risk. His book begins with 'Boom or Doom,' moves through superintelligence, the singularity, existential risk, and AI extinction, and ends with 'Machines of Loving Grace.' His position is that these scenarios merit study, but treating them as predetermined fate misplaces the question. The variables that are actually actionable are engineering tests, independent verification, incident reporting, real accountability, and public institutional capacity—things that can be built starting today.

On who should be constrained and to what degree, Walsh's direction is clear: independent safety testing before AI systems are released, incident reporting mechanisms, and real accountability for products that cause harm. At the international level, he holds that an autonomous weapons ban and maintaining human final control over nuclear decisions are non-negotiable red lines. He also emphasized that areas beyond the reach of national regulation require international agreements.

Walsh's diagnosis of institutional fragility includes a dimension often overlooked: the dependence of regulators on the regulated. He argues that governments must cultivate independent expertise internally and fund public research, otherwise regulators can only rely on information provided by companies to assess risk. He criticized the Australian government for having cancelled its plan to establish a standing independent AI advisory body, seeing this as a manifestation of institutional fragility.

His conclusion is neither optimistic nor pessimistic but returns the choice to human beings: 'It is not machines that determine our fate, but us.' Boom and Doom are not predictions but options, and the quality of those options depends on the quality of our institutions.

Meta released Muse Wonder and Muse Wonder Full on October 12, emphasizing coding agents, tool calling, and long-task execution. Wonder Full scored 57.5 on SWE-Marathon and 79.0 on DeepSWE 1.1. The developer community BridgeMind then arranged a 3D programming test, asking the model to create a lava lamp with a transparent glass shell, dynamic lava, and lighting effects; the model produced only a red cylinder. Meta's Chief AI Officer Alexandr Wang responded that the team had not explicitly trained for 3D demo games and that they perhaps should have added relevant training afterward.

Behind this controversy lies a more general technical mechanism: current large models increasingly rely on post-training reinforcement learning to improve task capability. In the pre-training phase, models learn language, code, spatial relationships, and other general knowledge from large-scale data; after entering post-training, reinforcement learning shapes more stable execution strategies in specific task environments. Coding agents are well suited to this kind of training — give the model a code repository with a bug, ask it to locate the problem, modify files, and run tests; the entire process can yield relatively clear feedback through compilation results and unit tests, and the reinforcement learning system uses this to judge which operations are effective and continuously reinforce them.

But this kind of training has a critical prerequisite: the environment must be able to provide useful feedback signals to the model. The lava lamp happens to break the feedback patterns familiar to coding agents. Three-dimensional geometry, transparent materials, lighting calculations, and dynamic deformation — even if this code executes normally, the visual output can still be completely wrong. If transparent material parameters are misconfigured, glass may become an opaque solid; if the lava shape lacks a continuous variation mechanism, the internal effect degenerates into static color blocks. Compilers and unit tests have difficulty directly judging these visual problems. The model therefore lacks a reliable reward signal to correct its behavior.

The article further points out that today's Agent benchmark scores can no longer be simply understood as giving a language model a problem to solve. Taking SWE-Marathon as an example, it assesses sustained software engineering tasks; completion rates depend not only on the underlying model but are also directly affected by the Harness (the execution framework built around the model). Meta's official Model Card explicitly states that in SWE-Marathon evaluations, GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 use Codex and Claude Code execution systems respectively, meaning this is not a controlled comparison under a unified Harness; Wonder Full's 57.5 score also used the xhigh inference tier.

This means a single number on a leaderboard compresses three variables: model reasoning capability, execution framework optimization, and compute resource investment. The article argues that if one wants to compare base models' reasoning and planning ability, tool environments, Harness, and inference budgets must be unified as much as possible; but if comparing production-ready coding agent products, the complete execution system's performance itself has engineering value. The problem is that when these configuration differences are compressed into a single score, outsiders find it difficult to determine where the score improvement actually comes from.

Notably, Meta's own technical article dedicated a Capabilities That Generalize section to discuss out-of-distribution generalization. The team divided tasks into in-distribution tasks heavily optimized during post-training and out-of-distribution tasks without targeted optimization, then compared Muse Spark 1.3 and Muse Wonder Full at different inference budgets. Meta believes stronger base models allow post-training gains to transfer more effectively to other tasks. But the article points out that out-of-distribution generalization cannot be described by a single aggregate average score — the distance between different tasks, the knowledge that needs to be supplemented, and the method of evaluating results all affect model performance. A single lava lamp failure only shows that the model did not complete that particular task; it cannot directly prove that the model was over-optimized against public benchmark question banks.