VibeBuilders.ai Logo
VibeBuilders.ai

All Resources

[D] What is your honest experience with reinforcement learning?
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
Starks-TechnologyThis week

[D] What is your honest experience with reinforcement learning?

In my personal experience, SOTA RL algorithms simply don't work. I've tried working with reinforcement learning for over 5 years. I remember when Alpha Go defeated the world famous Go player, Lee Sedol, and everybody thought RL would take the ML community by storm. Yet, outside of toy problems, I've personally never found a practical use-case of RL. What is your experience with it? Aside from Ad recommendation systems and RLHF, are there legitimate use-cases of RL? Or, was it all hype? Edit: I know a lot about AI. I built NexusTrade, an AI-Powered automated investing tool that lets non-technical users create, update, and deploy their trading strategies. I’m not an idiot nor a noob; RL is just ridiculously hard. Edit 2: Since my comments are being downvoted, here is a link to my article that better describes my position. It's not that I don't understand RL. I released my open-source code and wrote a paper on it. It's the fact that it's EXTREMELY difficult to understand. Other deep learning algorithms like CNNs (including ResNets), RNNs (including GRUs and LSTMs), Transformers, and GANs are not hard to understand. These algorithms work and have practical use-cases outside of the lab. Traditional SOTA RL algorithms like PPO, DDPG, and TD3 are just very hard. You need to do a bunch of research to even implement a toy problem. In contrast, the decision transformer is something anybody can implement, and it seems to match or surpass the SOTA. You don't need two networks battling each other. You don't have to go through hell to debug your network. It just naturally learns the best set of actions in an auto-regressive manner. I also didn't mean to come off as arrogant or imply that RL is not worth learning. I just haven't seen any real-world, practical use-cases of it. I simply wanted to start a discussion, not claim that I know everything. Edit 3: There's a shockingly number of people calling me an idiot for not fully understanding RL. You guys are wayyy too comfortable calling people you disagree with names. News-flash, not everybody has a PhD in ML. My undergraduate degree is in biology. I self-taught myself the high-level maths to understand ML. I'm very passionate about the field; I just have VERY disappointing experiences with RL. Funny enough, there are very few people refuting my actual points. To summarize: Lack of real-world applications Extremely complex and inaccessible to 99% of the population Much harder than traditional DL algorithms like CNNs, RNNs, and GANs Sample inefficiency and instability Difficult to debug Better alternatives, such as the Decision Transformer Are these not legitimate criticisms? Is the purpose of this sub not to have discussions related to Machine Learning? To the few commenters that aren't calling me an idiot...thank you! Remember, it costs you nothing to be nice! Edit 4: Lots of people seem to agree that RL is over-hyped. Unfortunately those comments are downvoted. To clear up some things: We've invested HEAVILY into reinforcement learning. All we got from this investment is a robot that can be super-human at (some) video games. AlphaFold did not use any reinforcement learning. SpaceX doesn't either. I concede that it can be useful for robotics, but still argue that it's use-cases outside the lab are extremely limited. If you're stumbling on this thread and curious about an RL alternative, check out the Decision Transformer. It can be used in any situation that a traditional RL algorithm can be used. Final Edit: To those who contributed more recently, thank you for the thoughtful discussion! From what I learned, model-based models like Dreamer and IRIS MIGHT have a future. But everybody who has actually used model-free models like DDPG unanimously agree that they suck and don’t work.

[D] Why can't you guys comment your fucking code?
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
didntfinishhighschooThis week

[D] Why can't you guys comment your fucking code?

Seriously. I spent the last few years doing web app development. Dug into DL a couple months ago. Supposedly, compared to the post-post-post-docs doing AI stuff, JavaScript developers should be inbred peasants. But every project these peasants release, even a fucking library that colorizes CLI output, has a catchy name, extensive docs, shitloads of comments, fuckton of tests, semantic versioning, changelog, and, oh my god, better variable names than ctxh or langhs or fuckyoufortryingto_understand. The concepts and ideas behind DL, GANs, LSTMs, CNNs, whatever – it's clear, it's simple, it's intuitive. The slog is to go through the jargon (that keeps changing beneath your feet - what's the point of using fancy words if you can't keep them consistent?), the unnecessary equations, trying to squeeze meaning from bullshit language used in papers, figuring out the super important steps, preprocessing, hyperparameters optimization that the authors, oops, failed to mention. Sorry for singling out, but look at this - what the fuck? If a developer anywhere else at Facebook would get this code for a review they would throw up. Do you intentionally try to obfuscate your papers? Is pseudo-code a fucking premium? Can you at least try to give some intuition before showering the reader with equations? How the fuck do you dare to release a paper without source code? Why the fuck do you never ever add comments to you code? When naming things, are you charged by the character? Do you get a bonus for acronyms? Do you realize that OpenAI having needed to release a "baseline" TRPO implementation is a fucking disgrace to your profession? Jesus christ, who decided to name a tensor concatenation function cat?

[P] I created a package implementing a SOTA technique for XAI ( Explainable AI)
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
PressureDry1111This week

[P] I created a package implementing a SOTA technique for XAI ( Explainable AI)

This is the package https://github.com/mfumagalli68/xi-method Follow the README and install directly from pypi. From the paper: " \[..\]To bridge this gap we propose a family of measures of statistical association whose definition is well-posed also for nonordered data. Our intuition is to rely on separation measurements between probability mass functions. Here, by separation measurement we mean any distance or divergence between probability mass functions that is positive, and that is null if and only if the probability mass functions coincide. Then, we show that the new class of sensitivity indices complies with Renyi’s postulate D of measures of statistical dependence (Renyi, 1959). This postulate, called zero-independence property in the following, requires that a measure of association is null if and only if the two random variables are statistically independent. We address the estimation of this new class of indicators for generic samples, and discuss their asymptotic convergence. We then use these probabilistic sensitivity measures in the context of explainability. A relevant aspect related to measures of statistical association is that they can be computed directly on the original dataset without the need of actually fitting a machine learning model. Thus, not only are they model agnostic in explaining the behavior of a black box, but they also provide pre-hoc explanations. Our intuition is then to compare explanations provided by measures of statistical association first calculated on the original data (the pre-hoc explanations) and then on the forecasts of the machine learning model fitted to the data (post-hoc explanations). This comparison provides an indication on whether the ML model predictions capture the statistical dependence originally present in the data. We call the resulting approach Xi-method\[...\] " The paper can't be shared freely, but as always with a little bit of research you can find it online. If you find it interesting, star the repo. ​ Thanks

[D] The current and future state of AI/ML is shockingly demoralizing with little hope of redemption
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
Flaky_Suit_8665This week

[D] The current and future state of AI/ML is shockingly demoralizing with little hope of redemption

I recently encountered the PaLM (Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways) paper from Google Research and it opened up a can of worms of ideas I’ve felt I’ve intuitively had for a while, but have been unable to express – and I know I can’t be the only one. Sometimes I wonder what the original pioneers of AI – Turing, Neumann, McCarthy, etc. – would think if they could see the state of AI that we’ve gotten ourselves into. 67 authors, 83 pages, 540B parameters in a model, the internals of which no one can say they comprehend with a straight face, 6144 TPUs in a commercial lab that no one has access to, on a rig that no one can afford, trained on a volume of data that a human couldn’t process in a lifetime, 1 page on ethics with the same ideas that have been rehashed over and over elsewhere with no attempt at a solution – bias, racism, malicious use, etc. – for purposes that who asked for? When I started my career as an AI/ML research engineer 2016, I was most interested in two types of tasks – 1.) those that most humans could do but that would universally be considered tedious and non-scalable. I’m talking image classification, sentiment analysis, even document summarization, etc. 2.) tasks that humans lack the capacity to perform as well as computers for various reasons – forecasting, risk analysis, game playing, and so forth. I still love my career, and I try to only work on projects in these areas, but it’s getting harder and harder. This is because, somewhere along the way, it became popular and unquestionably acceptable to push AI into domains that were originally uniquely human, those areas that sit at the top of Maslows’s hierarchy of needs in terms of self-actualization – art, music, writing, singing, programming, and so forth. These areas of endeavor have negative logarithmic ability curves – the vast majority of people cannot do them well at all, about 10% can do them decently, and 1% or less can do them extraordinarily. The little discussed problem with AI-generation is that, without extreme deterrence, we will sacrifice human achievement at the top percentile in the name of lowering the bar for a larger volume of people, until the AI ability range is the norm. This is because relative to humans, AI is cheap, fast, and infinite, to the extent that investments in human achievement will be watered down at the societal, educational, and individual level with each passing year. And unlike AI gameplay which superseded humans decades ago, we won’t be able to just disqualify the machines and continue to play as if they didn’t exist. Almost everywhere I go, even this forum, I encounter almost universal deference given to current SOTA AI generation systems like GPT-3, CODEX, DALL-E, etc., with almost no one extending their implications to its logical conclusion, which is long-term convergence to the mean, to mediocrity, in the fields they claim to address or even enhance. If you’re an artist or writer and you’re using DALL-E or GPT-3 to “enhance” your work, or if you’re a programmer saying, “GitHub Co-Pilot makes me a better programmer?”, then how could you possibly know? You’ve disrupted and bypassed your own creative process, which is thoughts -> (optionally words) -> actions -> feedback -> repeat, and instead seeded your canvas with ideas from a machine, the provenance of which you can’t understand, nor can the machine reliably explain. And the more you do this, the more you make your creative processes dependent on said machine, until you must question whether or not you could work at the same level without it. When I was a college student, I often dabbled with weed, LSD, and mushrooms, and for a while, I thought the ideas I was having while under the influence were revolutionary and groundbreaking – that is until took it upon myself to actually start writing down those ideas and then reviewing them while sober, when I realized they weren’t that special at all. What I eventually determined is that, under the influence, it was impossible for me to accurately evaluate the drug-induced ideas I was having because the influencing agent the generates the ideas themselves was disrupting the same frame of reference that is responsible evaluating said ideas. This is the same principle of – if you took a pill and it made you stupider, would even know it? I believe that, especially over the long-term timeframe that crosses generations, there’s significant risk that current AI-generation developments produces a similar effect on humanity, and we mostly won’t even realize it has happened, much like a frog in boiling water. If you have children like I do, how can you be aware of the the current SOTA in these areas, project that 20 to 30 years, and then and tell them with a straight face that it is worth them pursuing their talent in art, writing, or music? How can you be honest and still say that widespread implementation of auto-correction hasn’t made you and others worse and worse at spelling over the years (a task that even I believe most would agree is tedious and worth automating). Furthermore, I’ve yet to set anyone discuss the train – generate – train - generate feedback loop that long-term application of AI-generation systems imply. The first generations of these models were trained on wide swaths of web data generated by humans, but if these systems are permitted to continually spit out content without restriction or verification, especially to the extent that it reduces or eliminates development and investment in human talent over the long term, then what happens to the 4th or 5th generation of models? Eventually we encounter this situation where the AI is being trained almost exclusively on AI-generated content, and therefore with each generation, it settles more and more into the mean and mediocrity with no way out using current methods. By the time that happens, what will we have lost in terms of the creative capacity of people, and will we be able to get it back? By relentlessly pursuing this direction so enthusiastically, I’m convinced that we as AI/ML developers, companies, and nations are past the point of no return, and it mostly comes down the investments in time and money that we’ve made, as well as a prisoner’s dilemma with our competitors. As a society though, this direction we’ve chosen for short-term gains will almost certainly make humanity worse off, mostly for those who are powerless to do anything about it – our children, our grandchildren, and generations to come. If you’re an AI researcher or a data scientist like myself, how do you turn things back for yourself when you’ve spent years on years building your career in this direction? You’re likely making near or north of $200k annually TC and have a family to support, and so it’s too late, no matter how you feel about the direction the field has gone. If you’re a company, how do you standby and let your competitors aggressively push their AutoML solutions into more and more markets without putting out your own? Moreover, if you’re a manager or thought leader in this field like Jeff Dean how do you justify to your own boss and your shareholders your team’s billions of dollars in AI investment while simultaneously balancing ethical concerns? You can’t – the only answer is bigger and bigger models, more and more applications, more and more data, and more and more automation, and then automating that even further. If you’re a country like the US, how do responsibly develop AI while your competitors like China single-mindedly push full steam ahead without an iota of ethical concern to replace you in numerous areas in global power dynamics? Once again, failing to compete would be pre-emptively admitting defeat. Even assuming that none of what I’ve described here happens to such an extent, how are so few people not taking this seriously and discounting this possibility? If everything I’m saying is fear-mongering and non-sense, then I’d be interested in hearing what you think human-AI co-existence looks like in 20 to 30 years and why it isn’t as demoralizing as I’ve made it out to be. ​ EDIT: Day after posting this -- this post took off way more than I expected. Even if I received 20 - 25 comments, I would have considered that a success, but this went much further. Thank you to each one of you that has read this post, even more so if you left a comment, and triply so for those who gave awards! I've read almost every comment that has come in (even the troll ones), and am truly grateful for each one, including those in sharp disagreement. I've learned much more from this discussion with the sub than I could have imagined on this topic, from so many perspectives. While I will try to reply as many comments as I can, the sheer comment volume combined with limited free time between work and family unfortunately means that there are many that I likely won't be able to get to. That will invariably include some that I would love respond to under the assumption of infinite time, but I will do my best, even if the latency stretches into days. Thank you all once again!

[D] Do you know any institutions/nonprofits/companies/governments/etc. trying to apply deep learning and other ML/AI/GenAI techniques to implement universal basic income (UBI) or something similar to UBI like universal basic services?
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
HappyseditsThis week

[D] Do you know any institutions/nonprofits/companies/governments/etc. trying to apply deep learning and other ML/AI/GenAI techniques to implement universal basic income (UBI) or something similar to UBI like universal basic services?

Do you know any institutions/nonprofits/companies/governments/etc. trying to apply deep learning and other ML/AI/GenAI techniques to implement universal basic income (UBI) or something similar to UBI like universal basic services? Maybe for chatbot guidance on UBI program details, selecting candidates that need it the most, predicting poverty, UBI impacts, demographic and economic indicators to identify optimal UBI payment amounts and frequencies for different population segments, preventing fraud, etc. It can be just sketching future models in theory, or already implementing it in practice. I found this relevant paper: Can Data and Machine Learning Change the Future of Basic Income Models? A Bayesian Belief Networks Approach. https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/9/2/18 "Appeals to governments for implementing basic income are contemporary. The theoretical backgrounds of the basic income notion only prescribe transferring equal amounts to individuals irrespective of their specific attributes. However, the most recent basic income initiatives all around the world are attached to certain rules with regard to the attributes of the households. This approach is facing significant challenges to appropriately recognize vulnerable groups. A possible alternative for setting rules with regard to the welfare attributes of the households is to employ artificial intelligence algorithms that can process unprecedented amounts of data. Can integrating machine learning change the future of basic income by predicting households vulnerable to future poverty? In this paper, we utilize multidimensional and longitudinal welfare data comprising one and a half million individuals’ data and a Bayesian beliefs network approach to examine the feasibility of predicting households’ vulnerability to future poverty based on the existing households’ welfare attributes."

[D] The machine learning community has a toxicity problem
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
yusuf-bengioThis week

[D] The machine learning community has a toxicity problem

It is omnipresent! First of all, the peer-review process is broken. Every fourth NeurIPS submission is put on arXiv. There are DeepMind researchers publicly going after reviewers who are criticizing their ICLR submission. On top of that, papers by well-known institutes that were put on arXiv are accepted at top conferences, despite the reviewers agreeing on rejection. In contrast, vice versa, some papers with a majority of accepts are overruled by the AC. (I don't want to call any names, just have a look the openreview page of this year's ICRL). Secondly, there is a reproducibility crisis. Tuning hyperparameters on the test set seem to be the standard practice nowadays. Papers that do not beat the current state-of-the-art method have a zero chance of getting accepted at a good conference. As a result, hyperparameters get tuned and subtle tricks implemented to observe a gain in performance where there isn't any. Thirdly, there is a worshiping problem. Every paper with a Stanford or DeepMind affiliation gets praised like a breakthrough. For instance, BERT has seven times more citations than ULMfit. The Google affiliation gives so much credibility and visibility to a paper. At every ICML conference, there is a crowd of people in front of every DeepMind poster, regardless of the content of the work. The same story happened with the Zoom meetings at the virtual ICLR 2020. Moreover, NeurIPS 2020 had twice as many submissions as ICML, even though both are top-tier ML conferences. Why? Why is the name "neural" praised so much? Next, Bengio, Hinton, and LeCun are truly deep learning pioneers but calling them the "godfathers" of AI is insane. It has reached the level of a cult. Fourthly, the way Yann LeCun talked about biases and fairness topics was insensitive. However, the toxicity and backlash that he received are beyond any reasonable quantity. Getting rid of LeCun and silencing people won't solve any issue. Fifthly, machine learning, and computer science in general, have a huge diversity problem. At our CS faculty, only 30% of undergrads and 15% of the professors are women. Going on parental leave during a PhD or post-doc usually means the end of an academic career. However, this lack of diversity is often abused as an excuse to shield certain people from any form of criticism. Reducing every negative comment in a scientific discussion to race and gender creates a toxic environment. People are becoming afraid to engage in fear of being called a racist or sexist, which in turn reinforces the diversity problem. Sixthly, moral and ethics are set arbitrarily. The U.S. domestic politics dominate every discussion. At this very moment, thousands of Uyghurs are put into concentration camps based on computer vision algorithms invented by this community, and nobody seems even remotely to care. Adding a "broader impact" section at the end of every people will not make this stop. There are huge shitstorms because a researcher wasn't mentioned in an article. Meanwhile, the 1-billion+ people continent of Africa is virtually excluded from any meaningful ML discussion (besides a few Indaba workshops). Seventhly, there is a cut-throat publish-or-perish mentality. If you don't publish 5+ NeurIPS/ICML papers per year, you are a looser. Research groups have become so large that the PI does not even know the name of every PhD student anymore. Certain people submit 50+ papers per year to NeurIPS. The sole purpose of writing a paper has become to having one more NeurIPS paper in your CV. Quality is secondary; passing the peer-preview stage has become the primary objective. Finally, discussions have become disrespectful. Schmidhuber calls Hinton a thief, Gebru calls LeCun a white supremacist, Anandkumar calls Marcus a sexist, everybody is under attack, but nothing is improved. Albert Einstein was opposing the theory of quantum mechanics. Can we please stop demonizing those who do not share our exact views. We are allowed to disagree without going for the jugular. The moment we start silencing people because of their opinion is the moment scientific and societal progress dies. Best intentions, Yusuf

[D]Stuck in AI Hell: What to do in post LLM world
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
Educational_News_371This week

[D]Stuck in AI Hell: What to do in post LLM world

Hey Reddit, I’ve been in an AI/ML role for a few years now, and I’m starting to feel disconnected from the work. When I started, deep learning models were getting good, and I quickly fell in love with designing architectures, training models, and fine-tuning them for specific use cases. Seeing a loss curve finally converge, experimenting with layers, and debugging training runs—it all felt like a craft, a blend of science and creativity. I enjoyed implementing research papers to see how things worked under the hood. Backprop, gradients, optimization—it was a mental workout I loved. But these days, it feels like everything has shifted. LLMs dominate the scene, and instead of building and training models, the focus is on using pre-trained APIs, crafting prompt chains, and setting up integrations. Sure, there’s engineering involved, but it feels less like creating and more like assembling. I miss the hands-on nature of experimenting with architectures and solving math-heavy problems. It’s not just the creativity I miss. The economics of this new era also feel strange to me. Back when I started, compute was a luxury. We had limited GPUs, and a lot of the work was about being resourceful—quantizing models, distilling them, removing layers, and squeezing every bit of performance out of constrained setups. Now, it feels like no one cares about cost. We’re paying by tokens. Tokens! Who would’ve thought we’d get to a point where we’re not designing efficient models but feeding pre-trained giants like they’re vending machines? I get it—abstraction has always been part of the field. TensorFlow and PyTorch abstracted tensor operations, Python abstracts C. But deep learning still left room for creation. We weren’t just abstracting away math; we were solving it. We could experiment, fail, and tweak. Working with LLMs doesn’t feel the same. It’s like fitting pieces into a pre-defined puzzle instead of building the puzzle itself. I understand that LLMs are here to stay. They’re incredible tools, and I respect their potential to revolutionize industries. Building real-world products with them is still challenging, requiring a deep understanding of engineering, prompt design, and integrating them effectively into workflows. By no means is it an “easy” task. But the work doesn’t give me the same thrill. It’s not about solving math or optimization problems—it’s about gluing together APIs, tweaking outputs, and wrestling with opaque systems. It’s like we’ve traded craftsmanship for convenience. Which brings me to my questions: Is there still room for those of us who enjoy the deep work of model design and training? Or is this the inevitable evolution of the field, where everything converges on pre-trained systems? What use cases still need traditional ML expertise? Are there industries or problems that will always require specialized models instead of general-purpose LLMs? Am I missing the bigger picture here? LLMs feel like the “kernel” of a new computing paradigm, and we don’t fully understand their second- and third-order effects. Could this shift lead to new, exciting opportunities I’m just not seeing yet? How do you stay inspired when the focus shifts? I still love AI, but I miss the feeling of building something from scratch. Is this just a matter of adapting my mindset, or should I seek out niches where traditional ML still thrives? I’m not asking this to rant (though clearly, I needed to get some of this off my chest). I want to figure out where to go next from here. If you’ve been in AI/ML long enough to see major shifts—like the move from feature engineering to deep learning—how did you navigate them? What advice would you give someone in my position? And yeah, before anyone roasts me for using an LLM to structure this post (guilty!), I just wanted to get my thoughts out in a coherent way. Guess that’s a sign of where we’re headed, huh? Thanks for reading, and I’d love to hear your thoughts! TL;DR: I entered AI during the deep learning boom, fell in love with designing and training models, and thrived on creativity, math, and optimization. Now it feels like the field is all about tweaking prompts and orchestrating APIs for pre-trained LLMs. I miss the thrill of crafting something unique. Is there still room for people who enjoy traditional ML, or is this just the inevitable evolution of the field? How do you stay inspired amidst such shifts? Update: Wow, this blew up. Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions. I really like some of those. This thing was on my mind for a long time, glad that I put it here. Thanks again!

[N] How Stability AI’s Founder Tanked His Billion-Dollar Startup
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0.667
milaworldThis week

[N] How Stability AI’s Founder Tanked His Billion-Dollar Startup

forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrickcai/2024/03/29/how-stability-ais-founder-tanked-his-billion-dollar-startup/ archive no paywall: https://archive.is/snbeV How Stability AI’s Founder Tanked His Billion-Dollar Startup Mar 29, 2024 Stability AI founder Emad Mostaque took the stage last week at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California to roaring applause and an introduction from an AI-generated Aristotle who announced him as “a modern Prometheus” with “the astuteness of Athena and the vision of Daedalus.” “Under his stewardship, AI becomes the Herculean force poised to vanquish the twin serpents of illness and ailment and extend the olive branch of longevity,” the faux Aristotle proclaimed. “I think that’s the best intro I’ve ever had,” Mostaque said. But behind Mostaque's hagiographic introduction lay a grim and fast metastasizing truth. Stability, once one of AI’s buzziest startups, was floundering. It had been running out of money for months and Mostaque had been unable to secure enough additional funding. It had defaulted on payments to Amazon whose cloud service undergirded Stability’s core offerings. The star research team behind its flagship text-to-image generator Stable Diffusion had tendered their resignations just three days before — as Forbes would first report — and other senior leaders had issued him an ultimatum: resign, or we walk too. Still, onstage before a massive audience of peers and acolytes, Mostaque talked a big game. “AI is jet planes for the mind,” he opined. “AI is our collective intelligence. It's the human Colossus.” He claimed a new, faster version of the Stable Diffusion image generator released earlier this month could generate “200 cats with hats per second.” But later, when he was asked about Stability’s financial model, Mostaque fumbled. “I can’t say that publicly,” he replied. “But it’s going well. We’re ahead of forecast.” Four days later, Mostaque stepped down as CEO of Stability, as Forbes first reported. In a post to X, the service formerly known as Twitter, he claimed he’d voluntarily abdicated his role to decentralize “the concentration of power in AI.” But sources told Forbes that was hardly the case. Behind the scenes, Mostaque had fought to maintain his position and control despite mounting pressure externally and internally to step down. Company documents and interviews with 32 current and former employees, investors, collaborators and industry observers suggest his abrupt exit was the result of poor business judgment and wild overspending that undermined confidence in his vision and leadership, and ultimately kneecapped the company. Mostaque, through his attorneys, declined to comment on record on a detailed list of questions about the reporting in this story. But in an email to Forbes earlier this week he broadly disputed the allegations. “Nobody tells you how hard it is to be a CEO and there are better CEOs than me to scale a business,” he said in a statement. “I am not sure anyone else would have been able to build and grow the research team to build the best and most widely used models out there and I’m very proud of the team there. I look forward to moving onto the next problem to handle and hopefully move the needle.” In an emailed statement, Christian Laforte and Shan Shan Wong, the interim co-CEOs who replaced Mostaque, said, "the company remains focused on commercializing its world leading technology” and providing it “to partners across the creative industries." After starting Stability in 2019, Mostaque built the company into an early AI juggernaut by seizing upon a promising research project that would become Stable Diffusion and funding it into a business reality. The ease with which the software generated detailed images from the simplest text prompts immediately captivated the public: 10 million people used it on any given day, the company told Forbes in early 2023. For some true believers, Mostaque was a crucial advocate for open-source AI development in a space dominated by the closed systems of OpenAI, Google and Anthropic. But his startup’s rise to one of the buzziest in generative AI was in part built on a series of exaggerations and misleading claims, as Forbes first reported last year (Mostaque disputed some points at the time). And they continued after he raised $100 million at a $1 billion valuation just days after launching Stable Diffusion in 2022. His failure to deliver on an array of grand promises, like building bespoke AI models for nation states, and his decision to pour tens of millions into research without a sustainable business plan, eroded Stability’s foundations and jeopardized its future. "He was just giving shit away,” one former employee told Forbes. “That man legitimately wanted to transform the world. He actually wanted to train AI models for kids in Malawi. Was it practical? Absolutely not." By October 2023, Stability would have less than $4 million left in the bank, according to an internal memo prepared for a board meeting and reviewed by Forbes. And mounting debt, including months of overdue Amazon Web Services payments, had already left it in the red. To avoid legal penalties for skipping Americans staff’s payroll, the document explained, the London-based startup was considering delaying tax payments to the U.K. government. It was Stability’s armada of GPUs, the wildly powerful and equally expensive chips undergirding AI, that were so taxing the company’s finances. Hosted by AWS, they had long been one of Mostaque’s bragging points; he often touted them as one of the world’s 10 largest supercomputers. They were responsible for helping Stability’s researchers build and maintain one of the top AI image generators, as well as break important new ground on generative audio, video and 3D models. “Undeniably, Stability has continued to ship a lot of models,” said one former employee. “They may not have profited off of it, but the broader ecosystem benefitted in a huge, huge way.” But the costs associated with so much compute were now threatening to sink the company. According to an internal October financial forecast seen by Forbes, Stability was on track to spend $99 million on compute in 2023. It noted as well that Stability was “underpaying AWS bills for July (by $1M)” and “not planning to pay AWS at the end of October for August usage ($7M).” Then there were the September and October bills, plus $1 million owed to Google Cloud and $600,000 to GPU cloud data center CoreWeave. (Amazon, Google and CoreWeave declined to comment.) With an additional $54 million allocated to wages and operating expenses, Stability’s total projected costs for 2023 were $153 million. But according to its October financial report, its projected revenue for the calendar year was just $11 million. Stability was on track to lose more money per month than it made in an entire year. The company’s dire financial position had thoroughly soured Stability’s current investors, including Coatue, which had invested tens of millions in the company during its $101 million funding round in 2022. In the middle of 2023, Mostaque agreed to an independent audit after Coatue raised a series of concerns, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter. The outcome of the investigation is unclear. Coatue declined to comment. Within a week of an early October board meeting where Mostaque shared that financial forecast, Lightspeed Venture Partners, another major investor, sent a letter to the board urging them to sell the company. The distressing numbers had “severely undermined” the firm’s confidence in Mostaque’s ability to lead the company. “In particular, we are surprised and deeply concerned by a cash position just now disclosed to us that is inconsistent with prior discussions on this topic,” Lightspeed’s general counsel Brett Nissenberg wrote in the letter, a copy of which was viewed by Forbes. “Lightspeed believes that the company is not likely financeable on terms that would assure the company’s long term sound financial position.” (Lightspeed declined a request for comment.) The calls for a sale led Stability to quietly begin looking for a buyer. Bloomberg reported in November that Stability approached AI startups Cohere and Jasper to gauge their interest. Stability denied this, and Jasper CEO Timothy Young did the same when reached for comment by Forbes. A Cohere representative declined to comment. But one prominent AI company confirmed that Mostaque’s representatives had reached out to them to test the waters. Those talks did not advance because “the numbers didn’t add up,” this person, who declined to be named due to the confidential nature of the talks, told Forbes. Stability also tried to court Samsung as a buyer, going so far as to redecorate its office in advance of a planned meeting with the Korean electronics giant. (Samsung said that it invested in Stability in 2023 and that it does not comment on M&A discussions.) Coatue had been calling for Mostaque’s resignation for months, according to a source with direct knowledge. But it and other investors were unable to oust him because he was the company’s majority shareholder. When they tried a different tact by rallying other investors to offer him a juicy equity package to resign, Mostaque refused, said two sources. By October, Coatue and Lightspeed had had enough. Coatue left the board and Lightspeed resigned its observer seat. “Emad infuriated our initial investors so much it’s just making it impossible for us to raise more money under acceptable terms,” one current Stability executive told Forbes. The early months of 2024 saw Stability’s already precarious position eroding further still. Employees were quietly laid off. Three people in a position to know estimated that at least 10% of staff were cut. And cash reserves continued to dwindle. Mostaque mentioned a lifeline at the October board meeting: $95 million in tentative funding from new investors, pending due diligence. But in the end, only a fraction of it was wired, two sources say, much of it from Intel, which Forbes has learned invested $20 million, a fraction of what was reported. (Intel did not return a request for comment by publication time.) Two hours after Forbes broke the news of Mostaque’s plans to step down as CEO, Stability issued a press release confirming his resignation. Chief operating officer Wong and chief technology officer Laforte have taken over in the interim. Mostaque, who said on X that he still owns a majority of the company, also stepped down from the board, which has now initiated a search for a permanent CEO. There is a lot of work to be done to turn things around, and very little time in which to do it. Said the current Stability executive, “There’s still a possibility of a turnaround story, but the odds drop by the day.” In July of 2023, Mostaque still thought he could pull it off. Halfway through the month, he shared a fundraising plan with his lieutenants. It was wildly optimistic, detailing the raise of $500 million in cash and another $750 million in computing facilities from marquee investors like Nvidia, Google, Intel and the World Bank (Nvidia and Google declined comment. Intel did not respond. The World Bank said it did not invest in Stability). In a Slack message reviewed by Forbes, Mostaque said Google was “willing to move fast” and the round was “likely to be oversubscribed.” It wasn’t. Three people with direct knowledge of these fundraising efforts told Forbes that while there was some interest in Stability, talks often stalled when it came time to disclose financials. Two of them noted that earlier in the year, Mostaque had simply stopped engaging with VCs who asked for numbers. Only one firm invested around that time: actor Ashton Kutcher’s Sound Ventures, which invested $35 million in the form of a convertible SAFE note during the second quarter, according to an internal document. (Sound Ventures did not respond to a request for comment.) And though he’d managed to score a meeting with Nvidia and its CEO Jensen Huang, it ended in disaster, according to two sources. “Under Jensen's microscopic questions, Emad just fell apart,” a source in position to know told Forbes. Huang quickly concluded Stability wasn’t ready for an investment from Nvidia, the sources said. Mostaque told Forbes in an email that he had not met with Huang since 2022, except to say “hello and what’s up a few times after.” His July 2023 message references a plan to raise $150 million from Nvidia. (Nvidia declined to comment.) After a June Forbes investigation citing more than 30 sources revealed Mostaque’s history of misleading claims, Mostaque struggled to raise funding, a Stability investor told Forbes. (Mostaque disputed the story at the time and called it "coordinated lies" in his email this week to Forbes). Increasingly, investors scrutinized his assertions and pressed for data. And Young, now the CEO of Jasper, turned down a verbal offer to be Stability’s president after reading the article, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter. The collapse of the talks aggravated the board and other executives, who had hoped Young would compensate for the sales and business management skills that Mostaque lacked, according to four people in a position to know. (Young declined to comment.) When Stability’s senior leadership convened in London for the CogX conference in September, the financing had still not closed. There, a group of executives confronted Mostaque asking questions about the company’s cash position and runway, according to three people with direct knowledge of the incident. They did not get the clarity they’d hoped for. By October, Mostaque had reduced his fundraising target by more than 80%. The months that followed saw a steady drumbeat of departures — general counsel Adam Avrunin, vice presidents Mike Melnicki, Ed Newton-Rex and Joe Penna, chief people officer Ozden Onder — culminating in the demoralizing March exit of Stable Diffusion’s primary developers Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Patrick Esser and Dominik Lorenz. Rombach, who led the team, had been angling to leave for months, two sources said, first threatening to resign last summer because of the fundraising failures. Others left over concerns about cash flow, as well as liabilities — including what four people described as Mostaque’s lax approach to ensuring that Stability products could not be used to produce child sexual abuse imagery. “Stability AI is committed to preventing the misuse of AI and prohibits the use of our image models and services for unlawful activity, including attempts to edit or create CSAM,” Ella Irwin, senior vice president of integrity, said in a statement. Newton-Rex told Forbes he resigned because he disagreed with Stability’s position that training AI on copyrighted work without consent is fair use. Melnicki and Penna declined to comment. Avrunin and Onder could not be reached for comment. None of the researchers responded to requests for comment. The Stable Diffusion researchers’ departure as a cohort says a lot about the state of Stability AI. The company’s researchers were widely viewed as its crown jewels, their work subsidized with a firehose of pricey compute power that was even extended to people outside the company. Martino Russi, an artificial intelligence researcher, told Forbes that though he was never formally employed by Stability, the company provided him a “staggering” amount of compute between January and April 2023 to play around with developing an AI video generator that Stability might someday use. “It was Candy Land or Coney Island,” said Russi, who estimates that his experiment, which was ultimately shelved, cost the company $2.5 million. Stable Diffusion was simultaneously Stability’s marquee product and its existential cash crisis. One current employee described it to Forbes as “a giant vacuum that absorbed everything: money, compute, people.” While the software was widely used, with Mostaque claiming downloads reaching into the hundreds of millions, Stability struggled to translate that wild success into revenue. Mostaque knew it could be done — peers at Databricks, Elastic and MongoDB had all turned a free product into a lucrative business — he just couldn’t figure out how. His first attempt was Stability’s API, which allowed paying customers to integrate Stable Diffusion into their own products. In early 2023, a handful of small companies, like art generator app NightCafe and presentation software startup Tome, signed on, according to four people with knowledge of the deals. But Stability’s poor account management services soured many, and in a matter of months NightCafe and Tome canceled their contracts, three people said. NightCafe founder Angus Russell told Forbes that his company switched to a competitor which “offered much cheaper inference costs and a broader service.” Tome did not respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile, Mostaque’s efforts to court larger companies like Samsung and Snapchat were failing, according to five people familiar with the effort. Canva, which was already one of the heaviest users of open-sourced Stable Diffusion, had multiple discussions with Stability, which was angling for a contract it hoped would generate several millions in annual revenue. But the deal never materialized, four sources said. “These three companies wanted and needed us,” one former employee told Forbes. “They would have been the perfect customers.” (Samsung, Snap and Canva declined to comment.) “It’s not that there was not an appetite to pay Stability — there were tons of companies that would have that wanted to,” the former employee said. “There was a huge opportunity and demand, but just a resistance to execution.” Mostaque’s other big idea was to provide governments with bespoke national AI models that would invigorate their economies and citizenry. “Emad envisions a world where AI through 100 national models serves not as a tool of the few, but as a benefactor to all promising to confront great adversaries, cancer, autism, and the sands of time itself,” the AI avatar of Aristotle said in his intro at the conference. Mostaque told several prospective customers that he could deliver such models within 60 days — an untenable timeline, according to two people in position to know. Stability attempted to develop a model for the Singaporean government over the protestation of employees who questioned its technical feasibility, three sources familiar with the effort told Forbes. But it couldn’t pull it off and Singapore never became a customer. (The government of Singapore confirmed it did not enter into a deal with Stability, but declined to answer additional questions.) As Stability careened from one new business idea to another, resources were abruptly reallocated and researchers reassigned. The whiplash shifts in a largely siloed organization demoralized and infuriated employees. “There were ‘urgent’ things, ‘urgent urgent’ things and ‘most urgent,’” one former employee complained. “None of these things seem important if everything is important.” Another former Stability executive was far more pointed in their assessment. “Emad is the most disorganized leader I have ever worked with in my career,” this person told Forbes. “He has no vision, and changes directions every week, often based on what he sees on Twitter.” In a video interview posted shortly before this story was published, Mostaque explained his leadership style: “I'm particularly great at taking creatives, developers, researchers, others, and achieving their full potential in designing systems. But I should not be dealing with, you know, HR and operations and business development and other elements. There are far better people than me to do that.” By December 2023, Stability had partially abandoned its open-source roots and announced that any commercial use of Stable Diffusion would cost customers at least $20 per month (non-commercial and research use of Stable Diffusion would remain free). But privately, Stability was considering a potentially more lucrative source of revenue: reselling the compute it was leasing from providers like AWS, according to six people familiar with the effort. Though it was essentially GPU arbitrage, Stability framed the strategy to investors as a “managed services” offering. Its damning October financial report projected optimistically that such an offering would bring in $139 million in 2024 — 98% of its revenue. Multiple employees at the time told Forbes they feared reselling compute, even if the company called it “managed services,” would violate the terms of Stability’s contract with AWS. Amazon declined to comment. “The line internally was that we are not reselling compute,” one former employee said. “This was some of the dirtiest feeling stuff.” Stability also discussed reselling a cluster of Nvidia A100 chips, leased via CoreWeave, to the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, three sources said. “It was under the guise of managed services, but there wasn’t any management happening,” one of these people told Forbes. Andreessen Horowitz and CoreWeave declined to comment. Stability did not respond to questions about if it plans to continue this strategy now that Mostaque is out of the picture. Regardless, interim co-CEOs Wong and Laforte are on a tight timeline to clean up his mess. Board chairman Jim O’Shaughnessy said in a statement that he was confident the pair “will adeptly steer the company forward in developing and commercializing industry-leading generative AI products.” But burn continues to far outpace revenue. The Financial Times reported Friday that the company made $5.4 million of revenue in February, against $8 million in costs. Several sources said there are ongoing concerns about making payroll for the roughly 150 remaining employees. Leadership roles have gone vacant for months amid the disarray, leaving the company increasingly directionless. Meanwhile, a potentially catastrophic legal threat looms over the company: A trio of copyright infringement lawsuits brought by Getty Images and a group of artists in the U.S. and U.K., who claim Stability illegally used their art and photography to train the AI models powering Stable Diffusion. A London-based court has already rejected the company’s bid to throw out one of the lawsuits on the basis that none of its researchers were based in the U.K. And Stability’s claim that Getty’s Delaware lawsuit should be blocked because it's a U.K.-based company was rejected. (Stability did not respond to questions about the litigation.) AI-related copyright litigation “could go on for years,” according to Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University. He told Forbes that though plaintiffs suing AI firms face an uphill battle overcoming the existing legal precedent on copyright infringement, the quantity of arguments available to make are virtually inexhaustible. “Like in military theory, if there’s a gap in your lines, that’s where the enemy pours through — if any one of those arguments succeeds, it could completely change the generative AI environment,” he said. “In some sense, generative AI as an industry has to win everything.” Stability, which had more than $100 million in the bank just a year and a half ago, is in a deep hole. Not only does it need more funding, it needs a viable business model — or a buyer with the vision and chops to make it successful in a fast-moving and highly competitive sector. At an all hands meeting this past Monday, Stability’s new leaders detailed a path forward. One point of emphasis: a plan to better manage resources and expenses, according to one person in attendance. It’s a start, but Mostaque’s meddling has left them with little runway to execute. His resignation, though, has given some employees hope. “A few people are 100% going to reconsider leaving after today,” said one current employee. “And the weird gloomy aura of hearing Emad talking nonsense for an hour is gone.” Shortly before Mostaque resigned, one current Stability executive told Forbes that they were optimistic his departure could make Stability appealing enough to receive a small investment or sale to a friendly party. “There are companies that have raised hundreds of millions of dollars that have much less intrinsic value than Stability,” the person said. “A white knight may still appear.”

[D] Accessibility of Basic Models to Non-Technicals
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
wildekansThis week

[D] Accessibility of Basic Models to Non-Technicals

Hello /r/machinelearning! I'm doing some research on easily generated models by non-technical/statistical people. It would be awesome if some of you could answer a quick questionnaire: If you're a machine learning developer/data scientist etc.: a) Has your manager/product lead etc. ever insist that you build a model on a correlation you felt wasn't there? b) Do you think if that people had a way to verify the lack of correlation through a naive model (random forest, svc, etc.) that it would have changed the situation? (Or, if you were able to show them the results) c) Would you want this technology for yourself, or wish that your company would have access to it? If you're a non-technical person (small business developer, student, non-tech entrepreneur, etc.): a) Have you ever not pursued a potential machine learning/data solution or feature because you weren't willing to invest the resources to see if it was viable? b) Would being able to verify correlations in your data (or lack thereof!) entice you to pursue possible machine learning solutions? c) Even if your previous answers were no, would you be interested in having this technology? Thanks in advance for all of the responses, I will personally read and respond to each one of you thoughtful enough to give me a response. Also, I hope this post will spark an interesting conversation about the barrier of entry to AI/machine learning.

5-Day Applied Rationality Workshop for Machine Learning Students & Researchers
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
AnnaSalamonThis week

5-Day Applied Rationality Workshop for Machine Learning Students & Researchers

The Center for Applied Rationality is a Berkeley-based nonprofit that runs immersive workshops for entrepreneurs, researchers, students, and other ambitious, analytical, practically-minded people. The practice of “applied rationality”, which the workshops aim towards, involves noticing what cognitive algorithms you seem to be running, checking whether those algorithms seem to be helping you form accurate beliefs and achieve your goals, and looking for ways to improve them. A typical 4-day CFAR workshop costs $3900 to attend, but thanks to a generous grant from the Future of Life Institute this fall we will be running a free five-day workshop for students and researchers in the fields of machine learning and artificial intelligence. All costs are covered by this grant, including room, board, and flights. The workshop will take place this Aug 30 through Sep 4 in the San Francisco Bay Area and will include: 2 days focused on learning models and skills, such as how habits develop and how to redesign your habits. 2 days focused on practicing skills and applying them to whichever areas of your life you would like to make improvements on, such as how to make faster progress on projects or how to have more productive collaborations with colleagues. 1 day (special to this workshop) focused on discussion of the long-term impact of artificial intelligence, and on what reasoning habits — if spread across the relevant research communities — may increase the probability of positive long-term AI outcomes. Go here to read more or to apply, or ask questions here.

looking for ML aficionado in London for great chats and maybe a startup
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0.333
MLstartupLondonThis week

looking for ML aficionado in London for great chats and maybe a startup

TL;DR? Here's the gist: Me: 3 startups under my belt. Started as a programmer, then trainer, then entrepreneur, now CTO & Board member for a leading customer insight company part of large bank. Large system and infrastructure specialist. Extensive & practical experience in raising funds and successfully managing both startup and established businesses. Fascinated by the power of data. Can't imagine myself spending the rest of my life being a cog in the machine. You: Machine learning specialist, programmer, analyst, understands how to navigate and crunch large datasets, from BI to predictive analytics. Interested in implementing applications from fraud detection to margin improvements through better clustering regardless of industry. Fascinated by the power of data. Can't imagine himself spending the rest of his or her life being a cog in the machine. The startup: The core idea it to build platforms and systems around the progressively larger datasets held by various sized companies, helping them solve big issues - cost reduction, profitability and reducing risk. I’m an infrastructure and software specialist and have access to 1) systems, 2) datasets 3) extensive practical in certain industry segments, namely web-scale companies and tier 1 retailers. This project is in the very early planning stages. I'm looking forward to discuss the form it could take with like-minded individuals but with complementary skills sets, namely: predictive analytics & AI as it applies to machine learning on large datasets. Want more specifics ideas? I have plenty of these, but I’m sure you do to, so let’s meet face to face and discuss them. Ultimately the goal is to crystallize on a specific concept, develop together a minimum viable product and get the company bootstrapped or angel-funded (something I also have plenty of experience with), all via a lean startup model. My philosophy on startups: Startups built in one’s free time often fail because they drag on, ending up as little more than side projects you can’t quite get rid of (due to co-founder guilt, or perhaps the little money they bring in every month). The core idea for this project is based on lean, that is, to launch a minimum viable product as early as possible. Getting feedback. Measuring results (important!). Pivot if it’s not working. This helps tremendously in staying motivated, limits the dreaded paralyzing fear of failure, and more importantly, keep the time from inception to first client/funding to a minimum. If it sounds interesting please message me and we can exchange contact details! Worst that can happen is we have a great chat!

Showing 769-792 of 1340 resources in category: reddit