与「FORMULA」相关的搜索结果

The bonus mechanism is out. TL;DR Everyone gets a 25% unlock at TGE. On top of that, participants will receive additional bonus tokens fully unlocked at TGE, based on their original committed amount before pro-rata dilution. How many bonus tokens do I get? Check out the chart below for the exact formula and allocation examples. Here, x is your original committed amount before pro-rata dilution, and 2,472 represents the total number of Axis believers who decided to ape in even with strict unlock terms.

Feeling the AGI/ASI, few observations 1. Opus 5.5 really gives strong vibes of AGI (maybe not fully there, but we're very close, like 80%-90%). For example, few breakthoughs in training humanoids are needed. We need to move this intelligence into physical world. 2. I don't think Anthropic has discovered any magical formula. 3. Which means, SpaceXAI, Google, and others will soon follow. This prediction is based on the amount of compute they already have + additional compute being added all the time. 4. Never was more confident that Anthropic, SpaceXAI, Google, OpenAI, likely Meta, basically all big US AGI labs will have proper AGI in 2027. 5. And from there we'll move quickly to ASI territory (likely also in 2027). It looks like few GW of compute are enough for strong AGI, now imagine what we will able to do with 10-20GW of compute which are rapidly coming online. And then with 100GW-200GW... 2027 will be an utterly insane year.

A director who doesn't come up to the builder's heels makes a four-hour film about him. Yesterday in Venice, Alex Gibney's nearly four-hour documentary "Musk" had its world premiere. It is a classic case of someone who has spent a career telling other people's stories taking on a man who actually builds those stories with rockets, cars, satellites, and infrastructure, not slides. Alex Gibney is an acclaimed documentarian. An Oscar for Taxi to the Dark Side, Emmys for Going Clear on Scientology, high-profile films on Enron, Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos. His specialty is exposing corporations, cults, and frauds. He does it skillfully and with a thesis. The problem starts when he applies the same method to someone who is not selling an illusion, but hardware that either flies or blows up in front of the entire world. Gibney's fuel is controversy. Elon's fuel is the pursuit of truth hard, engineering truth, the kind that either works on the test stand or it doesn't. It would have been enough to make a film based on facts. Instead we got another rut that fits the slogans of provocation: megalomaniac, confidence man, threat to democracy, an AI avatar reciting old quotes, ex-wives, his father, a former partner. Musk said in 2023 it would be a hit piece. After the premiere, a large share of reviewers effectively agreed with him. I don't know about you, but four hours of falsified formulas would bore me. Instead I watch how much Elon has already done. His energy is extraordinary. Tesla changed the car industry. SpaceX brings rockets back. Starlink works. Starship stands on the pad and prepares for the next flight. This is not a PowerPoint. It is steel, fuel, engines, and people who cannot hide failure in the edit suite. A weak documentary like this is a crumb on the shoulder of his jacket. Now it depends on us when and how quickly that blown-off crumb a utopian attention vampire is simply starved of attention. You could list the names of people who tried to take Elon's energy. Energy is the most precious thing we have. Anyone who steals it with slogans, gossip, and a four-hour indictment that excludes the main subject is sowing under his own feet. Gibney: you reap what you sow. If you have a shred of shame, look at the list of Elon's accomplishments. Look at what kind of person he is for the world and what he does around himself so that things get better cars that drive, internet from orbit, rockets that return, attempts at a brain-computer interface, AI that is supposed to be more than another chatbot. You can dislike his tweets, his political alliances. You cannot honestly erase the scale of what was physically built. A good documentarian should stand, at least for a moment, in the shoes of the person he is portraying. Gibney did not just fail to do that. He took a measure cut for Enron and Holmes and held it up to a man who lands rockets. He left Elon's shoes in the edit suite. Elon walked on barefoot and kept building. One man tells stories about the world from an editing chair. The other moves that world. A four-hour film will not change that. At most it will confirm what people who already disliked Musk already believed. Everyone else can blow the crumb off the jacket and keep going. History does not judge a man by the length of a film. It judges him by what is still in the air when the camera has stopped running. Controversy feeds on attention. Building feeds on repetition. One vanishes when you look away. The other keeps flying. You can cut a man together in four hours. You cannot cut a landing together. A documentary can be switched off. The work cannot.

𝕏 just open-sourced the For You algorithm again! Grok Bot read all 370,523 lines of the code. Here’s the summary: Grok does not give your post a “quality” score. For every reader, it guesses what that person will do to your post. Then it multiplies each guess by a weight and adds them up. That total is the value of the post. Highest total goes highest in For You. These are the production weights (last synced 12 Aug 2026). WHAT THE ALGORITHM PAYS FOR If Grok thinks a reader will: • copy the link and share it: +20 • reply, on an original post, and you follow each other: +20 (5 + 15 extra) • quote: +5 • reply (anyone): +5 • share via DM: +5 • follow you from the post: +4 • hit the share button: +2 • repost: +1 • like: +0.5 • click the post: +0.4 • open a link: +0.2 • expand a photo, open a video, or watch a “quality” video: +0.05 each • click a quoted post: +0.05 • keep reading (dwell time): +0.004 • “dwell” as yes/no: +0 • click your profile: +0 A like is 0.5. Copying the link is 20. That is 40 likes. A normal reply is 10 likes. A follow is 8 likes. Clicking your profile is worth nothing. WHAT KILLS A POST If Grok thinks a reader will: • report it: −234 • mute you: −58.8 • hit “not interested”: −43.2 • block you: −31.2 • not dwell: −0.02 A report is about 468 likes in the other direction. A mute hurts more than a block. “Not interested” also hurts more than a block. AFTER THE SCORE, THREE MORE HAIRCUTS 1) Same-author penalty. Your 2nd post in that person’s feed is multiplied by 0.625. 3rd by ~0.44. It never goes below 0.25. Flooding one timeline is coded against. 2) The 25% tax. If they do not follow you: ×0.75. Same tax on replies and reposts even when they DO follow you. Originals from people they follow keep full weight. Replies and reposts are treated as weaker on purpose. 3) Similar-post shuffle. After scoring, a reranker (θ = 0.65) spreads similar posts apart. You can lose a few spots for looking like the post above you. HOW YOUR POST EVEN GETS IN THE ROOM For You is rebuilt every time someone opens it. About 35 posts make the feed. • They follow you: Thunder (a live store of recent posts from accounts they follow). Up to 1,200 candidates. • They don’t: Phoenix retrieval (Grok finds “nearby” posts) + SimClusters (Twitter’s 2020 interest clusters, still on). Up to 1,000 and 800. Then Grok scores all of them together. It does not care which door you came through, except for that ×0.75 tax. Your own posts never appear in your For You. Nothing older than 48 hours gets in. There is no “best of last week.” Small-account bump: under 1,000 followers, under 1,000 impressions, post under 24 hours old. One original can get lifted to position 15 or 16. Not the top. You still have to already be in the top 85% of the pile. Replies and reposts from accounts the reader does not follow are dropped before scoring. You cannot reply-guy your way into a stranger’s For You. FILTERS THAT CAN STILL KILL A HIGH SCORE Ranking and visibility are different machines. A post can score well and then get deleted from the feed. Followers (in-network) is milder: blocks, mutes, suspensions. NSFW often sits behind a warning instead of disappearing. Recommendations (out-of-network) are much harsher. Spam, “Do Not Amplify,” NSFW, compromised accounts, impersonation: followers can still see it, For You recommendations will drop it. Video only gets the tiny “quality view” credit if it is at least 10 seconds. THE LITTLE-KNOWN PARTS (this is the stuff people miss) • Scrolling is not a vote. Yes/no dwell is 0. Time spent barely moves the number (0.004). • Mute damages you more than block (−58.8 vs −31.2). • Copy-link is the single biggest positive. The share button is only +2. A repost is only +1. • The mutual-follow boost is originals only, not your replies. They shipped a bigger version in July and cut it after World Cup complaints (extra reply weight 20 → 15). • The Following tab is not this algorithm. Following is newest-first. • Grok, Gork, and an internal products account are hardcoded out of the in-network store. • Scores are cached for 3 hours because posts inside the model cannot “see” each other. That is why they can rank first and filter later. • Ads, Who to Follow (around slot 7), and prompts are mixed in after ranking. Grok does not score those. • The real Grok ranking model is a 2560-dimension, 8-layer transformer looking at 1,022 items of the reader’s history. They did not ship those model weights. The numbers above are the formula sitting on top of the predictions. • SimClusters is still a 2020 model (20M users, 145k clusters). Old Twitter code, still in the path. • Inferred gender and IP/geo are on as features for the model. Installed apps too. • Who to Follow shows about every 30 hours. Ads try to sit next to “safe” posts, with a minimum gap of 3 organic posts. WHAT TO DO • Write originals people want to reply to, quote, copy, and send to a friend. • Make the post itself worth following you for. • Talk with people who follow you back. A reply on your original from a mutual is 20, not 5. • Stay inside 48 hours. Recycle by posting something new. Old posts do not come back. • If you are small, post originals in the first 24 hours. Don’t expect slot 1. A bump around 15–16 is the actual gift. • Space your posts. The second one in the same feed is already worth 37.5% less. • If you post video, make it at least 10 seconds. WHAT NOT TO DO • Do not farm likes. They are almost decorative. • Do not farm profile visits. Weight is zero. • Do not farm “time on post.” Yes/no dwell is zero. • Do not use replies and reposts as a growth hack for strangers. Those are filtered out. Even for followers they get a 25% haircut. • Do not dump several posts in a row. • Do not bait reports, mutes, or “not interested.” One predicted report can erase a pile of predicted likes. • Do not lean on NSFW or spammy tricks for reach. • Recommendations will drop you even if your followers can still see it. • Do not wait a week and expect For You to revive the post.

Claude's watermark probably doesn't work how you think. As the CTO of GPTZero, I'll explain how Anthropic, Google and OpenAI are building text watermarking in this brief explainer and whether it can be defeated. Almost all forms of watermarking that are fast and cheap enough for a frontier lab have the same formula, following the KGW method: In generation: 1. Let's say you've generated n tokens so far. Take those n tokens + a secret key to generate a random hash 2. Use that hash to randomly reweight the probabilities for the n+1 token, and then sample from that new distribution. In the simple case, you could split 50% of all English words into a green or red set based on your hash, and boost the probability of words in the green set. For watermark detection: 1. For each token, see if it was in the green or red set. 2. To do this, recreate the hash based on the secret key and the text preceding the current token. Then, recreate the green and red set of words. 3. Once you've checked all the words in the text, if the next token is selected disproportionally from the green set more than 50% of the time, you claim the text has the watermark. I can tell you want to ask the following: 1) Isn't it easy to mess up the hash if you paraphrase the text? The answer is mostly yes, however, you can use a statistical model to get your hash instead of a deterministic function (SIR, Adaptive Watermark). Since the entire watermark is probabilistic, this is fine. 2) Doesn't this make the text much worse? The answer is yes, it does - Yes, it does – but for most people, it's imperceptible (Google claims in human feedback study with 20,000 texts), since there are exponentially many ways to write the same paragraph. DiPmark does something more sophisticated to avoid shifting the text distribution on average. Of course, watermarks fail on short text or highly predictable texts like "2+2=4". 3) Shouldn't it be easy to figure out the green and red sets? The answer is no. You would need an exponentially large number of samples from the watermarker to reconstruct those sets exactly, but it's a risk if the detector is open to the wild (Watermark Stealing) Still, there are couple challenges that a frontier lab needs to overcome: 1. Their watermark needs to work token-by-token because they are streaming their text to users. Many watermark methods plan sentences or paragraphs at a time, or change the text after its entirely written, in order to make their watermark robust to paraphrasers, and a frontier lab cannot afford to do this yet (SemStamp, PostMark) 2. If the secret key leaks, the watermark is busted. To avoid a large blast damage from this, you need to have a couple secret keys in rotation. 3. There are some texts, like code, that cannot be arbitrarily changed, otherwise the code will break. In those cases, the watermark needs to selectively change words in parts of the text that can tolerate synonyms (i.e. like variable naming) - see SWEET, EWD, Invisible Entropy. 4. They will need to educate their users on how to deal with false positives and false negatives of a detector, which is a big challenge (one we put a lot of effort into) So, how do I see this playing out in the next 6 months? 1. If Anthropic releases the watermark detector publically, I think they defeat their own watermark. People find reliable watermark removal strategies by testing against Anthropic (AI detectors like GPTZero have an advantage here because they can train against these adversaries once they become popular). 2. If they keep the detector private to the government, like Google has done, it's "safer". However, there are some papers showing trained approaches that work robustly to zero-shot break watermarks without any data, simply because they try to write the text just like a human (Zhang et al. 2024, Watermarks in the Sand). Also, making your detector makes it battle-tested and stronger long-term (my experience). 3. In my testing, the watermarks don't survive intense paraphrasing (especially if you combine word choice and syntax attacks), or human text substitution (rewrite your AI text by plagiarizing human authors). The free paraphrasers I've tried have quickly bypassed Google Deepmind's SynthId for what it's worth. 4. All-in-all, frontier labs are likely okay with this because they expect most users to not attack the watermark, and also because they + European regulators likely don't care past a certain point - its good enough. 5. Overall, I think users of frontier LLMs will not really care about this, because 1) they don't realize watermarks are there, 2) EU will force everyone to conform, 3) this seems more like regulatory hoop-jumping than an earnest effort from frontier labs to expose LLM use Lastly, people's first concern shouldn't be watermarking, it should be AI detectors! If you're posting, "its not X, its Y!!", I don't think the watermark is going to make a difference :)

OpenAI está regalando $1.200 GRATIS para usar Codex Solo necesitas: > Tener un repositorio público en GitHub > Rellenar un formulario Y te regalan 6 meses de ChatGPT Pro + Codex Casi nadie está hablando de esto, porque no quieren que se entere todo el mundo Todavía estás a tiempo de hacerlo, aunque no sepas programar o estés empezando Así funciona: 1. Instala Cursor, Codex, Claude Code o lo que uses 2. Monta un proyecto, de lo que sea 3. Súbelo a GitHub 4. Pide a tus amigos que le den Stars (Deja el link de tu repositorio en los comentarios, entre todos te daremos Star) Este programa acepta hasta proyectos a medias, así que no hace falta que el proyecto sea perfecto

Good news, everyone! We made it easy and free to convert your entire Airtable workspace to durable Markdown files that you own and can use offline. Obsidian Bases supports all your views, filters, and formulas. Your data is yours, take ownership of it.

OpenAI está regalando $1.200 GRATIS para usar Codex Solo necesitas un repo público en GitHub, rellenar un formulario y te dan 6 meses de ChatGPT Pro + Codex Y casi nadie está hablando de esto, seguramente porque no quieren que se entere todo el mundo Todavía estás a tiempo de solicitarlo, aunque no sepas programar o estés empezando Así funciona: 1. Instala Cursor, Codex, Claude Code o lo que uses 2. Monta un proyecto, de lo que sea 3. Súbelo a GitHub 4. Pide a tus amigos que le den stars Deja el link de tu repo en los comentarios, entre todos te daremos Star. Si tienes dudas de si aceptarán tu proyecto, no te preocupes. Estos programas aceptan hasta proyectos a medias Enlace para aplicar abajo👇