与「timelines」相关的搜索结果

SpaceX could be just the beginning. ARK's new analysis covers the initial public offering (IPO) wave we believe is building behind the headlines. The ARK Venture Fund holds positions in six companies with active IPO timelines. Each of them reached public market scale while still private. The questions we are hearing from investors: • Is this a one-time event or the start of a broader wave? • Which companies are next? • What does pre-IPO access actually mean for returns? • How is the ARK Venture Fund positioned across the pipeline? As of Q1 2026, OpenAI crossed $25 billion in annualized revenue. Anthropic just confidentially filed. Databricks is preparing for its own listing. Access to the ARK Venture Fund starts at $500 via SoFi or Titan.

Setbacks happen in this business. What matters is how we respond. NASA is deploying experts to help determine root cause, support recovery efforts, and keep critical lunar systems moving forward. We are putting extreme focus on the lander to ensure timelines for the Artemis III orbital test mission remain on schedule. At NASA, we remain laser focused on our mission to return astronauts to the lunar surface before 2028. We test, we learn, we improve and we will never stop until the objective is achieved.

Today a crazy quantum story just got wilder. On March 31, the Google Quantum AI team published a landmark result on Shor's algorithm for elliptic curve cryptography. Technically, the paper was a bombshell: a dramatic 10x improvement over the state-of-the-art. As a stunt and wakeup call to the blockchain space, those optimisations were illustrated on secp256k1, the elliptic curve underlying Bitcoin and Ethereum signatures. But perhaps the most striking part of the paper was sociological, not technical. Instead of following standard academic process, the optimisations were kept secret, hidden behind a zero-knowledge (ZK) proof. Google's accompanying blog post mentions they "engaged with the U.S. government". The ZK proof demonstrates the existence of algorithmic improvements without leaking details. Academic censorship with ZK, a historic first! As a co-author of the Google paper I witnessed some of the context surrounding this censorship. To be honest, multiple aspects of that context don't sit well with me. As much as I believe the general public ought to know more, I am limited in my ability to whistleblow. Though let me be clear about one thing: the Google team's professionalism has been absolutely exemplary, and they deserve nothing but praise. Censorship has a way of backfiring. The Streisand effect, where an attempt to bury something only draws more attention to it, is exactly what's unfolding today. First, Google's key optimisation has been rediscovered by the French. And in a thrilling turn of events, a collaborative Shor-at-home challenge just launched. The initiative, available at ecdsa[.]fail, breached a new Shor world record in a matter of hours. Let's start with the rediscovery. Just two months after Google's paper, French quantum expert André Schrottenloher cracks the main secret optimisation. His paper, titled "Optimized Point Addition Circuits for Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithms", landed on the arXiv today. Big congrats to André, who beat several other nerdsnipped experts to it. In a blog post also published today, Craig Gidney, the world expert on Shor optimisations, revealed that he'd been sitting on this very optimisation for a whole year under censorship pressure. Interestingly, André missed a handful of minor optimisations, both from Google's original publication and from improvements found since. It's plausible there's still plenty of juice left to squeeze out of Shor, and this is exactly what the ecdsa[.]fail challenge is about. The verifier program developed for the ZK proof does double duty, automatically filtering for valid submissions. Dozens of compounding small and micro improvements are rolling in. As of the time of writing there's an 8.4% improvement to Google's circuit, as measured by the product of logical qubit count and Toffoli gate count. Nice! The nerdsnipping ran deeper than anyone expected. Over the last few weeks it became clear it extended well beyond André and other quantum experts. Behind the scenes, a small army of amateurs quietly got to work. Inspired by Karpathy-style autoresearch, they turned AI on Shor. Ironically, the verifier program for the ZK proof makes an ideal reward function for AIs. The barrier to entry for this modern style of research is refreshingly low, with several non-experts, even a teenager, finding nice optimisations. Get in touch if you'd like to join a Telegram group with fellow autoresearchers :) Part 2: neutral atoms and qday The story doesn't end with Google. On the same day Google went public, a stealthy startup called Oratomic published its own Shor paper in a coordinated release. It made a splash, ultimately becoming the most upvoted paper on scirate[.]com, a website ranking arXiv papers. Oratomic's claim was wild. By building on Google's logical optimisations and applying custom physical optimisations for neutral atoms, they claimed just 10K physical qubits were sufficient to run Shor's algorithm on secp256k1. That number is mind-bogglingly low. Knowing essentially nothing about neutral atoms when Oratomic's paper landed, I was intrigued and decided to learn more about the tech. I fell straight down the rabbit hole and spent a couple hundred hours on the topic. I got a little obsessed and watched every YouTube video I could find and spoke to a bunch of experts. My conclusion? The tech is real, very real. Even Google recently decided to start a neutral atom lab, a notable pivot from their sole focus on superconducting qubits. If you care about qday, i.e. the day a quantum computer will break the first piece of cryptography in production, neutral atoms demand your attention. I shared some of my learnings on Shor and neutral atoms in a 30min talk at the ZKProof cryptography conference. You can find it on YouTube by searching "zkproof neutral atom". Here's an interesting observation about this duo of breakthrough papers: neither Google nor Oratomic say a word about what their results mean for qday. No timelines. Zero. Nada. That is especially baffling given that the whole point of whitehat quantum cryptanalysis is to inform qday estimations and help the general public make good decisions. So let me attempt to partially fill the silence, similarly to what Scott Aaronson did in his April 29 post. Given everything I know, including scary non-public information, I now put the odds of qday by 2032 at 50%. 10% by 2030. Anecdotally, the US government has its own date: 2035. Originating at the NSA and later adopted by NIST, it's when branches of the US government will be disallowed from using quantum-vulnerable cryptography. In plain language: with hindsight, that date is a joke and should be discounted entirely. I don't see how NIST avoids being forced to pull it forward by years. Part 3: post-quantum cryptography There are good reasons to sound the alarm today, but please do not panic. Rushing carelessly towards immature post-quantum cryptography is a recipe for disaster. IMO a good target date for migration is 2029, roughly 3.5 years out. 2029 happens to be the date selected by Google, Cloudflare, and the Ethereum Foundation. These days most of my time goes to safely migrating Ethereum towards post-quantum cryptography as part of the broader lean Ethereum effort. There's a lot to do. We need to rip out and replace BLS signatures at the consensus layer, KZG commitments at the data layer, and ECDSA signatures at the execution layer. The plan to get there is compelling, and is based on hash-based cryptography. Within the Ethereum Foundation we've developed a Swiss army knife called leanVM (github[.]com/leanEthereum/leanVM) powered by the magic of hash-based SNARKs. Thanks to truly exceptional work by Emile, Thomas, and others, its performance is derisked. Regarding security, leanVM is a jewel, a minimal zkVM crafted for end-to-end formal verification and maximum security. Want to help? There are two $1M initiatives. First, the Proximity Prize (proximityprize[.]org). Solve a long-standing mathematical conjecture in coding theory, improve hash-based SNARKs, and go home a millionaire. Second, the Poseidon Initiative (poseidon-initiative[.]info), offers $1M for breaking Poseidon, the SNARK-friendly hash function.

Elon Musk was asked how fast AI is moving. His answer wasn’t about the technology. It was about the one man who got it all right and was still too conservative. Musk: “I have to give credit to Ray Kurzweil in being actually remarkably accurate in his predictions. If anything, I think he was perhaps a bit conservative in his predictions.” Kurzweil spent 30 years making forecasts that made serious people uncomfortable. He predicted timelines that sounded impossible. He was mocked for it. He was right about nearly all of them. And Musk just called him conservative. Musk: “The dedicated AI compute appears to be growing by a factor of 10 every six months.” 10x every six months. Musk: “Almost a 100x improvement per year, at least for the next few years.” Moore’s Law was a 2x improvement every two years. That single curve drove every technological shift of the last 50 years. The internet. Smartphones. Cloud computing. All of it rode a 2x curve. AI is on a 100x curve. And the current infrastructure isn’t running beside the new one. It’s becoming it. Musk: “Probably a lot of the data centers, maybe most of the data centers that currently do conventional compute, will transition to AI compute.” Everything that runs the world you know is being rewired for the world that comes next. Human beings process the future in straight lines. We take the speed of the last decade and project it forward. Exponential growth doesn’t work that way. It’s invisible until it’s everywhere. The most aggressive forecaster in the history of technology was too conservative. That’s not about Kurzweil being wrong about the direction. That’s about the human brain being wrong about the speed. The limit was never the technology. It was the organ we use to comprehend it. And that organ hasn’t been upgraded in 200,000 years.

Amazon MGM Studios is going all in on generative AI. The company announced a new GenAI Creators’ Fund with AWS and greenlit three animated shows for Prime Video developed using AI-powered tools. According to Variety, the projects include Punky Duck, Elf Academy, and Marlow Barkley’s Guide to Monster Hunting. Amazon is now actively funding and distributing AI-assisted content on Prime Video rather than just experimenting behind the scenes. They want to help creators move faster by using AI for storyboarding, animation workflows, concept development, and production planning. For smaller studios and independent creators, this could mean lower costs and faster timelines.

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis says we’re in the ‘foothills of the singularity’ I sat down with him to talk about what that means, curing every disease, and human meaning post-AGI: 0:00 Intro 0:45 What Demis is most excited about at I/O 1:46 Have AGI timelines shifted? 3:30 What's still missing before AGI 6:50 AI curing every disease 9:19 What diseases get cured first? 10:50 What Demis works on after AGI 11:48 Human meaning after AGI 13:50 The human skills that get more valuable 15:19 What's underhyped in AI right now

Former SpaceX astronaut Garrett Reisman reveals the single prism Elon Musk runs every major decision through "He measures pretty much every major decision by whether or not it brings the day when we have a self-sustainable colony on Mars sooner or later" "That's the prism by which he makes every single decision he makes" "He's got an idea and he'll keep pushing, and he gives us aggressive timelines that we have to work to" "We work really hard to try to meet them. It's hard when you're doing stuff that's this complicated to predict exactly how long it's going to take" "We end up falling a little bit behind, but we do our best"

Jason Schreier clarified that his comments about Naughty Dog were not meant to single out the studio as a unique problem for Sony. “The whole point of this response is that Sony, like other game companies, has an issue with swelling budgets and timelines wherever they might be.” This comes after people online interpreted his earlier comments as direct criticism of Naughty Dog. Schreier says his point was actually about the wider AAA industry, where games are taking longer to make and costing far more than they used to.

So I spent some time studying the new Twitter/X algorithm today since the latest version was published about a week ago on Github ( My goal was to answer why so many people have seemingly seen such a dramatic drop in their posts' reach. The first answer, which is actually somewhat unrelated to the ranking algorithm on Github, is the auto-translate feature, rolled out worldwide on April 7, 2026 ( Before that date, if you wrote in English about, say, the Trump-Xi Beijing summit, you were competing for attention with maybe 5,000 other English-language accounts writing on geopolitics. After that date, your post is competing for attention with other posts on the same topic IN EVERY LANGUAGE ON EARTH. For some topics that do command global attention like geopolitics, that's a very brutal multiplier: you used to be one of 5,000, you're suddenly one of 50,000 (something of that order): MUCH more difficult to stand out. Secondly, the number of followers you have matters far less than it used to: each post now has to earn its audience reader by reader, on the predicted engagement of the post, and how its topic matches what each reader has recently been engaging with. Here is how the algorithm works, in simple terms: when you, as a reader, open your feed, the algorithm doesn't load "posts from accounts you follow." Instead it runs a 2-stage prediction of what posts you're likely to engage with in that very moment. The first stage is the retrieval stage. The system narrows billions of posts on X/Twitter that day down to roughly 1,500 candidates by matching the semantic content of each post - what it's about - against what you as a reader have recently engaged with. Some candidate posts come from accounts you follow; others are pulled from across the platform by pure topic similarity to your recent interests. You can test this retrieval stage easily: start disproportionally engaging with - say - Brad Pitt videos and you'll bit by bit see your timeline flooded with Brad Pitt content, most of it from accounts you've never followed and never heard of. Then there's the ranking stage. Each of these candidate posts for your feed is fed through a Grok-based model that tries to understand if you'll engage with the post. It looks at 15 engagement metrics: 1) P(favorite) — the reader likes the post 2) P(reply) — the reader replies to it 3) P(repost) — the reader reposts it 4) P(quote) — the reader quote-tweets it 5) P(click) — the reader clicks a link in it 6) P(profile_click) — the reader taps through to your profile 7) P(video_view) — the reader watches the video 8) P(photo_expand) — the reader expands an image 9) P(share) — the reader shares it (DM, off-platform, etc.) 10) P(dwell) — the reader stops scrolling and lingers on the post 11) P(follow_author) — the reader follows you after seeing it 12) P(not_interested) — the reader marks "not interested" 13) P(block_author) — the reader blocks you 14) P(mute_author) — the reader mutes you 15) P(report) — the reader reports the post Fifteen predicted actions, each multiplied by a weight, summed: that sum is the score that determines in which priority a post will be seen among other candidates. Please note that posting something with a video or an image can give your post an advantage as 2 actions are specifically for these: video_view and photo_expand. No video or photo and you don't get a score for these. Also, naturally, having a video maximizes the chance that a user will "dwell" on your post to watch it. Also note that 4 of these actions carry negative weights (not_interested, block_author, mute_author and report): meaning that if the model expects a post to generate a lot of negativity, it'll get de-boosted quite dramatically. But note, first and foremost, what's NOT in there: none of the things that, naively, one might think a serious information platform would weigh. There is no P(this post is true and well-sourced). No P(the author actually knows what they're talking about). No P(this person has spent a decade building a body of work that has held up). No P(this account has earned the right to be taken seriously on this topic). No P(the author has a large following from credible people). The model does not seem to care - at all - about any of that. Every post starts from zero. You could have ten years of rigorous, well-sourced analysis behind you - or you could be just an uneducated rando who registered yesterday. To this algorithm, you're both just a bag of engagement probabilities. Now, sure, to be fair, there is a "brand" effect that's not covered by the algorithm: someone who has in fact built a brand will naturally have better engagement metrics because people recognize their account. But that's an indirect, second-order effect. And crucially, it's legacy: those "brands" were built under earlier versions of the algorithm that gave followers and reputation more weight. Lastly, several other features of the new algorithm compound the dilution, none of them visible from outside but all consequential. The May 15 update added an "impression bloom filter," tightening the rule that once a reader has been served a post, the system won't serve it to them again. Before, a strong post could marinate in someone's feed across multiple refreshes and accumulate engagement on the second or third pass. Now it basically gets one shot. Also, your own posts compete with each other. An "Author Diversity Scorer" inside the ranking stage attenuates the score of every subsequent post of yours that ends up in a reader's candidate pool. In plain terms: if multiple of your posts land in a reader's candidate pool, the system shows one at full strength and dampens the others. So don't post several times consecutively on the same topic. And, last but not least, another huge impact on reach is that, in the old algorithm, when someone reposted or quote-tweeted you, your post was broadcast to their followers' timelines - a repost from an account with 100,000 followers was a huge boost. In the new algorithm, that mechanism is vastly demoted: reposts - like every post - need to go through the retrieval and ranking stage mentioned above, so a repost from a big account is a long way from the boost it used to be. This is especially brutal for low-effort quote tweets, which used to function as cheap amplification: now they often can't even clear the retrieval stage - they simply don't contain enough novel semantic content for the system to match them to anyone's interests. So, putting it all together, the reach collapse comes from many forces stacking at once: - Auto-translate makes your posts compete for attention against an order of magnitude more content - The retrieval stage matches posts by topic, not by who follows you - The ranking stage scores purely on predicted engagement with no weight for credibility, expertise, or track record - The bloom filter narrows every post's window to one strong shot - The diversity scorer penalizes prolific posting - Reposts no longer carry much distribution power Each of these alone would dent your reach. Combined, they amount to a complete reset: your audience that you built painstakingly over years basically doesn't matter much anymore, and it's much - much - harder to stand out even if you're a big account. People structurally rewarded by this algorithm are folks who: - Post visually (videos/images) - Post on globally popular topics because they clear the retrieval stage easily - Provoke strong emotional reactions - likes, replies, reposts - Don't care about accuracy or seriousness because the algorithm doesn't measure it - Don't care about their existing audience because every post is judged in isolation anyway In short this new algorithm, like so many on social media, is all about maximizing whether people will engage with something - not about whether they should.