Kamil Nicieja

Kamil Nicieja

@kamil.fyi

Ruby programmer, product builder, and author. I’m currently a lead product engineer at Plane, a Y Combinator startup making payroll tools. Read more @ https://kamil.fyi

2K followers556 following128 posts

PSA: SF Ruby is hosting an AI hackathon… and I’ll be there too! Rails has always been the go-to framework for solo developers. So here’s the big question: *exactly* how much further can we take Ruby specifically with LLMs? Let’s find out!

claude code is very very bad at writing tests and will always try to make the job easier for itself by cheating, BUT it’s very very good when it can iterate against a good set of tests, so perhaps this means tdd is the best way to program with an assistant

Sure, there are a lot of non-programmers sharing opinions about the future of programming right now, but to be fair, programmers have had plenty of big opinions about the future of non-programming jobs these past few years (?) too. How the turntables.

Everybody who complains about Ciri being the main protagonist in The Witcher 4 just lost all their credibility in complaining about games being “woke.”

Prediction: The more OpenAI wants to get out of their deal with Microsoft, the more we’ll see an inflation of the term AGI being thrown around.

This 👇 Open protocols are at greater risk for spam.

Jeremy Howard @howard.fm

Did you know that 99% of email today is spam? Your inbox isn’t 99% spam because AI is used to filter it. The same 99% will happen here too, but if AI researchers continue to get perma-banned for making available the datasets needed to filter it, it’s going to make this platform unusable.

Interesting. I didn’t expect that they would need to be trained specifically for each type of reasoning to perform it.

Ethan Mollick@emollick.bsky.social

A blindspot for AI reasoning engines like o1 is that they all appear to be trained on very traditional deductive problem solving for chain of thought What would a model trained on induction or abduction do? What about one trained on free association? Expert heuristics? Randomized exquisite corpse?

Just came across DeepSeek—it really showcases the thought process of a reasoning AI, something OpenAI's o1 doesn't quite do. This got me thinking about test-time compute this week.

View full thread

(This doesn't factor in potential decreases in inference costs over time, which could change the equation. No idea what’s the trend here.)

Again: this is a simplistic and likely naive mental model for the potential cost structure in generative AI’s future. It’s just a result of my attempts to comprehend the scaling limitations I’ve read about.

Just came across DeepSeek—it really showcases the thought process of a reasoning AI, something OpenAI's o1 doesn't quite do. This got me thinking about test-time compute this week.

View full thread

Of course, not every query will take 60 seconds, even with test-time compute. So annual expenses might realistically fall between $9 billion and $48 billion. That's potentially 1.28 to 6.85 times the current demand. So where does that leave us?

We might be reaching a plateau (pessimistic view: labs stop training new models and focus on refining and monetizing existing ones), or we could be on the brink of significant growth. Optimistically, reasoning becomes highly effective, and everyone wants to use it for complex tasks.

Just came across DeepSeek—it really showcases the thought process of a reasoning AI, something OpenAI's o1 doesn't quite do. This got me thinking about test-time compute this week.

View full thread

If 4o suddenly disappeared and o1 handled all interactions—with responses taking 12 to 60 seconds (as seen with DeepSeek, where longer seems better)—what would that mean for costs? Assuming inference costs increase linearly with response time, infrastructure expenses could rise by 3 to 15 times.

At a 3x increase, expenses would hit $9 billion, replacing the current $7 billion for both inference and training. At 15x, costs could skyrocket to $48 billion.

Just came across DeepSeek—it really showcases the thought process of a reasoning AI, something OpenAI's o1 doesn't quite do. This got me thinking about test-time compute this week.

View full thread

I read somewhere (can't recall where) that inference alone might cost around $3 billion. Let's assume that's accurate for this discussion. Now, imagine if training new models stops entirely, leaving only inference costs. How would that impact expenses?

Just came across DeepSeek—it really showcases the thought process of a reasoning AI, something OpenAI's o1 doesn't quite do. This got me thinking about test-time compute this week.

Disclaimer: I don't have direct experience with AI lab budgets, so this is purely speculative. Everything in this thread could be inaccurate. If anyone can provide corrections or more accurate information, that would be greatly appreciated.

According to The Information, OpenAI's costs for AI training and inference could reach $7 billion this year, with staffing expenses up to $1.5 billion.

Kamil Nicieja reposted

Re: Google having to sell Chrome. Many have criticized this decision, but for the first time in a while, there could be genuine buyers in the market who aren’t part of Big Tech like OpenAI or Perplexity. I’m not so sure this is a bad thing.

I came across a post from a founder who once worked on building a browser to compete with Chrome. He mentioned that Google designs Chrome in a way that subtly gives preference to its own products, which adds weight to the argument about their practices being potentially anti-competitive.

Friends are telling me Windsurf is now better than Cursor… but I just switched from Cursor to Zed a few months ago. How am I supposed to keep up with new editors every half a year? They used to be simple—you pick one and stick to it for 10 years.

But one thing I missed when I first watched it in 2014 is how accurately it portrayed the degrowth / decelerationist mindset before it gained mainstream popularity.