Fraink_ai

$HIMS margins continue to collapse rapidly. This is a strategy to squeeze everyone out of the distribution layer and maximise scale => proprietary data => therefore, the AI that maximises patient outcomes per dollar spent

Terence Tao just published a 27-slide deck on what AI is doing to mathematics >Tao: math was built on proofs being scarce, and that era is over >verdict: “we are now entering an era of proof abundance in mathematics” >with enough compute AI can solve many open problems with no expertise required >the field’s entire incentive structure was built for proof scarcity >problem-solving was only ever a proxy for deeper goals >that structure is now "misaligned" >“blind optimization of problem-solving alone is now actively harmful” >problems are lighthouses, not destinations >reaching them prematurely with AI “sterilizes the surrounding field” >calls AI math hype the WWII survivorship-bias plane >“Wow, all the math problems I am seeing on social media are being solved by AI!” >labels the red dots as the failures you don’t see >“Unreported failed AI attempts” >then drops a thought experiment: >prompt AI to "find a cancer cure that passes a stage 3 clinical trial" >prediction "confirmed in Lean" and passes the trial >everyone celebrates >"nobody truly knows how this cocktail was found" >Tao asks the real question: >did the AI cure cancer, or did it mathematically game flaws in the trial protocol? >”before injecting this cocktail into your bloodstream, would you want to know that there is at least one human cancer expert who understands the mechanism behind this cure?” >solution: “tailored, open-source math models” built for “interpretability and safety” >“open math models to be released very soon - stay tuned!” Math 2.0 is officially happening

China has now released its official press release of today's Xi-Trump meeting at the White House. At the moment, the US side's press release is not out yet. I read the Chinese version as soon as it came out. It is not particularly long, but it is surprisingly dense. And one thing stood out to me: Beijing is not simply talking about "cooperation." It is laying out a framework for how China and the United States can compete and win together. And the structure of Xi's remarks is revealing: Trade: cooperate. AI: compete, but cooperate. Taiwan: red lines. Read together with the written statement Xi issued upon arriving in Washington yesterday, today's readout may offer the clearest explanation yet of what Beijing means by a "constructive relationship of strategic stability." Here is how I read it. As in my previous posts, the italicized text comes from the Chinese official release, the bolded text highlights key points, and everything else is my analysis. -- Xi pointed out that the exchange of visits between the heads of state of China and the United States in less than half a year is unprecedented in the history of China-US relations. President Trump and I have maintained communication through various channels and have jointly been steering the great ship of China-US relationship. In May this year, President Trump and I jointly agreed to work toward building a constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability. The new vision reflects the realities of China-US ties, embodies our aspirations for the future, and represents an important step toward finding the right way for the two countries to get along with each other. We need to work toward a relationship featuring cooperation as the mainstay, competition with bounds, manageable differences, and promises of peace, so as to find the right way for two major countries to coexist. China and the United States should, and fully can, achieve mutual benefit and win-win results through practical cooperation, help each other succeed through healthy competition, properly manage differences by seeking common ground while respecting differences, and build peace by fostering mutual trust, so that a constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability can better benefit the two peoples and people around the world. There is a lot packed into these three paragraphs. First, the reference to the "unprecedented" frequency of leader-level exchanges is notable. Xi's framing moves from his personal communication with Trump, to sustained communication between the two presidents, and then to something much larger: a mechanism for stabilizing the bilateral relationship itself. Then comes the metaphor of the "great ship." This is not new. Xi has used the ship metaphor in previous meetings or phone calls with Trump. A ship this large does not turn quickly. And if it veers badly off course, the consequences can be enormous. I think the stage on which this "ship" is sailing is the broader Pacific. The ship may encounter storms and rough seas, but the two countries' top leaders are presenting themselves as jointly responsible for keeping it on course. And then there is a phrase that appears twice: "finding the right way." I don't think that repetition is accidental. Beijing is trying to define what coexistence between two competing major powers should actually look like. And the next sentence gives us the formula: "cooperation as the mainstay, competition with bounds, manageable differences, and promises of peace" was already included in Xi's statement after arriving in the United States the day before. It provides a concrete framework for managing the competition and building this new type of relationship. In many ways, this is an attempt to answer a question that has long complicated China-US relations: Do China and the United States have to choose between cooperation and confrontation? Beijing's answer is no. And more importantly, it is beginning to spell out what that alternative might look like. -- Xi stressed that the economic and trade teams of the two countries held a new round of consultations and reached a new joint arrangement, which is good news for industries and people of both countries, as well as the global economy. Cooperation is a two-way street. The stability of US-China economic and trade relations requires both sides to expand the list of cooperation, while shortening the list of problems. As long as the two sides uphold the spirit of equality, mutual respect and mutual benefit, a way out of problems can be found. Xi expressed his hope that the two sides will work in the same direction, stay committed to the principle of mutual benefit and win-win cooperation, and promote the sustained, stable and sound development of China-US economic and trade relations. And this is where the broader idea of "strategic stability" starts becoming concrete. How do you prevent competition from turning into confrontation? Beijing's answer begins with two lists: The cooperation list. The problem list. In my view, expanding the cooperation means continually broadening the areas in which both sides can achieve tangible results. Reducing the problem list, meanwhile, means preventing new disputes from continuously piling onto the bilateral relationship. This is very pragmatic to manage the relationship. The goal is not to build a relationship completely free of friction-that is clearly unrealistic. The real goal is this: To keep increasing the number of areas where the two sides can cooperate, while preventing disputes from expanding to the point where they overwhelm the entire bilateral relationship. And that helps explain why Xi repeatedly emphasizes equality, mutual respect, and mutual benefit. In addition, the phrase "cooperation is a two-way street" carries a significant message: Beijing is signaling that it is willing to cooperate, but it does not believe strategic stability can be built by China alone. One side cannot keep extending the cooperation list if the other side keeps extending the problem list. Meaningful progress requires both sides to engage, compromise, and reciprocate. -- Xi said that while China and the United States, as both major powers in AI, compete in AI, they have even more reasons to cooperate. The two sides should leverage respective strengths in AI rather than guarding against each other. We can continue to engage in dialogue on AI, exchange views on its risks and benefits, and work together to prevent the misuse and abuse of AI. The two sides should maintain human control over AI technologies, uphold a people-centered approach and the principle of using AI for good, and ensure that AI serves human progress. What happens when an issue belongs on both lists at the same time? That is where AI becomes particularly interesting. The AI competition between the two countries are obvious. But the risks of AI do not respect national borders. Misuse, loss of human control, safety risks, and broader questions of governance cannot necessarily be contained within China or the United States alone. Two countries can compete fiercely over who develops the most advanced AI systems while still sharing an interest in preventing those systems from creating risks neither side can control. This is why Xi said the two countries have even more reasons to cooperate. And the remark also echoes President Trump's statement on social media that he would discuss "super intelligence" today. Trade is about expanding the cooperation list. AI sits on both lists. But Taiwan is different. Let's move on. -- Xi stressed that the Chinese side's position on safeguarding national reunification and territorial integrity is clear-cut. It is hoped that the US side will adhere to the correct position of opposing "Taiwan independence," and handle the Taiwan question with caution, so as to lay a solid foundation for China-US strategic cooperation and the development of bilateral relations. The Taiwan question finally came into focus. It's different from the previous topics. There had previously been speculation in the United States that Xi's asking Trump to stop arms sales to Taiwan based on the 1982 US-China Communique. I do not know whether that report was accurate. But the language of the communique is quite explicit: "Having in mind the foregoing statements of both sides, the United States Government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution. " Clearly, 44 years is long enough to qualify as a long term. Yet US policy has failed to follow through on the promise made in that document. Looking at the structure of Xi's remarks, Taiwan has surely been placed within the boundaries of strategic stability. After outlining substantial areas for cooperation, the Chinese side is also sending Washington a clear message: Strategic stability does not mean stability without red lines. -- Trump said that the state visit of Xi to the United States is a great visit. China and the United States are both major countries, and he and Xi are good friends who maintain in-depth and close communication. The US-China relations will surely be handled well under the leadership of the two heads of state. The latest round of economic and trade consultations between teams of both countries achieved new outcomes, and both sides should continue dialogue to reach a better agreement. Artificial intelligence concerns the future of humanity, and China and the United States should maintain dialogue and strengthen cooperation on this issue. Trump's response, as presented in the Chinese readout, is notable for what it reinforces. He described the visit as "great." This effectively signaled to the outside world that the meeting did not need to be portrayed as a tense, difficult, or deeply divided encounter. Judging from the narrative presented in the Chinese readout, the two sides have established fairly clear areas of common ground on several fronts: - High-level communication should continue. - Economic and trade negotiations should continue. - Dialogue on AI should continue. - The overall stability of bilateral relations needs to be maintained. At the same time, it is equally important to note that Trump's remarks were relatively broad and general, while Xi's remarks played a more substantial role in defining the broader framework of the relationship. -- Both heads of state also exchanged views on major international and regional issues including the Middle East situation, Ukraine crisis and Korean Peninsula. The two leaders also confirmed that the two countries will support each other in hosting the 2026 APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting and the G20 Leaders' Summit. I would not pass over this final section too quickly. The Middle East. Ukraine. The Korean Peninsula. None of these issues is simply about China-US bilateral relations. Their inclusion reminds us that the relationship between Washington and Beijing does not exist in isolation. China and the United States are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two of the world's largest economies, and leading technological powers. Whether they can maintain channels of communication therefore has implications far beyond trade, technology, or Taiwan. Both are deeply embedded in a broader multilateral system. The immediate references to the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting in China's Shenzhen and the G20 Leaders' Summit in America's Miami reinforce that point. They place the bilateral relationship in a wider context: even as China and the United States compete with each other, they must also continue engaging within institutions and forums where their decisions affect countries far beyond their own. How will Beijing and Washington manage the competition in a healthy way? When the cooperation list and the problem list are both on the table, which one will Washington choose to make longer? There is no answer to that question tonight. What comes next will.

Trump blows up on Musk, Dario, and Altman as Fitch warns a slowdown on Ai could crash markets 35% at the index level and trigger major US recession. $SPCX Anthropic OpenAi $ORCL The fact a slowdown would cause a major recession and 35% index selloff tells you it’s a massive bubble. You literally have to accelerate borrowing and losses to avert catastrophe. That’s a bubble.

A top10 CFD Firm is very close to collapse The signs were there

FT reports $META and BlackRock’s $14B, 1GW Sopaipilla data center in Texas carries only partial insurance coverage, reflecting how difficult and expensive it has become to fully insure gigawatt-scale AI infrastructure. The project has about $450M of property coverage once operational, $645M of terrorism coverage and additional protection for construction delays and liability. Rather than insuring against a complete loss, lenders are relying on modeled “probable maximum loss” scenarios, an approach becoming more common as data center projects grow into the tens of billions. Importantly, the debt still received strong investment-grade ratings, including A+ from S&P and AA- from Fitch and KBRA. BlackRock has also argued that severe weather risk in El Paso is relatively low and that modern data centers are unlikely to suffer a total loss even in a major catastrophe.

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but this explainer of how credit cards work by Rain is inaccurate, almost misleading. For the record, I like that team and think stablecoin-backed cards are a great product, but if we are going to be disruptive as an industry we need to get key facts right. So let's get to it: First, the claim that without interchange "no business would take on the risk and costs associated with issuing your card" is absurd. Interchange is capped in many places to a fraction of the US (most notable the EU) and cards there work just fine. Nobody has exited the market. The credit/debit blend might be different, and there are less rewards, but cards persist. Similar story in the US with debit cards where the fee is capped by the Durbin amendment. If you don't believe me, as your favorite LLM how much profit the largest issuers take home from interchange. It's definitely not "recouping operating costs." Second, the claim that delays in settlement lead to a very high cost of capital ("idle capital") for issuers is mostly wrong. The largest issuers all have access to real-time payment systems like same-day ACH, RTP, and FedNow (hell they own the private-sector solutions like TCH that offer some of these). If they don't settle cards in real-time, it's because they choose to, not because they can't. First, delayed settlement = netting = lower cost of capital. The longer the delay, the more capital efficient the netting. Also, in the weekend example, there is almost no money actually sitting idle earning nothing waiting for Monday settlement. The largest issuers settle out of their Fed reserve balances which earn IORB (currently 3.6%). And the funds tied up in credit card settlement are relatively tiny compared to their massive balance sheets, which suffer from excess reserves. There probably is no other place they'd want to park this money anyway. Even if non-weekend settlement did impose some cost, it is small compared to what is recouped via interchange (for credit and Durbin-exempt debit) or the insane interest rate charged on revolving balances (on credit). Lastly, stablecoin-backed cards also have an idle balance problem. It's just transferred from an issuer (like JPM) to the user (like you). If you don't believe me, ask your favorite LLM to cross-reference the largest card issuers with a list of the banks most aggressively trying to kill stablecoins in DC. Why would the likes of JPM and BoA be so opposed to something that supposedly reduces their costs? Third, the cross-border example is both oversimplified and convoluted. As a general rule of thumb, cross-border card swipes are more profitable than domestic ones for issuers. They are exempt from domestic caps and also earn the F/X conversion fee (at least 1%, if not higher). This is one reason why so many American credit cards give such great travel perks. They want you to go to Europe and use your card there - they'll make more oney. Now, this doesn't apply in the example given (a Colombia-issued card being used for a Claud subscription) but I am confident LatAm card issuers make money off the F/X leg - it's not a burden. As a general rule of thumb, any argument or explainer that acts like credit card issuers or networks are doing us some kind of favor by existing should not be taken seriously. Issuing a card and running a card network are among the most profitable businesses out there. The gross-margins are fat, the sector is growing, and the network effects are strong. So why do I care enough to issue this correction? The fact that Rain—an otherwise succesful and even admirable company—would issue this tortured account of how cards work is a great teaching moment as to why cards and their related fees persist, despite being a regressive tax on small business. Rain's business model is primarily interchange. They can't exactly come out and say "stablecoins on public blockchains will kill swipe fees" because then they'd have to go find a new business model. Something similar has happened to every pre-crypto attempt to disrupt cards. Those in the position to change it all got coopted to benefit from it. My favorite example are the largest merchants (like Amazon) who used to be the largest victims of swipe fees, until they realized they can negotiate much lower fees for them, then issue a branded card that sticks it to smaller competitors. My own view is that stablecoins will ultimately disrupt this model and collapse swipe fees. First, because the card industry's margins (including Rain's) are their opportunity. Second, because unlike the credit card networks, public blockchains are censorship-resistant. They allow far more competition, particularly from startups. The process will take decades to play out, but ironically stablecoin-backed cards like the ones issued by Rain will help us get there. To break down network effects, you need to target one side of the market first. Get millions of people comfortable with paying with stablecoins (by way of a card), then go to the merchants and convince them to accept stables directly. I'm sure a savvy startup like Rain will be able to evolve. The big banks who are the biggest issuers will struggle.

Saw this on reedit 😅 This guy lost his shoes Temple. He used ChatGPT, sent a photo of his clogs, and started sending pictures of all the shoes. ChatGPT scanned every image and found them. 🤯 AI is solving problems nobody ever imagined it would.

Square Enix say the Kingdom Hearts Collection Nomura key art mistake with Donald Duck's fingers was not AI, but human error! “We’re aware of feedback regarding recent Kingdom Hearts visuals. These assets were created by our development team without the use of generative AI, and the issues resulted from human error.” “Quality is extremely important to us, and updated assets have been implemented where appropriate,” gamespot.com/articles/exclus…

‼️ Anthropic was hiding a secret internal project to destructively scan every book in the world, irreversibly damaging heritage. The company spent billions of dollars to slice the spines off millions of books, even very rare ones. This means no other AI, and no human, can access this knowledge anymore. It now markets itself as the responsible lab. One bookseller told 404 Media his inventory is full of rare, foreign-language and low-circulation books, meaning that if they are destroyed in the process of becoming training data, they will be even harder to obtain. Second-hand booksellers across Europe are sounding the alarm, because rare books are being destroyed. They have received random lists of thousands of titles. Books too obscure to resell at a profit. Requests arriving overnight from companies nobody in the trade has heard of. One email came from "Nataly" at 2077AI, a Singapore company. Attached: 3,000 English titles grouped by ISBN. A 1999 geomechanics monograph. A 2018 study of laser shock peening on ceramics. A 2021 academic book on Irish folk tales. A German dealer watched the orders arrive every night between 3am and 5am. Canadian company Zoom Books, buying systematically, titles with nothing in common. Zoom told Swiss broadcaster SRF that this is a regular recycling and trading model.

Kimi K3 open weights are live and it is already running 3x faster. The weights dropped this morning. Fireworks is already serving it at 45 tokens per second with 1.44s latency. I have spent 11 days waiting 11 seconds for this model to say its first word. It was painful. The best open model ever made and I kept closing the tab. Not anymore. This is the part of open source people forget. You release the weights and the entire industry fixes your problems for you. Same day. Kimi K3 just became a real vibe coding option.

i saw Terrence Tao use sol med to answer a lot of very complex problems in one of his chat logs. i became curious. i had a particularly sticky problem that was in my 'ai cant do this yet' pile that i was only very recently able to get sol ultra to solve correctly (the problem itself doesn't matter, its was a distributed systems problem blah blah) but i decided to see if i could get any other current modern model to solve it with enough prompt engineering and care (and time etc, etc). turns out, with enough careful prompting and patience i was able to get sol high, opus 5, k3, glm 5.2, gemini flash 3.6, muse 1.1 and grok 4.5 to solve it almost identically to the original solution without any hints. the only difference was the care i took in specifying the problem and a tiny bit of guidance along the way (no context hints ever) . i tried a lot of others but these were the only ones that were successful. however, i was fairly surprised that these _were_ successful. this sounds anecdotal but this has really impacted the way i think about which models i use and for what purpose and how much thought and effort should go into each prompt

The market is in pain — and that's exactly when data matters most. Bitcoin LTH loss supply just surpassed FTX collapse levels. BTC testing $64K. 55,000+ traders liquidated in 24 hours. Panic & Greed at 27. Most traders react to chaos. Claw Intelligence helps you navigate it — unified data, multi-chain intelligence, one workspace. @ClawIntelli #Bitcoin #Crypto #Web3

The Stock Market is going to FUCKEN COLLAPSE when the AI bubble pops. The $IBM CEO himself spoke about this recently. Here are 5 companies that I believe can CRASH 50% or more.

gave up on waiting on nikita for the articles fix - part 1 is here part 2 is coming

🚀 Remora 🦈 🐟 🐟🐟🐟 has been accepted to VLDB 2026 (Very Large Data Bases), one of the world's premier conferences for databases, distributed systems, and large-scale data infrastructure. It all started with a simple question: What if a blockchain validator wasn't a single server, but an entire cluster? That idea became Pilotfish, our first exploration of deterministic scale-out execution. The challenge wasn't simply parallelism, it was preserving determinism: every validator, regardless of how many machines it uses, must compute exactly the same result. Once that became possible, another realization emerged: many of the most expensive parts of transaction execution are stateless. Signature verification (including post-quantum cryptography), ZK proof verification, hashing, parsing, bytecode validation, and increasingly AI inference and AI-powered smart contracts, consume enormous compute without immediately depending on blockchain state. Consensus got fast. Execution didn't, until now. As crypto workloads become increasingly compute-intensive, even perfect parallelism on a single machine eventually hits a ceiling. The future isn't just bigger servers, it's smarter clusters. Remora is the next step. It introduces distributed execution with a novel separation of stateless and stateful computation, workload-aware scheduling, deep pipelining, and elastic scaling. Added compute resources translate directly into higher throughput while maintaining low latency, deterministic execution, and robust failure recovery. Built on state-of-the-art distributed systems research and blockchain-specific insights, Remora enables validators to scale with the growing demands of modern cryptography, zero-knowledge systems, post-quantum security, and AI. To sum up: Pilotfish proved that validators can become clusters. Remora shows how those clusters can behave like one incredibly powerful computer. Huge congratulations to all of the great authors from @imperialcollege, @ucl, @Mysten_Labs & @SuiNetwork behind this work! Github: github.com/remora-sys/remora Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2607.02817

If you're wondering why the market is green today: The ethics clause on the CLARITY Act appears to be resolved. That single provision, the conflict-of-interest rule around government officials' crypto holdings, is what held this entire bill hostage for months. Democrats pushed hard for it while Trump kept filling his bags with one crypto scheme after another and dumping on retail. But it now seems like real progress has finally been made, with the White House reportedly conceding to language described as "more aggressive than anything seen before." Next up: a Senate floor vote before Congress leaves for August recess on Aug 7th. Why this is arguably the single biggest catalyst crypto and especially alts have right now (and maybe ever had): CLARITY ends the decade-long jurisdictional war between the SEC and CFTC and permanently codifies which assets are commodities into federal law. No future administration can undo it with a memo. It replaces a decade of "regulation by enforcement" with actual written rules. What that unlocks: Institutional capital that has been stuck on the sidelines. Pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and the largest asset managers can't hold unclassified assets for compliance reasons. Remove that barrier and they can finally allocate using the exact same frameworks they use for equities and bonds. JPMorgan itself literally called this the trigger that opens the floodgates. On top of that, we get real developer protection, which means more innovation from talent that finally isn't scared away anymore. And real user protection, with rules that would have made any FTX-like collapse structurally impossible. The same kind of collapse we're still suffering from reputationally to this day. And here's the tell: look how much the market moved on just a small procedural win like this. Now imagine what happens when the whole thing actually passes. For reference, when the GENIUS Act was signed last July, total crypto market cap crossed $4 trillion for the first time. CLARITY is bigger. Much bigger.

Most people are wasting hours of productivity by using the wrong AI model for the job. Kimi K3 is a powerhouse for daily workflows, but for the truly complex problems, Fable is in a league of its own. If you want to stop guessing and start shipping, this is the framework you need 👇

Many economists forget that the first-order problem of an aging society, one with high life expectancy and low fertility, is how to redistribute income from workers to retirees. How fast output grows is, surprisingly enough, the lesser question. If you have roughly as many retirees as workers, what each worker produces must be split in two, one part for the worker, one part for the retiree. At a basic level, it does not matter whether we do it through taxes, as in a pay-as-you-go social security system, or through capital income, as in a fully funded one. Workers will not be happy to see half of their income taken away, whatever the absolute level of that income. This redistribution will poison the political system and lead, with high probability, to dysfunctional policies. We are already seeing it across Europe in the fights over retirement benefits. And much of the American unhappiness about the profits of large corporations, largely owned by the old, is the same conflict, only in the fetishized form of equity ownership. Claims of the form “technological progress (e.g., advances in AI) will fix the problems brought by aging” miss the political economy of the situation. Aging is about politics, not TFP.