
M5 @CleClinicLCM. CS '21 @michiganstateu. Interested in artificial intelligence, health tech, and entrepreneurship. Always a student.
Cleveland, OH
Joined December 2022
- Tweets331
- Following157
- Followers73
- Likes184
Sameed Khan retweeted
I think AI will be a transformative technology like the internet by which I mean it will buy us another 2-3 decades of 2.5% GDP growth.
Once you peer past the quasi-religious AGI hype you can start to see the shape of what the real economic value of AI is
a brand new model paradigm! introducing 𝚌𝚕𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚒𝚌: a system one model for extracting, computing, estimating, and predicting values from unstructured inputs.
blog.cloudflare.com/clairic-…
This looks less like mass labor replacement and more on the scale of a better business technology — worth billions in value and game changing but not apocalyptic. Once the capital for subsidized tokens dries up I think the above is what will be driving most of the wealth creation
Note: “0% hallucination” =/= “doesn’t make a mistake” - they are saying they guarantee that the output will be structured and schema compliant so you will get a value you can anticipate with deterministic code. But it can still give you a wrong answer.
After co-inventing ChatGPT, I kept asking myself: why have superhuman chat models not led to AGI?
I’ve spent the last 2 years in stealth building a new way to train models (RLCD), and a new type of frontier AI model that we are releasing today: Jev
• 20-200x faster
• 40-400x cheaper (w/ output tokens free)
• Frontier composable intelligence optimized for decisions
AFAICT the shortest path to AI-based economic revolution
Sameed Khan retweeted
I have a new favorite editor/IDE: Zed. Open-source, blazing fast, built-in AI operability, easy to use. Heard that lots of developers are dropping Visual Studio Code for Zed. Has R and Quarto extensions. zed.dev
Sameed Khan retweeted
93 million CT scans were performed in the United States in 2023. About a third covered the abdomen and pelvis. The colon is in the picture on every one of them, and almost nobody was looking at it.
A model published in Annals of Oncology this spring reads the colon on the noncontrast CT that was ordered for something else. In 18,419 consecutive real-world scans, it ran at 86.6% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity, with a positive predictive value of 63.4%. Five cancers nobody had found. About 30 seconds a scan. Ten radiologists using it gained 20 points of sensitivity.
This is not a colon story. Next month it will be a different finding on a different scan, and the month after that another one. Each arrives as a paper, then a vendor, then a question for a radiology department that answered the same question last month for a different tool. Departments deciding tool by tool cannot keep up, and most have stopped trying.
Hospitals already have the structure for a stream of new capabilities that each need an evidence bar, local validation, a pathway before adoption, monitoring after, and a process for removal. It's called a formulary. New drugs arrive every month and no hospital relitigates whether to have a pharmacy. Radiology needs the same committee for algorithms. The platforms to plug them in already exist. The committee mostly does not. Then the part I care about. I order the scan for a kidney stone. At 2 am the read comes back: stone, and a flag. Probable colorectal mass, model-detected. What do I do with that?
Today the honest answer is that I tell the patient, I write "follow up with GI" on the discharge paperwork, and the loop closes some of the time. The ED already has a process for results that arrive after the patient leaves. Positive cultures get a callback, a nurse, a list, a phone call until someone answers. A model-detected mass belongs in that process, with an owner and a tracking list. Referral is the easy part. Whether the scope happens is the system.
One more thing radiology will have to contend with. A local validation takes months. The model's successor ships in three. Validating once and deploying forever cannot work at this cadence. The tool has to be checked the way a lab analyzer is checked, continuously, against known results, with an alarm when it drifts.
A model can now find a cancer on a scan nobody ordered it for. Who owns that result?
Takeaway: stop working on verifiable, pure-digital-world, well-known tasks. These tasks are going to be solved by those with maximum compute and most intelligent models. Three ways out:
- Non-verifiable tasks, e.g., writing, art, designing a new product, etc.
- Tasks involving physical world or humans, e.g., robotics, manufacturing, sales, education, etc.
- Niche domains, e.g., Quant where public information is rare (but nothing stops AI from self-evolving in Quant given its verifiability)
We congratulate Levent Alpöge and Tristan Buckmaster on their remarkable mathematical work.
We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem.
While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models.
However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs. unforced).
Sameed Khan retweeted
arXiv -> quickarXiv
Papers are often written in convoluted language that is hard to understand
Swap arXiv -> quickarXiv on any paper URL to get an instant blog with figures, insights, and explanations. Now extracted with @Zai_org's GLM OCR 🚀
Also includes code + author tweet
Sameed Khan retweeted
🚢 Marin 535B-A23B started training this week! As usual, the whole process is open.
Voyage plan: pretraining (80%) + midtraining (20%) on 18.75T tokens on 11 x GB200 NVL72 for ~3 months (2.7e24 FLOPs). Post-training will follow.
Before kicking off the run, we trained a 4-rung scaling ladder from 1.6B-A61M (48B tokens) to 27.7B-A1.2B (926B tokens) to debug issues, and to make a forecast of our hero run. This is by far our biggest run, so definitely expecting the unexpected.
Sameed Khan retweeted
The gold standard for producing PDF documents (especially books and journal articles) has been LaTeX. @typstapp re-engineered the entire process in an incredibly elegant extensible way. On my MacOS LaTeX (TexLive) takes 9.1GB of disk space. Typst takes 43MB. Not a misprint.
Sameed Khan retweeted
watermarks-remover for AI content reaches ~11k stars on github.
People really hate the watermarks. And i fully understand them.
WATERMARK STRIPPER HITS 10,000 STARS DAYS AFTER ANTHROPIC SHIPS PROVENANCE
Anthropic detailed how Claude's text watermark works last week.
By this morning a MIT-licensed repo that strips it has 10,000 stars, targeting Claude, SynthID-Text and OpenAI marks, plus C2PA and EXIF in images and PDFs.
github.com/guillaumemeyer/wa…
Today we're opening up the DoorDash CLI in limited beta.
`dd-cli` lets you order DoorDash directly from your agent: search stores, find the best deals, check out, and more.
Early access for US/Canadian macOS developers by waitlist. Excited to see what folks build!
Sameed Khan retweeted
Coincidentally, 3 out of the last 4 weeks I could not include a link to Spotify when releasing my podcast episode, b/f Spotify was down.
2x an outage in publishing the podcasts, 1x the complete web player down
Have not experienced such poor reliability from Spotify in forever
I think the more general takeaway is that now we can price intelligence as a service which has pretty profound implications for how we value knowledge work imo
An aspect of using AI to solve maths problems, rarely discussed, is the monetary cost of running these AIs. For example say an Erdős problem is solved by an AI, and the cost of this run is $10,000.
1/
Sameed Khan retweeted
You can now give your agent deep knowledge of millions of papers in one line with #paperclip!📎
>8 million papers natively indexed for agents.
Much more thorough + often 10x faster than standard deep research.
Just add the paperclip mcp (instruction below).
Love this; yeah I think the vibe of these models is more statistical mech / curve fitter than intelligence but I think we collectively drastically underestimated the usefulness of just scaling the “in-distribution” training data to just cover everything lmao
I get this, of course, but I think this dismisses some underlying valid criticism that even laypeople have. And we can't just move the standard every 2 months by saying "well, this model is *so* 2025, so your experience with it can't carry much weight".
The faults with every generation of language models do reveal to even non-experts that there's something deeply fundamentally shallow and pattern-matchy about how they generate text and make decisions. And that underlying truth doesn't go away with scale.
When a GPT-4o-class model makes hilarious mistakes, like the one about driving or walking to the car wash or hallucinating measurements of time, it absolutely does reveal a lot of the limitations of GPT-5, GPT-5.4, and GPT-6 for that matter if it's architecturally similar.
Yes, these *specific* instantiations of the problems are either patched, addressed with scaffolding (e.g., coding agents or RLMs), or simply get papered over with enough scale.
But the fact that you're talking to a statistical object that generalizes extremely inefficiently and at mixed and unpredictable levels of abstractions, compared to a human, is IMO the fundamental observation underlying these concerns that laypeople express.
And we should not just dismiss that as "outdated" models. In many cases, they're better than the best models from, say, a year ago.

























