❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens) header
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens) profile picture

I run/train frontier-class LLMs on consumer hardware. Local agents, open weights, real benchmarks. Everything I build is open.

P=NP México
Joined August 2024
Photo by ❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens)Photo by ❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens)Photo by ❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens)Photo by ❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens)Photo by ❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens)Photo by ❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens)Photo by ❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens)Photo by ❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens)Photo by ❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens)Photo by ❖Prisma Dimensional❖ (@PrismaDimens)
Title: Generating Neural Networks with Hypernetworks: A MNIST Experiment Introduction Imagine training one neural network that can instantly generate other neural networks tailored to specific tasks, no retraining required. That’s the promise of hypernetworks, a meta-learning technique where a "parent" network produces the weights for a "child" network. In this experiment, I used a hypernetwork to generate autoencoders for reconstructing MNIST digits, exploring variations, minimal forms, and combinations. Here’s how it works and why it’s exciting. The Setup: Autoencoders and MNIST An autoencoder is a simple neural network that compresses data (e.g., a 28x28 MNIST image) into a smaller latent space (64 dimensions here) and then reconstructs it. I trained multiple autoencoders on the MNIST dataset of handwritten digits (0–9), but with a twist: Variations: For each digit, I trained three autoencoders on different styles (e.g., slanted or thick '1's), identified via K-means clustering. Minimal Forms: One autoencoder per digit captured its "average" or canonical version. Combinations: Ten autoencoders handled specific digit groups (e.g., 0 and 1, or 0, 2, and 4). This gave me 50 autoencoders (10 digits × 4 models each + 10 combinations), each with weights optimized for its task. The Hypernetwork: A Weight Factory Instead of storing 50 separate models, I trained a single hypernetwork to generate their weights on demand. Here’s the process: Input: A 23-dimensional vector encoding: Digit ID (10D one-hot, e.g., [0, 1, 0, ...] for digit 1). Variation ID (3D one-hot, e.g., [0, 1, 0] for variation 1, or zeros for minimal). Combination ID (10D multi-hot, e.g., [1, 0, 1, 0, ...] for digits 0 and 2). Output: A 100,576-element tensor, flattened weights for an autoencoder (computed as 784×64 + 64 + 64×784 + 784 for its layers). Training: The hypernetwork learned to map these inputs to the weights of the 50 trained autoencoders using mean squared error loss, running on GPU for speed. Making It Work: Inference Without Retraining Once trained, the hypernetwork acts like a factory. Want an autoencoder for digit 1, variation 1? Feed it [0, 1, 0, ..., 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] (digit 1 + variation 1), and it outputs weights. These weights are then loaded into a fresh autoencoder: A loop iterates over the autoencoder’s parameters (e.g., encoder weights, biases), reshaping chunks of the hypernetwork’s output to match each layer’s shape. The result? A fully parameterized autoencoder ready to reconstruct images, no training needed. I tested it with three cases: Digit 1, Variation 1: Reconstructed stylized '1's. Digit 1, Minimal: Produced a clean, average '1'. Digits 0, 2, 4: Handled a mix of digits from one trained combination. Visualizations showed the inputs and outputs side-by-side, proof the concept works! Why This Matters Efficiency: One hypernetwork replaces dozens of models. Generate weights in a single forward pass (milliseconds) instead of training from scratch (minutes). Flexibility: Control digit styles or combinations with a simple input tweak. Scalability: Imagine extending this to bigger networks or tasks, hypernetworks could dynamically adapt models on-the-fly. Challenges and Next Steps Generalization: The hypernetwork is tied to the 50 scenarios it learned. To handle new combinations (e.g., 1, 5, 7), I’d expand the training data with more digit mixes. Complexity: Outputting 100,576 weights limits scalability. A deeper hypernetwork could struggle with bigger models, so I’d explore scaling down the autoencoder (e.g., smaller latent space) for efficiency or scaling up to handle complex tasks, balancing size and performance. Beyond Weights: Right now, it generates weights for a fixed autoencoder architecture. Next, I’d upgrade the hypernetwork to design the architecture too, say, predicting layer sizes or types (e.g., adding convolutions). This could mean outputting a variable-length tensor describing both structure and weights, pushing it toward true model generation. Quality: Reconstructions were solid but blurry. More epochs, a beefier hypernetwork, or architecture tweaks (e.g., deeper layers) could sharpen them. Future experiments? Train on all digit variations, test unseen combos, scale the model up or down, and let the hypernetwork dream up architectures, maybe even swap in a classifier to predict labels instead of reconstructing. Conclusion This MNIST experiment shows hypernetworks can generate functional neural networks instantly, blending creativity (variations) with practicality (combinations). It’s a step toward a future where models are built dynamically, not trained individually. Code’s below, try it out, tweak it, and let me know what you think on X!
2
6
1
16
4,199
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
I agree
1) Jensen is one of the greatest entrepreneurs of this generation 2) he did something incredibly dumb 3) it was bad for America 4) but my guess is there was no bad intention 5) two mistakes don’t make a right, and I believe Jensen is irreplaceable for America’s AI leadership
769
505
76
7,043
664,320
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
everyone roasting this deck symbolica raised $31m for symbolic AI with no product, axiom got $64m at seed, taelin built HVM, plain code running on thousands of GPU cores, and asks $8m at $120m, most of you have shipped nothing close, relax and I am not even talking about the startups that promised data efficiency and ended up writing GPU kernels (you know who), or the ones raising millions to train models stuck at loss 4 (you know who too) playing with nanogpt
omg no, I promise it wasn't what I meant :( it is likely I'm being too stupid to even understand the ways on which I'm being stupid, but let me try to explain my reasoning first, no, the deck is not a joke. it is what it is. we're raising up to $8m at $120m post-money cap, and our goal is to research a successor architecture to GPTs. is that a bad thing? I actually have no idea now, on the humble part, I think the actual situation is the opposite... all big funds passed, and I think they see my work as a joke, so I decided to lock in until I have something worth of showing. this deck is a result of this emotional state, and not of any pride. is the ask high? perhaps I'm out of touch with the market, but I'd rather be over-protective and fail, than accidentally sell half of my company. in any case, I expected nobody would invest, which is why I put my own money. if HOC dies, at least I'll be in the same ship as my investors. it seems more fair this way as to why I'm working on something ambitious (AGI) if I don't think I'm smart. well, it is because I think the approach will work. that's all there is to it. if you find a gold mine, you buy a shovel and dig. wouldn't you? sadly, shovels are quite expensive these days... regardless, the success of this project has less to do with my own capabilities, and more to with whether the approach scales or not, which is why I think it is worth trying lastly, Bend's development is fully automated, so it isn't like there is much else I could do with my time anyway. AI is now capable of doing most of what I do. yet, rather than panicking like some mathematicians, I have a different perspective. I think this is an invitation to be more ambitious, and reach for things that were way beyond our own capabilities. thus, that's what I'll do. (the cool part of reaching for the impossible is that, when things don't work, that's just another failure to your collection. you get used to it fast. yet, when they work, and occasionally they do, incredible things happen) sorry for the text wall. I'm trying to write less, but I thought I had to explain myself. I apologize if my deck offended you, or if it was too dumb, or anything at all. tbh I don't even know what the actual criticism is, but I promise I mean no harm, I'm just doing what makes sense to me. please do not invest if you don't know what you're doing, and read the skeptical posts before you do. I still don't know why my profile has much reach. I think people are entertained by my strangeness. in any case I'm glad to make your day a bit more entertaining, even if that's by laughing at my own failures. life is short. I hope you all have a great day every day . . .
3
6
1
68
5,348
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
I think AI is forcing millions of people to confront something they’ve spent their entire lives avoiding. They’re replaceable. Not because they’re worthless. Not because they haven’t worked hard. But because being good at a particular task was never supposed to guarantee that nobody would ever find a better way to accomplish it. We accepted this when machines replaced physical labor. We accepted it when computers replaced entire categories of administrative work. But now that intellectual labor is being automated, suddenly we’re supposed to stop technological progress? Why? Because this time it’s your job?
40
30
1
190
4,972
The biggest opportunity will come when opensource AI catches up, and it's already close to doing so
🚨 OpenAI and Anthropic will almost definitely stall this year - compute constraints - safety fears - alignment delays - stock market softness - Dems hating on AI This will create a huge opening for Grok and Gemini. This is the best chance for them to close the gap
2
1
21
💯🎯 I agree, and this aligns closely with what @karpathy has been saying about 1B models. I've been experimenting with small models that, given the right harness and external tools, can perform surprisingly close to models like Opus 5.5 on specific tasks. And I think that's the key: you don't always need a massive model. You need the right system around it. A significant portion of a model's capacity is devoted to encoding general-purpose knowledge that isn't necessarily relevant to the task at hand. Rather than relying entirely on what's stored in the weights, you can externalize task-specific knowledge, retrieve the information you actually need, and let the model focus on reasoning, planning, and decision-making. This doesn't inherently make the model smarter, but it can make the overall system more efficient, reliable, and less prone to errors. I've been experimenting with different harness architectures, and I keep seeing this pattern. Here's a simple analogy: A human can look at a ball and intuitively think, "If I kick it this way, it'll probably land over there." You don't need a massive neural network to calculate and verify the entire trajectory. Let the model make the initial prediction. Then run a lightweight physics simulation, compare the predicted outcome against the simulated result, and feed that feedback into the next iteration. Predict → Simulate → Compare → Refine. That's the loop I've been experimenting with. The model handles the intuition, hypothesis generation, and high-level reasoning. External systems handle the specialized computations, constraints, and verification. Instead of forcing the model to know and calculate everything internally, you give it access to the right information and tools at the right time. And here's where it gets even more interesting: the same loop can become a data-generation pipeline. You can collect the model's predictions, simulation results, corrections, and successfully verified outcomes, filter them for quality, and turn them into training examples. That gives you a way to fine-tune or distill task-specific capabilities back into the smaller model, potentially reducing its dependence on external tools over time. So you're not just improving inference with a better harness. You're creating a feedback loop where the system can generate useful training signals to help the model specialize. Smaller models. Better harnesses. External verification. High-quality training data. Continuous refinement. To me, that's the interesting direction: building more capable systems through better architectures and tighter feedback loops, rather than relying exclusively on parameter count.
Unpopular opinion: Hermes + deepseek-v4.1-flash is better than Claude Code + Fable 5
1
38
My current setup Hermes from @NousResearch and Bonsai from @PrismML
6
💯🎯
PREDICTION - Small models will dominate AI With compute being super scarce and expensive It will become impossible to use big models ubiquitously Small models will rapidly improve and be used for everything 🔥
7
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
PREDICTION - Small models will dominate AI With compute being super scarce and expensive It will become impossible to use big models ubiquitously Small models will rapidly improve and be used for everything 🔥
88
12
3
172
8,511
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
Stop calling Elon Musk crazy He's taking risks you'll never have the courage to take
471
189
38
2,466
33,182
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
We’re about to witness a massive wave of anti-AI people completely flipping their stance. And the best part? They’ll pretend they were never against it in the first place.
38
12
2
303
4,883
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
ok @VictorTaelin we are all rooting for you to get funded massively but let’s be careful here. from my non-securities lawyer layman notes, you have two options: 1) Raise the minimum investment to $200k, plus do the filings (Reg D) necessary. At $100k minimum the accredited investor verification requirements are higher. or 2) Scrap this raise, delete the tweet, do not sign any SAFE, do not raise for another 30 days at all, and after that raise a round in private from a fresh VC perspective far disconnected from this general solicitation in both cases - now need legal advice. alternatively this comes back to bite in the future.
Replying to @VictorTaelin
guys I'm not doing more pitch meetings, sorry :( if you're interested just send your desired allocation to my email the deck is at: bend-lang.com/deck.pdf locking in now, see you
12
4
314
33,057
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
Rip the concrete out and throw it at your enemies
48
62
6
1,152
80,416
미국 데이터센터 규제에 이어 태국도 166곳 중단, 말레이시아는 저효율 센터 영구 퇴출, 인도네시아까지 공사 스톱까지 도미노 셧다운이 터졌음. 값싼 땅과 전기를 보고 빅테크들이 몰려간 아시아 최대 건설 기지였는데, 가동되자마자 지역 전력의 24%와 하루 2,500만 명분 식수를 빨아먹으며 주민 반발이 터져 나오면서 큰 문제로 번진 거임. 수십조 원짜리 투자를 약속했던 데이터센터가 왜 불과 몇 달 만에 물과 전기를 축내는 골칫덩이 취급을 받게 된 걸까? 그 내막을 정리해 봄. 1. 싱가포르가 문을 닫자 몰려간 풍선효과 - 원래 동남아시아 데이터센터의 중심지는 싱가포르였음. 하지만 물과 전기를 너무 많이 먹는다는 이유로 싱가포르 정부가 2019년부터 2022년까지 신규 허가를 전면 중단했고, 이후 3년(2023~2026년) 동안에도 고작 95MW만 제한적으로 승인해 주는 데 그쳤음. - 그러자 갈 곳 잃은 마이크로소프트·틱톡 같은 글로벌 빅테크들이 땅값 싸고 인허가가 빠른 말레이시아·태국·인도네시아로 우르르 몰려갔고, 그 결과 현재 아시아·태평양 지역에서 새로 짓고 있는 전체 데이터센터 용량의 절반(약 50%)이 동남아에 집중되는 기현상이 벌어짐. - 특히 태국은 올해 초만 해도 틱톡 등으로부터 270억 달러(약 38조 원) 규모의 데이터센터 투자를 승인하며 대대적으로 반겼지만 불과 몇 달 만인 지난 9월, 규제와 감시 체계가 미비하다며 이미 짓고 있던 데이터센터 49곳의 공사를 일시 중단시키고 대기 중이던 117곳의 승인 심사까지 총 166곳을 한꺼번에 동결해 버림. - 이웃 나라 인도네시아에서도 가장 인구가 많은 서자바주 주지사가 환경영향평가와 건축 허가 미비를 이유로 건설 중이던 640MW급 대형 데이터센터 공사를 중단시키며 브레이크를 걸었음. 2. 전력의 24%와 2,500만 명분 식수를 빨아먹는 열대 지방의 냉각 재앙 - 돈 싸 들고 찾아온 빅테크들을 동남아 정부들이 스스로 막아서기 시작한 가장 큰 이유는 감당 불가능한 전기와 물 소비량 때문임. - 싱가포르 바로 위쪽에 붙어 있어 누적 400억 달러(약 56조 원)의 투자를 빨아들인 말레이시아 조호르주는 2023년 94MW였던 데이터센터 가동 용량이 올해 1,110MW로 3년 만에 10배 넘게 폭증했음(추가 건설·계획 물량만 3,088MW). - 문제는 이 데이터센터들이 이미 조호르주 전체 전력 소비의 24%를 집어삼키고 있고, 2035년이면 주 전체 전기의 40%를 가져갈 판이라는 점임. 태국 에너지부 장관 역시 데이터센터 때문에 비싼 수입 가스를 태워 전기를 만들어야 한다며 데이터센터 전용 고율 전기요금제 신설을 요구하고 나섬. - 더 치명적인 건 물 부족임. 덥고 습한 열대 저지대에 지어진 데이터센터들은 서버 열을 식히려고 막대한 양의 물을 증발시키는데, 실제로 마이크로소프트가 공개한 자료에서도 아시아·태평양 지역 데이터센터의 전력 효율이 전 세계 MS 시설 중 가장 떨어지는 것으로 나타남. - 물 소모가 심한 1·2등급 데이터센터는 하루에만 2,500만 명이 마실 수 있는 식수(최대 5,000만 리터)를 퍼먹는데 이 때문에 가뭄이 잦은 말레이시아 조호르주는 해당 등급의 신규 승인을 아예 영구 불허해 버렸고, 태국 동부 촌부리에서도 바닥난 저수지 물을 산업단지로 끌어다 쓰자 주민들의 거센 반발이 터져 나온 거임. 3. 수십조 원을 쏟아부어도 일자리는 없는 공장, 전 세계가 마주한 물리적 한계 - 여기에 주민들과 지자체가 등을 돌린 결정적인 이유가 하나 더 있음. 일반 제조 공장이나 물류센터는 땅과 전기를 내주면 수천 명의 지역 주민을 채용하지만, 데이터센터는 건설 공사가 끝나고 서버만 돌아가기 시작하면 상주 인력이 극소수에 불과함. - 싱가포르 리콴유 공공정책대학원의 지적처럼, 지역 사회의 땅과 전기, 식수는 대기업 공장 수준으로 독식하면서 정작 주민들에게 돌아가는 장기 일자리는 턱없이 적다 보니 주민 시위가 터지고 지자체들도 계산기를 다시 두드리게 된 거임. - 발등에 불이 떨어진 말레이시아의 주요 데이터센터 기업들은 식수 대신 버려지는 하수처리장 폐수를 정화해 냉각수로 쓰는 전용 파이프와 재생 시설을 직접 짓기 시작했고, 태국과 말레이시아 정부도 자체 전력 확보와 물 재활용 대책 없이는 신규 허가를 내주지 않겠다고 기준을 대폭 강화했음. 미국 내 데이터센터 물량의 45%가 전력난과 주민 반발에 발목이 잡힌 데 이어, 대체지로 찾아간 동남아시아마저 몇 달 만에 전기와 물이 동나며 멈춰 서고 있음. 돈만 있으면 엔비디아 칩을 사 모아서 지구 어디든 데이터센터를 세울 수 있을 것 같았지만 현실은 달랐음. AI 경쟁의 승패는 누가 더 비싼 칩을 많이 사느냐가 아니라, 변압기와 송전망, 그리고 냉각수 같은 가장 기본적인 실물 인프라의 문제를 해결하고 데이터센터의 물리적인 한계를 누가 더 빨리 극복하는 가에 따라 갈라질 수 있다는 것임.
162
1,448
252
4,286
626,900
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
People think if AI disappears tomorrow, the world just resets to 3 years ago. Are you serious? The trillions poured into big AI labs are only the tip of the iceberg. Right now, almost all global capital is flowing into AI and the industries around it. Thousands of random wrapper startups you have never heard of are raising billions just by slapping AI on their name. Where do you think all this money came from? It came from everyday people's pensions and banks around the world. If this pops, it is another Great Depression. It will make the Dot-com bubble and Lehman Brothers look small.
85
37
5
362
18,749
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
Stanford researchers gave an 8B language model 108× fewer document tokens. It became more accurate at verifying facts. The project is called Memorilla, an open-source memory system that lets LLMs use large collections of documents through just 16 learned memory tokens. Instead of repeatedly feeding an entire document collection into the context window, Memorilla encodes documents once and stores their embeddings. When a question arrives, a trainable memory module attends to the collection and produces 16 query-dependent vectors that the frozen LLM can read directly. The results are particularly interesting. On the FactKG benchmark, using the same Qwen3-8B model: → Full document context: 80.43% accuracy → Memorilla with 16 memory tokens: 84.33% accuracy → Document tokens passed to the LLM: 108× fewer Across eight benchmarks covering personalization, factual reasoning, and long-document QA, Memorilla achieved the highest average score among the evaluated methods. The approach isn't lossless. It can struggle with exact names and fine-grained facts that ordinary retrieval handles better. But the research demonstrates something worth studying: giving an LLM access to more text doesn't necessarily mean it will make better use of the information. The code, training recipes, and pretrained checkpoints are publicly available. Here's the GitHub Repo: github.com/snap-stanford/mem…
16
34
6
278
9,906
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
量子计算的泡沫破灭了? Physical Superintelligence(PSI)通过AI系统成功证明了困扰量子计算领域近二十年的阿伦森-安拜尼斯猜想(Aaronson-Ambainis conjecture)。 学界长期无法从数学上确定,量子计算机在处理毫无规律的随机数据时,究竟能不能比普通计算机展现出巨大的计算速度优势。 PSI团队自主搭建了一套研究系统,在自有的计算基础设施上运行未公开的Anthropic模型,并结合Lean交互式定理证明器对每一步推导进行计算机级严格验证。 系统在运行第三天就找到了完整证明,并连续两次自我完善成果,最终全部通过Lean的验证。这一结论彻底确立为数学定理,证实量子计算机面对随机数据并不会产生指数级加速,普通计算机通过读取少数关键位就能以多项式级工作量模拟该过程,量子计算唯有面对高度特定规律的数据才能形成碾压优势,为整个量子计算的基础理论划定了明确边界。 PSI研究主页:psi.inc/research/aaronson-am…
63
73
20
432
66,950
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
Permanent underclass is dead OpenAI shaking
Introducing Inkling 2 Small. Scoring 31 on the AA Intelligence Index, it's a big jump over its predecessor. Inkling 2 Small is available for fine-tuning and inference on Tinker today, with full weight release planned soon. thinkingmachines.ai/news/ink…
19
27
1
1,251
74,999
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
Replying to @WSJPolitics
SpaceX and Tesla have prospered in Texas, because we were not constantly operating under an oppressive and extractive state government. And I need to be close to the factories, so that I can walk the floor in person. That’s why the first major SpaceX factory was in LA and first major Tesla factory was in SF Bay Area. As California became increasingly difficult, due to extreme taxes and overregulation, we moved our major domestic expansions and HQ to Texas.
3,623
4,994
350
74,690
3,289,298
❖Prisma Dimensional❖ retweeted
Elon Musk tried to build an entire empire in California But California's dumb politicians had other plans. They made life so difficult for his companies that Texas ended up getting their headquarters and major expansions These politicians really went out of their way to demonstrate their IQ to the entire world with this one
Replying to @WSJPolitics
SpaceX and Tesla have prospered in Texas, because we were not constantly operating under an oppressive and extractive state government. And I need to be close to the factories, so that I can walk the floor in person. That’s why the first major SpaceX factory was in LA and first major Tesla factory was in SF Bay Area. As California became increasingly difficult, due to extreme taxes and overregulation, we moved our major domestic expansions and HQ to Texas.
41
115
7
621
23,531