model

I trained a small transformer from scratch in 1.5hrs on a 5090
Beats many LLMs, and scores the same as TRM/HRM

Despite appearances, perhaps the internal representations of neural networks implicitly realize symbolic structure. In support of this hypothesis, we show that the vector representations of a variety of neural networks can be closely approximated with symbolic structures: we can replace the network's entire representation-generating process with a closed-form equation instantiating a symbolic structure, and the network's behavior remains largely unchanged.

a turn by turn context awareness enables a context engineering mindset. mastering llms is all about mastering malloc().

I no longer have a firm mental model of what they can do and how they work, which means each additional feature becomes harder to reason about, eventually leading me to lose the ability to make confident decisions about where to go next.

And so generating code is not necessarily the part that you need to worry about the most. Given enough context, agents can write the implementation and run the tests and inspect failure and revise code for us. We need to get to a place where we feel like there is enough of human taste encoded in the environment that we can trust what is being built, so that our human attention can be focused on the places where it’s needed most.

Global workspace theory,4 or GWT, describes the human brain as a collection of specialized modules sharing data through a central, limited capacity bottleneck. Most machine learning architectures already satisfy the first three indicators5 of this theory. However, they consistently fail to implement GWT-4, the requirement for temporal persistence. To address this, we use the framework of computational self-availability, or CSA. This describes a system where internal processing is available as an input to the system itself.

Comprehension debt is the growing gap between how much code exists in your system and how much of it any human being genuinely understands.

Dr. Margaret-Anne Storey, professor of computer science at the University of Victoria, first used the term ‘cognitive debt’ in October 2025 while teaching an entrepreneurship startup course. She had encouraged her students to use AI to move faster, and that worked well: the students were putting products into the hands of users and getting feedback. However, they were struggling with implementing that feedback back into their product.

Cognitive debt, a term gaining traction recently, instead communicates the notion that the debt compounded from going fast lives in the brains of the developers and affects their lived experiences and abilities to “go fast” or to make changes. Even if AI agents produce code that could be easy to understand, the humans involved may have simply lost the plot and may not understand what the program is supposed to do, how their intentions were implemented, or how to possibly change it.

We argue that coding agents have crossed a threshold of capability at which traditional human code review is no longer a necessary component of a software quality pipeline. Our argument rests on two claims: every stated goal of code review can be served by agents at lower cost and higher throughput; the naive integration in which agents write code and humans remain the mandatory reviewers is a dead end because it neither provides meaningful assurance nor scales with AI-assisted throughput.

We conduct randomized experiments to study how developers gained mastery of a new asynchronous programming library with and without the assistance of AI. We find that AI use impairs conceptual understanding, code reading, and debugging abilities, without delivering significant efficiency gains on average. Participants who fully delegated coding tasks showed some productivity improvements, but at the cost of learning the library. We identify six distinct AI interaction patterns, three of which involve cognitive engagement and preserve learning outcomes even when participants receive AI assistance. Our findings suggest that AI-enhanced productivity is not a shortcut to competence and AI assistance should be carefully adopted into workflows to preserve skill formation -- particularly in safety-critical domains.

Drawing on telemetry from over 10,000 developers across 1,255 teams, Faros’ recent landmark research report confirms:
Developers using AI are writing more code and completing more tasks
Developers using AI are parallelizing more workstreams
AI-augmented code is getting bigger and buggier, and shifting the bottleneck to review
Any correlation between AI adoption and key performance metrics evaporates at the company level

Extensive qualitative analysis of enterprise software engineers reveals that AI’s impact on the SDLC is not a simple linear improvement. Instead, it presents a series of profound tradeoffs. While AI successfully accelerates initial code generation and reduces the friction of starting new tasks, the time saved in creation is frequently re-allocated to auditing and verification. This tension may explain some of our own findings: higher AI adoption is associated with an increase in both software delivery throughput and software delivery instability.

The 2026 GenAI Code Security Report found that roughly 44% of AI code generation tasks introduced a risky security vulnerability in tests. The average security pass rate across models is 56% – barely changed from 55% in the first report. In other words, security performance has stayed flat while the amount of AI-generated code entering pipelines has surged.
That is why GenAI code security is now a scale problem, not a theoretical risk discussion. If AI is responsible for half the codebase and vulnerable output remains this common, every organization needs a sharper strategy for model selection, verification, remediation, and governance.

Reviewing AI generated code can be tough, especially if the code generated is solving a particularly complex problem. Even if the code is correct, it can be hard to understand how exactly it works. When working with other human programmers, I would generally ask them to walk me through their code, and I would ask questions about why they made certain decisions as we go. I wanted a similar process for reviewing AI generated code. After a lot of exploring, I've found a combination that works well for me.

AI-assisted code authorship has continued its rapid ascent, and the most motivated developers are shipping more code than ever. But four years of code-change data suggest maintainability signals sliding backward: cross-file function calls (indicative of reuse) are down 35%. Refactoring line moves are down 70%, and long-term legacy maintenance is down 74% vs 2022 levels. Concurrently, we observe a concerning rise in within-commit copy/paste (+41%), code block duplication (+81%), error-masking constructs (+47%), and two-week code churn (+15%). The throughput is real, but so is the debt it accrues, and that debt concentrates among developers who haven’t recognized the failure modes that endanger long-term repo maintainability.

The core insight is this: AI agents don’t save you time by finishing your work. They expose how much work was always possible but never attempted. Five constraints now govern how much of that backlog any organization can actually capture: judgment, planning, coordination, evaluation, and absorption. Understanding those five constraints tells you exactly which new roles are being created and why.

Building the infrastructure to make verification routine is now a national-scale engineering problem.

If you cannot articulate what success looks like in a way that can be evaluated, no amount of autonomous execution will produce it. Agents cannot clarify requirements they are never given. They will fill the gaps with assumptions, and those assumptions compound.

If you put all these things together:- RLHF = training the model to be likable by humans- RLVR = training the model to be accepted by machines- RLVR is more scalable- "Alignment tax" says "likable by humans" makes the model do worse on verifiable tasks

If this continues, there’s a world where 3rd party harnesses become less valuable when used with frontier lab models because the 1st party harness behavior is already baked in. And there’s no longer a fine tuning escape hatch to generalize this behavior away.

The conclusion I draw is that empathy in these systems is not an inherent state but a manufactured quantity.

I get pushback that falling inference prices will eventually bring us back to sending everything through the largest models. But I’m not so sure: those same gains will benefit the K3s and Qwens, and as we continue to develop better harnesses it will be easier to provide weaker (but still great) models with sufficient context to perform well.