Naval(@naval)

Models are the last moat in software. AI can train on essays and rewrite them. AI can decompile sof...

Naval (@naval) — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 01:46:25 GMT

Models are the last moat in software.

AI can train on essays and rewrite them. AI can decompile software and recode it. AI can ingest art and recreate it.

But AI itself doesn’t want to be “distilled.”

Expect more software to retreat to the server and resist “distillation.”

Eric S. Raymond@esrtweet

This is the doom I predicted a few days ago, coming for Photoshop. A clean-room open-source reimplementation.

No prizes for guessing that they decompiled Photoshop to source code, processed that to some kind of non-code specification language, then fed the spec to an LLM with an instruction to generate Rust.

Adobe just got nuked. And closed source is dead, dead, dead.

github.com/storytold/phot…

🔗 View Quoted Tweet

💬317🔄369❤️5688👀846028📊887

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

When you look back, you’ll wish you’d just done the long-term version of everything.

Naval (@naval) — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 09:43:12 GMT

When you look back, you’ll wish you’d just done the long-term version of everything.

💬800🔄7002❤️54377👀2724967📊7663

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

No one can fill the hole left by another human.

Naval (@naval) — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 17:35:38 GMT

No one can fill the hole left by another human.

💬626🔄1118❤️15682👀823889📊2045

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Every functioning institution is merit-based, not participation-based.

Naval (@naval) — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 02:17:16 GMT

Every functioning institution is merit-based, not participation-based.

💬462🔄2223❤️19447👀629896📊2432

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

@JordanSchachtel “The UN! How many GPUs have they got?”

Naval (@naval) — Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:38:28 GMT

@JordanSchachtel “The UN! How many GPUs have they got?”

💬21🔄16❤️228👀18069📊36

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

People who want to appear moral are attracted to the left. People who want to appear rational are a...

Naval (@naval) — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 07:03:37 GMT

People who want to appear moral are attracted to the left.

People who want to appear rational are attracted to the right.

Effective Altruism lets you appear rational and moral - the ultimate ego trip.

💬607🔄1336❤️18427👀723522📊2470

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

@EliBenSasson @matthuang That’s completely reasonable.

Naval (@naval) — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 04:34:45 GMT

@EliBenSasson@matthuang That’s completely reasonable.

💬4🔄4❤️126👀18243📊16

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

The future is more likely AIs fighting AIs (on behalf of humans) than AI fighting humanity.

Naval (@naval) — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 15:45:21 GMT

The future is more likely AIs fighting AIs (on behalf of humans) than AI fighting humanity.

💬908🔄969❤️12502👀539152📊1904

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

For “dangerous” or weakly-guarded open source models, hold the hosts liable. Of course the end user...

Naval (@naval) — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 14:44:39 GMT

For “dangerous” or weakly-guarded open source models, hold the hosts liable.

Of course the end user holds liability as well if they are jailbreaking models to do harmful things.

💬58🔄53❤️1131👀117188📊140

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

The best way to pace the frontier is to hold the labs fully liable for the behavior of their models.

Naval (@naval) — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 14:42:36 GMT

The best way to pace the frontier is to hold the labs fully liable for the behavior of their models.

💬931🔄1947❤️21404👀1290338📊2822

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

If AI is risky like fire is risky, then you want everyone to have it. If AI is risky like a nuclear...

Naval (@naval) — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 07:42:13 GMT

If AI is risky like fire is risky, then you want everyone to have it.

If AI is risky like a nuclear weapon is risky, then you want no one to have it.

Yishan@yishan

Maybe you have recently become aware of the AI safety debate and the arguments swirling around it.

If you want to understand them, you need to understand a couple things that almost everyone gets wrong:

There are TWO distinct classes of AI dangers, and it's VERY important to think about them separately, and not let one confuse you about the other.  

Many many people (including many quite intelligent, clear-thinking people) do not effectively understand the fundamental differences between these two classes of dangers.

The first one has to do with the theory that an AI far superior to human intelligence (Artificial SuperIntelligence, or ASI) will inevitably wipe out the human race.

The second one has to do with the idea that powerful AI will result in very harmful things happening to many human beings, possibly all human beings.

Those two sound VERY similar, don't they?

They are DIFFERENT.  Understanding how they are different is crucial if you want to think about or contribute usefully to any conversation about AI safety or AI harm.  You might feel like you are Making Very Good Points or Asking Incisive Questions, but if you aren't clear on the differences between the two, you aren't.  

So, I'm going to tell you what the difference is so that you can talk more usefully.

The first one concerns itself with a very specific thing, which is ASI (Artificial Superintelligence) that is more intelligent than any human being.  When I say that, I am not referring to a thing like how Einstein is smarter than you, we are talking more about something like how a human being is more intelligent than any mouse.  

In our regular lives, we meet other people who we can tell are smarter than us, vs some who are less smart.  The line is fuzzy, because intelligence has a lot of dimensions. I'm better at a "rotating shapes" kind of intelligence than my wife, and she is better at "words-making" kind of intelligence than I am.

But every human is better in almost every dimension of intelligence than every single mouse.

That's the level we're talking about: an artificial superintelligence - made up of a computer or a network of computers -  that is more intelligent than any human.  And more intelligent by a long shot, by a wide margin, in an indisputable way like how humans are above mice.

That is the first thing.  

The theory says that if you have an AI that is vastly smarter than all humans - in the way that a human is smarter than mice - that superintelligent AI will inevitably, eventually, sooner or later, wipe out every human on the planet. 

We will refer to this as "existential risk."

The common follow-up question "well, how exactly is it going to do that?" is NOT the important question, and one of the most important elements of understanding this theory is first getting why that particular question is not important.  A couple analogies:

Analogy 1: You are playing chess against a grandmaster.  My theory predicts the grandmaster is going to beat you.  You can ask "Well, how exactly is he going to do that?"  I don't know, because I'm not a grandmaster, I just know that a chess grandmaster is almost always going to beat a normal player like you.  And I'd be right.  So the question "how is he going to do that" is not important, and doesn't affect the final outcome.  He's going to figure out a way because he's way better than you.

Analogy 2: Humans are smarter than all other animals, comprehensively, by a wide margin.  We have driven numerous species to extinction, not because we hated them or hunted them.  Many of them have died out without most humans even ever thinking about them.  All we did was expand our civilization, use up resources, encroach on habitats, and pretty soon the resources needed by those species went away and they died out.  We figured out a way to get what we wanted because we're way smarter than them, and often we didn't even notice they died as a result.

A lesser animal asking, "how are the humans going to wipe us out?" is not asking a relevant question.  We don't know, but we do know that any time humans and lesser species compete for any kind of resources, the humans will win.  The fact that we know who is going to win beforehand - and that it is due to the vastly different levels of intelligence - is the key concept here.

A vastly more intelligent AI is likely to care about things that are incomprehensible to us, the way animals can't understand human goals.  It's going to need resources to pursue those goals and it's going to be far more effective at gaining control of them and excluding us from them - in the same way that we are far more effective than other lower species.  

A much more intelligent AI will not care about our interests, it will care about its interests, and to whatever small degree we happen to escape total annihilation from losing access to all our resources, any remaining humans will likely be enslaved into a system that serves the AI's own purposes.

That is the first thing.  (Remember how I said at the beginning of this post that there was a first thing, and then a second thing?)

The first thing is the most difficult to understand, because you have to extrapolate how a vastly superior intelligence would act, and you can only use analogies like "how do humans treat lesser creatures," and the analogies are messy.

But now let's move on to the second thing.

The second thing is "everything else you've ever heard that AI might do that's harmful."

That's a little inaccurate.  It's actually "everything else you've ever heard that humans might use AI to do that's harmful."  

This is the critical difference.  The first one talks about the inevitable outcome of what happens when two vastly different levels of intelligence collide, e.g. ASI vs humans, or human vs mice.

The second one has to do with what happens when humans possess AI as a powerful tool.  This second thing is much easier to understand, because we have many more concrete notions:

Like:
- the military uses AI to make hyper-efficient killer drones and missiles
- your capitalist overlords use AI to replace you and everyone loses their jobs
- authoritarian government uses AI to surveil everybody and control the entire population
- hackers use AI to break into secure networks and hold companies and governments hostage
- students use AI to cheat on homework and show up to college knowing nothing
- AI slop saturates the internet and makes it impossible for artists and writers to make a living
- terrorists use AI to make biological or nuclear weapons

or even things like
- the military hands control to an AI and it misinterprets something and launches nuclear attacks and kills millions

All of those sound pretty familiar, right?  Yeah, you've heard them before.  We call this second thing "risks from misuse."

These problems are not the first class of problem!  This second class of problems exists while AI is a tool that can be controlled by humans, and humans use it to do evil or careless things to each other.  The problems may sound exotic or dystopian or novel, but they are fundamentally problems having to do with flawed human nature.

Given a powerful tool, some humans will likely use it to control or otherwise harm others.  This is a very familiar problem.

I am not condemning or condoning this. I'm just describing it.

That is a fundamentally different danger from the first thing, which is that when a human is far superior to a mouse, the mouse is likely to come to harm because the human cares about doing human things, and the mouse is not gonna make it once the humans get going.

=====

Hopefully from the above, you have understood the difference between the first thing and the second thing.  I will list them again - see if you now understand how they are different:

The first one has to do with the idea that an AI superior to human intelligence (Artificial SuperIntelligence, or ASI) will inevitably wipe out the human race.

The second one has to do with the idea that powerful AI will result in very harmful things happening to many human beings, possibly all human beings.

Can you tell how they are different now?

If not, re-read the stuff from earlier until you understand.

We call the first one "existential risk" and we call the second one "risks from misuse."

Once you understand, here is the CRUX of the problem:

SOLUTIONS TO THE SECOND THING DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SOLUTIONS TO THE FIRST THING.

In fact, it's worse:

Solutions to the second thing (misuse) look roughly like "give powerful AI to as many people as you can, so they can fight the other people using powerful AI."

But the general solution to the first one (existential risk) is basically "don't let anyone have powerful AI, no one can control super-intelligent AI."

Throughout history, harms from technological misuse typically arise because a small group has control of it and can use it to dominate or harm others.  Once everyone has it, things tend to stabilize: you can hurt me, I can hurt you, maybe we test each other (ouch 💥), and then we agree not to hurt each other.

But the first one (existential risk) pretty much just arises if anyone (good or bad!) creates a superintelligence.  Because they aren't going to be able to control it, the superintelligence will decide it has other priorities, and then we will be at great risk of being wiped out.

And the solutions that generally work to solve problems like the second thing are EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the ones likely to solve the first thing.

THIS is why lots of arguments about "AI risk" or "AI safety" go nowhere.  Because someone will be thinking about the risk from the first thing, and another person will be thinking about the risk from the second thing. Both are plausible risks but fundamentally they arise from different things - and so the solutions are not just "bad" or "flawed" - they are likely to be very nearly exact opposites.

🔗 View Quoted Tweet

💬465🔄432❤️5516👀615232📊785

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Original paper at: https://t.co/PYa0TlGaEt

Naval (@naval) — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 12:31:05 GMT

Original paper at:
catalini.com/research/some-…

💬23🔄22❤️216👀61913📊66

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

"When liability exposure approaches 0—when no one pays the price for unverified failures—verificatio...

Naval (@naval) — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 12:30:49 GMT

"When liability exposure approaches 0—when no one pays the price for unverified failures—verification budgets collapse...Deployers flood the Runaway Risk Zone with unmonitored agents, capturing the gains of automation while socializing catastrophic risks."

Christian Catalini@ccatalini

1/ When we looked at the economics of AGI, the key policy challenge was immediately clear:

AI drastically lowers the cost of execution for anything easy to verify. 

For everything else, verification is the bottleneck.

🔗 View Quoted Tweet

💬138🔄141❤️1430👀295824📊284

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Strong liability enforcement could be helpful in the AI debate. If your agent swarm goes rogue, yo...

Naval (@naval) — Sun, 13 Sep 2026 05:52:40 GMT

Strong liability enforcement could be helpful in the AI debate. 

If your agent swarm goes rogue, you’re liable.

If your weakly protected model gets jailbroken, you’re liable.

If you serve a weakly protected OSS model, you’re liable.

💬505🔄446❤️5573👀414301📊949

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

On the way to killing all of us, AI will likely kill some of us. In that case, who’s liable?

Naval (@naval) — Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:14:57 GMT

On the way to killing all of us, AI will likely kill some of us. 

In that case, who’s liable?

💬761🔄285❤️7169👀546086📊1205

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

The most important question is whether AI will be Godlike, Genius, or Jagged.

Naval (@naval) — Sun, 13 Sep 2026 01:38:34 GMT

The most important question is whether AI will be Godlike, Genius, or Jagged.

💬498🔄244❤️4661👀286424📊794

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

AI isn’t going away. Barring unprecedented global government coordination, it isn’t even slowing dow...

Naval (@naval) — Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:22:49 GMT

AI isn’t going away. Barring unprecedented global government coordination, it isn’t even slowing down.

The only real decision is whether to centralize power, or disperse it.

Do you fear the technology? Or a small number of people controlling the technology?

💬958🔄1315❤️12345👀1055288📊2052

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Challenge what they say, not who they are.

Naval (@naval) — Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:48:44 GMT

Challenge what they say, not who they are.

💬374🔄1039❤️11306👀362365📊1463

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

👇

Naval (@naval) — Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:31:24 GMT

👇

Nick@nickcammarata

the backlash to ai safety people is bizarre

"you’re just an anxious person" is the plausibly right criticism. instead it’s “you don’t believe any of this, you’re funded by a shadow cabal, and giving up equity and slowing down your own company is somehow your plan to get rich”

🔗 View Quoted Tweet

💬7🔄5❤️274👀145933📊25

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

OTOH, when the government tries to solve a problem, you end up with two problems.

Naval (@naval) — Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:27:05 GMT

OTOH, when the government tries to solve a problem, you end up with two problems.

💬44🔄73❤️1447👀122244📊161

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

I’m not an AI doomer, but my firsthand experience dating back to 2020 is that the researchers expres...

Naval (@naval) — Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:26:50 GMT

I’m not an AI doomer, but my firsthand experience dating back to 2020 is that the researchers expressing concerns are sincere. 

The closer they are to the research, the more worried they seem to be.

💬680🔄873❤️16010👀806091📊2029

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

The Frontier Lab flywheel is to get the smartest people to use the leading models. Then distill the...

Naval (@naval) — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 03:26:09 GMT

The Frontier Lab flywheel is to get the smartest people to use the leading models.

Then distill their inputs, your own model’s outputs, and resulting synthetic data and environments.

And the people have to use the leading models because they’re locked in mutual competition.

💬202🔄211❤️3444👀268908📊527

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Yesterday's AIs ate the Internet and became a patchwork mediocrity. Today's AI hunts and feasts up...

Naval (@naval) — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:11:44 GMT

Yesterday's AIs ate the Internet and became a patchwork mediocrity. 

Today's AI hunts and feasts upon the Mozarts, Einsteins, and Shakespeares of our age.

To birth a gang of ghostly geniuses that write our code, drive our cars, do our work, and run our world.

💬315🔄576❤️8680👀419684📊1148

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Children are free until they learn that there are constraints to the world, and then we call them ad...

Naval (@naval) — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:08:07 GMT

Children are free until they learn that there are constraints to the world, and then we call them adults.

💬458🔄1092❤️13558👀452017📊1726

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

When we see perfection in an idea, we call it truth. When we see it in a person, we call it love. ...

Naval (@naval) — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 06:37:58 GMT

When we see perfection in an idea, we call it truth.

When we see it in a person, we call it love.

When we see it in a thing, we call it beauty.

💬426🔄1215❤️11846👀441981📊1718

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

You’re here because an unbroken chain of your ancestors, from tadpoles to monkeys to now, replicated...

Naval (@naval) — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 02:22:11 GMT

You’re here because an unbroken chain of your ancestors, from tadpoles to monkeys to now, replicated. 

Don’t be the first one to miss the branch.

💬702🔄1383❤️14144👀8653430📊2407

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

One of the best recent podcasts on AI. Neil has a gift for explaining all of the jargon and insights...

Naval (@naval) — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 11:43:02 GMT

One of the best recent podcasts on AI. Neil has a gift for explaining all of the jargon and insights simply. 

(I’m not involved, just found it unusually educational).

Patrick OShaughnessy@patrick_oshag

Neil Movva (@neilmovva) started his career at Nvidia, working on GPUs and kernels, and has an unusually deep understanding of inference, from software to chips to power.

We spend a lot of time on each of those layers, how they connect, and where the important tradeoffs are.

What makes this conversation special is how detailed it is (like a 401-level class), yet Neil makes it remarkably clear and easy to follow.

Today he runs Sail Research, a company building infrastructure for agents to make tokens as cheap as possible.

We discuss:
- Latency versus throughput
- Why there are no bad chips, only bad pricing
- The end of kernel engineering
- Buying chips and power no one else wants
- New chip architectures
- Nvidia lore + his contrarian view of the company
- Open source and the frontier labs

I learned a ton. Enjoy!

TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Intro
0:38 Building a “Token Factory”
4:21 The Future of Background Agents
13:09 Nvidia and the GPU Stack
23:27 Chips, Memory, and Transformers
36:14 The Future of AI Training Data
44:32 Chip Scarcity and Compute Arbitrage
52:44 Reinventing the AI Data Center
59:01 Power and the “Scavenger Strategy”
1:10:10 Open vs. Closed AI

Your browser does not support the video tag.

🔗 View on Twitter

🔗 View Quoted Tweet

💬164🔄1501❤️14875👀1702759📊3454

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

To love is to gain joy from another’s well-being.

Naval (@naval) — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 03:40:12 GMT

To love is to gain joy from another’s well-being.

💬620🔄3238❤️27032👀1219448📊3504

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

The left is on a project to enforce equality, despite biology and markets. The goal of equality gi...

Naval (@naval) — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 09:55:06 GMT

The left is on a project to enforce equality, despite biology and markets. 

The goal of equality gives claim to the moral high ground, but contradicting biology and markets requires censorship and violence, which makes the whole project immoral.

💬468🔄1939❤️16861👀517103📊2311

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

The people who want to censor (code, speech, money) are the bad guys.

Naval (@naval) — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 03:39:51 GMT

The people who want to censor (code, speech, money) are the bad guys.

💬427🔄1663❤️17751👀509432📊2084

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Frontier Labs are incented to be fearful as it provides a moral justification for staying closed. C...

Naval (@naval) — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 13:27:21 GMT

Frontier Labs are incented to be fearful as it provides a moral justification for staying closed.

Chinese Labs take the consistent position of doing what’s good for all and being open.

So the little guys find themselves in the uncomfortable position of rooting for the Chinese…

💬319🔄250❤️4999👀359424📊711

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Immortality, meaning, and love are readily available - they’re just running around disguised as chil...

Naval (@naval) — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 06:20:18 GMT

Immortality, meaning, and love are readily available - they’re just running around disguised as children.

💬302🔄1503❤️14675👀723180📊1905

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

The time to be most ambitious is when you have nothing to lose or nothing left to gain.

Naval (@naval) — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 05:59:26 GMT

The time to be most ambitious is when you have nothing to lose or nothing left to gain.

💬465🔄3666❤️31878👀720187📊4090

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Grok Bot is just cool. 😎 Of course an agent should be persistent. Of course it should have its ow...

Naval (@naval) — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 17:53:03 GMT

Grok Bot is just cool. 😎

Of course an agent should be persistent.

Of course it should have its own computer.

All that remains is for it to be embodied…

💬387🔄400❤️8415👀3278842📊1100

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Eventually, all UI will be chat and gestures in, chat and video out.

Naval (@naval) — Wed, 19 Aug 2026 23:20:50 GMT

Eventually, all UI will be chat and gestures in, chat and video out.

💬620🔄320❤️6975👀551873📊1191

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

https://t.co/vDgIxDD1sO

Naval (@naval) — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 01:02:47 GMT

✌.com

Guillermo Rauch@rauchg

▲.to

🔗 View Quoted Tweet

💬106🔄63❤️2804👀1320804📊344

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Don’t send me the report, just send me the prompt.

Naval (@naval) — Mon, 17 Aug 2026 08:48:34 GMT

Don’t send me the report, just send me the prompt.

💬550🔄642❤️11628👀654704📊1521

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

California has the ultimate privilege - a monopoly on all of the warm, dry coastline in the most pow...

Naval (@naval) — Sun, 16 Aug 2026 09:39:02 GMT

California has the ultimate privilege - a monopoly on all of the warm, dry coastline in the most powerful empire in the world.

💬468🔄538❤️16220👀976590📊1782

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

You cannot create God and put him on a leash.

Naval (@naval) — Sat, 15 Aug 2026 08:57:33 GMT

You cannot create God and put him on a leash.

💬1603🔄1446❤️16538👀9172586📊2971

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Literally nobody has been held accountable for Covid.

Naval (@naval) — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 11:11:24 GMT

Literally nobody has been held accountable for Covid.

💬1439🔄3422❤️46978👀1453401📊5292

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

People who are serious about software train their own models.

Naval (@naval) — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 01:27:02 GMT

People who are serious about software train their own models.

💬678🔄712❤️11878👀1324995📊1772

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Open-source AI models do not threaten frontier lab profitability. The most valuable sectors of the ...

Naval (@naval) — Sat, 08 Aug 2026 08:47:57 GMT

Open-source AI models do not threaten frontier lab profitability.

The most valuable sectors of the economy - investing, product development, war, cybersecurity, even scientific discovery - are adversarial and competitive in nature.

You pay to win, or someone else will.

💬321🔄352❤️5327👀494390📊816

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

The hierarchy of desire: - The fame - The money - The team - The product - The work itself

Naval (@naval) — Fri, 07 Aug 2026 20:11:45 GMT

The hierarchy of desire:
- The fame
- The money
- The team
- The product
- The work itself

💬431🔄1011❤️13722👀669481📊1956

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Agent Programming Interface.

Naval (@naval) — Mon, 03 Aug 2026 03:22:57 GMT

Agent Programming Interface.

💬379🔄376❤️6760👀589022📊959

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Every “save the world” scheme starts by handing the money and power to the schemers first.

Naval (@naval) — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 13:29:45 GMT

Every “save the world” scheme starts by handing the money and power to the schemers first.

💬345🔄970❤️10891👀438201📊1327

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Drones vs interceptors is not an even matchup - it’s like guns vs armored vests. The attacker gets ...

Naval (@naval) — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 12:45:23 GMT

Drones vs interceptors is not an even matchup - it’s like guns vs armored vests.

The attacker gets surprise, gravity, & force concentration.

Jamming and EMPs can’t stop hardened autonomous bullets 

The logic of MAD brought to individuals.

If you can see it, you can kill it.

💬137🔄103❤️2525👀330023📊349

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

If there were backdoors and biases hidden in open-weight models, you could count on closed-weight la...

Naval (@naval) — Sun, 26 Jul 2026 16:31:10 GMT

If there were backdoors and biases hidden in open-weight models, you could count on closed-weight labs to find and reveal them.

💬310🔄370❤️7940👀511293📊955

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

Don’t sell anything you wouldn’t want your children to buy.

Naval (@naval) — Sat, 25 Jul 2026 21:38:18 GMT

Don’t sell anything you wouldn’t want your children to buy.

💬827🔄2981❤️31368👀2010187📊4014

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

It doesn’t matter if open source software is developed by the CCP, the NSA, the Jews, ISIS, MAGA, AN...

Naval (@naval) — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 18:55:27 GMT

It doesn’t matter if open source software is developed by the CCP, the NSA, the Jews, ISIS, MAGA, ANTIFA, or the Illuminati.

It’s open source - just audit and run it yourself. 

They can send me gold bricks too, as long as they’re at it.

💬355🔄755❤️12265👀790064📊1458

⚡ Powered by xgo.ing

@signulll Not to mention that American labs distill too. They just launder it through data providers...

Naval (@naval) — Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:32:27 GMT

@signulll Not to mention that American labs distill too. They just launder it through data providers and openrouter data.

💬12🔄20❤️593👀25414📊59