<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Josiah Khor</title>
    <link>https://josiahkhor.com/</link>
    <description>1 part experiment, 1 part a more permanent and public replacement for keeping approximately 100 tabs open in my browser at all times.</description>
    <atom:link href="https://josiahkhor.com/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is boring and dangerous</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-semantic-ablation-why-ai-writing-is-boring-and-dangerous</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-semantic-ablation-why-ai-writing-is-boring-and-dangerous</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2026 12:35:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is boring and dangerous](https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/02/16/semantic-ablation-why-ai-writing-is-boring-and-dangerous/4414930)

Another one in the vein of [Why the AI Renaissance Keeps Not Arriving](/2026-06-14-why-the-ai-renaissance-keeps-not-arriving), but a little (maybe more than a little) rantier. But I like these terms for what is happening: semantic ablation and manifold collapse.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I don&apos;t think AI will make your processes go faster</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-i-dont-think-ai-will-make-your-processes-go-faster</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-i-dont-think-ai-will-make-your-processes-go-faster</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2026 12:28:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[I don't think AI will make your processes go faster](https://frederickvanbrabant.com/blog/2026-05-15-i-dont-think-ai-will-make-your-processes-go-faster/)

>This ... is what software developers have been begging for since the beginning of the profession: Receiving a detailed outline of the problem and what the end result should look like.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Normalization of Deviance in AI</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-the-normalization-of-deviance-in-ai</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-the-normalization-of-deviance-in-ai</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2026 12:15:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[The Normalization of Deviance in AI](https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2025/the-normalization-of-deviance-in-ai/)

> Such a drift does not happen through a single reckless decision. It happens through a series of “temporary” shortcuts that quietly become the new baseline. Because systems continue to work, teams stop questioning the shortcuts, and the deviation becomes invisible and the new norm.
>
>Especially under competitive pressure for automation, cost savings, a drive to be first, and the overall hype, this dangerous drift is evident. The incentives for speed and winning outweigh the incentives for foundational security. Over time, organizations forget why the guardrails existed in the first place.

This was written a while ago (December 2025 - 6 months ago), so the examples are a little out of date. One from the past month: Instagram accounts were "hacked" by asking Meta's chatbot ... for the account? [More or less.](https://www.404media.co/hackers-simply-asked-meta-ai-to-give-them-access-to-high-profile-instagram-accounts-it-worked/)]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why the AI Renaissance Keeps Not Arriving</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-why-the-ai-renaissance-keeps-not-arriving</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-why-the-ai-renaissance-keeps-not-arriving</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2026 11:03:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[Why the AI Renaissance Keeps Not Arriving](https://jamesfbaker.substack.com/p/why-the-ai-renaissance-keeps-not)

> Every brainstorm is the same brainstorm-shaped object and every essay has the same skeleton. Put simply, the outputs are locally excellent and globally identical.
>
>I call this manifold collapse. The model never explores the whole landscape of possible ideas. It circles a small, well-worn region of it, and inside that region it travels what I think of as latent grooves, a few deep and reliable paths it falls into no matter how you phrase the request.
>
>A system trained to satisfy consensus hands you the median of everything humanity has tried, instantly. That feels like genius exactly once.

If AI is lifting your quality and not just your efficiency, then you might have been below average before.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How building an HTML-first site doubled our users overnight</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-how-building-an-html-first-site-doubled-our-users-overnight</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-how-building-an-html-first-site-doubled-our-users-overnight</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2026 10:58:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[How building an HTML-first site doubled our users overnight](https://mohkohn.co.uk/writing/html-first/)

>I have nothing against heavily client-side applications, in their place. But this is just a big form - it’s not showing real-time data. Our user could be standing in the middle of a field on a new-build housing estate, holding a decade-old commodity android phone they bought in Tesco. Shipping them 20MB of javascript before we even render a form would be a ridiculous thing to do.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CEOs Who Think AI Replaces Their Employees Are Just Bad CEOs</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-ceos-who-think-ai-replaces-their-employees-are-just-bad-ceos</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-ceos-who-think-ai-replaces-their-employees-are-just-bad-ceos</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2026 10:55:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[CEOs Who Think AI Replaces Their Employees Are Just Bad CEOs](https://www.techdirt.com/2026/06/09/ceos-who-think-ai-replaces-their-employees-are-just-bad-ceos/)

>Making things work is different than making things work well. Or well at scale. Or well at scale in a specific environment. Obviously, it depends on the kind of project and what it’s being designed to do, but oftentimes the reason a company has a bunch of employees is to fill in the seemingly small, but incredibly important details that CEOs might not ever get much visibility into: things like security or legal compliance or accessibility or who knows what else.
>
>Using an agentic tool to build something that works is all well and good, but building a product for the mass market to use — and use well, and use safely — involves much, much more. Agentic coding tools can sometimes help with that too, but the leap from “I built a thing” to “therefore anyone can build a thing” misses the entire point of why you hire knowledgeable, experienced people in the first place. It’s also why I think the best case of these tools is building totally personalized tools to assist you in accomplishing a specific task, and not for building mass market tools.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pressure Without A Plan</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-pressure-without-a-plan</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-06-14-pressure-without-a-plan</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2026 10:42:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[Pressure Without A Plan](https://lethain.com/pressure-without-a-plan/)

> There was a lot of pressure to get things working, but no one knew what to do about it. It took almost a month to get it wholly functioning. It was not a pleasant month, with many false starts while we tried to dig out of launching an unfinished, desperate product... many leaders inject that sort of pressure [without a plan] into their teams as a routine management technique.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Tarek Loubani on 3D Printing in Gaza</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-05-05-seize-the-means-of-production</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-05-05-seize-the-means-of-production</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[Tarek Loubani on 3D Printing in Gaza](https://logicmag.io/bodies/tarek-loubani-on-3d-printing-in-gaza/)

> We didn’t really care about a name, but we needed one to apply for a medical license and The High-Quality, Low-Cost Open Access Medical Device Project just didn’t seem like the thing to write on that application.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AI got the blame for the Iran school bombing. The truth is far more worrying</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-04-27-ai-got-the-blame-iran-school-bombing</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-04-27-ai-got-the-blame-iran-school-bombing</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[AI got the blame for the Iran school bombing. The truth is far more worrying](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blame-for-the-iran-school-bombing-the-truth-is-far-more-worrying)

Lots of interesting and potentially controversial points depending on your leanings, but I think there is at least one potentially universal truth included:

> Personnel became disinclined to ask whether some targets were potential allies, or not actually bad guys at all, because producing targets meant participating in the hunt. The targeting guide had warned about this too. “If targeteers don’t provide full targeting service,” it read, “then other well meaning but undertrained and ill-experienced groups will step in.”

Unless your users are locked into your system by higher powers with no alternatives allowed, if you don't give them enough of what they want - no matter how objectively bad or risky it is, they will just ignore your system and/or exploit loopholes.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The L in LLM Stands for Lying</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-03-30-the-l-in-llm</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-03-30-the-l-in-llm</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[The L in LLM Stands for Lying](https://acko.net/blog/the-l-in-llm-stands-for-lying/)

> The salient difference here is whether an engineer has mostly spent their career solving problems created by other software, or solving problems people already had before there was any software at all. Only the latter will teach you to think about the constraints a problem actually has, and the needs of the users who solve it, which are always far messier than a novice would think.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-03-29-why-atms-didnt-kill-bank-teller-jobs</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-03-29-why-atms-didnt-kill-bank-teller-jobs</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[Why ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did](https://davidoks.blog/p/why-the-atm-didnt-kill-bank-teller)

> When a technology automates some of what a human does within an existing paradigm, even the vast majority of what a human does within it, it’s quite rare for it to actually get rid of the human, because the definition of the paradigm around human-shaped roles creates all sorts of bottlenecks and frictions that demand human involvement. It’s only when we see the construction of entirely new paradigms that the full power of a technology can be realized. The ATM substituted tasks; but the iPhone made them irrelevant.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why Language Models Hallucinate</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-03-26-why-language-models-hallucinate</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-03-26-why-language-models-hallucinate</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[Why Language Models Hallucinate](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.04664)

tl;dr: We don't penalize sufficiently for the degree of incorrectness in an answer.

This probably applies just as much to people as it does to language models. Case in point - you should lose a point for not answering a multiple choice question, but lose two (or more!) points for answering it incorrectly.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>1.5 TB of RAM Across 4 Mac Studios</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-01-08-1pt5-tb-of-ram-across-4-mac-studios</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-01-08-1pt5-tb-of-ram-across-4-mac-studios</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[1.5 TB of VRAM on Mac Studio](https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/15-tb-vram-on-mac-studio-rdma-over-thunderbolt-5/)

> Thunderbolt 5 switches don't exist, so you can't plug in multiple Macs to one central switch—you have to plug every Mac into every other Mac, which adds to the cabling mess.

Slight stretch to call the Unified Memory VRAM imo, but the point is that its available for use in GPU compute tasks such as LLM inference so I get it.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Tahoe Icons are a Problem</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-01-07-tahoe-icons-are-a-problem</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-01-07-tahoe-icons-are-a-problem</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[It’s hard to justify Tahoe icons](https://tonsky.me/blog/tahoe-icons/)

Ouch. Once you read this, you can't unsee it. Read if you use macOS and want to be 15% more frustrated with your experience.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>21 Lessons From 14 Years at Google</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-01-05-21-lessons-from-14-years-at-google</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-01-05-21-lessons-from-14-years-at-google</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[21 Lessons From 14 Years at Google](https://addyosmani.com/blog/21-lessons/)

Almost an entire post with no mention of AI. Almost.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Karpathy&apos;s Year in Review 2025</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2026-01-01-karpathy-year-in-review</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2026-01-01-karpathy-year-in-review</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[Karpathy's Year in Review 2025](https://karpathy.bearblog.dev/year-in-review-2025/)

> Related to all this is my general apathy and loss of trust in benchmarks in 2025. The core issue is that benchmarks are almost by construction verifiable environments and are therefore immediately susceptible to RLVR and weaker forms of it via synthetic data generation. In the typical benchmaxxing process, teams in LLM labs inevitably construct environments adjacent to little pockets of the embedding space occupied by benchmarks and grow jaggies to cover them. Training on the test set is a new art form.
>
> What does it look like to crush all the benchmarks but still not get AGI?

Well yeah, old mate Alan would probably be surprised to see how the Turing test became "irrelevant" almost overnight.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Karpathy on Dwarkesh Podcast</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2025-10-21-karpathy-on-dwarkesh</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2025-10-21-karpathy-on-dwarkesh</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2025 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[Andrej Karpathy on Dwarkesh Podcast](https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/andrej-karpathy/)

The infamous "AGI is still a decade away" statement:

> I’ve been in AI for almost two decades. It’s going to be 15 years or so, not that long. You had Richard Sutton here, who was around for much longer. I do have about 15 years of experience of people making predictions, of seeing how they turned out. Also I was in the industry for a while, I was in research, and I’ve worked in the industry for a while. I have a general intuition that I have left from that.
>
> I feel like the problems are tractable, they’re surmountable, but they’re still difficult. If I just average it out, it just feels like a decade to me.

Neural networks were definitely a thing around 2012 when I was midway through my undergraduate program, amongst a larger ensemble of "machine learning" (terminology which seems to be much less used today).

> Recently I went back all the way to 1989 which was a fun exercise for me, a few years ago, because I was reproducing Yann LeCun’s 1989 convolutional network, which was the first neural network I’m aware of trained via gradient descent, like modern neural network trained gradient descent on digit recognition. I was just interested in how I could modernize this. How much of this is algorithms? How much of this is data? How much of this progress is compute and systems? I was able to very quickly halve the learning just by time traveling by 33 years.
>
> So if I time travel by algorithms 33 years, I could adjust what Yann LeCun did in 1989, and I could halve the error. But to get further gains, I had to add a lot more data, I had to 10x the training set, and then I had to add more computational optimizations. I had to train for much longer with dropout and other regularization techniques.

Progress (towards AGI) doesn't feel non-linear to me. The improvements in algorithms, data, and compute are fantastic and the usefulness is greatly advanced but the spaces in which AI plays still largely feel the same to me. Temperature doesn't equal creativity, and knowledge doesn't equal understanding.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A small number of samples can poison LLMs of any size</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2025-10-11-llm-poisoning</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2025-10-11-llm-poisoning</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2025 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[Anthropic: A small number of samples can poison LLMs of any size](https://www.anthropic.com/research/small-samples-poison)

> Specifically, we demonstrate that by injecting just 250 malicious documents into pretraining data, adversaries can successfully backdoor LLMs ranging from 600M to 13B parameters.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thinking Machines: Defeating Nondeterminism in LLM Inference</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2025-09-11-nondeterminism-in-llm-inference</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2025-09-11-nondeterminism-in-llm-inference</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[Thinking Machines: Defeating Nondeterminism in LLM Inference](https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in-llm-inference/)

The first post from Thinking Machines - the new post-OpenAI endeavour by Mira Murati and others. Pretty into the nuts and bolts, but the main point:

> In other words, the primary reason nearly all LLM inference endpoints are nondeterministic is that the load (and thus batch-size) nondeterministically varies!]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Subliminal Learning: Language Models Transmit Behavioral Traits via Hidden Signals in Data</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2025-07-23-subliminal-learning</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2025-07-23-subliminal-learning</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[[Subliminal Learning: Language Models Transmit Behavioral Traits via Hidden Signals in Data](https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/subliminal-learning/)

Somewhat related tangent reading this provoked: A repeated series of generated content that matches your world model does not neccesarily mean that the generator has the same world model.]]></description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Tacos vs Burritos: Container Resourcing Optimisation Theory</title>
      <link>https://josiahkhor.com/2024-07-19-tacos-vs-burritos</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://josiahkhor.com/2024-07-19-tacos-vs-burritos</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2024 00:55:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[## Tacos vs Burritos: Container Resourcing Optimisation Theory"

Standard disclaimer: Opinions and guesstimates presented as facts. No checking of said "facts" was performed. Direct all complaints to [no-reply@josiahkhor.com](mailto:no-reply@josiahkhor.com).

Tacos are better than burritos:
1. Assuming your tortilla is the same thickness, the peak load on the tortilla is lower for a taco than a burrito.
2. Tacos are smaller, so it is easier to adjust your serving size. +1 taco is reasonable and simple. +1 burrito and you're headed for a food coma.
3. You can get distinct flavours in each taco. You can have a meal with a prawn taco, chicken taco and pork taco! Try mixing all three of those proteins in a burrito and it won't just be PETA that is mad at you.

Extending this analogy to provisioning resources in the cloud... it's better to have more small containers (i.e. 0.5 vCPU) rather than fewer large ones (4 vCPU). The downside to any one container becoming unhealthy is less noticable, your scaling is smoother and in theory your costs are lower (bulk pricing doesn't really apply to vCPUs on AWS and a higher % of your clock cycles are wasted on the large containers). And you don't have to do everything in your containers (chicken filling) - go send some of the work off to a queue to be done by lambdas (pork filling)!]]></description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
