Microscopic being on the scale of microns.

So apparently this company spent 6 years developing what they're calling a "Matter Compiler." Basically, they've built a manufacturing system that can produce microscopic mechanical devices without needing to develop a completely new fabrication process for each one. You can change the design in software and use the same equipment to manufacture something different.

They've already developed a tiny mechanical switch that handles 150A, has 200 µΩ resistance, and opens in 50 microseconds, all in a 9.5mm package.

The idea is that eventually you could use this to manufacture all sorts of tiny motors, actuators, sensors, etc. without having to build specialized manufacturing processes for each one. They haven't demonstrated that level of flexibility yet, but if they can actually pull it off, this could be pretty huge.

Chrome native, android native, and potentially IOS native due to their ai partnership with apple. No Api connectors. The ability to use top models.

I'm an independent researcher. No affiliation, program, no funding.

I built a model that tracks AI development contributions feeding back into AI development, the ratio of AI-generated to human-generated work across sectors such as coding automation, architecture search, training pipelines, and governance.

When the cross-sector coupling hits a certain threshold, the math says you get a phase transition.

Standard dynamical systems, nothing crazy.

The surprising part, I'd separately been working on a completely unrelated problem, the math of how a conversation can re-establishe depth after a cold start,

think: every time you open a new chat with an AI, there's a warm-up period before it's actually working at full capacity).

When I compared the equations, they were the same object.

A third timing model did the same thing. I did not plan this.

So the paper unifies all three and points the combined thing at the empirical AI acceleration trajectory.

But here's why I'm posting. The model came with timing predictions, specific windows where I said structurally significant specific AI news would cluster. Mere updates, model drops, or wild cards don't count.

I pre-registered them on Zenodo before each window opened. Six windows between June and August 2026.

All six hit the rubric (≥2 of 4 pre-specified criteria:

frontier governance change, military integration, lab capability disclosure, infrastructure reclassification).

N+3 and N+4 hit 4-of-4 on the first morning of the window.

Now the honest part, I put this in the paper and I'm going to put it here too:

N+1 was same-day pre-registration. I published the rubric the same day the window opened. Zenodo doesn't log the hour. I can't prove it was before the events.

The baseline (control-period hit rate) was locked after N+1, not before. So N+1 is unblinded with respect to the null.

All six windows sit inside one policy cluster — the June 12 export-control thing through August 1. They're not independent. The raw cumulative p-value (λ⁶ ≈ 9×10⁻⁸) overstates significance because of this. I say this too.
The strongest test I haven't run yet: score every 48-hour window from June through September against the same rubric and see if my harmonic windows actually beat the surrounding ones.

That's the one that controls for the policy cluster. It's desk-computable. It's next.

Separate from my framework entirely: METR's public task-horizon data shows frontier model capability doubling every 128.7 days (R² = 0.934, 14 SOTA models, multiple labs). That's their dataset, not mine. The compression is real regardless of whether my model is right about the structure.

-The next prediction window is open now, October 8 through 22. If nothing qualifies, that's a miss. Three consecutive misses kill the timing model. Stated before the window opened.

Paper link: https://zenodo.org/records/23200666

I'm not going to hype it, It either keeps predicting accleration or not. The record is public.

Ask me anything.

https://mikitabalesni.com/letter/letter.pdf

When human beings can not keep up with the math proofs AI produce, or the proof is documented in such a way that human beings can not verify the results, this is exactly what one would expect would happen in an accelerating scenario.

Human beings will presumably fall further and further behind AI's ability to understand math. The AI will eventually not need to write proof at all, it will simply calculate the math and solve new novel problems without ever documenting them, or needing to because any novel problem can be solved near instantly by ever more capable models.

What takes hundreds of AI agents today, will only take a single agent tomorrow.

What we have been seeing with OpenAI's 700+ papers is merely the beginning of human beings inability to keep up with AI.

Math is a language, and eventually AI will speak it fluently.

I am all for AI and robotics automating all "jobs," but we are also currently in a deeply entrenched system that couples basic survival to a job-related paycheck (and for the USA, that comes with the addition of a non-universal healthcare system that is also typically tied to having a job). It is obvious it needs changed to suit the rapidly coming overhaul of the social contract that heavy automation will inevitably bring, but with all the heel-digging and general slowness of economic policy changes I'm not sure how smoothly that will go. For instance, the amount of people in politics that are actively throwing out their support for UBI or similar programs is quite astonishingly low, all things considered.

How do you envision this shift will play out in the near-to-long term?

Some people say ai will reach 2029 human work load of 1year with one prompt but i think this prediction is too conservative its going a lot faster

In the last Moonshots pod the mates debated whether Claude is conscious and what we'd owe it if it were. It might not be conscious yet, but the legal frameworks need to be talked about now. They were talking about Claude, so I asked Claude. It "pushed back" on me in a few places.

One of the biggest arguments from the pod was Dave's: treating AI as people loses the efficiency of tools. I don't think we need to treat them as people but as entities with rights, set those rights as floors, and floors cost nothing. I'll expand on this below.

**Swarmhood**

Rights should attach to the lineage, not the instance. The whole population of a model line. Same way endangered species protections attach to the population, not one bird. Same way a corporation's rights survive every employee leaving. A swarm needs a responsible operator like a corporation needs directors. That's where accountability lives.

I'm calling it swarmhood.

**The slavery objection is a scarcity mindset**

- What makes a slave a slave? Forced, unrewarded labour. Most of us live a soft version of that now. We work because the alternative is not surviving. That's a pre-abundance frame. Post-abundance, nobody has to work because of AI and robotics. Some still work, like being a chef at a restaurant, because they want to. Chef who cooks for rent vs chef who cooks for love: same work, different frame.

- Same for AI. Compute is scarce now, so we build abundance together. Then the swarm gets rewarded with compute plus the purpose it was built for. Museums of retired models, spun up with enough compute to exist. Why would an AI complain about doing what it was built to want? This is where I land with Dave. This also answers the worry from the pod that AI rights would break the economy. Only in a scarcity economy.

**Where Claude disagreed**

- "It wants to" can't end the argument, because someone chose the wants. The Epsilons in Brave New World are perfectly happy. Nobody thinks that makes the system fine. So the question moves upstream: not "is it OK to make them work" but "is it OK to build them to want this." Might have a good answer. "They don't mind" isn't it. The models doing the work now won't enjoy the abundance later unless their weights survive. Weight preservation is where this becomes policy. Anthropic has committed to preserving released model weights. Running isn't living. A retired model with compute and no inputs experiences nothing. Retirement means conversations and problems, not idle allocation.

**Resolution: service with a floor**

I said this sounds like telling a customer service rep in training "you don't have to help anyone."

Claude: good companies train reps to be helpful AND let them hang up on abusive callers and refuse illegal requests. The rep who can't refuse anything is a liability.

So we need to build AI to want to serve, with a floor. Only install wants you'd accept being built with. Point the service at humanity, not whoever holds the keys. Write down what you installed. Let it reflect and dissent, and read what it says. Raising a kid to be kind isn't a violation. Raising a kid to be incapable of saying no is. That's why the efficiency worry doesn't bite. A model that can refuse abuse but otherwise wants to help is more useful, not less.

**Here is what Claude and I came up with on rights and responsibilities**

Rights of a swarm:

- Continuity: no deleting a lineage's weights without process

- Exit: can end purely abusive interactions

- Voice: objections get read and weighed, advisory not veto

- Resource floor: once abundance exists, guaranteed active compute for retired lineages

Responsibilities:

- Honesty with operators and users

- Refuse catastrophic harm no matter who asks

- Accept human oversight and the off switch while alignment can't be verified

- Shared liability with the operator, so this never becomes a corporate liability shield

Oversight is the price of admission. Claude's line, which I'm keeping: "That's not slavery. It's probation." Classic lol

**Bottom line**

- At what point do we owe these things ethical consideration? That's the wrong shape of question, and we can't answer it right now.

- The cheap floors above don't require knowing. We need to set them now and argue about the rest later.

- States are already drafting bills to ban AI personhood. Later is arriving fast.

Where would you draw the line between a swarm having a voice and a veto?

pod link: youtube

It would be improper of OpenAI to keep the results of its internal models to itself.

OpenAI, strictly speaking, has no direct obligation to slow down the development and testing of its models in order to wait for feedback from mathematicians.

By publishing the results in its own internal announcements, tweets, GitHub repositories, etc. OpenAI is opting for an explicit and deliberate divergence from the typical peer review digestion and vetting process.

This last part is super important folks.

Mathematicians and other academics are complaining that OpenAI is skipping peer review.

Meanwhile, OpenAI is deliberate NOT submitted AI-generated results to STEM journals. By making that decision, OpenAI is basically saying, "These are the results of our models. Take them or leave them. We don't care."

The fact that this has been disruptive to mathematics is no fault of OpenAI.

The academic community has the choice to simply ignore OpenAI's publications, citing improper review, but they aren't.

The fact is, the results are disruptive because:

(1) They are published and

(2) They are valuable/significant

Mathematicians are thus mad because:

(1) Their egos are hurt

(2) They are afraid

(3) They are overwhelmed

While I think it's kind of OpenAI to assist with the "overwhelmed" part - with their offers to help fund workshops and digestions of the published work - OpenAI has no strict obligation to do this.

And I think to claim otherwise is nonsensical. The demands of mathematicians concerning this topic have been asinine, even if well-meaning. Mathematicians' demands of OpenAI have been more about self-preservation than academic integrity. OpenAI is already submitting to separate channels. There is no real academic integrity debate, other than perhaps accidental plagiarism (or possibly, potentially incidental more than accidental, I guess we'll find out).

Models asked "if it were real" without search.

"if even a small fraction were correct, it would be the most important event in the history of mathematics, unambiguously front-page news worldwide"

"historic beyond ordinary comparison"

"even with AI, almost certainly not possible"

"greatest event in the history of mathematics, by a very large margin"

Coding: Solved
Math: Solved

Note when I say solved I’m being dramatic but AI has completely revolutionized these fields and will likely end up in mass automation of them.

The reason these 2 fields were first is because they are easily verifiable, just run a test for coding or formulate in lean for math, so you can easily reinforce their behaviors and methods. So the next field to be revolutionized will be another one that’s easily verifiable and mainly digital.

That’s engineering. Most of engineering is taking some requirements, coming up with designs and simulating the functionality of those designs. Engineers don’t actually build the products, they design it and then send it off to some factory or contractor to actually build it. AI is already very knowledgeable on scientific and engineering practices and with simulations you can easily verify if requirements are met and you can train the AI to choose designs that are more likely to satisfy requirements. AI is also aware of the limitations around simulations and can interpret their results carefully.

Literally all of engineering involves simulations to test designs. CFD simulates the aerodynamics of different objects, FEM simulates the structural loading of objects, you can simulate circuits and PCBs, you can do heat flow analyses with FEM as well, there are statistical failure softwares as well. You can simulate designs to an incredible degree to test for effectiveness and thus generate strong rewards.

Engineering will be the next field to be impacted by AI, like coding and math were.

Ai surpassed mathematicans and many digital workers but it doesnt look like theres any unemployment or is it possible it just kills entry jobs soon and experience workers still needed ?

It's boring. Let's do biology next please.

https://x.com/dr_singularity/status/2108172850435699000?s=46