Preetham @preeth666

CBSE has systematically rewritten its rulebook to favor Coempt Eduteck. check out the blog.

x.com/i/article/2053…

@mcuban Disagree, the structural mechanics of integrating data, data governance and access, setting up the workflows context etc.. is all above the models. You then use that to integrate the models , run evals and ensure quality outputs. Updated models just change the downstream.

@zerodhamarkets @threadreaderapp unroll

My current mental model basis what I am seeing around me and at InfoEdge in all our verticals - Naukri, 99acres, Jeevansathi and Shiksha. 1) AI is fundamentally deflationary for businesses. 2) When the cost of intelligence drops toward zero, the cost of doing many things drops with it. 3) Everyone becomes more productive but no one stays differentiated for long. 4) The natural outcome? Price compression. Margin pressure, Commoditization. 5) We’ve seen this with the internet, cloud, SaaS. AI is doing it to cognition itself. But this is only half the story. 6) AI is deflationary for existing markets and expansionary for new ones The big mistake 7) Using AI just to do the same things cheaper. That’s a race to the bottom. 8) The real question is, What becomes possible now that was previously impossible? Three ways I see AI creating real advantage 1) Solving problems that were too expensive to solve or not solvable earlier 2) Serving customers who couldn’t be served before 3) Delivering experiences and quality that wasn’t possible to deliver before In other words Don’t just lower costs. Expand the market. Because when capabilities commoditise , value shifts to, – Distribution and Customer Relationships – Brand – Trust – Proprietary data – Ecosystems The winners in the AI era won’t be the most companies which are the most efficient. They’ll be companies with the best imagination

@lord_dalall @arindam___paul Second that. Surprised to see Kerala has it as number 3.

@sairahul1 Also to note when using the free models your content/data will be used for training purposes.

@AIstatistican @coreyganim I guess the implementation depends on the use case. What i find interesting with Karpathy's model is the strong cross-doc synthesis (finding patterns across docs), and the compounding value with more data. Solving for the scaling issues will be the win.

IFF will be attending an in-person consultation with MeitY today at 1 PM in Delhi on the draft amendments to the IT Rules, 2021. We will place on record our concerns on their impact on free speech, due process and platform accountability. Since this consultation is being held without a public virtual link and submissions are being treated as confidential, transparency remains a serious concern. We will share key outcomes and our assessment after the meeting.

We sent our Comment. Now it’s your turn. The new IT Rules expand censorship and weaken safeguards on online speech. Three simple ways to act. Just a few minutes. Deadline: 14 April.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

@karpathy The good people of @TakshashilaInst and @pranaykotas have been working on just this. One of his projects below. They have also started a place to document such projects at - aipublicpolicy.org github.com/pranaykotas/pa… [linkedin.com/posts/pranayko…] More power to the people

The future of organisational structures “For the first time, a system can maintain a continuously updated model of an entire business and use it to coordinate work in ways that previously required humans relaying information through layers of management.”

jack @jack

2 months ago

x.com/i/article/2038…

566 2K 11K 6.0M 24K

Sound the Alarm : IFF’s First Read on MeitY's Draft IT Rules Second Amendment, 2026 New Delhi, 30 March 2026 On 30 March 2026, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology published proposed amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, inviting public comments by 14 April, a comment period of barely fifteen days for changes with far reaching consequences for free speech and intermediary governance in India. We have conducted a quick review of the draft amendments. Despite being presented as "clarificatory and procedural," they represent a dangerous expansion of executive power over online speech. We wish to state at the outset that these proposed amendments need to be immediately withdrawn and every member in our citizenry should demand their roll back and stand with the Constitution of India. These proposed amendments come at a time of fear and increased government directed censorship, especially of online political speech that includes parody and satire of the government, including the Prime Minister. In brief the five changes are listed below: 1. Rule 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h): Insertion of phrases within existing clauses making data retention obligations under the IT Rules additional to retention requirements under any other law. 2. Rule 3(4): Insertion of a new clause that mandates intermediary compliance with MeitY-issued clarifications, advisories, directions, SOPs, codes of practice, and guidelines, making such compliance a condition for retaining safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act. These are not anchored to the rule making powers of the IT Act, 2000 and provide uncanalised power to MEITY despite it stating otherwise. 3. Rule 8(1) proviso: A substitution in the proviso that expands applicability of MIB’s oversight mechanism in Part III of the rules to: (1) intermediaries and (2) users who are not “publishers” and post/share news and current affairs content online. This oversight mechanism contains the blocking powers of MIB by way of Rule 14 (Inter-Departmental Committee), Rule 15 (Procedure for issuing directions to block), and Rule 16 (Emergency blocking provisions). 4. Rule 14(2) : A substitution that expands the scope of the IDC from hearing "complaints or grievances" to hearing "matters", including those referred by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. 5. Rule 14(5) : Replaces "complaints or grievances" with "the matter" in relation to IDC examination and recommendations. A massive expansion of an unconstitutional censorship and regulatory power First and most concerningly, Rule 3(4) creates a sweeping power for MeitY to issue binding instruments which are not anchored in law such as clarifications, advisories, directions, SOPs, codes of practice, and guidelines that intermediaries must comply with as a condition of safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act. The Supreme Court's 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, remains the foundational precedent governing intermediary liability. It constrains the proposed amendments in several ways. First, the court read down Section 79(3)(b) to require that "actual knowledge" of unlawful content must come through a court order or government notification. Any Rule 3(4) making MeitY, "clarifications, advisories, directions, SOPs", lower the constitutional threshold for intermediary due diligence obligations. Further, the settled principle in Indian administrative law, reaffirmed in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 399, is that delegated legislation must remain within the four corners of the parent statute. It is important to note that the rule-making power under Section 87(1) of the IT Act is confined to, "carry[ing] out the provisions" of the Act. Section 87(2)(zg) authorizes rules for intermediary guidelines under Section 79(2), and Section 87(2)(z) for blocking procedures under Section 69A(2). Justice Chandurkar's judgement in the Kunal Kamra case clearly found the FCU amendment was not properly referable to either provision. Hence, any Rule 3(4) mandating compliance with MeitY advisories would face identical challenges since they create substantive new obligations not contemplated by Sections 79 or 87. Even though Rule 3(4)(b)(ii) states that such, “advisories” etc. need to, “clearly specify the statutory provision or legal basis under which it is issued”, since these are not required to be published or made public there is every likelihood these will be issued with secrecy and hence may just in a tautological manner refer back to Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. This is similar to a logical fallacy in which it is clearly observable that a student is cheating on an exam who then claims that they may be permitted to continue cheating since they are stating at the same time they are not cheating. The practical effect of Rule 3(4) is that intermediaries face a perpetual compliance threat. Any failure to comply with any MeitY-issued instrument, however vague, however rapidly issued may cost them their safe harbour. The response for an intermediary is over-compliance and over-censorship. Circumventing existing stay orders The original proviso to Rule 8(1) stated that Part III applied to intermediaries only "for the purposes of rules 15 and 16" i.e., content blocking directions and emergency blocking. The amended proviso now extends this to Rule 14, bringing intermediaries and user-generated news/current affairs content under the jurisdiction of the Inter-Departmental Committee. Under Rules 9(1) and 9(3) of the 2021 IT Rules, there is a Code of Ethics compliance requirement and the three-tier grievance redressal mechanism, both of which were stayed by the Bombay High Court on 14 August 2021 as prima facie violative of Article 19(1)(a) and ultra vires the IT Act. On the oversight mechanism in Rules 14, 15, and 16, the Bombay High Court granted the petitioners to seek relief on this rule when an Inter Departmental Committee is established. The Madras High Court affirmed this stay as having pan-India effect in its order of 16 September 2021 in T.M. Krishna v. Union of India, observing that "an oversight mechanism to control the media by the government may rob the media of its independence." Both these cases, along with other cases challenging various provisions of the 2021 IT Rules, are now pending adjudication before the Delhi High Court. The expansion of Rule 8(1) to cover Rules 14, 15, and 16 is an attempt to expand the blocking powers of MIB to both intermediaries and users who are not “publishers” but post news and current affairs content online. The IDC can now examine "matters" relating to user-generated news content on intermediary platforms without the Code of Ethics framework having been adjudicated as constitutional; the government effectively obtains the content oversight machinery that three High Courts found illegal, through a different procedural door. Transforming the IDC from Grievance Body to Censorship Apparatus The original Rule 14(2) required the IDC to hear "complaints regarding violation or contravention of the Code of Ethics." The amended version removes this requirement entirely. The IDC now hears: (a) grievances arising from decisions at Level I or II; or (b) "matters" referred to by the Ministry. Clause (b) is unconstrained since, (a) there is no requirement that the "matter" arise from a complaint, (b) no requirement that the "matter" relate to a Code of Ethics violation; and (c) no requirement that the affected party be heard before the referral. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting can, on its own motion, refer any content-related "matter" to the IDC. The cumulative effect of the amendments to Rules 8 and 14 is to reconstruct the oversight machinery that the Bombay and Madras High Courts found constitutionally suspect, in a form designed to evade the existing interim orders. The IDC, previously limited to the three-tier complaints process under the stayed Rules 9(3), 12, and 13 framework, now operates as a free-standing censorship committee that can take up "matters" referred by the executive. Increased user surveillance through mandatory data retention directions Insertion of phrases within existing clauses making data retention obligations under the IT Rules additional to retention requirements under any other law. For instance, the mandatory data retention of user data beyond 180 days within Rule 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h) may be prescribed for longer periods and other purposes raising risks of surveillance and even potentially data leaks of sensitive data that is stored for longer periods of time. Government mandates for data retention as to their legal authority and hence period of retention will be beyond those contained under the IT Act. SOS for Digital Rights IFF urges an urgent rollback! We are alarmed by the continuing expansion of unchecked executive power that is opposed to the Constitution of India. The present actions of MEITY smack of digital authoritarianism and we call on them to withdraw these proposed amendments. The proper course is to await judicial determination of the pending challenges, respect interim protections granted by constitutional courts, and pursue regulatory objectives through parliamentary legislation rather than subordinate instruments that exceed the parent statute. If not withdrawn, IFF will file a detailed response before the comment deadline. We call upon all stakeholders to submit their objections before 14 April 2026 at [email protected]

🚨 MICROSOFT ABOUT TO SUE OPENAI & AMAZON >be microsoft >invest $1B in openai >gets exclusive azure cloud deal >invest another $10B+ >gets rights to 49% of profits +IP >Azure goes brrrrrr >Altman lies to board, quietly launches ChatGPT >board fires him for being a lying manipulative snake >Satya goes to war for Altman. saves his entire career >Altman retvrns in 5 days >immediately purges everyone who purged him >full control. no oversight. thanks Satya! >fast forward to 2025 >OpenAI restructures from non-profit to PBC >MSFT $13.8B is now worth $135B. 10x return >plus 27% of OpenAI >but gives up cloud exclusivity + profit share >KEEPS API clause >all API calls contractually MUST route through Azure >Satya thinks life is good lol >5 months later >Sam Altman becomes strong enough to betray you >"raises $110B round" >doesn't need satya daddy's money anymore >announces $50B deal with AMAZON >$138B in AWS cloud commitments >amazon and openai claim they built some cope called a "Stateful Runtime Environment" >Microsoft lawyers hmmm >Altman: it's not what it looks like. i can totally explain >so it's technically not an API call because it's "stateful" >and it's a... "Runtime Experience" >totally di!erent thing >pls ignore the TCP packets lol >Microsoft engineers look at the SRE architecture >"THIS IS NOT TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE without violating the contract." *Satya finds out he's been cucked* Microsoft exec literally tells FT: "We know our contract. We will sue them if they breach it." >AWS quietly gives employees a memo on which words are legally safe lmao >can say: "powered by" or "enabled by" or "integrates with" OpenAI >cannot say: "enables access to" or "calls on" ChatGPT >also cannot suggest frontier models are "available on AWS" Microsoft: "If Amazon and OpenAI want to take a bet on the creativity of their contractual lawyers, I would back us, not them." Scam Altman strikes AGAIN.

Financial Times @FT

3 months ago

Microsoft weighs legal action over $50bn Amazon-OpenAI cloud deal ft.trib.al/6LZe39E

65 205 1K 2.6M 283

“Napoleon said never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake, Xi turned that into a 50y doctrine & right now it's paying off faster than even beijing expected”

Mehdi (e/λ) @BetterCallMedhi

3 months ago

this right here is the reason China stays quiet on Iran everyone losing their mind asking where is Beijing while the US & Israel are bombing a major chinese energy partner and the answer is so brutal in its simplicity that most analysts miss it completely, the empire is eating

609 4K 16K 4.4M 8K

This chase is all speed versus agility and it gets more intense every second. Wild to watch.

“Our cities are struggling because they are treated as outposts of an empire: Administered by unaccountable viceroys and dangerous to the people forced to live in them.”

Shekhar Gupta @ShekharGupta

4 months ago

You could say that again, and again.. 'India is wealthier, but its cities are unliveable' Mihir Sharma @mihirssharma writes theprint.in/india/india-is…

55 260 1K 64K 111

This is the kind of robotics progress I pay attention to. Toyota introduced Walk Me, a walking wheelchair that moves on mechanical legs instead of wheels. It can climb stairs, handle rough terrain, and adapt to environments that were never designed to be accessible. The point is independence. Getting from A to B without asking the world to be perfectly flat. I have long believed robotics will not be about humanoids. It will be about task shaped machines, designed around real human constraints. Walk Me is a good example of that shift. So here is the question. If robots are shaped by tasks, not appearances, what should we design next? #Robotics #AI #Accessibility #AssistiveTechnology #HumanCenteredDesign #FutureOfWork

@AI_with_Eric @aakashgupta Yes I have , it’s pretty great and seems like the future. Well actually it is, given opus 4.6 working in a similar structure - anthropic.com/engineering/bu…

@sandeepnair @paraschopra I don’t think there’s anything news worthy in the areas of life and philosophy that hasn’t been said better in the past. On philosophy there’s an awesome podcast came out maybe 20 yrs ago Urba Guru Cafe - podcasts.apple.com/in/podcast/urb… , my dad had recommended it to me.