A daily bite-size selection of top business content.

PM edition. Issue number 1251

Latest 10 stories. Click the button for more.

Term: Model weights

"Model weights are the crucial numerical parameters learned during training that define a model's internal knowledge, dictating how input data is transformed into outputs and enabling it to recognise patterns and make predictions." - Model weights

Model weights represent the learnable numerical parameters within a neural network that determine how input data is processed to generate predictions, functioning similarly to synaptic strengths in a biological brain.^1,2,4 These values control the influence of specific features on the output, such as edges in images or tokens in language models, through operations like matrix multiplications, convolutions, or weighted sums across layers.^1,2,3 Initially randomised, weights are optimised during training via algorithms like gradient descent, which iteratively adjust them to minimise a loss function measuring the difference between predictions and actual targets.^1,2,5

In practice, for a simple linear regression model expressed as y = wx + b, the weight w scales the input x to predict y, while b is the bias term.² In complex architectures like convolutional neural networks (CNNs) or large language models (LLMs), weights include filters detecting textures and fully connected layers combining features, often numbering in billions.^1,2,5 This enables tasks from image classification to real-time translation, with pre-trained weights facilitating transfer learning on custom datasets.¹

Weights are distinct from biases, which add normalisation and extra characteristics to the weighted sum before activation functions, aiding forward and backward propagation.^3,6 Protecting these parameters is vital, as they encode the model's performance, robustness, and decision logic; unauthorised changes can lead to malfunction.⁵ In LLMs, weights boost emphasis on words or associations, shaping generative outputs.³

Key Theorist: Geoffrey Hinton

The preeminent theorist linked to model weights is **Geoffrey Hinton**, often called the 'Godfather of Deep Learning' for pioneering backpropagation and neural network training techniques that optimise these parameters.^1,2 Hinton's seminal 1986 paper with David Rumelhart and Ronald Williams popularised backpropagation, the cornerstone algorithm for adjusting weights layer-by-layer based on error gradients, revolutionising machine learning.^2,4

Born in 1947 in Wimbledon, London, Hinton descends from a lineage of scientists: his great-great-grandfather George Boole invented Boolean logic, his grandfather Charles Howard Hinton coined 'hyperspace', and his great-uncle was logician Bertrand Russell. Initially studying experimental psychology at Cambridge (BA 1970), Hinton earned a PhD in AI from Edinburgh in 1978, focusing on Boltzmann machines-early stochastic neural networks with learnable weights. Disillusioned with symbolic AI, he championed connectionism, simulating brain-like learning via weights.

In the 1980s, amid the first AI winter, Hinton persisted at Carnegie Mellon and Toronto, developing restricted Boltzmann machines for unsupervised pre-training of weights, addressing vanishing gradients. His 2006 breakthrough with Alex Krizhevsky and Ilya Sutskever-training deep belief networks on ImageNet-proved deep nets with billions of weights could excel, sparking the deep learning revolution.¹ At Google Brain (2013-2023), he advanced capsule networks and transformers indirectly influencing LLMs. Hinton quit Google in 2023, warning of AI risks, and won the 2018 Turing Award with Yann LeCun and Yoshua Bengio. His work directly underpins how modern models, including LLMs, learn weights to recognise patterns and predict outcomes.^3,5

Quote: Abraham Lincoln - American president

"I'm a success today because I had a friend who believed in me and I didn't have the heart to let him down" - Abraham Lincoln - American president

Abraham Lincoln's reflection on success reveals a fundamentally relational understanding of achievement-one that stands in stark contrast to the individualistic narratives that often dominate discussions of personal accomplishment. By attributing his success not to his own talents or efforts, but to a friend's belief in him, Lincoln articulates a philosophy that places human connection and moral accountability at the centre of meaningful achievement.¹

The Context of Lincoln's Philosophy

Lincoln's words carry particular weight when considered against the trajectory of his own life. Born on 12 February 1809 in a log cabin in Kentucky, he emerged from profound poverty with minimal formal education.¹ His early years were marked by repeated failures and setbacks-experiences that might have extinguished ambition in lesser individuals. Yet Lincoln persisted, working as a postmaster, surveyor, shopkeeper, and eventually lawyer, roles that kept him intimately connected to ordinary people and their struggles.¹ This grounding in common experience proved formative to his character and his understanding of what success truly meant.

When Lincoln rose to the presidency in 1861, he inherited a nation fractured by the slavery question and on the precipice of civil war. The crucible of the American Civil War would test his definition of success in the most severe manner imaginable. In this context, success could not be measured by personal acclaim or political victory alone. Instead, it demanded the preservation of the Union, the abolition of slavery, and the maintenance of democratic principles-objectives that required extraordinary moral courage and an unwavering commitment to principles despite immense personal and political cost.¹

The Philosophy Behind the Quote

Lincoln's statement reveals several interconnected philosophical commitments. First, it emphasises the role of encouragement and moral support in sustaining perseverance through hardship.¹ The friend who believed in him functioned not merely as a cheerleader, but as a source of validation that made continued effort possible when circumstances might otherwise have counselled surrender.

Second, the phrase "I didn't have the heart to let him down" points to something deeper than mere gratitude. It speaks to accountability, loyalty, and character as the true drivers of achievement.¹ For Lincoln, success was not primarily about personal gain or self-realisation; it was about honouring the trust that others had placed in him. This transforms success from an individual metric into a shared responsibility-a covenant between the person striving and those who have invested belief in their potential.

Third, Lincoln's formulation suggests that success is fundamentally a shared journey, built on belief, responsibility, and the strength drawn from knowing someone stood by you when it mattered most.¹ This perspective inverts the typical hierarchy of achievement. Rather than the successful individual standing alone at the summit, Lincoln positions himself as part of a web of mutual obligation and interdependence.

Intellectual Foundations and Related Thought

Lincoln's philosophy of relational success anticipated themes that would become central to later philosophical and psychological inquiry. His emphasis on the role of belief and encouragement in human development prefigures contemporary research in social psychology and developmental theory, which has consistently demonstrated that external validation and social support are crucial factors in determining whether individuals persist through challenges or abandon their aspirations.

The concept of accountability to others as a motivating force also resonates with virtue ethics traditions, which emphasise character development through relationships and community. Rather than viewing morality and achievement as matters of individual will or rational calculation, virtue ethics-rooted in Aristotelian philosophy-understands human flourishing as inherently social, developed through habituation within communities of practice and mutual accountability.

Lincoln's thinking also aligns with what later thinkers would call the "relational self"-the understanding that identity and capability are not fixed, autonomous properties but are continually constituted through relationships with others. This stands in contrast to the Enlightenment emphasis on the autonomous, rational individual that dominated much nineteenth-century thought.

The Broader Context of Lincoln's Thought on Character

This quote sits within a larger body of Lincoln's reflections on character, responsibility, and human nature. His statement that "Character is like a tree and reputation its shadow" suggests a similar philosophy: what matters is the inner reality of one's character, not the external appearance of success.⁶ His observation that "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power" reveals his conviction that true character is revealed not in comfortable circumstances but in how one exercises authority and influence.⁴

Lincoln's emphasis on the moral dimensions of success also appears in his assertion that "You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."⁴ This captures his understanding that success requires not merely present effort but a sustained commitment to future obligations-a temporal extension of the accountability he emphasises in the quote about his friend.

The Enduring Relevance

Lincoln's philosophy of success remains profoundly relevant in contemporary contexts that often celebrate individual achievement and self-made narratives. His insistence that success is relational-that it depends fundamentally on the belief and support of others-offers a corrective to narratives that obscure the social foundations of individual accomplishment. In doing so, it invites reflection on the networks of support, privilege, and mutual obligation that enable any individual's rise, and on the reciprocal responsibilities that success entails.

The quote also speaks to the question of motivation and meaning. In a culture that often measures success by external markers-wealth, status, power-Lincoln's definition redirects attention to internal measures: the integrity of honouring trust, the dignity of loyalty, and the satisfaction of living up to the belief others have placed in you. This reframing suggests that the deepest forms of success are those that align personal achievement with relational responsibility.

Term: Recursive Language Model (RLM)

"A Recursive Language Model (RLM) is an AI inference strategy where a large language model (LLM) is granted the ability to programmatically interact with and recursively call itself or smaller helper models to solve complex tasks and process extremely long inputs." - Recursive Language Model (RLM)

A **Recursive Language Model (RLM)** is an innovative inference strategy that empowers large language models (LLMs) to treat input contexts not as static strings but as dynamic environments they can actively explore, decompose, and recursively process.^1,3,4 This approach fundamentally shifts AI from passive text processing to active problem-solving, enabling the handling of extremely long inputs, complex reasoning tasks, and structured outputs without being constrained by traditional context window limits.^1,6

At its core, an RLM operates within a Python Read-Eval-Print Loop (REPL) environment where the input context is stored as a programmable variable.^1,2,3 The model begins with exploration and inspection, using tools like string slicing, regular expressions, and keyword searches to scan and understand the data structure actively rather than passively reading it.¹ It then performs task decomposition, breaking the problem into smaller subtasks that fit within standard context windows, with the model deciding the splits based on its discoveries.^1,3

The hallmark is recursive self-calls, where the model invokes itself (or smaller helper models) on each subtask, forming a tree of reasoning that aggregates partial results into variables within the REPL.^1,4 This is followed by aggregation and synthesis, combining outputs programmatically into lists, tables, or documents, and verification and self-checking through re-runs or cross-checks for reliability.¹ Unlike traditional LLMs that process a single forward pass on tokenised input, RLMs grant the model 'hands and eyes' to query itself programmatically, such as result = rlm_query(sub_prompt), transforming context from 'input' to 'environment'.^1,3

RLMs address key limitations like 'context rot'-degradation in long-context performance-and scale to effectively unlimited lengths (over 10 million tokens tested), outperforming baselines by up to 114% on benchmarks without fine-tuning, via prompt engineering alone.^3,6,2 They differ from agentic systems by decomposing context adaptively rather than predefined tasks, and from reasoning models by scaling through recursive decomposition.⁶

Key Theorist: Alex L. Zhang and the MIT Origins

The primary theorist behind RLMs is **Alex L. Zhang**, a researcher affiliated with MIT, who co-authored the seminal work proposing RLMs as a general inference framework.^3,4,8 In his detailed blog and the arXiv paper 'Recursive Language Models' (published around late 2025), Zhang articulates the vision: enabling LLMs to 'recursively call themselves or other LLMs' to process unbounded contexts and mitigate degradation.^3,4 His implementation uses GPT-5 or GPT-5-mini in a Python REPL, allowing adaptive chunking and recursion at test time.³

Alex L. Zhang's biography reflects a deep expertise in AI scaling and inference innovations. Active in 2025 through platforms like his GitHub blog (alexzhang13.github.io), he focuses on practical advancements in language model capabilities, particularly long-context handling.³ While specific early career details are sparse in available sources, his work builds on MIT's disruptive ethos-echoed in proposals like 'why not let the model read itself?'-positioning him as a key figure in the 2026 paradigm shift towards recursive AI architectures.^1,8 Zhang's contributions emphasise test-time compute scaling, distinguishing RLMs from mere architectural changes by framing them as a 'thin wrapper' around standard LLMs that reframes them as stateful programmes.⁵

Experimental validations in Zhang's framework demonstrate RLMs' superiority, such as dramatically improved accuracy on pairwise comparison tasks (from near-zero to over 58%) and spam classification in massive prompts.^2,4 His ideas have sparked widespread discussion, with sources hailing RLMs as 'the ultimate evolution of AI' and a 'game-changer for 2026'.^1,2,7

Quote: George Bernard Shaw

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw - Irish playwright

George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950), the Irish playwright, critic, and Nobel laureate, originated this quote in his 1903 play Man and Superman, specifically in the section "Maxims for Revolutionists."^1,3 Shaw, born in Dublin to a Protestant family amid economic hardship, moved to London in 1876, where he became a leading figure in the Fabian Society—a socialist group advocating gradual reform over revolution—and penned over 60 plays blending wit, philosophy, and social critique.³

Context of the Quote

The line appears in Man and Superman, a philosophical comedy subtitled "A Comedy and a Philosophy," which explores themes of human evolution, will, and societal progress through the character of John Tanner, a revolutionary dreamer pursuing (and fleeing) the spirited Ann Whitefield.¹ In "Maxims for Revolutionists," Shaw distills provocative ideas on human nature, arguing that progress requires challenging the status quo rather than conforming to it. The "reasonable man" accepts the world as is, ensuring stability but stagnation; the "unreasonable man" imposes his vision, driving innovation despite resistance.^1,2,3 Shaw, a Fabian socialist who favored incremental change via education and agitation, used the maxim to celebrate disruptive persistence as essential to societal advancement, echoing his belief in remolding the world "nearer to the heart’s desire."⁴

This idea resonated widely: it inspired sales leaders viewing "unreasonableness" as bold action against excuses²; marketers urging challenge over compromise amid populism⁴; and even Hacker News debates contrasting revolution with evolution⁵. It also titled John Elkington and Pamela Hartigan's 2008 book The Power of Unreasonable People, profiling social and environmental entrepreneurs who create markets for change.⁶

Shaw's Backstory

Shaw rejected conventional jobs, surviving as a music and theater critic under pseudonyms like "Corno di Bassetto" while writing novels that flopped. His breakthrough came with plays like Mrs. Warren's Profession (1893), censored for exposing prostitution's economic roots, and Pygmalion (1913), later adapted into My Fair Lady. A vegetarian, teetotaler, and spelling reformer, Shaw won the 1925 Nobel Prize in Literature but donated the money for translations of August Strindberg. Politically, he supported women's suffrage, Irish Home Rule, and eugenics (later controversial), and endorsed Soviet experiments while critiquing capitalism. At 94, he broke his hip falling from a ladder while pruning a tree, dying soon after. His works, blending Shavian wit with Nietzschean vitality, remain staples for dissecting power, class, and human drive.^3,4

Leading Theorists on Unreasonableness, Progress, and Adaptation

Shaw's maxim draws from and influenced thinkers on innovation, disruption, and social change. Key figures include:

• Fabian Society Influentials (Shaw's Circle): Shaw co-founded this gradualist socialist group in 1884, named after Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (the "Delayer"), who used attrition over direct battle. Sidney and Beatrice Webb advanced "permeation"—infiltrating elites for reform—while Annie Besant agitated for labor rights. Their motto, "educate, agitate, organize," embodied reasoned persistence against orthodoxy, mirroring Shaw's "unreasonable" drive within structured evolution.⁴

• Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900): The German philosopher's concepts of the Übermensch (overman) and will to power prefigure Shaw's rebel, urging transcendence of herd morality. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–1885), Nietzsche celebrates creators who affirm life against nihilistic conformity, influencing Shaw's evolutionary Superman.³ (Inferred link via shared themes in Shaw's play.)

• Social Entrepreneurs (Modern Applications): Elkington and Hartigan highlight "unreasonable" innovators like Muhammad Yunus (Grameen Bank microfinance) and Wendy Kopp (Teach For America), who built markets defying poverty and education norms. Their 2008 book frames Shaw's idea as a blueprint for systemic change via audacious markets.⁶

• Critics and Counter-Theorists: Hacker News commenter "vph" argues the quote overstates revolution, crediting evolution—incremental, "reasonable" adaptation—for true progress, citing Darwinian biology over rupture.⁵ Jim Carroll contrasts it with Fabian delay tactics, warning prudence yields modest fruit while unreasonableness risks chaos.⁴

Shaw's maxim endures as a rallying cry for visionaries, underscoring that all progress depends on the unreasonable man by forcing adaptation on a resistant world.^1,2

Quote: Jensen Huang - Nvidia CEO

"OpenClaw is probably the single most important release of software, probably ever. If you look at... the adoption of it, Linux took some 30 years to reach this level. OpenClaw has now surpassed Linux. It is now the single most downloaded open source software in history, and it took 3 weeks." - Jensen Huang - Nvidia CEO

In a striking declaration at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media and Telecom Conference in San Francisco, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang positioned OpenClaw as a revolutionary force in open source software, outpacing even the legendary Linux kernel in adoption speed and scale.⁵ This remark underscores Huang's vision for AI agents - autonomous systems capable of continuous operation and complex tasks - as the next frontier in artificial intelligence, with OpenClaw serving as their foundational framework.⁵

Context of the Quote

Delivered on 4 March 2026, Huang's comments came amid discussions on Nvidia's strategic investments in AI leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic, where he noted that recent deals, including a $30 billion stake in OpenAI, might represent the company's final major private investments before these firms pursue initial public offerings.^1,2,3,5,6 Amid this, Huang pivoted to OpenClaw's meteoric rise, contrasting its three-week dominance in downloads against Linux's three-decade journey to similar prominence.⁵ He highlighted its 'vertical' growth on semi-log charts, attributing this to the insatiable demand for AI agents that process a million times more tokens and run perpetually in enterprise environments.⁵

Who is Jensen Huang?

Jensen Huang co-founded Nvidia in 1993 alongside Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, initially focusing on graphics processing units (GPUs) for gaming and visualisation.⁴ Under his leadership, Nvidia pivoted decisively to AI and high-performance computing, with breakthroughs like CUDA - a parallel computing platform that locks in developers through its ecosystem of software, interconnects like NVLink, and rack-scale systems.⁴ Huang's prescience in positioning GPUs as indispensable for AI training and inference has propelled Nvidia to a market leader, with hyperscalers committing over $660 billion in AI spending for 2026 alone.⁴ His conference appearances, including this one, blend investment insights with technological evangelism, reinforcing Nvidia's moat in the AI stack.^1,3,4,5

What is OpenClaw?

OpenClaw emerges as Nvidia's open source initiative tailored for AI agents - intelligent, persistent programmes that autonomously handle tasks such as software development, tool creation, and data processing.⁵ Unlike traditional software, these agents operate continuously, consuming vast token volumes (a measure of computational language processing) and integrating seamlessly into workflows.⁵ Huang's team deploys numerous OpenClaw instances internally, automating coding and innovation, which explains the explosive download figures: surpassing Linux - the cornerstone of servers, supercomputers, and embedded systems - in just three weeks.⁵ This positions OpenClaw not merely as code, but as infrastructure for the agentic AI era, where autonomy scales intelligence.

Backstory: Linux's Enduring Legacy

To grasp OpenClaw's feat, consider Linux's trajectory. Initiated in 1991 by Linus Torvalds as a hobby project, Linux evolved into the world's most ubiquitous operating system kernel, powering 96% of the top supercomputers, most cloud infrastructure, and Android devices.⁵ Its adoption spanned three decades, driven by open source principles, community contributions, and enterprise embrace from IBM to Google. Yet, as Huang noted, even this benchmark took 30 years to cement Linux as a download and deployment juggernaut.⁵ OpenClaw's subversion of this timeline signals a paradigm shift: AI-driven tools now accelerate adoption via immediate utility in high-stakes domains like enterprise AI.

Leading Theorists in AI Agents and Open Source AI

• Linus Torvalds: Architect of Linux, Torvalds pioneered collaborative open source development via Git, influencing every major software ecosystem. His 'benevolent dictator' governance model ensured Linux's stability and growth, principles echoed in modern AI repositories.⁵
• Ilya Sutskever: Co-founder of OpenAI and key figure in transformer models (the backbone of agents), Sutskever's work on scaling laws demonstrated how compute and data yield emergent intelligence, paving the way for agentic systems like those powered by OpenClaw.
• Andrej Karpathy: Former OpenAI and Tesla AI director, Karpathy advanced accessible AI through nanoGPT and LLM training tutorials, theorising agent swarms - multi-agent collaborations - that align with Huang's vision of continuous, token-hungry OpenClaw deployments.
• Yohei Nakajima: Creator of BabyAGI, an early agent framework, Nakajima theorised task decomposition and self-improvement loops, concepts central to OpenClaw's real-world utility in software engineering and beyond.
• Sam Altman: OpenAI CEO, Altman champions 'agentic AI' as the post-ChatGPT phase, where models act independently. Despite tensions in Nvidia partnerships, his firm's trajectory validates Huang's infrastructure bets.^1,2,3

Huang's endorsement frames OpenClaw as the synthesis of these ideas: open source velocity meets agentic scale, challenging developers to harness AI's full potential.

Implications for AI and Open Source

OpenClaw's ascent heralds a compression of innovation cycles, where AI agents bootstrap their own ecosystems faster than human-led projects like Linux.⁵ For investors and technologists, it reinforces Nvidia's centrality: not just in hardware, but in software that cements lock-in.⁴ As agents proliferate - writing code, optimising systems, and driving revenue - Huang's words invite scrutiny of whether this marks the true democratisation of AI, or Nvidia's deepening dominance in the field.^1,4,5

Term: Mixture of Experts (MoE)

"Mixture of Experts (MoE) is an efficient neural network architecture that uses multiple specialised sub-models (experts) and a gating network (router) to dynamically select and activate only the most relevant experts for a given input." - Mixture of Experts (MoE)

This architectural approach divides a large artificial intelligence model into separate sub-networks, each specialising in processing specific types of input data. Rather than activating the entire network for every task, MoE models employ a gating mechanism-often called a router-that intelligently selects which experts should process each input. This selective activation introduces sparsity into the network, meaning only a fraction of the model's total parameters are used for any given computation.^1,3

Core Architecture and Components

The fundamental structure of MoE consists of two essential elements:⁴

• Expert networks: Multiple specialised sub-networks, typically implemented as feed-forward neural networks (FFNs), each with its own set of learnable parameters. These experts become skilled at handling specific patterns or types of data during training.¹
• Gating network (router): A trainable mechanism that evaluates each input and determines which expert or combination of experts is best suited to process it. This routing function is computationally efficient, enabling the model to make rapid decisions about expert selection.^1,3

In practical implementations, such as the Mixtral 8x7B language model, each layer contains multiple experts-for instance, eight separate feedforward blocks with 7 billion parameters each. For every token processed, the router selects only a subset of these experts (in Mixtral's case, two out of eight) to perform the computation, then combines their outputs before passing the result to the next layer.³

How MoE Achieves Efficiency

MoE models leverage conditional computation to reduce computational burden without sacrificing model capacity.³ This approach enables several efficiency gains:

• Models can scale to billions of parameters whilst maintaining manageable inference costs, since not all parameters are activated for every input.^1,3
• Training can occur with significantly less compute, allowing researchers to either reduce training time or expand model and dataset sizes.⁴
• Experts can be distributed across multiple devices through expert parallelism, enabling efficient large-scale deployments.¹

The gating mechanism ensures that frequently selected experts receive continuous updates during training, improving their performance, whilst load balancing mechanisms attempt to distribute computational work evenly across experts to prevent bottlenecks.¹

Historical Development and Key Theorist: Noam Shazeer

Noam Shazeer stands as the primary architect of modern MoE systems in deep learning. In 2017, Shazeer and colleagues-including the legendary Geoffrey Hinton and Google's Jeff Dean-introduced the Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer for recurrent neural language models.^1,4 This seminal work fundamentally transformed how researchers approached scaling neural networks.

Shazeer's contribution was revolutionary because it reintroduced the mixture of experts concept, which had existed in earlier machine learning literature, into the deep learning era. His team scaled this architecture to a 137-billion-parameter LSTM model, demonstrating that sparsity could maintain very fast inference even at massive scale.⁴ Although this initial work focused on machine translation and encountered challenges such as high communication costs and training instabilities, it established the theoretical and practical foundation for all subsequent MoE research.⁴

Shazeer's background as a researcher at Google positioned him at the intersection of theoretical machine learning and practical systems engineering. His work exemplified a crucial insight: that not all parameters in a neural network need to be active simultaneously. This principle has since become foundational to modern large language model design, influencing architectures used by leading AI organisations worldwide. The Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer introduced the trainable gating network concept that remains central to MoE implementations today, enabling conditional computation that balances model expressiveness with computational efficiency.¹

Applications and Performance

MoE architectures have demonstrated faster training and comparable or superior performance to dense language models on many benchmarks, particularly in multi-domain tasks where different experts can specialise in different knowledge areas.¹ Applications span natural language processing, computer vision, and recommendation systems.²

Challenges and Considerations

Despite their advantages, MoE systems present implementation challenges. Load balancing remains critical-when experts are distributed across multiple devices, uneven expert selection can create memory and computational bottlenecks, with some experts handling significantly more tokens than others.¹ Additionally, distributed training complexity and the need for careful tuning to maintain stability and efficiency require sophisticated engineering approaches.¹

Term: AI harness

"A harness (often called an agent harness or agentic harness) is an external software framework that wraps around a Large Language Model (LLM) to make it functional, durable, and capable of taking actions in the real world." - AI harness

An AI harness is the external software framework that wraps around a Large Language Model (LLM) to extend its capabilities beyond text generation, enabling it to function as a persistent, tool-using agent capable of taking real-world actions. Without a harness, an LLM operates in isolation-processing a single prompt and generating a response with no memory of previous interactions and no ability to interact with external systems. The harness solves this fundamental limitation by providing the infrastructure necessary for autonomous, multi-step reasoning and execution.

Core Functions and Architecture

An AI harness performs several critical functions that transform a static language model into a dynamic agent. Memory management addresses one of the most significant constraints of raw LLMs: their fixed context windows and lack of persistent memory. Standard language models begin each session with no recollection of previous interactions, forcing them to operate without historical context. The harness implements memory systems-including persistent context logs, summaries, and external knowledge stores-that carry information across sessions, enabling the agent to learn from past experiences and maintain continuity across multiple interactions.

Tool execution and external action represents another essential function. Language models alone can only produce text; they cannot browse the web, execute code, query databases, or generate images. The harness monitors the model's output for special tool-call commands and executes those operations on the model's behalf. When a tool call is detected, the harness pauses text generation, executes the requested operation in the external environment (such as performing a web search or running code in a sandbox), and feeds the results back into the model's context. This mechanism effectively gives the model "hands and eyes," transforming textual intentions into tangible real-world actions.

Context management and orchestration ensure that information flows efficiently between the model and its environment. The harness determines what information is provided to the model at each step, managing the transient prompt whilst maintaining a persistent task log separate from the model's immediate context. This separation is crucial for long-running projects: even if an AI agent instance stops and a new one begins later with no memory in the raw LLM, the project itself retains memory through files and logs maintained by the harness.

Modular Design and Components

Contemporary harness architectures increasingly adopt modular designs that decompose agent functionality into interchangeable components. Research from ICML 2025 on "General Modular Harness for LLM Agents in Multi-Turn Gaming Environments" demonstrates this approach through three core modules: perception, which processes both low-resolution grid environments and visually complex images; memory, which stores recent trajectories and synthesises self-reflection signals enabling agents to critique past moves and adjust future plans; and reasoning, which integrates perceptual embeddings and memory traces to produce sequential decisions. This modular structure allows developers to toggle components on and off, systematically analysing each module's contribution to overall performance.

Performance Impact and Practical Benefits

The empirical benefits of harness implementation are substantial. Models operating within a harness achieve significantly higher task success rates compared to un-harnessed baselines. In gaming environments, an AI with a memory and perception harness wins more games than the same AI without one. In coding tasks, an AI with a harness that runs and debugs its own code completes programming tasks that a standalone LLM would fail due to runtime errors. The harness essentially compensates for the model's inherent weaknesses-lack of persistence, inability to access external knowledge, and propensity for errors-resulting in markedly improved real-world performance.

Perhaps most significantly, harnesses extend what an AI can accomplish without requiring model retraining. Want an LLM to handle images? Integrate a vision module or image captioning API into the harness. Need mathematical reasoning or complex logic? Add the appropriate tool or module. This extensibility makes harnesses economically valuable: two products using identical underlying LLMs can deliver vastly different user experiences based on the quality and sophistication of their respective harnesses.

Evolution and Strategic Importance

As AI capabilities have advanced, harness design has become increasingly critical to product success. The harness landscape is dynamic and evolving: popular agents like Manus have undergone five complete re-architectures since March 2024, and even Anthropic continuously refines Claude Code's agent harness as underlying models improve. This reflects a fundamental principle: as models become more capable, harnesses must be continually simplified, stripping away scaffolding and crutches that are no longer necessary.

The distinction between orchestration and harness is worth noting. Orchestration serves as the "brain" of an AI system-determining the overall workflow and decision logic-whilst the harness functions as the "hands and infrastructure," executing those decisions and managing the technical details. Both are critical for complex AI agents, and improvements in either dimension can dramatically enhance real-world performance.

Related Theorist: Allen Newell and Cognitive Architecture

Allen Newell (1927-1992) was an American cognitive scientist and computer scientist whose theoretical framework profoundly influences contemporary harness design. Newell's "Unified Theories of Cognition" (UTC), published in 1990, proposed that human cognition operates through integrated systems of perception, memory, and reasoning-three faculties that work in concert to enable intelligent behaviour. This theoretical foundation directly inspired the modular harness architectures now prevalent in AI research.

Newell's career spanned the emergence of cognitive science as a discipline. Working initially at the RAND Corporation and later at Carnegie Mellon University, he collaborated with Herbert Simon to develop the "Physical Symbol System Hypothesis," which posited that physical symbol systems (such as computers) could exhibit intelligent behaviour through the manipulation of symbols according to rules. This work earned Newell and Simon the Turing Award in 1975, recognising their foundational contributions to artificial intelligence.

Newell's UTC represented his mature synthesis of decades of research into human problem-solving, learning, and memory. Rather than treating perception, memory, and reasoning as separate cognitive modules, Newell argued they must be understood as deeply integrated systems operating within a unified cognitive architecture. This insight proved prescient: modern AI harnesses implement precisely this integration, with perception modules processing environmental information, memory modules storing and retrieving relevant context, and reasoning modules synthesising these inputs into coherent action sequences.

The connection between Newell's theoretical work and contemporary harness design is not merely coincidental. Researchers explicitly cite Newell's framework when justifying modular harness architectures, recognising that his cognitive science insights provide a principled foundation for engineering AI systems. In this sense, Newell's work from the 1980s and early 1990s anticipated the architectural requirements that AI engineers would discover empirically decades later when attempting to build capable, persistent, tool-using agents.

Quote: Clayton Christensen

"When I have my interview with God, our conversation will focus on the individuals whose self-esteem I was able to strengthen, whose faith I was able to reinforce, and whose discomfort I was able to assuage - a doer of good, regardless of what assignment I had. These are the metrics that matter in measuring my life." - Clayton Christensen - Author

Clayton M. Christensen, the renowned Harvard Business School professor and author, encapsulated a lifetime of reflection in this poignant reflection on true success. Drawn from his seminal book How Will You Measure Your Life?, published in 2012, the quote emerges from Christensen's classroom exercise where he challenged students to confront life's deepest questions: How can I ensure happiness in my career? How can I nurture enduring family relationships? And how can I avoid moral pitfalls that lead to downfall?^1,2,3

Christensen's Life and Intellectual Journey

Born in 1952 in Salt Lake City, Utah, Christensen rose from humble roots to become one of the most influential management thinkers of his generation. A devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he infused his work with ethical considerations, often drawing parallels between business strategy and personal integrity. He earned a DBA from Harvard Business School in 1992, where he later became the Kim B. Clark Professor of Business Administration.^3,7

Christensen's breakthrough came with The Innovator's Dilemma (1997), which introduced the theory of disruptive innovation - the idea that established companies often fail by focusing on high-margin customers while upstarts target overlooked markets, eventually upending incumbents. This concept, praised by Steve Jobs as deeply influential, transformed how leaders view competition and change.² His ideas permeated industries, from technology to healthcare, earning him accolades like the Economist Innovation Award.

Tragedy struck in 2010 when Christensen was diagnosed with leukemia, prompting deeper introspection. Amid treatments, he expanded his final HBS class into How Will You Measure Your Life?, co-authored with James Allworth and Karen Dillon. The book applies rigorous business theories - like marginal cost analysis and resource allocation - to life's choices, warning against 'just this once' compromises that erode integrity over time.^3,7 Christensen passed away in 2020, but his emphasis on relationships over achievements endures.

Context of the Quote in 'How Will You Measure Your Life?'

The quote anchors the book's core thesis: conventional metrics like wealth or status pale against the impact on others' lives. Christensen recounted posing these questions to ambitious MBAs, urging them to invest deliberately in relationships, as career peaks fade but personal bonds provide lasting happiness.^1,4 He illustrated pitfalls through cases like Nick Leeson, whose minor ethical lapse at Barings Bank spiralled into fraud and ruin, underscoring that 100% adherence to principles is easier than 98%.³

In sections on career and relationships, Christensen advised balancing ambition with family time, using 'jobs to be done' theory: people 'hire' you for specific roles, like parents modelling values or partners providing support. At life's end, he argued, success lies in friends who console you, children embodying your values, and a resilient marriage - not accolades.^4,5

Leading Theorists on Life Priorities and Fulfilment

Christensen built on a lineage of thinkers prioritising inner metrics over external gains:

• Viktor Frankl, Holocaust survivor and author of Man's Search for Meaning (1946), posited that fulfilment stems from purpose and love, not pleasure - influencing Christensen's focus on meaningful impact.³
• Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs culminates in self-actualisation, where self-esteem and relationships foster peak experiences, aligning with Christensen's relational emphasis.⁴
• Martin Seligman, father of positive psychology, advocated measuring life via PERMA (Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, Accomplishment), reinforcing that relationships yield the highest wellbeing.²
• Daniel Kahneman, Nobel laureate, distinguished 'experiencing self' (daily highs) from 'remembering self' (enduring memories), cautioning that peak achievements matter less retrospectively than sustained bonds.³

These theorists converge on a truth Christensen championed: true leadership - in business or life - measures by upliftment of others, not personal ascent. His framework equips readers to audit priorities, ensuring actions align with eternal metrics of good.^1,7

Term: Loss function

"A loss function, also known as a cost function, is a mathematical function that quantifies the difference between a model's predicted output and the actual 'ground truth' value for a given input." - Loss function

A loss function is a mathematical function that quantifies the discrepancy between a model's predicted output and the actual ground truth value for a given input. Also referred to as an error function or cost function, it serves as the objective function that machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms seek to optimize during training efforts.

Core Purpose and Function

The loss function operates as a feedback mechanism within machine learning systems. When a model makes a prediction, the loss function calculates a numerical value representing the prediction error-the gap between what the model predicted and what actually occurred. This error quantification is fundamental to the learning process. During training, algorithms such as backpropagation use the gradient of the loss function with respect to the model's parameters to iteratively adjust weights and biases, progressively reducing the loss and improving predictive accuracy.

The relationship between loss function and cost function warrants clarification: whilst these terms are often used interchangeably, a loss function technically applies to a single training example, whereas a cost function typically represents the average loss across an entire dataset or batch. Both, however, serve the same essential purpose of guiding model optimization.

Key Roles in Machine Learning

Loss functions fulfil several critical functions within machine learning systems:

• Performance measurement: Loss functions provide a quantitative metric to evaluate how well a model's predictions align with actual results, enabling objective assessment of model effectiveness.
• Optimization guidance: By calculating prediction error, loss functions direct the learning algorithm to adjust parameters iteratively, creating a clear path toward improved predictions.
• Bias-variance balance: Effective loss functions help balance model bias (oversimplification) and variance (overfitting), essential for generalisation to new, unseen data.
• Training signal: The gradient of the loss function provides the signal by which learning algorithms update model weights during backpropagation.

Common Loss Function Types

Different machine learning tasks require different loss functions. For regression problems involving continuous numerical predictions, Mean Squared Error (MSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) are widely employed. The MAE formula is:

\text = \frac \sum_^ \left| y_i - \hat_i \right|

For classification tasks dealing with categorical data, Binary Cross-Entropy (also called Log Loss) is commonly used for binary classification problems. The formula is:

L(y, f(x)) = -[y \cdot \log(f(x)) + (1 - y) \cdot \log(1 - f(x))]

where y represents the true binary label (0 or 1) and f(x) is the predicted probability of the positive class.

For multi-class classification, Categorical Cross-Entropy extends this concept. Additionally, Hinge Loss is particularly useful in binary classification where clear separation between classes is desired:

L(y, f(x)) = \max(0, 1 - y \cdot f(x))

The Huber Loss function provides robustness to outliers by combining quadratic and linear components, switching between them based on a threshold parameter delta (?).

Related Strategy Theorist: Vladimir Vapnik

Vladimir Naumovich Vapnik (born 1935) stands as a foundational figure in the theoretical underpinnings of loss functions and machine learning optimisation. A Soviet and later American computer scientist, Vapnik's work on Statistical Learning Theory and Support Vector Machines (SVMs) fundamentally shaped how the machine learning community understands loss functions and their role in model generalisation.

Vapnik's most significant contribution to loss function theory came through his development of Support Vector Machines in the 1990s, where he introduced the concept of the hinge loss function-a loss function specifically designed to maximise the margin between classification boundaries. This represented a paradigm shift in thinking about loss functions: rather than simply minimising prediction error, Vapnik's approach emphasised confidence and margin, ensuring models were not merely correct but confidently correct by a specified distance.

Born in the Soviet Union, Vapnik studied mathematics at the University of Uzbekistan before joining the Institute of Control Sciences in Moscow, where he conducted groundbreaking research on learning theory. His theoretical framework, Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) theory, provided mathematical foundations for understanding how models generalise from training data to unseen examples-a concept intimately connected to loss function design and selection.

Vapnik's insight that different loss functions encode different assumptions about what constitutes "good" model behaviour proved revolutionary. His work demonstrated that the choice of loss function directly influences not just training efficiency but the model's ability to generalise. This principle remains central to modern machine learning: data scientists select loss functions strategically to encode domain knowledge and desired model properties, whether robustness to outliers, confidence in predictions, or balanced handling of imbalanced datasets.

Vapnik's career spanned decades of innovation, including his later work on transductive learning and learning using privileged information. His theoretical contributions earned him numerous accolades and established him as one of the most influential figures in machine learning science. His emphasis on understanding the mathematical foundations of learning-particularly through the lens of loss functions and generalisation bounds-continues to guide contemporary research in deep learning and artificial intelligence.

Practical Significance

The selection of an appropriate loss function significantly impacts model performance and training efficiency. Data scientists carefully consider different loss functions to achieve specific objectives: reducing sensitivity to outliers, better handling noisy data, minimising overfitting, or improving performance on imbalanced datasets. The loss function thus represents not merely a technical component but a strategic choice that encodes domain expertise and learning objectives into the machine learning system itself.

Quote: Clayton Christensen

"The only metrics that will truly matter to my life are the individuals whom I have been able to help, one by one, to become better people." - Clayton Christensen - Author

Clayton Christensen's assertion that personal impact-measured through the individuals we help develop-represents the truest metric of a life well-lived stands as a profound counterpoint to the achievement-obsessed culture that dominates modern professional life. This reflection emerges not from abstract philosophy but from decades of observing how talented, ambitious people construct meaning, and from Christensen's own wrestling with what constitutes genuine success.

The Context: A Harvard Professor's Reckoning

Christensen, the Thomas Bowers Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School and author of the seminal work The Innovator's Dilemma, developed this perspective through direct engagement with some of the world's most driven individuals: MBA students at one of the planet's most competitive institutions. Each year, he posed three deceptively simple questions to his students on the final day of class: How can I be sure I'll be happy in my career? How can I be sure my relationships with family become an enduring source of happiness? How can I be sure I'll stay out of jail?

These questions, which form the foundation of his 2012 book How Will You Measure Your Life? (co-authored with James Allworth and Karen Dillon), reveal Christensen's conviction that conventional metrics of success-wealth, title, achievement-systematically mislead us about what actually generates lasting fulfilment. The book, published by Harper Business, synthesises decades of academic research with personal narrative to argue that well-tested theories from business and psychology can illuminate the path to a meaningful life.

The Danger of Marginal Thinking

Central to Christensen's argument is his critique of how marginal-cost analysis-a cornerstone of business decision-making-infiltrates personal life with corrosive consequences. He illustrates this through the cautionary tale of Nick Leeson, the trader whose "just this once" decisions ultimately destroyed Barings Bank, a 233-year-old institution, and landed him in prison. Leeson's descent began with a single small error, hidden in a little-scrutinised trading account. Each subsequent deception seemed a marginal step, yet the cumulative effect was catastrophic.

Christensen argues that we unconsciously apply this same logic to our personal and moral lives. A voice whispers: "I know most people shouldn't do this, but in this particular extenuating circumstance, just this once, it's okay." The price appears alluringly low. Yet life, Christensen observes, presents an endless stream of extenuating circumstances. Once we justify crossing a boundary once, nothing prevents us from crossing it again. The boundary itself-our personal moral line-loses its power.

This insight directly connects to his central claim about measuring life through human development. If we measure success by quarterly results, promotions, or wealth accumulation, we unconsciously permit ourselves small moral compromises that seem justified by marginal analysis. But if we measure success by the individuals we've genuinely helped become better people, our decision-making framework shifts entirely. Helping someone develop requires consistency, integrity, and long-term commitment-qualities incompatible with marginal thinking.

The Theoretical Foundations

Christensen's perspective draws on several streams of organisational and psychological theory. His work on innovation theory-developed through The Innovator's Dilemma, which Steve Jobs described as "deeply influencing" Apple's strategy-emphasises how organisations often fail by optimising for present circumstances rather than building capabilities for future challenges. This same principle applies to personal development: we often optimise for immediate achievement rather than building the relational and moral capabilities that sustain meaning across decades.

The book also engages with motivation theory, particularly the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. Research in psychology, notably the work of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan on self-determination theory, demonstrates that extrinsic rewards (money, status, recognition) provide temporary satisfaction but rarely generate enduring happiness. Intrinsic motivators-autonomy, mastery, and purpose-create deeper engagement and fulfilment. Christensen argues that helping others develop satisfies all three intrinsic motivators: you exercise agency in how you mentor, you develop mastery in your field, and you connect to a purpose beyond yourself.

Additionally, Christensen draws on research in positive psychology and life satisfaction studies. Longitudinal research, including the Harvard Study of Adult Development (which tracked individuals across decades), consistently demonstrates that the quality of relationships-not career achievement or wealth-predicts life satisfaction and longevity. Christensen synthesises this research with business theory to argue that the mechanism through which relationships generate happiness is precisely through the mutual development of the individuals involved.

The Concept of Being "Hired"

A distinctive element of Christensen's framework is his concept of being "hired" to do a job in someone's life. Rather than viewing relationships as passive connections, he suggests we should understand them as ongoing engagements where others, implicitly or explicitly, hire us to fulfil specific roles: mentor, example, confidant, supporter. This reframing transforms how we approach relationships. If your child has hired you to be an example of integrity, your daily choices take on different weight. If your colleague has hired you to help them develop their capabilities, your mentoring becomes a central measure of your professional contribution.

This concept echoes the work of Clayton Alderfer and other organisational psychologists who emphasise the importance of role clarity and psychological contracts in generating satisfaction. But Christensen extends it beyond the workplace into all human relationships, suggesting that clarity about what role we're playing-and commitment to excellence in that role-generates both happiness for ourselves and genuine development for others.

The Paradox of Achievement

Christensen acknowledges a subtle paradox: those with strong achievement drives-precisely the individuals most likely to attend Harvard Business School-face particular risk. Their ambition, which drives professional success, can simultaneously blind them to what generates lasting happiness. He recounts a personal moment when, as a young man, he faced a choice between attending an important basketball game (where his team needed him) and pursuing a business opportunity. He chose the game, reasoning that his team needed him. They won anyway without him. Yet he later recognised this decision as among the most important of his life-not because of the game's outcome, but because it established a boundary: relationships matter more than marginal professional gains.

This reflects research on what psychologists call the "arrival fallacy"-the discovery that achieving long-sought goals often fails to generate the anticipated happiness. Christensen argues this occurs because achievement-focused individuals have internalised the wrong metric. They measure success by what they accomplish, when they should measure it by who they've helped become.

Implications for Leadership and Mentorship

For leaders and managers, Christensen's framework suggests a radical reorientation of purpose. Rather than viewing your role primarily through the lens of organisational performance, financial results, or strategic objectives, you might ask: which individuals have I genuinely helped develop? Have I created conditions where they've grown in capability, confidence, and character? This doesn't negate the importance of business results-Christensen emphasises that career provides stability and resources to give to others. But it reorders priorities.

This perspective aligns with contemporary research on authentic leadership and servant leadership, which emphasises that leaders generate the greatest impact-both organisational and personal-when they prioritise the development of those they lead. Research by scholars like James Kouzes and Barry Posner demonstrates that leaders remembered as transformational are those who invested in developing others, not merely those who achieved impressive financial results.

The Long View

Christensen's metric requires patience and a long temporal horizon. You won't know if you've raised a good son or daughter until twenty years after the bulk of your parenting work. You won't know if you have true friends until they call to console you during genuine hardship. You won't know if you've built an enduring marriage until you've navigated the challenges that cause many relationships to fracture. This stands in sharp contrast to the quarterly earnings reports, annual performance reviews, and immediate feedback loops that dominate modern professional life.

Yet this long view, Christensen argues, is precisely what liberates us from marginal thinking. When you recognise that the true measure of your life will be assessed across decades, the temptation to compromise your principles "just this once" loses its power. The small decision to help someone develop, made consistently over years, compounds into a life of genuine impact. Conversely, the small decision to prioritise marginal professional gain over relational investment, repeated across years, compounds into a life of hollow achievement.

Christensen's insight ultimately suggests that the question "How will you measure your life?" is not merely philosophical but profoundly practical. It shapes daily decisions about where you invest your time, energy, and integrity. And those daily decisions, accumulated across a lifetime, determine not just your happiness but the legacy you leave: the individuals who became better people because you were present in their lives.