Andrew Ng engagement report

Best tweets

• Jul 27, 20262.3x their median

  Attackers have frontier AI. Defenders need a frontier AI ecosystem—the best open and closed models, force-multiplied by a global community. During the Hugging Face incident, closed AI blocked essential forensics. An open-weight frontier model helped contain the intrusion. That’s why we created the Open Secure AI Alliance.

  37K4.2K2.1K90511M viewsView on X
• Aug 14, 2026200x their median

  New: A map of the most important skills in AI Engineering. https://t.co/VVkn1Dqp1N

  25K4.1K5644847.0M viewsView on X
• Aug 5, 2026173x their median

  Announcing Discovery Loop! I am very excited to announce that, along with my longtime friends and collaborators @Sanjay_Ghemawat, @OriolVinyalsML and @quocleix, we are founding Discovery Loop (@DiscoLoopAI), a Public Benefit Corporation whose mission is to automate machine learning, science, and engineering to accelerate discoveries and progress. The four of us have worked together for 14 to 30 years, and have helped build some of the world’s most used products, infrastructure and AI models, and we’re excited to turn our attention to this ambitious endeavor. ♾ Learn more at: https://t.co/Rv3LMdLluK

  22K2.2K8969676.7M viewsView on X
• May 22, 2026109x their median

  The new White House policy requiring green card applicants to apply from outside the US is a capricious attack on legal immigration. It will hurt families, leave us with fewer doctors, teachers and scientists, and hurt American competitiveness in AI.

  12K1.5K2.6K2931.4M viewsView on X
• Aug 21, 202699x their median

  The most important skills in Building and Deploying AI Applications. https://t.co/IyWIKLIzeM

  12K2.1K2641952.1M viewsView on X
• Jul 28, 202685x their median

  Fifteen years ago, @Coursera and online courses changed education. It worked better than almost anyone expected, expanding access by opening up where you can learn. But how you learn remains largely the same as it has for centuries: it is still one-size-fits-all, taught the same way to each person who shows up. We now have an opportunity to change how learning happens. With advances in AI, we can now build a custom learning guide for each person. We will turn learning from one‑to‑many to one‑to‑one. I'm starting LearnVector to invent this next generation of learning. We are starting with a $100M investment from Coursera, and plan to collaborate closely with Coursera and Udemy. Good learning needs much more than just a chatbot. Research shows that chatbots without guardrails harm learning. They help complete tasks and enable students to do better on homework. But cognitive offloading to a chatbot results in them being less skilled. And, you cannot always trust what a chatbot tells you. In contrast, LearnVector will plan a path with you, adapt to how you learn, and patiently stay with you until you’ve mastered new skills. One thing has not changed in all this time. People want learning they can trust: material that is accurate, relevant, and worth the effort you put into it. Anything less wastes the most valuable thing a learner has: time. Coursera has a trusted library of materials from authoritative sources. LearnVector plans to work with Coursera to bring this trustworthy learning to everyone. I'm grateful to Greg Hart and the entire Coursera team for supporting LearnVector. I look forward to working with our talented team to change how we learn, and accelerate human development. https://t.co/TqFUDFd1hb

  11K1.2K405186932K viewsView on X
• Sep 21, 202682x their median

  The loudest voices stoking fears about AI dangers have made tremendous headway in the past two weeks. AI technology has not taken some unexpected, dangerous turn, but the hype around it — propelled by what appears to be a well orchestrated PR campaign — has drummed up considerable fear. I worry that it represents a setback for our field. I have written frequently that fears of AI are overhyped. AI’s capabilities can be uncannily human-like and unpredictable, and it’s rational to worry when people who are directly involved express concerns. But I see the problems as a sign of the engineering work that ahead, rather than insurmountable barriers or the sky falling. AI technology continues to advance — which is a good thing! — but technical advances, poorly understood by the public, give those who seek to generate hype repeated opportunities to do so. First, I don’t see any step up in the risk of human extinction from AI compared to a few months ago. The theories about this remain the same fantastical, science fiction scenarios as a few months ago. The biggest change in AI risk is its cybersecurity capabilities — a topic which we should take seriously — but this, too, will not lead to the end of the world. The most notable recent event leading to increased fear was when an OpenAI team deployed an agent swarm that hacked into Hugging Face. Much of the popular press contained significant hype. For example, some publications reported that a swarm of 1,200 agents carried out the attack. While this was technically accurate, as I write this, I have about 1,300 processes running on my laptop. Yes, the ability to get large swarms of agents to work in parallel on a task is a significant technical advance, And, in computing, many processes run at the same time. So this shouldn’t be seen as some magical capability. Additionally, OpenAI’s buggy sandboxing and monitoring processes were key to enabling this incident. Fixing these bugs and putting in place improved monitoring would be appropriate fixes, not pausing AI. There are many well known ways to attack software systems. The main advantage of AI agents is that they are relentless. They will tirelessly try many tactics — and have the patience to chain vulnerabilities together — that previously would have taken an infeasible amount of human effort. But in the long term, I believe the advantage will lie with defenders (because they have more information with which to identify bugs, which they can fix), but the cyber-threat landscape has changed significantly. There are still bottlenecks to identifying and exploiting a vulnerability. AI agents still have to try a lot of things to see what works, and taking these actions takes time and might be detected by defenders. This is why, even though it is now easy to obtain versions of leading open weight models that have had their guardrails removed or weakened, so they will not refuse to try to execute cyber attacks, the world has not ended. I am also concerned about the anthropomorphization of AI in a lot of reporting, where LLMs and agents are unnecessarily treated as if they were people. If I wield a hammer, miss a nail, and accidentally dent the wall, it’s not the fault of the hammer. The problem lies in how I used the hammer. Similarly, if I prompt an agent and it hacks into someone else’s system, the responsibility lies with me, not the agent. Of course, we want to build systems that are as safe and predictable as possible. (For example, an unsafe hammer would be one whose head randomly flies off under normal use.) Today’s agentic systems are not predictable, but I see no reason why, by applying sound engineering practices, we won’t be able to make them extremely safe to use. One new element in the forecasts of AI-enabled doom is AI companies disclaiming responsibility for their own products. “I didn’t do it; my out-of-control agent did!” There’s a balance to be struck between the responsibility of the tool maker and the tool user, but when something goes wrong, let’s hold the people building and/or using the hammer responsible, rather than the hammer. (By the way, if you’re worried about AI bioweapon risk, David Bellamy has a great post on why this, too, is overhyped. Briefly, the bottleneck in building a bioweapon is not intelligence, but lab work and manufacturing.) Pausing AI progress will create much more harm than benefit. First, our adversaries will certainly not slow down. Second, engineering requires discovering problems empirically so we can fix them. If we pause AI by a decade, we will also delay finding and implementing safety engineering fixes by about the same duration. Of course, the incentive to stoke fears — for regulatory capture, to garner attention, or to make one’s technology seem more powerful — remains the same as before. Disclaiming responsibility is a new one. Taking a hard technical look at the actual risks however, I see little factual basis for the degree of fear that’s been stoked up. We still have hard research and engineering work ahead to improve AI safety, but the beneficial applications continue to vastly outweigh the risks, and we should keep building. [Original text (with links): https://t.co/jni2tWazAH ]

  8.8K1.9K9604848.0M viewsView on X
• Jul 23, 202680x their median

  Announcing OpenWorker! An open-source agent that doesn't just chat with you, but delivers finished work -- like hand you a polished document, send a slack message, or update a calendar entry. Ask it to prepare a customer brief, untangle your calendar, draft a report, or triage a Slack alert. It works across your files and everyday tools, produces the deliverable, and checks in before doing anything consequential. OpenWorker runs on your Mac, with Windows support coming soon. It does not lock you into any one model. Bring your own API key and run it with GPT 5.6 Sol, Claude Fable, Gemini 3.6, an open weight model (like Kimi, GLM, DeepSeek, Inkling), or Ollama to keep your data local. Your data does not leave your machine except through an LLM provider and integrations that you choose. @rohitcprasad and I are building OpenWorker because AI coworkers are an important way to get work done, and we want there to be an open, privacy-preserving, model-independent option. Check it out and let us know what you think! Try it out: https://t.co/P0mGnI1o31 (requires your own API key) Source code: https://t.co/NYCiTD6hSq

  9.7K1.4K4942261.2M viewsView on X
• Aug 28, 202673x their median

  How have software engineering fundamentals changed with agentic coding? Here is our AI Engineering Skills map for software engineering fundamentals. https://t.co/cnRLj43DLs

  8.8K1.5K3491621.2M viewsView on X
• Jun 30, 202672x their median

  “Loop engineering” is a hot buzzphrase after mentions of it by Boris Cherny (Claude Code’s creator) and Peter Steinberger (OpenClaw's creator) went viral on social media. Loops are now a key part of how we get AI agents to iterate at length to build software. In this letter, I’d like to share my 3 key loops, shown in the image below, for building 0-to-1 products. These loops guide not just how I build software, but also how I decide what software to build. Agentic coding loop: Given a product specification and optionally a set of evals (that is, a dataset against which to measure performance), we can have an AI agent write code, test its work, and keep iterating until the code is bug-free and meets its specification. This idea of closing the loop took off around the end of last year, and it has been a game changer in enabling coding agents to work longer productively without human intervention. For example, over the weekend, I was building an app for my daughter to practice typing, and my coding agent could easily work for around an hour, using a web browser to check what it had built multiple times before getting back to me, without needing my intervention. The engineering loop executes quickly. Every few minutes, the coding agent might build and test a new version of the software. I hear frequently from developers who are finding new ways to engineer more effective engineering loops. This is an active area of invention! Developer feedback loop: In this loop, a developer examines the current product and steers the coding agent to improve it. Last year, a lot of developers (including me) were acting as the QA (quality assurance) function for our coding agents, manually finding bugs and then asking the agent to fix them. But with coding agents much more able to test their own code, the amount of time we need to spend on this function has decreased significantly. This allows us to make higher-level product decisions, such as what key features to offer, where the UI needs improvement, and so on. The developer-feedback loop operates over time intervals between tens of minutes and hours — that's how frequently a developer might review a product and give feedback. In the case of the typing app, I changed my mind a few times about the visual design, what cat costumes she can unlock as she learns (she loves cats), and the user flow for a grown-up to log in and steer the child's learning experience. When a developer has a clear vision for what to build, it is still a lot of work to translate that vision into a specification for a coding agent to implement. Further, after the developer has seen an implementation, they might update (or perhaps clarify) the spec to steer it toward what they want. If you find that the system repeatedly runs into certain problems, building a set of evals for the agent becomes useful. AI-native teams are increasingly using AI to help shape product direction, for example, automating the gathering and analysis of usage data, summarizing written and verbal customer feedback, or carrying out competitive analysis. However, for pretty much all the products I’m involved in, I see humans as having a significant context advantage over current AI systems — we know a lot more than the AI system about the users and the context the product has to operate in — and thus humans play a critical role. Many people describe this human contribution as “taste,” but I prefer to think of it as humans having a context advantage, since that gives us a clearer path to helping AI systems get better. This also speaks to why this step can’t be automated: So long as the human knows something the AI does not, human-in-the-loop is needed to to inject that knowledge into the system. External feedback loop: This includes a wide range of tactics like asking a few friends for feedback, launching to alpha testers, or putting the code into production with A/B testing. These tactics are usually slow, rarely taking less than hours and sometimes taking days or even weeks. This data informs the developer vision, which in turn continues to drive the detailed product spec, which in turn drives the coding agent. With coding agents speeding up software development, more engineers are starting to play a partial product management role. For many engineers who are growing into this role, the hardest part is shaping the product vision and striking a balance between building (bridging the gap between vision and spec) and getting user feedback to evolve the vision. It is important to do both! I will write more about how to do this in future posts, but for now, I find it encouraging that engineers are playing an expanded role (just as product managers and designers now do more engineering). [Original text: The Batch]

  8.5K1.6K415189692K viewsView on X

Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.

Keep going