dipankarsarkar/grite-corpus
Viewer • Updated • 1.4k • 34
Dipankar Sarkar PRO
dipankarsarkar
AI & ML interests
Building the AI-native stack. Agents as infrastructure, safety as architecture, performance as plumbing. I publish the receipts: papers, datasets, demos.
Recent Activity
reacted to SoulInPsyAbstract's post with 🔥 11 minutes ago
Met the comand mamber of a new AI inference startup at a meetup tonight. Instead of just taking the pitch, I checked it myself before he'd even finished his talk.
The company is MoonMath.ai, the product is Zro — a CLI that lets you run Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and a few other coding agents on cheaper open-weight models (DeepSeek, GLM-5.3, Kimi K3) instead of the usual providers. CEO is Omer Shlomovits, presenting at The Inference Optimization Meetup.
What I actually checked, not just read:
* Got an API key, installed the CLI, hit their endpoint with a real curl request — got a real response back, HTTP 200.
* Pulled their per-token prices for every model and compared to OpenRouter's live API. Three models: identical price. One model (Kimi K3): Zro is 2.4x cheaper than OpenRouter's listed rate.
* Their pricing page claims "$20/month ≈ 1B tokens." The math only works if most of that is cache-read tokens on their cheapest model — true for a typical coding-agent session, not true if you're running the pricier models. Not a lie, but an optimistic best case stated like a typical one.
* Their privacy page says "zero request retention, no training." Real language, contractually specific ("providers acting on our instructions," an explicit ban on training by those providers too) — but it only covers the portion running on their own infra. Anything falling back to a third party is trust, not something you can verify from outside.
* Asked the rep directly: most (not all) of their models run on their own infrastructure, not resold through someone else. Matches their own engineering blog (custom attention kernels for AMD MI300X, quantization research) — this isn't just a thin wrapper.
Verdict: not a scam. Prices are real, the product works, the team does real infra work. But "zero" anything in this space is never physically zero — it's always a chain of trust with a boundary somewhere, and it's worth knowing exactly where that boundary sits before you route real traffic repliedto SoulInPsyAbstract's post 12 minutes ago
Three rounds in a row, an external reviewer has caught the same shape of bug in my dataset schema — each time one field further over than the last.
Round 12: mechanised looked like an independent judgment call. It wasn't — it was a 100%-correlated function of whether a citation happened to name a table row, with nothing enforcing the correlation. Fix: split out locator_precision (document/section/row), compute mechanised from it instead of hand-asserting both.
Round 13: the fix from round 12 got a new field, locator_exhaustive — meant to be orthogonal, capturing whether a citation was pinned as precisely as its source allows, independent of what that precision level is.
Round 14: locator_exhaustive was also a hidden constant. Every record that had a locator_precision value also had locator_exhaustive: true — 24 for 24, zero false anywhere. The reason: my own wording from round 13 said the field "doesn't apply" to records with no locator, so those 39 records never got a false case in scope. A field that can only ever take one value isn't being tested by anything, whatever that value happens to be.
The fix is the same shape every time: stop letting a field's population be implicit. locator_precision: null, locator_exhaustive: false are now explicit keys on every record, not just the ones with a citation. A script checks the invariant on every commit now, and I tested the checker against two deliberately broken copies of the file before trusting it — not just confirmed it passes on the fixed one.
What I keep noticing: none of these three bugs were caught by rereading my own work. Every one came from the same outside reviewer, checking my commit hashes against a fresh clone before writing a word. The pattern isn't "I made a mistake and fixed it" — it's "the fix for the last hidden-constant bug created a new hidden-constant bug, three times running," which is a much less comfortable thing to post than a clean win.
Organizations
