topへ

Highlights:

Scientists at La Jolla Institute for Immunology, Scripps Research have de­vel­oped an HIV vac­cine that trains im­mune cells to see past HIV’s de­fenses.

This HIV vac­cine works by prompt­ing the body’s im­mune sys­tem to make sub­stan­tial num­bers of rarely seen “broadly neu­tral­iz­ing” an­ti­bod­ies.

In this new study, this vac­cine re­sulted in the best HIV-fighting an­ti­body re­sponse ever seen in pri­mates. Human tri­als have now started.

LA JOLLA, CA—A new HIV vac­cine de­vel­oped by La Jolla Institute for Immunology (LJI), Scripps Research sci­en­tists, and IAVI has the po­ten­tial to pro­tect hu­mans from de­vel­op­ing HIV in­fec­tion and AIDS. This HIV vac­cine is the first to gen­er­ate a high num­ber of “broadly neu­tral­iz­ing,” virus-fight­ing an­ti­bod­ies in pri­mates.

“This feels like a huge suc­cess,” says LJI Professor and Chief Scientific Officer Shane Crotty, Ph.D., who co-led the re­search with Scripps Research Professor William Schief, Ph.D. “We con­structed a suc­cess­ful vac­cine from the ground up, which re­quired a deep un­der­stand­ing of the im­mune sys­tem.”

This ground­break­ing re­search, pub­lished in Nature, is the re­sult of 14 years of col­lab­o­ra­tion be­tween La Jolla Institute for Immunology and Scripps Research, as part of the Scripps Consortium for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Development (CHAVD). “This has been one of those Apollo moon mis­sion-type pro­jects, where there is an ex­cep­tional goal and the team has to ac­com­plish a myr­iad of dis­cov­er­ies and in­ven­tions along the way,” says Crotty.

Outsmarting HIV

The new vac­cine works by in­ter­ven­ing in a process called B cell mat­u­ra­tion. B cells make an­ti­bod­ies. Like many im­mune cells, B cells have an early “naive” stage be­fore they are ready to make an­ti­bod­ies. B cells start to ma­ture once they get the sig­nal that a pathogen, such as a virus, is try­ing to at­tack. B cells see pieces of that pathogen’s mol­e­c­u­lar struc­ture and start pro­duc­ing an­ti­bod­ies that can bind to that struc­ture and halt in­fec­tion.

It can take a lit­tle while for B cells to find the right “bullseye” on a pathogen. But B cells keep try­ing. As they ma­ture, B cells tweak their an­ti­body pro­duc­tion, re­fin­ing an­ti­body struc­tures to bind to a pathogen in just the right, vul­ner­a­ble spots.

Scientists de­scribe B cell de­vel­op­ment as a train­ing process or boot­camp. In most cases, the body is left with a well-honed B cell army.

HIV is hard to beat be­cause it does­n’t give B cells a chance to de­velop ef­fec­tive an­ti­bod­ies. The first prob­lem is that HIV dis­guises it­self from the im­mune sys­tem. The virus is wrapped in an ever-shift­ing cloak of sugar mol­e­cules, called gly­cans. This lets HIV sneak un­de­tected past hu­man cells, which are also cov­ered in gly­cans.

The sec­ond big prob­lem is that HIV mu­tates very quickly. “The world­wide di­ver­sity of HIV mu­ta­tions is ex­tra­or­di­nary. Even the di­ver­sity within one in­di­vid­ual per­son liv­ing with HIV is dra­matic,” says LJI Instructor Patrick Madden, Ph.D., who served as study co-first au­thor with Jon Steichen, Ph.D., an in­sti­tute in­ves­ti­ga­tor at Scripps Research.

The third prob­lem is that HIV changes its shape when it in­fects hu­man cells. Even if B cells get a glimpse of its vi­ral struc­ture—snap!—the struc­ture changes.

Taken to­gether, these prob­lems rarely give B cells a chance to hone their an­ti­body re­sponses against HIV. Even if a B cell man­ages to make neu­tral­iz­ing an­ti­bod­ies, the virus can mu­tate or change its shape, ren­der­ing those an­ti­bod­ies use­less.

The LJI and Scripps Research teams spent years hunt­ing for “broadly neu­tral­iz­ing” an­ti­bod­ies that can ac­tu­ally bind to HIV and rec­og­nize key vi­ral struc­tures, even if the rest of the virus mu­tates. These an­ti­bod­ies are very, very rare, but they can be found in blood sam­ples from a small num­ber of peo­ple liv­ing with HIV.

An ef­fec­tive HIV vac­cine would need to prompt the im­mune sys­tem to make these same broadly neu­tral­iz­ing an­ti­bod­ies. “How could we flip the whole im­mune re­sponse on its head so the rare re­sponses be­come the com­mon re­sponses? That was a crit­i­cal chal­lenge we faced,” says Crotty.

Testing the new vac­cine

It was time to go back to B cell boot­camp. The sci­en­tists stud­ied what made the HIV-fighting B cells spe­cial. Then they re­versed the process to see ex­actly how those B cells ma­tured. By look­ing back at the mat­u­ra­tion process, the re­searchers could track how the B cells changed when they saw spe­cific pieces of the HIV struc­ture.

The team dis­cov­ered that B cells ma­tured to make broadly neu­tral­iz­ing an­ti­bod­ies af­ter they got an early look at parts of HIV’s outer “envelope” pro­tein. Because these vi­ral sites sparked an im­mune re­sponse, sci­en­tists would call them “antigens.”

An ef­fec­tive HIV vac­cine would likely need to in­clude mod­els of these anti­gens. The anti­gens would work like mugshots of America’s most wanted. If B cells saw those anti­gens early and of­ten, they would get re­ally good at rec­og­niz­ing and even neu­tral­iz­ing HIV. “We were try­ing to mimic the pro­gres­sion of those neu­tral­iz­ing an­ti­bod­ies,” says Madden.

In a feat of mol­e­c­u­lar en­gi­neer­ing, the Schief Lab de­vel­oped vac­cine mol­e­cules that re­sem­bled the real HIV anti­gens. The sci­en­tists then worked with Emory National Primate Research Center, to test this po­ten­tial HIV vac­cine in a non-hu­man pri­mate species called rhe­sus macaques.

The re­searchers first ad­min­is­tered a “priming” vac­cine meant to ac­ti­vate each an­i­mal’s naive B cells. The an­i­mals then re­ceived a se­ries of “shepherding” booster shots to help their B cells de­velop along the right path.

“This se­ries of vac­ci­na­tions will guide, or ‘walk’, a B cell from its naive state to its broadly neu­tral­iz­ing state,” says Madden.

This new type of vac­cine ap­proach is called “germline tar­get­ing” be­cause it tar­gets naive B cells in their “germline” or naive form, be­fore they be­gin their train­ing process.

The sci­en­tists found that around 44 per­cent of the an­i­mals went on to pro­duce broadly neu­tral­iz­ing an­ti­bod­ies against HIV in their blood. These an­ti­bod­ies were im­pres­sively abun­dant.

“We suc­ceeded in tak­ing ul­tra-rare an­ti­body re­sponses and turn­ing them into com­mon re­sponses by the end of the vac­ci­na­tion process,” adds Crotty. In other re­search re­cently pub­lished, they re­ported a new strat­egy to ac­cel­er­ate re­lated vac­cine an­ti­body re­sponses [See Nature Immunology pa­per].

The team did­n’t test whether these an­ti­bod­ies could pre­vent in­fec­tion, but it’s sig­nif­i­cant that these an­ti­bod­ies could be found in the blood, where they could en­counter and po­ten­tially block HIV.

Bringing the HIV vac­cine to hu­mans

The Crotty Lab plans to in­ves­ti­gate how they might change the booster shot reg­i­men to make the HIV vac­cine even more ef­fec­tive. “It was in­cred­i­ble to get those re­sults, but of course we’d like to see a re­sponse in 100 per­cent of the an­i­mals,” says Madden.

Importantly, the an­ti­bod­ies found in the an­i­mal sub­jects re­sem­bled the ex­act kinds of broadly neu­tral­iz­ing an­ti­bod­ies seen in those rare hu­mans who made their own neu­tral­iz­ing an­ti­bod­ies. It’s clear that our im­mune sys­tems can make these pow­er­ful an­ti­bod­ies, given the right train­ing.

“We be­lieve this vac­cine ap­proach is even more likely to suc­ceed in hu­mans, be­cause of the im­muno­genet­ics,” Crotty says.

The prim­ing im­muno­gen used in this study was eval­u­ated in hu­mans in the HVTN 144 trial and is cur­rently be­ing tested in the Phase 1 trial IAVI G004. IAVI, Scripps Research, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network, and part­ners are now ad­vanc­ing plans to fur­ther eval­u­ate the full im­mu­niza­tion reg­i­men in a fu­ture hu­man clin­i­cal study.

Additional au­thors of the study, “Vaccination elic­its HIV broadly neu­tral­iz­ing an­ti­bod­ies in pri­mates,” in­clude Claudia T. Flynn, Swastik Phulera, Monolina Shil, Oleksandr Kalyuzhniy, Alessia Liguori, Carolyne Kifude, Leigh M. Sewall, Christopher A. Cottrell, Krystal M. Ma, Sabyasachi Baboo, Jolene K. Diedrich, Katherine McKenney, Allan C. de­Camp, Diane G. Carnathan, Ivy Phung, Parham Ramezani-Rad, Ester Marina-Zárate, Brian Freeman, Zhenfei Xie, Jeong Hyun Lee, Troy Sincomb, Nicole Phelps, Danny Lu, Diana Goodwin, Ryan Tingle, Yumiko Adachi, Nushin Alavi, Jenny Tran, Andy S. Tran, Alyne Nascimento, Catherine Sovie, Daniel L. V. Bader, Hannah Voic, Xiaoya Zhou, Grace Pixton, Agnes Walsh, Mariane B. Melo, Torben Schiffner, Facundo D. Batista, Dennis R. Burton, Darrell J. Irvine, James C. Paulson, John R. Yates III, Gabriel Ozorowski, Andrew B. Ward, Guido Silvestri.

This work was sup­ported by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), of the National Institutes of Health, through grant UM1 Al100663 to the Scripps Center for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Immunology and Immunogen Discovery (CHAVI-ID), grant UM1 AI144462 to the Scripps Consortium for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Development (CHAVD), P51 OD011132 to Emory National Primate Research Center, and R01 AI113867; by the  Gates Foundation un­der the Collaboration for AIDS Vaccine Discovery (NAC INV-007522, INV-008813, INV-034657, and INV-064772), via the IAVI Neutralizing Antibody Center (NAC); and by the National Institute of Health grant S10OD025052.

European Citizens’ Initiative

“But I al­ready have a web­site on Substack,” you ar­gue.

No, no, Substack is just a dis­tri­b­u­tion tool to am­plify your web­site. It should not be your dig­i­tal home.

In the last few years, I’ve no­ticed a pat­tern of writ­ers leav­ing their web­sites to make Substack their dig­i­tal home.

Now, it’s kinda okay if they have bought a do­main and linked it to Substack. (Meaning, it’s bet­ter than noth­ing.)

Rachel from Conscious Living is a good ex­am­ple. This way, Substack more or less func­tions like a con­tent man­age­ment sys­tem (CMS) for you.

However, com­pared to other CMS it’s very lim­ited, such as the abil­ity to man­age your SEO and cus­tomize your pages to add more fea­tures, but I di­gress. If you just want a fuss-free plat­form, this is one way to get it and Substack’s con­di­tions for do­mains are very rea­son­able and cost-ef­fi­cient. As I will ex­plain later, this could change on a dime with­out warn­ing.

However, there are some writ­ers who are say­ing: “Hey read­ers, I’m now writ­ing on Substack, so head on over there (and ig­nore my web­site)!”

Some writ­ers do have a web­site, but link to their Substacks, call­ing them their “blogs”. If your Substack has a do­main name they own, it’s okay, but if it’s xx.sub­stack.com, Substack is say­ing “All your con­tent are be­long to us”.

In con­clu­sion: Writers, don’t do this. It’s short-sighted and un­wise and can de­rail your long-term vis­i­bil­ity on the Internet.

The siren call of con­ve­nience

Every few years, the in­ter­net con­vinces writ­ers that a new dig­i­tal par­adise has ar­rived. First, it was so­cial me­dia like Facebook. Then blog­ging net­works like Tumblr. Then it was Medium. More re­cently, it’s been Substack.

Platforms promise us an ea­ger au­di­ence, built-in mon­e­ti­za­tion, a smooth user in­ter­face, and a sup­port­ive com­mu­nity. As a writer who just wants to fo­cus on writ­ing, it’s in­cred­i­bly tempt­ing to hand over the keys to our cre­ative king­doms and let these por­tals han­dle every­thing. (Believe me, I gave in at one point. For years, I just stopped blog­ging al­to­gether and even gave up a do­main that had high traf­fic! But I got back in 2012 and never left.)

However, this is the truth that has not changed since the dawn of the Internet: When you build your au­di­ence en­tirely on some­one else’s plat­form, you aren’t a home­owner. You are a ten­ant. Or worse, a dig­i­tal share­crop­per.

And cor­po­rate land­lords al­ways change the rules even­tu­ally. It’s not per­sonal, it’s just busi­ness.

The il­lu­sion of the safe space

It’s easy to feel se­cure when a plat­form is in its golden era. But we’ve watched the down­falls of Twitter, the pol­icy shifts of Reddit, and the chang­ing tides of al­go­rith­mic net­works. Relying blindly on a cen­tral­ized por­tal not owned by you means your life’s work can al­ter overnight based en­tirely on a cor­po­rate board­room de­ci­sion.

When I looked at how frag­ile our dig­i­tal ecosys­tems re­ally are, I re­al­ized I needed a space that would­n’t go “poof” be­cause a com­pany needed to please its in­vestors or share­hold­ers. This re­al­iza­tion com­pletely changed my ap­proach, push­ing me to pro­tect my con­tent by learn­ing to blog the IndieWeb way.

Your writ­ing needs a per­ma­nent home­base—a do­main that you own and con­trol. Full stop.

Moving from “renting” to syn­di­cat­ing

The biggest push­back I hear from writ­ers is: “But my web­site does­n’t have an au­di­ence! Substack does.”

But you don’t have to com­pletely aban­don so­cial me­dia or plat­forms like Substack to pro­tect your au­ton­omy (personally, I pre­fer the word sov­er­eignty but it does sound a tad dra­matic).

You just need to change the or­der of op­er­a­tions. Instead of pub­lish­ing di­rectly to a por­tal, you can shift your mind­set to POSSE: Publish (on your) Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere. (I ex­plain the POSSE/PESOS method in an older post.)

By treat­ing your web­site as the de­fin­i­tive source of truth and us­ing plat­forms sim­ply as dis­tri­b­u­tion pipes, you get the best of both worlds. I dug deep into this shift when I com­mit­ted to be­ing an im­per­fect gar­dener of my dig­i­tal gar­den, ex­plor­ing how a less mar­ket-y way of pre­sent­ing my con­tent on­line let me share my wild gar­den of thoughts with­out danc­ing to the al­go­rithm.

A re­al­ity check on plat­form hype

If you are still hold­ing out hope that Substack is “different” from the so­cial plat­forms that came be­fore it, let’s look at the num­bers and be­hav­iors be­hind the mar­ket­ing copy.

After spend­ing a sig­nif­i­cant amount of time ob­serv­ing the plat­form ecosys­tem first­hand, I wrote a bru­tally hon­est take­away in What I learned from one year of Substack. The net­work ef­fects are real, but so is the pres­sure to con­form to what the plat­for­m’s ecosys­tem fa­vors.

This post, by the way, des­per­ately needs to be up­dated be­cause things have got­ten much, much worse since I wrote it.

When you hand your con­tent over to a plat­form, you have to con­form to their rules and their lo­cal­ized bi­ases. For those of us writ­ing from out­side the dom­i­nant US-centric echo cham­bers, plat­form al­go­rithms heav­ily pri­or­i­tize spe­cific west­ern nar­ra­tives, mak­ing it in­cred­i­bly tough for lo­cal­ized or mi­nor­ity voices to be seen un­less they con­form.

I wrote about this ex­act frus­tra­tion re­cently in Linkblog: Dwelling on the Internet, high­light­ing how al­go­rith­mic com­pla­cency forces us into ho­mog­e­nized bub­bles.

The flip side — the writ­ers who re­fused to leave their web­sites

Each time there’s a new drama on some plat­form, and writ­ers are shak­ing their sabers and de­clar­ing that they will leave for yet an­other so­cial me­dia plat­form they don’t con­trol, I think about writ­ers like John Scalzi.

As of date, John scalzi has been blog­ging on https://​what­ever.scalzi.com/ for 28 years!

This sci-fi nov­el­ist has main­tained a sin­gle in­de­pen­dent web­site con­tin­u­ously for nearly three decades; this makes him one of the longest-run­ning, most con­sis­tent orig­i­nal blog­gers on the in­ter­net. Imagine the amount of dig­i­tal foot­print on that web­site! Unbroken by time or plat­forms.

(Specifically, he uses word­press.com like I do, as we both don’t want to bother with the pain of set­ting up your own self-hosted word­press web­site and just want the folks at Automattic to do it.)

He blogs in the clas­sic Indieweb way, though I doubt he is even aware he’s do­ing it. He treats his so­cial me­dia chan­nels such as X or Bluesky as a way to am­plify his web­site. All roads lead back to https://​what­ever.scalzi.com/, and this is some­thing I wish every sin­gle writer would do.

He wrote re­cently in Various & Sundry, 6/3/26:

this site acts as my own in­sti­tu­tional mem­ory, if I post some­thing about it here it con­sti­tutes an of­fi­cial record. I mean, all the posts I ever placed on the for­mer Twitter are now en­tirely lost to time, since I have gone in and purged my en­tire time­line there. This site, how­ever, en­dures. — John Scalzi

this site acts as my own in­sti­tu­tional mem­ory, if I post some­thing about it here it con­sti­tutes an of­fi­cial record. I mean, all the posts I ever placed on the for­mer Twitter are now en­tirely lost to time, since I have gone in and purged my en­tire time­line there. This site, how­ever, en­dures. — John Scalzi

Breaking free from plat­form blues

Trying to adapt your pres­ence across var­i­ous plat­forms in an ever-shift­ing dig­i­tal land­scape is ex­haust­ing. One minute a plat­form is a writer’s dar­ling; the next, it’s be­ing boy­cotted. Railing against a plat­for­m’s fo­cus shift or the pres­ence of (long sigh) Nazis is a use­less en­deavor.

As I noted in Linkblog March 12, 2026: Platform blues, chas­ing plat­form pu­rity is an il­lu­sion. Tech will change, cor­po­rate al­go­rithms will con­tinue to pri­or­i­tize profit over hu­man con­nec­tion, and plat­forms will con­tinue to cy­cle through hype and de­cline.

The an­ti­dote to this ex­haus­tion is­n’t mov­ing to the next shiny new app. It’s an­chor­ing your work on an in­de­pen­dent web­site with open dis­tri­b­u­tion chan­nels like RSS. It also means ruth­lessly us­ing plat­forms as dis­tri­b­u­tion chan­nels. When one col­lapses or you pre­fer to just move, it’s easy to just change strate­gies be­cause your dig­i­tal home re­mains un­changed.

Use plat­forms to find your read­ers, but bring them back to your house. It’s time to stop dig­i­tal share­crop­ping on rented land.

Featured photo is by vivek vk on Unsplash

The story of MIT’s most no­to­ri­ous milk car­ton be­gins, as many good sto­ries do, in a col­lege dorm.

The milk in ques­tion was pur­chased in 1994 and re­dis­cov­ered in 1995 by an un­der­grad named Justin Cave. By that point, the re­port­edly lac­tose-in­tol­er­ant Cave had even less use for the milk he had aban­doned in his fridge ten months ear­lier. For rea­sons lost to his­tory, he did not throw the milk away. He threw it a birth­day party.

The Milk lived the rest of its life un­re­frig­er­ated, stored in a tall, sin­gle-walled jar. For twenty-seven years, the res­i­dents of Random Hall dorm gath­ered faith­fully to cel­e­brate its birth­day. At age 20, the Milk ap­plied to, and was re­jected from, MIT1. The jar was pe­ri­od­i­cally “burped” to re­lease the gas pres­sure in­side, un­til the Milk reached its sta­ble fi­nal form — a cloudy brown liq­uid. When asked why the Milk was never thrown away, one res­i­dent of Random Hall replied: “Why throw some­thing away when you can tell a story about it?”

“Stuff I learned from things that nor­mally get thrown away” could be the ti­tle of many sci­en­tists’ mem­oirs, in­clud­ing Louis Pasteur’s. Winemaking pro­duces, well, wine, but it also pro­duces acidic crys­tals on the walls of the vats. These byprod­ucts were not dis­carded — they were stud­ied by Pasteur and his con­tem­po­raries. Pasteur’s ob­ser­va­tions both rev­o­lu­tion­ized our un­der­stand­ing of chem­istry and led him to the phe­nom­e­non that would de­fine his ca­reer and lay the foun­da­tion of mod­ern food safety: fer­men­ta­tion.

The mi­croor­gan­isms re­spon­si­ble for fer­men­ta­tion are vis­i­ble to our naked senses only through the tex­tures, col­ors and smells re­sult­ing from their col­lec­tive ef­forts. From Aristotle through the 1850s, it was as­sumed that some in­trin­sic prop­erty of a non-liv­ing start­ing sub­stance (like grain or milk) en­abled its spon­ta­neous fer­men­ta­tion into some­thing use­ful (like beer or yo­gurt) or its even­tual spoilage.

It was Pasteur who proved that liv­ing or­gan­isms were re­quired for the trans­for­ma­tions that took place dur­ing fer­men­ta­tion. He heated up nu­tri­ent-rich broths in cus­tom flasks that let gases, but not mi­crobes, flow in and out of the flasks. Pasteur then broke the neck off of one of the flasks to ex­pose the broth to the air. If the boiled broth could spon­ta­neously trans­form, it would do so with or with­out ex­po­sure to mi­crobes in the air and en­vi­ron­ment.

The flask with the neck bro­ken off grew cloudy and fer­mented as bac­te­ria bloomed, but the ster­ile one re­mained clear.

This find­ing was great news for Napoleon III2. The French were los­ing money, and per­haps more alarm­ingly, their rep­u­ta­tion, ex­port­ing wine to the British — the wine would “spontaneously” go bad dur­ing ship­ping. The French gov­ern­ment of­fered a prize for a sci­en­tist to solve the case of the spoiled wine. With the knowl­edge of the mi­croor­gan­ism-dri­ven process of fer­men­ta­tion in hand, Pasteur did to the wine what he did to the broth, just more gen­tly — he heated the wine enough to kill mi­crobes with­out dam­ag­ing the wine’s fla­vor. Immortalized as pas­teur­iza­tion, this process was adapted shortly af­ter its in­ven­tion in 1865 to let us safely drink stored milk3.

Killing bac­te­ria thus be­came a ma­jor pre­oc­cu­pa­tion of mod­ern life. Its most vis­i­ble man­i­fes­ta­tion to­day might be tak­ing an­tibi­otics (first avail­able in the 1940s): there were ~700 an­tibi­otic pre­scrip­tions per 1000 peo­ple4 in 2024 ac­cord­ing to CDC data. A close sec­ond might be the dizzy­ing ar­ray of dis­in­fec­tant prod­ucts found in U.S. gro­cery stores.

What’s less vis­i­ble is the san­i­ti­za­tion in­fra­struc­ture that makes things like gro­cery stores or med­i­cine pos­si­ble at all. The com­pany Steris, one maker of high tem­per­a­ture, pres­sur­ized ster­il­iza­tion equip­ment and other med­ical in­stru­ments, is a $5 bil­lion an­nual rev­enue com­pany, with a $21 bil­lion mar­ket cap. The U.S. pas­teur­izes around 50 bil­lion liters of fluid milk every year. To pack­age salad greens like spinach, the greens are washed in a di­lute bleach so­lu­tion to kill any lin­ger­ing soil mi­crobes. I could go on.

But our war on bac­te­ria has its own war­ring in­dus­try. This in­dus­try has cap­tured the imag­i­na­tions of sci­en­tists, the food and bev­er­age in­dus­try, pharma com­pa­nies and doc­tors along with in­flu­encers, mar­ket­ing gu­rus and op­por­tunists of all fla­vors. This in­dus­try em­pha­sizes that some mi­crobes are friends, not foe, (true) and you should be eat­ing them in large quan­ti­ties, on pur­pose, all the time, and prefer­ably pay­ing more for prod­ucts that con­tain them (dubious). This is the pro­bi­otics in­dus­try.

“Probiotic” is a bit of a mis­nomer — it means for life, or pro­mot­ing life, but the for­mal de­f­i­n­i­tion of a pro­bi­otic is an ac­tual liv­ing mi­croor­gan­ism. In sim­ple terms: tak­ing a pro­bi­otic is just eat­ing bac­te­ria on pur­pose. I say on pur­pose be­cause we con­sume mi­crobes ac­ci­den­tally all the time from our en­vi­ron­ment, largely obliv­i­ous to their ex­is­tence or ef­fects. The bac­te­ria we spend much of our time and en­ergy try­ing to kill are out­num­bered, at a species level, at least 1000 to 1 by a com­bi­na­tion of harm­less and ben­e­fi­cial bac­te­ria liv­ing in and on our bod­ies. It’s this lat­ter prop­erty of ben­e­fi­cial­ness that pro­bi­otics are try­ing to ex­ploit.

I say ex­ploit be­cause of a re­cent trip I took to the gro­cery store. I had a cold and was in search of lemon gin­ger tea. I bought a box of Bigelow, went home, boiled some wa­ter, poured it over a tea bag, waited a bit, added honey, took a sip, and al­most spit it out. The tea had its ex­pected notes of gin­ger, a hint of lemon, and some pow­dery, al­ka­line af­ter­taste that I could­n’t place. Frankly, it tasted ter­ri­ble. (Sorry, Bigelow).

I in­spected the box again. In my con­gested state, I had un­wit­tingly pur­chased a new of­fer­ing from the tea com­pany — Bigelow Lemon Ginger, with pro­bi­otics. What made this tea dif­fer­ent from all the other teas I hap­pily sipped on was that in ad­di­tion to nice-sound­ing things like lemon­grass and cin­na­mon, it con­tained bac­te­ria. Bacteria which I had just boiled, at a tem­per­a­ture 40oC hot­ter than pas­teur­iza­tion.

Did the tea taste bad be­cause I was drink­ing dead bac­te­ria wa­ter? And if that was the ul­ti­mate out­come of the nor­mal brew­ing process, why bother putting bac­te­ria in the tea at all?

I was at a lab happy hour when I men­tioned this to my PhD the­sis ad­vi­sor. “I know, right?” she said, sud­denly an­i­mated. “Probiotic teas taste SO BAD.” I was thrilled to have an­other wit­ness. “Doesn’t it seem crazy to add in bac­te­ria that you’re just go­ing to boil and kill any­way?” I asked. “Is it all a scam?” She was al­ready nod­ding. “You have to won­der whether the bac­te­ria in the tea make it to the gut at all, and whether they do any­thing help­ful once they get there,” she said.

I’d be ly­ing if I said I re­mem­bered ex­actly what hap­pened next, or who sug­gested what. All I re­mem­ber is an idea. An idea to test this seem­ingly para­dox­i­cal mar­ket­ing tac­tic like the mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gists we are. The idea was sim­ple: What if we tried to grow the bac­te­ria from the tea bag, in the lab?

I went home. I stared at the box of bac­te­ria tea.

Why throw some­thing away when you can tell a story about it?

BC30™, the bac­te­r­ial strain in the tea, is short for Bacillus co­ag­u­lans GBI-30, 6086®. It re­ceived the FDA’s GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe5) des­ig­na­tion in 2012 and is found in over a thou­sand “leading food, bev­er­age and pet food prod­ucts world­wide” ac­cord­ing to the pro­bi­otic’s web­site.

To coax these bac­te­ria to grow out of steeped tea, I needed to know three things:

Is this species safe to grow in the lab?

Is this species safe to grow in the lab?

What does it like to eat?

What does it like to eat?

What are its pre­ferred growth con­di­tions?

What are its pre­ferred growth con­di­tions?

In gen­eral, I try not to in­gest the bac­te­ria I grow in the lab — even ones with the low­est safety des­ig­na­tion, BSL-1. By na­ture of it be­ing a com­mer­cial pro­bi­otic, BC30 is both BSL-1 (safe to grow un­der nor­mal lab pre­cau­tions) and ed­i­ble.

But, I still would­n’t try this at home or eat bac­te­ria off of a cul­ture plate. Why? BC30’s pre­ferred food source is not that dif­fer­ent from the pre­ferred food source of many other mi­croor­gan­isms: a sugar- and amino acid-rich nu­tri­ent medium called MRS (De Man, Rogosa and Sharpe) agar.

While MRS agar has some ad­just­ments to make it pref­er­en­tially ap­pe­tiz­ing to BC30 and its rel­a­tives, those rel­a­tives also in­clude Streptococcus pyo­genes (causes strep throat) and Bacillus cereus (causes food poi­son­ing). Without ster­ile tech­nique and rig­or­ous species-level con­fir­ma­tion, you can­not know for sure what is grow­ing on your plate.

With that said, the American Society for Microbiology’s blog sug­gested that were I suc­cess­ful in cul­tur­ing BC30, I would see growth of translu­cent white colonies on MRS agar plates af­ter 48 hours of in­cu­ba­tion at 30 – 33oC in the pres­ence of oxy­gen.

First, I needed to make tea.

I wanted the con­di­tions of the ex­per­i­ment to rep­re­sent a range of re­al­is­tic tea-drink­ing sce­nar­ios, from in­tended use to fla­grant im­pro­vi­sa­tion, and set up three steeps:

The Rule Follower — Brewed as di­rected for 4 min­utes in boil­ing wa­ter.

The Rule Follower — Brewed as di­rected for 4 min­utes in boil­ing wa­ter.

“I for­got I made tea” — We’ve all been there. 15 min­utes, boil­ing wa­ter.

“I for­got I made tea” — We’ve all been there. 15 min­utes, boil­ing wa­ter.

Cold brew an­ar­chist — Self-explanatory.

Cold brew an­ar­chist — Self-explanatory.

It was at this point I re­al­ized I needed a ster­ile-ish way to trans­port the steeped tea and tea bags from my house to the lab. Luckily, I had re­cently run a blind­folded vol­ume pour­ing ac­cu­racy com­pe­ti­tion at our de­part­men­tal re­treat and had left­over Falcon tubes still in their orig­i­nal pack­age. While the tea was def­i­nitely not ster­ile, I rea­soned that a lit­tle ex­tra asep­tic tech­nique would­n’t hurt. I poured the tea into the tubes over my kitchen stove, us­ing the open flame as a makeshift Bunsen burner.

In re­al­ity, lab came first. I had to make MRS agar plates be­fore I steeped the tea. Our lab does not use MRS broth very of­ten, and when I first looked for some all I found was a 10-year-old so­lid­i­fied block of MRS pow­der in our stock cab­i­net that was grow­ing large green spots in­side of its glass con­tainer. Behind it was one that looked mer­ci­fully nor­mal.

I mixed broth pow­der, agar and wa­ter in a glass bot­tle, loosely capped it, put it in a wa­ter bath and took it to the au­to­clave. “Autoclave” is a nice word for gi­ant pres­sure cooker. Ours is made by the afore­men­tioned Steris. It rat­tled and hissed as its jaws opened to ac­cept my tray of cul­ture me­dia, which it then heated to 121oC for 45 min­utes, ster­il­iz­ing the liq­uid.

Back at my lab bench, when the molten MRS agar had cooled enough to han­dle, I lit a Bunsen burner next to a stack of empty plas­tic petri dishes and poured a layer of agar into each one. Left overnight, the plates so­lid­i­fied into nu­tri­ent-dense beds for BC30.

The next day, I took my tubes of tea to lab. I pipet­ted 400 mi­cro­liters (0.4mL) of each liq­uid tea con­di­tion onto a plate next to the Bunsen burner. I spread the liq­uid evenly across the plate with a hockey stick-shaped plas­tic spread­er6 and left the lids on the plates cracked open to dry near the flame.

But to an­swer my ques­tion, I needed one more test. If there were bac­te­ria in the tea bag ini­tially, but they died when boiled, then I might see bac­te­r­ial growth by plat­ing the dry in­gre­di­ents of an un­steeped tea bag, or the tea bag steeped in cold wa­ter. I cut open the tea bags and shook some of their con­tents onto the agar. I put my full set of plates, in­clud­ing a plain MRS plate to check its steril­ity, into the in­cu­ba­tor at 37oC — a stan­dard growth tem­per­a­ture, but a lit­tle warmer than rec­om­mended. I was skep­ti­cal that any­thing would grow. For the next two days, all I could do was wait and see.

The first thing I no­ticed when I took the plates out of the in­cu­ba­tor was the smell. I was in dis­be­lief when I saw lit­tle white colonies dot­ting al­most all the plates and opened one to get a closer look. A sickly sweet, gin­gery aroma wafted from the plate as I in­spected the translu­cent colonies — a byprod­uct of the bac­te­ria me­tab­o­liz­ing the sug­ars in the MRS plate. By all ac­counts, I was look­ing at BC30.

Colonies grew on all of the tea and tea bag plates, while my ster­ile con­trol plate re­mained bac­te­ria-free. The colonies from the boil­ing-wa­ter steeps and the tea bags were a va­ri­ety of sizes, in­clud­ing some that were sig­nif­i­cantly larger than oth­ers, while the colonies from the cold-wa­ter tea were uni­formly small.

Because I knew the vol­ume of tea I had put on each plate, I could cal­cu­late a stan­dard mea­sure­ment of bac­te­r­ial den­sity: colony-form­ing units (CFUs) per mil­li­liter. Contradictory to my ex­pec­ta­tions, I saw a five-fold in­crease in colonies from the tea steeped in boil­ing wa­ter rel­a­tive to the tea steeped in cold wa­ter for the four-minute con­di­tion. I saw the same pat­tern in the fif­teen-minute con­di­tion, with a nearly four-fold in­crease in boil­ing vs cold.

Before I could draw any con­clu­sions, I needed to know, for sure, that these colonies were Bacillus co­ag­u­lans. The most ro­bust way to check is by se­quenc­ing their DNA, but se­quenc­ing is ex­pen­sive. A sim­pler, cheaper way to check is with PCR, which am­pli­fies small re­gions of DNA unique to a species. I down­loaded the BC30 genome and se­lected two re­gions of its genome that did­n’t match other species in the NCBI data­base. Using Primer3, I gen­er­ated two pairs of PCR primers, short stretches of DNA to bind to ei­ther side of my re­gion of in­ter­est.

I picked the largest colony I could see from each plate (seven to­tal), sus­pended the cells in a small vol­ume of wa­ter, and set up stan­dard colony PCR re­ac­tions. The heat dur­ing the re­ac­tion bursts the cells, mak­ing the DNA avail­able for am­pli­fi­ca­tion. The com­pleted re­ac­tion was run through a porous gel with an elec­tric cur­rent and vi­su­al­ized with UV. If I saw bands on the gel for both primer sets, from to­tally dif­fer­ent parts of the BC30 genome, I could be con­fi­dent that this was, in fact, BC30.

I loaded the gel into the im­ager and hit run. There, in black re­lief against the grey back­ground of the gel, were my bands.

Bigelow knew some­thing I did­n’t7. It turns out that BC30, like many of its rel­a­tives, is a spore-form­ing bac­terium. When starved of nu­tri­ents, Bacillus co­ag­u­lans di­vides asym­met­ri­cally, pack­ing its ba­sic cel­lu­lar in­for­ma­tion into a spore with a thick pro­tec­tive coat. These spores are re­sis­tant to dessi­ca­tion, nu­tri­ent star­va­tion, ra­di­a­tion, chem­i­cal dis­in­fec­tants and ex­treme heat. It was these spores that were in the tea bag — spores that are per­fectly com­fort­able be­ing steeped in boil­ing wa­ter.

Like the seeds of plants, when the spores find them­selves in fa­vor­able con­di­tions for growth — say, on an MRS agar plate at a balmy 37oC — they ger­mi­nate back into ac­tively grow­ing cells. This is the premise of their abil­ity to func­tion as a pro­bi­otic. The spores are dor­mant and shelf-sta­ble in a tea bag, or any of the thou­sand prod­ucts ad­ver­tised to con­tain BC30, and will, in the­ory, ger­mi­nate upon ar­rival in the GI tract, where they can ex­ert some sort of ef­fect on the host that con­sumed them.

To pro­duce spores at scale, man­u­fac­tur­ers grow bac­te­ria in vats of nu­tri­ent-rich broth. If the nu­tri­ents are not re­plen­ished, the bac­te­ria even­tu­ally start to starve, trig­ger­ing the sporu­la­tion process. Around 24 hours later, the bac­te­r­ial broth is treated with en­zymes to kill any re­main­ing, non-sporu­lated cells. The mix­ture is con­cen­trated, washed with wa­ter, and fi­nally, in a fan­tas­tic twist of irony, pas­teur­ized.

The pitch for BC30 is that it im­proves “digestive health” and “protein ab­sorp­tion.” The re­ported end­points for di­ges­tive health on BC30’s web­site are re­duc­tions in bowel move­ment fre­quency, ab­dom­i­nal pain and ab­dom­i­nal bloat­ing in adults with IBS. In the study pro­moted on the site, the base­line for the placebo group for ab­dom­i­nal pain and bloat­ing is, mys­te­ri­ously and re­spec­tively, 12.5% and 30% higher than the base­line for the BC30 treat­ment group. The placebo group ex­pe­ri­enced no change in sever­ity scores over the sub­se­quent course of treat­ment, while the BC30 group dropped to placebo lev­els af­ter a week and sta­bi­lized.

For one of the pro­tein ab­sorp­tion stud­ies, there is a small but sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence in amino acid lev­els in the blood, in­clud­ing when BC30 is paired with an­other one of its par­ent com­pa­ny’s prod­ucts, a “nutritional milk pro­tein con­cen­trate” called Ultranor.

If these re­sults hold, they beg the ques­tion — could a prod­uct like Bigelow’s pro­bi­otic tea be able to pro­duce these ben­e­fi­cial ef­fects? Most of the clin­i­cal tri­als I could find, in­clud­ing the IBS study above, dosed peo­ple daily over the course of one to eight weeks with 1 bil­lion CFUs (spores) of BC30. Per my cal­cu­la­tions, a prop­erly steeped cup of pro­bi­otic tea yields around 30,000 CFUs: 0.003% of the clin­i­cally tested dose.

Granted, I am one per­son and this is one ex­per­i­ment. But there are in­de­pen­dent, con­flict­ing re­ports on whether BC30 sur­vives the GI tract at all. One study sug­gests that Bacillus pro­bi­otics don’t make it, while an­other re­ports about half of the ini­tial dose of spores sur­viv­ing tran­sit through an ar­ti­fi­cial hu­man gut sys­tem. Other re­search sug­gests that the ef­fect of the pro­bi­otic is not even due to the cells com­ing back to life, but due to an im­mune re­sponse against the dor­mant or veg­e­ta­tive cells.

These ob­ser­va­tions have con­se­quences for con­sumers be­ing parted from their money by un­sub­stan­ti­ated health claims. But they are in­ter­est­ing ob­ser­va­tions in their own right. Sporulating or­gan­isms’ im­per­vi­ous­ness to heat, while use­ful for com­mer­cial biotech ap­pli­ca­tions, causes prob­lems for the food in­dus­try. The food-poi­son­ing agent Bacillus cereus is a species nor­mally found in the soil. It can re­lease heat-re­sis­tant tox­ins if it mul­ti­plies in food, and live bac­te­ria can pro­duce tox­ins when they reach the small in­tes­tine. Even pas­teur­ized milk spoils even­tu­ally as heat-re­sis­tant spores, mostly soil Bacillus, be­gin to mul­ti­ply.

Bacillus co­ag­u­lans is also a soil bac­terium by na­ture8, and not a typ­i­cal res­i­dent of the com­mu­nity of mi­crobes in our gut (called the gut mi­cro­biome). It was dis­cov­ered in 1915, in canned milk that had spoiled and co­ag­u­lated. In spite of its ori­gins, BC30 seems in­ert as a pathogen, and re­ports of it caus­ing in­fec­tion are van­ish­ingly rare. BC30’s safety track record is re­mark­able.

But safety is only the first step on the quest to use pro­bi­otics for good. New pro­bi­otic com­pa­nies like Pendulum and Seed mar­ket the fact that they are backed by clin­i­cal trial data — Pendulum for blood sugar con­trol in Type II di­a­betes, and Seed for gas, bloat­ing and reg­u­lar­ity in healthy adults. The back­bones of Pendulum and Seed’s prod­ucts are or­gan­isms found more com­monly in the gut, and, in­ter­est­ingly, both com­pa­nies fo­cus on multi-species prod­ucts, dos­ing pa­tients with minia­ture mi­cro­bial com­mu­ni­ties.

One fo­cus of my PhD lab is on ab­nor­mal path­o­genic be­hav­ior of nor­mally harm­less bac­te­r­ial res­i­dents of the gut, most com­monly in peo­ple who are al­ready quite sick. While un­happy mi­cro­bio­mes can be un­happy in their own way, we do not have a con­sen­sus on what a “healthy” gut mi­cro­biome looks like, ei­ther. In col­lab­o­ra­tion with a con­ti­nent-wide con­sor­tium in Africa, our lab helped cat­a­logue the species found in healthy adult women across the con­ti­nent. We found over 1,000 new species rel­a­tive to what had been pre­vi­ously de­scribed in stud­ies fo­cused on Western coun­tries.

Companies try­ing to in­tro­duce tar­geted com­bi­na­tions of mi­crobes into the gut are thus for­ever shoot­ing at a mov­ing tar­get. Outside of spe­cific in­di­ca­tions for GI in­fec­tions, de­ter­min­ing whether to give (or take) a pro­bi­otic is a grey area. And for the com­mon GI com­plaints fo­cused on by the pro­bi­otic mar­ket, tar­get­ing the mi­cro­biome with ad­di­tional or­gan­isms may not be the an­swer at all. Rather, by un­der­stand­ing how bac­te­ria work to­gether in the mi­cro­biome, so­lu­tions may fa­vor chang­ing the meta­bolic en­vi­ron­ment of the gut to drive the for­ma­tion of species-ag­nos­tic “guilds” that per­form spe­cific func­tions, likely via di­etary in­ter­ven­tions.

I never get tired of grow­ing bac­te­ria. For a colony to be vis­i­ble on a plate, it con­sists of at least a mil­lion, of­ten closer to a bil­lion, in­di­vid­ual cells. Learning how bac­te­ria grow and adapt does not di­min­ish the sense of won­der I feel when I ob­serve them — it only en­hances it. I like to think this same sense of won­der an­i­mated the sci­en­tist who first cul­tured Bacillus co­ag­u­lans out of canned milk that had spoiled. And I have to imag­ine some mix­ture of won­der, awe and hor­ror kept the Random Hall Milk alive for twenty-seven years.

The next Louis Pasteur could be a lac­tose-in­tol­er­ant un­der­grad, or a pro­cras­ti­nat­ing PhD stu­dent. It could be you. Pausing to look a lit­tle longer, to ask why the world is the way it is — this is how we up­end as­sump­tions of what is valu­able. What is worth look­ing at. Because in the end, trash is in the eye of the be­holder.

1

You can read the Milk’s ap­pli­ca­tion here.

2

Author cor­rec­tion 7/28/26: Changed from “Napoleon” to “Napoleon III.” A com­menter on an­other site cor­rectly pointed out that Napoleon I was ex­iled be­fore Pasteur was born. According to the Pasteur Institute, “in 1863, Napoleon III asked [Pasteur] to study dis­eases in wine.”

3

As demon­strated by the Milk, even pas­teur­ized bev­er­ages spoil, a process sped up by ex­po­sure to the mi­crobes in the air but which will pro­ceed within an un­opened con­tainer any­way. How is this pos­si­ble?

It’s be­cause pas­teur­ized milk is not the same as ster­il­ized milk. Pasteurization heats to ~60C for a few min­utes. While the mi­crobes that we worry about caus­ing in­fec­tion can’t sur­vive this, some heat-tol­er­ant bac­te­ria and pro­teins can — those are what will even­tu­ally break down the milk, even if it is­n’t opened to the air. Heating to 140C, on the other hand, makes milk ef­fec­tively ster­ile, killing even the heat-tol­er­ant bac­te­ria. But this process, used to pro­duce “ultra-high tem­per­a­ture” or UHT shelf-sta­ble milk, does some odd things to the pro­teins that sub­tly change the fla­vor, color, and tex­ture of the milk.

4

Author cor­rec­tion 7/28/26: I re­ported this ini­tially as “7 in 10 peo­ple were pre­scribed an­tibi­otics,” but a com­menter on an­other site pointed out that the orig­i­nal re­port data likely re­flects a smaller num­ber of peo­ple get­ting re­peat pre­scrip­tions, so I have re­ported the raw data from the CDC re­port in­stead.

5

If a pro­bi­otic is mar­keted as a food or di­etary sup­ple­ment, as most are, then it is not re­quired to un­dergo a clin­i­cal trial in the U.S. but in­stead to sub­mit a GRAS no­ti­fi­ca­tion. The sec­ond most im­por­tant thing to know about the GRAS sys­tem is that it does not re­quire proof of ef­fi­cacy — only safety. The most im­por­tant thing to know is that the proof of safety is pro­vided by the com­pany re­quest­ing the GRAS des­ig­na­tion. This proof is then re­viewed by the FDA, to de­ter­mine whether the no­tice pro­vides a “sufficient ba­sis for a GRAS de­ter­mi­na­tion” and whether “information in the no­tice or oth­er­wise avail­able to FDA” raises any safety con­cerns.

6

This is one of the most po­lar­iz­ing choices one can make as a bio­med­ical re­search sci­en­tist. The al­ter­na­tive to the hockey stick is to use glass beads that you au­to­clave then sprin­kle on the plate and roll around. People are very pas­sion­ate about their cho­sen method and will at­tempt to con­vert you.

7

Saw this weirdly ag­gres­sive Bigelow com­mer­cial at the gym. I don’t think they’re go­ing to spon­sor me af­ter this ar­ti­cle.

8

As our un­der­stand­ing of mi­croor­gan­isms evolves, so do our nam­ing and clas­si­fi­ca­tion con­ven­tions. Bacillus co­ag­u­lans is a more dis­tant rel­a­tive of Bacillus cereus and sim­i­lar soil mi­crobes than pre­vi­ously thought and has been re-clas­si­fied into a new genus called Weizmannia. Its full nomen­cla­ture his­tory can be found on the LPSN.

@openai/codex-security is a CLI and TypeScript SDK for find­ing, val­i­dat­ing, and fix­ing se­cu­rity vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties in your code. Scan repos­i­to­ries, re­view changes, track find­ings over time, and run se­cu­rity checks in CI.

Documentation

Quick start

Requires Node.js 22 or later, Python 3.10 or later, and ac­cess to Codex Security.

npm in­stall @openai/codex-security npx codex-se­cu­rity lo­gin npx codex-se­cu­rity scan .

For CI, set OPENAI_API_KEY in­stead of sign­ing in.

If both a ChatGPT sign-in and an API key are avail­able, in­ter­ac­tive scans ask which cre­den­tial to use. CI and other non­in­ter­ac­tive scans keep the ex­ist­ing API-key prece­dence. Select a cre­den­tial ex­plic­itly when needed:

npx codex-se­cu­rity scan . –auth chat­gpt npx codex-se­cu­rity scan . –auth api-key

To make your ChatGPT sign-in the au­to­matic de­fault, un­set any con­fig­ured API keys:

un­set OPENAI_API_KEY CODEX_API_KEY

Scan his­tory is stored in the Codex Security work­bench state di­rec­tory. If that di­rec­tory can­not be writ­ten, set CODEX_SECURITY_STATE_DIR to a writable di­rec­tory out­side the repos­i­tory.

TypeScript SDK

im­port { CodexSecurity } from “@openai/codex-security”;

const se­cu­rity = new CodexSecurity(); const re­sult = await se­cu­rity.run(”.“);

con­sole.log(re­sult.re­port­Path); await se­cu­rity.close();

For in­stal­la­tion, au­then­ti­ca­tion, scan op­tions, and CI setup, see the of­fi­cial doc­u­men­ta­tion.

The Kimi K3 ar­chi­tec­ture fig­ure for yes­ter­day’s big open-weight model re­lease, along with some ob­ser­va­tions and thoughts.

Yes, it looks rel­a­tively com­pli­cated, but it’s es­sen­tially a scaled-up pro­duc­tion ver­sion of their Kimi Linear model they re­leased last year (scaled up from 48B -> 2.8T; K3 is by far the biggest open-weight model right now)

Yes, it looks rel­a­tively com­pli­cated, but it’s es­sen­tially a scaled-up pro­duc­tion ver­sion of their Kimi Linear model they re­leased last year (scaled up from 48B -> 2.8T; K3 is by far the biggest open-weight model right now)

The one new com­po­nent com­pared to Kimi Linear is the LatentMoE. I omit­ted it in the fig­ure be­low since it’s al­ready very crowded, but that’s es­sen­tially the same LatentMoE as in Nemotron 3 Ultra (you can find it in my LLM Architecture Gallery if you are cu­ri­ous). The idea here is to com­press (down-project) large lin­ear lay­ers sim­i­lar to multi-head la­tent at­ten­tion.

The one new com­po­nent com­pared to Kimi Linear is the LatentMoE. I omit­ted it in the fig­ure be­low since it’s al­ready very crowded, but that’s es­sen­tially the same LatentMoE as in Nemotron 3 Ultra (you can find it in my LLM Architecture Gallery if you are cu­ri­ous). The idea here is to com­press (down-project) large lin­ear lay­ers sim­i­lar to multi-head la­tent at­ten­tion.

Kimi K3’s over­all trend (similar to Nemotron 3, DeepSeek V4, and oth­ers) is also to­wards bet­ter in­fer­ence ef­fi­ciency. That is, there are many com­po­nents that re­place ex­ist­ing com­po­nents with ef­fi­ciency-tweaked ver­sions. I.e., MoE -> LatentMoE, reg­u­lar at­ten­tion -> multi-head la­tent at­ten­tion and Kimi Delta Attention. (I also have short tu­to­ri­als and write-ups in my gallery if you are cu­ri­ous about ad­di­tional de­tails).

Kimi K3’s over­all trend (similar to Nemotron 3, DeepSeek V4, and oth­ers) is also to­wards bet­ter in­fer­ence ef­fi­ciency. That is, there are many com­po­nents that re­place ex­ist­ing com­po­nents with ef­fi­ciency-tweaked ver­sions. I.e., MoE -> LatentMoE, reg­u­lar at­ten­tion -> multi-head la­tent at­ten­tion and Kimi Delta Attention. (I also have short tu­to­ri­als and write-ups in my gallery if you are cu­ri­ous about ad­di­tional de­tails).

The one com­po­nent change that is not an ef­fi­ciency tweak is at­ten­tion resid­u­als. Like DeepSeek V4 im­proved the resid­ual path with mHC (manifold-constrained Hyper-Connections), at­ten­tion resid­u­als are a way to im­prove the resid­ual path, but it works a bit dif­fer­ently. I.e., mHC made the resid­ual path wider. Attention resid­u­als (also al­ready part of Kimi Linear) con­nect the resid­u­als across lay­ers; the con­nec­tion it­self uses an at­ten­tion score for an im­por­tant/​con­tri­bu­tion weight. According to the re­port, it im­proves the val­i­da­tion loss and down­stream per­for­mance (a bit) con­sis­tently and adds about 4% in train­ing cost and 2% in in­fer­ence cost.

The one com­po­nent change that is not an ef­fi­ciency tweak is at­ten­tion resid­u­als. Like DeepSeek V4 im­proved the resid­ual path with mHC (manifold-constrained Hyper-Connections), at­ten­tion resid­u­als are a way to im­prove the resid­ual path, but it works a bit dif­fer­ently. I.e., mHC made the resid­ual path wider. Attention resid­u­als (also al­ready part of Kimi Linear) con­nect the resid­u­als across lay­ers; the con­nec­tion it­self uses an at­ten­tion score for an im­por­tant/​con­tri­bu­tion weight. According to the re­port, it im­proves the val­i­da­tion loss and down­stream per­for­mance (a bit) con­sis­tently and adds about 4% in train­ing cost and 2% in in­fer­ence cost.

Interestingly, Kimi K3 got rid of all RoPE lay­ers and uses NoPE (No Positional Embeddings) every­where in­stead. (Again, this is in­her­ited from Kimi Linear). In other ar­chi­tec­tures, the re­cent trend was to­wards RoPE in lo­cal at­ten­tion lay­ers (like slid­ing win­dow at­ten­tion) and NoPE in the global lay­ers. There were a few ar­chi­tec­tures that only used NoPE every­where, but this is the first fron­tier-level one as far as I know.

Interestingly, Kimi K3 got rid of all RoPE lay­ers and uses NoPE (No Positional Embeddings) every­where in­stead. (Again, this is in­her­ited from Kimi Linear). In other ar­chi­tec­tures, the re­cent trend was to­wards RoPE in lo­cal at­ten­tion lay­ers (like slid­ing win­dow at­ten­tion) and NoPE in the global lay­ers. There were a few ar­chi­tec­tures that only used NoPE every­where, but this is the first fron­tier-level one as far as I know.

Kimi K3 now also has na­tive mul­ti­modal sup­port, which is great!

Kimi K3 now also has na­tive mul­ti­modal sup­port, which is great!

There are sev­eral other in­ter­est­ing train­ing tid­bits in the tech­ni­cal re­port, but that’s it from the ar­chi­tec­ture front so far. A re­ally great re­lease over­all.

Source: web­site ver­sion of my Substack note.

Read Next

A Few Notable Open-Weight Models This Week

Short note on the ar­chi­tec­tures of six new open-weight mod­els, in­clud­ing Nanbeige 4.2, Laguna S 2.1, Motif-3-Beta, Solar Open 2, Antares 1B, and BTL-3.

Correction for Listing 6.5 in Build a Reasoning Model From Scratch

Short cor­rec­tion note for the ran­dom seed in Listing 6.5 on page 198 of Build a Reasoning Model From Scratch.

Inkling: A New Open-Weight 975B MoE with a Few Surprises

Short note on Thinking Machines Lab’s 975B Inkling model, in­clud­ing bench­marks, sparse MoE de­sign, short con­vo­lu­tions, RMSNorm, and po­si­tion bias.

Authors:Kimi Team: Yu Zhang, Zongyu Lin, Xingcheng Yao, Jiaxi Hu, Fanqing Meng, Chengyin Liu, Xin Men, Songlin Yang, Zhiyuan Li, Wentao Li, Enzhe Lu, Weizhou Liu, Yanru Chen, Weixin Xu, Longhui Yu, Yejie Wang, Yu Fan, Longguang Zhong, Enming Yuan, Dehao Zhang, Yizhi Zhang, T.Y. Liu, Haiming Wang, Shengjun Fang, Weiran He, Shaowei Liu, Yiwei Li, Jianlin Su, Jiezhong Qiu, Bo Pang, Junjie Yan, Zhejun Jiang, Weixiao Huang, Bohong Yin, Jiacheng You, Chu Wei, Zhengtao Wang, Chao Hong, Yutian Chen, Guanduo Chen, Yucheng Wang, Huabin Zheng, Feng Wang, Yibo Liu, Mengnan Dong, Zheng Zhang, Siyuan Pan, Wenhao Wu, Yuhao Wu, Longyu Guan, Jiawen Tao, Guohong Fu, Xinran Xu, Yuzhi Wang, Guokun Lai, Yuxin Wu, Xinyu Zhou, Zhilin Yang, Yulun Du

View PDF

Abstract:We in­tro­duce Kimi Linear, a hy­brid lin­ear at­ten­tion ar­chi­tec­ture that, for the first time, out­per­forms full at­ten­tion un­der fair com­par­isons across var­i­ous sce­nar­ios — in­clud­ing short-con­text, long-con­text, and re­in­force­ment learn­ing (RL) scal­ing regimes. At its core lies Kimi Delta Attention (KDA), an ex­pres­sive lin­ear at­ten­tion mod­ule that ex­tends Gated DeltaNet with a finer-grained gat­ing mech­a­nism, en­abling more ef­fec­tive use of lim­ited fi­nite-state RNN mem­ory. Our be­spoke chunk­wise al­go­rithm achieves high hard­ware ef­fi­ciency through a spe­cial­ized vari­ant of the Diagonal-Plus-Low-Rank (DPLR) tran­si­tion ma­tri­ces, which sub­stan­tially re­duces com­pu­ta­tion com­pared to the gen­eral DPLR for­mu­la­tion while re­main­ing more con­sis­tent with the clas­si­cal delta rule. We pre­train a Kimi Linear model with 3B ac­ti­vated pa­ra­me­ters and 48B to­tal pa­ra­me­ters, based on a lay­er­wise hy­brid of KDA and Multi-Head Latent Attention (MLA). Our ex­per­i­ments show that with an iden­ti­cal train­ing recipe, Kimi Linear out­per­forms full MLA with a size­able mar­gin across all eval­u­ated tasks, while re­duc­ing KV cache us­age by up to 75% and achiev­ing up to 6 times de­cod­ing through­put for a 1M con­text. These re­sults demon­strate that Kimi Linear can be a drop-in re­place­ment for full at­ten­tion ar­chi­tec­tures with su­pe­rior per­for­mance and ef­fi­ciency, in­clud­ing tasks with longer in­put and out­put lengths. To sup­port fur­ther re­search, we open-source the KDA ker­nel and vLLM im­ple­men­ta­tions, and re­lease the pre-trained and in­struc­tion-tuned model check­points.

arXiv-is­sued DOI via DataCite

Submission his­tory

From: Yulun Du [view email] [v1] Thu, 30 Oct 2025 16:59:43 UTC (645 KB) [v2] Sat, 1 Nov 2025 12:05:18 UTC (691 KB)

A note on no­ta­tion: this ar­ti­cle de­faults to bra-ket no­ta­tion be­cause (in my quan­tum-in­spired opin­ion) it makes the shapes in this de­riva­tion very clear. The Math no­ta­tion switch above rewrites every equa­tion us­ing con­ven­tional bold vec­tors and ex­plicit trans­poses in­stead. In bra-ket mode, ∣q⟩\lvert q\ran­gle is a col­umn vec­tor, ⟨k∣\langle k\rvert is a row vec­tor, ⟨k∣q⟩\langle k\rvert q\ran­gle is a num­ber, and ∣v⟩⟨k∣\lvert v\ran­gle\lan­gle k\rvert is a ma­trix. Vectors face right by de­fault, while keys face left when writ­ten into the lin­ear-at­ten­tion state. We work with one causal at­ten­tion head and real-val­ued vec­tors, as­sume DeltaNet’s keys are nor­mal­ized, and let the state map from key space to value space.

Modern lin­ear at­ten­tion vari­ants are com­plex, and a upon first glance it is not so easy to see what they are de­signed to achieve. For ref­er­ence here is the state up­date equa­tion for Kimi Delta Attention (KDA):

S~t=St−1Diag⁡(αt)\widetilde S_t = S_{t-1}\operatorname{Diag}(\alpha_t) ∣v^t⟩=S~t∣kt⟩\lvert\widehat v_t\ran­gle = \widetilde S_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle ∣et⟩=βt(∣vt⟩−∣v^t⟩)\lvert e_t\ran­gle = \beta_t \left( \lvert v_t\ran­gle-\lvert\wide­hat v_t\ran­gle \right) St=S~t+∣et⟩⟨kt∣S_t = \widetilde S_t+\lvert e_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert ∣ot⟩=St(dk−1/2∣qt⟩)\lvert o_t\ran­gle = S_t\left(d_k^{-1/2}\lvert q_t\ran­gle\right)

The rea­son they are so dif­fi­cult to un­der­stand is that this is the lat­est in a fam­ily of lin­ear at­ten­tion vari­ants that have been de­vel­oped over the last few years and the com­plex­ity of them has in­evitably bal­looned such that from the out­side the lat­est vari­ants ap­pear in­ac­ces­si­ble.

In this post we are go­ing to walk through the DeltaNet fam­ily of lin­ear at­ten­tion vari­ants, two of which are used by the lat­est Qwen and Kimi model fam­i­lies, and show how you might have ar­rived at the same equa­tions by as­sert­ing sim­ple things about your hid­den state.

That is the route we will take:

soft­max at­ten­tion → lin­ear at­ten­tion → DeltaNet → Gated DeltaNet → KDA

Only af­ter de­riv­ing KDA will we turn to the re­cur­rent and chunk­wise Triton pro­grams that ex­e­cute it.

1. Begin with qua­dratic at­ten­tion

For a query at to­ken tt, or­di­nary causal soft­max at­ten­tion is

ati=exp⁡ ⁣(s⟨ki∣qt⟩)∑j≤texp⁡ ⁣(s⟨kj∣qt⟩),s=dk−1/​2,∣ot⟩=∑i≤tati∣vi⟩.\be­gin{aligned} a_{ti} &= \frac{ \exp\!\left(s\langle k_i\rvert q_t\ran­gle\right) }{ \sum_{j\leq t} \exp\!\left(s\langle k_j\rvert q_t\ran­gle\right) }, \qquad s=d_k^{-1/​2},\\ \lvert o_t\ran­gle &= \sum_{i\leq t}a_{ti}\lvert v_i\ran­gle. \end{aligned}

Every at­ten­tion weight is a scalar. It mea­sures the sim­i­lar­ity be­tween one key and one query, then soft­max turns all of the scores for that query into a dis­tri­b­u­tion. The out­put is a weighted sum of value vec­tors.

Over a se­quence of length TT, there are T2T^2 key-query pairs. During au­tore­gres­sive in­fer­ence we can cache the keys and val­ues in­stead of re­com­put­ing them, but the cache still grows with the se­quence and every new query still has to in­spect the en­tire his­tory.

The ob­sta­cle to re­ar­rang­ing this com­pu­ta­tion is the soft­max. Its de­nom­i­na­tor de­pends jointly on the cur­rent query and every ear­lier key. So, for the mo­ment, re­move it.

1.1 Remove the soft­max

For clar­ity, ab­sorb the con­stant scale ss into the query. The de­lib­er­ately bare ver­sion of at­ten­tion is then

∣ot⟩=∑i≤t⟨ki∣qt⟩∣vi⟩.\lvert o_t\ran­gle = \sum_{i\leq t} \langle k_i\rvert q_t\ran­gle \lvert v_i\ran­gle.

The scalar in­ner prod­uct can move to the right:

∣ot⟩=∑i≤t∣vi⟩⟨ki∣qt⟩=(∑i≤t∣vi⟩⟨ki∣)∣qt⟩.\begin{aligned} \lvert o_t\ran­gle &= \sum_{i\leq t} \lvert v_i\ran­gle \langle k_i\rvert q_t\ran­gle\\ &= \left( \sum_{i\leq t} \lvert v_i\ran­gle\lan­gle k_i\rvert \right) \lvert q_t\ran­gle. \end{aligned}

Everything that de­pends on the past can now be col­lected into one ma­trix of a fixed size V×KV \times K:

St=∑i≤t∣vi⟩⟨ki∣\boxed{ S_t = \sum_{i\leq t} \lvert v_i\ran­gle\lan­gle k_i\rvert }

and at­ten­tion be­comes a re­cur­rent write fol­lowed by a read:

St=St−1+∣vt⟩⟨kt∣,∣ot⟩=St∣qt⟩.\boxed{ \begin{aligned} S_t &= S_{t-1} + \lvert v_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert,\\ \lvert o_t\ran­gle &= S_t\lvert q_t\ran­gle. \end{aligned} }

The iden­tity

(∣v⟩⟨k∣)∣q⟩=⟨k∣q⟩∣v⟩\left(\lvert v\ran­gle\lan­gle k\rvert\right)\lvert q\ran­gle = \langle k\rvert q\ran­gle\lvert v\ran­gle

is the whole trick. The outer prod­uct is a ma­trix; the in­ner prod­uct is a num­ber. We no longer store every past key and value. We store their summed outer prod­ucts in the fixed-size state StS_t.

This is lin­ear in se­quence length rather than qua­dratic: scan the to­kens once, up­dat­ing the same dv×dkd_v\times d_k state at every step. We have paid for that ef­fi­ciency by dis­card­ing soft­max’s nor­mal­iza­tion and se­lec­tiv­ity. More so­phis­ti­cated lin­ear-at­ten­tion meth­ods use fea­ture maps and nor­mal­iz­ers, but this un­adorned form ex­poses the mem­ory prob­lem that mo­ti­vates DeltaNet.

1.2 Addition is not as­sign­ment

Suppose we write a pair ∣vt⟩⟨kt∣\lvert v_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert and im­me­di­ately query the new state with that same key:

St∣kt⟩=(St−1+∣vt⟩⟨kt∣)∣kt⟩=St−1∣kt⟩+∣vt⟩⟨kt∣kt⟩⏟1=St−1∣kt⟩+∣vt⟩.\begin{aligned} S_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle &= \left( S_{t-1} + \lvert v_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert \right) \lvert k_t\ran­gle\\ &= S_{t-1}\lvert k_t\ran­gle + \lvert v_t\ran­gle \underbrace{\langle k_t\rvert k_t\ran­gle}_{1}\\ &= S_{t-1}\lvert k_t\ran­gle+\lvert v_t\ran­gle. \end{aligned}

The write does not make the mem­ory re­turn ∣vt⟩\lvert v_t\ran­gle. It adds ∣vt⟩\lvert v_t\ran­gle to what­ever the mem­ory al­ready re­turned.

If the old state al­ready pro­duced the cor­rect value, the ad­di­tive write makes the new state pro­duce twice that value. More gen­er­ally, keys are not mu­tu­ally or­thog­o­nal, so every write can in­ter­fere with pre­vi­ous writes. Linear at­ten­tion has given us a com­pact as­so­cia­tive mem­ory, but its up­date be­haves like += when what we want is closer to =.

2. DeltaNet: write the er­ror, not the value

DeltaNet re­places the un­con­di­tional lin­ear-at­ten­tion write with a delta-rule cor­rec­tion. There are two use­ful ways to de­rive it.

2.1 Derivation one: de­mand that the write can be read back

Before writ­ing to­ken tt, ask the mem­ory what it cur­rently as­so­ci­ates with the new key:

∣v^t⟩=St−1∣kt⟩.\lvert\widehat v_t\ran­gle = S_{t-1}\lvert k_t\ran­gle.

If we want the mem­ory to re­turn ∣vt⟩\lvert v_t\ran­gle, we should not add the whole value. We should add only the dif­fer­ence:

∣vt⟩−∣v^t⟩.\lvert v_t\ran­gle-\lvert\wide­hat v_t\ran­gle.

Introduce a learned write strength βt∈[0,1]\be­ta_t\in[0,1] and de­fine

∣et⟩=βt(∣vt⟩−St−1∣kt⟩).\lvert e_t\ran­gle = \beta_t \left( \lvert v_t\ran­gle - S_{t-1}\lvert k_t\ran­gle \right).

Then write this er­ror at the cur­rent key:

St=St−1+∣et⟩⟨kt∣.\boxed{ S_t = S_{t-1} + \lvert e_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert. }

Now im­me­di­ately read the same key:

St∣kt⟩=St−1∣kt⟩+∣et⟩⟨kt∣kt⟩=(1−βt)St−1∣kt⟩+βt∣vt⟩.\begin{aligned} S_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle &= S_{t-1}\lvert k_t\ran­gle + \lvert e_t\ran­gle \langle k_t\rvert k_t\ran­gle\\ &= (1-\beta_t)S_{t-1}\lvert k_t\ran­gle + \beta_t\lvert v_t\ran­gle. \end{aligned}

When βt=1\be­ta_t=1, the re­sult is ex­actly ∣vt⟩\lvert v_t\ran­gle. Smaller βt\be­ta_t moves the old pre­dic­tion part­way to­wards the tar­get.

The cor­rec­tion is also lo­cal in key space. For any query ∣x⟩\lvert x\ran­gle or­thog­o­nal to the cur­rent key,

⟨kt∣x⟩=0⟹(St−St−1)∣x⟩=∣et⟩⟨kt∣x⟩⏟0=0.\langle k_t\rvert x\ran­gle=0 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad (S_t-S_{t-1})\lvert x\ran­gle = \lvert e_t\ran­gle \underbrace{\langle k_t\rvert x\ran­gle}_{0} =0.

So the rank-one write changes the re­sponse in the se­lected key di­rec­tion while leav­ing every or­thog­o­nal di­rec­tion alone.

2.2 Derivation two: take one step on re­con­struc­tion loss

The same up­date falls out of an on­line learn­ing ob­jec­tive. Treat the cur­rent key-value pair as one train­ing ex­am­ple for the lin­ear map SS:

Lt(S)=12∥S∣kt⟩−∣vt⟩∥22.\mathcal L_t(S) = \frac12 \left\| S\lvert k_t\ran­gle-\lvert v_t\ran­gle \right\|_2^2.

Its gra­di­ent with re­spect to the state is

∇SLt(S)=(S∣kt⟩−∣vt⟩)⟨kt∣.\nabla_S\mathcal L_t(S) = \left( S\lvert k_t\ran­gle-\lvert v_t\ran­gle \right) \langle k_t\rvert.

This is vis­i­bly an outer prod­uct: a value-space pre­dic­tion er­ror times the key bra at which that er­ror was ob­served. Take one gra­di­ent-de­scent step of size βt\be­ta_t from St−1S_{t-1}:

St=St−1−βt∇SLt(St−1)=St−1−βt(St−1∣kt⟩−∣vt⟩)⟨kt∣=St−1+βt(∣vt⟩−St−1∣kt⟩)⟨kt∣.\begin{aligned} S_t &= S_{t-1} - \beta_t\nabla_S\mathcal L_t(S_{t-1})\\ &= S_{t-1} - \beta_t \left( S_{t-1}\lvert k_t\ran­gle-\lvert v_t\ran­gle \right) \langle k_t\rvert\\ &= S_{t-1} + \beta_t \left( \lvert v_t\ran­gle-S_{t-1}\lvert k_t\ran­gle \right) \langle k_t\rvert. \end{aligned}

This is ex­actly the up­date we got by re­quir­ing im­me­di­ate re­con­struc­tion. The two in­ter­pre­ta­tions are the same:

as a mem­ory op­er­a­tion, βt\be­ta_t con­trols how strongly to re­place the old as­so­ci­a­tion;

as on­line learn­ing, βt\be­ta_t is the step size;

as lin­ear al­ge­bra, the change is a rank-one outer prod­uct.

2.3 The DeltaNet state tran­si­tion

Expanding the er­ror ex­poses DeltaNet as a struc­tured state tran­si­tion plus a new in­put:

St=St−1+βt(∣vt⟩−St−1∣kt⟩)⟨kt∣=St−1(I−βt∣kt⟩⟨kt∣)+βt∣vt⟩⟨kt∣.\begin{aligned} S_t &= S_{t-1} + \beta_t \left( \lvert v_t\ran­gle-S_{t-1}\lvert k_t\ran­gle \right) \langle k_t\rvert\\ &= S_{t-1} \left( I-\beta_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert \right) + \beta_t\lvert v_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert. \end{aligned}

For a unit key, I−βt∣kt⟩⟨kt∣I-\beta_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert has eigen­value 1−βt1-\beta_t in the cur­rent key di­rec­tion and eigen­value 11 in every or­thog­o­nal di­rec­tion. It re­moves the old as­so­ci­a­tion along the cur­rent key be­fore adding the new one.

DeltaNet fixes the write. It does not yet fix the life­time of the state.

3. Gated DeltaNet: some­times old in­for­ma­tion should dis­ap­pear

The lin­ear state com­presses the whole his­tory into one ma­trix. A read

St∣q⟩=∑i≤t⟨ki∣q⟩∣vi⟩S_t\lvert q\ran­gle = \sum_{i\leq t} \langle k_i\rvert q\ran­gle\lvert v_i\ran­gle

can­not choose to skip an in­di­vid­ual old to­ken af­ter that to­ken has been folded into StS_t. Every stored di­rec­tion that over­laps the query con­tributes. The delta rule can cor­rect the state around the cur­rent key, but stale in­for­ma­tion in other di­rec­tions re­mains avail­able and can dis­tort fu­ture reads.

We there­fore need a way to for­get the old state be­fore us­ing it. Let αt∈[0,1]\al­pha_t\in[0,1] be a learned scalar re­ten­tion gate:

S~t=αtSt−1.\widetilde S_t = \alpha_t S_{t-1}.

Run the same delta rule against this gated state:

S~t=αtSt−1,forget,∣v^t⟩=S~t∣kt⟩,predict,∣et⟩=βt(∣vt⟩−∣v^t⟩),correct,St=S~t+∣et⟩⟨kt∣,write.\boxed{ \begin{aligned} \widetilde S_t &= \alpha_tS_{t-1}, &&\text{forget},\\ \lvert\widehat v_t\ran­gle &= \widetilde S_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle, &&\text{predict},\\ \lvert e_t\ran­gle &= \beta_t \left( \lvert v_t\ran­gle-\lvert\wide­hat v_t\ran­gle \right), &&\text{correct},\\ S_t &= \widetilde S_t+\lvert e_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert, &&\text{write}. \end{aligned} }

This is Gated DeltaNet. The or­der mat­ters: for­get first, pre­dict from the re­tained state, then cor­rect that pre­dic­tion. If we pre­dicted be­fore for­get­ting, the er­ror would de­scribe a dif­fer­ent mem­ory from the one we up­date.

Expanding the re­cur­rence gives

St=αtSt−1(I−βt∣kt⟩⟨kt∣)+βt∣vt⟩⟨kt∣.S_t = \alpha_tS_{t-1} \left( I-\beta_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert \right) + \beta_t\lvert v_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert.

The delta rule gives tar­geted re­place­ment; the scalar gate gives global era­sure. They solve dif­fer­ent prob­lems and are com­ple­men­tary.

But αt\al­pha_t still makes one de­ci­sion for the en­tire ma­trix. The model must re­tain or for­get every key chan­nel at the same rate.

4. Kimi Delta Attention: for­get each chan­nel in­de­pen­dently

Kimi Delta Attention re­places Gated DeltaNet’s scalar re­ten­tion with a vec­tor αt∈[0,1]dk\al­pha_t\in[0,1]^{d_k}. Put the vec­tor on the di­ag­o­nal:

Dt=Diag⁡(αt)∈Rdk×dk.D_t = \operatorname{Diag}(\alpha_t) \in\mathbb R^{d_k\times d_k}.

Our state maps keys to val­ues, so the key chan­nels are the columns of SS. Right-multiplication ap­plies a dif­fer­ent re­ten­tion fac­tor to every one:

S~t=St−1Dt.\widetilde S_t = S_{t-1}D_t.

Everything else is the delta rule we have al­ready de­rived:

S~t=St−1Dt,forget each key channel,∣v^t⟩=S~t∣kt⟩,predict,∣et⟩=βt(∣vt⟩−∣v^t⟩),correct,St=S~t+∣et⟩⟨kt∣,write,∣ot⟩=St(s∣qt⟩),s=dk−1/2,read.\boxed{ \begin{aligned} \widetilde S_t &= S_{t-1}D_t, &&\text{forget each key chan­nel},\\ \lvert\widehat v_t\ran­gle &= \widetilde S_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle, &&\text{predict},\\ \lvert e_t\ran­gle &= \beta_t \left( \lvert v_t\ran­gle-\lvert\wide­hat v_t\ran­gle \right), &&\text{correct},\\ S_t &= \widetilde S_t+\lvert e_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert, &&\text{write},\\ \lvert o_t\ran­gle &= S_t(s\lvert q_t\ran­gle), \qquad s=d_k^{-1/​2}, &&\text{read}. \end{aligned} }

That is KDA. Compared with Gated DeltaNet, the con­cep­tual change is only the pro­mo­tion

αt⟶Dt=Diag⁡(αt).\al­pha_t \quad\longrightarrow\quad D_t=\operatorname{Diag}(\alpha_t).

The ef­fect is sub­stan­tial: one chan­nel can be cleared while an­other is re­tained.

4.1 Why the tran­si­tion is di­ag­o­nal-plus-low-rank

Expand the KDA cor­rec­tion:

St=St−1Dt+βt(∣vt⟩−St−1Dt∣kt⟩)⟨kt∣=St−1Dt(I−βt∣kt⟩⟨kt∣)⏟At+βt∣vt⟩⟨kt∣.\begin{aligned} S_t &= S_{t-1}D_t + \beta_t \left( \lvert v_t\ran­gle - S_{t-1}D_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle \right) \langle k_t\rvert\\ &= S_{t-1} \underbrace{ D_t \left( I-\beta_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert \right) }_{A_t} + \beta_t\lvert v_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert. \end{aligned}

The key-space tran­si­tion is

At=Dt−βtDt∣kt⟩⟨kt∣=Dt−∣bt⟩⟨at∣,\begin{aligned} A_t &= D_t-\beta_tD_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle\lan­gle k_t\rvert\\ &= D_t-\lvert b_t\ran­gle\lan­gle a_t\rvert, \end{aligned}

where

∣bt⟩=Dt∣kt⟩,⟨at∣=βt⟨kt∣.\lvert b_t\ran­gle=D_t\lvert k_t\ran­gle, \qquad \langle a_t\rvert=\be­ta_t\lan­gle k_t\rvert.

So AtA_t is a di­ag­o­nal ma­trix mi­nus a rank-one ma­trix: a di­ag­o­nal-plus-low-rank, or DPLR, tran­si­tion. “DPLR” de­scribes the dk×dkd_k\times d_k tran­si­tion act­ing on key space. The mem­ory state it­self is still the dv×dkd_v\times d_k ma­trix StS_t.

The full jour­ney can now be sum­ma­rized com­pactly:

The im­ple­men­ta­tion usu­ally stores gt=log⁡αt­g_t=\log\al­pha_t with gt≤0g_t\leq0, then ob­tains the re­ten­tion fac­tors as exp⁡(gt)\exp(g_t). In the trans­posed dk×dvd_k\times d_v lay­out used by the ref­er­ence code, the re­cur­rence is only five lines:

state = state * g_t.exp().un­squeeze(-1) pre­dic­tion = ein­sum(“bhkv,bhk->bhv”, state, k_t) resid­ual = be­ta_t.un­squeeze(-1) * (v_t - pre­dic­tion) state = state + ein­sum(“bhk,bhv->bhkv”, k_t, resid­ual) out­put = ein­sum(“bhk,bhkv->bhv”, q_t * scale, state)

See the of­fi­cial naive_re­cur­ren­t_kda ref­er­ence.

Casa Grande, Arizona

They Are Not Just Reading Plates

Flock cam­eras are sold as li­cense plate read­ers. Their own patent de­scribes some­thing big­ger: video analy­sis that can iden­tify peo­ple, as­sign traits, and make real-world ac­tiv­ity search­able.

Safety with­out mass sur­veil­lance

Who We Are

Deflock Casa Grande is a non­par­ti­san civic cam­paign.

We are ask­ing Casa Grande lead­ers for pub­lic safety that sup­ports law en­force­ment with clear guide­lines, pub­lic over­sight, au­dits, and ac­count­abil­ity.

Not po­lit­i­cal

Not left-wing, not right-wing, and not af­fil­i­ated with any po­lit­i­cal party, can­di­date, or par­ti­san or­ga­ni­za­tion.

Independent

Not funded by any­one, not backed by any out­side group, and not as­so­ci­ated with other Deflock web­sites.

Pro law en­force­ment

We sup­port pub­lic safety and the peo­ple re­spon­si­ble for pro­tect­ing Casa Grande.

Pro ac­count­abil­ity

Powerful sur­veil­lance sys­tems need rules, over­sight, au­dits, and con­se­quences for mis­use.

Latest up­dates

Updates on Flock in Casa Grande

Recent de­vel­op­ments show why res­i­dents need clear rules, pub­lic no­tice, and en­force­able lim­its be­fore the city ex­pands Flock sur­veil­lance.

New lo­cal record

Casa Grande Email Says Cameras Monitored a Student Protest

The January 30, 2026 email lists “Monitoring of a stu­dent protest at City Hall” among re­cent cam­era-sys­tem wins.

The same page says the sys­tem as­sisted in lo­cat­ing miss­ing or en­dan­gered in­di­vid­u­als and al­lowed po­lice to “identify in­volved par­ties” and “monitor ac­tiv­ity” be­fore pa­trol ar­rived.

That mat­ters be­cause res­i­dents are told these cam­eras track ve­hi­cles, not in­di­vid­u­als. The city’s own email de­scribes uses in­volv­ing peo­ple, sus­pects, and pro­test­ers.

The source doc­u­ment says “student protest.” We de­scribe it as peace­ful be­cause the email does not al­lege vi­o­lence, a crime, or a pub­lic-safety threat tied to that protest.

Source: January 30, 2026 Casa Grande po­lice email

New Flock au­dio con­cern

Flock Is Now Recording Conversations

Flock has started early ac­cess for what it calls dis­tress mon­i­tor­ing, ex­pand­ing gun­shot-de­tec­tion mi­cro­phones to­ward lis­ten­ing for hu­man dis­tress sounds.

Flock and the city have been adding what they call gun­shot de­tec­tion sys­tems. Now those mi­cro­phone sys­tems can be up­graded to in­clude “distress.”

For a mi­cro­phone to cap­ture dis­tress, it has to be lis­ten­ing for events. That turns these de­vices into al­ways-lis­ten­ing sta­tions around the city.

EFF warned about this risk in 2025, when it re­ported that Flock gun­shot-de­tec­tion mi­cro­phones were be­ing ex­panded to lis­ten for hu­man voices and dis­tress sounds.

Source: EFF: Flock’s Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices

Flock video cam­era con­cern

Flock ALPRs Are Not Just License Plate Readers

Flock’s own prod­uct launch says ex­ist­ing LPR cam­eras can be­come video-en­abled through a cloud soft­ware up­date.

Most peo­ple think Flock is just a safety sys­tem for li­cense plates look­ing for bad ac­tors. But Flock says its LPR cam­eras can pro­vide video con­text too.

That means the sys­tem can cap­ture more than a plate. It can col­lect video of ve­hi­cles mov­ing through neigh­bor­hoods, roads, and cities, re­gard­less of whether the dri­ver is sus­pected of a crime.

When video, lo­ca­tion, time, and AI search are com­bined, res­i­dents face a big­ger risk: move­ment records stored in a pow­er­ful data­base, ex­posed to broad au­tho­rized-user searches, mis­use, war­rant­less ac­cess, and se­cu­rity breaches.

Source: Flock Safety Q2 2025 Law Enforcement Product Launch Summary

School cam­era con­cern

Flock Is Now in Your Elementary Schools

Casa Grande ap­proved con­nect­ing ex­ist­ing el­e­men­tary school cam­eras to the Flock ecosys­tem through Flock gate­ways.

On May 4, 2026, City Council voted to ap­prove con­nect­ing ex­ist­ing Casa Grande el­e­men­tary school cam­eras to the Flock ecosys­tem through Flock gate­ways.

Parents de­serve clear no­tice be­fore school cam­eras con­nect to a mas­sive AI sur­veil­lance net­work.

The agree­ments raise se­ri­ous ques­tions about re­mote ac­cess, un­de­fined au­tho­rized users, vague pub­lic safety pur­poses, AI an­a­lyt­ics, re­ten­tion, au­dits, and par­ent no­ti­fi­ca­tion.

Plain-English ex­pla­na­tion

What Are We Really Installing?

Flock cam­eras are of­ten de­scribed as li­cense plate read­ers. That sounds nar­row, rou­tine, and harm­less.

But Flock’s own patent de­scribes some­thing more pow­er­ful: a sys­tem that an­a­lyzes video, iden­ti­fies ob­jects, in­clud­ing peo­ple, as­signs at­trib­utes, and turns that in­for­ma­tion into search­able records.

In plain English, this is not just a cam­era look­ing for stolen cars. It is the blue­print for a search­able sur­veil­lance net­work. Casa Grande res­i­dents de­serve to know ex­actly what it can col­lect, who can search it, and what rules stop abuse.

Casa Grande cov­er­age

The City Is Building a Surveillance Grid

Full de­ploy­ment of all tech­nol­ogy will take ap­prox­i­mately twelve months. After full de­ploy­ment, the city says there will be:

100

License Plate Reader Cameras

100

Pan Tilt Zoom Cameras

31

Gun Shot Detection Systems

This Is Beyond Plate Reading

License Plate Reader (LPR) Cameras

The city says they iden­tify ve­hi­cles as­so­ci­ated with in­ves­ti­ga­tions, not in­di­vid­u­als. But LPRs cap­ture im­age records, plate reads, time­stamps, and lo­ca­tions that can re­con­struct where peo­ple travel over time.

Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) Cameras

The city says trained per­son­nel op­er­ate them dur­ing in­ci­dents. In prac­tice, zoomable cam­eras can fol­low any per­son in view, in­clud­ing women and chil­dren, not just peo­ple sus­pected of crimes.

Drone as First Responder (DFR)

Marketed as aer­ial sup­port for faster re­sponse, but drones can also let po­lice look into back­yards and other pri­vate out­door spaces.

Gunshot Detection System

The city says it de­tects gun­fire and does not record con­ver­sa­tions. EFF warns Flock gun­shot-de­tec­tion mi­cro­phones are be­ing ex­panded to lis­ten for hu­man voices and dis­tress sounds.

Read the EFF warn­ing

Flock OS Platform

Connects the sur­veil­lance net­work into one plat­form. Flock has de­scribed in­te­gra­tions that can com­bine cam­era data with OSINT-style in­for­ma­tion, in­clud­ing on­line pro­files, posts, ad­dresses, and iden­tity clues.

Taxpayer trade­off

Cameras do not pa­trol, de-es­ca­late, in­ter­view wit­nesses, or build trust.

Casa Grande should prove this mass-sur­veil­lance spend re­duces se­ri­ous crime be­fore spend­ing roughly $1,000,000 a year on cam­eras, sen­sors, drones, and soft­ware.

Better use of tax money

We could have funded 13 more ded­i­cated of­fi­cers keep­ing us safe in­stead of mass sur­veil­lance.

A mil­lion dol­lars a year buys peo­ple, not just cam­eras.

Casa Grande ap­proved a roughly 10-year, $10 mil­lion Safe City/Flock con­tract, which av­er­ages about $1 mil­lion per year be­fore con­sid­er­ing re­ported taxes and later-year an­nual costs.

Officer staffing math

13 of­fi­cers

Casa Grande lists Police Officer base pay at $63,714-$87,824, with a $74,762 mid­point. At that mid­point, $1,000,000 / $74,762 = about 13 of­fi­cer base salaries.

Benefits, equip­ment, train­ing, and ve­hi­cles add real costs, so this is not a full staffing bud­get. But it shows the trade­off: the same an­nual money could fund mul­ti­ple ad­di­tional sworn of­fi­cers in­stead of lock­ing Casa Grande into a per­ma­nent sur­veil­lance net­work.

Documented abuse pat­tern

Abuse Is Already Happening Across the Country

Flock and other ALPR sys­tems can re­veal where a per­son goes over time. That kind of lo­ca­tion his­tory is sen­si­tive for the same rea­son cell phone lo­ca­tion records are sen­si­tive, but ALPR searches are of­ten not reg­u­lated with a war­rant stan­dard.

The harm is not hy­po­thet­i­cal. The Institute for Justice and con­tin­ued re­port­ing have doc­u­mented at least 20 re­ported cases of po­lice us­ing ALPR ac­cess for ro­man­tic stalk­ing, in­clud­ing searches of spouses, ex-part­ners, ro­man­tic in­ter­ests, and their friends.

Source: Institute for Justice: Police Have Reportedly Used License Plate Readers to Stalk Romantic Interests at Least 14 Times in Recent Years

Note: de­flockcg up­dated this list from 14 to 20 doc­u­mented cases on 6/29/26.

Timeline of doc­u­mented abuse - lat­est first

2026 Prairie Grove, Illinois Officer William C. Copp, who also served as the po­lice chief of nearby Holiday Hills, was ar­rested af­ter search­ing Flock for sev­eral for­mer ro­man­tic part­ners and at least one of their new part­ners. Copp has been fired from his Prairie Grove po­si­tion and his em­ploy­ment with Holiday Hills is un­der re­view.

2026

Prairie Grove, Illinois

Officer William C. Copp, who also served as the po­lice chief of nearby Holiday Hills, was ar­rested af­ter search­ing Flock for sev­eral for­mer ro­man­tic part­ners and at least one of their new part­ners. Copp has been fired from his Prairie Grove po­si­tion and his em­ploy­ment with Holiday Hills is un­der re­view.

2026 Winnebago County, Illinois Former Sheriff’s Deputy Tyler Bryan was charged with stalk­ing and of­fi­cial mis­con­duct af­ter al­legedly us­ing the de­part­men­t’s ALPR sys­tem to mon­i­tor the lo­ca­tions of an ex-girl­friend and her new part­ner. The mis­con­duct came to light af­ter the vic­tims filed for an or­der of pro­tec­tion against Bryan.

2026

Winnebago County, Illinois

Former Sheriff’s Deputy Tyler Bryan was charged with stalk­ing and of­fi­cial mis­con­duct af­ter al­legedly us­ing the de­part­men­t’s ALPR sys­tem to mon­i­tor the lo­ca­tions of an ex-girl­friend and her new part­ner. The mis­con­duct came to light af­ter the vic­tims filed for an or­der of pro­tec­tion against Bryan.

2026 Niceville, Florida Former Niceville Officer Coty Hall pleaded no con­test to sev­eral charges af­ter us­ing the de­part­men­t’s Flock sys­tem to track an­other of­fi­cer and that of­fi­cer’s spouse. Hall’s mis­con­duct was dis­cov­ered via an in­ter­nal au­dit; Hall was fired fol­low­ing his ar­rest in October 2025.

2026

Niceville, Florida