🚨 Don't wait! Online registration for the 2026 OCP APAC Summit closes soon. ⏰ Registration closes: 📍 6:00 PM Taipei Time (UTC+8) on August 9 📍 3:00 PM Pacific Time (PDT, UTC-7) on August 9 Join the global open infrastructure community in Taipei, Taiwan, August 11 to 12, for two days of technical innovation, collaboration and insights from leaders across the AI and data center ecosystem. Explore sessions covering: 🔹 AI Clusters & AI Computing Continuum 🔹 Open Data Centers for AI 🔹 Chiplets & Advanced Packaging 🔹 Networking & Photonics 🔹 Advanced Cooling Technologies 🔹 Server, Storage & Memory 🔹 Future Technologies shaping tomorrow's infrastructure Plus, don't miss our co-located workshops from the SONiC Foundation and Arm SystemReady, offering hands-on technical learning and community collaboration. A separate registration is required for the Arm workshop, but the price is included with your registration. Register now and secure your spot before online registration closes! Explore the full schedule and start planning your Summit experience today: And register here: #OCPAPAC26# #OpenCompute# #AIInfrastructure# #OpenHardware# #DataCenters# #AI# #Networking# #Photonics# #Cooling# #Chiplets# #Taiwan#

Join the global OCP Community for two exciting events bringing together the people shaping the future of AI, hyperscale infrastructure, semiconductors, cloud platforms and next-generation data centers. 🇹🇼 2026 OCP APAC Summit 📅 August 11–12, 2026 📍 Taipei City, Taiwan Across two action-packed days, explore the latest technical innovations, connect with experts designing and operating hyperscale infrastructure, and meet organizations from across the data center ecosystem and supply chain. Learn more: 🇰🇷 2026 OCP Korea Tech Day 📅 August 21, 2026 📍 COEX Convention & Exhibition Center, Seoul, South Korea Korea’s dedicated forum for open, data center–focused innovation returns with technical sessions, keynotes and exhibitions covering AI infrastructure, HPC, edge computing, cloud platforms, semiconductors and next-generation data center design. As AI transforms the demands placed on data centers, open standards and collaborative engineering are becoming foundational to performance, efficiency, scalability and sustainable growth. Learn more: Two events. Two dynamic technology hubs. One global community working together to build the future of open infrastructure. We look forward to seeing you in Taipei and Seoul! #OpenComputeProject# #OCP# #OCPAPACSummit# #OCPKoreaTechDay# #DataCenters# #AIInfrastructure# #HPC# #OpenHardware# #CloudComputing# #Semiconductors#

Next week @DaveN007 & @BrendanBurkeX will be on-site at The OCP Global Summit, speaking with @Nvidia, @intel, @MiTACcomputing, @AsteraLabs, LITEON & @HyveSolutions about scaling AI through open hardware, power, cooling & networking, and the biggest challenge: how these designs work together at scale. Follow along!

NYS & California anti manufacturing (CNC, 3D printer, lathe, etc) legislation is the #1# defining legal/technical freedom issue in this political moment, IMO. even beyond AI control in Ukraine, open source drone designs and home manufacturing has played a critical part in the war effort. grassroots knowledge is currently turning the tides against a literal superpower that is willing to burn money and conscripted lives, in one of the most inspiring triumphs of human perseverance of the 2000s I am no manufacturer of firearms, but the right to make what you want and make your own choices about whether what you build is lawful rather than having it technically imposed on you, is a fundamental human right and the right to run open source software that bypasses local protections of your choice is also your right. this is already enshrined as speech, and there are decades of ideation on it without these inalienable technical rights, there is no society. they are core parts of numerous, disparate protections provided by our Bill of Rights this is before you even consider that policing home manufacturing requires mass surveillance and criminalization of open source software (in which protections can be trivially removed) and even open hardware (which can operate all of this machinery on a plug and play basis) if you cannot make your own stuff, you are at the mercy of those that can. more reliant on capitalism. weaker in a struggle. less decentralized. it is an enormous L to society, and a stain upon a state I am otherwise proud of that this managed to pass any kind of political process, mostly via lobbying and other forms of payola you have to ask yourself, why do these laws target equipment like 3d printers, which are not substitutes for gun mills and cannot produce functional pressure bearing parts? one answer is that it is harder to change federal serialization laws. but this seems to me akin to banning hands, because if there are no hands you cannot fire the gun instead of educating the youth on how to compete on a global scale, reminding New Yorkers how to make things, as a state littered with decaying factories that used to define their country. instead of taking back economic power. we cower in fear of a few un-serialized guns (that are already illegal), in a country where they outnumber people and that will never change I have been a New York resident all my life. I will never put state mandated software on any of my equipment. my printers, my CNC, my drills, nothing. I believe this is my right, to use the software I develop for the hardware I own. I will keep making things using open hardware and software, same as before the bill I believe I am a contributing member of society. but, you can come get me if you disagree, @KathyHochul, you have my address.

One thing I find striking in the discourse between AI 2040 and its detractors is that the two seem to be locked in to totally incompatible worldviews of how fast and how much of a big deal AI progress is: * In AI 2040, every scenario sees superintelligence of some kind emerging by 2040, unless a herculean effort is made to completely stop it * Detractors say things like "AI 2040 is naive about human coordination ability and a threat to freedom", but don't seem to see any naivety in assuming that the ASI transition will just go well by default, don't seem to see ASI itself as a massive power concentrator risk, and don't seem to feel fear of humanity's "hard power" dropping to zero if ASIs can do literally every task better than we can. This stance makes total sense in a "AI is normal technology" world, zero sense in a world where superintelligence is possible by 2030 and almost guaranteed by 2040 I think my beliefs are: - If I was confident that (present-day-style) AI is normal technology, I would be in the detractor camp - If I was confident that superintelligence is coming in 2030 by default, I would be closer to the AI 2040 camp - it's naive, but every other option is naive squared? But my problem is that I feel great uncertainty and have no idea which of the two worlds (or some other third thing) we're living in? Hence why I continue to be open-minded about slowdowns/pauses, but also I feel very uncomfortable with the "open source bad, the good outcome is the one where our guys have controlling global dominance" push coming from some major AI companies and intellectuals - in a "normal" world that's the sort of thing that triggers every political alarm bell at the same time. A big reason why I have been advocating and trying my best to support the d/acc platform (rapid up-skilling in formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resistance and other defensive biotech, food and basic resource security, public epistemics, non-power-concentrating versions of physical security) is that these things are clearly worth doing in both worlds. The 2040 plan is already much more open source friendly (even mandating it! yay). It also includes "mutually assured compute destruction" ideas which (if they work) effectively give one of 2-5 actors the ability to trigger a global compute winter - as opposed to giving 1-5 actors the ability to selectively disenfranchise people they consider baddies while exempting themselves. This is also a big improvement. So I can see the earnest attempts to improve along the dimensions detractors criticize on ("does this concentrate power in big AI labs and superpower governments?"), and I appreciate this. I think many people don't appreciate enough the differences between different "kinds" of pause buttons, and how some concentrate power far more than others. Probably we can think harder and improve even more here. But on the "slowdown/pause or not" topic, there isn't a magic "escape the tradeoff" button. The Hansonian in me says: the winning deal is a deal which, from the perspective of both sides' present-day beliefs and knowledge, both sides would accept, though for different reasons. If the crux is AI progress speed, then identify a set of pre-agreed triggers for "okay, serious shit is happening" [super-pandemics? >25% unemployment? something involving slaughterbots?], and pre-agree that we become much more open-minded to the slowdown or pause thing if enough triggers come to pass within some timeframe. 2040 detractors (who clearly implicitly think that we'll see amazing speedup of progress from AI but think that what I call the "serious shit" category is overhyped) will accept expecting that the triggers don't come to pass, and AI worriers will accept expecting that they will. Pre-agreeing on the specific triggers means that once the triggers either hit or don't hit, there is stronger legitimacy around the idea that one side's worldview turned out more correct and we should be more inclined toward their program. If I were @elonmusk (or zuck, or...) I would re-tool twitter much more heavily into being a platform for helping to identify and make these kinds of grand win-win deals, so that we can bypass big-country governments and big-company CEOs and big nonprofit intellectuals and give more people a voice in the discussion. It's possibly one of the best things that social media _could_ do for humanity if it wanted to. But again, maybe this is also naive. Actually, probably it's naive. But currently, I see zero plans for how to deal with an ASI transition that are not naive. Perhaps humanity is stuck with a choice between naive and naive squared (or maybe even naive squared and naive cubed), so I feel inclined to cut some slack to people who are trying.