Skip to content

The future is arriving badly explained.

The ideas changing the world.
And what they mean for you.

A minute of perspective

In brief.

Read all editions

Selected on · Four signals worth your attention.

  1. A coding study trains agents to reject bad fixes.

    A newly announced preprint trains coding agents to write tests that distinguish working repairs from deliberately faulty alternatives. On 270 SWE-bench Verified issues excluded from training, the authors report first-attempt resolution rising from 31.9% to 43.0%. The point is not simply to make more attempts, but to improve how an agent checks its work. Those issues had already informed method development, however, so this is not a clean test on wholly unseen problems or proof of dependable production software.

    Teaching Agents to Code Reliably · preprint ·

  2. A robot dog adjusts its gait to make less noise.

    Researchers describe TACET, a system that changes a quadruped robot's gait and route according to the people and activity around it. Their preprint reports quieter walking on a Unitree Go2 and tests behavior near people who are working, talking, or walking. It treats noise as part of navigating shared space, not just avoiding collisions. The largest reported reduction was measured by a microphone mounted on the robot, not at a listener's ear; selected test scenarios do not establish everyday performance.

    TACET · preprint ·

  3. PyTorch adds an overlapping compute path for AMD GPUs.

    PyTorch's development branch gained a native ROCm implementation that overlaps gathering data from other GPUs with matrix multiplication, rather than waiting for the whole transfer first. The change supports AMD's MI300X and MI355X architectures and remains opt-in. It extends a technique already available on NVIDIA's CUDA path to another hardware stack. This is a code integration, not a stable PyTorch release or a universal speed boost: the author's measurements show that some workload shapes remain slower than the fallback.

    PyTorch · upstream commit ·

  4. Researchers target bad robot habits with local retraining.

    A new preprint introduces REDIRECT. Using demonstrations labeled successful or problematic, it locates a troublesome part of a robot task, retrieves a better continuation, and retrains the policy while rehearsing behavior worth keeping. The authors report improvements in simulated manipulation and small physical tests involving cups and towels. The useful idea is selective correction rather than relearning the whole task. The headline '1%' refers to a defined optimization budget in simulation, not a measured 99% saving in total cost or a guarantee that other skills stay intact.

    REDIRECT · preprint ·

A World in Perspective

In Charts.

All Charts
Can AI judge an IKEA assembly photo?BEST TESTED SCORE: 28% → 80%

Lime line: successive best scores among tested models. Gray dots: other tested models. 60 photos, three furniture builds; photos + manual + tools. A retrospective comparison, not a physical assembly test.

Data: Aiden Ament & Greg Burnham · Epoch AI · CC BY 4.0 · Chart: VastkindReport: 23 Sep 2026 · Model releases: Nov 2025–Sep 2026 · Accessed: 6 Oct 2026

A practical test of visual reasoning

A photo, an assembly manual and tools. Epoch’s test asks models to judge the assembly and, if something is wrong, identify the relevant steps and explain the mistake. The published benchmark score rose from 28.3% for Claude Opus 4.5 to 80% for GPT-6 Astra.

Not a promise to fix your furniture

The sample covers only 60 photos from three builds and is partly graded by another AI. It does not establish reliability on other furniture, real-time repairs or physical assembly. The score is not simply the proportion of flawed builds flagged, and the tested models are not a complete historical leaderboard.

Sources, Method & Data

The 21 source rows are ordered by model release date as reported by Epoch, not test date. The line retains each new record among those models; it is not a complete history of all available AI. GPT-5 and Gemini 3 are absent. Published scores are plotted unchanged ×100. The endpoints are 28.3333% and 80%, a gain of 51.6667 percentage points. Source standard errors are 5.8665 and 4.9289 percentage points; all model standard errors are in the table below. They are not 95% confidence intervals.

The dataset has 42 intentionally flawed and 18 correct photos from STÄLL, TONSTAD and GULLABERG builds. Models receive instructions and image/Python tools. Correct step identification and an adequate error description matter; a lenient LLM grades descriptions. The score is not simply the fraction of flawed builds flagged. Some exported scores imply half cases when multiplied by 60; the public method does not explain that granularity, so no exact “x out of 60” count is inferred. No human-performance comparison. Accessed October 6, 2026.

Benchmark methodology · Original chart dataset

All 21 tested models; original Epoch scores
ModelRelease date (Epoch)Score (%)Standard error (pp)
Claude Opus 4.52025-11-2428.33335.8665
GPT-5.22025-12-1138.33336.3298
Claude Opus 4.62026-02-0528.33335.8665
Gemini 3.1 Pro2026-02-1926.66675.6332
GPT-5.42026-03-0537.50006.2465
Claude Opus 4.72026-04-1633.33336.1372
Kimi K2.62026-04-2021.66675.2301
GPT-5.52026-04-2344.16676.4101
Claude Opus 4.82026-05-2842.50006.3807
Claude Fable 52026-06-0935.83336.1859
GPT-5.6 Sol2026-07-0956.66676.3409
GPT-5.6 Terra2026-07-0954.16676.4321
GPT-5.6 Luna2026-07-0942.50006.3807
Kimi K32026-07-1634.16676.1170
Gemini 3.6 Flash2026-07-2123.33335.3766
Claude Opus 52026-07-2460.83336.1859
Gemini 3.7 Flash2026-08-1326.66675.6332
Claude Fable 5.12026-09-0170.00005.7244
Qwen3.8 Max2026-09-0120.00005.2076
Gemini 3.8 Flash2026-09-0231.66675.9383
GPT-6 Astra2026-09-0380.00004.9289

A photo, an assembly manual and tools. The best score among tested models rose from 28% to 80% in Epoch’s furniture test.

Explore the Chart
In Charts

Who Is Gaining Ground in Energy?

1. Energy supply, beyond electricity2025 · EXAJOULES (EJ)

Power, transport, heat and industrial uses. Fossil = oil + gas + coal. EI coverage excludes some traditional biomass. More supply is not automatically greater efficiency or independence.

Data: Energy Institute · Statistical Review 2026 · Chart: VastkindData: 2025 · Comparison: 2020–2025 · Released: 30 Jun 2026
2. What is driving power growth?CHANGE IN ANNUAL GENERATION · 2020 → 2025 · TWh

+ more / − less annual generation. China adds 1,583 TWh of wind and solar output; the other three together add 874 TWh. Other includes bioenergy, other renewables and other fossil.

Data: Ember · Global Electricity Review 2026 · CC BY 4.0 · Chart: Vastkind2025 generation estimates may be revised · Report: 21 Apr 2026 · Accessed: 6 Oct 2026

Different sources of growth

The U.S. adds solar and gas. India adds coal. In the EU, wind and solar rise as other output falls. China’s wind and solar gain is larger than the other three combined, but its coal generation grows too.

The comparison concerns changes in annual output, not the cumulative electricity generated over five years.

Energy is bigger than electricity

The first panel includes fuel use beyond power stations. The second examines electricity generation only. The two panels use different measures and cannot be added. Higher energy supply alone is not a ranking of technology, efficiency or energy independence.

2020 was a pandemic year. These are 2020–2025 comparisons, not forecasts or claims about 2026 growth.

Sources, Method & Data

Panel 1 uses EI Statistical Review 2026 total energy supply under its physical-energy-content method, in EJ. Fossil = oil + gas + coal. Non-fossil = nuclear + hydro + solar + wind + other renewables, as covered by EI; commercially recorded energy including modern renewables, not complete coverage of traditional/noncommercial biomass. TES is not useful final energy, domestic production or energy independence. Wind/solar enter as electricity output; thermal sources include conversion losses, so source shares are not equivalent to electricity shares. China means mainland China; U.S. territories are excluded. The official Total EU aggregate covers the current 27 members. 2025 annual values; 2020–2025 change is a ratio of annual totals, not EI’s leap-year-adjusted growth series. Numbers rounded for display. Direct EI downloads were blocked; unchanged EI CSV/XLSX snapshots archived by Our World in Data were used, with matching source checksums.

Panel 2 uses Ember’s separate gross-electricity-generation dataset. 2025 values are estimates based on monthly generation data and may be revised. Each cell is annual 2025 output minus annual 2020 output, in TWh, not cumulative generation over five years. Other = bioenergy + other renewables + other fossil. The net row is the total-generation difference; displayed rounded cells may not add exactly. An output increase is not the same as installed capacity: weather, plant use and outages matter. Renewables and thermal energy have different conversion losses. The four regions are selected comparisons, not a world total or a country ranking of technological quality.

China’s wind/solar change: 913.83 + 668.95 = 1,582.78 TWh. Other three: 384.55 + 303.08 + 186.63 = 874.26 TWh. EU net output grows 43.80 TWh; wind/solar grows 303.08 while fossil output falls 200.09. Sources published June 30 and April 21, 2026; accessed October 6, 2026.

EI data and methodology · Ember source and methods

2025 energy supply and change since 2020
Region2025 EJFossil share %2020 EJChange %
China162.19387.55135.448+19.75
USA93.82983.1786.185+8.87
EU2752.19373.2053.458-2.37
India39.09992.9930.055+30.09
Energy supply by source, 2025 (EJ)
RegionOilGasCoalNuclearHydroSolarWindOther renewables
China33.84515.91092.2395.2935.0124.2244.0611.611
USA36.42432.8848.7309.0120.8791.4141.6892.797
EU2721.76611.8524.5897.1031.1551.3401.7282.660
India10.8922.39623.0710.5870.6420.6070.3740.530
Electricity change: annual 2025 minus annual 2020 (TWh)
SourceChinaU.S.EU-27India
Solar+913.83+258.10+222.44+143.08
Wind+668.95+126.45+80.64+43.55
Coal+835.09-36.24-95.54+330.37
Gas+81.92+183.17-93.24-26.25
Nuclear+121.98-5.10-31.10+9.22
Hydro+77.57-38.25-20.72+14.03
Other+113.60-11.52-18.68+4.17
Explore the Chart
In Charts

China Installs More Robots Than the Rest of the World

Six industrial robot installation marketsNEW INSTALLATIONS · 2025 · YoY VS. 2024

China: 59% of global installations. Installation locations, not manufacturing origins. Other markets is a rounded residual; its growth rate is not available.

Data: IFR · World Robotics 2026 · Chart: VastkindData: 2025 · Source: September 2026 · Expanded: 6 Oct 2026

China accounts for almost six in ten

The U.S. overtook Japan. The EU contracted. China alone installed more industrial robots than the rest of the world combined in 2025. It contributed about 59,000 of the 61,000 net additional installations worldwide, using IFR’s consistently rounded time-series figures.

Market size is not robot density

These are annual industrial robot installations, not humanoids, the total installed stock or robots per worker. The EU-27 is not all Europe. Market sizes do not adjust for the size of manufacturing.

Updated October 6, 2026: expanded the original three-market comparison to six groups, with year-over-year changes and explicit residual rounding. Original URL and publication date retained.

Sources, Method & Data

2025 annual installations, with IFR’s reported percentage changes versus 2024. China 354,200, EU-27 60,500, U.S. 38,400, Japan 36,219 (displayed as 36.2k), South Korea 30,200. Most values are rounded in IFR’s public releases or graphics. “Other markets” is the global total of roughly 603,000 minus the five named groups: a residual estimate of 83,481 from rounded inputs, displayed as approximately 83k to avoid false precision. This includes European countries outside the EU. It is not the larger “rest of the world excluding China” total of approximately 249,000. A comparable growth rate for the residual group is not supplied; no rate is reverse-engineered from rounded percentages. Bars show installation counts on one common linear scale from zero; the separate percentage column is not a second bar scale.

China’s share is about 354,200 / 603,000 = 58.7%, displayed as 59%. The growth contribution uses the separate, consistently rounded original time-series graphics: global 542k to 603k and China 295k to 354k, hence approximately +61k globally, +59k in China, +2k elsewhere. No employment, robot-density, total-stock or humanoid inference. Measurement year 2025; release September 2026; accessed October 6, 2026.

2025 installation markets
MarketInstallations (thousands)Reported YoY
China354.2k+20%
EU-2760.5k−11%
United States38.4k+12%
Japan36.2k−19%
South Korea30.2k−1%
Other markets≈83kn/a
Explore the Chart
All ChartsEvery chart. Every source.
Explore by topic

Pick a frontier.

Seven fields. A clear place to begin.

The Vastkind Briefing

Stay ahead
of the story.

A personal take on the week. By Dorian.

Check your inbox.

Click the confirmation link in your email to complete your subscription. If it hasn’t arrived, check your spam folder.

Find something to read

Occasional editions. Free to subscribe.
Unsubscribe anytime.

Explore Vastkind

Topics
Subscribe

Stay curious. Stay informed.

For another moment

Your reading list

Saved on this device. No account needed.

Something catch your eye? Use the bookmark beside an article to keep it here.