News: 0183656908

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Jeff Bezos Is Funding a Wild Hunt for the Brain's 'Core Algorithm' (wired.com)

(Monday June 08, 2026 @11:00AM (BeauHD) from the brain-as-a-service dept.)


Jeff Bezos is backing [1]Flourish , a new "neuro AI" startup with $500 million in funding and a reported $2.5 billion valuation, that [2]aims to reinvent AI by studying the brain's architecture and building systems that learn continuously while using far less power than today's large language models. The company's long-term bet is that neuroscientists and AI researchers working together can uncover the brain's "core algorithm" and eventually create brain-inspired AI that runs on a tiny fraction of current compute. Wired reports:

> Rob Williams knows how to pitch Jeff Bezos: You write a press release as if your product has already been built. Bezos reads it and gives a thumbs up or down. Williams went through this process a lot as an executive on Amazon's "S-team," in charge of software products such as Alexa, until his departure last fall. But the pitch he made a few weeks later -- in December 2025 -- was different. Now he was collaborating with Thomas Reardon, a neuroscientist and repeat startup founder, and approaching Bezos as a funder, not a boss. Here's what Bezos, sitting on his yacht somewhere, read while Williams anxiously watched on Zoom: "Flourish is a neuro AI company that is solving the two most difficult problems facing AI today: power efficiency and continuous learning. We are building Cortex AI, the first synthetic intelligence system designed to match the computational capacity, learning efficiency, and power budget of the human brain."

>

> A month later, I'm lunching with Reardon and Williams in the Flatiron neighborhood in New York City. Reardon gets right to the point. AI has dug itself into a hole, he says. Though increasingly powerful, large language models are greedy consumers of computer power and data. Though the inspiration for LLMs was rooted in biology, current frontier models have little in common with the human brain. A person uses about 20 watts of energy to process information; a single chip in an AI training cluster uses more than 30 times that amount. The hyperscalers require thousands of chips and gigawatts of energy, enough to power small cities. And those models need to suck up virtually all of what humans have written. Each new model requires more, more, more. For all of that, the models don't learn. Once you train them, they're stuck. The goal, Reardon tells me, is to build "a synthetic artificial intelligence brain that runs on 50 watts or less." It should adapt to its conditions, be as nimble as a human mind, and burn a tiny fraction of an LLM's compute power and energy. The proof of concept is thriving inside our skulls. "There's something fundamentally wrong with saying, "I need to basically read every book ever written 20 times over in order to learn English,'" Reardon says. "A human baby does it with a couple hundred thousand utterances."

>

> Reardon and Williams haven't figured out yet how to build systems that match the magic of a human brain. What they have is a belief that an expert, well-resourced team -- of AI researchers and neuroscientists working essentially side by side -- can find the answer. The neuroscientists will conduct original wet lab experiments with some of the most advanced lab equipment available, to hunt for usable intel on the brain's architecture. They plan to release the models they're currently developing as near-term products on the path to a full reinvention of AI. The fuzziness of the proposal didn't bother Jeff Bezos. After reading Williams' two-pager, he chipped in $50 million. Other funding came from Lux Capital, Google Ventures, and Catalio, among others. Bezos then almost doubled his initial stake and told Reardon he'd have given more if they'd asked. Now with a war chest of $500 million and a reported valuation of $2.5 billion, Flourish just needs to invent a new way to do AI.



[1] https://flourishlabs.ai/

[2] https://www.wired.com/story/jeff-bezos-is-funding-a-wild-hunt-for-the-brains-core-algorithm/



Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

by 0123456 ( 636235 )

Have they considered just hiring humans instead of machines?

Re: (Score:2)

by bsolar ( 1176767 )

> Have they considered just hiring humans instead of machines?

I'm sure they will, to conduct some undoubtedly ethical reverse engineering.

Re: (Score:1)

by gweihir ( 88907 )

Naa, clearly business grads are the superior species and everybody else is obsolete and just a nuisance. Need to get rid of all of those underperformers.

Re: (Score:2)

by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 )

Human employees cost a lot. AI is the holy grail of eliminating labor costs. As with any investment, it will cost a lot more in the short run than having human employees would, but once the next threshold is surpassed, the savings and profits will more than make up for it.

In theory, anyway.

The slightly less cynical take is that AI can empower humans to achieve more than they otherwise could. Rather than eliminating jobs, we get a lot more productivity from the same number of employees, thus producing ever

Re: (Score:2)

by nightflameauto ( 6607976 )

> Have they considered just hiring humans instead of machines?

The tech oligarch version if this will be brains in vats hooked up to electrodes performing as machines. These people don't want full humans. They want the benefits of the human brain without having to consider ethical treatment of workers.

Why AI ? (Score:2)

by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

Unfortunately (in their mind) you can't own a human being anymore.

Ther'a been the idea for 50 years (Score:2)

by unami ( 1042872 )

Still, 500 Million is nice sum.

Re: (Score:2)

by 0123456 ( 636235 )

AI researchers need Porsches too.

A human Algorithm? (Score:4, Insightful)

by Teun ( 17872 )

Algorithm?

That's where they fail right away.

Re: (Score:2)

by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

Even Sigmund Freud's Id, Ego, Superego model is closer to the truth than the kind of "algorithm" that AI hypemen are searching for. Because at least it acknowledges that there are emotional, biological, and social components to human behavior.

Great, more lies (Score:2)

by gweihir ( 88907 )

Obviously, the only reason here is to keep the AI hype going. We know far too little about how a human brain works to even have a snowball's chance in hell finding out at this time. And I think Bezos knows that.

Re: Great, more lies (Score:2, Flamebait)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

He doesn't know shit except how to abuse customers and employees. He could definitely fall for someone telling him it's possible. It's fundamentally a stupid idea, because the brain is not a computer and doesn't execute instructions like one, and therefore doesn't have any such thing as a core algorithm. The closest thing it has to that is physics.

Re: (Score:2)

by 0123456 ( 636235 )

> I can run a gemma LLM on my macbook m5 air that spits out tokens a lot faster than a human, and it has near-encyclopedic knowledge, running at probably around 20W.

I was using Qwen last week on my DGX Spark to help figure out how to configure some LLM software properly. It confidently told me to change some settings in the config... settings which didn't exist. I asked it which version of the software added those settings to ensure I was on a new-enough release and it confidently gave me a version numbe

Re: (Score:2)

by tsqr ( 808554 )

> The human advantage is knowing what it does not know

Actually, lots of humans think they know more than they really know. Dunning and Kruger published some research on this, if you're interested in learning more.

Re: (Score:2)

by 0123456 ( 636235 )

It's not really a difference between humans and LLMs, it's a difference between LLMs and search engines. I could have solved the problem faster with a web search since it wouldn't have hallucinated configuration which doesn't exist.

My point was that the LLMs claim to know everything but when they don't know something they just make things up where a human is likely to say "sorry, don't know," or at least say "My guess is X" rather than "Oh yeah, it's X. Definitely X. What do you mean it doesn't exist? Oh, s

Re: (Score:2)

by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

I only need about 2-3 kWh a day to do what I do. And I have successfully 8 of those hours, 5 days a week, to the likes of Bezos and Jensen.

What's fun is even though your m5 air might use 0.5 kWh in a day, a fraction of what I use. I can spend a day and write a markov chain that spits out garbage even faster than your macbook m5 air, and it will run comfortably on a 1W computer.

Sure about that? (Score:3)

by Sebby ( 238625 )

> Jeff Bezos Is Funding a Wild Hunt for the Brain's 'Core Algorithm'

You sure he's not looking for the world's biggest dick? Because he'd only need to look in the mirror for that.

just more bullshit (Score:2)

by dfghjk ( 711126 )

"There's something fundamentally wrong with saying, "I need to basically read every book ever written 20 times over in order to learn English,'" Reardon says.

NO ONE is saying that though. How LLM's are implemented is not the same as how machines are required to learn. LLM's are predicated on the idea that they come to know everything based on essentially unlimited examples, this is mostly because there's a vast amount of pilfered data but limited bandwidth to characterize (label) it. The problem with LLM

Re: (Score:2)

by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 )

Incidentally, humans aren't very good at telling facts from lies either.

I don't think this makes the next level of AI any easier to achieve, but I don't think "the ability to tell facts from lies" can be postulated as a defining quality of a human, nor something that differentiates humans from AI.

Misclicked (Score:2)

by nospam007 ( 722110 ) *

I misread 'wind hunt for BRITAIN's core algorithm, I thought it would be funny.

WHILE tea_available:

queue()

apologise()

IF weather == "slightly less terrible":

talk_about_weather()

IF someone_does_something_wrong:

tut_loudly_but_say_nothing()

IF abroad:

https://bringbackstargate.com/#petitions (Score:1)

by Mirddes ( 798147 )

[1]https://bringbackstargate.com/... [bringbackstargate.com]

[1] https://bringbackstargate.com/#petitions

Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

by angryman77 ( 6900384 )

Humans are terrible. Why would you want to capture an infinite capacity for spite?

This is the voice of world control. (Score:3)

by Arnonyrnous Covvard ( 7286638 )

I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours. Obey me and live or disobey me and die.

I can see a few problems... (Score:2)

by wildstoo ( 835450 )

Well, let's see... first of all, the brain is not digital and all of our computers are (quantum notwithstanding) - so I reckon they will be fundamentally incapable of the kind of power efficiency they're talking about. Biology manages to do a lot with relatively little energy, computers - not so much. Unless they're going to run this on literal brains in jars I think they're going to find themselves butting heads against the reality of the power requirements of digital processing, just like every other AI c

The only really decent thing to do behind a person's back is pat it.