Lord Rama crossed the ocean by building a bridge stone by stone, with an army of contributors, each doing what they were capable of. Dirgha is following the same model: we're bringing together people and organizations to build fully indigenous, agentic, sovereign AI computers.

Stop making loose comments. A foundational model needs 50/60b $ Huge hyper cloud capacity with hundreds of billion $

Ok, so here is my take on the Fable ban, sovereign AI, Sarvam, etc. The event is interesting as it has implications from many perspectives. For AI users, it is clear that you should not confuse access with ownership, or adoption itself as advantage. And if the most significant tech differentiator you are leveraging has external control loops, then you have to accept you are vulnerable. For AI talent, it is now a precedent that you would be *seen* aligning to national interests more than company interests. And even if its just a whim for now, this trend will be hard to reverse as the world gets more automated… For AI labs, their offerings will be stratified - general purpose AI would be available as utility, but frontier AI would be gated. This is a fantastic business model for labs - *democratized* AI sucks in all the data liquidity of the world which is locked in higher margin frontier offerings. I think for the world to be a better place, all three of the above are bad vectors. We need to have more countries and companies owning their own destinies. And in the post AI world, that means being able to use and improve AI systems within their own perimeters - what one may call Sovereign AI. At Sarvam, Sovereign AI in India was the founding thesis a couple of years back, and continues to remain the core operating principle. From our vantage point, it is super clear that India will build, leverage, and create massive business value and societal impact with sovereign AI. The following is precisely how we at Sarvam are contributing to make that happen.

Things are not going well in the AI land. Today I woke up to this shocking news. It's funny, it's shocking. I don't know what to tell you. America just blocked access to its latest AI models for the rest of the world. For ALL of us. We have officially entered the haves-and-have-nots in the land of the free. Let me give you some context. In July 2025, this time last year, President Trump publicly floated the idea of denaturalizing Elon Musk. He is a naturalized American citizen. A trillionaire now. Think about that. A president suggesting he could strip citizenship from one of the most prominent businessmen, innovators, contributors in the country. Yesterday, that same playbook hit the AI world, the tech world. The Commerce Department ordered Anthropic to block access to its most advanced models — Fable 5 and Mythos 5 — for all foreign nationals. I mean all. And that explicitly included Anthropic's own foreign employees. Imagine that. The level of fear-mongering. The craziness that's happening. Unable to filter users selectively without breaking their infrastructure, Anthropic did the only thing they could: they disabled the models for everyone. So here's the pattern. Citizenship and national origin are now provisional gatekeepers. Not skill. Not contribution. Passport. More specifically, the birthright lottery. And it's always wrapped in the same language. Security. Fraud. Threats. Proliferation. That framing normalizes broad restrictions that function as tool of power. Control. What was once exceptional is now becoming routine. When a state can revoke belonging or restrict access based on where you were born, it doesn't create a two-tier system of capability. It creates a two-tier system of discrimination. Of permission. And permission—unlike code—does not scale. That's the world we're building. Let me know what you think in the comments.

🚨 Bloomberg: India's AI startup Sarvam AI was reportedly turned down by SoftBank, Prosus, a16z, General Atlantic and Accel during fundraising efforts. • 🇮🇳 Sarvam is still on track to raise ~$300M at a ~$1.5B valuation • Backed by Nvidia and focused on sovereign AI for India

A good business model should not turn your heaviest users into a source of loss. This is exactly why I have always believed that a “coding plan” (usage‑based pricing) is a terrible business. Think of a gym that only makes money because people buy memberships and then never show up. That’s a broken logic. A sound business model should ensure that your most core, highest‑volume users generate the largest profit – not the other way around. #BusinessModel #StartupTruth #UsageBasedPricing #BadEconomics

The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees. The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance. Access to all other Claude models is not affected. We apologize for this disruption to our customers. We believe this is a misunderstanding and are working to restore access as soon as possible. Read our full statement: anthropic.com/news/fable-myt…

Once you build on the frontier, rest will follow. Sovereign is for freedom, personal, corporate, national, global. It's a matter of people owning their device, data, and intelligence. github.com/Dirgha-AI/dirgha-…

The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees. The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance. Access to all other Claude models is not affected. We apologize for this disruption to our customers. We believe this is a misunderstanding and are working to restore access as soon as possible. Read our full statement: anthropic.com/news/fable-myt…

This is, perversely, good news for Britain, Australia, Japan, Europe, and other countries being cut off that would once have seen themselves as close allies of the United States. It shows us what the future may hold if AI is the strategically and economically decisive technology of the 21st century and is controlled by the US and China. It is good news because *it may be happening early enough to give us time to act.* I think this will be rescinded pretty soon, but it’s a sign of things to come. In a future where frontier models cannot be used outside the US, our industries and economies will fall behind and American businesses may not be able to operate overseas. We won’t be able to defend ourselves militarily with defence systems built on obsolete software. Europe 2031 is a good scenario of what a future like this could mean: europe2031.ai Some of the things we need to do are ‘no regrets’ measures we should do anyway. But some are genuinely costly and risky. We need cheap electricity – powered by gas, coal (this is costly, coal is very bad), deregulated nuclear fission – whatever can provide *cheap, reliable, 24/7* power. This almost certainly excludes wind power, which is enormously expensive and unreliable. We need projects to be able to connect to the grid in days rather than years by paying for fast-track connections. We need to make it incredibly easy to build data centres, with the property taxes retained locally and hypothecated for local tax cuts so there is some direct benefit for locals. This doesn’t need to be nationwide. We need to create new regulatory regimes for innovative businesses that give them the right to hire and fire staff with ease. The difficulty and cost of firing staff is one of the main reasons Europe has fallen behind so badly. We need to create a parallel employment regime that companies and workers can opt in to: worksinprogress.co/issue/why… Even though I think it will probably fail, I think we should probably try to create a good, non-American frontier AI lab. I am quite pessimistic about this – even extremely well-resourced, innovative software companies are struggling to do this. But the stakes are so high that not trying seems foolish. One thing that might work in our favour is the number of brilliant AI engineers who are not US citizens, who under the current export controls do not have access to Mythos/Fable even if they live and work in the US. What happens to Demis Hassabis, Ilya Sutskever, Andrej Karpathy, and the many other Europeans, Canadians, etc who are working on AI models in Britain and America who are affected by this? I do not think we should force our own companies to use model, because this would exacerbate their economic weakness – this lab should have to compete on an even playing field. I am deeply sceptical that this can work, but we cannot rule it out. If we do it, it has to be able to pay US salaries, operate without political constraints. worksinprogress.co/issue/how… It is cope to tell yourself that Trump is an aberration or that these export controls are a one-off. To repeat, I think these specific controls will be lifted quickly and it will be easy to move on and forget it happened. But this is a look into a potential future. Every one of us that is not a US citizen is at risk. The standard political divides do not apply here; the question is whether you grasp the enormity of AI as a technology. We have to act!

The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees. The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance. Access to all other Claude models is not affected. We apologize for this disruption to our customers. We believe this is a misunderstanding and are working to restore access as soon as possible. Read our full statement: anthropic.com/news/fable-myt…

CEO of Anthropic Dario Amodei awkwardly smiles through his answer to a question about why Claude AI directly contributed to the US Military bombing of the elementary school in Minab.

Btw I believe we have a mostly wrong framing of what could be done in Europe. Italy's Leonardo supercomputer datacenter alone plus Swiss National Supercomputing Centre has more than enough compute to train a very large LLM. It's not something impossible, also there is not magic recipe: it's just scaling, every smart team with the GPUs is doing it. People that fatally believe it is not something within reach are wrong.

Google DeepMind published a 60-page paper mapping the road from AGI to superintelligence, written by Hutter, Legg, and Genewein. No hype, just a sober analysis The paper uses three levels. AGI = roughly average human performance across most cognitive tasks. ASI = a system that beats large, well-coordinated groups of human experts across virtually everything (their bar: tens of thousands of experts working ten years on one problem). Universal AI / AIXI = the theoretical ceiling, uncomputable, only approachable from below. Then they explore the question of how this could be achieved: Scaling compute, models, and data, the continuation of the trend that drove the breakthrough so far. It is the only path with historical data available for extrapolation. The core question: Does quantity transform into quality? Even if individual models plateau, the sheer act of running millions of faster AGI instances could trigger the leap. (A quick aside: that is a fascinating philosophical idea. It always reminds me of Hegel’s dialectic, the notion that quantity transforms into quality. We ought to start drawing on philosophical theories to make sense of the future.) Algorithmic paradigm shifts: a genuine break from the transformer pretraining paradigm. New architectures, new learning methods. However, hard to predict by definition. Recursive self-improvement: AI accelerates AI research, which produces better AI, which accelerates research further. Multi-agent coordination: superintelligence emerges from large collectives of AGI agents working together, like automated corporations or AI economies. Collective intelligence potentially far exceeding any individual model. The authors naturally point to what I repeatedly describe as the biggest bottleneck: energy. I recently linked to a few graphs showing, on the one hand, the extent to which energy is already becoming a problem and, on the other, how China dominates the expansion of both nuclear and solar energy in the global race. But the authors also address a profound shift in the world of work in a post-AGI era. I would say this is a reality we must face. So, it is not just about scaling, but also about whether the underlying conditions - such as energy and hardware - can be effectively established. Six things that could slow or stop all of this: The data wall. Quality training data runs out, possibly before the end of this decade. Resource demand grows too fast. Energy, chips, rare earths, investment. The physical infrastructure can't scale arbitrarily. The neural paradigm hits a ceiling. Pretrained transformers plus fine-tuning may not be enough to reach AGI, let alone go beyond it. Research gets harder. Keeping Moore's law going already needs 18x more researchers than in the 1970s. Ideas are genuinely harder to find as fields mature. The abstraction barrier. Models trained on human concepts may never invent new ones from scratch. Saturating GPQA or SWE-bench shows mastery of what humans already worked out, not the ability to go beyond it. Train only on pre-Newtonian physics and you won't reason your way to relativity. Deliberate slowdown. Regulation, accidents, public backlash. Real, but likely countered by the competitive pressure between companies and nations. I think it’s great that Google is addressing questions such as which paths they believe lead to AGI, what the road to ASI might look like, what challenges will arise, and much more. Overall, however, it sounds to me like all of this could actually succeed, making it, in that sense, a call to discuss and reflect on the consequences.