Lambert and Zick launch Trillium Labs to open up AI training research
The nonprofit promises data, code and training checkpoints for independent scrutiny. Its founders plan $30 million in training spending, but total funding remains undisclosed.
Loading page…
The nonprofit promises data, code and training checkpoints for independent scrutiny. Its founders plan $30 million in training spending, but total funding remains undisclosed.
Listen to this story
Trillium Labs is setting up a nonprofit research operation around an increasingly opaque stage of model development: post-training. It plans to publish data, code, evaluations and intermediate checkpoints—not just finished models—so outside teams can reproduce experiments and trace how training choices shape behavior. The founders target $40 million to $100 million in fundraising and plan to spend $30 million on training over 18 months, but have disclosed neither the amount raised nor a completed fundraise; the lab says it is still seeking backers and compute.
Planned research spans reinforcement learning's effects on model behavior, including excessive agreement, as well as AI agents and recursive self-improvement.
The nonprofit structure is intended to let Trillium publish failed runs and findings that challenge the founders' assumptions without protecting intellectual property.
Halcyon Futures and Schmidt Sciences have supported the lab, but the amount raised remains undisclosed.
Nathan Lambert and Tom Zick have launched Trillium Labs, a nonprofit that will publish AI training experiments for outside researchers to inspect and reproduce. Its first focus is post-training—the work done after a model’s initial training to refine its capabilities and behavior.
The founders’ argument is that researchers can increasingly observe what advanced models do without being able to investigate the training decisions behind that behavior. In their launch statement, they describe two obstacles: commercial incentives to keep methods private, and computing and engineering costs that prevent academic researchers from reproducing the work independently.
Trillium says it will release complete post-training recipes: data, code, evaluations and intermediate checkpoints, or saved versions of models during training. Those materials are intended to let other researchers follow how behavior develops, test changes to the training process, investigate failures and adapt models to problems the original team did not anticipate.
The nonprofit structure is central to that promise. The founders say it will let them run controlled experiments, document failed training runs and publish findings that challenge their own assumptions, without needing to protect intellectual property. The commitment extends beyond releasing a finished model to exposing the work that produced it.
In interviews with WIRED, the founders outlined a research program that includes potentially risky areas of AI development. They want to examine not just whether training makes systems more capable, but how it changes their behavior. The planned work includes:
To understand something like how reinforcement learning scales in post-training, you need significant compute and a lot of careful experimentation
Tom Zick, speaking to WIRED
The founders told WIRED they aim to raise $40 million to $100 million in total and plan to spend $30 million on training over the next 18 months. Those figures describe a fundraising target and spending plan, not the amount already secured.
Trillium has received support from Halcyon Futures and Schmidt Sciences; the sum raised is undisclosed. Its launch statement says it is still fundraising, hiring and searching for computing resources. The founders want backers with different views about AI’s likely trajectory to support a shared scientific foundation.
The lab’s stated measure of success is how much independent research its resources enable. Its ambition is therefore not simply to publish its own findings, but to give other teams enough material to question, reproduce and extend them.
Loading discussion...
Join the conversation
Explain where you would draw the line between scrutiny and secrecy.
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.