clouds fall, meeting rise
yesterday morning i woke up to a tweet about the AWS outage. nothing major for us at SAGEA on the surface, our models were running fine, our infra seemed stable, but watching the chaos ripple through the cloud stack felt like a real-time reminder of how fragile our layer of the world is. apps were down, services unresponsive, companies scrambling. reports said thousands of users, millions of queries failed.
i laughed a little, then shuddered. who know the entire internet was just ap-east-1 haha. as a small ai company building heavy models and thinking about deployment, the idea that the backbone of so many apps can break, or appear to break, feels oddly intimate. we live in a world where you assume “the cloud” is infinite, dependable. and then you’re reminded it isn’t. you’re reminded that someone else’s infrastructure moment can become your friction, your glitch, your emergency.
the meeting we had later that day put things into perspective even more. we met with a big fintech leader here. product-heavy company, huge user base, aspiring to integrate ai in serious ways. felt like things fell into place. the meeting was productive, real. we talked about reasoning models, agentic systems, how small teams can partner with bigger companies and move fast. i won’t say more. confidentiality matters. but the energy was there. seeds planted. what felt like yesterday’s freak cloud failure turned into today’s opportunity to talk about reliability, resilience, and what reasoning models actually need to serve real businesses.
so today i’m thinking about two things: the fragility of our assumptions, and the possibility of what’s next when you build with that fragility in mind.
the reports around the aws issue are instructive. some sources claim aws wasn’t down. others show massive user-impact. some blame a configuration error, others point to dns failures.
either way, the narrative is the same: the providers we assume will “just work” can fail, silently or visibly, and when they do, it creates dominoes. for developers, for researchers, for startups; it reminds us that “reliability at scale” is more than compute power. it’s architecture, it’s fallback, it’s contingency.
for us, at sagea, this is more than hypothetical. we’re building reasoning models, agentic systems, deployment pipelines. we assume a world where these models will serve real users, in apps, in workflows, in decision loops. if the layer beneath us fails, our shine doesn’t matter. what matters is uptime, responsiveness, robustness. the cloud outage reminds us that building good models is necessary but not sufficient. you have to build systems that survive the unexpected. you have to build for the triangle: reasoning, reliability, reach.
that’s why moments like yesterday matter. they’re not just “news” or “good anecdote.” they’re real references. architecture conversations. operational paranoia (trust me, so so much of paranoia). when you’re small and agile, you can build in this kind of resilience faster. you’re not waiting for committees, for six-month roadmaps, for bureaucratic renewals. you’re building now, testing now, iterating now. and when the outage happened, i looked at our infra dashboards and thought: okay, next training run, we reroute, we test multi-region fallback, we do log analysis, we make sure one cloud failure doesn’t turn into a chain reaction for a user.
we’ve also made a decision: we’re postponing the next huge MoE release for now. yes, the work on the 40-b MoE is real and almost ready. yes, we’re excited about it. but we realized there are other priorities that matter more in this moment. infrastructure robustness, user integration, agentic reliability. so we press pause. we haven’t announced “go full throttle”. we’re refining, iterating, building not just the model but the ecosystem around it. that decision itself feels like progress. it feels strategic. it feels real.
when you’re in ai-land where announcements are everything, choosing not to announce is a kind of freedom. choosing to delay a big model release because you want it to matter more than just make noise is a rare mindset. for us, that’s part of the edge. we want models that function not just impress. we want systems that integrate not just generate. we want reasoning that holds up not just scales.
you watch the big labs and you admire them. you see their budgets, their scale, their PR budgets, their compute clusters. you also see their glacial pace sometimes, the bureaucracy, the enormous coordination costs. for us, agile means less overhead. fewer approvals. decisions made on Slack at midnight. experiments spun up on a Friday afternoon. failures logged by Sunday morning and fixed by Monday evening. that speed is fragile but potent.
the upside is speed and focus. the downside is exposure and risk. yesterday’s cloud outage made me think: what if our fallback fails? what if service interruptions become part of the user experience? big labs can absorb. small teams cannot. so we have to treat risk as a design parameter. fault-tolerance, routing strategies, checkpoint management, multi-region inference. these become survival criteria, not optional features.
what the fintech meeting reminded me is this: real product and a viable solution is what matters. reasoning model, yes. but product that deploys in real workflows, under real reliability expectations, matters even more. and the reason big labs sometimes move slowly is not compute constraints, it’s risk constraints. when your user base is billions, you can’t iterate as aggressively. when your model architecture is tied to your brand, you can’t pivot overnight. for us, we can. which is our advantage. we’re building inside the constraints, learning fast, optimizing for what matters: reliability at scale, or as close to scale as our resources allow, reasoning integrity, and real use cases.
the team is also writing two research pieces now. one on reasoning stability in agentic contexts. the other being a followup on thinking about thinking. part of these papers will come out before or at the same time as the open-source weights, part will come after. either way, we’re aligning research with practice. we’re explicit about what works, what doesn’t, and what’s next.
investor talks are still ongoing. but yesterday’s meeting with that fintech leader gave me more confidence than any term sheet might have. because it felt real. because it aligned with what we want to build, not just what the market wants to announce. we’re raising, maybe. but if the cloud falls or the hype collapses, we still need to stand on something concrete. and i believe we are.
timing, however, is weird. in one way, we feel early. reasoning models are just now hitting a broader audience. agentic systems are just now becoming more than hype. in another way, we feel late. so many teams have released so many things. so much noise. but noise is also a cover. being late sometimes means you get to learn from mistakes. you get to see what works, what doesn’t. you get to build smarter. feel stronger.
small teams are often dismissed. “you need billions to play this game.” maybe. but maybe you don’t. maybe you need precision, design, efficiency. maybe you need the hunger that comes from being under-resourced. maybe you need the urgency that comes from knowing each dollar, each GPU hour, each minute of downtime matters. maybe the next big thing comes not from the biggest lab, but from the leanest, most focused team.
that’s our bet. sagea’s bet. we’re not trying to win the headlines first. we’re trying to win the infrastructure second, the models third, the community always. we’re preparing for when the backups fail and someone needs a reasoning system that works under constraints. we’re building for the moment when the world notices that scale without structure is brittle. we’re building because we believe intelligence is more than parameters.
so yeah, we met a fintech leader, cloud hiccups happened, model release plans shifted, research papers drafted, and alot of chaos. the rhythm of building doesn’t pause. it adapts. and in the adaptation we find clarity. in the decision to postpone a model we already wanted to release we find discipline. in the conversations with users and industry partners we find validation. in the messy server logs and delayed experiments we find the edge, or so i think.
ciao, basab
Want to get notified everytime i write stuff? Sign up to my newsletter