Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

I almost published something wrong last week. Not a typo. A claim I'd accepted too fast. A source I hadn't traced all the way back. Caught it at step 247 of 300. That's what MiroMind's auditable reasoning chain actually looks like in practice not a feature you read about... in a changelog. a moment where you see it work. I'd typed in something simple: "latest reasoning model benchmarks" Straightforward prompt. The kind you'd throw at ChatGPT without thinking twice. What came back wasn't a confident summary. It was a structured map where the benchmarks agree, where the eval setups are cherry-picked, and where the leaderboard story gets complicated in production. Step 247: a source I hadn't verified. An inference that looked right but wasn't traceable. Flagged. Not included. Most AI tools give you an answer. This one shows you how it got there. Every step. Every source. Replayable. If a step can't be verified it doesn't make it into the output. That's not a safety feature. That's a completely different architecture. Has AI ever confidently given you something that turned out to be wrong? → Worth trying if you’re doing anything beyond surface-level research. $19/mo or pay-per-useshow more

Shruti

177,996 subscribers

28,869 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Been thinking about why most AI research tools fail for serious ML work. The answer is simpler than people admit. ChatGPT optimize for plausibility. That works for drafts, summaries, brainstorming. It breaks the moment you need something verifiable— when the question isn’t just “what’s the answer,” but “is this actually true?” — I’ve been using MiroMind for ~6 weeks on a deep dive: state space models vs transformers for long-context retrieval. I asked: “evaluating whether Mamba and SSM variants are actually closing the gap on transformers at >100k token context — what does current benchmarking literature say, where are the eval setups cherry-picked, and what are real-world deployment tradeoffs the papers aren't discussing” — ChatGPT gives you a clean narrative. MiroMind gave me a map. • papers critiquing cherry-picked SSM eval setups • a production deployment report that complicates leaderboard claims • sources tied directly to each claim I spot-checked three. All accurate. All saying exactly what was attributed. Reasoning chain is auditable step by step. — That’s the difference. Not speed. Not UX. Objective function. Most tools try to sound right. This is trying to be provably right. For ML research, those are completely different tools. — FrontierScience SOTA benchmarks are public if you want to sanity check the claims. →

Been thinking about why most AI research tools fail for serious ML work. The answer is simpler than people admit. ChatGPT optimize for plausibility. That works for drafts, summaries, brainstorming. It breaks the moment you need something verifiable— when the question isn’t just “what’s the answer,” but “is this actually true?” — I’ve been using MiroMind for ~6 weeks on a deep dive: state space models vs transformers for long-context retrieval. I asked: “evaluating whether Mamba and SSM variants are actually closing the gap on transformers at >100k token context — what does current benchmarking literature say, where are the eval setups cherry-picked, and what are real-world deployment tradeoffs the papers aren't discussing” — ChatGPT gives you a clean narrative. MiroMind gave me a map. • papers critiquing cherry-picked SSM eval setups • a production deployment report that complicates leaderboard claims • sources tied directly to each claim I spot-checked three. All accurate. All saying exactly what was attributed. Reasoning chain is auditable step by step. — That’s the difference. Not speed. Not UX. Objective function. Most tools try to sound right. This is trying to be provably right. For ML research, those are completely different tools. — FrontierScience SOTA benchmarks are public if you want to sanity check the claims. →

Poonam Soni

27,512 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Chamath: "Nvidia is not doing what's in the best interest of the United States." 🇺🇸🇨🇳 "I think we can all do the math. About 47% of all of NVIDIA's revenue goes to China and Chinese-related countries." "And I think when you peel back this onion, what you will find is a whole raft of companies that were stood up to buy these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act as a waystation for China." "And I think that is the big problem." "Let's have a thought starter: if 47% of all of the AI capability and horsepower is being shipped to three Asian countries, where do you think the apps that require that amount of horsepower live?" "Is there a Cursor of Bhutan that we did not know? Is there a great shopping app in Cambodia that's come out of nowhere, that's AI powered?" "I think the answer is no." "Every single time we have an advance in the United States, how is it that Alibaba shows up with something incredible? DeepSeek shows up with something better?" "At every turn and at every step of AI, they are at the same rate or one step ahead." "To be honest with you, I think the real problem that we have is that Nvidia is not doing what is in the best interest of the United States." "You have a American company that has been working around the guidelines at every turn to try to land silicon into the hands of China." "Late last year, they introduced this thing called the H20 that was explicitly designed for China and to be compliant with US rules at the time." "Which again, gives these guys substantial performance." "This is a case where (Nvidia) has plausible deniability. I sell something to a Singaporean registered company? Plausible deniability." "What am I supposed to do? You can't expect me to audit it. I think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be to this question." "But what is the real expectation? At a minimum, the United States should have a mechanism to understand it." "It is implausible that if you did one or two layers of work, you would not find that most of this traffic is being used by Chinese organizations."

Chamath: "Nvidia is not doing what's in the best interest of the United States." 🇺🇸🇨🇳 "I think we can all do the math. About 47% of all of NVIDIA's revenue goes to China and Chinese-related countries." "And I think when you peel back this onion, what you will find is a whole raft of companies that were stood up to buy these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act as a waystation for China." "And I think that is the big problem." "Let's have a thought starter: if 47% of all of the AI capability and horsepower is being shipped to three Asian countries, where do you think the apps that require that amount of horsepower live?" "Is there a Cursor of Bhutan that we did not know? Is there a great shopping app in Cambodia that's come out of nowhere, that's AI powered?" "I think the answer is no." "Every single time we have an advance in the United States, how is it that Alibaba shows up with something incredible? DeepSeek shows up with something better?" "At every turn and at every step of AI, they are at the same rate or one step ahead." "To be honest with you, I think the real problem that we have is that Nvidia is not doing what is in the best interest of the United States." "You have a American company that has been working around the guidelines at every turn to try to land silicon into the hands of China." "Late last year, they introduced this thing called the H20 that was explicitly designed for China and to be compliant with US rules at the time." "Which again, gives these guys substantial performance." "This is a case where (Nvidia) has plausible deniability. I sell something to a Singaporean registered company? Plausible deniability." "What am I supposed to do? You can't expect me to audit it. I think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be to this question." "But what is the real expectation? At a minimum, the United States should have a mechanism to understand it." "It is implausible that if you did one or two layers of work, you would not find that most of this traffic is being used by Chinese organizations."

The All-In Podcast

910,450 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Stanley Druckenmiller explains a “One-Way Bet”: “What’s a ‘One-Way Bet?’ That’s when you have a lot of conviction that something might not move, but if it moves, it’ll only move in one direction… So I bought the Treasuries thinking, for example, the 2-year I think it was like 230 or something. If I’m wrong, it goes to 240. And you can envision a scenario where you could make 150 or 200 basis points. So I didn’t necessarily think I was going to make money, but it was a great risk-reward.”

Stanley Druckenmiller explains a “One-Way Bet”: “What’s a ‘One-Way Bet?’ That’s when you have a lot of conviction that something might not move, but if it moves, it’ll only move in one direction… So I bought the Treasuries thinking, for example, the 2-year I think it was like 230 or something. If I’m wrong, it goes to 240. And you can envision a scenario where you could make 150 or 200 basis points. So I didn’t necessarily think I was going to make money, but it was a great risk-reward.”

Investment Wisdom

97,722 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

John Tortorella was not a fan of all the Cutter Gauthier stuff tonight: "I think it's a bunch of bullshit. All I told our team is let's worry about ourselves and play a hockey game. The bullshit is for you guys. All the drama, that's for you guys, whatever you need to do with it." "You know what I hope? I hope we can play in front of a crowd like that about something meaningful. Not the shit, whatever you guys are talking about, I hope it means something to the organization as far as winning and losing. That's when we wanna see a crowd like that, not all this stuff you guys are talking about. I want it to be that we're a team to be reckoned with in a playoff series or whatever it may be, not this shit." #Flyers

John Tortorella was not a fan of all the Cutter Gauthier stuff tonight: "I think it's a bunch of bullshit. All I told our team is let's worry about ourselves and play a hockey game. The bullshit is for you guys. All the drama, that's for you guys, whatever you need to do with it." "You know what I hope? I hope we can play in front of a crowd like that about something meaningful. Not the shit, whatever you guys are talking about, I hope it means something to the organization as far as winning and losing. That's when we wanna see a crowd like that, not all this stuff you guys are talking about. I want it to be that we're a team to be reckoned with in a playoff series or whatever it may be, not this shit." #Flyers

Flyers Nation

348,948 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Rick Rubin on being addicted to the miracle of creation: “I like the moment of revelation. So we're working on something and it's just okay. It's boring. I'd rather not be there. That's how it feels. But then something happens and it's like magic. Something appears. It's not like we made it. Something comes up in the process. It's conjured in the process. It’s like a miracle and that's the thing that's addictive. That feeling when it's like it's not good, it's not good, it's not good, it's not good. We try something and it doesn't work. Try something else and it doesn't work. But then all of the sudden what we're listening to is really cool. That's the [addictive] feeling, that moment of discovery where it goes from nothing to something really good. And then the whole rest of the process after that is protecting that because it's super delicate. When it happens it's like this miracle happened and this magic thing happened and now we have to protect it through the rest of the process to not ruin it. It's scary because you don't want it to end. You don't want it to stop because we know if it stops, we can't control it. We can't do it again. It's not like that. It's this moment in time where something magical happens. So we spend a lot of time waiting and I can't say that's fun. Waiting is not fun.”

Rick Rubin on being addicted to the miracle of creation: “I like the moment of revelation. So we're working on something and it's just okay. It's boring. I'd rather not be there. That's how it feels. But then something happens and it's like magic. Something appears. It's not like we made it. Something comes up in the process. It's conjured in the process. It’s like a miracle and that's the thing that's addictive. That feeling when it's like it's not good, it's not good, it's not good, it's not good. We try something and it doesn't work. Try something else and it doesn't work. But then all of the sudden what we're listening to is really cool. That's the [addictive] feeling, that moment of discovery where it goes from nothing to something really good. And then the whole rest of the process after that is protecting that because it's super delicate. When it happens it's like this miracle happened and this magic thing happened and now we have to protect it through the rest of the process to not ruin it. It's scary because you don't want it to end. You don't want it to stop because we know if it stops, we can't control it. We can't do it again. It's not like that. It's this moment in time where something magical happens. So we spend a lot of time waiting and I can't say that's fun. Waiting is not fun.”

David Senra

12,759 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

I used to stand in front of a mirror and not recognize the person staring back. Not hate. That's the thing people get wrong about those moments. It wasn't hate. I just didn't know her yet. The first time I walked into a gym I almost turned around. An empty bar felt heavy. I remember thinking: if an empty bar is hard, how does anyone do this? What am I even doing here? Nobody noticed me on campus. Nobody looked twice. I was just another girl in a hoodie walking to class with her headphones in. And I didn't expect them to. I hadn't given them a reason to. That's the part nobody talks about. Before the transformation photos. Before the stares. Before any of it. There's just a girl who decided that not knowing herself wasn't good enough anymore. Five years of early mornings. Heavy plates. Meals nobody saw me eat. Reps nobody counted but me. A thousand days of choosing to come back when it would've been easier not to. Same mirror. Very different woman looking back now. People stare. That part still catches me off guard sometimes. But I don't walk for their attention. I walk like this because I earned every step. Every muscle has a story. Every rep was a promise I kept to myself. To the girl who almost walked out of that gym on day one — she'd be proud. Intimidating or inspiring? You have to pick one. #ai

I used to stand in front of a mirror and not recognize the person staring back. Not hate. That's the thing people get wrong about those moments. It wasn't hate. I just didn't know her yet. The first time I walked into a gym I almost turned around. An empty bar felt heavy. I remember thinking: if an empty bar is hard, how does anyone do this? What am I even doing here? Nobody noticed me on campus. Nobody looked twice. I was just another girl in a hoodie walking to class with her headphones in. And I didn't expect them to. I hadn't given them a reason to. That's the part nobody talks about. Before the transformation photos. Before the stares. Before any of it. There's just a girl who decided that not knowing herself wasn't good enough anymore. Five years of early mornings. Heavy plates. Meals nobody saw me eat. Reps nobody counted but me. A thousand days of choosing to come back when it would've been easier not to. Same mirror. Very different woman looking back now. People stare. That part still catches me off guard sometimes. But I don't walk for their attention. I walk like this because I earned every step. Every muscle has a story. Every rep was a promise I kept to myself. To the girl who almost walked out of that gym on day one — she'd be proud. Intimidating or inspiring? You have to pick one. #ai

FBB Growth

11,719 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

If you discover how to prompt, AI is a window into your mind. Most of the time, it takes me a day or two, perhaps even longer to create a 5-15 second sequence with AI. Not because of hallucinations or glitches anymore. AI has advanced far to where it's not about catching mistakes like that and rerolling anymore. Every one of my videos was prompted and described to look exactly how it appears in my head. There are some beautiful instances where it spits out something you didn't expect, but flows with your project. That's the beauty of AI. The scene of the character in red is my friend as well. AI feels like magic.

If you discover how to prompt, AI is a window into your mind. Most of the time, it takes me a day or two, perhaps even longer to create a 5-15 second sequence with AI. Not because of hallucinations or glitches anymore. AI has advanced far to where it's not about catching mistakes like that and rerolling anymore. Every one of my videos was prompted and described to look exactly how it appears in my head. There are some beautiful instances where it spits out something you didn't expect, but flows with your project. That's the beauty of AI. The scene of the character in red is my friend as well. AI feels like magic.

Aze Λlter

58,167 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

“I'm not a huge hater of the institutions. I wasn't a huge hater of altcoins. These institutional products are just kind of altcoins. People can go make their money. Go do your thing. But it's not Bitcoin. An ETF is not Bitcoin. With these centralized projects, you're not getting the core values of Bitcoin, the control, the censorship resistance, the privacy. You're putting it in a centralized wrapper, and if you put Bitcoin in a centralized wrapper, you lose everything that's good about it. It's not Bitcoin. It's just an affinity marketing thing. It's “Hey, you like Bitcoin, go buy my other project." Just like, "Hey you like bitcoin? Go buy my altcoin." It's not the same thing, and I think in many ways it's a step backwards. I don't hate these people, but they certainly shouldn't be celebrated. It's not forwarding our industry if we do treasury strategies, if we do ETFs, we cheer for BlackRock and Cantor. That's a step backwards. It's not something to be cheerful for. It's not a victory, in my opinion. A victory is having more people have direct ownership of real Bitcoin. We now have millions of people who've been onboarded into this fake paper thing that's a claim on a claim on a claim of something that has Bitcoin in the words, but it's not actually Bitcoin. They are never actually holding a wallet like many of us did back in 2012 where somebody sent us that first dollar and you say, "Wow, this is cool. I didn't need to give my ID and I'm able to control and hold this sound money for the first time." You now have a whole generation of millions of people that don't have that. They have some junk fiat product sitting like sludge on their centralized brokerage account at the centralized clearing firm, traded on a centralized exchange, with a centralized transfer agent, and a centralized custodian, and they have to trust six levels of people on a claim for something that has the word ‘Bitcoin’ in it. It's not a victory. It's not a step forward. I don't think it's something that should be celebrated at all.”

“I'm not a huge hater of the institutions. I wasn't a huge hater of altcoins. These institutional products are just kind of altcoins. People can go make their money. Go do your thing. But it's not Bitcoin. An ETF is not Bitcoin. With these centralized projects, you're not getting the core values of Bitcoin, the control, the censorship resistance, the privacy. You're putting it in a centralized wrapper, and if you put Bitcoin in a centralized wrapper, you lose everything that's good about it. It's not Bitcoin. It's just an affinity marketing thing. It's “Hey, you like Bitcoin, go buy my other project." Just like, "Hey you like bitcoin? Go buy my altcoin." It's not the same thing, and I think in many ways it's a step backwards. I don't hate these people, but they certainly shouldn't be celebrated. It's not forwarding our industry if we do treasury strategies, if we do ETFs, we cheer for BlackRock and Cantor. That's a step backwards. It's not something to be cheerful for. It's not a victory, in my opinion. A victory is having more people have direct ownership of real Bitcoin. We now have millions of people who've been onboarded into this fake paper thing that's a claim on a claim on a claim of something that has Bitcoin in the words, but it's not actually Bitcoin. They are never actually holding a wallet like many of us did back in 2012 where somebody sent us that first dollar and you say, "Wow, this is cool. I didn't need to give my ID and I'm able to control and hold this sound money for the first time." You now have a whole generation of millions of people that don't have that. They have some junk fiat product sitting like sludge on their centralized brokerage account at the centralized clearing firm, traded on a centralized exchange, with a centralized transfer agent, and a centralized custodian, and they have to trust six levels of people on a claim for something that has the word ‘Bitcoin’ in it. It's not a victory. It's not a step forward. I don't think it's something that should be celebrated at all.”

Bruce Fenton

23,862 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Rick Rubin tells Andrew Huberman how he deals with creative or writer’s block. He treats his work like a diary entry (and doesn’t worry about internal or external judgment): ➡️ “What's the cause of the block? The block is usually something that's either personal ("I'm not good enough") or it can be a confidence issue ("I don't have anything to say") or it could be...thinking about someone else ("nobody's going to like what I make"). Do you know what I'm saying? So, it's either fear of self-judgment or external judgment. If you're making something with a freedom of "this is something I'm making for myself for now", that is all [you have to do]. It is a diary entry. Everything I make is a diary entry. The beauty of a diary entry is that I can write my diary entry and you can't tell me that my diary entry wasn't good enough. Or that [the diary entry] is not what I experienced. Of course it's what I experienced: I'm writing a personal diary for myself and no one else can judge if it is my experience of my life. Everything we make can be that: a personal reflection of who we are in that moment of time. It doesn't have to be the greatest you could ever do. It doesn't have to have any expectation that it's going to change the world. It doesn't have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn't have any of those things at all. It is "I'm making this thing for me and I want to do it to the best of my ability and to where I feel good about it". [The work] is honest of where I'm at and if you're living in this world of just being honest to where you're at, there's nothing blocking you. There are no blocks. The blocks are all based on dealing with a different force or a different perception that is made up.” ⬅️

Rick Rubin tells Andrew Huberman how he deals with creative or writer’s block. He treats his work like a diary entry (and doesn’t worry about internal or external judgment): ➡️ “What's the cause of the block? The block is usually something that's either personal ("I'm not good enough") or it can be a confidence issue ("I don't have anything to say") or it could be...thinking about someone else ("nobody's going to like what I make"). Do you know what I'm saying? So, it's either fear of self-judgment or external judgment. If you're making something with a freedom of "this is something I'm making for myself for now", that is all [you have to do]. It is a diary entry. Everything I make is a diary entry. The beauty of a diary entry is that I can write my diary entry and you can't tell me that my diary entry wasn't good enough. Or that [the diary entry] is not what I experienced. Of course it's what I experienced: I'm writing a personal diary for myself and no one else can judge if it is my experience of my life. Everything we make can be that: a personal reflection of who we are in that moment of time. It doesn't have to be the greatest you could ever do. It doesn't have to have any expectation that it's going to change the world. It doesn't have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn't have any of those things at all. It is "I'm making this thing for me and I want to do it to the best of my ability and to where I feel good about it". [The work] is honest of where I'm at and if you're living in this world of just being honest to where you're at, there's nothing blocking you. There are no blocks. The blocks are all based on dealing with a different force or a different perception that is made up.” ⬅️

Trung Phan

1,619,840 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jaynit

68,799 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

People often buy because they love the story. We're buying stories not products. These are sunglasses, but they're not made from plastic or metal. They're made from something that you can get paid to take. Not something that you pay for, something that you get paid to take for free. And the more you think about it, the more genius it becomes. How many coffee shops are there in the world? Over 100,000. What percentage of them throw away their coffee grounds every day? Like 98%. It's just a waste. It goes in the landfills. Nobody wants it. But someone looked at that waste and thought, what if that's not waste? What if this is raw material? And that change in perspective changes everything. Now you've got a product that costs you nothing to source. It's called a negative COGS business (cost of goods sold). A negative COGS business is where you actually get paid to take the material you make your product out of. A company called Eco Scraps did this in Utah. They got paid to take old produce from grocery stores and they turned it into luxury compost that they sold at Home Depot for nine bucks a bag instead of three bucks a bag. These guys are doing the same thing with coffee grounds but they're turning it into sunglasses of all things. Brilliant story. Brilliant execution. I freaking love this stuff.

People often buy because they love the story. We're buying stories not products. These are sunglasses, but they're not made from plastic or metal. They're made from something that you can get paid to take. Not something that you pay for, something that you get paid to take for free. And the more you think about it, the more genius it becomes. How many coffee shops are there in the world? Over 100,000. What percentage of them throw away their coffee grounds every day? Like 98%. It's just a waste. It goes in the landfills. Nobody wants it. But someone looked at that waste and thought, what if that's not waste? What if this is raw material? And that change in perspective changes everything. Now you've got a product that costs you nothing to source. It's called a negative COGS business (cost of goods sold). A negative COGS business is where you actually get paid to take the material you make your product out of. A company called Eco Scraps did this in Utah. They got paid to take old produce from grocery stores and they turned it into luxury compost that they sold at Home Depot for nine bucks a bag instead of three bucks a bag. These guys are doing the same thing with coffee grounds but they're turning it into sunglasses of all things. Brilliant story. Brilliant execution. I freaking love this stuff.

Chris Koerner

12,393 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

While building SEV0, I ran into moments where natural language prompting just wasn't enough - too vague, too indirect. So I started using a method that bridges that gap. I call it Bridged Prompting - a technique where you temporarily step out of the prompt-response loop to manipulate something directly using an AI-generated UI, then step back in. Think of it like GenUI, but more user-driven and transient. AI generates a UI on-the-fly, tailored to your prompt, and lets you manipulate the artifact directly before resuming the conversation. Sure, you could build a full tool, switch tabs, wire it up and round-trip your data. But with Bridged Prompting, the AI just spins up a temporary interface right in the flow. In the video below, I used it to construct the hallway system to closely match the layout of the severed floor. This is something I needed to do for this one project, this one time - I didn't need to make a whole separate app. Bridged Prompting lets you: - Make precise edits visually or structurally - "Hit save" to persist changes to local storage or a backend - Return to your natural language prompt

While building SEV0, I ran into moments where natural language prompting just wasn't enough - too vague, too indirect. So I started using a method that bridges that gap. I call it Bridged Prompting - a technique where you temporarily step out of the prompt-response loop to manipulate something directly using an AI-generated UI, then step back in. Think of it like GenUI, but more user-driven and transient. AI generates a UI on-the-fly, tailored to your prompt, and lets you manipulate the artifact directly before resuming the conversation. Sure, you could build a full tool, switch tabs, wire it up and round-trip your data. But with Bridged Prompting, the AI just spins up a temporary interface right in the flow. In the video below, I used it to construct the hallway system to closely match the layout of the severed floor. This is something I needed to do for this one project, this one time - I didn't need to make a whole separate app. Bridged Prompting lets you: - Make precise edits visually or structurally - "Hit save" to persist changes to local storage or a backend - Return to your natural language prompt

Chris Tate

42,558 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

A Better Model of Health One in which we take responsibility for ourselves Where there is a logical output given an input Where you’re not scared of someone coughing near you or touching a public handrail What makes you sick is not what you think… And even then - being sick is a healing process to support, not something to discourage. Your body is a divine system that is always healing itself All you need to do is give it the right inputs and take control of your environment - the body will do the rest.

A Better Model of Health One in which we take responsibility for ourselves Where there is a logical output given an input Where you’re not scared of someone coughing near you or touching a public handrail What makes you sick is not what you think… And even then - being sick is a healing process to support, not something to discourage. Your body is a divine system that is always healing itself All you need to do is give it the right inputs and take control of your environment - the body will do the rest.

⚡️🌞 Sol Brah 🌞🐬

13,136 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

The danger of AI is not just the slop, but what we lose in the process. Michael Pollan explains: "We're moving into this time where we're gonna sub out writing to AI. And AI can write our papers, and professors are dealing with this everywhere now. But what is lost is a way of thinking. Writing does something to your brain. It gives you access to things you can't know just walking around or thinking or planning or outlining. If you were just transcribing what was in your head, it would be kind of onerous. But it really is what you learn in the course of a day spent writing, things you didn't know, ideas that you didn't expect. And that's the thrill of it."

The danger of AI is not just the slop, but what we lose in the process. Michael Pollan explains: "We're moving into this time where we're gonna sub out writing to AI. And AI can write our papers, and professors are dealing with this everywhere now. But what is lost is a way of thinking. Writing does something to your brain. It gives you access to things you can't know just walking around or thinking or planning or outlining. If you were just transcribing what was in your head, it would be kind of onerous. But it really is what you learn in the course of a day spent writing, things you didn't know, ideas that you didn't expect. And that's the thrill of it."

David Perell Clips

18,468 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 Mike Tyson just dropped the most terrifying DMT story ever... 😱 "It's the most scariest experience you'll ever think... to know that you're dead." "What if someone told you that there was a way to see life in a completely different way? Where up wasn't up and right wasn't right, and everything was different?" "That's what it does... Introduce you to God... You are him." Would you ever try DMT after hearing Iron Mike describe it like this? Have you had a trip that changed how you see reality? What do you think about becoming "one with God"? Drop your wildest thoughts below 👇

🚨 Mike Tyson just dropped the most terrifying DMT story ever... 😱 "It's the most scariest experience you'll ever think... to know that you're dead." "What if someone told you that there was a way to see life in a completely different way? Where up wasn't up and right wasn't right, and everything was different?" "That's what it does... Introduce you to God... You are him." Would you ever try DMT after hearing Iron Mike describe it like this? Have you had a trip that changed how you see reality? What do you think about becoming "one with God"? Drop your wildest thoughts below 👇

Interstellar

61,722 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below

Hanako

13,683 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen