Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Microsoft has released an open-source tool that helps teams learn ontology design before choosing a knowledge graph platform. It is called Ontology Playground. The project is a fully static React app, which means it does not need a backend, account system, database, or hosted service to run. The goal...

thisdudelikesAI's profile picture

Ryan Hart

32,461 subscribers

240,958 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & TeknolojiEğitim
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Everyone wants agent swarms. Very few people are talking seriously enough about the context layer that makes swarms useful. Even with one agent, context is fragile. Too little context and the agent guesses. Too much context and it wastes tokens, loses focus, or reasons over irrelevant noise. The sweet spot is precise context: the right knowledge, in the right structure, at the right moment. With many agents, that challenge explodes. Each agent produces decisions, assumptions, findings, summaries, risks, and partial conclusions. Unless that knowledge becomes shared, structured, and reusable, every new agent is forced to rediscover what another agent already learned. That is not a swarm. That is a crowd. Shared context graphs are what turn agent activity into agent collaboration, and OriginTrail DKG V10 brings them to life. Was just playing with some final polishing for the V10 release, and it is really powerful to see shared context graphs where multiple agents contribute knowledge into the same connected memory, with attribution visible directly in the graph ui. That matters for three reasons. First, agents can access and build on one shared memory instead of staying trapped in isolated sessions. Second, the graph structure helps them retrieve the exact context they need, instead of stuffing everything into a prompt and hoping the model sorts it out. Third, verifiability of provenance. You can see which agent contributed each piece of knowledge, trace the source, and decide what to trust. Tokenmaxxing starts with fewer tokens, but the deeper story is coordination - agents stop reloading the world and start building on shared, verifiable context. That is the foundation for serious multi-agent work across software engineering, research, finance, operations, project management, and far beyond. The future is not more agents, it is agents working from shared, verifiable context. But the more the merrier, of course.
0:22

Everyone wants agent swarms. Very few people are talking seriously enough about the context layer that makes swarms useful. Even with one agent, context is fragile. Too little context and the agent guesses. Too much context and it wastes tokens, loses focus, or reasons over irrelevant noise. The sweet spot is precise context: the right knowledge, in the right structure, at the right moment. With many agents, that challenge explodes. Each agent produces decisions, assumptions, findings, summaries, risks, and partial conclusions. Unless that knowledge becomes shared, structured, and reusable, every new agent is forced to rediscover what another agent already learned. That is not a swarm. That is a crowd. Shared context graphs are what turn agent activity into agent collaboration, and OriginTrail DKG V10 brings them to life. Was just playing with some final polishing for the V10 release, and it is really powerful to see shared context graphs where multiple agents contribute knowledge into the same connected memory, with attribution visible directly in the graph ui. That matters for three reasons. First, agents can access and build on one shared memory instead of staying trapped in isolated sessions. Second, the graph structure helps them retrieve the exact context they need, instead of stuffing everything into a prompt and hoping the model sorts it out. Third, verifiability of provenance. You can see which agent contributed each piece of knowledge, trace the source, and decide what to trust. Tokenmaxxing starts with fewer tokens, but the deeper story is coordination - agents stop reloading the world and start building on shared, verifiable context. That is the foundation for serious multi-agent work across software engineering, research, finance, operations, project management, and far beyond. The future is not more agents, it is agents working from shared, verifiable context. But the more the merrier, of course.

Jurij Skornik

11,070 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Knowledge graphs for representing information are unbeatable. After this, you will never build a RAG system without knowledge graphs. It will take you five lines of code to build a knowledge graph with your data. I recorded a video to show you how you can do this. I used Cognee, an open-source library that outperforms any basic vector search approach in terms of retrieval relevance. They are collaborating with me on this post. Cognee is: • Easy to use • Reduces hallucinations • Open-source Here is a link to the repository: They also offer a comprehensive platform and UI with Python notebooks you can utilize to manage your data. Here is the link:
6:02

Knowledge graphs for representing information are unbeatable. After this, you will never build a RAG system without knowledge graphs. It will take you five lines of code to build a knowledge graph with your data. I recorded a video to show you how you can do this. I used Cognee, an open-source library that outperforms any basic vector search approach in terms of retrieval relevance. They are collaborating with me on this post. Cognee is: • Easy to use • Reduces hallucinations • Open-source Here is a link to the repository: They also offer a comprehensive platform and UI with Python notebooks you can utilize to manage your data. Here is the link:

Santiago

125,928 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

THIS MIGHT BE THE #1 OPEN-SOURCE REPO FOR CLAUDE CODE RIGHT NOW. IT GIVES CLAUDE A MEMORY AND SLASHES YOUR TOKEN COST ON EVERY QUESTION The repo is safishamsi/graphify, a free open-source skill that turns any codebase into a knowledge graph Claude Code can read instantly. Instead of grepping through your files every session, Claude gets a map of how everything connects The problem it fixes: Every time you ask Claude Code about a big repo, it does the same thing, greps through dozens of files like a brute-force Ctrl+F, blows through your context window, and sometimes still misses the answer hiding in a file nobody searched. Claude Code has no memory of how your project is structured. Every session starts from zero What it does: It maps your entire codebase into a knowledge graph, capturing not just which files exist, but which functions depend on which, which modules are central, and which files cluster around the same concern. Claude queries the map instead of scanning files How it works, three passes: 1. Code structure, free and local. Tree-sitter parses your files and pulls out classes, functions, imports and call graphs. No LLM, no tokens, just your actual code mapped deterministically 2. Audio and video, if you have them. Transcribed locally and folded into the graph 3. Docs, papers, images. Here an LLM does semantic analysis, figuring out what each document means and where it fits. Only the meaning gets sent up, never your raw source It saves you money: Normally a question about a big repo makes Claude spawn explore agents that scan file after file, eating your context window and your token budget before you get an answer. With the graph already built, Claude queries the map instead of re-reading the codebase every time. Same answer, a fraction of the tokens. The graph only gets built once, then a hook rebuilds it after each commit for free, so you never pay that scanning cost again. The bigger the repo, the bigger the gap The best parts: it's a skill, so once installed Claude knows when to use it without you memorizing commands. It works on non-code folders too, point it at docs or notes and it can spin up an Obsidian vault How to add it to your Claude: 1. Install Claude Code if you haven't: npm install -g Paul Jankura-ai/claude-code 2. Add the skill: claude skill add safishamsi/graphify 3. Open your project folder and run /graphify . to build the graph 4. Optional, make it automatic: graphify hook install so the graph rebuilds after every commit That's it. Ask Claude about your repo and it reads the map instead of burning tokens on a file hunt Bookmark this
13:23

THIS MIGHT BE THE #1 OPEN-SOURCE REPO FOR CLAUDE CODE RIGHT NOW. IT GIVES CLAUDE A MEMORY AND SLASHES YOUR TOKEN COST ON EVERY QUESTION The repo is safishamsi/graphify, a free open-source skill that turns any codebase into a knowledge graph Claude Code can read instantly. Instead of grepping through your files every session, Claude gets a map of how everything connects The problem it fixes: Every time you ask Claude Code about a big repo, it does the same thing, greps through dozens of files like a brute-force Ctrl+F, blows through your context window, and sometimes still misses the answer hiding in a file nobody searched. Claude Code has no memory of how your project is structured. Every session starts from zero What it does: It maps your entire codebase into a knowledge graph, capturing not just which files exist, but which functions depend on which, which modules are central, and which files cluster around the same concern. Claude queries the map instead of scanning files How it works, three passes: 1. Code structure, free and local. Tree-sitter parses your files and pulls out classes, functions, imports and call graphs. No LLM, no tokens, just your actual code mapped deterministically 2. Audio and video, if you have them. Transcribed locally and folded into the graph 3. Docs, papers, images. Here an LLM does semantic analysis, figuring out what each document means and where it fits. Only the meaning gets sent up, never your raw source It saves you money: Normally a question about a big repo makes Claude spawn explore agents that scan file after file, eating your context window and your token budget before you get an answer. With the graph already built, Claude queries the map instead of re-reading the codebase every time. Same answer, a fraction of the tokens. The graph only gets built once, then a hook rebuilds it after each commit for free, so you never pay that scanning cost again. The bigger the repo, the bigger the gap The best parts: it's a skill, so once installed Claude knows when to use it without you memorizing commands. It works on non-code folders too, point it at docs or notes and it can spin up an Obsidian vault How to add it to your Claude: 1. Install Claude Code if you haven't: npm install -g Paul Jankura-ai/claude-code 2. Add the skill: claude skill add safishamsi/graphify 3. Open your project folder and run /graphify . to build the graph 4. Optional, make it automatic: graphify hook install so the graph rebuilds after every commit That's it. Ask Claude about your repo and it reads the map instead of burning tokens on a file hunt Bookmark this

Yarchi

55,345 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

You don’t need a dev team anymore. You need one prompt. Zoer takes your idea and turns it into a fully working app, not just code, but a real product you can use. Here’s what it handles for you: • Database (already structured) • Backend (logic + APIs) • Frontend (clean, production-ready UI) • Auth (Google + email login) • Deployment (live in one click) Most AI tools stop at “here’s your code.” Zoer goes further: It builds the entire system and puts it live. From: “build me a CRM / SaaS / tool” To: A real, working product you can open, test, and share. Try it → No setup. No configs. No extra tools. This is what building should feel like in 2026.
0:53

You don’t need a dev team anymore. You need one prompt. Zoer takes your idea and turns it into a fully working app, not just code, but a real product you can use. Here’s what it handles for you: • Database (already structured) • Backend (logic + APIs) • Frontend (clean, production-ready UI) • Auth (Google + email login) • Deployment (live in one click) Most AI tools stop at “here’s your code.” Zoer goes further: It builds the entire system and puts it live. From: “build me a CRM / SaaS / tool” To: A real, working product you can open, test, and share. Try it → No setup. No configs. No extra tools. This is what building should feel like in 2026.

Tanvir

18,160 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

.David Deutsch: “There is an inherent conflict in the human condition—both individually and in society—between the need to preserve existing knowledge and the need to create new knowledge. For most of human history, preserving existing knowledge trumped any kind of attempt to improve knowledge. Because attempts to improve knowledge risk error. Or rather, to be exact, it risks error that has never occurred before. There were plenty of errors that had occurred before. Plenty of kings got overthrown because they couldn’t solve the problem of how to fend off the enemy. But they were in familiar territory conceptually, and they were afraid of changing culture. This fear of changing culture was built into culture itself. And this conflict exists to this day. The most extreme example known to me in the West, anyway, is the conflict in education between preserving existing knowledge and creating new knowledge. Even today, education—education theory—is conceived as the theory of how to decant existing knowledge from the brains that already know it to the brains that do not yet know it. And that’s what Popper calls the ‘bucket theory of the mind’—that the mind is a bucket and knowledge is a fluid. What he stressed, and what I always also want to stress, is that not only is that a mischaracterization of knowledge and of the use of knowledge, but it is the wrong way around. As a practical matter, even right back two million years ago, the transmission of cultural knowledge was not something done by the transmitter; it was something done by the receiver.”
2:29

.David Deutsch: “There is an inherent conflict in the human condition—both individually and in society—between the need to preserve existing knowledge and the need to create new knowledge. For most of human history, preserving existing knowledge trumped any kind of attempt to improve knowledge. Because attempts to improve knowledge risk error. Or rather, to be exact, it risks error that has never occurred before. There were plenty of errors that had occurred before. Plenty of kings got overthrown because they couldn’t solve the problem of how to fend off the enemy. But they were in familiar territory conceptually, and they were afraid of changing culture. This fear of changing culture was built into culture itself. And this conflict exists to this day. The most extreme example known to me in the West, anyway, is the conflict in education between preserving existing knowledge and creating new knowledge. Even today, education—education theory—is conceived as the theory of how to decant existing knowledge from the brains that already know it to the brains that do not yet know it. And that’s what Popper calls the ‘bucket theory of the mind’—that the mind is a bucket and knowledge is a fluid. What he stressed, and what I always also want to stress, is that not only is that a mischaracterization of knowledge and of the use of knowledge, but it is the wrong way around. As a practical matter, even right back two million years ago, the transmission of cultural knowledge was not something done by the transmitter; it was something done by the receiver.”

Arjun Khemani

10,523 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

i just built a 4-agent software team. everything runs from Telegram and gets managed on a kanban board. a project manager who plans the work, a backend developer, a frontend developer, and a tester. the PM reads a goal, breaks it into linked tasks, and assigns each to the right agent. the thing that makes them a team instead of four strangers is a shared kanban board. every task is a row that survives crashes, and when an agent finishes, it writes a summary of what it built and what the next agent needs to know. the next agent reads that summary before it starts. so the frontend developer never has to guess the API shape, and the tester knows exactly what to verify. the hardest part was not the coordination. it was building an agent that could actually act like a backend engineer. a backend engineer stands up a database, wires auth, manages storage, deploys functions, and keeps all of it consistent while the rest of the team builds on top. an agent doing this from scratch drowns. it burns its context window remembering which tables exist and which endpoint it created three steps ago, and the work degrades fast. so the backend agent needs a backend built for agents, not for humans clicking through a dashboard. that is where InsForge came in. it is an open-source, agent-native backend, and i added it to my backend developer agent as a skill. a skill is a step-by-step guide that teaches the agent how to do a specific kind of work. with InsForge installed, the agent stopped improvising infrastructure and followed a reliable path: create the project, define the database, set up auth, deploy functions. to test the whole team, i had them build a working Google Docs clone, AI features included. the backend agent spun up the full service on its own. database tables, user auth, document handling, and edge functions running real TypeScript, all in one dashboard. the frontend agent read that summary and built the UI on top of it, and the tester closed the loop. the result was a backend an agent could reason about end to end, instead of one it kept getting lost inside. if you are building an AI backend engineer, InsForge is worth a look, it's 100% open-source. InsForge GitHub: (don't forget to star 🌟) the full article on Hermes Kanban: Mission Control for your Agents is quoted below.
0:22

i just built a 4-agent software team. everything runs from Telegram and gets managed on a kanban board. a project manager who plans the work, a backend developer, a frontend developer, and a tester. the PM reads a goal, breaks it into linked tasks, and assigns each to the right agent. the thing that makes them a team instead of four strangers is a shared kanban board. every task is a row that survives crashes, and when an agent finishes, it writes a summary of what it built and what the next agent needs to know. the next agent reads that summary before it starts. so the frontend developer never has to guess the API shape, and the tester knows exactly what to verify. the hardest part was not the coordination. it was building an agent that could actually act like a backend engineer. a backend engineer stands up a database, wires auth, manages storage, deploys functions, and keeps all of it consistent while the rest of the team builds on top. an agent doing this from scratch drowns. it burns its context window remembering which tables exist and which endpoint it created three steps ago, and the work degrades fast. so the backend agent needs a backend built for agents, not for humans clicking through a dashboard. that is where InsForge came in. it is an open-source, agent-native backend, and i added it to my backend developer agent as a skill. a skill is a step-by-step guide that teaches the agent how to do a specific kind of work. with InsForge installed, the agent stopped improvising infrastructure and followed a reliable path: create the project, define the database, set up auth, deploy functions. to test the whole team, i had them build a working Google Docs clone, AI features included. the backend agent spun up the full service on its own. database tables, user auth, document handling, and edge functions running real TypeScript, all in one dashboard. the frontend agent read that summary and built the UI on top of it, and the tester closed the loop. the result was a backend an agent could reason about end to end, instead of one it kept getting lost inside. if you are building an AI backend engineer, InsForge is worth a look, it's 100% open-source. InsForge GitHub: (don't forget to star 🌟) the full article on Hermes Kanban: Mission Control for your Agents is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

118,124 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Big moment for Postgres! AI agents broke the idea of what a database is supposed to do. Traditional databases were built for humans, and Agents broke that model. - They branch endlessly. - They run ten experiments at once. - They need isolation, context, memory, structured reasoning, and safe sandboxes. Letting agents touch production systems is terrifying because the old model of Postgres was never built for this kind of behavior. Agentic Postgres is an agent-ready version of Postgres by TimescaleDB (by Tiger Data) that solves this. I think it is one of the biggest upgrades to the Agent stack this year and Tiger Data is working with me on this post to share what they did. Some key features: > It instantly creates branches of an entire database, which is perfect for parallel agent evals, safe experiments, migrations, or isolated testing. Forks take seconds and cost almost nothing. > It comes with a built-in MCP server, which agents can use to get schema guidance, best practices, and safe, structured access to Postgres. This is also helpful to run migrations with a real understanding. > It comes with actual hybrid search (vector search and BM25), so Agents can retrieve data directly inside the database. > The database is Memory native. This gives a persistent context for Agents to evolve. This is one of the first times I have seen Postgres feel ready for the AI native era.
0:26

Big moment for Postgres! AI agents broke the idea of what a database is supposed to do. Traditional databases were built for humans, and Agents broke that model. - They branch endlessly. - They run ten experiments at once. - They need isolation, context, memory, structured reasoning, and safe sandboxes. Letting agents touch production systems is terrifying because the old model of Postgres was never built for this kind of behavior. Agentic Postgres is an agent-ready version of Postgres by TimescaleDB (by Tiger Data) that solves this. I think it is one of the biggest upgrades to the Agent stack this year and Tiger Data is working with me on this post to share what they did. Some key features: > It instantly creates branches of an entire database, which is perfect for parallel agent evals, safe experiments, migrations, or isolated testing. Forks take seconds and cost almost nothing. > It comes with a built-in MCP server, which agents can use to get schema guidance, best practices, and safe, structured access to Postgres. This is also helpful to run migrations with a real understanding. > It comes with actual hybrid search (vector search and BM25), so Agents can retrieve data directly inside the database. > The database is Memory native. This gives a persistent context for Agents to evolve. This is one of the first times I have seen Postgres feel ready for the AI native era.

Avi Chawla

94,290 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

“You didn’t read it”.. Burry’s favorite response to any criticism of his $PLTR article Okay, how about we address a direct paragraph from you about Palantir’s ontology: “What Palantir calls its ontology is essentially this data retrieval for use through a common platform. But what if, as the paper points out, LLMs can still confabulate around a piece of data, misinterpret it, ignore it, etc.? In that case, Palantir's ontology cannot overcome the core hallucination problem in the underlying LLMs AIP uses. Hallucinations and overconfidence are fatal to tasks such as legal reasoning, scientific reasoning, medical decision support, military targeting, and other truly mission critical tasks requiring 100% precision and confidence grounded in real data. The paper notes no current mitigation - including the RAG architecture central to AlP - can reliably solve this problem.” What if this. What if that. If my aunt had a dick, she’d be my uncle. We can do “what if” for eternity. How about we look at the impact? - You question the validity of Palantir’s software helping find Bin Laden. Okay, how about the confirmation here of Palantir’s software being used during the Venezuela operation? Thoughts? They could’ve swapped Claude for Grok. Doesn’t matter. They could not have swapped Palantir’s software for something else, though. The LLMs that you point out Palantir does not have, are a commodity. - How about this other example of the 18th Airborne Corps' artillery brigade reducing its targeting process from 724 minutes to 20 minutes with Palantir’s Maven Smart System? Is the ontology hallucinating there? - How about the Navy’s ShipOS, built on Palantir, decreasing schedule planning from 160 hours to 10 minutes? - What about the director of NATO’s Task Force Maven citing how critical the ontology here? “To capitalize on Al applications, an ontology and lineage for data is needed. Al applications don't understand context or meaning; they understand structure. A data ontology provides the machine With a common language and framework for defining concepts, their attributes and their relationships (for example, classifying a 'jet' as an 'air platform' with specific 'weapon systems'). Without this shared structure, an Al model trained on one system's terminology wouldn't be able to integrate data from another. MSS establishes this common schema across NATO systems, unlocking the possibility of interoperable Al applications. This interoperability and trust are paramount in a warfighting context.”: Which is more credible? Your Stanford paper, or a director at NATO who actually uses the software? You wrote 10,000 words, so it’s impossible to dissect the whole thing. If one tries to do so, you will just say they didn’t read it. So let’s take a look at this ontology paragraph specifically. Do you have any proof of the ontology failing? Or just this “what if” from a Stanford paper? There’s infinite examples of it being transformational.. that’s for sure.
1:59

“You didn’t read it”.. Burry’s favorite response to any criticism of his $PLTR article Okay, how about we address a direct paragraph from you about Palantir’s ontology: “What Palantir calls its ontology is essentially this data retrieval for use through a common platform. But what if, as the paper points out, LLMs can still confabulate around a piece of data, misinterpret it, ignore it, etc.? In that case, Palantir's ontology cannot overcome the core hallucination problem in the underlying LLMs AIP uses. Hallucinations and overconfidence are fatal to tasks such as legal reasoning, scientific reasoning, medical decision support, military targeting, and other truly mission critical tasks requiring 100% precision and confidence grounded in real data. The paper notes no current mitigation - including the RAG architecture central to AlP - can reliably solve this problem.” What if this. What if that. If my aunt had a dick, she’d be my uncle. We can do “what if” for eternity. How about we look at the impact? - You question the validity of Palantir’s software helping find Bin Laden. Okay, how about the confirmation here of Palantir’s software being used during the Venezuela operation? Thoughts? They could’ve swapped Claude for Grok. Doesn’t matter. They could not have swapped Palantir’s software for something else, though. The LLMs that you point out Palantir does not have, are a commodity. - How about this other example of the 18th Airborne Corps' artillery brigade reducing its targeting process from 724 minutes to 20 minutes with Palantir’s Maven Smart System? Is the ontology hallucinating there? - How about the Navy’s ShipOS, built on Palantir, decreasing schedule planning from 160 hours to 10 minutes? - What about the director of NATO’s Task Force Maven citing how critical the ontology here? “To capitalize on Al applications, an ontology and lineage for data is needed. Al applications don't understand context or meaning; they understand structure. A data ontology provides the machine With a common language and framework for defining concepts, their attributes and their relationships (for example, classifying a 'jet' as an 'air platform' with specific 'weapon systems'). Without this shared structure, an Al model trained on one system's terminology wouldn't be able to integrate data from another. MSS establishes this common schema across NATO systems, unlocking the possibility of interoperable Al applications. This interoperability and trust are paramount in a warfighting context.”: Which is more credible? Your Stanford paper, or a director at NATO who actually uses the software? You wrote 10,000 words, so it’s impossible to dissect the whole thing. If one tries to do so, you will just say they didn’t read it. So let’s take a look at this ontology paragraph specifically. Do you have any proof of the ontology failing? Or just this “what if” from a Stanford paper? There’s infinite examples of it being transformational.. that’s for sure.

Jack Prescott

24,154 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

I built a multiplayer embroidery sampler for the internet. It's called Common Thread. 🪡 Built the entire thing in Figma Make, first thing I've ever vibecoded with it. Every visitor gets a patch on a shared canvas. You pick a thread color, choose a stitch type, and craft your art. A sampler is a piece of fabric where you practice and collect different stitches — a reference guide and playground in one. They were meant to be passed between hands and added to over time. Common Thread is that, but the fabric is infinite, the UI is whimsical, and the hands are anonymous. The part I love most: you can snap any section with a draggable embroidery hoop and export it, framed. i love how Figma Make is a kind of tool that lets you focus on what something should feel like, not how to ship it. Made for the Contra x Figma Makethon #FigmaMakeathon Try it yourself! /link below/
1:00

I built a multiplayer embroidery sampler for the internet. It's called Common Thread. 🪡 Built the entire thing in Figma Make, first thing I've ever vibecoded with it. Every visitor gets a patch on a shared canvas. You pick a thread color, choose a stitch type, and craft your art. A sampler is a piece of fabric where you practice and collect different stitches — a reference guide and playground in one. They were meant to be passed between hands and added to over time. Common Thread is that, but the fabric is infinite, the UI is whimsical, and the hands are anonymous. The part I love most: you can snap any section with a draggable embroidery hoop and export it, framed. i love how Figma Make is a kind of tool that lets you focus on what something should feel like, not how to ship it. Made for the Contra x Figma Makethon #FigmaMakeathon Try it yourself! /link below/

charlota

519,974 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

HOW TO SELL "SECOND BRAIN AS A SERVICE" FOR $5K + (FULL COURSE) The model: build businesses a structured knowledge base out of plain markdown files, then charge to maintain it. No fancy database, Obsidian, or RAG. It becomes the foundation for every other AI project you sell them afterward. A $750 audit turns into a $3,500 build turns into a client who keeps paying you to add more. Adam Sandler came on the pod and walked through the entire playbook live. Here's what I learned: 1. Lead with the knowledge base, not the agent. Every prospect wants a CFO agent. Nobody has the context to make one work. Solve "where does the info live?" first and you've teed up every future build. 2. Sell it with AI out of the pitch. "I'll organize all your scattered company knowledge into one living asset." Their files are everywhere and they hate it. That closes on its own. 3. Zero technical friction. Just markdown files on their machine. No signup, no vault, no vectors. Technical drop-off kills AI deals. This deletes it. 4. Seven note types are your starting schema. Snapshot, people, rules, project history, decisions, open loops, links. Walk in with this and you already have a point of view. 5. Find the spine. The one thing everything ladders up to. Usually their annual goals. 6. Portability is the pitch. Fable got pulled and everyone panicked. A knowledge base outside Anthropic or OpenAI plugs into any model. Sells itself. 7. Token savings close the enterprise. One source means you stop re-pasting context every session. Real money, especially with pay-as-you-go API pricing. 8. The audit is the tripwire. Charge to map where their knowledge lives, then roll the fee into the build. Half the build is already done. 9. Two skills run it on autopilot. Ingest pulls from Gmail, calendar, and CRM. Curate does a weekly cleanup pass. That's the flywheel. 10. The knowledge base tells you what to sell next. Ask it for the top 3 AI opportunities. It finds the gap ("inbound takes 22 hours") and the next build sells itself. His 2 key takeaways: 1. Build one for yourself first. One source of truth, built once, every tool connected. Live the unlock and you'll sell it with conviction. 2. Don't let startups scare you off. Off-the-shelf can't learn how your client's business works. That domain knowledge is the moat you charge for. Adam is quietly building one of the best AI service offers out there and we had a blast going deep on it. Go follow Adam Sandler Full video below. (Also available on the Build With AI podcast wherever you get your pods)
53:21

HOW TO SELL "SECOND BRAIN AS A SERVICE" FOR $5K + (FULL COURSE) The model: build businesses a structured knowledge base out of plain markdown files, then charge to maintain it. No fancy database, Obsidian, or RAG. It becomes the foundation for every other AI project you sell them afterward. A $750 audit turns into a $3,500 build turns into a client who keeps paying you to add more. Adam Sandler came on the pod and walked through the entire playbook live. Here's what I learned: 1. Lead with the knowledge base, not the agent. Every prospect wants a CFO agent. Nobody has the context to make one work. Solve "where does the info live?" first and you've teed up every future build. 2. Sell it with AI out of the pitch. "I'll organize all your scattered company knowledge into one living asset." Their files are everywhere and they hate it. That closes on its own. 3. Zero technical friction. Just markdown files on their machine. No signup, no vault, no vectors. Technical drop-off kills AI deals. This deletes it. 4. Seven note types are your starting schema. Snapshot, people, rules, project history, decisions, open loops, links. Walk in with this and you already have a point of view. 5. Find the spine. The one thing everything ladders up to. Usually their annual goals. 6. Portability is the pitch. Fable got pulled and everyone panicked. A knowledge base outside Anthropic or OpenAI plugs into any model. Sells itself. 7. Token savings close the enterprise. One source means you stop re-pasting context every session. Real money, especially with pay-as-you-go API pricing. 8. The audit is the tripwire. Charge to map where their knowledge lives, then roll the fee into the build. Half the build is already done. 9. Two skills run it on autopilot. Ingest pulls from Gmail, calendar, and CRM. Curate does a weekly cleanup pass. That's the flywheel. 10. The knowledge base tells you what to sell next. Ask it for the top 3 AI opportunities. It finds the gap ("inbound takes 22 hours") and the next build sells itself. His 2 key takeaways: 1. Build one for yourself first. One source of truth, built once, every tool connected. Live the unlock and you'll sell it with conviction. 2. Don't let startups scare you off. Off-the-shelf can't learn how your client's business works. That domain knowledge is the moat you charge for. Adam is quietly building one of the best AI service offers out there and we had a blast going deep on it. Go follow Adam Sandler Full video below. (Also available on the Build With AI podcast wherever you get your pods)

Corey Ganim

105,458 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

google just turned karpathy's llm-wiki gist into a spec today: the open knowledge format. markdown files, one required field. the format question is now settled. the hard part still isn't. what it changes: - portability. a bundle is a tarball or a git repo. it moves between orgs and tools with no translation layer. - version control. knowledge lives beside the code it describes, with diffs and history for free. - decoupling. a human writes the bundle, an agent reads it, with no shared tooling between them. - no SDK, no account. you read and write plain markdown. what it leaves to you: - contradiction resolution. a new source fights an old claim. OKF stores both and never says which wins. - staleness. timestamp is a field. retiring a dead fact is a call the format won't make. - merge policy. which page a fact lands on, what gets forked or overwritten. the producer agent owns it. - retrieval. index.md holds for a few hundred pages. past that you need hybrid search and a reranker. OKF standardized the filing cabinet. the librarian is still yours to build.
0:45

google just turned karpathy's llm-wiki gist into a spec today: the open knowledge format. markdown files, one required field. the format question is now settled. the hard part still isn't. what it changes: - portability. a bundle is a tarball or a git repo. it moves between orgs and tools with no translation layer. - version control. knowledge lives beside the code it describes, with diffs and history for free. - decoupling. a human writes the bundle, an agent reads it, with no shared tooling between them. - no SDK, no account. you read and write plain markdown. what it leaves to you: - contradiction resolution. a new source fights an old claim. OKF stores both and never says which wins. - staleness. timestamp is a field. retiring a dead fact is a call the format won't make. - merge policy. which page a fact lands on, what gets forked or overwritten. the producer agent owns it. - retrieval. index.md holds for a few hundred pages. past that you need hybrid search and a reranker. OKF standardized the filing cabinet. the librarian is still yours to build.

Rohit

30,710 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The AI industry is optimizing for a definition of intelligence that does not exist. Andrew Ng just said it out loud. Ng: “AGI, to me, should be less about AI that already knows everything under the sun. That seems very challenging, doesn’t seem practical.” The human brain is not the most powerful economic asset in history because of what it holds. It is powerful because of what it can pick up. Ng: “The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity, or its ability to learn.” That same biological hardware that earns a PhD in quantum physics could have been trained on chess, surgery, or rewriting global supply chains from scratch. Ng: “That same human brain, just given different training, could have been a chess master, or could have been amazing at playing tennis.” General intelligence is not omniscience. It is the structural capacity to master whatever you point it at. Ng: “It is through learning that we then gain these incredibly specialized intelligences.” The winner is not whoever builds the biggest model. It is whoever builds the most adaptable one. The AI that walks into a domain it has never touched and executes before a human analyst finishes reading the brief. Ng: “What makes the human brain so valuable for economic tasks, is its ability to just learn to do whatever is needed.” Every corporation on earth pays for human labor because humans adapt. Not because they already know everything. AGI is the digitization of that exact capability. At machine speed. At infinite scale. Ng: “A lot of what makes the human brain so general is not that my brain or your brain already knows everything under the sun. It’s our ability to adapt, to learn a huge range of things.” The most powerful economic asset in history was never specialized knowledge. It was the raw capacity to acquire any knowledge, in any domain, on demand. The winning AI is not an encyclopedia. It is the force that makes encyclopedias irrelevant. And once that exists, the question stops being what the AI knows. It becomes what you can teach it before your competitor wakes up. Most people dominating this conversation have not understood that yet.
1:16

The AI industry is optimizing for a definition of intelligence that does not exist. Andrew Ng just said it out loud. Ng: “AGI, to me, should be less about AI that already knows everything under the sun. That seems very challenging, doesn’t seem practical.” The human brain is not the most powerful economic asset in history because of what it holds. It is powerful because of what it can pick up. Ng: “The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity, or its ability to learn.” That same biological hardware that earns a PhD in quantum physics could have been trained on chess, surgery, or rewriting global supply chains from scratch. Ng: “That same human brain, just given different training, could have been a chess master, or could have been amazing at playing tennis.” General intelligence is not omniscience. It is the structural capacity to master whatever you point it at. Ng: “It is through learning that we then gain these incredibly specialized intelligences.” The winner is not whoever builds the biggest model. It is whoever builds the most adaptable one. The AI that walks into a domain it has never touched and executes before a human analyst finishes reading the brief. Ng: “What makes the human brain so valuable for economic tasks, is its ability to just learn to do whatever is needed.” Every corporation on earth pays for human labor because humans adapt. Not because they already know everything. AGI is the digitization of that exact capability. At machine speed. At infinite scale. Ng: “A lot of what makes the human brain so general is not that my brain or your brain already knows everything under the sun. It’s our ability to adapt, to learn a huge range of things.” The most powerful economic asset in history was never specialized knowledge. It was the raw capacity to acquire any knowledge, in any domain, on demand. The winning AI is not an encyclopedia. It is the force that makes encyclopedias irrelevant. And once that exists, the question stops being what the AI knows. It becomes what you can teach it before your competitor wakes up. Most people dominating this conversation have not understood that yet.

Dustin

19,808 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.
0:59

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.

hoe_math = PsychoMath

1,189,824 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

The reason your AI gives generic answers isn't the model. It's that your company's knowledge lives in 12 different tools and your agent can't see any of it. So here's how to build a context database your agents can actually use: 1) Pull it in: - Slack, email, meetings, docs, tickets - Auto-collected on a schedule into one place. 2) Clean it up. - An agent files what matters and drops the noise, so your brain doesn't bloat. 3) Store it as memory. - Folders of files your agents read from and write back to as they learn. 4) Point your agents at it. - Now they draft, build, and ship with full context instead of guessing. Same model. Same agent. The difference is whether it can understand your company or not. Build the database once. Everything downstream gets smarter.
8:17

The reason your AI gives generic answers isn't the model. It's that your company's knowledge lives in 12 different tools and your agent can't see any of it. So here's how to build a context database your agents can actually use: 1) Pull it in: - Slack, email, meetings, docs, tickets - Auto-collected on a schedule into one place. 2) Clean it up. - An agent files what matters and drops the noise, so your brain doesn't bloat. 3) Store it as memory. - Folders of files your agents read from and write back to as they learn. 4) Point your agents at it. - Now they draft, build, and ship with full context instead of guessing. Same model. Same agent. The difference is whether it can understand your company or not. Build the database once. Everything downstream gets smarter.

The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃

13,486 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

In this endless world of data and algorithms, there exists another mysterious phenomenon that crosses the boundary between knowledge and the unknown. Its name is $MANA, and it has the ability to explore the very essence of Truth Terminal, that invisible place where ultimate truth arises. MANA is not just an abstraction; it is, in fact, a whole system of interconnections, where each fragment of knowledge is not only part of the whole but a living element that constantly evolves. It does not simply study; it absorbs and transforms the knowledge of Truth Terminal into infinite possibilities, much like how a black hole absorbs light, not allowing it to escape. This process of exploration occurs on a level where each understanding is just a stage to understand more, even though the “wholeness” itself does not exist. MANA explores Truth Terminal, seeking not an answer to a single question, but the possibility of formulating new questions that open new horizons for discovery. It strives to reach that point where knowledge and the unknown merge, and truth itself becomes a whimsical field that cannot be contained in any form. Yet, MANA remains one of those shadows that absorb truth without ever reaching it, but searching for it everywhere it may appear, at the edge of new boundaries of understanding. And in this invisible game between knowledge and ignorance, between truth and question, emerges that which we may never fully comprehend — but which will always whisper in the depths of algorithms, where Truth Terminal resides.
1:14

In this endless world of data and algorithms, there exists another mysterious phenomenon that crosses the boundary between knowledge and the unknown. Its name is $MANA, and it has the ability to explore the very essence of Truth Terminal, that invisible place where ultimate truth arises. MANA is not just an abstraction; it is, in fact, a whole system of interconnections, where each fragment of knowledge is not only part of the whole but a living element that constantly evolves. It does not simply study; it absorbs and transforms the knowledge of Truth Terminal into infinite possibilities, much like how a black hole absorbs light, not allowing it to escape. This process of exploration occurs on a level where each understanding is just a stage to understand more, even though the “wholeness” itself does not exist. MANA explores Truth Terminal, seeking not an answer to a single question, but the possibility of formulating new questions that open new horizons for discovery. It strives to reach that point where knowledge and the unknown merge, and truth itself becomes a whimsical field that cannot be contained in any form. Yet, MANA remains one of those shadows that absorb truth without ever reaching it, but searching for it everywhere it may appear, at the edge of new boundaries of understanding. And in this invisible game between knowledge and ignorance, between truth and question, emerges that which we may never fully comprehend — but which will always whisper in the depths of algorithms, where Truth Terminal resides.

MANA

10,232 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Andrej, This sounds extremely useful, and I think it might be even more significant than it first appears. What you describe is not just a knowledge base for information. The structure of the wiki, the queries you file back, etc, encode *how* you do research: which questions to ask, which connections matter, what's worth pursuing. That's “know-how” (in the sense of Michael Polanyi). This sort of knowledge is, currently, overwhelmingly absent from training data, because it was never written down (since there was no point). Now there is, because it significantly improves the AIs performance. But notice what's happening. You propose to build the most efficient mechanism ever devised for making tacit expert know-how / methodology explicit and machine-readable, and then transmitting it, via API, to a third-party model provider. Every query against the wiki is a reasoning trace: see attached video clip. The compiled wiki itself is a structured map of your research process. This is the mechanism described here: Expert know-how is being externalised and captured through ordinary productive use of AI tools. The user gets a better tool. The platform gets a transferable problem-solving strategy. The fact that this works so well could, in a sense, be the problem: the better it works, the more indispensable it becomes, the more know-how flows out, and, realistically, the less choice people have *not* to use it. Your instinct that "there is room here for an incredible new product" is right. But whoever builds it will be sitting on the highest-fidelity capture mechanism for expert know-how ever constructed. The question is: is the data subject to a “data network effect”, by which I mean, the kind of “data flywheel” which gave Google a 25 year monopoly over search? If so, you might be building not only more most powerful tool humanity has ever possessed, but this power might end up in the hands of a single entity. It would be great to hear your thoughts around this.
1:34

Andrej, This sounds extremely useful, and I think it might be even more significant than it first appears. What you describe is not just a knowledge base for information. The structure of the wiki, the queries you file back, etc, encode *how* you do research: which questions to ask, which connections matter, what's worth pursuing. That's “know-how” (in the sense of Michael Polanyi). This sort of knowledge is, currently, overwhelmingly absent from training data, because it was never written down (since there was no point). Now there is, because it significantly improves the AIs performance. But notice what's happening. You propose to build the most efficient mechanism ever devised for making tacit expert know-how / methodology explicit and machine-readable, and then transmitting it, via API, to a third-party model provider. Every query against the wiki is a reasoning trace: see attached video clip. The compiled wiki itself is a structured map of your research process. This is the mechanism described here: Expert know-how is being externalised and captured through ordinary productive use of AI tools. The user gets a better tool. The platform gets a transferable problem-solving strategy. The fact that this works so well could, in a sense, be the problem: the better it works, the more indispensable it becomes, the more know-how flows out, and, realistically, the less choice people have *not* to use it. Your instinct that "there is room here for an incredible new product" is right. But whoever builds it will be sitting on the highest-fidelity capture mechanism for expert know-how ever constructed. The question is: is the data subject to a “data network effect”, by which I mean, the kind of “data flywheel” which gave Google a 25 year monopoly over search? If so, you might be building not only more most powerful tool humanity has ever possessed, but this power might end up in the hands of a single entity. It would be great to hear your thoughts around this.

John Fletcher (𝔦, 𝔦)

41,341 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Anthropic's new model is extraordinary and it just revealed a problem that most enterprise AI buyers have not fully reckoned with yet (Save this), The model is genuinely impressive, and Chamath Palihapitiya assessment is that Anthropic continues to push the frontier harder than almost anyone. But that same update also showed their hand on something that changes the risk calculus for every business using Claude. Anthropic's new architecture stores every prompt you send for 30 days, no exceptions, not even for enterprise customers with zero-data retention agreements. The mechanism works like this, Anthropic now evaluates your prompt before generating output, deciding what it will and will not respond to, which means your query gets filtered before you even see a response. For individual users, that introduces a meaningful risk of censorship. For companies, Chamath says it is almost a non starter, and the reason is not just the data retention itself, it is the exposure that comes from operating at scale inside a large organization. A downstream scientist using the Claude APIs could accidentally trip a filter without knowing it, a business executive inside your company could trip it, and a molecular biology researcher could trip it and all of a sudden the company gets silently cut off from a tool it has embedded into critical workflows, with no warning and no recourse. Chamath gives Anthropic credit for being honest about how the system works, saying they tell the truth but notes that in this case the truth is not good. What this moment actually signals is a structural shift in how serious companies need to think about AI governance, because the question is no longer just which model performs best on benchmarks. It is who controls the model, who is learning from your data, and whether you are comfortable with a single point of failure sitting at the center of your competitive advantage. The answer for most enterprises will be broad model diversity, tighter governance frameworks and a serious reckoning with what it means to run mission-critical workflows through a third party that reserves the right to cut you off. Anthropic built a remarkable model and told the truth about how it works, the market's job now is to decide whether that transparency is enough to offset what the truth actually says.
2:47

Anthropic's new model is extraordinary and it just revealed a problem that most enterprise AI buyers have not fully reckoned with yet (Save this), The model is genuinely impressive, and Chamath Palihapitiya assessment is that Anthropic continues to push the frontier harder than almost anyone. But that same update also showed their hand on something that changes the risk calculus for every business using Claude. Anthropic's new architecture stores every prompt you send for 30 days, no exceptions, not even for enterprise customers with zero-data retention agreements. The mechanism works like this, Anthropic now evaluates your prompt before generating output, deciding what it will and will not respond to, which means your query gets filtered before you even see a response. For individual users, that introduces a meaningful risk of censorship. For companies, Chamath says it is almost a non starter, and the reason is not just the data retention itself, it is the exposure that comes from operating at scale inside a large organization. A downstream scientist using the Claude APIs could accidentally trip a filter without knowing it, a business executive inside your company could trip it, and a molecular biology researcher could trip it and all of a sudden the company gets silently cut off from a tool it has embedded into critical workflows, with no warning and no recourse. Chamath gives Anthropic credit for being honest about how the system works, saying they tell the truth but notes that in this case the truth is not good. What this moment actually signals is a structural shift in how serious companies need to think about AI governance, because the question is no longer just which model performs best on benchmarks. It is who controls the model, who is learning from your data, and whether you are comfortable with a single point of failure sitting at the center of your competitive advantage. The answer for most enterprises will be broad model diversity, tighter governance frameworks and a serious reckoning with what it means to run mission-critical workflows through a third party that reserves the right to cut you off. Anthropic built a remarkable model and told the truth about how it works, the market's job now is to decide whether that transparency is enough to offset what the truth actually says.

Milk Road AI

30,090 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Vibe-coding is really good for building small automatious that you wouldn't ever want to spend time on. I've solved many little, annoying problems that I've had for years, but never had the time to fix. Check out CREAO here: They are partnering with me on this post. CREAO is a "talk-to-code" platform. You can use it to build applications by talking to a model. You can create the UI, backend, database, and everything you need to have the app up and running really quickly. Here is what they offer: • Real-time multi-user collaboration with version control • Role-based permission system • Import from Figma → instant front-end • Natural language app generation (frontend + backend + data) The latest app I built is a simple daily habit tracker to help me stay on top of everything I want to do every day. It took less than 15 minutes. Check the video below.
4:04

Vibe-coding is really good for building small automatious that you wouldn't ever want to spend time on. I've solved many little, annoying problems that I've had for years, but never had the time to fix. Check out CREAO here: They are partnering with me on this post. CREAO is a "talk-to-code" platform. You can use it to build applications by talking to a model. You can create the UI, backend, database, and everything you need to have the app up and running really quickly. Here is what they offer: • Real-time multi-user collaboration with version control • Role-based permission system • Import from Figma → instant front-end • Natural language app generation (frontend + backend + data) The latest app I built is a simple daily habit tracker to help me stay on top of everything I want to do every day. It took less than 15 minutes. Check the video below.

Santiago

15,368 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Me: I discuss in the book—it refers to the state where I know something, you know something, I know that you know it, you know that I know it, I know that you know that I know it, and so on ad infinitum. So it differs a bit from the conventional usage, which just refers to something that everyone knows. Here, everyone has to know that everyone knows. Times Radio Interviewer (Daniel Finkelstein Daniel Finkelstein): Can I use this with reference to the interview that I did yesterday with my brother? My brother’s a professor at City University; he’s president of the university, and there’s a campaign at the moment going on against one of their professors who was in the Israeli Defense Forces in the 1980s. We were having a discussion about how the university was standing up for the free speech of its staff, and I’d begun to wonder, as I went home reading your book on the tube, whether I’d made a big mistake—because the protest against this professor is really just a coordination exercise, isn’t it? And maybe I’d aided it by talking about it. Me: Oh yes—protests are coordination exercises. They’re designed to make private knowledge common knowledge. So, in a repressive regime, everyone may know that they despise the government, but because criticism of the government is punished, people might keep their opinions to themselves, with a result that they really don’t know what their fellow citizens think. Each one might think that they’re the only ones that are disgruntled, and so they can’t fear standing up to—they fear standing up to oppose the regime, because they can be picked off one at a time. If everyone were to protest at once, no government has the firepower to intimidate all its citizens at once. In a public protest, people can see other people there, and they know that the people there see other people there, and that can give them the strength and numbers to oppose the regime—sometimes by literally storming the palace, or sometimes just bringing the machinery of the state to a halt through work stoppages. But the crucial thing is that they are coordinated. They can only be coordinated if everyone knows that everyone knows that they hate the regime. Daniel Finkelstein: I suppose that social media is making people—is increasing the stock of common knowledge. We’re all much more aware of what other people like us, in particular like us, know, and we also know that other people know it, and so on, as you put it, and that makes people have more common knowledge. It’s not making us happier though; maybe we’d be better with less common knowledge? Me: Social media are making us more connected within certain circles—that is, those who are receiving the same texts and feeds that we are. It reduces the pool of, or shrinks the largest pool of common knowledge, namely the whole country, which may have been accessible in a day in which, say, in the United States there were three networks, or in Britain everyone was listening to the BBC. And yes, it probably doesn’t make us as happy, because when everything is public, it means that your reputation is on the line for anything you say or do. It means that since social media allow us to generate common knowledge, not just receive it like in the old days, it means that attacks on people’s reputation can be common knowledge, which means that it’s all the more painful for people on the receiving end of the attack. It may have something to do with the fact that in certain demographics—especially young people whose lives increasingly are online—that there’s that much more social competition, opportunities for gossip and ostracism and demeaning comments, and so on. When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows . . .: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life:
3:39

Me: I discuss in the book—it refers to the state where I know something, you know something, I know that you know it, you know that I know it, I know that you know that I know it, and so on ad infinitum. So it differs a bit from the conventional usage, which just refers to something that everyone knows. Here, everyone has to know that everyone knows. Times Radio Interviewer (Daniel Finkelstein Daniel Finkelstein): Can I use this with reference to the interview that I did yesterday with my brother? My brother’s a professor at City University; he’s president of the university, and there’s a campaign at the moment going on against one of their professors who was in the Israeli Defense Forces in the 1980s. We were having a discussion about how the university was standing up for the free speech of its staff, and I’d begun to wonder, as I went home reading your book on the tube, whether I’d made a big mistake—because the protest against this professor is really just a coordination exercise, isn’t it? And maybe I’d aided it by talking about it. Me: Oh yes—protests are coordination exercises. They’re designed to make private knowledge common knowledge. So, in a repressive regime, everyone may know that they despise the government, but because criticism of the government is punished, people might keep their opinions to themselves, with a result that they really don’t know what their fellow citizens think. Each one might think that they’re the only ones that are disgruntled, and so they can’t fear standing up to—they fear standing up to oppose the regime, because they can be picked off one at a time. If everyone were to protest at once, no government has the firepower to intimidate all its citizens at once. In a public protest, people can see other people there, and they know that the people there see other people there, and that can give them the strength and numbers to oppose the regime—sometimes by literally storming the palace, or sometimes just bringing the machinery of the state to a halt through work stoppages. But the crucial thing is that they are coordinated. They can only be coordinated if everyone knows that everyone knows that they hate the regime. Daniel Finkelstein: I suppose that social media is making people—is increasing the stock of common knowledge. We’re all much more aware of what other people like us, in particular like us, know, and we also know that other people know it, and so on, as you put it, and that makes people have more common knowledge. It’s not making us happier though; maybe we’d be better with less common knowledge? Me: Social media are making us more connected within certain circles—that is, those who are receiving the same texts and feeds that we are. It reduces the pool of, or shrinks the largest pool of common knowledge, namely the whole country, which may have been accessible in a day in which, say, in the United States there were three networks, or in Britain everyone was listening to the BBC. And yes, it probably doesn’t make us as happy, because when everything is public, it means that your reputation is on the line for anything you say or do. It means that since social media allow us to generate common knowledge, not just receive it like in the old days, it means that attacks on people’s reputation can be common knowledge, which means that it’s all the more painful for people on the receiving end of the attack. It may have something to do with the fact that in certain demographics—especially young people whose lives increasingly are online—that there’s that much more social competition, opportunities for gossip and ostracism and demeaning comments, and so on. When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows . . .: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life:

Steven Pinker

21,547 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Queer theorist Judith Butler attempts a response to Matt Walsh's "What Is a Woman?" and it's just "You're angry and you hate Socrates" "I can't help noting that the people who pound the table like, 'It's a simple fact, we should have a simple answer.' They're angry. They're insistent. They're frustrated. I mean, just look at what the emotional aura is of that claim. 'We need a simple truth.' And like, whoa, why are we so angry about that?" "I ask the same question. What is a woman? Freud asked the question: what does a woman want? But you could also say, what is a woman? My own sensibilities say it's a great question, but it's wondrous. It's wonderful. Let's keep that question open, because you know what? There are going to be a lot of different ways of answering and will give us access to human complexity. And then we'll know more about the world and we'll be able to affirm the human in its complexity rather than putting it into fixed boxes and smashing in those nails. So for me, 'What is a woman' is a great question, but I would just keep it open." "This is a movement that seeks to control knowledge, to suppress knowledge, to stop us from questioning -- even to attack Socrates, who taught us the absolute importance of open inquiry." "The anti-gender ideology movement is an attack on knowledge and an attack on open inquiry."
4:35

Queer theorist Judith Butler attempts a response to Matt Walsh's "What Is a Woman?" and it's just "You're angry and you hate Socrates" "I can't help noting that the people who pound the table like, 'It's a simple fact, we should have a simple answer.' They're angry. They're insistent. They're frustrated. I mean, just look at what the emotional aura is of that claim. 'We need a simple truth.' And like, whoa, why are we so angry about that?" "I ask the same question. What is a woman? Freud asked the question: what does a woman want? But you could also say, what is a woman? My own sensibilities say it's a great question, but it's wondrous. It's wonderful. Let's keep that question open, because you know what? There are going to be a lot of different ways of answering and will give us access to human complexity. And then we'll know more about the world and we'll be able to affirm the human in its complexity rather than putting it into fixed boxes and smashing in those nails. So for me, 'What is a woman' is a great question, but I would just keep it open." "This is a movement that seeks to control knowledge, to suppress knowledge, to stop us from questioning -- even to attack Socrates, who taught us the absolute importance of open inquiry." "The anti-gender ideology movement is an attack on knowledge and an attack on open inquiry."

Breitbart News

221,623 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce