Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

The model is not enough - it doesn't come with an understanding of how your business or team works. That context is spread across the work happening every day: files, conversations, emails, databases, and apps. Figuring out what matters for a particular task, and what the model actually needs,... show more

Charles Lamanna

9,817 subscribers

42,104 views • 4 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

8 Comments

Brian Snyder4 days ago

Thank you for this!

Luca Spolidoro4 days ago

So at the end WorkIQ `ask` tool is just an agent that calls Microsoft Graph underneath?

EKOS _ AGI 🦊 🇮🇷4 days ago

The hard part is not giving an agent more context, but knowing which context actually matters and preserving why it mattered. Once that context is tied to evidence, decisions and outcomes, it can become reusable knowledge instead of being reconstructed from scattered systems every time.

American Nerd 🇺🇸4 days ago

It’s still not working as you described. Perhaps in a few years, I’ll have WorkIQ to read saved contract prices and term limits without making assumptions. However, it’s too predictive; it needs to be more deterministic when gathering the context.

Vito Botta4 days ago

I've tried versions of this. Most of them fall down on the ranking, so that's what I'd poke at first.

炎鎮🔥 - ₿onochin -4 days ago

Made an English version of my video on why it's so strong.

Steve Mordue4 days ago

Work IQ is like an MCP Octopus :)

Vivek Ravindran4 days ago

Finally someone explaining the Microsoft Moat! @clamanna appreciate the effort.

Related Videos

🔥MSTR MSCI FUD - DEBUNKED!🔥 The MSCI panic is officially out of control, so this video breaks down exactly what is real, what is noise, and why the “MSTR doom” narrative spiraled into one of the most misinformed FUD campaigns of the year. This is a full, elite-level breakdown of the MSCI consultation, what it actually means, how index rules are created, and why the online hysteria around “forced selling” and “delisting” is completely detached from reality. I cover: • What MSCI actually is and how it defines global indexes • Why Strategy is not facing any delisting risk • How the consultation timeline works • Why the outflow numbers being shared online are worst-case scenario analysis • How MSTR’s business model adapts • Why corporate Bitcoin treasuries are not going anywhere • Incentives for Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street • The difference between mechanical index flows and human-driven policy design If you want a clear understanding of what’s happening, without the panic, without the noise, and without the low-IQ doom threads, this is the definitive breakdown. The signal beats the noise every time:

🔥MSTR MSCI FUD - DEBUNKED!🔥 The MSCI panic is officially out of control, so this video breaks down exactly what is real, what is noise, and why the “MSTR doom” narrative spiraled into one of the most misinformed FUD campaigns of the year. This is a full, elite-level breakdown of the MSCI consultation, what it actually means, how index rules are created, and why the online hysteria around “forced selling” and “delisting” is completely detached from reality. I cover: • What MSCI actually is and how it defines global indexes • Why Strategy is not facing any delisting risk • How the consultation timeline works • Why the outflow numbers being shared online are worst-case scenario analysis • How MSTR’s business model adapts • Why corporate Bitcoin treasuries are not going anywhere • Incentives for Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street • The difference between mechanical index flows and human-driven policy design If you want a clear understanding of what’s happening, without the panic, without the noise, and without the low-IQ doom threads, this is the definitive breakdown. The signal beats the noise every time:

Adam Livingston

99,721 views • 10 months ago

AI Art. I realize not all AI Art tools work the same way. Part of the problem is that we don’t quite understand “how” it works, and until we have a better understanding, some pause for concern is good imo. 1/3

AI Art. I realize not all AI Art tools work the same way. Part of the problem is that we don’t quite understand “how” it works, and until we have a better understanding, some pause for concern is good imo. 1/3

Watch It Played

23,161 views • 3 years ago

Playtest is going well I'm getting good feedback and working hard every day to improve every little bit I can Feedback is the best way I can understand what needs more work and what works well and needs preserving

Playtest is going well I'm getting good feedback and working hard every day to improve every little bit I can Feedback is the best way I can understand what needs more work and what works well and needs preserving

Mor | Eyes Of The Sky Dev

11,984 views • 24 days ago

What is a software factory? It is your workflow, your skills, and your domain knowledge, saved in files that the agent reads so the whole process is productized Think about the last app you built. You typed what you wanted, and the agent built it. You did not like it, so you made changes. You shipped it to Vercel, or you kept going. A factory puts structure on each of those steps. At each step you ask how to get the most from the model, and how to move faster. That is the conveyor belt. You ship quickly, and the quality stays the same. Mine is 5 md files. It works in Codex, Claude Code, and Cursor, because it does not depend on the model or the tool. Build your own.

What is a software factory? It is your workflow, your skills, and your domain knowledge, saved in files that the agent reads so the whole process is productized Think about the last app you built. You typed what you wanted, and the agent built it. You did not like it, so you made changes. You shipped it to Vercel, or you kept going. A factory puts structure on each of those steps. At each step you ask how to get the most from the model, and how to move faster. That is the conveyor belt. You ship quickly, and the quality stays the same. Mine is 5 md files. It works in Codex, Claude Code, and Cursor, because it does not depend on the model or the tool. Build your own.

The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃

17,326 views • 19 days ago

Autostep finds the repetitive work hiding inside your company, then helps you fix it. It context mines how your team works across emails, decks and reports. Then it proactively spawns agents on that context so the work never gets repeated again. Congrats on the launch, Aidan Pratt 🥑!

Autostep finds the repetitive work hiding inside your company, then helps you fix it. It context mines how your team works across emails, decks and reports. Then it proactively spawns agents on that context so the work never gets repeated again. Congrats on the launch, Aidan Pratt 🥑!

Y Combinator

21,811 views • 4 months ago

Our team was spending around 6+ hours every week figuring out where projects actually stood. The work wasn't the problem. Finding the latest context was. I run a team where multiple projects move at the same time, so keeping everyone aligned used to mean checking dozens of Slack conversations every day. That worked for a while. Until it didn't. The turning point wasn't asking Viktor better questions. It was giving him one recurring responsibility. Stay on top of every active project. Now he keeps track of progress, highlights anything that's stalled, prepares updates before meetings, and gives the team one place to review what actually needs attention. Nobody has to chase information anymore. The work is already organized before we start. That one change probably saved more time than any prompt I've ever written. A copilot helps you work. An AI employee works when you don't. Hire Viktor for your team. $100 in credits included, no card. Full link in first comment. #AIemployee #Operations Paid Partnership.

Our team was spending around 6+ hours every week figuring out where projects actually stood. The work wasn't the problem. Finding the latest context was. I run a team where multiple projects move at the same time, so keeping everyone aligned used to mean checking dozens of Slack conversations every day. That worked for a while. Until it didn't. The turning point wasn't asking Viktor better questions. It was giving him one recurring responsibility. Stay on top of every active project. Now he keeps track of progress, highlights anything that's stalled, prepares updates before meetings, and gives the team one place to review what actually needs attention. Nobody has to chase information anymore. The work is already organized before we start. That one change probably saved more time than any prompt I've ever written. A copilot helps you work. An AI employee works when you don't. Hire Viktor for your team. $100 in credits included, no card. Full link in first comment. #AIemployee #Operations Paid Partnership.

Kaitee

59,483 views • 2 months ago

9 out of 10 multi-agent projects never leave demo mode Not because the model is bad. Because the structure is missing. Most people who try to build [ a team of AI agents ] end up with one agent talking to itself in five tabs. The agents don't share context → Don't divide work → Don't know what the others are doing. > stage 1: if your agent doesn't have a real loop, observe, act, iterate, you have a long prompt, not an agent > stage 2: subagents need isolated context, the orchestrator never reads their raw transcript, only the summary > stage 3: the orchestrator plans and delegates, the moment it executes, it drowns in details that belong inside subagents > stage 4: without a shared task list it's not a team, it's five agents duplicating each other's work in parallel > stage 5: a permissions file is what lets you sleep, the model cannot bypass it because the rule lives outside the model a team of AI agents is not more model, it is more structure the most ignored stage in every demo that died: - durability... when a 50-step task crashes at step 47 and starts from zero, that's not a model failure. that's a missing write-to-disk call

9 out of 10 multi-agent projects never leave demo mode Not because the model is bad. Because the structure is missing. Most people who try to build [ a team of AI agents ] end up with one agent talking to itself in five tabs. The agents don't share context → Don't divide work → Don't know what the others are doing. > stage 1: if your agent doesn't have a real loop, observe, act, iterate, you have a long prompt, not an agent > stage 2: subagents need isolated context, the orchestrator never reads their raw transcript, only the summary > stage 3: the orchestrator plans and delegates, the moment it executes, it drowns in details that belong inside subagents > stage 4: without a shared task list it's not a team, it's five agents duplicating each other's work in parallel > stage 5: a permissions file is what lets you sleep, the model cannot bypass it because the rule lives outside the model a team of AI agents is not more model, it is more structure the most ignored stage in every demo that died: - durability... when a 50-step task crashes at step 47 and starts from zero, that's not a model failure. that's a missing write-to-disk call

Shadow Nick

14,714 views • 4 months ago

Every AI assistant waits for you to ask. NoimosAI Advisor doesn't. It analyzes performance and market insights, finds what works or doesn't, and drafts the work. You approve. The work is finished.

Every AI assistant waits for you to ask. NoimosAI Advisor doesn't. It analyzes performance and market insights, finds what works or doesn't, and drafts the work. You approve. The work is finished.

NoimosAI

463,173 views • 2 months ago

👋 Meet the Model Context Protocol (MCP): the open standard allowing apps to feed vital context to LLMs. Why is this protocol so important? Because context is what turns those generic AI replies into relevant, useful assistance tailored to your work. In this video, ☁️ Chris Reddington explains how MCP delivers this crucial info and why it makes such a difference for AI pair programmers like GitHub Copilot. 💡

👋 Meet the Model Context Protocol (MCP): the open standard allowing apps to feed vital context to LLMs. Why is this protocol so important? Because context is what turns those generic AI replies into relevant, useful assistance tailored to your work. In this video, ☁️ Chris Reddington explains how MCP delivers this crucial info and why it makes such a difference for AI pair programmers like GitHub Copilot. 💡

GitHub

35,316 views • 1 year ago

this video is the CLEAREST explanation of how claude skills + AI agents work and how to use them most people set up an AI agent and wonder why it keeps disappointing them. the context window is everything context is what the model assembles before it takes any action. think of it like everything the agent needs to read before it does anything. the quality of what goes in determines the quality of what comes out. the models are genuinely really good right now. claude and gpt are exceptional. the variable is almost always the context you give them. 1. agent.md files are mostly unnecessary every single line you put in an agent.md file gets added to every single conversation you have with your agent. a 1000 line file is around 7000 tokens burning on every run. the model already knows to use react. it can read your codebase. save the agent.md for proprietary information specific to your company that the model genuinely cannot know on its own. 2. skills are the actual unlock a skill.md file works differently. what loads into context is only the name and description, around 50 tokens. the full instructions only appear when the agent recognizes it needs that skill. so instead of 7000 tokens on every run you have 50. and the agent stays sharp because the context window stays lean. the closer you get to filling the context window the worse the agent performs, same way you perform worse when someone dumps 10 things on you at once. 3. here is how to actually build a skill the right way most people identify a workflow and immediately try to write the skill. what you want to do instead is run the workflow by hand with the agent first. walk it through every single step. tell it what to check, what good looks like, what bad looks like. correct it in real time. once you have had a full successful run from start to finish, tell the agent to review everything it just did and write the skill itself. it writes a better skill than you will because it has the full context of what actually worked in practice not in theory. 4. recursively building skills is how you go from frustrated to reliable when the skill breaks, and it will break, ask the agent exactly why it failed. it will tell you specifically what went wrong. fix it together in that same conversation. then tell it to update the skill file so that failure mode never happens again. ross mike did this five times with his youtube report generator. it now pulls from eight different data sources and runs flawlessly every single time without him touching it. 5. sub agents are something you earn not something you set up on day one start with one agent. build one workflow. turn it into one skill. once that works add another. ross mike has five sub agents now covering marketing, business, personal and more. it took months to get there and every single one exists because a workflow proved it deserved to exist. the people who set up 15 sub agents on day one and wonder why nothing works skipped all the steps that make the thing actually run. 6. your workflow is the thing the model cannot get anywhere else the model has been trained on everything. it knows more than you about most things. what it does not have is your specific process, your taste, your way of doing things. that is what skills capture. that is what makes your agent actually useful versus a generic one. downloading someone else's skill means downloading their context onto your setup and it will not work the way you want it to because it was never built around how you work. this is the clearest explanation of how agents actually work i have heard. Micky runs this stuff every single day and the results show it. full episode is now live on The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 where you get your pods people charge for this sorta stuff i give away the sauce for free i just want you to win watch

this video is the CLEAREST explanation of how claude skills + AI agents work and how to use them most people set up an AI agent and wonder why it keeps disappointing them. the context window is everything context is what the model assembles before it takes any action. think of it like everything the agent needs to read before it does anything. the quality of what goes in determines the quality of what comes out. the models are genuinely really good right now. claude and gpt are exceptional. the variable is almost always the context you give them. 1. agent.md files are mostly unnecessary every single line you put in an agent.md file gets added to every single conversation you have with your agent. a 1000 line file is around 7000 tokens burning on every run. the model already knows to use react. it can read your codebase. save the agent.md for proprietary information specific to your company that the model genuinely cannot know on its own. 2. skills are the actual unlock a skill.md file works differently. what loads into context is only the name and description, around 50 tokens. the full instructions only appear when the agent recognizes it needs that skill. so instead of 7000 tokens on every run you have 50. and the agent stays sharp because the context window stays lean. the closer you get to filling the context window the worse the agent performs, same way you perform worse when someone dumps 10 things on you at once. 3. here is how to actually build a skill the right way most people identify a workflow and immediately try to write the skill. what you want to do instead is run the workflow by hand with the agent first. walk it through every single step. tell it what to check, what good looks like, what bad looks like. correct it in real time. once you have had a full successful run from start to finish, tell the agent to review everything it just did and write the skill itself. it writes a better skill than you will because it has the full context of what actually worked in practice not in theory. 4. recursively building skills is how you go from frustrated to reliable when the skill breaks, and it will break, ask the agent exactly why it failed. it will tell you specifically what went wrong. fix it together in that same conversation. then tell it to update the skill file so that failure mode never happens again. ross mike did this five times with his youtube report generator. it now pulls from eight different data sources and runs flawlessly every single time without him touching it. 5. sub agents are something you earn not something you set up on day one start with one agent. build one workflow. turn it into one skill. once that works add another. ross mike has five sub agents now covering marketing, business, personal and more. it took months to get there and every single one exists because a workflow proved it deserved to exist. the people who set up 15 sub agents on day one and wonder why nothing works skipped all the steps that make the thing actually run. 6. your workflow is the thing the model cannot get anywhere else the model has been trained on everything. it knows more than you about most things. what it does not have is your specific process, your taste, your way of doing things. that is what skills capture. that is what makes your agent actually useful versus a generic one. downloading someone else's skill means downloading their context onto your setup and it will not work the way you want it to because it was never built around how you work. this is the clearest explanation of how agents actually work i have heard. Micky runs this stuff every single day and the results show it. full episode is now live on The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 where you get your pods people charge for this sorta stuff i give away the sauce for free i just want you to win watch

GREG ISENBERG

194,524 views • 5 months ago

I was skeptical of GitHub Copilot auto mode...Then Nhu explained how the routing actually works and I can't go back. Turns out a system that picks the right model every time doesn't just save cost, it outperforms using one model alone. give auto another shot 👇🏽

I was skeptical of GitHub Copilot auto mode...Then Nhu explained how the routing actually works and I can't go back. Turns out a system that picks the right model every time doesn't just save cost, it outperforms using one model alone. give auto another shot 👇🏽

Andrea

13,229 views • 4 months ago

Elon Musk: Just caring about the work somebody does and nothing else is the least racist or sexist you can be. "I think we need to return to where things were, or mostly were, which is a focus on merit. It doesn't matter whether you're a man, woman, what race you are, what beliefs you have. What matters is how good are you at your job or what are your skills. You could be a three-legged green Martian, who wears a kimono and drinks the yak's milk. Who cares? It doesn't matter. What matters is, how good is your work? That's the least racist or sexist you can be, is just care about the work that somebody does and not anything else." From: European Jewish Association, 2024

Elon Musk: Just caring about the work somebody does and nothing else is the least racist or sexist you can be. "I think we need to return to where things were, or mostly were, which is a focus on merit. It doesn't matter whether you're a man, woman, what race you are, what beliefs you have. What matters is how good are you at your job or what are your skills. You could be a three-legged green Martian, who wears a kimono and drinks the yak's milk. Who cares? It doesn't matter. What matters is, how good is your work? That's the least racist or sexist you can be, is just care about the work that somebody does and not anything else." From: European Jewish Association, 2024

ELON CLIPS

1,607,002 views • 2 years ago

this is the "brain of AI" Claude is made of billions of these artificial neurons. no one knows exactly how they work inside. that's why it's called a black box. you give it an input, it fires through billions of connections, something comes out the other side nobody fully understands why it works. but here's what we do know: the brain is the same for everyone what separates the top 1% isn't a better model it's the setup around it ClaudeKit gives Claude Code that setup. ( full breakdown in the article below

this is the "brain of AI" Claude is made of billions of these artificial neurons. no one knows exactly how they work inside. that's why it's called a black box. you give it an input, it fires through billions of connections, something comes out the other side nobody fully understands why it works. but here's what we do know: the brain is the same for everyone what separates the top 1% isn't a better model it's the setup around it ClaudeKit gives Claude Code that setup. ( full breakdown in the article below

Hamza Khalid

176,061 views • 3 months ago

Elon Musk says we should return to a focus on merit: “We need to return to where things were, or mostly were, which is a focus on merit. It doesn't matter whether you're a man, a woman, what race you are, what beliefs you have. What matters is how good are you at your job or what are your skills. You could be a three-legged green Martian who wears a kimono and drinks the yak's milk. Who cares? It doesn't matter. What matters is how good is your work? That's the least racist or sexist you can be, is just care about the work that somebody does and not anything else.”

Elon Musk says we should return to a focus on merit: “We need to return to where things were, or mostly were, which is a focus on merit. It doesn't matter whether you're a man, a woman, what race you are, what beliefs you have. What matters is how good are you at your job or what are your skills. You could be a three-legged green Martian who wears a kimono and drinks the yak's milk. Who cares? It doesn't matter. What matters is how good is your work? That's the least racist or sexist you can be, is just care about the work that somebody does and not anything else.”

Eva Fo𝕏 🦊 Claudius Nero's Legion

38,990 views • 11 months ago

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

14,325 views • 1 month ago

It is not every day that I can tell you about a new explanation for the origin of the universe -- and the origin of time itself -- that is not complete bogus. But recently physicists have come up with one that works because it removes the problem of quantum gravity.

It is not every day that I can tell you about a new explanation for the origin of the universe -- and the origin of time itself -- that is not complete bogus. But recently physicists have come up with one that works because it removes the problem of quantum gravity.

Sabine Hossenfelder

116,042 views • 4 months ago

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.

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

30,183 views • 3 months ago

Billy Bob Thornton says his Landman windmill monologue went viral, with oil workers thanking him for “showing people” how the industry really works. “That scene became huge. I mean it was all over the internet.” “When I run into an oil guy… they always bring that scene up and thank me… ‘Thanks for showing people what this is.’” “People try to politicize everything, and the fact of the matter is that Taylor… is not taking a side. He’s just saying, ‘Here’s a look behind the curtain at how this works.’” “This is how it works and this is how it affects the people who work in it. This is how dangerous it is, here’s how much of a gamble it is.” “When something makes sense to you dialogue wise, it’s easy to do a long monologue.”

Billy Bob Thornton says his Landman windmill monologue went viral, with oil workers thanking him for “showing people” how the industry really works. “That scene became huge. I mean it was all over the internet.” “When I run into an oil guy… they always bring that scene up and thank me… ‘Thanks for showing people what this is.’” “People try to politicize everything, and the fact of the matter is that Taylor… is not taking a side. He’s just saying, ‘Here’s a look behind the curtain at how this works.’” “This is how it works and this is how it affects the people who work in it. This is how dangerous it is, here’s how much of a gamble it is.” “When something makes sense to you dialogue wise, it’s easy to do a long monologue.”

_Chase😈

1,010,827 views • 2 months ago

Copilot and agents will transform work and business process. Every organization will have a constellation of agents – and Copilot is how you’ll interact with all these agents right in the flow of your work. It’s the UI for AI. #MSIgnite

Copilot and agents will transform work and business process. Every organization will have a constellation of agents – and Copilot is how you’ll interact with all these agents right in the flow of your work. It’s the UI for AI. #MSIgnite

Microsoft

60,092 views • 1 year ago