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.

"This is just a GPT wrapper." A common thing to hear in Silicon Valley. Even Perplexity (now valued at $20B) was seen as a GPT wrapper not long ago. But everyone gets this wrong. Every new technology or service uses existing tech and infrastructure as a pillar. Companies like... Uber could not have existed without Google Maps. But could Uber be called a Maps wrapper? There is no need to reinvent the stove if you want to start a restaurant. The job of a founder is to solve users' problems so effectively that they cannot imagine going back to the old way. "Maximum value for the user" is the mantra. Users hardly care what underlying technology is used. What they do care about is whether the output (text, code, slide, or image) was accurate and if the solution provided was useful. You need to use the best tech to get the work done. Companies might use a cheap, fast model for formatting, a reasoning model for logic, and a search index for retrieval. They route traffic intelligently in milliseconds. The "wrapper" analogy also assumes you are dependent on one vendor. However, strong application layers can swap models out, just like batteries can be replaced. Generic apps don't work. The winners are the ones who dig into the painful, boring details of a specific workflow. If a company integrates deep into the user workflow, it becomes infrastructure. The product gets entrenched through distribution, integrations, design, feedback loops, and trust. And you can only get there by leveraging all existing technology as best as possible to fix the problem you've set out to solve for users. "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" - Newtonshow more

Grant Lee

42,937 subscribers

63,505 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Startup Archive

17,333 views • 6 months ago

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Marc Andreessen explains the 3 Necessities for Start-up Success: "The general criteria for a successful high-tech startup, in my view, you see different sort of rules of thumb from different people. But the three big things you always come back to are, is there a big market? And by the way, that comes in two parts. Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and sort of displace incumbents or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big? So big market. Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that causes you to basically justify having a new company? And that's really important. And the way I always think about that is, is there a 10X change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10X faster or 10X cheaper or 10X better? And if it's not 10X, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs, we really have to ask ourselves like, is it really worth doing? Because it's really hard. I mean, it's really hard to start new companies. new companies generally shouldn't exist. Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. And so for a new company to exist, it not only has to like come in and go into business and bring a product to market, but it has to bring a product to market that's so much better than what already exists that it punches through the sort of status quo. And most customers in most markets are pretty happy buying from the current suppliers and so there has to be a real kind of edge on the thing and we look for that in either a technology change, usually a technology change or an economic change. which are often the same thing. And then the third is team. Is the team outstanding? And if you think about this as an entrepreneur, it becomes a question of the founding team. Some companies are solo founders and they can work, but generally most of us, like myself, we're human beings, we're mortal. You want to have a founding team of complementary skill sets. And so you want to have at least one super strong technologist, quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist and then it often helps to have somebody who's like a product or who's a market or sales person or has a sort of really good understanding of business on the team, certainly helps a lot. And so we sort of look at market, product, and team. And the reality is you need all three. I would say, interestingly, if you're going to compromise as an investor, if we're going to compromise on one of those, it would actually be the product. And the reason I say that is because a great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution than a poor market. Because the problem with a poor market, a small market, is even if you do a great job on the product, there just aren't that many customers. It's hard to ever get big."

Founder Mode

39,005 views • 6 months ago

"If you have ambitions to be a Professor at Yale, Harvard, or one of these big institutions, the way you do that is mostly by getting funding for research. It's by getting a lot of publishing - a lot flying around the world to talk about something. You need all of these things to bolster your reputation as an international expert in this area. Now, the best way to do that, at least in psychiatry but I suspect in other areas of medicine, is actually to collaborate with pharmaceutical companies to run clinical trials. They write the publications for you - most of it, they do a lot of the grunt work, they give you the protocols, and then, essentially, they fund you and fly you around the place. I used to remember, as a junior doctor, looking up to the Professors. And they would say, 'These drugs are safe and effective. There's not a lot of problems there.' ...What I've seen more and more is that they've been compromised, and that they have incentives tied to the money and to career advancement. That means that they can't be as forthright as they ought to be about these things. And it's gotten to a problem where these are the Professors who are training the doctors who are setting the tone for what is acceptable care out there. And I think that's one of the biggest problems out there." - @taperclinic

"If you have ambitions to be a Professor at Yale, Harvard, or one of these big institutions, the way you do that is mostly by getting funding for research. It's by getting a lot of publishing - a lot flying around the world to talk about something. You need all of these things to bolster your reputation as an international expert in this area. Now, the best way to do that, at least in psychiatry but I suspect in other areas of medicine, is actually to collaborate with pharmaceutical companies to run clinical trials. They write the publications for you - most of it, they do a lot of the grunt work, they give you the protocols, and then, essentially, they fund you and fly you around the place. I used to remember, as a junior doctor, looking up to the Professors. And they would say, 'These drugs are safe and effective. There's not a lot of problems there.' ...What I've seen more and more is that they've been compromised, and that they have incentives tied to the money and to career advancement. That means that they can't be as forthright as they ought to be about these things. And it's gotten to a problem where these are the Professors who are training the doctors who are setting the tone for what is acceptable care out there. And I think that's one of the biggest problems out there." - @taperclinic

Jan Jekielek

43,499 views • 1 year ago

.benahorowitz.eth explains why moats like code and UI may not work in the AI era: "For my entire career, the one thing that you knew about technology companies is you couldn't throw money at the problem." "With AI, that's really changed in that you can throw money at the problem because if you have enough GPUs and enough data, you can basically solve most problems right now." "The capital race becomes a real thing and you have to think through, okay, code is not really a moat the way it was in the past, and user interface isn't really a moat."

.benahorowitz.eth explains why moats like code and UI may not work in the AI era: "For my entire career, the one thing that you knew about technology companies is you couldn't throw money at the problem." "With AI, that's really changed in that you can throw money at the problem because if you have enough GPUs and enough data, you can basically solve most problems right now." "The capital race becomes a real thing and you have to think through, okay, code is not really a moat the way it was in the past, and user interface isn't really a moat."

a16z

19,416 views • 3 months ago

ELON: TO ACTUALLY START A COMPANY IS SIMPLER THAN YOU FEAR Elon is stripping away the mystique of the startup world, offering a blunt blueprint for anyone with an engineering mind and the drive to build. He is arguing that the barrier to entry is not as high as the "fear of failure" suggests. By focusing on a compelling prototype and leveraging the world-class venture capital ecosystem in America. Elon believes the next generation of builders can bypass the bureaucracy and start creating value immediately: “If you study engineering and you figure out how to design new things, then it is relatively easy to start a company. You just need to get a few like-minded people with you and then focus on creating a prototype, a compelling prototype as soon as possible. And then there is a strong venture capital industry in this country that will give you funding to take things to the next level. And that is all there is to it. And you might try it a few times, you may or may not succeed, but I think sometimes people fear starting a company too much. You know, what is the worst that could go wrong? You are not going to starve to death. You are not going to die of exposure. What is the worst that could go wrong?” Source: Naruto

ELON: TO ACTUALLY START A COMPANY IS SIMPLER THAN YOU FEAR Elon is stripping away the mystique of the startup world, offering a blunt blueprint for anyone with an engineering mind and the drive to build. He is arguing that the barrier to entry is not as high as the "fear of failure" suggests. By focusing on a compelling prototype and leveraging the world-class venture capital ecosystem in America. Elon believes the next generation of builders can bypass the bureaucracy and start creating value immediately: “If you study engineering and you figure out how to design new things, then it is relatively easy to start a company. You just need to get a few like-minded people with you and then focus on creating a prototype, a compelling prototype as soon as possible. And then there is a strong venture capital industry in this country that will give you funding to take things to the next level. And that is all there is to it. And you might try it a few times, you may or may not succeed, but I think sometimes people fear starting a company too much. You know, what is the worst that could go wrong? You are not going to starve to death. You are not going to die of exposure. What is the worst that could go wrong?” Source: Naruto

Mario Nawfal

205,115 views • 7 months ago

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."

Patrick OShaughnessy

33,016 views • 4 months ago

.tobi lutke says most companies think about recruiting backwards: “My job is to make a company worthy for the best and brightest to work for. This is the part everyone skips. Everyone is like “We need a better recruiting team.” When you just need to be worthy of the kind of talent you would like to have. Talent eventually takes care of itself. There are not that many good companies to work for. There are not many companies that deserve the attention of people who are the most capable people, because those people have the option to start their own companies.”

.tobi lutke says most companies think about recruiting backwards: “My job is to make a company worthy for the best and brightest to work for. This is the part everyone skips. Everyone is like “We need a better recruiting team.” When you just need to be worthy of the kind of talent you would like to have. Talent eventually takes care of itself. There are not that many good companies to work for. There are not many companies that deserve the attention of people who are the most capable people, because those people have the option to start their own companies.”

David Senra

104,697 views • 3 months ago

#1 Elon Musk says the mission of Twitter 2.0 is to be the most reliable source of information and to provide citizens with a way to control the narrative: "The goal is to have Twitter be the best source of truth, the most timely and accurate source of truth, even if the truth is something we don't want to hear or unpleasant. Not just is something true or not, but what is the narrative. Most people don't appreciate that the media controls the narrative, so there are many things that could be talked about in the world, but only a few things can fit on the front page. But Twitter doesn't have a limitation like that, so the public can control the narrative, and the public can inform themselves as to what the narrative should be. That's a really big deal. It's a forum for citizen journalism or for the public to get together and communicate in a way that was never possible before so you can really know what's going on."

#1 Elon Musk says the mission of Twitter 2.0 is to be the most reliable source of information and to provide citizens with a way to control the narrative: "The goal is to have Twitter be the best source of truth, the most timely and accurate source of truth, even if the truth is something we don't want to hear or unpleasant. Not just is something true or not, but what is the narrative. Most people don't appreciate that the media controls the narrative, so there are many things that could be talked about in the world, but only a few things can fit on the front page. But Twitter doesn't have a limitation like that, so the public can control the narrative, and the public can inform themselves as to what the narrative should be. That's a really big deal. It's a forum for citizen journalism or for the public to get together and communicate in a way that was never possible before so you can really know what's going on."

KanekoaTheGreat

1,650,088 views • 3 years ago

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna state that some UAPs and the technology is NOT made by mankind. The problem we have is that we give private companies this technology so our own elected officials can't oversee or even know what's really going on. But, some members in our government DO know and have access. How is it ok to give tech, whether created by mankind or not, to private companies so an elite group of people keep full control over it? What if it eliminates the use for gas or oil? Are you starting to understand? Also, do you believe that they wouldn't fully take advantage of this tech in multiple ways? Since we know there is a "non-human" presence, but we don't know exactly what that presence is, do you really believe they wouldn't take advantage of that, or could potentially "pose" as that "presence" and pretend it's a threat to push an agenda? These are the things you need to start asking yourself and understand that, yes, there are many elites sitting on tech and physics that they do NOT want us to have. The million dollar question becomes, "What exactly are we going to do about this, and how do we fix this for all of mankind?"

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna state that some UAPs and the technology is NOT made by mankind. The problem we have is that we give private companies this technology so our own elected officials can't oversee or even know what's really going on. But, some members in our government DO know and have access. How is it ok to give tech, whether created by mankind or not, to private companies so an elite group of people keep full control over it? What if it eliminates the use for gas or oil? Are you starting to understand? Also, do you believe that they wouldn't fully take advantage of this tech in multiple ways? Since we know there is a "non-human" presence, but we don't know exactly what that presence is, do you really believe they wouldn't take advantage of that, or could potentially "pose" as that "presence" and pretend it's a threat to push an agenda? These are the things you need to start asking yourself and understand that, yes, there are many elites sitting on tech and physics that they do NOT want us to have. The million dollar question becomes, "What exactly are we going to do about this, and how do we fix this for all of mankind?"

The SCIF

20,292 views • 5 months ago

Catherine Austin Fitts on "breakthrough" tech funded by taxpayers' "missing money" "they've built an awful lot of infrastructure... ships in the sky... stuff going on underground... we can run cars from water... [and] if they can get the price of graphene down... what you can do with materials is unbelievable" This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a discussion with Versan Aljarrah (Versan | Black Swan Capitalist), the founder of Black Swan Capitalist, posted to YouTube on July 2, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "I've tried to trace where the money theoretically could go, sort of as a conceptual matter, but I think they've built an awful lot of infrastructure which is not something we don't see when we walk around— "So, much more impressive ships in the sky, much more stuff going on underground... And especially because we're, as a society, we're using 50- and 100- year-old legacy technology. "And we know, I mean, I just know I'm in the Netherlands because my partners here I first met in 2012 because they led the breakthrough energy conferences in, in, in the Netherlands and the US, as well as the secret space program. "Because a lot of the breakthrough energy is associated with the sort of the space programs. And if you just look at the technology we've had for over 100 years to dramatically reduce the price of energy, we know this technology works. We know we can run cars from water. "We know all of this stuff is feasible. And the question is, when is it going to be allowed and integrated into the regular economy? Your guess is as good as mine, but somebody's got it. "So when the head of Lockheed Skunk Works said in 1996, we now have the technology to take ET home— That tech, I, I'm taking him for his word, I think he was telling the truth, but I don't think we've— It was, I don't know if you saw this Lockheed CEO the other day sometime in the last year on a conference call with investors was talking about the incredible technology they, they've developed, they've just developed that he can't talk about.... "I think there's a lot of technology that's going to come out of the lab over the next 10 to 15 years. And, you know, so the other day they, they built literally a modular nuclear plant that they can put in an airplane and fly to a military base. Right? "You know, you have a lot of practical applications coming. If you just look in material science, if they can get the price of graphene down, I mean, what you can do with materials is just unbelievable. "So I think, when, when Trump or these guys talk about a golden age. I don't think they're being ridiculous. I think they understand the possibilities of this technology and they get all excited about it. "But the problem is there's no way to communicate it in a way that people can really understand because the guys who want to make money from it want to, you know, keep it to themselves. So you have a— there's, there are real conflict issues on, on how this technology comes out and who knows about it. But I think the potential for technology to dramatically improve productivity is enormous."

Catherine Austin Fitts on "breakthrough" tech funded by taxpayers' "missing money" "they've built an awful lot of infrastructure... ships in the sky... stuff going on underground... we can run cars from water... [and] if they can get the price of graphene down... what you can do with materials is unbelievable" This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a discussion with Versan Aljarrah (Versan | Black Swan Capitalist), the founder of Black Swan Capitalist, posted to YouTube on July 2, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "I've tried to trace where the money theoretically could go, sort of as a conceptual matter, but I think they've built an awful lot of infrastructure which is not something we don't see when we walk around— "So, much more impressive ships in the sky, much more stuff going on underground... And especially because we're, as a society, we're using 50- and 100- year-old legacy technology. "And we know, I mean, I just know I'm in the Netherlands because my partners here I first met in 2012 because they led the breakthrough energy conferences in, in, in the Netherlands and the US, as well as the secret space program. "Because a lot of the breakthrough energy is associated with the sort of the space programs. And if you just look at the technology we've had for over 100 years to dramatically reduce the price of energy, we know this technology works. We know we can run cars from water. "We know all of this stuff is feasible. And the question is, when is it going to be allowed and integrated into the regular economy? Your guess is as good as mine, but somebody's got it. "So when the head of Lockheed Skunk Works said in 1996, we now have the technology to take ET home— That tech, I, I'm taking him for his word, I think he was telling the truth, but I don't think we've— It was, I don't know if you saw this Lockheed CEO the other day sometime in the last year on a conference call with investors was talking about the incredible technology they, they've developed, they've just developed that he can't talk about.... "I think there's a lot of technology that's going to come out of the lab over the next 10 to 15 years. And, you know, so the other day they, they built literally a modular nuclear plant that they can put in an airplane and fly to a military base. Right? "You know, you have a lot of practical applications coming. If you just look in material science, if they can get the price of graphene down, I mean, what you can do with materials is just unbelievable. "So I think, when, when Trump or these guys talk about a golden age. I don't think they're being ridiculous. I think they understand the possibilities of this technology and they get all excited about it. "But the problem is there's no way to communicate it in a way that people can really understand because the guys who want to make money from it want to, you know, keep it to themselves. So you have a— there's, there are real conflict issues on, on how this technology comes out and who knows about it. But I think the potential for technology to dramatically improve productivity is enormous."

Sense Receptor

16,646 views • 1 month ago

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Dustin

39,109 views • 4 months ago

Naval Ravikant on the importance of hiring high-agency people Naval defines agency as: “People who just solve problems without even being asked to solve the problem—they identify the problem, they go solve it, they don’t even necessarily have to update you every step of the way, they’re not asking silly questions, and they’re just coming up with solutions.” He believes this is important because “building a startup is an infinite set of problems that are being thrown at you.” And there comes a day where you can’t even look at every problem your company is facing—let alone solve every one of them. He cites the Vinod Khosla aphorism: "The team you build is the company you build, not the plan you make.” And your ability to solve problems is based entirely on how many problem-solvers you have at your company. As Naval puts it: “If you have somebody who takes 10% of your time and management to solve problems, you can only have 10 of those people working with you. But if somebody takes 5%, you can have 20 of those people.” When building Airchat and AngelList, he thought of each team as a Navy Seal team: “Everyone is just really good at what they do. They know their job. They do it. They don’t complain. They’re not egotistical about it. And if they have to constantly be corrected, led around by the nose, you have to clean up after them, or you question their judgement, it’s not going to work out.”

Naval Ravikant on the importance of hiring high-agency people Naval defines agency as: “People who just solve problems without even being asked to solve the problem—they identify the problem, they go solve it, they don’t even necessarily have to update you every step of the way, they’re not asking silly questions, and they’re just coming up with solutions.” He believes this is important because “building a startup is an infinite set of problems that are being thrown at you.” And there comes a day where you can’t even look at every problem your company is facing—let alone solve every one of them. He cites the Vinod Khosla aphorism: "The team you build is the company you build, not the plan you make.” And your ability to solve problems is based entirely on how many problem-solvers you have at your company. As Naval puts it: “If you have somebody who takes 10% of your time and management to solve problems, you can only have 10 of those people working with you. But if somebody takes 5%, you can have 20 of those people.” When building Airchat and AngelList, he thought of each team as a Navy Seal team: “Everyone is just really good at what they do. They know their job. They do it. They don’t complain. They’re not egotistical about it. And if they have to constantly be corrected, led around by the nose, you have to clean up after them, or you question their judgement, it’s not going to work out.”

Startup Archive

552,837 views • 2 years ago

Mark Zuckerberg on the importance of engineers if you’re building a technology company “We never thought about ourselves as a website or a social network or anything like that.” Mark believes many companies define themselves too narrowly: “It’s one of the things I observed as soon as I came out to [Silicon] Valley. All these companies that called themselves technology companies were not really set up that way. The CEO wasn’t technical. The board of directors had no one technical on it… And it’s like alright, if that’s your team, then you’re not a technology company.” He believes there’s a balance: “You don’t want everyone to be an engineer because there’s other things that matter too. But if you don’t have a high enough share of the company as engineers, then you’re not a technology company.” This makes sense when you view it in the context of Mark’s strategy for Meta: “I define our strategy as: If we can learn faster than every other company, we’re going to win. We’re going to build a better product than everyone else because we’re going to get it out first, we’re going to have a good feedback loop, and we’re going to learn what people like better than other people.” He concludes: “I think that’s basically the formula. Be a technology company. Build a good foundation. Learn from what other people are focused on in the world. And iterate as quickly as you can.” Video source: Acquired Podcast (2024)

Mark Zuckerberg on the importance of engineers if you’re building a technology company “We never thought about ourselves as a website or a social network or anything like that.” Mark believes many companies define themselves too narrowly: “It’s one of the things I observed as soon as I came out to [Silicon] Valley. All these companies that called themselves technology companies were not really set up that way. The CEO wasn’t technical. The board of directors had no one technical on it… And it’s like alright, if that’s your team, then you’re not a technology company.” He believes there’s a balance: “You don’t want everyone to be an engineer because there’s other things that matter too. But if you don’t have a high enough share of the company as engineers, then you’re not a technology company.” This makes sense when you view it in the context of Mark’s strategy for Meta: “I define our strategy as: If we can learn faster than every other company, we’re going to win. We’re going to build a better product than everyone else because we’re going to get it out first, we’re going to have a good feedback loop, and we’re going to learn what people like better than other people.” He concludes: “I think that’s basically the formula. Be a technology company. Build a good foundation. Learn from what other people are focused on in the world. And iterate as quickly as you can.” Video source: Acquired Podcast (2024)

Startup Archive

44,116 views • 9 months ago

Jensen Huang explains how he designed NVIDIA from first principles “With respect to building a company, the first thing you have to do—as with all problems—is start from first principles. What is this machine that we’re trying to create? What is its input? What is its output? What are the conditions that it’s in? What is the industry like? Is it a fast moving industry? Is it a bureaucratic industry? Is it a highly regulated industry? And what are you trying to build?” Thinking about it from this perspective, there were several things Jensen wanted to do with the company: “I wanted to create a company that naturally attracts amazing people, and the reason for that is our company’s mission is to solve computing problems that are barely possible.” He also wanted a company that was “as small as possible” and “empowered people.” “If you want an organization that obeys command and control, then you make it a pyramid just like the military—all the way back to the Roman Empire. But If you want to empower people, you want to make it as flat as possible so that information travels quickly.” He continues: “We also don’t have business units. We don’t have divisions. Everybody works as one, and the company is shaped in a way that allows us to build accelerated computing best.” Video source: Sana (2023)

Jensen Huang explains how he designed NVIDIA from first principles “With respect to building a company, the first thing you have to do—as with all problems—is start from first principles. What is this machine that we’re trying to create? What is its input? What is its output? What are the conditions that it’s in? What is the industry like? Is it a fast moving industry? Is it a bureaucratic industry? Is it a highly regulated industry? And what are you trying to build?” Thinking about it from this perspective, there were several things Jensen wanted to do with the company: “I wanted to create a company that naturally attracts amazing people, and the reason for that is our company’s mission is to solve computing problems that are barely possible.” He also wanted a company that was “as small as possible” and “empowered people.” “If you want an organization that obeys command and control, then you make it a pyramid just like the military—all the way back to the Roman Empire. But If you want to empower people, you want to make it as flat as possible so that information travels quickly.” He continues: “We also don’t have business units. We don’t have divisions. Everybody works as one, and the company is shaped in a way that allows us to build accelerated computing best.” Video source: Sana (2023)

Startup Archive

63,921 views • 10 months ago

From Eric Vishria on how the top AI founders are building products completely opposite of the SaaS era: "One of the things that is really different in the AI world versus the SaaS world, is that in the SaaS world, over and over again, you had people who really understood the customer. And the problem. And then they understood a domain. They understood what the technology was more or less capable of. But it wasn't a real question of if you could build something or not. For example, take Salesforce, Workday, and ServiceNow. CRM existed before Salesforce. HR management existed before Workday. Same thing with ServiceNow. So in every case, Salesforce followed Siebel. Workday followed Peoplesoft. ServiceNow followed Peregrine and Remedy, and others. So they were just kind of, cloud SaaS versions of the prior generation product. They just understood the customers. They understood the problem. And they were just like, here's a better version. And that evolved a little bit over time in SaaS land. But that's what it is. And so product development in that way was done by people who really understood the customer and the problems. And then just took advantage of the next wave. And this is almost diametrically opposite of product development in the AI era. When I look at the teams that are having the most success today, they have intimate knowledge of the models. They are right on the frontier of understanding which models are better at what, and why, and when. And what they're going to be good at and what they're not going to be good at. And what they're spending their time on, is figuring out how do I apply this capability of this model to this domain or to this user. So they're actually working inside out or technology out, versus customer problem in. And of course, they understand the customer problem. And a lot of times they have firsthand knowledge of it. But they're really close to the metal and capability, and they're applying it. And I think this is a really different way to develop products than in SaaS. I started my career as a product manager a long time ago, and it's almost the complete opposite of everything you learned. "Listen to the customer, understand it, then bring it back to the engineering and product teams." If you did that right now, ask a bunch of customers what they want out of AI, and you brought it back, for the most part, it may not be possible today with today's technology. Whereas the teams that are winning right now really understand the technology and are applying it out. And so I think this reversal matters. I think it's a big difference in terms of how companies are getting built. And maybe even the types of entrepreneurs that will be successful. I'm not sure. You're seeing some real change there. Look at the Bret Taylor's at Sierra. That's a super, super technical founder who really gets it. Brett and Clay really get it. You look at Michael and his co-founders at Cursor. They're super technical founders and they get it. They all really understand what these things can and can't do. And that's a pretty different dynamic relative to the way the best SaaS companies got built." Link in bio for the full conversation going deep on the current class of startups going from zero to $100m+ in ARR within 12 months.

From Eric Vishria on how the top AI founders are building products completely opposite of the SaaS era: "One of the things that is really different in the AI world versus the SaaS world, is that in the SaaS world, over and over again, you had people who really understood the customer. And the problem. And then they understood a domain. They understood what the technology was more or less capable of. But it wasn't a real question of if you could build something or not. For example, take Salesforce, Workday, and ServiceNow. CRM existed before Salesforce. HR management existed before Workday. Same thing with ServiceNow. So in every case, Salesforce followed Siebel. Workday followed Peoplesoft. ServiceNow followed Peregrine and Remedy, and others. So they were just kind of, cloud SaaS versions of the prior generation product. They just understood the customers. They understood the problem. And they were just like, here's a better version. And that evolved a little bit over time in SaaS land. But that's what it is. And so product development in that way was done by people who really understood the customer and the problems. And then just took advantage of the next wave. And this is almost diametrically opposite of product development in the AI era. When I look at the teams that are having the most success today, they have intimate knowledge of the models. They are right on the frontier of understanding which models are better at what, and why, and when. And what they're going to be good at and what they're not going to be good at. And what they're spending their time on, is figuring out how do I apply this capability of this model to this domain or to this user. So they're actually working inside out or technology out, versus customer problem in. And of course, they understand the customer problem. And a lot of times they have firsthand knowledge of it. But they're really close to the metal and capability, and they're applying it. And I think this is a really different way to develop products than in SaaS. I started my career as a product manager a long time ago, and it's almost the complete opposite of everything you learned. "Listen to the customer, understand it, then bring it back to the engineering and product teams." If you did that right now, ask a bunch of customers what they want out of AI, and you brought it back, for the most part, it may not be possible today with today's technology. Whereas the teams that are winning right now really understand the technology and are applying it out. And so I think this reversal matters. I think it's a big difference in terms of how companies are getting built. And maybe even the types of entrepreneurs that will be successful. I'm not sure. You're seeing some real change there. Look at the Bret Taylor's at Sierra. That's a super, super technical founder who really gets it. Brett and Clay really get it. You look at Michael and his co-founders at Cursor. They're super technical founders and they get it. They all really understand what these things can and can't do. And that's a pretty different dynamic relative to the way the best SaaS companies got built." Link in bio for the full conversation going deep on the current class of startups going from zero to $100m+ in ARR within 12 months.

The Peel

209,752 views • 1 year ago

.Second Lady Usha Vance responds to a student's question about how to be the best Second Lady: "I think they key thing, for anyone who is in this kind of role, is to try to just continue to be yourself. You have to do the best job that you can. And there are some responsibilities that come with it...you don't always choose what you are doing...But the most important thing is to remember the kind of person that you were before it, and the kind of person you want to be. If you can do that all the way through, then you can have a lot of fun — and maybe be helpful. You don't want to just start thinking of yourself as the Second Lady, because then you're probably not that fun a person anymore."

.Second Lady Usha Vance responds to a student's question about how to be the best Second Lady: "I think they key thing, for anyone who is in this kind of role, is to try to just continue to be yourself. You have to do the best job that you can. And there are some responsibilities that come with it...you don't always choose what you are doing...But the most important thing is to remember the kind of person that you were before it, and the kind of person you want to be. If you can do that all the way through, then you can have a lot of fun — and maybe be helpful. You don't want to just start thinking of yourself as the Second Lady, because then you're probably not that fun a person anymore."

Mary Margaret Olohan

1,111,670 views • 1 year ago

Ben Horowitz on the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video source: UC Berkeley (2009)

Ben Horowitz on the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video source: UC Berkeley (2009)

Startup Archive

36,753 views • 4 months ago

You can now fine-tune Llama 3 without writing a single line of code! We are moving at breakneck speed. I recorded a video to show you how to fine-tune any open-source model in a few minutes. I'm using a GPT capable of taking a problem and turning it into a fine-tuned model that will solve it. You don't have to write any code. You only need to explain to a GPT what problem you want to solve and tell it you want to use Llama 3. For example, "fine-tune Llama 3" or "deploy zephyr." It feels magic. The system will recommend a dataset and fine-tune the model for you. I'm using Monster API, a platform that specializes in making fine-tuning and deploying open-source models easy and fast. Their stack is well-optimized to maximize fine-tuning efficiency using techniques like Q-Lora and vLLM. They are behind the GPT. Here is what you need to do: 1. Create an account at 2. Load the GPT with the link below This is as simple as it gets. When you are done, you can click a button to deploy the model and start using it. I have 10,000 free credits for anyone using the code "SANTIAGO" in the dashboard. You can use these credits to access, fine-tune, and deploy these open-source models. You can also keep up with their latest updates, and get free credits and special offers on their Discord server:

You can now fine-tune Llama 3 without writing a single line of code! We are moving at breakneck speed. I recorded a video to show you how to fine-tune any open-source model in a few minutes. I'm using a GPT capable of taking a problem and turning it into a fine-tuned model that will solve it. You don't have to write any code. You only need to explain to a GPT what problem you want to solve and tell it you want to use Llama 3. For example, "fine-tune Llama 3" or "deploy zephyr." It feels magic. The system will recommend a dataset and fine-tune the model for you. I'm using Monster API, a platform that specializes in making fine-tuning and deploying open-source models easy and fast. Their stack is well-optimized to maximize fine-tuning efficiency using techniques like Q-Lora and vLLM. They are behind the GPT. Here is what you need to do: 1. Create an account at 2. Load the GPT with the link below This is as simple as it gets. When you are done, you can click a button to deploy the model and start using it. I have 10,000 free credits for anyone using the code "SANTIAGO" in the dashboard. You can use these credits to access, fine-tune, and deploy these open-source models. You can also keep up with their latest updates, and get free credits and special offers on their Discord server:

Santiago

324,621 views • 2 years ago

Brian Tracy on his million-dollar sales lesson: "People don't care what your product is. They don't care about you. They don't care about your company. They don't even care what the product is." What do they care about? "The only thing people care about is what this product or service does for them." Brian explains that what customers really want is a change, an improvement, or a result in their life. "15% of buying behavior is determined by the past. 85% of buying behavior is determined by the anticipated future. What is going to happen as a result of me buying?" He illustrates this with a powerful analogy: "If you are selling a tour to the Canary Islands, spend 90% of your time talking about the destination and only 10% talking about the plane that you fly to the Canary Islands in." The problem? Most salespeople do the opposite. "Customers only buy improvement. The reason they buy is that they feel that the quality and quantity of the improvement will be greater than the cost and the trouble of using it." Sell the life they want, not the thing you made.

Brian Tracy on his million-dollar sales lesson: "People don't care what your product is. They don't care about you. They don't care about your company. They don't even care what the product is." What do they care about? "The only thing people care about is what this product or service does for them." Brian explains that what customers really want is a change, an improvement, or a result in their life. "15% of buying behavior is determined by the past. 85% of buying behavior is determined by the anticipated future. What is going to happen as a result of me buying?" He illustrates this with a powerful analogy: "If you are selling a tour to the Canary Islands, spend 90% of your time talking about the destination and only 10% talking about the plane that you fly to the Canary Islands in." The problem? Most salespeople do the opposite. "Customers only buy improvement. The reason they buy is that they feel that the quality and quantity of the improvement will be greater than the cost and the trouble of using it." Sell the life they want, not the thing you made.

Big Brain Business

124,260 views • 7 months ago