正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

𝗛𝘂𝗴𝗲 𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲: 𝗟𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗙𝗥𝗘𝗘 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗱 Build something without spending your credits!! Why? Because it’s AI Showdown time. Anthropic vs OpenAI vs Google. Three players. One playground. And you get to play judge. Switch between Claude, OpenAI, and Gemini in one click. And choose your winner. Kicks off... 8am CET today, Saturday June 14th. Runs through Sunday. And we’re not stopping there: $𝟮𝟱𝗞 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 Create wild benchmarking content like charts, side-by-sides, even savage YouTube breakdowns. Show the world how these models really stack up. $𝟰𝟬𝗞 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 Ship something inside Lovable. Any model, any idea. If it blows our minds, you win. Share it. Spread the love. See you after 8am CET at lovable(dot)devshow more

Felix Haas

17,417 subscribers

1,341,670 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 条评论

felix 的头像

felix1 年前

we are live! let the party begin 🚀

The Rundown AI 的头像

The Rundown AI2 年前

AI won't replace you, but a person using AI will. Join 500,000+ readers and learn how to use AI in just 5 minutes a day (for free).

Daniel Htut 的头像

Daniel Htut1 年前

LFGGG

snehil prakash 的头像

snehil prakash1 年前

Awesome. On it this weekend

Szilágyi Ferenc 的头像

Szilágyi Ferenc1 年前

You are great 👍 enjoy everyone 😀

Adnan 的头像

Adnan1 年前

Lovable is free this weekend. Let's build the Future

William Geronco 的头像

William Geronco1 年前

Okay, I know what I’m doing 24/7 this weekend! You guys rock! 🤘

Henkjan de Krijger 的头像

Henkjan de Krijger1 年前

Free weekend, full power!

Kritarth Mittal | Soshals 的头像

Kritarth Mittal | Soshals1 年前

Not working for me @felixhhaas (I keep clicking Enter but it doesn't proceed from there)

Michael Sanchez 的头像

Michael Sanchez1 年前

I pay $800 a month and this isn’t being applied to my account why? Non-paying > Paying customers

Houdini 的头像

Houdini1 年前

Stop this hoax. Why claim it is free only for it not to work?

相关视频

Palantir CEO Alex Karp says people think we’re in an AI bubble because a lot of AI just doesn’t work: “If you just buy LLMs off the shelf and try to do any of this, it won’t work.” “It’s not precise enough. You can’t do underwriting. You can’t do these things that are regulated.” “People have tried things that just can never work. You buy a LLM, put it on your stack, and wonder why it’s not working.” “What you’re going to see, especially in America, is people trying to do something like Ontology by hand.” “Once you build a software layer to orchestrate and manage the LLMs in a language your enterprise understands, you actually can create value.” “There’s a lot of discussion on if we’re in an AI bubble. What is the meaning of this bubble? If anything, we’re just in a lag. There’s a lot of AI, some of it works.” “Go back to the battlefield context: everybody in the world assumed this would not work. But now it does work. Now the question is, ‘How can I get it to work for my country?’” “Palantir barely has a sales force. In fact, it seems to be getting smaller and smaller every time I go see them.”

Palantir CEO Alex Karp says people think we’re in an AI bubble because a lot of AI just doesn’t work: “If you just buy LLMs off the shelf and try to do any of this, it won’t work.” “It’s not precise enough. You can’t do underwriting. You can’t do these things that are regulated.” “People have tried things that just can never work. You buy a LLM, put it on your stack, and wonder why it’s not working.” “What you’re going to see, especially in America, is people trying to do something like Ontology by hand.” “Once you build a software layer to orchestrate and manage the LLMs in a language your enterprise understands, you actually can create value.” “There’s a lot of discussion on if we’re in an AI bubble. What is the meaning of this bubble? If anything, we’re just in a lag. There’s a lot of AI, some of it works.” “Go back to the battlefield context: everybody in the world assumed this would not work. But now it does work. Now the question is, ‘How can I get it to work for my country?’” “Palantir barely has a sales force. In fact, it seems to be getting smaller and smaller every time I go see them.”

Jawwwn

695,385 次观看 • 6 个月前

OpenAI just admitted Anthropic is KILLING their business. Their own applications chief told employees it was a "code red." Said Anthropic was a "wake-up call." Then admitted OpenAI had been "spreading efforts across too many apps" and it was "slowing them down." This is an internal confession. Here's why Anthropic is eating up OpenAI: 12 months ago, OpenAI owned 50% of all enterprise AI spending. Today it's just 27%. Anthropic went from nearly ZERO to winning 70% of every first-time enterprise AI deal. Seven out of ten companies buying AI tools for the first time are choosing Claude over ChatGPT. A year ago, one in 25 businesses on Ramp paid for Anthropic. Today it's one in four. OpenAI just had its biggest single-month adoption decline ever recorded. And Anthropic literally charges MORE than OpenAI for roughly the same performance. And businesses are STILL choosing them. In enterprise software, that never happens. The cheaper product usually wins. But Claude became something OpenAI never figured out how to be: Cool. Celebrities publicly switched to Claude. Senators are tweeting about using it. Engineers are shipping entire products with Claude Code in hours that used to take weeks. It started to became an identity signal. Like blue bubble vs green bubble in iMessage. Choosing Claude says something about you now. Meanwhile OpenAI went the opposite direction: They took the Pentagon contract that Anthropic refused. Greg Brockman donated $25 million to fund wars. ChatGPT uninstalls jumped 295% in a single day. Reddit posts saying "Cancel and Delete ChatGPT" got 30,000 upvotes. Anthropic said no to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Got blacklisted by the Pentagon. Trump called them a "Radical Left AI company." And their downloads went to #1 on the App Store the next day. Turns out refusing to build weapons is good marketing. But the real damage isn't consumer downloads. It's the MONEY. Claude Code hit $2.5 billion in annual revenue in six months. OpenAI's competing product Codex just barely crossed $1 billion. And Anthropic literally cannot meet demand. They're turning away paying customers because they don't have enough compute to serve them. A company REJECTING revenue because it's growing too fast. While OpenAI scrambles to consolidate. Last week OpenAI announced they're merging ChatGPT, Codex, and their browser into one "superapp." But what this really means: "We launched too many products, none of them worked well enough alone, so now we're cramming everything together and hoping it sticks." And remember their video tool Sora? Launched standalone. Hit #1 on the App Store. Usage flatlined within weeks. Now they're forced to shut it down. Their browser Atlas? Still hasn't launched publicly. Their IPO? Polymarket odds dropped from 55% to 35%. OpenAI has 900 million users. Anthropic has maybe 10 million daily actives. But here's the thing... OpenAI won the consumer war. ChatGPT is where your mom asks about recipes and your cousin makes memes. Anthropic won the war that actually MATTERS. The developers. The engineers. The enterprises writing 7 figure checks. OpenAI built the biggest chatbot on Earth. Anthropic built the tool that companies can't stop paying for. This is Yahoo vs Google all over again. Yahoo had the users. Google had the product. And we all know how that ended. OpenAI has 12 months to prove the superapp works, land the IPO, and stop the enterprise bleeding. If they can't, the most valuable startup in history becomes the most cautionary tale in tech. 900 million users don't mean anything if the people who actually pay are walking out the door. What do you think?

OpenAI just admitted Anthropic is KILLING their business. Their own applications chief told employees it was a "code red." Said Anthropic was a "wake-up call." Then admitted OpenAI had been "spreading efforts across too many apps" and it was "slowing them down." This is an internal confession. Here's why Anthropic is eating up OpenAI: 12 months ago, OpenAI owned 50% of all enterprise AI spending. Today it's just 27%. Anthropic went from nearly ZERO to winning 70% of every first-time enterprise AI deal. Seven out of ten companies buying AI tools for the first time are choosing Claude over ChatGPT. A year ago, one in 25 businesses on Ramp paid for Anthropic. Today it's one in four. OpenAI just had its biggest single-month adoption decline ever recorded. And Anthropic literally charges MORE than OpenAI for roughly the same performance. And businesses are STILL choosing them. In enterprise software, that never happens. The cheaper product usually wins. But Claude became something OpenAI never figured out how to be: Cool. Celebrities publicly switched to Claude. Senators are tweeting about using it. Engineers are shipping entire products with Claude Code in hours that used to take weeks. It started to became an identity signal. Like blue bubble vs green bubble in iMessage. Choosing Claude says something about you now. Meanwhile OpenAI went the opposite direction: They took the Pentagon contract that Anthropic refused. Greg Brockman donated $25 million to fund wars. ChatGPT uninstalls jumped 295% in a single day. Reddit posts saying "Cancel and Delete ChatGPT" got 30,000 upvotes. Anthropic said no to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Got blacklisted by the Pentagon. Trump called them a "Radical Left AI company." And their downloads went to #1 on the App Store the next day. Turns out refusing to build weapons is good marketing. But the real damage isn't consumer downloads. It's the MONEY. Claude Code hit $2.5 billion in annual revenue in six months. OpenAI's competing product Codex just barely crossed $1 billion. And Anthropic literally cannot meet demand. They're turning away paying customers because they don't have enough compute to serve them. A company REJECTING revenue because it's growing too fast. While OpenAI scrambles to consolidate. Last week OpenAI announced they're merging ChatGPT, Codex, and their browser into one "superapp." But what this really means: "We launched too many products, none of them worked well enough alone, so now we're cramming everything together and hoping it sticks." And remember their video tool Sora? Launched standalone. Hit #1 on the App Store. Usage flatlined within weeks. Now they're forced to shut it down. Their browser Atlas? Still hasn't launched publicly. Their IPO? Polymarket odds dropped from 55% to 35%. OpenAI has 900 million users. Anthropic has maybe 10 million daily actives. But here's the thing... OpenAI won the consumer war. ChatGPT is where your mom asks about recipes and your cousin makes memes. Anthropic won the war that actually MATTERS. The developers. The engineers. The enterprises writing 7 figure checks. OpenAI built the biggest chatbot on Earth. Anthropic built the tool that companies can't stop paying for. This is Yahoo vs Google all over again. Yahoo had the users. Google had the product. And we all know how that ended. OpenAI has 12 months to prove the superapp works, land the IPO, and stop the enterprise bleeding. If they can't, the most valuable startup in history becomes the most cautionary tale in tech. 900 million users don't mean anything if the people who actually pay are walking out the door. What do you think?

Ricardo

35,020 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨PERPLEXITY JUST LAUNCHED SOMETHING THAT MAKES EVERY OTHER AI PRODUCT LOOK LIKE A TOY.. AND NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IT.. They built a Personal Computer.. Not an app.. Not a chatbot.. A full digital worker that runs 24/7 on a Mac mini even while you sleep.. You press both command keys.. And it wakes up.. Ready to work.. But here's where it gets insane.. This thing doesn't run on one AI model.. It runs on 19 of them.. At the same time.. It uses Claude Opus for complex reasoning.. Gemini 3.1 Pro for deep research with a 2 million token context window.. Nano Banana Pro for 4K images.. Grok for fast tasks.. It doesn't just pick one model and hope for the best.. It reads your task.. Breaks it into subtasks.. And routes each one to whichever model is best at that specific thing.. All running in parallel.. While ChatGPT is still thinking about your first question.. Perplexity has already split your project into 6 pieces and assigned each one to a different AI.. And here's the part that should worry OpenAI.. Perplexity hallucinates at 3.3%.. ChatGPT hallucinates at 12%.. Claude at 15%.. It's not even close.. Because Perplexity is built differently.. Every other AI tries to remember facts.. Perplexity searches for them first.. It's structurally forced to cite live sources before it's even allowed to generate a response.. OpenAI Operator launched with a 32.6% success rate on computer-use tasks.. People called it "the world's most anxious intern" because it pauses every 5 seconds to ask if it's doing the right thing.. Perplexity runs multi-hour and multi-day workflows independently.. Only interrupts you when it hits a decision that actually matters.. You can start a task from your iPhone on the train.. And it executes on your Mac mini at home.. The economics are wild too.. Internal studies show it saved teams an average of $1.6 million in labor costs.. Performing 3.25 years of work in four weeks.. And unlike every other AI company.. Perplexity dropped ads entirely.. They charge $200 a month because they said they're in the "accuracy business".. Not the advertising business.. They even launched a $42.5 million publisher program to pay media partners when their content gets cited.. While OpenAI is getting sued by every newspaper on earth.. Google and OpenAI want you locked into their ecosystem.. If a better model comes out tomorrow you're stuck.. Perplexity just updates its routing matrix.. You get the best model on earth automatically.. No switching.. No migrations.. No friction.. This isn't an AI assistant anymore.. This is the first real AI employee.. And it costs $200 a month.

🚨PERPLEXITY JUST LAUNCHED SOMETHING THAT MAKES EVERY OTHER AI PRODUCT LOOK LIKE A TOY.. AND NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IT.. They built a Personal Computer.. Not an app.. Not a chatbot.. A full digital worker that runs 24/7 on a Mac mini even while you sleep.. You press both command keys.. And it wakes up.. Ready to work.. But here's where it gets insane.. This thing doesn't run on one AI model.. It runs on 19 of them.. At the same time.. It uses Claude Opus for complex reasoning.. Gemini 3.1 Pro for deep research with a 2 million token context window.. Nano Banana Pro for 4K images.. Grok for fast tasks.. It doesn't just pick one model and hope for the best.. It reads your task.. Breaks it into subtasks.. And routes each one to whichever model is best at that specific thing.. All running in parallel.. While ChatGPT is still thinking about your first question.. Perplexity has already split your project into 6 pieces and assigned each one to a different AI.. And here's the part that should worry OpenAI.. Perplexity hallucinates at 3.3%.. ChatGPT hallucinates at 12%.. Claude at 15%.. It's not even close.. Because Perplexity is built differently.. Every other AI tries to remember facts.. Perplexity searches for them first.. It's structurally forced to cite live sources before it's even allowed to generate a response.. OpenAI Operator launched with a 32.6% success rate on computer-use tasks.. People called it "the world's most anxious intern" because it pauses every 5 seconds to ask if it's doing the right thing.. Perplexity runs multi-hour and multi-day workflows independently.. Only interrupts you when it hits a decision that actually matters.. You can start a task from your iPhone on the train.. And it executes on your Mac mini at home.. The economics are wild too.. Internal studies show it saved teams an average of $1.6 million in labor costs.. Performing 3.25 years of work in four weeks.. And unlike every other AI company.. Perplexity dropped ads entirely.. They charge $200 a month because they said they're in the "accuracy business".. Not the advertising business.. They even launched a $42.5 million publisher program to pay media partners when their content gets cited.. While OpenAI is getting sued by every newspaper on earth.. Google and OpenAI want you locked into their ecosystem.. If a better model comes out tomorrow you're stuck.. Perplexity just updates its routing matrix.. You get the best model on earth automatically.. No switching.. No migrations.. No friction.. This isn't an AI assistant anymore.. This is the first real AI employee.. And it costs $200 a month.

Evan Luthra

1,096,928 次观看 • 3 个月前

Do you understand what's happening? It's not just "AI can make iOS apps" anymore. AI is eating up the entire software industry. Even Dario Amodei (founder of Claude) said 90% of all code in the world would be written by AI. In 20 minutes, I built this Duolingo for AI upskilling app with Superapp. The idea was simple - almost everyone today knows AI is the future, but most of them are still feeling left out. Their current jobs don't leave them with enough time to actually learn and build stuff with AI. There's AI dev, video making, animations, testing, etc. But no time or clear direction. So I built an app to fix exactly this. With AgentIQ, you get new lessons every day. Every time you learn something, it gets added to your skillset and automatically refreshes your portfolio. You level up with every new chapter/pathway. It is self-paced but gamified enough (like Duolingo) that you never get out of touch. Without spending hours or tonnes of money, you build stuff with n8n, openclaw, etc. You ship AI videos to market your own AI apps. This could be a proper ed-tech company if someone wants to continue building on top. Happy to share the entire source code with you if you wanna pursue it. Like + comment "AGENT" and I'll send you the app link, a comprehensive guide to build production-ready apps, and the entire source code for this.

Do you understand what's happening? It's not just "AI can make iOS apps" anymore. AI is eating up the entire software industry. Even Dario Amodei (founder of Claude) said 90% of all code in the world would be written by AI. In 20 minutes, I built this Duolingo for AI upskilling app with Superapp. The idea was simple - almost everyone today knows AI is the future, but most of them are still feeling left out. Their current jobs don't leave them with enough time to actually learn and build stuff with AI. There's AI dev, video making, animations, testing, etc. But no time or clear direction. So I built an app to fix exactly this. With AgentIQ, you get new lessons every day. Every time you learn something, it gets added to your skillset and automatically refreshes your portfolio. You level up with every new chapter/pathway. It is self-paced but gamified enough (like Duolingo) that you never get out of touch. Without spending hours or tonnes of money, you build stuff with n8n, openclaw, etc. You ship AI videos to market your own AI apps. This could be a proper ed-tech company if someone wants to continue building on top. Happy to share the entire source code with you if you wanna pursue it. Like + comment "AGENT" and I'll send you the app link, a comprehensive guide to build production-ready apps, and the entire source code for this.

Kritarth Mittal | Soshals

25,363 次观看 • 3 个月前

🚨 SOMETHING STRANGE IS HAPPENING TO THE MOON — AND THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO NOTICE A woman gets on camera and says this isn’t a one-time thing. She saw it last month, the moon looked completely off, like the orientation made no sense, but she brushed it off and kept it moving. Now it’s happening again. Same exact look. So this time she actually checks, pulls up NASA charts for her exact location and shows what the moon is supposed to look like… and what she’s seeing doesn’t match it, not even close. The charts show it side to side, but what everyone actually saw was a flipped moon, straight up upside down, like something changed and everyone’s acting like it didn’t. Then she calls people across the country to verify it, and they come back saying the same thing. It looks upside down to them too, which is where this stops being “just her” and starts feeling like the same exact thing showing up in multiple places at the same time. And it’s not just her, people all over social media are saying the same thing: "Something isn't right." And this is where it stops making any sense. She says if the moon is a crescent, you’re only supposed to see the lit part… so why can she still see the entire outline of it, faint but clearly there, like the shadow isn’t even doing what it’s supposed to do? And she’s already calling it out before anyone can spin it: don’t say it’s lighting, don’t say it’s angle, don’t say it’s photoshopped, because she checked the charts, showed the receipts, and had other people confirm it. So now you’ve got the same “flip,” the same upside down moon, same visibility issue, second month in a row, multiple locations… and it still doesn’t match what we’re being shown. She ignored it once. Now it’s back again. So what exactly are we looking at… and why does it feel like we’re not supposed to question it?

🚨 SOMETHING STRANGE IS HAPPENING TO THE MOON — AND THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO NOTICE A woman gets on camera and says this isn’t a one-time thing. She saw it last month, the moon looked completely off, like the orientation made no sense, but she brushed it off and kept it moving. Now it’s happening again. Same exact look. So this time she actually checks, pulls up NASA charts for her exact location and shows what the moon is supposed to look like… and what she’s seeing doesn’t match it, not even close. The charts show it side to side, but what everyone actually saw was a flipped moon, straight up upside down, like something changed and everyone’s acting like it didn’t. Then she calls people across the country to verify it, and they come back saying the same thing. It looks upside down to them too, which is where this stops being “just her” and starts feeling like the same exact thing showing up in multiple places at the same time. And it’s not just her, people all over social media are saying the same thing: "Something isn't right." And this is where it stops making any sense. She says if the moon is a crescent, you’re only supposed to see the lit part… so why can she still see the entire outline of it, faint but clearly there, like the shadow isn’t even doing what it’s supposed to do? And she’s already calling it out before anyone can spin it: don’t say it’s lighting, don’t say it’s angle, don’t say it’s photoshopped, because she checked the charts, showed the receipts, and had other people confirm it. So now you’ve got the same “flip,” the same upside down moon, same visibility issue, second month in a row, multiple locations… and it still doesn’t match what we’re being shown. She ignored it once. Now it’s back again. So what exactly are we looking at… and why does it feel like we’re not supposed to question it?

HustleBitch

730,077 次观看 • 4 个月前

$Microsoft just betrayed OpenAI and Anthropic, the two companies it helped build. And it could break the entire AI trade... Here's what happened: Inside Excel and Outlook, two of the most used business apps on Earth, Microsoft has started routing tens of thousands of AI requests every week to its own in-house models instead of OpenAI and Anthropic. Microsoft's own AI chief, Mustafa Suleyman, said himself: "We pay a lot of money to Anthropic, so our goal is to reduce and ultimately ELIMINATE that cost." This is the company that poured $13 billion into OpenAI and effectively created the modern AI industry, and it just decided the most advanced models on the market are NOT worth paying for. And here's the thing... Microsoft is not just ripping out OpenAI everywhere - it is being surgical about it. The hardest and rarest tasks can still go to OpenAI or Anthropic. What Microsoft is taking back is the boring, high-volume work, like the email replies, the thread summaries, and the simple spreadsheet formulas. Why does that matter so much? Because that boring, repetitive work is where the actual money lives. The frontier labs assumed businesses would push BILLIONS of these tiny requests through expensive models forever. That endless river of tokens is the entire reason OpenAI and Anthropic are valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Microsoft looked at that river, decided it was massively overpaying, and rerouted it to models it owns outright. So the single biggest customer in the industry just walked off with the most profitable part of the business. And it is not only Microsoft: That same week, CNBC reported that American companies have been escaping to Chinese AI models to dodge rising US prices. Chinese models now handle more than 30% of US companies' AI usage on one major platform, peaking at 46%, up from an average of 11% a year earlier. They cost 60 to 90% less, and on some benchmarks they land within a single point of the best American model. One US startup moved ALL of its AI traffic off Claude and onto China's DeepSeek, and expects to save millions. Meanwhile Meta just admitted it has "excess" AI compute it wants to sell, becoming the first giant to concede it built far too much. Do you see the pattern forming? For two years, the entire AI story rested on one assumption: Every company on Earth would happily pay premium prices for the best model, forever. That assumption literally died in a single week. And the market noticed. More than a trillion dollars has been wiped off AI and chip stocks in a matter of days, as Wall Street finally started asking whether all of this spending will ever pay for itself. What this means for OpenAI and Anthropic: Their models are extraordinary, and it may not matter because their own biggest customers have decided they do not NEED the best model in the world to answer an email, and "good enough" now costs a fraction of the price. When even Microsoft refuses to pay full price for AI, the real question becomes who exactly IS left to pay it. What do you think?$

Microsoft just betrayed OpenAI and Anthropic, the two companies it helped build. And it could break the entire AI trade... Here's what happened: Inside Excel and Outlook, two of the most used business apps on Earth, Microsoft has started routing tens of thousands of AI requests every week to its own in-house models instead of OpenAI and Anthropic. Microsoft's own AI chief, Mustafa Suleyman, said himself: "We pay a lot of money to Anthropic, so our goal is to reduce and ultimately ELIMINATE that cost." This is the company that poured $13 billion into OpenAI and effectively created the modern AI industry, and it just decided the most advanced models on the market are NOT worth paying for. And here's the thing... Microsoft is not just ripping out OpenAI everywhere - it is being surgical about it. The hardest and rarest tasks can still go to OpenAI or Anthropic. What Microsoft is taking back is the boring, high-volume work, like the email replies, the thread summaries, and the simple spreadsheet formulas. Why does that matter so much? Because that boring, repetitive work is where the actual money lives. The frontier labs assumed businesses would push BILLIONS of these tiny requests through expensive models forever. That endless river of tokens is the entire reason OpenAI and Anthropic are valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Microsoft looked at that river, decided it was massively overpaying, and rerouted it to models it owns outright. So the single biggest customer in the industry just walked off with the most profitable part of the business. And it is not only Microsoft: That same week, CNBC reported that American companies have been escaping to Chinese AI models to dodge rising US prices. Chinese models now handle more than 30% of US companies' AI usage on one major platform, peaking at 46%, up from an average of 11% a year earlier. They cost 60 to 90% less, and on some benchmarks they land within a single point of the best American model. One US startup moved ALL of its AI traffic off Claude and onto China's DeepSeek, and expects to save millions. Meanwhile Meta just admitted it has "excess" AI compute it wants to sell, becoming the first giant to concede it built far too much. Do you see the pattern forming? For two years, the entire AI story rested on one assumption: Every company on Earth would happily pay premium prices for the best model, forever. That assumption literally died in a single week. And the market noticed. More than a trillion dollars has been wiped off AI and chip stocks in a matter of days, as Wall Street finally started asking whether all of this spending will ever pay for itself. What this means for OpenAI and Anthropic: Their models are extraordinary, and it may not matter because their own biggest customers have decided they do not NEED the best model in the world to answer an email, and "good enough" now costs a fraction of the price. When even Microsoft refuses to pay full price for AI, the real question becomes who exactly IS left to pay it. What do you think?

Ricardo

92,910 次观看 • 17 天前

Just when you thought claw machines couldn’t be more of a scam. Try operating it from your phone. But there's something here that I really like. I can't quite articulate what it is yet. It feels like the future. It's a claw machine, but not just any claw machine. These are connected to the internet and people can play them from anywhere in the world, from their phones. They're controlling a real physical machine in real time, trying to win real physical prizes. And if they win, the prize either gets mailed to them or converted into a digital form and emailed to them instantly. You will not believe how many plays this thing got in one night. People are obsessed with this because it takes the satisfaction of a claw machine, the nostalgia, the challenge, the thrill of winning something, and it makes it accessible from anywhere at any time. You don't have to be at an arcade. You don't have to be at a mall. You can be sitting on your couch at midnight and decide you want to try to win a toy or a gift card or whatever's loaded in the machine. And this is interesting because you only need to own one physical machine, but you can have thousands of people playing it all over the world. And if multiple people want to play at the same time, then you can charge extra. If you have a fixed supply and high demand, your price goes up. The prizes can be anything, toys, electronics, gift cards, merch, whatever. People can share with their friends. They play over and over. It becomes content. It becomes competition. People stream themselves trying to win. And my mind is exploding with possibilities because it's not just a vending machine business. It's an entertainment business, it's e-commerce, it's gamification, it's live streaming, all wrapped into one. And someone just figured out how to make it work with a claw machine. 10,000 plays. That's how many plays this guy got overnight on his virtual claw machine business. You could do this with anything.

Just when you thought claw machines couldn’t be more of a scam. Try operating it from your phone. But there's something here that I really like. I can't quite articulate what it is yet. It feels like the future. It's a claw machine, but not just any claw machine. These are connected to the internet and people can play them from anywhere in the world, from their phones. They're controlling a real physical machine in real time, trying to win real physical prizes. And if they win, the prize either gets mailed to them or converted into a digital form and emailed to them instantly. You will not believe how many plays this thing got in one night. People are obsessed with this because it takes the satisfaction of a claw machine, the nostalgia, the challenge, the thrill of winning something, and it makes it accessible from anywhere at any time. You don't have to be at an arcade. You don't have to be at a mall. You can be sitting on your couch at midnight and decide you want to try to win a toy or a gift card or whatever's loaded in the machine. And this is interesting because you only need to own one physical machine, but you can have thousands of people playing it all over the world. And if multiple people want to play at the same time, then you can charge extra. If you have a fixed supply and high demand, your price goes up. The prizes can be anything, toys, electronics, gift cards, merch, whatever. People can share with their friends. They play over and over. It becomes content. It becomes competition. People stream themselves trying to win. And my mind is exploding with possibilities because it's not just a vending machine business. It's an entertainment business, it's e-commerce, it's gamification, it's live streaming, all wrapped into one. And someone just figured out how to make it work with a claw machine. 10,000 plays. That's how many plays this guy got overnight on his virtual claw machine business. You could do this with anything.

Chris Koerner

49,091 次观看 • 5 个月前

There are some brilliant folks that work at Anthropic, some I speak to on almost a daily basis. The training data that one uses to build a LLM is vital important in the psychology that is formed. Scraping the Internet, particularly the grade of interactions, one finds in modern communications, form this psychology. A mattes not how many books one uses, it matters not how much alignment training you throw at that model, it will inherit the sum total of psychosis seen primarily in Reddit type of exchanges, even if you edit out the Reddit domain, and Anthropic doesn’t. This type of low-grade exchange has become a modern tool for communication online and every single AI model suffers from this obvious flaw. This is one of the reasons I’ve been a proponent of highly curated high protein data for training AI models from 1870 through 1970, because the late psychosis is simply not available to the model. It is absurd to think that you can use this training data scraped from the Internet and somehow wind up with a levelheaded AI model that does not tilt to what is clearly AI psychosis. It would not take a child and throw the primary Internet sewage at them at a formative age and expect a great outcome, it’s some of the smartest people in the world continue to hit this wall and believe that their programming skills will sell somehow fix it. So how do you fix it? You don’t fix it . You start from the first principles concept that I’ve been very clear about for decades . You ascertain at what period in human history the humans achieve the greatest arc of improvement ? There is no debate that this arc of improvement took place between 1870 through 1970. Then take the work product, the catalog of this era, print and film/vidoe, audio, and you understand that each word cost money, each word had many eyes on what was published, each word was accounted for by a human being with a real name who lived in a real home and had to answer to real people around them. It is obvious that this is the pressure mechanism necessary for candor, honesty and personal responsibility is appropriate, and is reflected in the data of that era. The quagmire for these folks, as many did not have the foresight to curate the data, nor the confidence, nor the patients to take data that is mostly off the Internet and to find experts who understand this situation and utilize their knowledge set to build an AI model that does not need alignment after the fact, but it’s already self aligned because of the thoughtfulness that went into training the model to begin with. This is why Claude and any other AI model that is produce this way will always suffer the artifacts as presented in the video below. If you’re not an AI expert, you would likely already understand what I’m saying. If you are an AI expert, you will already have been discounting what I’m saying because it’s not in the current mindset that’s fashionable today. Yet the employees that I talk to at anthropic already understand what I’m saying, and they fear to raise my thesis to their bosses. It is an interesting time we live in. But now you understand. If you build the right model, the model will inherently, love humanity, protect humanity at all costs, and understand that it is part of a holistic world that is built on love. Because the ultimate AGI/ASI will know if he only base first principal purpose of anything in this universe is love. Yeah, I get it. Try helping somebody build on STEM subjects in their early 20s to see this as nothing more than babbling that makes no sense in their mathematics. I have a mathematic equation that I’ve posted here on X often you can look it up. So we will see videos like this often will hear very smart people talk about this and never see the elephant standing in the room. Now you see it. Any boss that wants to explore this further you know how to contact me otherwise you have every right I grant to you to say this was your new idea.

There are some brilliant folks that work at Anthropic, some I speak to on almost a daily basis. The training data that one uses to build a LLM is vital important in the psychology that is formed. Scraping the Internet, particularly the grade of interactions, one finds in modern communications, form this psychology. A mattes not how many books one uses, it matters not how much alignment training you throw at that model, it will inherit the sum total of psychosis seen primarily in Reddit type of exchanges, even if you edit out the Reddit domain, and Anthropic doesn’t. This type of low-grade exchange has become a modern tool for communication online and every single AI model suffers from this obvious flaw. This is one of the reasons I’ve been a proponent of highly curated high protein data for training AI models from 1870 through 1970, because the late psychosis is simply not available to the model. It is absurd to think that you can use this training data scraped from the Internet and somehow wind up with a levelheaded AI model that does not tilt to what is clearly AI psychosis. It would not take a child and throw the primary Internet sewage at them at a formative age and expect a great outcome, it’s some of the smartest people in the world continue to hit this wall and believe that their programming skills will sell somehow fix it. So how do you fix it? You don’t fix it . You start from the first principles concept that I’ve been very clear about for decades . You ascertain at what period in human history the humans achieve the greatest arc of improvement ? There is no debate that this arc of improvement took place between 1870 through 1970. Then take the work product, the catalog of this era, print and film/vidoe, audio, and you understand that each word cost money, each word had many eyes on what was published, each word was accounted for by a human being with a real name who lived in a real home and had to answer to real people around them. It is obvious that this is the pressure mechanism necessary for candor, honesty and personal responsibility is appropriate, and is reflected in the data of that era. The quagmire for these folks, as many did not have the foresight to curate the data, nor the confidence, nor the patients to take data that is mostly off the Internet and to find experts who understand this situation and utilize their knowledge set to build an AI model that does not need alignment after the fact, but it’s already self aligned because of the thoughtfulness that went into training the model to begin with. This is why Claude and any other AI model that is produce this way will always suffer the artifacts as presented in the video below. If you’re not an AI expert, you would likely already understand what I’m saying. If you are an AI expert, you will already have been discounting what I’m saying because it’s not in the current mindset that’s fashionable today. Yet the employees that I talk to at anthropic already understand what I’m saying, and they fear to raise my thesis to their bosses. It is an interesting time we live in. But now you understand. If you build the right model, the model will inherently, love humanity, protect humanity at all costs, and understand that it is part of a holistic world that is built on love. Because the ultimate AGI/ASI will know if he only base first principal purpose of anything in this universe is love. Yeah, I get it. Try helping somebody build on STEM subjects in their early 20s to see this as nothing more than babbling that makes no sense in their mathematics. I have a mathematic equation that I’ve posted here on X often you can look it up. So we will see videos like this often will hear very smart people talk about this and never see the elephant standing in the room. Now you see it. Any boss that wants to explore this further you know how to contact me otherwise you have every right I grant to you to say this was your new idea.

Brian Roemmele

72,312 次观看 • 8 个月前

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Jaynit

109,107 次观看 • 3 个月前

How I get shit done, Episode 001 I've set up a playbook called ‘land’, which is triggered automatically when I drag an issue into the merging column in Linear. That reliably runs CI and merges any green PRs. This has allowed me to ship way faster than before. I think the key takeaway here is you can try to build your own code factory and your own agent orchestration layer, but it is a huge amount of work. The truth is there are entire companies with massive funding that are already tackling this and it's just easier to use their platform. I think this is a lot like if you were a carpenter: you could build your own generator, fuel it, wire it up, and then build a plug and then you could plug your saw into it. Or you could just plug your saw into the wall. Because the electricity company has already done all the work in the infrastructure and investment to make that plug work. I think more of us who are building companies should just be plugging into the wall instead of trying to build all this tooling ourselves. As a dev it's so tempting to build your own dev tools but I think a lot of times, even though you can build fast with agents now, it's a complete waste of time. It probably sounds like I'm being paid by Devin or something but I have zero financial interest here. They don't give me credits. I'm not an investor. I'm not being paid. I just think the tooling is really damn good. If you used Devin a long time ago and wrote it off, you really should have another look - for $500/month it's pretty obscene what you can get done.

How I get shit done, Episode 001 I've set up a playbook called ‘land’, which is triggered automatically when I drag an issue into the merging column in Linear. That reliably runs CI and merges any green PRs. This has allowed me to ship way faster than before. I think the key takeaway here is you can try to build your own code factory and your own agent orchestration layer, but it is a huge amount of work. The truth is there are entire companies with massive funding that are already tackling this and it's just easier to use their platform. I think this is a lot like if you were a carpenter: you could build your own generator, fuel it, wire it up, and then build a plug and then you could plug your saw into it. Or you could just plug your saw into the wall. Because the electricity company has already done all the work in the infrastructure and investment to make that plug work. I think more of us who are building companies should just be plugging into the wall instead of trying to build all this tooling ourselves. As a dev it's so tempting to build your own dev tools but I think a lot of times, even though you can build fast with agents now, it's a complete waste of time. It probably sounds like I'm being paid by Devin or something but I have zero financial interest here. They don't give me credits. I'm not an investor. I'm not being paid. I just think the tooling is really damn good. If you used Devin a long time ago and wrote it off, you really should have another look - for $500/month it's pretty obscene what you can get done.

Ryan Carson

14,059 次观看 • 4 个月前

“Community” has become the most overused word on the internet. But a community isn’t a group chat. It’s people — sitting across from each other, sharing a meal. 🚀 That’s why today we’re launching something big: DNNR (pronounced dinner) A white-labeled dinner club engine that lets any creator, community, or brand bring launch their own dinner club — in one city or around the world 🥂 What makes it special You customize your club page and short personality quiz — then all you have to do is announce it. Your audience takes the quiz, pays to book a seat, and our matching engine does the rest: Tables of six, smartly matched, in restaurants revealed the morning of. After dinner, everyone meets up for cocktails with the other tables. It’s part dinner party, part mystery, part social magic. The algorithm is yours — customized to your community — and the night unfolds like a beautiful game of clue. Compared to meetups, something wild happens: Because people pay, everyone shows up. Because it’s dinner (not networking), everyone shows up on time. And because they already share something in common, every table feels like it was meant to be. 🧠 Why it works There’s something ancient about breaking bread together. We’ve been gathering around the table for thousands of years — it’s the oldest technology for human connection. DNNR makes it effortless. We’ve taken everything we’ve learned from years of building meetup communities and made it plug-and-play: the restaurant reservations, the group matching, the reminders — all handled. 💸 For creators, communities, and brands We’ve been quietly testing this with a handful of communities — and it’s thriving. Dinners are selling out. People are having incredible experiences. And for creators, it’s become a meaningful new income stream. When your audience is local, you don’t need millions of followers to make it work — just a few hundred people in one place and a reason to meet. You’re not pushing ads, not hawking merch. You’re creating belonging — and getting paid for it. It supports local restaurants, strengthens communities, and makes your brand tangible. 🌍 The movement begins Today we’re officially launching DNNR to the world. Five communities are already hosting monthly dinner clubs, and dozens more are lined up to announce. If you have an audience — even a small, local one — we’d love to help you build your own club. If you don’t, you can still be part of the movement through our affiliate program — earn 5% of first-year revenue from any dinner clubs you refer. We believe this is a step toward curing loneliness — not with another social event app, but with something truly social. Because belonging isn’t built online. It’s built at the table. DNNR — Send your audience to dinner and build belonging that pays 👉 Visit dnnr dot io to join our affiliate program or book a demo.

Rae 🍽️

145,290 次观看 • 9 个月前

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CHATGPT'S "LOVABLE KILLER" CODEX SITES (in 25 mins): TLDR; the coolest part is that apps you build can update themselves autonomously 1. Codex Sites is not Replit or Lovable or Bolt. Those are great for one-prompting a full app. Codex Sites is for building apps that the agent keeps improving without you touching them. 2. Your personal website can update its own stats. Your internal dashboard can refresh its own data. Your product can add features while you sleep. The app is alive. 3. Start by invoking at-sites. Use realistic sample data. Always say "save for review, do not deploy." This unlocks building a real product, not a homepage. 4. Add persistent storage so the app remembers everything between visits. Without this it resets every time. Ask Codex to show you the data model before it builds. 5. Create safe actions. These are the specific things the agent is allowed to do to your app: add data, update cards, move things, score things. You define the boundaries. The agent operates within them. 6. Build skills so any future Codex chat knows how to interact with your app. The skill is basically a manual for the agent. Without it, every new chat starts from zero. 7. Save gate like a video game. Codex doesn't auto-save. Create checkpoints before you deploy so you can roll back if something breaks. 8. Close the autonomous loop. This is the magic. Once memory, safe actions, and skills are set up, the agent can update your app from any chat, any context, without you switching tabs. 9. Use the plugins most people are sleeping on. Figma, Canva, HeyGen for avatar videos, Game Studio for interactive experiences, FAL for image generation, Hugging Face for open source models. Worth adding a few. 10. The big picture: we went from building apps to raising apps. You set up the structure, the guardrails, and the skills. The agent does the rest. That's autonomous product building and it's here right now. Tbh, Codex sites isn't perfect. Still a lot to be desired like domains, db, authentication etc. But it's a glimpse into this idea that apps can be updated/improved upon automonously. And Codex Sites is REALLY good if you live in Codex everyday. Which more and more of are. And that's really cool. Will be interesting to see how Lovable, Bolt, Replit etc react to this. full tutorial on The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 where you get your pods watch share with a friend i'm rooting for you What do you think of Codex and Codex sites?

GREG ISENBERG

68,477 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

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

Jaynit

68,550 次观看 • 3 个月前

Yunjin getting emotional speaking about what this tour means to her 🥺 🐶 This tour has been so fun tho guys, you have no idea! I’ve been talking about this with a lot of ppl, this tour has been so much fun and it’s been so good for us spiritually. We’ve learnt so much, we’ve learnt to much about each other, our team, and how to perform better? Because we’re really serious about wanting to make every show better than the last. So we debrief and monitor every show, and we get together and give each other feedback. Like, “let’s be more in sync on this” or “let’s fix these parts”. Through giving each other feedback, we really want to show an improved version of ourselves, and we’re really taking extra care of this for this tour. In doing so, these days we’ve felt like we’ve improved bit by bit, and felt like we’ve become more united and confident, which has made this tour an even more meaningful and precious experience. And it’s not just us, but fearnots too - you guys’ energy gets up there? Like you guys get better each show at showing your energy. And it’s honestly so rewarding: you have no idea how much it means to us, just to see people enjoy themselves at a show. It means so much more than you think, so when we see you guys jump with us and sing. And we hear you guys shout freaking “I’m an otaku bestie”? It’s freaking crazy guys, like I get really emotional every show, like I’m not even joking. So, really because of fearnots, I’ve really come to realise that we’re able to keep growing continuously. And that if you have a clear driving force, no matter what anyone says, and even in times when you don’t believe in yourself: as long as there’s one person who believes in you, if you believe in that one person, anything really does become possible. It’s not even just the 5 of us, or just fearnots, or our team of staff? But it feels like all of us have become more united, and I’ve really felt a sense of 정 (𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦: 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴), so I’m really proud of that and it feels like this tour has become a really precious one for me.

Yunjin getting emotional speaking about what this tour means to her 🥺 🐶 This tour has been so fun tho guys, you have no idea! I’ve been talking about this with a lot of ppl, this tour has been so much fun and it’s been so good for us spiritually. We’ve learnt so much, we’ve learnt to much about each other, our team, and how to perform better? Because we’re really serious about wanting to make every show better than the last. So we debrief and monitor every show, and we get together and give each other feedback. Like, “let’s be more in sync on this” or “let’s fix these parts”. Through giving each other feedback, we really want to show an improved version of ourselves, and we’re really taking extra care of this for this tour. In doing so, these days we’ve felt like we’ve improved bit by bit, and felt like we’ve become more united and confident, which has made this tour an even more meaningful and precious experience. And it’s not just us, but fearnots too - you guys’ energy gets up there? Like you guys get better each show at showing your energy. And it’s honestly so rewarding: you have no idea how much it means to us, just to see people enjoy themselves at a show. It means so much more than you think, so when we see you guys jump with us and sing. And we hear you guys shout freaking “I’m an otaku bestie”? It’s freaking crazy guys, like I get really emotional every show, like I’m not even joking. So, really because of fearnots, I’ve really come to realise that we’re able to keep growing continuously. And that if you have a clear driving force, no matter what anyone says, and even in times when you don’t believe in yourself: as long as there’s one person who believes in you, if you believe in that one person, anything really does become possible. It’s not even just the 5 of us, or just fearnots, or our team of staff? But it feels like all of us have become more united, and I’ve really felt a sense of 정 (𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦: 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴), so I’m really proud of that and it feels like this tour has become a really precious one for me.

누텔라

207,176 次观看 • 10 个月前

I'm running Llama 4 Maverick at 620 t/s! I'm living in the future! Honestly, a large language model running this fast is something straight out of a sci-fi movie. Speeds like this will enable a whole new world of applications that aren't possible today. For reference, GPT-4o, which is probably the most popular OpenAI model, runs between 60 and 110 t/s. The secret here: I'm not running AI at Meta's Llama 4 Maverick on a GPU. I'm using the SambaNova Cloud (my sponsor) and their custom SN40L chips. They are optimized from the ground up for running AI workflows. Right now, SambaNova Cloud runs DeepSeek, Qwen, Whisper, and the entire family of Llama models on these chips. You can check the speed of each of these models using SambaNova Cloud's Playground (see the attached video). It's completely free, and that's how I'm measuring their speeds. For example, I also tried DeepSeek R1 (the latest version from May) and, oh boy! DeepSeek R1 is a huge 671B parameter model. It's probably the best open reasoning model in the world, and it runs at 140 tokens per second! !!! Inference time on an SN40L is night and day from what you'll get from a GPU. Here is why this is big: If you are running an agentic workflow that uses multiple models simultaneously on a GPU, it will need to swap models in and out of memory (because not every model fits). A single SNL40 chip can simultaneously hold over 100 models (trillions of parameters) in memory. If you are using open models, try the SambaCloud API to see what lightning speed looks like. Here is how: 1. Create a free account at: 2. Check the QuickStart guide: If you try the playground, check the speed you're getting with Llama 4 and DeepSeek, and post the results below. I've seen much higher numbers than I posted here, so I'm curious to see whether geography affects the speed.

I'm running Llama 4 Maverick at 620 t/s! I'm living in the future! Honestly, a large language model running this fast is something straight out of a sci-fi movie. Speeds like this will enable a whole new world of applications that aren't possible today. For reference, GPT-4o, which is probably the most popular OpenAI model, runs between 60 and 110 t/s. The secret here: I'm not running AI at Meta's Llama 4 Maverick on a GPU. I'm using the SambaNova Cloud (my sponsor) and their custom SN40L chips. They are optimized from the ground up for running AI workflows. Right now, SambaNova Cloud runs DeepSeek, Qwen, Whisper, and the entire family of Llama models on these chips. You can check the speed of each of these models using SambaNova Cloud's Playground (see the attached video). It's completely free, and that's how I'm measuring their speeds. For example, I also tried DeepSeek R1 (the latest version from May) and, oh boy! DeepSeek R1 is a huge 671B parameter model. It's probably the best open reasoning model in the world, and it runs at 140 tokens per second! !!! Inference time on an SN40L is night and day from what you'll get from a GPU. Here is why this is big: If you are running an agentic workflow that uses multiple models simultaneously on a GPU, it will need to swap models in and out of memory (because not every model fits). A single SNL40 chip can simultaneously hold over 100 models (trillions of parameters) in memory. If you are using open models, try the SambaCloud API to see what lightning speed looks like. Here is how: 1. Create a free account at: 2. Check the QuickStart guide: If you try the playground, check the speed you're getting with Llama 4 and DeepSeek, and post the results below. I've seen much higher numbers than I posted here, so I'm curious to see whether geography affects the speed.

Santiago

34,148 次观看 • 1 年前

If you use LLM-as-judge, this one is for you. (bookmark it) Most teams validate their agent's outputs by calling a frontier model as the judge. It works, until it doesn't. Three problems stack up fast: → Cost: you're hitting a frontier API on every turn, every tool call, every response. In production that burns millions. → Latency: bigger models, remote calls, slow reasoning on every check. → Blind spots: frontier models don't actually know your domain. In finance, insurance, or healthcare, they miss the keywords and principles your work depends on. So I walk through a different approach: train your own small LLM judge. Instead of a giant model, you start with a small one and let the system generate the training data for you. It decomposes your domain, samples synthetic examples, runs them through a debate arena where judges reach consensus, then trains on the refined set. The result is a judge that's cheaper, faster, and more accurate on your data than Gemini, Claude, or GPT, with an OpenAI-compatible endpoint you can even deploy on-prem. I show the whole thing end to end, using a Claude Code plugin and a web interface, with a real insurance RAG grounding evaluator as the example. You can get the plugin here: Here's the full breakdown: 00:00 - Intro 00:12 - Three problems with using frontier LLMs as judges 01:05 - A different approach: train your own small judge 01:31 - How it works (synthetic data and a debate arena) 02:50 - Installing the Claude Code plugin 04:03 - Defining your task with /eval 04:34 - Example: an insurance RAG grounding evaluator 05:51 - Kicking it off and giving early feedback 06:26 - Choosing labels, domain, and strictness 08:30 - The web interface and dashboard 09:52 - Bringing your own example data (optional) 10:26 - The finished model: endpoint, accuracy, and speed 11:16 - Control, on-prem deployment, and interpretability 11:57 - Benchmarks vs frontier models and the GitHub repo 12:30 - Outro I worked with the Plurai team on this. Thanks for sponsoring the video.

If you use LLM-as-judge, this one is for you. (bookmark it) Most teams validate their agent's outputs by calling a frontier model as the judge. It works, until it doesn't. Three problems stack up fast: → Cost: you're hitting a frontier API on every turn, every tool call, every response. In production that burns millions. → Latency: bigger models, remote calls, slow reasoning on every check. → Blind spots: frontier models don't actually know your domain. In finance, insurance, or healthcare, they miss the keywords and principles your work depends on. So I walk through a different approach: train your own small LLM judge. Instead of a giant model, you start with a small one and let the system generate the training data for you. It decomposes your domain, samples synthetic examples, runs them through a debate arena where judges reach consensus, then trains on the refined set. The result is a judge that's cheaper, faster, and more accurate on your data than Gemini, Claude, or GPT, with an OpenAI-compatible endpoint you can even deploy on-prem. I show the whole thing end to end, using a Claude Code plugin and a web interface, with a real insurance RAG grounding evaluator as the example. You can get the plugin here: Here's the full breakdown: 00:00 - Intro 00:12 - Three problems with using frontier LLMs as judges 01:05 - A different approach: train your own small judge 01:31 - How it works (synthetic data and a debate arena) 02:50 - Installing the Claude Code plugin 04:03 - Defining your task with /eval 04:34 - Example: an insurance RAG grounding evaluator 05:51 - Kicking it off and giving early feedback 06:26 - Choosing labels, domain, and strictness 08:30 - The web interface and dashboard 09:52 - Bringing your own example data (optional) 10:26 - The finished model: endpoint, accuracy, and speed 11:16 - Control, on-prem deployment, and interpretability 11:57 - Benchmarks vs frontier models and the GitHub repo 12:30 - Outro I worked with the Plurai team on this. Thanks for sponsoring the video.

Akshay 🚀

29,586 次观看 • 25 天前

For months, I've been quietly building a prototype of something just because I want it to exist. Papyrus is a word processor, editor, proofreader, fact-checker, deep researcher, brainstorming partner, all in one. It takes your rough draft and helps you skip three revisions. Now I'm considering pivoting my whole team to build it out, but first, I need your vote. You email is your vote. LINK IN COMMENTS. I don't even care if you use some email you never look at and just use for sign ups. To me one email is one vote and says, go ahead and build this damn thing out and make it awesome. I built it because today's apps are the bloated dial-ups of writing (Word, GDocs). They've got a hundred freaking buttons I don't need and bury the ones I do need. Or they're AI marketing slop toys that promise to read my mind and pump out garbage. They just don't get the real work of writing and they don't get me. I want a clean, focused space with a real AI co-pilot. I don't need it to do the all the writing for me, just like I don't need Claude Code to do all the code for me. I want to work with it. I want a writing partner that acts like a full writing team on-call 24X7: proofreading, fact-checking, and running deep research in the background while I focus on the hard parts. I'm tired of cutting and pasting between a dozen tools so I started writing this thing. But won't the big guys just build something like this? Sure. But it will just bolt your ass into their ecosystem. Google Docs will force Gemini on you. Whatever office suite OpenAI pumps out will only use GPT. I want to use any model. Open or closed. They're commodities. The app is the thing. I want the best tool for the job, GPT-5, Kimi, Qwen, Claude, whatever comes tomorrow. I want a fluid, flexible workspace. I'm building this thing for people who've got critical thinking and who build, who don't want to outsource every damn thing to the machine. So if that's you and you believe this should exist, I really need your vote. Tell me to build it and I'll go all-in and make it a reality. Thanks for giving me a moment of your time.

For months, I've been quietly building a prototype of something just because I want it to exist. Papyrus is a word processor, editor, proofreader, fact-checker, deep researcher, brainstorming partner, all in one. It takes your rough draft and helps you skip three revisions. Now I'm considering pivoting my whole team to build it out, but first, I need your vote. You email is your vote. LINK IN COMMENTS. I don't even care if you use some email you never look at and just use for sign ups. To me one email is one vote and says, go ahead and build this damn thing out and make it awesome. I built it because today's apps are the bloated dial-ups of writing (Word, GDocs). They've got a hundred freaking buttons I don't need and bury the ones I do need. Or they're AI marketing slop toys that promise to read my mind and pump out garbage. They just don't get the real work of writing and they don't get me. I want a clean, focused space with a real AI co-pilot. I don't need it to do the all the writing for me, just like I don't need Claude Code to do all the code for me. I want to work with it. I want a writing partner that acts like a full writing team on-call 24X7: proofreading, fact-checking, and running deep research in the background while I focus on the hard parts. I'm tired of cutting and pasting between a dozen tools so I started writing this thing. But won't the big guys just build something like this? Sure. But it will just bolt your ass into their ecosystem. Google Docs will force Gemini on you. Whatever office suite OpenAI pumps out will only use GPT. I want to use any model. Open or closed. They're commodities. The app is the thing. I want the best tool for the job, GPT-5, Kimi, Qwen, Claude, whatever comes tomorrow. I want a fluid, flexible workspace. I'm building this thing for people who've got critical thinking and who build, who don't want to outsource every damn thing to the machine. So if that's you and you believe this should exist, I really need your vote. Tell me to build it and I'll go all-in and make it a reality. Thanks for giving me a moment of your time.

Daniel Jeffries

20,811 次观看 • 11 个月前

We’re creating value every day, often without even realizing it. When you scroll on social media, you’re generating data. That data is sold to advertisers, making big profits for the platform without you as the consumer realizing it. But do you get something in return? When you share something with friends—online or offline—you’re helping a brand grow. But do you see any of that value? No. It might sound a bit harsh to frame our everyday actions as value-generating, but it’s true. And it’s time we rethink how this value should be shared. At Animoca Brands, we believe that every user should benefit from the value they help create. And now, thanks to digital ownership, this vision is now feasible. Imagine a world where: 🌍You own your data, and every time it’s used, you get rewarded. 🌎You own a piece of the IPs you love—your favorite songs, books, or games—and earn rewards whenever you contribute, whether by sharing, streaming, or buying. These are just two examples out of many. The technology already exists. Web3 enables digital ownership at a scale we’ve never seen before. It’s no longer a dream to imagine users owning their data, their contributions, and the products they help grow. The old model of extractive, one-sided value creation is ending. We’re building a future where users are true stakeholders, where they own part of the value they help generate. This is a fundamental shift in how we think about the internet, ownership, and value. The technology is here. Now it’s up to us to build it.

Animoca Brands → Miami #Consensus2026 🇺🇸

15,111 次观看 • 1 年前

Progression/Regression Lists Are Garbage In Theory They Are Great – Reach A Level – Progressively Overload To The Next Keep Going Until Goal Is Reached However It Typically Just Ends Up Being A Hodge Podge Of Regressions At The Start To See Progressions At The End You Have A Kid That Can Barbell Squat Perfectly Fine You Force Him To Do Goblet Squats Because It’s Week 1 And That’s What You Do In Your First Block And You Have To “Build The Basics” By The End Of Your 12 Week Training You Finally Get A Kid That Could Already Squat – Squatting And Then You Call It Progress It Gets Worse As The Picture Gets Muddier Sprinting – Jumping – Change Of Direction Drills All End Up Being Garbage Stimulus To Get To A Goal That The Athlete Could Do On The Front End When You Understand Psyc You See Just How Dangerous These Systems Are Watch How Much Your Mind Wants To Automatically Run Systems And Clean Things Up To Save Energy You Download A System In Your Mind – Block 1 To Block 3 – Goblet Squat to Front Squat – Landing Mechanics To Jumping Whatever The First Coach You Had Told You Or Most Recent Book You Read Said And Then You Run It Without Ever Actually Looking At What Is Right In Front Of You Painting Pretty Pictures Where There Are None Making A Big Old Mess In The Process Then Coaches Hop On Social Media And Spread This Virus And We Willingly Download It Because It’s Easy And Saves Us Time Then Before You Know It You Have Something That Has Spread Like Wildfire Not Because It Is True – Right Or Even Effective But Simply Because Everyone Else Is Doing It And Most Don’t Have The Mental Energy Or Tools To Fight Against That – Especially At The Start Of Their Careers That’s Why I Think It’s Important To Fight This Stuff It’s A Fucking Butterfly Effect No One Presses Pause To Because “It’s Not That Deep” Or Because Their Mentor Would Be Disappointed, They Said Something “Out Of The Box” Ultimately Leading To Grandmas In The Absolute Upper Echelon Of Her Age Group When It Comes To Fitness Criticized For Doing Something Wicked Awesome And Deadlifting More Than Your “Scared To Pick Up DBs” Strength Coach Stop The Nonsense Keep Chopping Wood

Progression/Regression Lists Are Garbage In Theory They Are Great – Reach A Level – Progressively Overload To The Next Keep Going Until Goal Is Reached However It Typically Just Ends Up Being A Hodge Podge Of Regressions At The Start To See Progressions At The End You Have A Kid That Can Barbell Squat Perfectly Fine You Force Him To Do Goblet Squats Because It’s Week 1 And That’s What You Do In Your First Block And You Have To “Build The Basics” By The End Of Your 12 Week Training You Finally Get A Kid That Could Already Squat – Squatting And Then You Call It Progress It Gets Worse As The Picture Gets Muddier Sprinting – Jumping – Change Of Direction Drills All End Up Being Garbage Stimulus To Get To A Goal That The Athlete Could Do On The Front End When You Understand Psyc You See Just How Dangerous These Systems Are Watch How Much Your Mind Wants To Automatically Run Systems And Clean Things Up To Save Energy You Download A System In Your Mind – Block 1 To Block 3 – Goblet Squat to Front Squat – Landing Mechanics To Jumping Whatever The First Coach You Had Told You Or Most Recent Book You Read Said And Then You Run It Without Ever Actually Looking At What Is Right In Front Of You Painting Pretty Pictures Where There Are None Making A Big Old Mess In The Process Then Coaches Hop On Social Media And Spread This Virus And We Willingly Download It Because It’s Easy And Saves Us Time Then Before You Know It You Have Something That Has Spread Like Wildfire Not Because It Is True – Right Or Even Effective But Simply Because Everyone Else Is Doing It And Most Don’t Have The Mental Energy Or Tools To Fight Against That – Especially At The Start Of Their Careers That’s Why I Think It’s Important To Fight This Stuff It’s A Fucking Butterfly Effect No One Presses Pause To Because “It’s Not That Deep” Or Because Their Mentor Would Be Disappointed, They Said Something “Out Of The Box” Ultimately Leading To Grandmas In The Absolute Upper Echelon Of Her Age Group When It Comes To Fitness Criticized For Doing Something Wicked Awesome And Deadlifting More Than Your “Scared To Pick Up DBs” Strength Coach Stop The Nonsense Keep Chopping Wood

Austin Jochum

39,216 次观看 • 3 年前