Gaiamingo

Hi, I'm Felix. I'm an eng lead working on Claude. I love watching people take flight and do things they never thought possible. We often describe that as "being more ambitious" when using AI, which is tricky advice to follow. I wrote a tutorial: felixrieseberg.com/how-to-be…

鉴于到现在了还有很多道德卫士来不停指责我，指责我骂人在先，素质低下，以及我也想满足一些人的吃瓜需求，所以我在这里梳理一下今天凌晨发生的事情以及我的心路历程，大家也不用去吃二手瓜了。因为其中有些当事人已经删推了，我会放上我手机推特中的缓存推文截图。 本次事件的主人公有「我」、「芒果刀」、「清凤」以及其他参与者，时间是今天凌晨。 事情是这样的，今天凌晨我提前洗漱完躺在床上玩着手机并迎接困意准备美美入睡的时候，突然刷到了推特上的「芒果刀」的推文（见图一），推文内容是在质疑 Magpie 软件质量，虽然文中所述他自己都没有用过，只是用「听说」来直接表达否定性质疑，不过我看到这条推文并没有任何不快，我反倒是想等我有时间了跟大家分享一下我的工作流是什么样子的，但是当我打开这条推文看到了一条来自「Seefs」的评论后，让我感到深深的冒犯，他在评论中（见图二）上来就直接扣帽子说我是「快餐式服务」、「有对应的受众」、「这种作者」、「成什么样子都无所谓」，用这些词汇来直接侮辱我和我的产品以及我产品的用户，我随后引用了他的这条评论并表达了我的不快，这是我对这次事件的第一次回应，完全没有骂人只是在陈述事实和表达我的不快，其实事情到这里「Seefs」给我一个道歉一切就结束了，但是偏偏这个时候「芒果刀」专门跑过来评论了我这条引用推文，也是在这条评论里完全暴露了他自己真实的面目，就是想通过通过有罪推论不分青红皂白直接批评我的软件，紧接着在我同样的这条引用推文下「清凤」下场评论（他现在已隐藏推文），他在评论里直接贴了一个我这条推文内容的截图，说我不像人类，「清凤」后面还说我在引用推文里在扣帽子并说我表达我用订阅最贵的模型来给产品迭代是在卖惨，后面感到冒犯的用户以及我的一些支持者在他们推文下面开始反击，然后「清凤」发了个新推说「警惕推特饭圈化」开始抹黑我的产品用户，紧接着「芒果刀」引用了「清凤」的这条推文也发了一个「警惕推特饭圈化」，关键是「芒果刀」和「清凤」的名字后面都挂了相同的 memoh 的官方认证 logo（现在他们都已经撤下这些认证 logo） ，很难不让人认为这是一个小团体一起抱团跑过来恶意抹黑，这也就让我的愤怒值到达了顶峰，关键是他们一个个道貌岸然美美隐藏在中性词汇后面甚至时不时站在道德制高点偷偷摸摸来表达自己眼红嫉妒抹黑的伪君子的样子实在令人作呕，对于这种因为眼红心理扭曲只会阴阳怪气诋毁的伪君子我认为对他们最大的尊重就是献出民族魁宝「国骂」应对之。

My conversation with @alexandr_wang, chief AI officer of Meta. 0:00 The vision behind Muse 1:32 Discovering the potential of personal AI agents 3:34 Three years of therapy in one AI session 5:46 Building Muse in 7 months 9:16 Why Meta bet on personal AI 16:51 Mark Zuckerberg's obsession with improving products 20:15 How Meta knew Muse was ready to launch 23:32 Why great products need a single point of view 25:56 Making Meta cool again with memes 34:38 Building trust with AI agents 38:43 The future of human ambition 45:22 The call from Mark Zuckerberg that changed everything 52:13 Leaving Scale AI for Meta 55:19 Rebuilding Meta's AI lab from scratch 58:13 From founder to coach 1:05:55 The future billionaires at Alexandr's 19th birthday party 1:08:04 Diamond mining vs. building skyscrapers 1:09:21 Why Alexandr has more than 200 direct reports Includes paid partnerships.

Assorted things I've been mulling over regarding agents in the economy: • Companies are in some sense the original superintelligence. It's often the case that they can use their amortized cognitive surplus to advance their interests against those of certain consumers: relative to the optimization capacity of companies, consumers can be inattentive, underinformed, irrational, etc. (Think, say, of some of the classic insurance upsells at the end of a booking process, which is typically priced substantially above what a regular policy would cost.) Herbert Simon introduced the idea of bounded rationality, and firms often end up benefiting from it. Thanks to personal agents, we will probably get somewhat more rational in how we engage with companies. • How exactly will outcomes change? Well, certain kinds of price discrimination will work less well (how do coupons work if every agent hunts fastidiously for them?), and certain kinds of customer cross-subsidy will change (today, people who forget to cancel subscriptions subsidize those who don't). Taken across the economy as a whole, I'm not sure what the incidence of all of this will be. • In corporate strategy, people have long debated the relative importance of distribution and product quality. Perhaps you've made something better, but does anyone know about it? Won't people just continue to buy the ACME Corp Mousetraps? Personal agents will, I think, act as a kind of structural subsidy for product quality. How would markets look different if individuals always spent at least 10 hours researching their purchases? On the margin, focusing on making a product better is, I think, going to become a more effective strategy for companies. This is good! • It true, a corollary is that information about product quality will become more important and impactful. Today, most people have very limited ability to aggregate and integrate such data, but agents will have insatiable thirst for such signals. (It's often said that data is becoming more valuable because it helps in the training of models. That's obviously true, but I think there's a secondary way in which it's more valuable simply as a complement to cheaper intelligence.) • A big question is whether agents will increase superstar effects (rational agents all settle on the same product) or increase dispersion (because everyone has slightly different tastes and preferences, which agents are good at eliciting, finally overcoming the artificial clustering we've been subjected to). • Many internet companies have monetized demand routing, which is in turn often predicated on short attention spans. "I'll click on the first thing I see." This has led to some amount of inefficiency, as companies try to propitiate capricious ranking algorithms and incur various placement fees. It's not all deadweight loss (willingness to pay is itself a kind of signal, which is valuable to buyers), but it's not great. How will the nature and value of this routing change in a world of personal agents? I don't know the answer, but I think that the effects might be pretty big. • Much of what I'm writing hinges on the assumption that personal agents will be on the consumer's side. I suspect that that will be the winning strategy, but whether it's true, and what it means to be true, involves a lot of other questions. Taken as a whole, the market is a massively parallelized, decentralized, and highly imperfect value attribution machine, and, taking stock of all of the effects, it seems to me that the quality point may well be the biggest: that agents will change the nature of the backpropagation such that the rewards for better products increase. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I suspect (and hope) that companies that make things that they're proud of will feel that the universe is a little more partisan in their favor.

我看推的很多人，要不就在说 AI 很厉害，要不就在说以后不做软件了 推特上很多大佬，其实只是技术很强，但是你们并不明白生意的本质是什么。所以说你们有了先进的技术就会高兴，但是遇到的卷的行业里面就会很沮丧 其实生意的模式，只有做过生意人才懂，所有的生意的本质都是要有好的产品，如果你没有好的产品，就没有好的价值。这个是毋庸置疑的 但是很多技术人认为，我的产品只要好了，我的技术只要好了，我的销售一定会很好。因为他看到了乔布斯把产品做好了以后，全世界都买。但是他不明白他自己不是乔布斯 我们每个人都是普通人，每个研发都是一个特别喜欢把产品做好的人，但是真正要把生意做好，光产品好本身是不够的 一个生意好，要满足 3 个要求 1. 你要有足够多的流量。如果你没有足够多的流量，你的产品好，别人就不知道。你的用户不知道，它就不可能形成销售。不可能形成销售，你的能力就不会因为收入而放大 2. 转化率，很多人说，那不简单吗？我每天就做一些擦边的视频，或者是做一些情绪化的事情，流量不就起来了吗？那是错的。你流量是为了让你的产品价值被人看到，但是转化率会根据你的售前的工作，说服用户为什么要买你的，或者说服用户为什么要相信你。这一点不是你在社交媒体上整活，而是你要在你的产品之上，充分的把价值点和信任点总结出来，跟用户产生沟通。如果你不喜欢跟用户沟通，你的转化率就会很惨 3. 复制的能力，其实很多人都搞错了，他们要不就是使劲在产品上加班，要不就是每天在社交媒体上整活。你的生意要做大，产品是基础，流量和转化率是你的能力。但是真正要做大的关键就是你要把前三点，怎么打造产品，怎么吸引用户，怎么说服用户，这些你在实战中积累的经验要复制给团队，只有团队学会了这 3 点，他们才有复制的能力，你的生意才可以做大 其实有没有 AI，生意都是这个道理，只是说 AI 把原来产品制造的成本降得很低了，但是如果你不具备宣传的能力，不具备转化和复制的能力，你就做不好生意。你做不好生意，你的资源不够，你的产品也会在你最终沮丧的过程中渐渐消亡 反观推特的很多大佬，一说技术都牛逼的不行。但是一让他宣传，他就怕别人骂他。你做生意肯肯定会有人对你指指点点，这个是很正常的事情 然后他们跟一些技术不如他的客户去沟通的时候，非常没有耐心，甚至会有一种英雄主义，觉得自己厉害就好了，但是你要知道一个人的精力是非常有限的 好了，今天就分享到这里，希望能帮到那些真正愿意做好产品、做好销售的大佬们