βJust buy the STI ETF.β
30 companies sounds diversified. But DBS, OCBC and UOB alone now make up an estimated 59% of the index.
I built a tool to explore how the STIβs composition has changed, week by week since 2014.
See whatβs inside the index:
lxcid.com/tools/sti-market-cβ¦
Stan Chang π retweeted
Dusting off this tweet from April because this gap in shared understanding of LLM capability is *widening*. It's now less "two groups of people speaking past each other" and more a sharp funnel.
- Napkin math somewhere around 6B people (~75% of the population) have barely come in contact with LLMs at all.
- Around 1-2B (~20%) are casual and infrequent users of free-tier ChatGPT-like products. This group sees derpy chatbots and treats them a bit like a better Google search, a writing aid, or etc. Maybe an agent tries to book you a flight. I have non-tech friends who (reasonably, imo) say they have not much use for it at all. Even many professionals outside of math&code are in this tier. For example, execs and many other functions spend a lot of their time talking to other people, so while they understand what is happening intellectually, it is still second-hand and a bit abstract.
- Now we get to professional use of frontier-grade LLMs in math&code. Somewhere around 20M people (0.2%) see first-hand that large, complex projects that used to take them weeks/months can now be completed by agents with a prompt. Building apps, copying apps, translating apps, decompiling apps from binaries... This has all happened very quickly and recently - less than 1 year ago, I was writing code manually by hand, typing memorized computer code commands into a code editor character by character, occasionally pressing Tab to autocomplete a little chunk of code.
- And finally we get to the ~5,000 people (~0.00006%) with access to frontier-grade systems internally. The external world has seen the preview. It looks like swarms of thousands of agents collaborating over weeks on software mega projects: minting zero days, running cyber attacks and defenses at machine speeds, discovering new science, advancing the frontier of mathematics. Things that would have taken top professionals in the industry years of work. Meanwhile, human review and comprehension are starting to fall behind. For example, people are still involved in the "archeology" of the OpenAI-HF incident from many months ago. Mathematicians may be poring over the 722 manuscripts on frontier mathematics for a while.
The funnel is driven by a combination of factors:
1. The impact scales with ambition, problem size, and horizon. A question with a paragraph answer barely stresses the system. You need a reservoir of big, difficult problems that you really care about. This aspect drives the consumer / professional dimension of the funnel.
2. The jaggedness of the system (which I have written about a lot separately). Capability peaks in domains that are digital, verifiable and economically valuable. This is because LLM capability emerges from reinforcement learning on verifiable rewards on a curated environment mixture driven by revenue potential. This aspect primarily drives the area (e.g. math&code) dimension of the funnel.
3. Access. Free-tier, paid-tier, internal.
So this is the weirdness of the moment. The general public has mostly not interacted with these systems. When they have, it looks like a derpy chatbot. The majority of professionals still see only a modest uplift. And a small sliver of professionals are experiencing the vertigo of the curve going vertical. And it is all happening at the same time.
Judging by my tl there is a growing gap in understanding of AI capability.
The first issue I think is around recency and tier of use. I think a lot of people tried the free tier of ChatGPT somewhere last year and allowed it to inform their views on AI a little too much. This is a group of reactions laughing at various quirks of the models, hallucinations, etc. Yes I also saw the viral videos of OpenAI's Advanced Voice mode fumbling simple queries like "should I drive or walk to the carwash". The thing is that these free and old/deprecated models don't reflect the capability in the latest round of state of the art agentic models of this year, especially OpenAI Codex and Claude Code.
But that brings me to the second issue. Even if people paid $200/month to use the state of the art models, a lot of the capabilities are relatively "peaky" in highly technical areas. Typical queries around search, writing, advice, etc. are *not* the domain that has made the most noticeable and dramatic strides in capability. Partly, this is due to the technical details of reinforcement learning and its use of verifiable rewards. But partly, it's also because these use cases are not sufficiently prioritized by the companies in their hillclimbing because they don't lead to as much $$$ value. The goldmines are elsewhere, and the focus comes along.
So that brings me to the second group of people, who *both* 1) pay for and use the state of the art frontier agentic models (OpenAI Codex / Claude Code) and 2) do so professionally in technical domains like programming, math and research. This group of people is subject to the highest amount of "AI Psychosis" because the recent improvements in these domains as of this year have been nothing short of staggering. When you hand a computer terminal to one of these models, you can now watch them melt programming problems that you'd normally expect to take days/weeks of work. It's this second group of people that assigns a much greater gravity to the capabilities, their slope, and various cyber-related repercussions.
TLDR the people in these two groups are speaking past each other. It really is simultaneously the case that OpenAI's free and I think slightly orphaned (?) "Advanced Voice Mode" will fumble the dumbest questions in your Instagram's reels and *at the same time*, OpenAI's highest-tier and paid Codex model will go off for 1 hour to coherently restructure an entire code base, or find and exploit vulnerabilities in computer systems. This part really works and has made dramatic strides because 2 properties: 1) these domains offer explicit reward functions that are verifiable meaning they are easily amenable to reinforcement learning training (e.g. unit tests passed yes or no, in contrast to writing, which is much harder to explicitly judge), but also 2) they are a lot more valuable in b2b settings, meaning that the biggest fraction of the team is focused on improving them. So here we are.
wow, a pleasant surprise for solo builders. and Haiku finally gets a refresh too!
Replying to @ClaudeDevs
Weβre rolling out monthly Claude Platform API credits for Max and Team plans:
Max 5x: $100
Max 20x: $200
Team: up to $500, pooled
Works on any model, including Haiku 5.5, in your code or third-party harnesses.
How it works and full terms: support.claude.com/en/articlβ¦
Stan Chang π retweeted
I am surprised that people are surprised this is how I prompt Claude.
Talk to Claude the way you would a coworker. There's no secret to prompting. There's no need to be overly scaffolded or prescriptive for most tasks -- give Claude a goal, and it will figure it out.
Back in the Sonnet 3.5 days, your prompt mattered a lot. Nowadays, it's much more important to communicate to the model:
1. What you want it to do
2. How much effort you want it to spend
3. How it should verify that it did the right thing
Stan Chang π retweeted
We'll be spending a lot more time trying to understand the outputs of language models. A few thoughts, tips & tricks:
Writing. Something I've had success with: Ask your LLM to explain something in ASD-STE100, it's a controlled language specification originally developed for aerospace maintenance documentation. LLMs well-versed in this language and it comes with heavy constraints on clean writing style that I often find a lot more readable. Sometimes I've tried to soften it a bit e.g. ask for "80% of the way to ASD-STE100" because the spec is quite stringent. But even better:
Diagrams / images. Instead of writing, ask your LLM to create a diagram. These can be a lot easier to process, parse, and understand. But even better:
Web pages. Ask for output "in HTML" to get a beautiful, interactive webpage. LLMs are getting really good at frontend and can create beautiful experiences, animations, etc. But even better:
Explainer videos. The output format I am most bullish on is fully custom / bespoke explainer videos generated on any arbitrary topic. Experiment with things like "Create a 3b1b style video explainer on X. Use my ElevenLabs API key for audio narration". (you'd need an API key for the latter or you can ask your LLM to find you decent free alternatives that use your local compute). This is actually starting to work!
In summary:
- As LLMs get better, they will do more and more of the legwork autonomously, and a lot more of our work will rise up the abstractions into oversight and understanding.
- Luckily, LLMs can help here too because as intelligence and code are increasingly abundant, you can ask for large, custom, discardable software artifacts (e.g. web apps, video explainers) that would have never made sense to create before. Push the boundaries here and you'll be surprised.
Stan Chang π retweeted
Zohoβs business would be first to be competed away by people building their own custom software built by people using @Replit @emergentlabs and @Taskade
Why pay $30/seat/month for over bundled SaaS when soon even nontech ops ppl can vibe-code a custom solution in a weekend?
Stan Chang π retweeted
Eleven weeks.
Dozens of posts.
A single idea becoming clearer each time.
Taskade Genesis started as a question I had been asking since I was a kid fixing servers in Queens and rushing between classes in the Bronx. What would work look like if the system could think with you instead of waiting for you. What if memory persisted. What if intention shaped structure instead of the other way around.
This phase was about proof.
Not theories.
Not promises.
Moments of real motion.
A builder runs their first automation.
A workspace reacts before they finish typing.
A dashboard fills itself.
A system reuses memory without being asked.
Someone upgrades because they realize they can finally move at the speed they think.
Those moments matter more than any metric.
They are the signs of life.
Taskade Genesis is becoming a network of living workspaces.
Projects as memory.
Agents as intelligence.
Automations as motion.
Systems that connect, learn, and evolve through the people who use them.
Most people chase what is new.
I have always chased what feels true.
And this feels true.
The next stage of software is not static pages or apps.
It is living systems that grow with you.
Stan Chang π retweeted
Most AI builders still generate static sites.
Pretty, but passive.
The internet already moved past that.
People want systems that think, remember, and act.
Thatβs why we built @Taskade Genesis.
One prompt creates a live app with memory, agents, and automation. Not a template. A working system.
Your workspace becomes the backend.
Build dashboards, CRMs, portals, tools β all alive the moment theyβre created.
@Taskade Genesis is live today!
Join us on @ProductHunt: producthunt.com/products/tasβ¦
Stan Chang π retweeted
Taskade Genesis is live!
One prompt β one live app powered by memory, agents, and workflow automation.
Build dashboards, CRMs, portals, and full systems that run themselves, all powered by your workspace.
π§ Projects remember (databases)
π€ AI Agents think, learn, and act (chatbots)
β‘ Automations set things in motion (workflows)
Support our launch on @ProductHunt :
producthunt.com/products/tasβ¦
Stan Chang π retweeted
AI didnβt start in Silicon Valley.
It started in a public high school in the Bronx.
The Bronx High School of Science.
Two students once walked those halls.
Frank Rosenblatt built the perceptron, a machine that could learn.
Marvin Minsky built MITβs AI Lab, a machine that could reason.
Their feud split the field in two.
Neurons vs symbols.
Learning vs logic.
It defined AI for half a century.
Rosenblatt died before deep learning proved him right.
Minsky lived long enough to see it happen.
Every LLM today carries their fingerprints.
Decades later, I walked those same halls.
Not studying theory, just keeping servers alive.
Forest Hills to the Bronx. Two hours daily commute.
And a hosting business running on duct tape and hope.
Thatβs where I learned what AI learned too.
Systems fail. Build for failure.
Nobody cares about your stack. They care if it works.
Execution beats theory. Always.
That same DNA flows through @Taskade Genesis π§¬
1. Projects remember.
2. Agents think + learn.
3. Automations in motion.
Machines that act.
Workspaces that grow.
From the Bronx to the future.
Execution over theory. Always.
Stan Chang π retweeted
From idea to reality π±
The dots are now fully connected.
One prompt, one app, just creation.
No code. No setup. Everything connected.
Projects remember.
Agents think + learn.
Automations move + act.
Your workspace evolves with you.
This is the beginning of living software.
Taskade Genesis is alive π§¬
teapawt.net/Taskade/status/1978525β¦
Stan Chang π retweeted
A full circle moment π± That talk at @Capgemini SF with @Airbus helped inspire @Taskade Genesis π§¬
Now you can build dashboards, workflows, and agents that think, learn, and act together.
One prompt, one app. Imagine it, run it live.
No code, no setup. Just pure creation ~
Stan Chang π retweeted
@Taskade Genesis is alive π§¬
One prompt. One app.
Imagine it. Run it live.
π§ Projects remember
π€ Agents think, learn, and act
β‘ Automations set things in motion
No code. No setup. Just creation.
Powered by your Workspace DNA.
This is the beginning of living software.
Stan Chang π retweeted
This is the AI stack weβve always dreamed of:
β Agents that think
β Projects that run
β Apps you can share
The foundation is live.
Taskade Genesis is next.
The beginning of a new era.
π Hereβs what weβve been building behind the scenes
The new @Taskade Workflow Generator is here.
From a single prompt, generate living automations β with real logic, loops, triggers, and 100+ integrations.
This is the foundation of Taskade Genesis.
Your ideas β shareable, intelligent systems.
π Your AI stack just dropped:
Stan Chang π retweeted
The new @Taskade Workflow Generator is here.
From a single prompt, generate living automations β with real logic, loops, triggers, and 100+ integrations.
This is the foundation of Taskade Genesis.
Your ideas β shareable, intelligent systems.
π Your AI stack just dropped:
Stan Chang π retweeted
π Multi-AI Agents are now live! Craft your AI team: one agent researches, another executes tasks.
They write, summarize, and editβthink of it as your mini-me doubling your productivity! π€
What would you build? Reply with your AI Agent idea for a chance to win free SWAG! β¨π
Stan Chang π retweeted
Introducing Custom AI Agents (GPTs) @Taskade! π
π We've just rolled out our biggest update yet: Custom AI Agents, powered by GPT-4 Turbo! Ready to meet your new digital workforce?
Build your team of AI Agents with /agent commands. Collaborate directly in Taskade and more!
Stan Chang π retweeted
Fresh from the Taskade Lab!
π€ AI Agents (Beta) to automate your workflows
β¨ Block Generator to streamline any process
π§ /Brainstorm to transform thoughts into action
Stay tuned for more updates π and catch up with AI Agents and ATM (Autonomous Task Management) buzz here: taskade.com/blog/autonomous-β¦. It's cool stuff, I promise! π€ π
Stan Chang π retweeted
This is a novel and clever approach to "AI meets task management"
A lot of old categories that might seem lost to infinite competition might become winnable again
Great news for founders and product builders in 2023
















