Dream ➡️ Ship ➡️ Repeat. Prev: Partnerships @1inch Current setup: @bot Grokbot + @cursor_ai + pstack @NousResearch Hermes + Gbrain

Earth
Joined October 2017
tradersnow retweeted
Why technical people are poor communicators
37
206
19
2,241
94,691
You're not ready for the hack wave that's coming. Most security budgets bet hacking is hard and pays little. AI breaks both. Crypto never got to make either bet: public code, real money. Despite hacks, crypto is fundamentally the world's most secure financial infrastructure.
Crypto is fundamentally more secure than the infrastructure the world runs on. Its own hacks show why. On-chain code fails often, small and in public, and hardens each time. The big losses come from trust: keys, admins, signers. That's the part the rest of the world runs on.
17
5
1
66
2,892
How to stay ahead of this week's security dump with @x and @bot: Ask your @bot to monitor @X for every security issue and update from the last two days (PHP2Shell included). Then scan every repo you have and open PRs that fix them. After that, check the PRs. @cursor_ai bugbot and the security scanner can help you verify them and get them approved. Then tell @bot to keep watching @X for anything new on the stack your repos use. Set a routine so it just keeps doing that. You're covered.
1
39
Too many hacks in the last 24h. If you do one thing today, do this 👇 > Update everything: browsers, OS, phones, desktop apps > Limit web browsing this week, don't click random links > Avoid untrusted Wi-Fi, use your hotspot > Watch out for phishing emails > iPhone 11-16? Turn Bluetooth off until Apple patches land > Devs: update all your repos S/O to @Eito_Miyamura for this practical checklist Stay safe everyone
26
20
3
130
20,609
Introducing Botcasts! now you can give your Grok @bot any topic you want to learn, it'll deeply research it, then turn it into a podcast-style episode for you to listen to. it'll even quiz you at the end to make sure you were listening 🤓 runs on your own xAI key, about $0.14 per 10 minutes try it and tell me what to improve, all feedback and ideas welcome x.ai/bot/W9ggmKPKWVEKU-F0iJD… @larsencc
1
1
89
here's a sample episode on pstack, built by @poteto
47
I spent 48 hours in SF hanging out with billionaires, data labs and AI founders and execs running $1B to $100B companies. My observations: 1. Sooo MANY stories of data brokers making like $2M a WEEK selling company data to labs. I can't tell if it's the beginning or a bubble, and I kept wondering which niches are left. Digging into it actively. 2. At dinner, someone asked the table, "If a new model drops next month, does your company get better or worse?" HALF the table went quiet! I think that's the best question to ask about any AI startup right now. 3. The bar people talk about now is hitting $1B in revenue in 12 months (I guess that's the new unicorn?). What I didn't hear much about is retention. AI revenue can come in fast and leave fast, and I think we're going to see a lot of stories of AI companies with huge revenue and terrible retention. 4. It's pretty clear we're living through the reinvention of the computer. The model is the CPU, the harness is the operating system, and skills and plugins are the apps. Thinking about it that way makes it easier to see where the whitespace is. 5. We're maybe 12 months from an agent that can watch you work for a week and then do your job without any instructions. The screen recording plus agent memory plus local model combination makes this possible right now. 6. Agent harnesses feel like the new GPT wrappers, in a good way, especially vertical ones. The best teams I talked to treat the model as swappable. One founder walked me through routing different models to different jobs: one for taste and visuals, a cheaper one for the everyday stuff, another for text. They use prompts they can move across models over fine-tuning, and A/B test the output on what users actually do with it: do they edit it, export it, share it? A vertical harness is basically four things: the connectors for that industry's data, evals written by people who know the work, rules for what the agent can and can't touch, and a clean screen for a human to review. The model is maybe 20% of it. 7. There's a lot of reverse engineering going on/cloning going on more than I've ever seen. People are decompiling software and rebuilding it with agents, and someone showed a suite of like 10 apps that are worth $5B+ each all that he cloned open source. Me and everyone are still thinking through what it means when software gets this easy to copy. 8. My guess is the value moves to data. If the software can be rebuilt quickly, what's worth paying for in a legacy SaaS company is the years of customer data and workflows inside it. Some SaaS companies are secretly data companies. Gets me thinking about how do you truly value data for this saas companies? Like if we were buying these dying saas companies at 2x ARR before (as example), maybe there is a better metric. Idk, just thinking out loud here. 9. It feels like a good chunk of legacy software won't make it to the agentic era, especially anything built around people clicking through a lot of screens. 10. Every company I talked to wants to pipe its internal data into one place and expose it to agents through MCP. Then they look at the data and realize it's a mess: five versions of the same customer, old Slack channels, PDFs nobody can search. Cleaning that up feels like a big consulting opportunity! 11. A lot of founders are building the basic building blocks for agents: APIs, data layers and tools. Some of the companies I saw barely have a UI because the main user is an agent. I really believe the startups that build primitives to this agentic era will do extremely well. Building blocks is the best way to think about it. 12. Labs can get plenty of training data, but it's harder to get real examples of agents failing inside companies. Whoever has those logs has something valuable. 13. Someone running a big consumer company told me the next fight is over memory. The model that remembers the most about you wins, and the smartest model matters less than people think. 14. Physical AI came up a lot. Astra I think was the first model that got people into AI can actually do CAD, and I think a lot of people are thinking what does vibe manufacturing really look like. The line I keep thinking about came from a robotics founder: the hardest problems in AI are deployment problems now, not research problems. Their robots work on their own, call a human when they get stuck, and every one of those calls becomes training data. 15. Cybersecurity companies are having a moment and are actually cool companies to build now, especially the ones that clean up after a breach. Every agent with access to your systems is a new door into your company, and a lot of those doors were left open. 16. Some startups are worth more dead than alive now. A shutdown company with 5 years of Slack, email and code can get paid for licensing all of it. I wouldn't be surprised if founders start factoring that into when they shut down. 17. People are starting to talk about monetizing the agent web. It feels really early, but when the most popular user of the internet is an agent, what startups should you be building? 18. I think agent insurance is coming. Once an agent makes an expensive mistake, insurers will want audits before they cover anyone. 19. Several people said the hire they want most is someone with taste who can write evals. The models are getting good at generating ideas, so the hard part is judging which ones are good. 20. New trend I observed: startup raises VC, uses venture dollars to become a creator, startup fails, founder falls back on being a full-time creator and incubates other products bootstrapped. 21. Getting SIGNIFICANT distribution is HARD right now. Founders are sponsoring buses, buying billboards like crazy and throwing parties with famous DJs to get noticed. Kinda feels dotcom era in that sense. Attention is what's scarce! The growth guy going viral sharing his UGC strategy from Wispr Flow is a good example. It's the sauce everyone wants, and I truly believe there are probably only 50 people on the planet who know how to scale these types of businesses efficiently in this era. Always good to get that dose of SF. I felt sooo lucky to have such an incredible trip during such an incredible time in building businesses. Surreal in so many ways. Happy to be home and locked in. Until next time!
934
1,984
581
21,213
2,515,976
tradersnow 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.
2,182
5,861
2,253
43,732
6,763,071
Hiding your coins in a bunker won't save your blockchain. Given the risks AI poses to fundamental cryptography, I propose every chain implement a "cryptographic recovery mode":
43
47
27
405
58,792
how I think about optimizing costs within @bot + @cursor_ai workflows: if the step never changes, write a script (costs nothing) if it needs judgment, hand it to a model (costs tokens) if someone has to own the answer, human in the loop (always costs the most) tldr: spend wisely on the calls that matter!
1
8,510
grok @bot 0.68.1 is out! - Bots can build slide decks with you and deliver them as PowerPoint or Google Slides - send formatted emails straight from a draft card - your messages in a 1:1 chat take that Bot's color - faster computer use, now on a 1920x1200 screen x.ai/changelog/bot
174
109
61
1,976
6,688,134
tradersnow retweeted
Employee: 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k Freelancer: 900, 5k, 0, 9k, 1k, 4k Founder: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 600k Open Source Maintainer: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 "thanks bro" Vibe coder: -$20, -$100, -$200, -$200
294
1,441
184
28,186
1,166,910
Compared to Hermes and OpenClaw, GB’s UX is in a class of its own. @AlexFinn was spot on with his Apple vs PC comparison. “It just works”
After using Grok Bot for a few days I believe it’s the best of its kind right now Nothing comes close
1
86
tradersnow retweeted
deleting the product it's funny how you can sometimes tell if a team culture is dysfunctional just by looking at how their app is laid out. behind every feature, or tab in a sidebar likely lies a PM or someone responsible for an OKR. the problem is when individual performance is measured by these metrics. it becomes the singular focus of the responsible person to make those numbers look good, since it determines whether they get rewarded or axed, even if it comes at the detriment of the overall quality of the product. this is why you mostly see features get added, but rarely removed. if you own a feature, then it being removed feels like an aura loss. this is even worse in the agentic era when the cost to add features has become so low. you can simply will a new feature into existence overnight and add another tab. but users will notice that you ship your org chart. teams that make people play silly games under the guise of performance management rarely build great products. to build a great product you need to first fix your culture
158
199
57
3,169
174,502