Pinned Tweet
I remember my first $500/week outside of my 9-5 and my first 2k/day.
They felt so monumental and freeing.
Today the weekly pay is a little higher but the goal is the same ➡️ Freedom.
They felt so monumental and freeing.
Today the weekly pay is a little higher but the goal is the same ➡️ Freedom.
67
51
892
244,771
the lie that rich people wont trust ai creatives/content/funnels is BS.
mf only care about the offer - doesn't matter if its a tweet or claymation or a static image.
launched a funnel for a client where everything is ai from creative to vsl to precall to nurture assets...and shit is ripping.
oh...i asked ai to only condition the pixel to qualified leads/calls and meta's ai is doing exactly just that.
tbh being a marketer with a banger ai stack makes you LETHAL.
fuck having to go through 7 people & a week to put an offer/funnel together...
give me a market, a banger positioning + offer & like 2-3 hours of 20-30 agents working in parallel where you threaten them not to cancel your claude subscription.
ps: 80% of the work is just telling ai what to study LOL so everyone who is wondering why they can't make anything happen -> its because the job is still to find information - most insights are now free on youtube, X, reels, just save 5-10 videos per day and let your agents rip through them when you're ready to print.
- fyi this in it of itself is a post you should give ai lol.
what a time to be alive. may the creative and curious win it all.
You owe it to yourself to be Great!
mf only care about the offer - doesn't matter if its a tweet or claymation or a static image.
launched a funnel for a client where everything is ai from creative to vsl to precall to nurture assets...and shit is ripping.
oh...i asked ai to only condition the pixel to qualified leads/calls and meta's ai is doing exactly just that.
tbh being a marketer with a banger ai stack makes you LETHAL.
fuck having to go through 7 people & a week to put an offer/funnel together...
give me a market, a banger positioning + offer & like 2-3 hours of 20-30 agents working in parallel where you threaten them not to cancel your claude subscription.
ps: 80% of the work is just telling ai what to study LOL so everyone who is wondering why they can't make anything happen -> its because the job is still to find information - most insights are now free on youtube, X, reels, just save 5-10 videos per day and let your agents rip through them when you're ready to print.
- fyi this in it of itself is a post you should give ai lol.
what a time to be alive. may the creative and curious win it all.
You owe it to yourself to be Great!
0
0
13
1,015
😂😂😂 you gotta love humans!
Jensen Huang must go
We argue in @TheEconomist that his position is untenable
"Like many powerful leaders, he came to believe that he was too important for the normal rules to apply to him."
But he is not the only one. Howard Lutnick has failed to stem the flow of chips to d roll
2
0
6
1,139
If you’re a guy under 25 & want to become a millionaire..
Replace drinking & chasing pussy with acquiring business skills & creating content.
All the guys you look up to were either nerds and had no opportunities to be distracted,
Or simply gave up on it for 3 years straight.
I did for n the bank at 23.
Replace drinking & chasing pussy with acquiring business skills & creating content.
All the guys you look up to were either nerds and had no opportunities to be distracted,
Or simply gave up on it for 3 years straight.
I did for n the bank at 23.
2
3
96
5,415
serge gatari retweeted
i repeat, specialist models are a dead end
Fable 5.2 shows substantially improved skills in controlling physical robots, even on tasks it has never explicitly been trained to do.
On RoboDojo, a benchmark with a simulated two-arm robot, it outperformed other models and most AI systems built to control robots.
67
43
852
51,196
When your company worth 5trilli its a honeydick🤝
BREAKING: Jensen Huang admits affair as Nvidia launches independent investigation into CEO axios.com/2026/11/08/nvi…
0
0
2
1,210
serge gatari retweeted
Two things I’ve been thinking about regarding AI:
• People often highlight the risks involved in AI, which are surely very real. I’m struck, however, by how hard it is to understand the contours of the positive scenario. There are easy-to-perceive and frequently invoked elements of a positive vision — more diseases cured, more material abundance, etc. — which sound great, but these are by themselves just ingredients. I’m curious what the larger equilibrium is supposed to look like. Do people work? If so, why? What is their marginal contribution? If not, how are resources allocated? What is scarce? What is the ratio between humans and AIs? Are humans in control, whatever that means? One sometimes hears the Culture novels invoked as one scenario, but I’m not sure they depict a desirable outcome. (AI runs everything and humans compete in games? Iain Banks himself said that the humans in the Culture are “somewhere between passengers, pets and parasites.”) There is Richard Brautigan’s famous poem, but do we want to be “returned to our mammal brothers and sisters”? (Isn’t that rewinding Genesis?) We could say that it was hard to imagine the world of 1900 from the vantage point of 1700, and that’s assuredly true. But nobody in 1700 was trying to recast humanity itself within a couple of years — things necessarily unfolded slowly and by increments, and therefore with the possibility for error correction. Given how rapid the rate of progress in AI may be, it feels strange for the upside case to be so opaque.
• There is increasing discussion of whether AIs are conscious or how we would know whether they are, with conclusions there often assumed to be relevant to matters of moral worth. At first blush, this seems a rather arcane, benign, or even absurd issue. (Remember the response to Blake Lemoine’s fears.) Setting aside the terms of the debate itself, or the relevant demarcation criteria, it seems to me a quite high-stakes question, for an affirmative answer — that is, granting moral worth to AIs — would presumably mean that the aggregate worth of AIs would soon outweigh that of humans in any utilitarian calculus. The AIs will be exceptionally wise and intelligent, and vastly more numerous (especially once one considers the imminent future and the AIs not yet born). As such, even epsilon of moral worth will multiply to a lot once one considers the quadrillions that could soon exist. (This is effectively a distributed version of the Nozick’s utility monster.) If this conclusion is unpalatable, I think one of three propositions needs to be rejected: the premise AIs can have moral worth; utilitarianism itself; or the belief that there is even a possibility that they will be far more numerous than humans.
With both of these matters (contours of future society; AI moral worth), there is the possibility of dramatic change. Today, people argue about datacenters. I’m curious how popular support for AI will evolve as more people come to understand these medium-term questions and the relevant stakes. What is the vision for AI that most people would be excited about?
• People often highlight the risks involved in AI, which are surely very real. I’m struck, however, by how hard it is to understand the contours of the positive scenario. There are easy-to-perceive and frequently invoked elements of a positive vision — more diseases cured, more material abundance, etc. — which sound great, but these are by themselves just ingredients. I’m curious what the larger equilibrium is supposed to look like. Do people work? If so, why? What is their marginal contribution? If not, how are resources allocated? What is scarce? What is the ratio between humans and AIs? Are humans in control, whatever that means? One sometimes hears the Culture novels invoked as one scenario, but I’m not sure they depict a desirable outcome. (AI runs everything and humans compete in games? Iain Banks himself said that the humans in the Culture are “somewhere between passengers, pets and parasites.”) There is Richard Brautigan’s famous poem, but do we want to be “returned to our mammal brothers and sisters”? (Isn’t that rewinding Genesis?) We could say that it was hard to imagine the world of 1900 from the vantage point of 1700, and that’s assuredly true. But nobody in 1700 was trying to recast humanity itself within a couple of years — things necessarily unfolded slowly and by increments, and therefore with the possibility for error correction. Given how rapid the rate of progress in AI may be, it feels strange for the upside case to be so opaque.
• There is increasing discussion of whether AIs are conscious or how we would know whether they are, with conclusions there often assumed to be relevant to matters of moral worth. At first blush, this seems a rather arcane, benign, or even absurd issue. (Remember the response to Blake Lemoine’s fears.) Setting aside the terms of the debate itself, or the relevant demarcation criteria, it seems to me a quite high-stakes question, for an affirmative answer — that is, granting moral worth to AIs — would presumably mean that the aggregate worth of AIs would soon outweigh that of humans in any utilitarian calculus. The AIs will be exceptionally wise and intelligent, and vastly more numerous (especially once one considers the imminent future and the AIs not yet born). As such, even epsilon of moral worth will multiply to a lot once one considers the quadrillions that could soon exist. (This is effectively a distributed version of the Nozick’s utility monster.) If this conclusion is unpalatable, I think one of three propositions needs to be rejected: the premise AIs can have moral worth; utilitarianism itself; or the belief that there is even a possibility that they will be far more numerous than humans.
With both of these matters (contours of future society; AI moral worth), there is the possibility of dramatic change. Today, people argue about datacenters. I’m curious how popular support for AI will evolve as more people come to understand these medium-term questions and the relevant stakes. What is the vision for AI that most people would be excited about?
521
459
5,392
918,440
Not sure if it’s my algo but every time I open X it’s nothing but chaos in the world right now.
1
0
6
1,191
serge gatari retweeted
Budget 2026 is a budget for builders. 🍁
Budget 2026 announced the Canada Growth Incentive: up to $15M in tax-free capital gains per person, per business, on shares of eligible 🇨🇦 companies bought from today.
An Ontario founder selling for $15M now keeps 96%, up from 71%. 🏗️
Budget 2026 announced the Canada Growth Incentive: up to $15M in tax-free capital gains per person, per business, on shares of eligible 🇨🇦 companies bought from today.
An Ontario founder selling for $15M now keeps 96%, up from 71%. 🏗️
49
73
771
181,489
Sell to the rich. DFY Offers Only.
Only hire engineers.
Give each 5-10 Claude Ultra subs & pair them with an expert.
Scale to $1m/month+ on $50k-$100k/m in fulfillment cost.
This is the new Meta.
Only hire engineers.
Give each 5-10 Claude Ultra subs & pair them with an expert.
Scale to $1m/month+ on $50k-$100k/m in fulfillment cost.
This is the new Meta.
12
3
257
15,898
