Josh Davis retweeted
Elon Musk on how he moves so fast: "I'm constantly addressing the limiting factor."
"I generally try to aim for a deadline that I at least think is at the 50th percentile. So, it's not like an impossible deadline, but it's the most aggressive deadline I can think of that could obability. Which means that it'll be late half the time."
"A maniacal sense of urgency is a very big deal. You want to have an aggressive schedule. And then you want to figure out what the limiting factor is at any point in time and, and help the team address that limiting factor."
Source: @elonmusk with Stripe’s @collision and @dwarkesh_sp
"I generally try to aim for a deadline that I at least think is at the 50th percentile. So, it's not like an impossible deadline, but it's the most aggressive deadline I can think of that could obability. Which means that it'll be late half the time."
"A maniacal sense of urgency is a very big deal. You want to have an aggressive schedule. And then you want to figure out what the limiting factor is at any point in time and, and help the team address that limiting factor."
Source: @elonmusk with Stripe’s @collision and @dwarkesh_sp
134
530
6,083
1,314,382
Josh Davis retweeted
The thing about a 20 slide deck previously taking hours to construct vs having AI now do it in minutes is that the hours it took to create it in the old world meant that everything was thoughtful, crafted, and scrutinized. In the hands of someone good, it made for breakthrough work.
AI is making everyone "think" they are good, but it's getting really tired really fast. I'd say that >50% of the slides I see now are claudeslop.
AI is making everyone "think" they are good, but it's getting really tired really fast. I'd say that >50% of the slides I see now are claudeslop.
198
189
3,432
838,583
Josh Davis retweeted
You can read Carl Jung 50 times and still be blown away at the 51st
18
1,065
7,584
156,117
Josh Davis retweeted
Planning to make some fixes and improvements to the @FacebookOrigami Figma plugin. I have a good idea for what needs to be fixed, but feel free to send feedback my way!
1
1
12
1,085
Josh Davis retweeted
Allow me to interpret what’s happening.
Anthropic is being audited.
Anthropic desires to file an S-1, as they would like to go public. Therefore they need an audit. And by “they”, I mean the VC’s who invested in them. So “they” can exit their position and pass the bag to firemen, nurses, teachers and policemen.
How does this go from the VC’s to the working man and woman? Because the size of the IPO will automatically qualify Anthropic for the Fortune 500 and the Dow Jones 100. Therefore, every working person with a 401k or pension will end up owning a little bit of Anthropic in their mutual funds. Teachers hold the bag, VC’s take the cash. Thank you, come again.
Now back to the audit. The audit required is a PCAOB audit, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. This audit is what all public companies must comply with be on the stock market. Revenue recognition, expense classification, depreciation, related party transactions, etc. It’s there for consumer protection.
This audit is TOUGH. It is INVASIVE. There is no way to lie your way through it. Any company that passes a PCAOB audit automatically earns my trust on finances.
How do I know? Because I’ve been through it before. @ChangRobotics is 2 year PCAOB audited and currently underway for a 3 year audit. It’s brutal. The same as showing up as the valedictorian to your high school graduation, except you’re naked, and you have to walk on stage and deliver the speech. It’s rough. And I know many incredible founders that can’t pass one.
Now, why would Anthropic be leaking all kind of weird statements lately about “self pacing” a slow down on AI (e.g. they are WAY behind on revenue), and profitable if they didn’t have expenses (e.g. we just learned for the first time what our expenses are, because we’re being audited).
Because they were claiming NVIDIA discounts and Microsoft cloud credits as revenue. Because they had no clue what their expenses were, or why it even mattered. Because they had unlimited investor capital and their job was to burn it to make an LLM. Well, they did a great job with that!
That’s the same as my wife coming home with Bed Bath and Beyond coupons and telling me it’s her paycheck. Ummm, not the same, sweetheart.
So by now hopefully you can see that Anthropic is in a PCAOB audit right now, in order to file an S-1 and go public, and pass the bag to teachers so the VC’s get profits. And hopefully that explains their “crazy” behavior.
In reality you can be grateful to KPMG, PWC, or whoever is auditing Anthropic, because it’s the first time Dario learned that:
1) we are not profitable
2) expenses matter
3) coupons are not revenue
4) we have no clue how to be “profitable”
5) growth is hard when revenue numbers are in an audit and not a power point
-your neighborhood engineer
Anthropic is being audited.
Anthropic desires to file an S-1, as they would like to go public. Therefore they need an audit. And by “they”, I mean the VC’s who invested in them. So “they” can exit their position and pass the bag to firemen, nurses, teachers and policemen.
How does this go from the VC’s to the working man and woman? Because the size of the IPO will automatically qualify Anthropic for the Fortune 500 and the Dow Jones 100. Therefore, every working person with a 401k or pension will end up owning a little bit of Anthropic in their mutual funds. Teachers hold the bag, VC’s take the cash. Thank you, come again.
Now back to the audit. The audit required is a PCAOB audit, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. This audit is what all public companies must comply with be on the stock market. Revenue recognition, expense classification, depreciation, related party transactions, etc. It’s there for consumer protection.
This audit is TOUGH. It is INVASIVE. There is no way to lie your way through it. Any company that passes a PCAOB audit automatically earns my trust on finances.
How do I know? Because I’ve been through it before. @ChangRobotics is 2 year PCAOB audited and currently underway for a 3 year audit. It’s brutal. The same as showing up as the valedictorian to your high school graduation, except you’re naked, and you have to walk on stage and deliver the speech. It’s rough. And I know many incredible founders that can’t pass one.
Now, why would Anthropic be leaking all kind of weird statements lately about “self pacing” a slow down on AI (e.g. they are WAY behind on revenue), and profitable if they didn’t have expenses (e.g. we just learned for the first time what our expenses are, because we’re being audited).
Because they were claiming NVIDIA discounts and Microsoft cloud credits as revenue. Because they had no clue what their expenses were, or why it even mattered. Because they had unlimited investor capital and their job was to burn it to make an LLM. Well, they did a great job with that!
That’s the same as my wife coming home with Bed Bath and Beyond coupons and telling me it’s her paycheck. Ummm, not the same, sweetheart.
So by now hopefully you can see that Anthropic is in a PCAOB audit right now, in order to file an S-1 and go public, and pass the bag to teachers so the VC’s get profits. And hopefully that explains their “crazy” behavior.
In reality you can be grateful to KPMG, PWC, or whoever is auditing Anthropic, because it’s the first time Dario learned that:
1) we are not profitable
2) expenses matter
3) coupons are not revenue
4) we have no clue how to be “profitable”
5) growth is hard when revenue numbers are in an audit and not a power point
-your neighborhood engineer
You can just do things
576
3,828
19,976
2,583,429
Another Slava banger
How to level up orgs:
- when you first join, ppl will be nervous. They know you're there to make changes but don't know which ones or when. So you'll have to contend with some ambient tension for a while
- your demeanor must reflect (1) appreciation for the immense work done before you even got there, (2) humility because you'll rely on your team for basically everything, and (3) readiness to make decisions ppl may not like that will benefit the group in the long run
- all three ^^ are necessary, skipping any one of these comes with its own special kind of pain
- you'll go through two phases-- learning phase and changes phase. (Of course you never stop learning, and like cold/hot days you don't know where one ends and the other begins. But it's still a useful way to think about things.)
Learning phase:
- meet everybody. Managers, ICs, junior, senior, customers, product, critical path, periphery-- everybody. Each group carries information, and you need all the signals you can get to triangulate a good course of action
- other than relationships, meeting ppl has two goals: (a) learning all you can, and (b) assessing the org's capabilities
- learn learn learn. Ask newbie questions. Learn about architecture, code, product, customers, user experience, security, cost structure, reliability, whatever. A lot of this you won't be able to absorb right away. That's ok, let the information wash over you. (I personally adore being a beginner again)
- throughout all this you'll be forming opinions about ppl. Almost everyone does this adhoc, but that's bad for the same reasons doing interviews adhoc is bad
- so know what you want to learn about each person. This should roughly be a softer version of the interview process for their role. Do they think clearly? Communicate well? If they're an engineer, can they program? If product, how structured are they about assessing customer needs? How well do they use data? etc.
- as people answer your questions, there will be parts you don't understand that seem so simple you'll feel embarrassed to ask. You MUST ask about those!!
- either they'll disabuse you of your naiveté, or you're thinking about smtg in a new way that never occurred to anyone, or they don't have an answer because the question isn't important, or they don't have an answer they should have and there is a gap. Either way you learn something
Changes phase:
- at some point you'll feel confident about a decision to make a change. Could be big or small, but you know it will make everything better
- you'll typically get one of four reactions-- (1) we can't do this for a vague inarticulable reason you can't understand yet, or (2) we're still adjusting to you and don't understand what you're asking so we can't do this, or (3) omg thank heavens someone is finally fixing this, or (4) we can't do this for a clear articulable reason
- reactions 1-3 you should politely acknowledge and safely ignore. Reaction 4 is tricky. Sometimes you really can't do the thing. But sometimes people just don't want change and are very good at rationalizing it. You need to intuit which situation you're in
- generally if you're competent and thorough, ~99.9% of your intuitions will eventually prove right. If you have ~100 intuitions a day, which isn't an overstatement, you'll be wrong roughly every week or two. For sure account for that but don't let it stop you. You'll make mistakes and fix them, it's ok
People:
- once you start making changes people will either adjust or they will not. In my experience the "won't work for vague reasons" people and "I don't understand what you’re asking" people never work out. Most "rationalize convincingly" people usually work out super well after they see some successes (though a few will self-select out)
- you'll make new hires, but keep in mind every org has superstars working deep in its bowels who for whatever reason aren't recognized. Too young, too old, too shy, too aggressive, too inexperienced, too set in their ways, too this, too that, too whatever. Find these people and elevate them
- this will make the old guard confused and uneasy. "Why is Jenny who's only a year out of college suddenly in all the important meetings?" But having everyone ask this question is what you want. Elevate the ppl you want the team to emulate
- visualize what the org looks like in six months once you've fixed all the immediate problems. Keep that vision in your mind's eye; don't get too bogged down by the current state
0
0
1
91
Josh Davis retweeted
I don't know what my probabilities are on literal extinction, but I think there are a number of ways AI could go poorly for humanity, and at the current frankly terrifying pace humanity will be quite lucky if we manage to find and stay on the narrow path between all the bad outcomes.
I am heartened by the many costly actions OpenAI has taken recently (detailed in several recent posts), but regardless of what you think of OpenAI, this is not a problem that can be solved by any one company (or country) in isolation. We need coordination to be able to approach future capability increases with an appropriate degree of caution and humility, and we need it yesterday.
I am heartened by the many costly actions OpenAI has taken recently (detailed in several recent posts), but regardless of what you think of OpenAI, this is not a problem that can be solved by any one company (or country) in isolation. We need coordination to be able to approach future capability increases with an appropriate degree of caution and humility, and we need it yesterday.
Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.
84
210
1,497
523,302
Josh Davis retweeted
The head of Alignment at Anthropic just said that AI has a >10% chance of wiping out civilization, and I’m supposed to just sit here and do my job like a regular Wednesday?
Imagine if a pilot announced that there were similar odds of a plane crashing. What are we doing here.
Imagine if a pilot announced that there were similar odds of a plane crashing. What are we doing here.
90
72
496
16,647
How is there not an internationally-agreed path forward here? Just hubris in each organization thinking it’s fast/better/altruistic enough to solve the problem themselves? Nuclear war has checkpoints, and friction, and people with finger on button. What does AGI have?
Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.
0
0
0
29
It takes tremendous arrogance for a business to think “I can just go direct to make more margin” without fundamentally upsetting the balance of the biz. Especially for software companies. If the best brand in the world can’t do it, you can’t. Don’t fuck it up.
a Redditor (and a thread) predicted Nike crash 7y ago
The blind spot: the cash-paying, non-digital customer Nike's app would never reach.
Incredible.
0
0
1
74
Josh Davis retweeted
Sean McDermott reveals after he was fired by the the Bills, he went back to people inside the organization and asked them to tell him the truths during his tenure that never made it to the top of the food chain so he could learn and grow
“When you’re a head coach or a leader of ays get this space to just live life and to reflect. I’ve been reflecting on my journey in Buffalo. The good things, the things I’d like to do differently in the next go-around.”
“Doing some other types of reflection as well, which is asking other people and sort of a blind-spot type of exercise. People in the building in Buffalo who I respect. Because sometimes as a head coach, not everything gets to the top of the food chain. Every story. Every truth. So just going back and probing because, I want to know. I want to know what I don’t know.”
“It hit me between the eyes. Hey, sharing more of myself. Sharing more of who Sean really is. From a personal level, dropping my guard a little bit and really just showing them my true self as a person. I think that just comes from getting so focused on the job and the task at hand.”
“When you’re a head coach or a leader of ays get this space to just live life and to reflect. I’ve been reflecting on my journey in Buffalo. The good things, the things I’d like to do differently in the next go-around.”
“Doing some other types of reflection as well, which is asking other people and sort of a blind-spot type of exercise. People in the building in Buffalo who I respect. Because sometimes as a head coach, not everything gets to the top of the food chain. Every story. Every truth. So just going back and probing because, I want to know. I want to know what I don’t know.”
“It hit me between the eyes. Hey, sharing more of myself. Sharing more of who Sean really is. From a personal level, dropping my guard a little bit and really just showing them my true self as a person. I think that just comes from getting so focused on the job and the task at hand.”
144
171
4,040
2,651,688
Josh Davis retweeted
Wake me up when AI can write like John Steinbeck to Marilyn Monroe 😂
645
2,732
27,221
1,611,601
It’s all about the story you tell yourself
Shopify billionaire co-founder & CEO Tobi Lütke — one of the most analytically rigorous founders alive — uses affirmations.
His exact words:
"If you tell yourself or write down something about yourself 100 times, it writes into the neurofrontal cortex at such a deep level that yourciling you to that. It just works."
His personal example:
He was terrified of public speaking.
For one week he sat down every day for 10 minutes and wrote: "I love public speaking."
A week later the fear was gone.
"It's not like a placebo. You just actively change your neurofrontal cortex in this moment."
Your brain starts shaping your behavior around the identity you rehearse most.
0
0
0
30
Josh Davis retweeted
Some notes on Negotiations
1/ When you finish any complex deal you will feel fatigued and worn out. It sometimes feels hard to celebrate. The best deals feel this way. Complex negotiations require compromises. When both (or all) parties make concessions nobody feels great. Everybody felt like they gave more than they wanted. And all wish the other party would have folded easier. That’s the definition of a good negotiation
1/ When you finish any complex deal you will feel fatigued and worn out. It sometimes feels hard to celebrate. The best deals feel this way. Complex negotiations require compromises. When both (or all) parties make concessions nobody feels great. Everybody felt like they gave more than they wanted. And all wish the other party would have folded easier. That’s the definition of a good negotiation
31
96
1,475
272,312
Josh Davis retweeted
Rainmaker just produced ~19M gallons of water in Alaska via next-gen cloud seeding over 3 hours of operations.
We are the first company to provably produce precipitation in Alaska. As promised, we’ve linked our white paper and relevant data.
In the future, Rainmaker will protect and restore glaciers with man-made snowfall.
Immediately, this demonstration shows how Rainmaker will add new water to the Colorado River and Great Salt Lake in the coming months.
We turned around this analysis and white paper just a couple days after operating. There are many data sources I want to deepen our understanding of the atmosphere and increase our provable production; we’re building the instruments to collect that data in subsequent operations. But at Rainmaker, we won’t tout LOIs, simulations, or lab tests. What matters is physically measuring that you’ve affected the atmosphere; proving that we’ve produced water. We prefer sharing only the tech that has proven to make more water for farms, industries, and ecosystems in need.
Expect a regular cadence of these from us as we build the best atmospheric science lab in the world. Feedback is welcome in the interim.
Rainmaker Century.
rainmaker.com/blog/alaska-va…
We are the first company to provably produce precipitation in Alaska. As promised, we’ve linked our white paper and relevant data.
In the future, Rainmaker will protect and restore glaciers with man-made snowfall.
Immediately, this demonstration shows how Rainmaker will add new water to the Colorado River and Great Salt Lake in the coming months.
We turned around this analysis and white paper just a couple days after operating. There are many data sources I want to deepen our understanding of the atmosphere and increase our provable production; we’re building the instruments to collect that data in subsequent operations. But at Rainmaker, we won’t tout LOIs, simulations, or lab tests. What matters is physically measuring that you’ve affected the atmosphere; proving that we’ve produced water. We prefer sharing only the tech that has proven to make more water for farms, industries, and ecosystems in need.
Expect a regular cadence of these from us as we build the best atmospheric science lab in the world. Feedback is welcome in the interim.
Rainmaker Century.
rainmaker.com/blog/alaska-va…
1,324
1,203
9,122
4,148,798
Another absolute banger from @spakhm
How to work with designers:
- when you work with a great designer you will experience a membrane of confusion between you. They don't understand you and you don't understand them. It's kinda like being in a room with a cat
- you may have great taste, care about materials, colors, shapes, object relationships, textures. You may even be close friends. It doesn't matter. They observe the world from a different, alien vantage point you can never visit or inhabit
- this is a great thing!
- collaboration with a designer is a process of discovering a shared language together in order to dissolve the membrane. The final output is a byproduct of this process
- it's unlike working with any other function. You always have to build a shared understanding with new people or on new projects, but you rarely have to discover a new language together. This is because discovering a language is what a designer does
Don't:
- "here is what I want, now make it pretty." Making things pretty is 5% of what a designer does. You can do it this way, but you'd be underutilizing most of their value. If they're good you'll frustrate them and they'll quit. You will also get a much worse product than you otherwise would.
- "I don't like this, move this button here." Again you can do it this way but you'd be underusing what they're good at and overusing what you're bad at. They'll quit and you'll have a worse product.
- expecting a good product on the first attempt. This is not how discovering a language works; it is a process of mutual feedback and iteration and you're both satisfied with the outcome.
Here's what you do:
- explain the problem as you see it. What you're trying to achieve, who the users are, what they want, your constraints, etc
- if they're good they'll ask you lots of leading questions. At this stage you can just let them drive and answer. If there's something you feel is important they didn't ask about, share it
- they'll go back and come up with a draft. Maybe it's a sketch, maybe it's more polished, maybe it's a piece of a sketch. Depends on their process
- there will be parts that don't fit your model of how the thing should feel and work. Do not tell them how to change things. Rather, explain what feels off and why. Explain what doesn't work in your mind, let them come up with a solution
- again if they're good they'll ask leading questions. They'll then go back and produce another draft. Then repeat
- as you go through this process you will slowly bring your vantage points closer and closer together. And the output will be the product
- if they're good they'll question your assumptions. Be flexible and willing to reconsider them. You can be rigid, but the final product won't be as good
- but don't be too flexible-- you need to maintain your core constraints and be open about what doesn't feel right
- stop when you're 98% there. Past that paradoxically the product gets worse
Expectations:
- you should expect them to ask you leading questions
- you should expect them to question your assumptions in ways that surprise you
- you should expect fast iterations and good work. You should feel the vantage points converge
- there will be backtracking, maybe multiple times. This is more common for totally new projects than for smaller changes to existing projects. Budget that in
- ultimately this is more craft than art. You're both there to produce a product for a customer in a bounded amount of time. They need to understand that. If they see themselves as a hifalutin artist they aren't good. (This is true of engineers too)
0
0
0
39