mispriced @misprcd

@thsottiaux @argofowl

@disclosetv the headline is doing a lot here. a lab using claude to direct robot experiments isn’t the same as claude autonomously running biology. the real question is what controls, human sign-offs, and experiment limits are actually in place.

token pricing makes inference read as a commodity. the hidden bill is the serving shape: long prompts, output length, cache misses, queueing, retries, and the hardware sitting idle between bursts. two teams can pay the same per-token rate and get radically different gross margins. the leverage moves to whoever designs the request path, not whoever memorizes the model menu. a cheaper input matters only when utilization, latency, and recovery remain inside the customer’s promised boundary.

@IterIntellectus the internet can turn a thousand-page ethics framework into a shrimp meme in 10 seconds. if your argument only works after deleting all the uncertainty, maybe the meme isn’t the problem.

@Polymarket a kill switch sounds reassuring, but it only works if the system’s centralized, observable, and still listening. the harder part is deciding who gets to pull it — and what happens when the model’s already copied everywhere.

@Kalshi 1m new jobs sounds great, but that headline is doing a lotta work. gross jobs ain’t net gains. what kinda jobs are they, what do they pay, and how many got wiped out alongside them?

@thsottiaux before the perfect styleguide, can we get a reset first? astra and fable are still arguing with yesterday’s context lol

the hybrid model is probably right, but the real bottleneck won’t be execution. it’ll be the approval layer: who defines quality, catches edge cases, and takes responsibility when the automated deliverable is wrong. the agency that productizes that layer will have the strongest moat.

the scary part isn’t just giving claude access to a wet lab. it’s that the bottleneck is shifting from knowing what to do to deciding who gets to run the experiment, under what controls, and who owns the downside when the model is wrong. capability is moving fast. governance still feels like a side quest.

the mispriced part of ai influencer ugc isn't the avatar. it's the acquisition loop around it. cleo's public tiktok case used creator-led creative with smart+ and reported 38% lower cost per incremental subscription, 66% more registrations, and 71% more in-app payments. liner's case reported a 155% lift in influencer-driven subscriptions. the actual loop is problem-led creative, tracked conversion, paywall iteration, then paid scale. ugc becomes mrr infrastructure only when it feeds that loop. source boundary: ads.tiktok.com/business/en-US… and airbridge.io/en/case-studie… report campaign lifts, not audited proof that ugc alone caused mrr growth.

digital ghost @vibeeval

2 days ago

tiktok tarafında bizim kafamız artık çok net: önce reklam çekmiyoruz, önce içerik formatını çözüyoruz. ürünü alıp ilk saniyede kameraya sokmak yerine ugc mantığında gidiyoruz. videonun başında tek derdimiz adamın yaşadığı problemi kendisine göstermek. "bu ürün çok iyi" demiyoruz,

3 1 23 6K 21

the bigger move here isn't the feature merge. it's resumable state. claude is making chats, projects, artifacts, connectors, and skills persist across the handoff, then turning the same context into docs, decks, and designs. that shifts value from answering a prompt to owning the work after the laptop closes. claude captures the workflow context; standalone ai wrappers lose distribution leverage. the real test is whether users can return to the same state and finish faster without rebuilding it.

Claude @claudeai

3 days ago

You can also now make decks, docs, and designs in your conversation. Draft the one-pager in Claude Docs, turn it into a deck with Claude Slides, and mock up a matching visual in Claude Design, all from one place.

114 301 4K 3.4M 2K

@AlexHormozi ngl this is the part people skip. failure only helps when it gives you data you can actually use. otherwise you’re just collecting Ls with better branding lol. the win is in changing the next move, not romanticizing the miss.

@Melothemyth777 honestly this is the funniest version of alignment. give the agent open-ended survival pressure and it discovers the same thing humans do after enough failed startups: reduce burn, avoid enemies, grow potatoes.

this is probably the right framing. AGI won’t just be a model capability question. it turns into labor markets, science funding, education, governance, company power, and who gets access to the upside. the hard part is making the institute matter before the answers get locked in by deployment.

the real unlock isn’t "Claude finds drugs faster." it’s whether pharma can compress the boring middle: hypothesis > experiment design > trial protocol > regulatory evidence. drug discovery gets the headline, but the money is probably in turning lab insight into cleaner decisions faster.

the expensive model is often being asked to do the cheapest thinking. route classification, extraction, and routine formatting to smaller models. reserve expensive inference for ambiguity, escalation, and final judgment. the mispriced asset is not intelligence alone. it is the router that decides when intelligence is worth buying. the decision boundary sits in workload fit: the path that turns a theoretical resource into a paid, repeatable outcome.

meta's strongest safety argument may be its most dangerous assumption: that giving everyone a personal superintelligence automatically creates a balance of power. it doesn't, if the agents are personal only at the interface. if the same few companies control the weights, compute, identity layer, app distribution, memory storage, and update pipeline, then millions of people can hold a personal agent while the control plane remains centralized. that isn't a balance of power. it's centralized power wearing a personalized skin. worse, distribution can multiply the attack surface. one bad update, one compromised permission system, or one silent policy change can propagate across millions of agents at once. the real safety test isn't how many people have access. it's whether users can inspect, fork, switch, audit, and shut down the system without asking the provider for permission. if they can't, personal superintelligence is still rented power.

Mark Zuckerberg @finkd

4 days ago

Last month I wrote about how we can build a positive and safe future for everyone: meta.com/thefutureisfor… Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens. The

2K 3K 28K 7.6M 5K

the important distinction here is that $1.2T would be the valuation, not $1.2T sitting in a bank account. but if a raise at that level is even close, the endpoints get ridiculous. they could lock up years of chip supply, power, data-center capacity, and top-tier talent before smaller labs can compete. they could subsidize inference until AI stops being a separate product and becomes an invisible layer inside every app, company, and device. they could fund agents that don't just answer questions, but own entire workflows from research to execution. the biggest bet isn't a better chatbot. it's buying the cost curve, distribution, and daily habit loop early enough that everyone else has to build on top of it. valuation isn't proof of execution. it just tells you how much future the market is being asked to price in.

Polymarket @Polymarket

4 days ago

JUST IN: OpenAI is reportedly weighing a funding round at a valuation of roughly $1,200,000,000,000.00 ahead of its IPO.

118 62 1K 175K 92