How many clients are we going to have? One client x user?

just keep existing long enough that good things can happen…

Yes it crushes search.

Google Search is very obsolete at this point. The fact it is also ad ridden malware is just 🥲

OK, Chat GPT4 is now out.

It’s a incrementally smarter version of Chat-GPT3, shock horror. 😂

It is very capable at referencing information that is commonly referenced. eg law, book keeping, medicine, etc. It struggles with more esoteric niche things.

It has broad and deep understanding of mainstream science and technology as found across industry.

But it has no real understanding of patents other than popular patent history. It does not understand prior art, state of the art or the frontier.

It is not capable of innovation. It doesn’t even understand how to do innovation.

It is almost entirely retrospective.

This is largely down to the inescapable fact that AI requires data on which to train. For tasks and domains where lots of data exists, AI will surpass humans very quickly and will outcompete all workers on memory intense tasks.

Where AI seems to be very limited (just now at least) is at the fringe and the frontier of knowledge.

AI will achieve super human competence at many things that are already done today, but it is far from obvious to me that AI will leapfrog humans working at the state of the art.

It’s also difficult for me to imagine AI self innovating as a new vanguard beyond the frontier of human invention.

I can imagine how this might be achieved, but it would require AI to amass large datasets at the frontier and incrementally bridge off the state of the art into the abyss generating new data and retraining as it does so.

This is very different to how humans innovate. It would be vastly more laborious and difficult for AI than for a human inventor hypothesising new concepts sans data.

What if Satoshi is on Nostr right now? 🤯

Jihan Wu classic tweet who was here for it? Peak 2017 Bullrun vibes - was great.

Anyway - GN now!!!

I like to talk with people with totally different worldview than mine.

It's a good ego exercise.

If those conversation are in the spirit of mutual respect they are usually extraordinary interesting.

They are like a brain food.

Are you doing standing desk? Or switched jobs?

Anyone fudding Nostr needs to be regarded as deeply suspicious… 👻 👻 👻

“You can't jump across a chasm in two equal leaps and expect to have any followers.

People inexperienced in fundraising often think in terms of average gifts. They have somehow gotten it into their heads that what you do is divide the goal by the number of likely donors, then ask everyone to give the same amount.

For example, if the goal is $1 million, and there are 200 good prospects, someone will suggest that each prospect be asked for $5,000. The idea is to reach the goal through 100% participation at the $5,000 level.

Assuming that everyone can easily afford to give $5,000, this sounds like it should make the volunteer's job easier. But seeking average gifts produces below-average results. In fact, it is certain to lead to failure.

One problem with raising money by the multiplication table-$5,000 times 200-is that not everyone will participate. We'd like to think they will, but they won't. Even worse, seeking $5,000 from each donor will, in effect, set a ceiling on what an inspired donor may want to pledge.

Tolstoy described this phenomenon in War and Peace: ‘The distinguished dignitary who bore the title of Collector of Alis went round to all the brothers.

Pierre would have liked to subscribe all he had, but, fearing that it might look like pride, subscribed the same amount as the others.’

Let's say someone you know pledges $5,000. You feel that because of the donor's financial circumstances, he or she is twice as capable as you. Are you likely to pledge $5,000? We all tend to give in relation to what others are giving.

"One hundred per cent participation" has a nice ring to it, but doesn't work much better than seeking average gifts. When the word gets out that the objective is to get everyone to give, no matter how much, many people will give as little as they can. This tokenism will lower the sights of the leaders, and you'll raise less money.

Finally, the "averaging" approach assumes that twenty pledges of $5,000 each, taken together, will have the same impact as a single pledge of $100,000.

Not so. In fundraising, the commitment that really counts is not the average one or the token one. It's the leadership commitment that makes things happen.”

— James Gregory Lord, The Raising of Money

“You can't jump across a chasm in two equal leaps and expect to have any followers.

People inexperienced in fundraising often think in terms of average gifts. They have somehow gotten it into their heads that what you do is divide the goal by the number of likely donors, then ask everyone to give the same amount.

For example, if the goal is $1 million, and there are 200 good prospects, someone will suggest that each prospect be asked for $5,000. The idea is to reach the goal through 100% participation at the $5,000 level.

Assuming that everyone can easily afford to give $5,000, this sounds like it should make the volunteer's job easier. But seeking average gifts produces below-average results. In fact, it is certain to lead to failure.

One problem with raising money by the multiplication table-$5,000 times 200-is that not everyone will participate. We'd like to think they will, but they won't. Even worse, seeking $5,000 from each donor will, in effect, set a ceiling on what an inspired donor may want to pledge.

Tolstoy described this phenomenon in War and Peace: ‘The distinguished dignitary who bore the title of Collector of Alis went round to all the brothers.

Pierre would have liked to subscribe all he had, but, fearing that it might look like pride, subscribed the same amount as the others.’

Let's say someone you know pledges $5,000. You feel that because of the donor's financial circumstances, he or she is twice as capable as you. Are you likely to pledge $5,000? We all tend to give in relation to what others are giving.

"One hundred per cent participation" has a nice ring to it, but doesn't work much better than seeking average gifts. When the word gets out that the objective is to get everyone to give, no matter how much, many people will give as little as they can. This tokenism will lower the sights of the leaders, and you'll raise less money.

Finally, the "averaging" approach assumes that twenty pledges of $5,000 each, taken together, will have the same impact as a single pledge of $100,000.

Not so. In fundraising, the commitment that really counts is not the average one or the token one. It's the leadership commitment that makes things happen.”

— James Gregory Lord, The Raising of Money

🙏

A little slow for me right now but I dig it.

Saving for later.