RANT: Most marketing leaders are playing the AI game all wrong. They look at AI as a way to cut costs. The biggest winners will look at AI as a lever for abundance instead. As AI proliferates, you'll see many leaders do victory laps about how AI saved their company money.

it's craaaazy to see people identifying themselves as YIMBY in the same breath as expressing not wanting the Marina Safeway housing development. humans can believe anything.

someone called waymo`npc` like an insult yes bro that's the whole idea

AI products have so much promise, but I think most of them are undelivering. Many have a retention problem as a result. Kyle Poyar analyzed 3,500 software companies. Products under $50/month see 23% gross retention. Products over $250/month see 70%. Low-price AI products push

Another example of AI accelerating workflows. SimGym uses AI shoppers to simulate how real customers navigate Shopify to gain insights pre-launch instead of burning weeks waiting for traffic data. Excited to try this. My only concern is around quality. I wonder how realistic

Recommendations:

Yet another reminder from Kyle Poyar that we cannot "make up for it in volume" when growing subscription products, even if we are cool "AI products". We can’t buy customers who churn fast. It just burns cash. Christina Guo from the Bamboo team has great recommendations on a

Anthropic is hiring writers at $255k-$320k. OpenAI at $400k. Further proof that humans are not being replaced by AI! AI vs humans is the wrong question. The question is which parts of our workflows can AI speed up without reducing the quality of our output. Research and first

PSA: you can do a week's worth of work in day. no one is stopping you.

Play long term games with long term people

Slope > Y-Intercept

I’m dumb for quote tweeting rage bait with an earnest POV but: I think that when tech makes us more productive, our hours become more valuable, which makes working more hours more valuable too Also working with agents that work is pretty fun

https://t.co/8n32XVfIaG

Three ways a spot a top 1% startup 1. Ambition bordering on “ludicrous” @bobmcgrewai (early Palantir, OpenAI): “Both Palantir and OpenAI were considered ludicrous when the companies were first started." @soleio (early Facebook, Figma, Dropbox): "I was surprised by the ferocity

Image gen models when you try to animate a video with character consistency

This feels like a good time to share that I'm building a new thing. Connor saw it. You can see it too:

I SAW THE FUTURE OF VIDEO CREATIVE THIS WEEK. a beta ai powered content production tool that’s crazy powerful. going to 100x the productivity of creative strategists and editors/designers… really excited for it to help hex with translation and localization for non english

i got way more messages than i thought i would on this so if you’re interested, shoot @danielpearson a dm or sign up here https://t.co/KCjsqNI7sw

Paul Graham on rage-bait startups: “Scammers don’t make the giant companies” In a TBPN interview, Paul Graham is asked for his opinion on how marketing startups has changed in the last few years and the explosion of rage-baiting exemplified by companies like Cluely and Clad

Deciding what matters vs. what does not is a meta-skill that everyone should spend more time. There is so much noise. If you plan carefully and direct your energy toward the stuff that really matters (and ignore the fires everywhere else)... you will win.

I read this at 18. Had a big influence on me. Interesting finding: difference between levels is not quantitative like hours worked. It’s qualitative. So what an Olympic swimmer calls swimming and what a varsity swimmer calls swimming are two different things.