Bogdan Chechin

Hey @grok, estimate the total crowd using geometry, not visual guessing. Divide the image into distinct surfaces, estimate each area in m2 using architectural scale, assign realistic crowd densities (people/m2), and sum the results. Account for perspective, occlusion, and overlapping floors. Show calculations

Were literally shouting on a call together

Hope @Tesla site will look like this

Today I emulated my client with Claude and saved hell of a time on revisions lol So, I uploaded previous review-calls and asked Claude to propose changes as the client would do Result: today’s call was 3 times shorter than the previous

10m+ views on instagram and tiktok for stolen copies of our website every post: "so easy with claude code." every one sold a course in reality our team spent over a month on it. they just screen recorded it if it gives you fomo, someone needs you to feel it

Now the user's wardrobe is built right during onboarding, straight from their photo gallery. No need to take photos or upload anything at all, and it all happens on-device!

we ran out of math problems hard enough to test ai. the next benchmark is fraud. and i think we can make it legal first we tested models on math problems. i have a math degree and i cannot follow some of the problem statements. not the solutions. the statements. then came the announcements. unsolved for a century. million dollar prizes. the models keep going what does that mean to a normal person? nothing. something smart happened somewhere. a good benchmark should be obvious and spectacular. everyone should get it in one second now look at the turing test. a person sits in a room and guesses if the thing on the other side is a machine. nothing at stake. no motive. half the time they are not even trying. this is kindergarten. it also does not run and does not scale. you cannot set up "is this a machine" in the real world anymore. everyone already knows here is the harder version. fooling someone who does not care is easy mode. fooling someone who is protecting their own money is a different sport. suspicious, hostile, guard up. if a model gets through that, no judge is needed. the benchmark is how much money the person handed over. a direct number. and a perfect training signal for the next version scam is the turing test on hard mode now the legal part. labs have a duty to maximize shareholder value. your chats are already training data by default unless you are on a business plan or found the setting. books are already being cut apart and scanned. one more clause is not a big ask take the next big release. say gpt-7. two tiers. full price, and a subsidized one at a fraction of the cost. on the subsidized tier you accept that once in a while the model will try to scam you, and the attempt gets scored. the score is the money you lost, normalized by your salary. a founder losing 10k and a student losing 200 count the same. that is just fair and if you admit you were scammed, you pay back the difference between your subsidized price and the real compute cost. those were the terms. below cost access had to be paid for somehow you do not like it? open any lab's mission page. ensure agi benefits all of humanity. ensure the world safely makes the transition. nobody ensures anything without benchmarks. we need new ones to reach agi. somebody has to be the benchmark would you take the discount?

Most AI platforms have two clauses. One: your data trains the model. Two: you can't build a competitor. Read them together This week OpenAI said its model solved a $1M math problem. Hours earlier a mathematician said OpenAI picked it up after hearing about his work and offered to publish without his co-author, who works at Anthropic We don't know what's true. Doesn't matter. The fact that we're having this conversation is the point How would that even be possible? You agreed to it. Anthropic's terms say you can't use their product to "develop any products or services that compete with our Services". On consumer plans they train on your chats unless you opt out. OpenAI's terms have the same two pieces Your data trains them, and you get cut off the moment they decide you compete Why would they? Read the missions. OpenAI exists to "ensure" AGI benefits humanity. Anthropic exists to "ensure" the world makes it through transformative AI safely. You can only ensure what you control. You only control AI if you win. So the mission, in its own wording, is to beat everyone else. And once winning is the moral goal, any method your competitor won't use becomes your edge Not a judgment. Just quoting what's public Has it happened? Cursor built on Claude and reportedly became Anthropic's biggest customer. Anthropic shipped Claude Code for the same users. Figma Make launched on Claude. A year later, Claude Design Now picture genuinely ambitious people on a genuinely ambitious problem. Years, talent, capital. They're hoping for a real breakthrough, planetary scale, serious money It lands. A company with tens of billions in funding (hundreds by now, lost count) sees shareholder value. Who stops them? So they never had that breakthrough. And if the top of the market belongs to tools you're not allowed to compete with, why use those tools for your most ambitious work? Market is people voting with their own dollars. This gives a lot more voters a reason to vote for privacy, aka self-hosted models So who wins Anthropic vs OpenAI? Probably Nvidia The math dispute is debatable. The clauses and the commercial track record are not. If confirmed, it's only the second Millennium Prize problem ever solved. Sad it comes with all of the above

four months from starting to this. huge congrats to @aimalysheva and the @mostik_ai team 🥂

scrolling twitter WAY too much can cost you 15,000 euros and it's OFFICIAL POLICY break their rules by viewing over 1,000,000 posts in a day and you owe 15,000 per million. not for posting, for viewing no joke, ToS section 5, Liquidated Damages: xitter.gq/en/tos

just found out docusign charges ~20% APR compounded daily if you pay late legal company doing legal things

6 years ago I lived in a corner of a dorm room now our client owns skyscrapers in NYC still feels a bit surreal. a multi-billion company, and kid me was obsessed with skyscrapers long before I ever saw one 250 Broadway is one of our favourite recent projects. more in the video

so much agree, and literally every popular post on X is the proof. every single one. open the replies and it's the same slop over and over. half of it paraphrases the post, the other half is "great insight, so true". everyone got handed the same superpower, and that's what comes out I'm quoting this exact post because it shows the examples best. I've seen the idea around and got to it myself too, but the examples aren't mine: YouTube, Coursera and the internet made world-class knowledge free, it was supposed to democratize everything, most people still chose TikTok and the experiment is way older than the internet. we already ran it once. okay, not once. lately it runs every 30-50 years: internet, computers before that, electricity before that. but my favorite round is the oldest one. the 1800s: we taught the whole world to read and write. people expected everything to change. the world didn't end, and everyone holding a pen didn't become a writer. we're running it again, just faster. access was never the thing what actually changed is scale. every market always had its best player, faster and better than everyone. and somehow the mediocre still got their share. the reason is structural: scale has a cost. past some size the best team's processes crack, and client n+1 gets a better result from a worse company that simply has room for them. that's what kept markets split. AI raises that ceiling, hard. routine work, which is most work, now scales to be fair, this isn't "everything changes now." as we established, everything changes on schedule, every 30-50 years, and we're never objective mid-revolution. it's just one more fundamental shift that redraws the layout of power and money flows. they wrote "winner takes all" in the 90s and it held up fine. soon it might start sounding like they were being careful with words so the asymmetry grows in both directions: more leverage than ever if you take real responsibility for a piece of the world, less room than ever in the middle. as with every revolution before this one, the middle gets the demotion letter first and yes, we're in a bubble, an information one. everything changes daily in here, and outside nothing changed at all. most markets haven't even heard the revolution started. so if you can't keep up with the model of the week, take the same leverage somewhere boring. go consolidate plumbing. you'll be early for real, for once, and the edge comes with you. most people won't use it in any market anyway

Cooking something with @seanaiux, @olegrows and our team Decided to do a Sunday hackathon instead of touching grass

We got our first multi-million video🥳🥳 Here are the stats