Cody Johnson
178 posts

Cody Johnson
@codercody
Professional print statement writer
Palo Alto, CA Beigetreten Mart 2017
879 Folgt236 Follower

@codercody no shot you are staying there for more than >1y
go literally anywhere else
working a bajillion hours a day for someone else's benefit doesn't make sense when you personally have better options
English

OpenAI is ahead
Anthropic is second
In the long term, DeepMind will win everyone
XAI is an infrastructure and distribution bet. Guess what you'll be getting for free with your phone service that comes from the stars?
Peter Wildeford🇺🇸🚀@peterwildeford
Based on the data I see, I think: - Anthropic🇺🇸/Google🇺🇸/OpenAI🇺🇸 all ~tied - Meta🇺🇸 / xAI🇺🇸 each ~7mo behind - Moonshot🇨🇳/- Deepseek🇨🇳 / zAI 🇨🇳 / Alibaba🇨🇳each ~9mo behind - Mistral🇫🇷 ~1.5 years behind - No other companies competitive
English

@codercody Not sure your position @xai but I’ve been trying to get on the team and have been waiting over a month for my technical project review… I just randomly got ghosted. Even after following up a few times with several people.
Would you please look into this? We can talk more in DMs
English

If you're ambitious, I cannot think of a better opportunity than ELON MUSK saying we're rebuilding a frontier lab from the foundations up
Elon Musk@elonmusk
@beffjezos xAI was not built right first time around, so is being rebuilt from the foundations up. Same thing happened with Tesla.
English

@codercody Basic regex. I’ve done it so many times, and yet I can’t do it without a cheat sheet. Thanks god we have llms now
English

@codercody Centering a div with CSS still sends people to Google.
English

can he pull it off? he’s up against 2 teams already clearly nearing recursive self improvement
Elon Musk@elonmusk
@beffjezos xAI was not built right first time around, so is being rebuilt from the foundations up. Same thing happened with Tesla.
English
Cody Johnson retweetet

Yunwei Bai: Analysis of the Riemann Zeta Function via Recursive Taylor Expansions arxiv.org/abs/2603.05122 arxiv.org/pdf/2603.05122 arxiv.org/html/2603.05122
English

@TheVixhal No but actually "yet you still pick one" is wrong. If I say pick a number uniformly between 0 and 1, you would need infinitely many digits to describe the number you picked. Which means you never actually picked a number uniformly between 0 and 1, you rounded
English

If you pick a random number between 1 and infinity, the probability of picking any specific number is not just small. It is exactly 0. Yet you still pick one.
This breaks most people's intuition that “probability 0” means “impossible.” In math, probability 0 and impossibility are not the same thing.
English




