Handoris Herrongtin

@mil000 Are you serious? Here are ten: 1. Flock Safety 2. Relativity Space 3. Cruise 4. Astranis 5. Boom Supersonic 6. Solugen 7. Mashgin 8. Eight Sleep 9. Gecko Robotics 10. North The mismatch between confidence and lack of knowledge here never ceases to amaze me.

Has YC ever funded a successful hardware company? Why would anyone go into YC if they’re doing a processor startup

@shawmakesmagic @garrytan Many people leading the cutting edge of the field saw and have discussed this exact opportunity. Garry likely would have come up with the idea without you, just as so may others have.

Execution is a multiplier on distribution, you are the fucking president of YCo, you literally are taking your level 101 vibecode project and using your own media to promote it Are you intentionally ignoring my point that it's a terrible position to be competing with the startups you are supposed to fund? Are you just vibe listening?

Ironically I applied to YCo once with this idea and they rejected me I would never apply again, just giving Garry your ideas for free so he can vibe code and claim credit out of ignorance for an industry he himself gatekeeps

@Jason @openclaw It’s unbelievable how carelessly you misrepresent the basic facts. The OpenClaw project remains open source and independent. Peter repeatedly clarified that OAI’s resources have accelerated progress. He even refuted you in this very thread. Long time fans of yours expect more.

Agents must stay open source They’re far to powerful/dangerous to have any one or two companies own the @openclaw space It’s clear from the OpenAI acquisition of OpenClaw that they did so to kill it, by slowing it down 🦞 FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! 🦞

@Aella_Girl @grok if you had to guess who this was, who would it be?

a long time ago i had the experience of chatting irl with someone well known on twitter, well connected, well platformed, influential, etc. He was smart, seemed to have domain expertise in his technical field. But gradually over the course of the conversation I realized he didn't actually know what he was talking about. He used complicated words, but in subtly off ways, and would reply to questions with things that sounded like answers but actually weren't.He'd confidently reference concepts that I think he assumed I didn't know, but I did know, and I knew that the term he used didn't actually have anything to do with his claim, etc. But his confidence was intense and radiating, and the speed at which he talked and the complex vocabulary he used really disguised what I perceived to be both a lack of deep understanding of the material and also a lack of self-awareness that he didn't have deep understanding! I've def met people who disagree with me online who I think *do* engage deeply with the concepts, but this specific one didn't, and it was a little blackpilling for me to realize that he had such a following from a bunch of people who couldn't tell the difference.

@LTGetsPolitical I don’t agree with this take either. But do you realize that Marc created the modern web browser and one of the most successful VC firms of all time? You’re not in a position to intellectually dunk on him. I would research people before making such comments in the future.

This tracks.

@pmarca @davidsenra That is not what the introspective, great men of history would consider to be introspection.

It is 100% true that great men and women of the past were not sitting around moaning about their feelings. I regret nothing.

@OctagonPulse Charles outwrestled Gamrot. And what happened between Gamrot and Arman? I personally think Arman won the fight, be he did not have a definitive wrestling advantage by any measure.

Khabib doesn't see Ilia Topuria having a chance against Arman Tsarukyan 😳 "I believe right now, the best lightweight is Tsarukyan... I'd say it's 80%-20% in Arman's favor. We all know the level of wrestling that Holloway and Oliveira had. It's practically nonexistent... But a guy who wrestles, Topuria hasn't faced that. He's only fought strikers. I know the UFC is cautious. "

@paulg @davidsenra @pmarca @davidsenra you should respond to this. Many examples that contradict your point.

@davidsenra @pmarca What? That's not true. Do you not feel that Charles Darwin, for example, was among the great men of history?

Great men of history had little to no introspection. The personality that builds empires is not the same personality that sits around quietly questioning itself. @pmarca and I discuss what we both noticed but no one talks about: David: You don't have any levels of introspection? Marc: Yes, zero. As little as possible. David: Why? Marc: Move forward. Go! I found people who dwell in the past get stuck in the past. It's a real problem and it's a problem at work and it's a problem at home. David: So I've read 400 biographies of history’s greatest entrepreneurs and someone asked me what the most surprising thing I’ve learned from this was [and I answered] they have little or zero introspection. Sam Walton didn't wake up thinking about his internal self. He just woke up and was like: I like building Walmart. I'm going to keep building Walmart. I'm going to make more Walmarts. And he just kept doing it over and over again. Marc: If you go back 400 years ago it never would've occurred to anybody to be introspective. All of the modern conceptions around introspection and therapy, and all the things that kind of result from that are, a kind of a manufacture of the 1910s, 1920s. Great men of history didn't sit around doing this stuff. The individual runs and does all these things and builds things and builds empires and builds companies and builds technology. And then this kind of this kind of guilt based whammy kind of showed up from Europe. A lot of it from Vienna in 1910, 1920s, Freud and all that entire movement. And kind of turned all that inward and basically said, okay, now we need to basically second guess the individual. We need to criticize the individual. The individual needs to self criticize. The individual needs to feel guilt, needs to look backwards, needs to dwell in the past. It never resonated with me.

@paulg @davidsenra @pmarca I am happy that PG chimed in to raise this very obvious point.

@Emarged @grok what is the joke here? What is the label we don’t want to be tagged with?

We all know why, but we don’t want to be tagged with a label.

@kimmonismus @chatgpt21 This seems unecessarily cynical. The statement merely means that if you want more intelligence, you can buy more of it, and if you want less intelligence, you can buy less of it. He’s simply referring to a departure from the traditional subscription model.

It's the openness with which he speaks of people buying it directly from them; Sam Altman often speaks in an almost humanistically idealistic way, claiming that his only goal is to create AGI for humanity. This openness, however, reveals what it's really about: cheap intelligence so that people will buy it in droves.

“We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter.” With all due diplomacy, this blatant statement speaks volumes. x.com/TheChiefNerd/s…

@dannyseguratv Max looked visibly larger than , or just as big as, Justin and Dustin. Not to mention that Charles did this to Gamrot and Chandler. This is objectively a bad take.

Yeah, Max Holloway is not a lightweight. #UFC326

@JoshKale Some of the most successful enterprise startups of the last two decades went through YC, and Sam was directly involved with recruiting and supporting them.

Anthropic is on track to pass OpenAI in revenue. Seriously, they just added $5B in the last 3 weeks. OpenAI has 800M weekly users and just started running ads. Anthropic has a fraction of the consumer base and zero ads. The difference? Anthropic monetizes at $211/user vs OpenAI's $25/user. That's 8x more efficient thanks to their strategy of selling to businesses OpenAI is projecting $14B in losses for 2026 while Anthropic expects to stop burning cash by 2027. The company everyone called "the safety lab" is on an absolute tear

@DaveShapi @scaling01 I think you should seriously consider this perspective

After a day of backlash, debates, and research, here's what I've come to on the Anthropic vs Pentagon situation: The fundamental issue is about procurement. The Pentagon has every right to ensure that their contractors meet specification. Anthropic's protests don't really make any sense. They have a partnership with Palantir, which conducts mass domestic surveillance. Furthermore, Claude is literally incapable of directing autonomous weapons right now. Dario "clarified" that he's actually okay with autonomous weapons, but that Claude "isn't ready" - but this really isn't their concern. The military is the one who decides when a tool is ready. Beyond that, the negotiation was private, with only a few minor leaks that no one really cared about, until Anthropic blew the lid off everything. They thought they could muster public support. They were the ones to escalate in a deep inappropriate way. Can you imagine if Lockheed did something like this over a next gen fighter? Next, the current administration decided they weren't going to be mogged by a private company and reacted in kind. So, you could say this is a case of FAFO. Anthropic escalated, drew confusing and unnecessary lines in the sand, and doubled down. Now, with all that being said, there is broad consensus that the "supply chain risk" was overkill, an outright "nuclear option" that may be illegal. However, legal analysis suggests that it will take several weeks or months just to get injunctive relief from this designation, and 1 to 3 years to litigate the issue. Furthermore, since the President himself has personally lashed out at Anthropic, there's likely almost nothing they can do to get back in the good graces of the government. Even if the supply chain risk doesn't stick, they're almost certainly out of the government. If the supply chain risk designation does stick (which there is a non zero chance of) then Anthropic cannot structurally survive in the long run. They will be relegated to a relatively small section of the economy compared to their competitors. However, this outcome seems unlikely. Even so, there's no way for them to compete with OpenAI, xAI, and Google, all of whom have signaled they will comply with Pentagon procurement requirements. Over time, Anthropic will fall to the back of the pack. Now, for my take, I'm a "structural realist" My view is this: the world is materially better if Anthropic has a seat at the table. America is better off with multiple competitors with such fundamentally different approaches to AI and alignment. While I am, and remain, highly critical of the direction that Anthropic is going in, I still believe that their contribution to the discourse is strongly net positive. It would be even more positive if they continued to work with the Pentagon. However, I do not see that as a viable path now. To get back in the good graces of this administration, they will need to demonstrate maximum contrition. As of Dario's interview this morning, that seems unlikely. He might even need to step down as CEO to convince the Pentagon to work with Anthropic. However, the corporate structure of Anthropic will make it exceedingly difficult to compel his resignation, and would take too long anyways, leaving voluntary departure as the only realistic pathway to contrition as far as I can tell. But again, I highly doubt Dario will go that way. Dario's deliberate escalation and subsequent gambit was clearly a miscalculation, which will have a chilling effect on any other labs that might want to play hardball with the government. On that point, I would not be surprised if this administration holds the line against Anthropic just to make a point. Trump has already ordered the entire federal government to stop using Anthropic, and this does not seem like it will reverse when OpenAI, xAI, and Google are ready to go. AI is fungible. Finally, I've been personally accused of all kinds of things given this structural realist position. The most common indictment is having "no principles" which I categorically reject. My principle is that the Western way of life is the most just, productive, and generative civilizational pattern that exists today. That includes America and most of Europe as well as our allies. Therefore, my position is that we should push for policies that strengthen the West. What has played out over the last few days has been a net negative to our way of life. We have materially lost future optionality. In short, I believe that a world in which Anthropic remains embedded with the Pentagon is the optimal policy, and I'm frustrated and disappointed that Dario would rather torpedo his company based on confusing and seemingly arbitrary "principles" rather than play ball. To that end, I've levied numerous hypotheses as to why Dario made this choice. Beyond the obvious strategic miscalculation, the best I can figure is that he followed the typical Effective Altruist script which advocate for creating maximum noise and trying to seize control over the narrative, rather than looking at structural incentives, market dynamics, and systems of power. In my dealings with EA types, they almost always reject realism in favor of idealism, often to their detriment. This pattern is deeply overdetermined by their epidemics and tribal values. I would be glad to be wrong on this. As much as I have become skeptical of Anthropic, I would prefer them return to the fold.

@DaveShapi This is a fair and reasonable take. Thank you for being so impartial. That is refreshing.

@sama I think if you convinced the government to declassify Anthropic as a supply chain risk, and helped Anthropic secure a contract with the terms you agreed to, that would help with public sentiment. Is that something you would be open to?

I'd like to answer questions about our work with the DoW and our thinking over the past few days. Please AMA.

@sama @stepfanie @Aella_Girl some if not most of your concerns should be alleviated by the AMA here

@stepfanie Extremely support her right to do so.

@Aella_Girl The following was part of the deal: 1. No use of OpenAI technology for mass domestic surveillance. 2. No use of OpenAI technology to direct autonomous weapons systems.  3. No use of OpenAI technology for high-stakes automated decisions (e.g. systems such as “social credit”).

I've been a power user of ChatGPT since before it was a chat, since it was an invite-only little box you'd type in and it'd autofill. I've been using it regularly, every day, for years. Ending that today, though, I've cancelled my subscription.

@Aella_Girl I would encourage you to read through the contract OAI signed with the DoW before making rash decisions. It seems that OAI successfully negotiated the two red lines Anthropic originally had. I’ve seen a lot of strong reactions on X, but not much attention to the details.

@shawmakesmagic I think this is unironically what happened. The doomers just immediately catastrophize everything. It can be hard to get them to see the nuance.

I have a theory Sam is just way way way better at speaking normie human than Dario This was all basically a misunderstanding in language between some hyper nerds and hyper jocks and it took a y co tech bro to bridge the gap