Naval

27K posts

Naval banner
Naval

Naval

@naval

Incompressible

Katılım Şubat 2007
0 Takip Edilen3.3M Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Naval
Naval@naval·
How to Get Rich (without getting lucky):
English
11K
79.1K
273.2K
0
Naval
Naval@naval·
The enemy of truth is motivated reasoning.
English
430
814
7.5K
354.7K
Naval retweetledi
Naval Podcast
Naval Podcast@navalpodcast·
New: The Logic of Violence A podcast film
English
23
109
1.3K
200.5K
Naval retweetledi
Spencer Pratt
Spencer Pratt@spencerpratt·
Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. AKA: voting for failure Karen Bass is literally insane. Change the channel. Vote Pratt. I will clean the streets and end this waste of our tax dollars.
John McDermott@mcdermott

The City of Los Angeles homelessness budget was $967.9 million in the 2024-2025 fiscal year. The city permanently housed 7,396 homeless people that year — $130,868 per person. That's 59% more than the median household income in LA ($82,263).

English
519
5.5K
37.8K
717.8K
Naval
Naval@naval·
For people who just want to read: x.com/navalpodcast/s…
Naval Podcast@navalpodcast

Sell the Truth On persuasion, charisma, dealmaking, and walking away Nivi: Hi, you're listening to the Naval Podcast. This is his regular co-host, Nivi. There are only two skills you have to have in life: How to build and how to sell. Today we’re going to talk about the sales side. Be Credible Naval is a particularly gifted seller, and some people have accused him of having his own reality distortion field. Naval: Yeah, so I’ve never taken a class on sales. I’ve never tried to be good at sales. I don’t even know what sales is. I don’t sell. I just try to figure things out, and then if there’s something I believe in, I try to convey that as accurately and honestly as possible to the other person. And there’s no sales skills involved. I think the full extent of my sales training is that I watched Glengarry Glen Ross. I think that was good. I recommend it. I read @RobertCialdini Influence—his original book on persuasion. You can skip the second one. Like most sequels, it’s just not needed. It has one good idea in there, which is anchoring, but that’s it. Robert Cialdini popularized CLASSR—which is consistency, liking, authority, scarcity, social proof, and reciprocity. Those are like the six ways in which you influence people. And then in his subsequent book he added a seventh, which was basically anchoring. But yeah, I actually don’t believe in sales. If you feel like someone is selling to you, and if you feel like you’re being sold, it’s a turnoff. Humans are hardwired to resist being sold to. So I think what matters much more is credibility. Credibility is way more important than sales. If you want to be good at “sales,” then really what you want is you want to be credible. You want people to trust you. You want to be the real estate agent that steers people away from bad deals and bad neighborhoods and bad houses, so that when the right one comes along for them, they trust you. You really have to take your ego out of it, put yourself in the other person’s shoes and figure out what they want. And then once you’ve figured out what they want, then you can “make the sale.” But I’m not the guy you would talk to for making the sales quota, where you have to sell like 50 pieces of software this week or this month. But what I can tell you is that the people you most want to impress in life are the ones who can see right through you. And they will see right through your sales tactics; they will see right through your pitching them. And these people are the top of the top. So if you want to work with the people who are at the top of the top, if you want to successfully sell the biggest things that are out there, then you have to be very credible. And to be credible, you have to be authentic. You have to tell the truth. You have to be knowledgeable. They have to be able to trust you, and that you’re not just doing what’s expedient for you—you’re thinking about the long term. You’re being honest. You understand what you’re talking about, and you can explain it simply. Because nobody’s an expert in everything. They’re not going to come up to speed quickly enough, so you do have to figure out how to analogize it and convey it to them, and it doesn’t always work. You can’t be attached to the outcome. You can’t sell everyone on everything. I know there is a model out there that does work, where some people are incredibly aggressive. They’re like, “Never give up. Just keep hammering. Just keep going on it. Just keep beating on it, and eventually you’ll break through.” I’m not one of those people—I’m just lazy. I like to go where it’s easy, so if my “sale,” or if my pitch does not resonate with somebody, I move on. I move on instantly, and I just keep looking for the person whom it will resonate with. “Yes, And” Nivi: One of the “techniques” I’ve noticed Naval use is that he uses “yes, and” like crazy. Whatever you say to him, he’s going to “yes, and” it—even if he disagrees with it. He’ll say “yes,” maybe expand on your point, and then pivot to what he wants to talk about. He’s not going to immediately disagree with you or give you a very direct “no.” Naval: That’s a technique, and there are times when I do contradict people outright. But I will say that most smart people, if they’re telling you something, then it’s genuine. They have a reason to believe that. And usually you can see that reason. And so that’s where the yes comes from, where you truly understand, “Oh, okay, that’s your issue. I get it.” So you have to understand that. But if I completely disagreed with them, I would just disagree. I would just say, “No, I don’t think that’s true, and here’s why.” And, by the way, I do disagree a lot. And usually when I disagree, that’s when I get humiliated. That’s when I learn to be humble, because that’s when I’m often wrong. So “yes, and” is a good strategy, although I don’t use it as a strategy. It’s more about rational empathy, which is you reason your way to their position, and you see if their position is valid. And if it is, then you say “yes.” But then you reinforce why your position is valid. Because hopefully your position is thought through and also valid. Selfish Honesty Nivi: The next thing I’ve noticed in Naval is that he’s just incredibly open-minded to the point of what I consider to be ridiculous. Naval: I think I want to be objective. Objective means getting the ego out of it. It means that you can’t always think of it from your perspective because the other person has a completely different perspective. I have had a couple of people who come to me for advice through the years, and they’ll literally use me as a counselor, and I’m always kind of scratching my head why. And then one of them just told me outright, he said, “Well, you have this thing you do where you give me advice, but it never comes from you. It feels like it’s me talking to myself, but in a slightly different way. You’re not just telling me what you think or what you want me to hear—what you want me to do.” I try for that. That’s objectivity; that’s honesty. And it’s selfish honesty because I want to make the right decisions for myself, which means that I have to try to be as objective as possible. And, by the way, I make huge numbers of mistakes. I’m probably wrong 80% of the time. So given that, I shudder to think what would happen if I wasn’t objective—if I wasn’t honest. I’d just be walking around with blinders on and probably be wrong 95% of the time. Charisma Is Confidence + Love Nivi: The next technique I’ve noticed in Naval is that he is truthful and positive at the same time. If you ask me for advice, I can be truthful or I can be positive, but it’s incredibly difficult, and it’s a really rare skill to be able to do both at the same time. Naval: Yeah, it’s my definition of charisma. Charisma is the ability to project confidence and love simultaneously—or just power and good intentions. I think if you genuinely are empathic—if you do care about the other person’s feelings and wellbeing, then you’re going to figure out how to deliver the message nicely. Now my close friends will tell you that I am not positive and I’m not nice, and that I can really rip into people. I like making fun of people. I like winning little verbal combats. I like being witty, and I can be brutal with people. But those are the people closest to me. Those are the people where I don’t have to even worry too much about what they think because they know how I think, and I know how they think, and I know they can take it, and they just want to cut to the chase. But I think honesty is the bedrock. If you have to pick one of the two, honesty is more important. It is more important to annoy somebody or to anger them and be honest than it is to be kind. But I think you can do both. In almost all situations you can do both. And the reality is, if you’re honest but not kind, they’re not going to listen to you. So then it’s a question of do you want to be right or do you want to be effective? And if you actually want to be effective, then you have to figure out how to layer it in with some kindness. Now, there are weaknesses in there too. Like I’m very bad at firing people. I have fired people. It’s rare. It takes a lot for me to fire someone, and I’ve gotten better at it over time, but I’ve historically been very bad at it. In most companies I’ll lean on my co-founders to be the ones doing that. That basically comes from exactly this point: I just don’t like to be unkind. So when it’s time to fire someone, even though they might be a drag on the team or it’s not the right place for them, I’m empathic. So I think through all the ways they could be hurt and how their feelings are, and all of that. So it gets very difficult for me. And really the only way I’ve found to fire people that works for me is I have to be convinced that they’re going to be more effective somewhere else in some other role, and then I have to help them find that role or at least be available as a reference for them on that role. It’s very rare that I’m going to fire somebody, and I haven’t thought through like where they would be more effective. Don’t Manage, Lead Nivi: By the way, when I say truthful and positive, what I mean by positive is that you leave the conversation with Naval energized to actually work on the discussion you just had. Naval: Yeah, so this goes to a good definition of leadership versus management. Management is telling people what to do, and leadership is making them want to do it. And I think leadership is one of the core, core things that you have to drive in an organization. You just have to inspire people to want to do the work. But it can’t be fake. It has to be a true motivator rolled into their capabilities and their own objectives—what they want out of life. So you do have to take the time to listen to what those people want, and then figure out where there’s an overlap in what you want done, and then inspire them to go do it. There’s a famous Antoine de Saint-Exupéry line. I recommend him—he’s a great author. He wrote Wind, Sand and Stars and Airman’s Odyssey. So he has a great line, which goes something like, “If you want to build a ship, don’t just gather the men, and issue orders, and cut the wood, and start the fires. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.” So if I’m recruiting someone, I’m always pitching them on what I think is correct—it’s honest; it’s authentic—which is that startups are just a much better way to build businesses, to live your life, and much more fun to work in than large companies. You’re not a cog in a machine. You have a lot more autonomy. You have a lot more fun. You can make a lot more money. And yes, in the short term it’s grueling, but in the long term, once you’ve done startups, it’s very difficult to go work for a big company. Once you have worked with a lot of autonomy or worked for yourself, it’s very hard to be employable in a traditional sense. I think one of my most popular tweets was, “A taste of freedom can make you unemployable.” And that’s kind of what I mean, especially for talented and skilled people who are self-motivated. And not everyone is that way, but if you are one of those self-motivated, high-agency people, when you’ve been free, you become unemployable. It’s like a kid who’s been homeschooled becomes unschoolable. They’ve just tasted freedom. And you’re not going to do your best work when you’re not free. Hunt Together Naval: So you want to be in the minimum-sized group to the scope of the job that you set out to do. And I think deep down, every man—some women—but definitely men are evolved this way. We evolved in hunter-gatherer tribes. And so men would go on the hunt, right? They would gather together, there would be 10 or 20 of them, and they’d grab their spears, and they’d go on a long hunt and they’d chase something down. And then they’d come back from the hunt—maybe a day, a week, a month later—and they’d have food and pelts and other things for the tribe. That’s baked into us. We are designed to go on missions with small groups: everything from people jumping on a boat and sailing to the West Indies or to the New World, or people going to war, or people going to build a business. So when you read these stories like Liftoff, which is a story of @elonmusk and his team building the first SpaceX rocket, or The Macintosh Way, which is about Jobs and his team building the first Macintosh—and there are other various books, like there’s Soul of a New Machine, etc.—these are incredibly inspiring. Because I think deep, deep, deep down, this is what every person really craves, which is if you’re building something, you’re in that kind of world where you want to be with a small team of highly competent people, each pulling their weight and doing their job to the best, such that you can completely rely on them, and then you get to do your creativity at the max. And then at the other side, you get this incredible outcome. And our whole society is built on that. If you look in game theory, for example, the popular game that comes up is Prisoner’s Dilemma. Prisoner’s Dilemma is all about: we’ve been arrested by the police and there’s two of us, and who’s going to rat the other one out? And the incentive is to cheat on the other person. But real life is a different game. Real life societies tend to be what’s called a stag hunt. A stag hunt is: if each of us are hunting by ourselves, we can kill a bunny. But if the two of us hunt together, then we can take down a stag and then we can have a lot more meat to go around. And that’s more of the model in normal society. So you see low trust societies, where people don’t trust each other, or where the structure makes it impossible to work together—the taxes are too high, the regulations are too high, there’s too much bureaucracy—things are illegal. You can’t engage in stag hunts, and you end up with lots of small, tiny, tiny little businesses, but also lots of poverty. And in a well-structured society, you can engage in stag hunts. You trust people. There’s rule of law. You know that if you build something together, you won’t be ripped off. You’ll get your fair share. You can ally with high-quality people. The government won’t take everything. There aren’t rules against it. You’re around like-minded people. You’re in a high-trust situation. People know each other in the social network; they can check each other out. They have reputations. And then you can get together these teams of 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 people who can do what was considered impossible. And so that is very invigorating, and I think that’s the way you want to function. You want to function with high-trust people in small groups to solve really hard problems. And deep down you’re built for it—you crave it. And so when I’m “pitching” people on joining a company, that’s what I’m pitching. I’m pitching them like, “Hey, this is where you’re meant to be. This is where you will self-actualize. This is where you have the most fun.” One of the recruiting tricks that I use is—you’ve got to keep the bar super high. So you just tell people, “Hey, you can walk in here and interview anybody. You can pick anybody who’s sitting on this office floor and you can interview them right now. And if you don’t think they’re brilliant, don’t join. They’re all that good.” Feed Your (Good) Obsessions Nivi: The next technique I’ve noticed is that you don’t sell anything that you’re not inspired about. I asked Jeff Fagnan from Accomplice—a friend of ours— what he thinks about your sales skills, and he described it as an “evangelical sale.” Naval: Hah! Oh man, I reject that. I don’t know. Evangelical. I think it’s just honest. You have to genuinely be excited about the thing. If you’re not excited about the thing, what are you doing selling it? It’s a miserable life if you’re selling things that you don’t care about. I know in The Wolf of Wall Street and all those kinds of movies, it’s lionized like, “Hey, sell me this pen.” You know, “Sell me this fork.” I don’t care about selling you this pen or selling you this fork, unless I believe it’s the best pen ever made. If I believe it’s the best pen ever made, I’ll sell it for free. You know, I love the pen. So I think for me, sales is a byproduct of credibility, and obviously it helps to be articulate and it helps to be empathic. In terms of the actual sales skills, I know the whole Cialdini checklist. I might use it once in a blue moon. If I’m writing an email, I might just run down it. But I’m not going to artificially fill an email or a pitch with random comments, just trying to close in on people. All frameworks in life—whether it’s like your working out framework or your sales framework, or even your building an app framework—they’re all secondary, and distant secondary, to your motivation. If you are truly motivated to build an app, you will figure it out. If you’re truly motivated to create a business, you will figure it out. The business school, the business books, the app development stuff, all of that is secondary. You can use that later ex post facto to analyze the thing in hindsight and say, “Oh, that’s how I did it,” “Oh, that’s what that technique was.” But the reality is, you’ll do it because you’re motivated. One of the reasons why I think my cryptic tweets work better than formulas is because they’re really about inspiration and motivation. If you are sufficiently motivated, you will figure it out. There’s also a tricky line there. If you’re the kind of person who needs to read motivational tweets and listen to motivational podcasts all the time, then you’re probably not going to make it either, because you have to be self-motivated at some level. It’s like Schopenhauer used to say, the point of reading is a kindling—to light a fire in your own brain. And I would say the same way, the point of being motivated is kindling—to light a fire in your own heart. And if that fire can’t be lit, then you’re just going to be listening to motivational podcasts until the end of time. There’s no value in reading business books. Even business podcasts to me are a form of entertainment, while I’m brushing my teeth or I’m on the treadmill. They’re not a way to actually learn anything useful. If you want to learn something useful, the only way to learn it is to go and do it. And to do it with fervor and obsession and authenticity. So closing the loop on vibe coding—vibe coding is just my latest obsession. I have an obsessive personality. Every six months I get obsessed with something new, and I’ve learned over time, there are bad obsessions—like, if you are overeating, or if you’re doing drugs, or you’re playing too many video games, or anything like that—that’s a bad obsession. But there are good obsessions. The intellectual obsessions are good obsessions. So I’ve learned to feed my intellectual obsessions. If I’m into some piece of technology, if I’m loving some podcast where I might be learning something, if I’m getting into some specific kind of workout, I feed that obsession. I go out of my way to indulge in it. I don’t look for balance. I look to feed my obsessions. And then once the obsession phase passes, like it inevitably does—you get a little tired of the thing—some large piece of it stays with you for the rest of your life, and you just learn how to work it into your everyday psyche and personality and being. And so I would say indulge your obsessions. Don’t worry about business books. Like if you want to be good at sales, then find something that you really care about that you want to sell and go sell that thing. And it won’t be hard. It won’t feel like sales. If it feels to you like you’re selling, then you’re probably selling the wrong thing. But if you’re just being enthusiastic about it, if you’re just conveying your enthusiasm, and you can’t control yourself, then you found the right thing to sell. So if you’re in the sales business right now and you’re selling something you don’t care about, you need to go find something else to sell. Sell the Truth Nivi: Let me give you the full text Jeff sent me about your evangelical sales. Here it is: “Evangelical sell. Takes you through the bigger picture then makes you want to do the small things. Good at storytelling. He’s so passionate—whether it’s a toothbrush, restaurant, or a shitty startup. It works well together.” Naval: Well, that’s the external view. It’s certainly not how I think about it. I don’t even think about it to be honest. I’m just talking. If you want to be genuine, if you want to be taken seriously by the people, again, who can see right through you, it’s important not to overthink these things. Because, for example, if I’m raising money for a company—like so for my new company, Impossible, we’ve raised a round already and we’re probably going to raise another one at some point—the way I approach that fundraising is I’m not driven by an external clock. I don’t say, “Oh, it’s September. Let me put the deck together now and go pitch it.” I actually wait. I work on the company; I work on the team. And I measure my own excitement level, and when my own excitement level gets above a certain threshold, then I know I’m ready to go raise the money because now I’m genuinely excited about where the business is, and I feel like the business really deserves another round of financing. At that point, it’s not hard for me to go and sell it, and at that point I just have to go find a bunch of people, explain it to them. And if they don’t get it, that’s their loss—I just move on to the next one. I don’t fixate on the person who didn’t get it, because most people won’t get it. But it’s much more about measuring my own internal excitement level based on the fundamentals of where the business is at. And if I go out to raise money, that means the business is at the point where I’m excited enough about it that I now just have to genuinely convey what I already see and know to be true. I don’t have to pitch something that isn’t true. I don’t have to exaggerate anything. I have to just genuinely convey what’s down there that’s getting me excited. Nivi: If Naval’s going to pitch you on something, or communicate, or persuade, there’s always going to be a preamble. There’s going to be a larger context that he sets, whether it’s the problem situation, a story, a historical setting. He’s not going to jump right into the pitch. It’s going to be part of a larger story.

English
7
14
187
96.9K
Naval
Naval@naval·
New podcast on sales - Sell the Truth. 00:00 Be Credible 03:18 “Yes, And” 04:31 Selfish Honesty 05:37 Charisma Is Confidence + Love 07:56 Don’t Manage, Lead 11:16 Hunt Together 14:51 Feed Your (Good) Obsessions 18:57 Sell the Truth 21:07 Good Deal or No Deal 23:39 The Age of Nonlinear Returns
English
115
916
7.4K
609.3K
Naval retweetledi
Rand Paul
Rand Paul@RandPaul·
TODAY is the day. The DOJ must charge Fauci for lying under oath or lose the chance forever. This man oversaw gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, lied to Congress about it repeatedly, and watched as you were called crazy for asking questions. The statute of limitations expires tomorrow. The American people have waited long enough for accountability.
English
3.8K
11.3K
49.6K
1.3M
Naval retweetledi
Rob Henderson
Rob Henderson@robkhenderson·
"Add up the tax and the philanthropy, and the citizenry gets 59% of what billionaires earn, or 73% if you follow their fortunes into death. Estimates that billionaires pay lower tax rates than everyone else rest on distortions, tricks and lies." wsj.com/opinion/free-e…
English
46
213
1.5K
130.4K
Naval retweetledi
Naval Podcast
Naval Podcast@navalpodcast·
Executive Brief of our latest episode: ‘Nothing Ever Happens’ Is Over 1. As companies grow, the communication overhead gets very high, so the traditional answer is hierarchy. This creates politics, permissioning, and a world where the CEO needs ‘founder mode’ just to talk to an engineer. 2. The alternative is a fully interconnected graph: everyone can talk to anyone, with a light hub-and-spoke around one person trying to keep the whole product in his head. 3. This only works if every node is highly intelligent. You need people who can navigate their way to the person they need to talk to, cooperate directly, and survive without management theater. 4. In that kind of company, AI starts replacing the explicit intranet. It can go through the codebase and tell you who in the organization is likely to be an expert, so you don’t need everything manually documented. 5. You don’t need fixed dashboards when AI can create them on the fly. AI can constantly be doing data analysis and reporting for you—reports on demand. 6. There are two, maybe four, companies that are dominating AI. The question is whether AI becomes a commodity business, a monopoly business, or an oligopoly business. 7. The famous meme “Nothing Ever Happens” is over. Post-COVID, the world is changing a lot faster. 8. Drone warfare changes the structure of violence in society. Drones bring mutually assured destruction down to the individual level. 9. Hardware is getting unlocked through software. AI means hardware companies can make good enough software, because agents can interact with the hardware directly. 10. Optimism requires creativity. Doom is easier to imagine, so we have to nurture optimism and be irrationally optimistic, because that’s the only way out.
Naval Podcast@navalpodcast

New podcast is up! ‘Nothing Ever Happens’ Is Over The Fully Interconnected Startup 00:00 You Don’t Need the Explicit Intranet Anymore 04:14 May You Live in Interesting Times 06:55 Drones Democratize Violence 10:40 Biothreats Could Also Get Democratized 12:43 AI Interfaces Unlock Hardware 15:09 Optimism Requires Creativity 17:35

English
34
46
328
143.3K
Naval retweetledi
Naval Podcast
Naval Podcast@navalpodcast·
Transcript: ‘Nothing Ever Happens’ Is Over Startup design, drone warfare, and the hardware renaissance Nivi: You’re listening to the Naval Podcast. This is Nivi. There’s no set topic for this episode—it will be a potpourri. The Fully Interconnected Startup Nivi: Naval, how are you using AI at Impossible, your current company, to change how you manage the business? Or are you guys just too small and a bunch of brilliant independent contributors where it’s not having an effect on how you actually run the company? Naval: It’s more the latter. We’re a hub-and-spoke architecture. My co-founder is the CEO, and everyone kind of reports into him. He’s just kind of the one product manager who runs around with everything in his head to try to bring this whole impossible task together. And everybody interfaces through him, and people are pretty smart. We keep a very flat structure. We try to push people to communicate with each other directly. We don’t even use Slack if that gives you a sense. So we’re not using AI as a communication method explicitly inside. But implicitly, AI is still very helpful. So we’re not like Square. I know Jack Dorsey has reorganized Square around AI and maybe Tobi at Shopify is doing that. There are some guys who are very good at organizational management and they do these kinds of experiments. I’ve never been good at organizational management. I actually hate organizational management because I hate organizations. I hate large groups. I think it’s just so hard to get things done and you’re not dealing with the best and the brightest and there’s always politics. So I just prefer keeping groups small. And we count on people to just operate independently and communicate with each other as needed. Like I said, we don’t even use Slack. We don’t use any project management software. I think it’s just GitHub. And then when people want to talk to each other, they just text each other. Literally—they talk one-on-one. And sometimes it’s chaotic and they have to figure out who to navigate their way towards. But that’s part of the skillset. It’s sort of like in computer networks. How do you organize a network for efficiency? Because at some point the communication overhead gets very high. The traditional answer is hierarchy. It’s a tree system. It’s like there’s one person at the top—the CEO—then they have a bunch of VPs or SVPs reporting to them. Then you have a bunch of VPs below that, and then middle managers and so on, and that keeps things organized and marching in one direction. But it’s stifling. There’s a lot of politics. You can’t talk to people two or three levels below you unless you go founder mode like Elon or Brian Chesky, and then it’s celebrated as some wonderful achievement that all of a sudden the CEO is allowed to talk to an engineer. You can tell I’m being sarcastic there. Like I just think that’s a terrible way to operate, but it’s a requirement of size, and we’re just not at that size, so I don’t like it. Instead, I like the fully interconnected graph. And that’s insane. Fully interconnected graph is everyone talking to anyone, with a light hub-and-spoke, with one person in the middle who’s trying to keep everything in their heads. The thing about a fully interconnected graph in networking is that every node has to be highly intelligent. So that’s what you do. You hire highly intelligent people who can operate in a fully interconnected graph, and if they can’t navigate their way to the person they need to talk to, to solve a specific problem—or if they can’t cooperate or communicate with other people—then they don’t belong in this kind of an organization, and they should just go and find a hierarchical organization where they’re going to be more comfortable. So we don’t really rely on any tools. You Don’t Need the Explicit Intranet Anymore Naval: Now, AI is implicitly still a very helpful tool within the organization, and I can give you two examples, although there are more. One is just if you’re reading code that was written by somebody else, and it’s very complicated, you can just have the AI read it for you and give you a summary. Papers: they can read other people’s papers and give you a summary. It can actually go through the codebase and tell you who in the organization is likely to be an expert on what topic and guide you to them. So AI can do a lot of that digging for you. You don’t need the explicit intranet as much anymore. You don’t need the explicit marking down of things because the AI can figure out where you are. You could even unleash the AI on the codebase—on the designs. Like, say you have hardware designs, you can unleash them on designs. If you have suppliers and vendors, you can release them on the database or the file folder in which all the documents with suppliers and vendors are kept. You could even unleash it on the company email if you wanted to and just say, “Where are we? How far are we actually from shipping? Draw me a Gantt chart based on where you think we actually are in terms of the estimates and the timelines, and who’s behind, and who’s ahead, and which divisions are lacking resources.” AI can constantly be doing this data analysis and digging and reporting for you—reports on demand. You don’t need specific charts and dashboards and business integration systems. You can just have AI literally recreate it on the fly. You maybe don’t want to be doing it every time because it might be too slow, but you can have it build these dashboards on demand, and you can have it update them on demand. So that’s one huge thing. The other is that traditionally in a company you would have the hardware people—and at a company like ours, you have the hardware people, you have the software people, and you have the AI people—and they kind of wouldn’t be doing each other’s work. But now with AI they can at least get to 20%–30% of others’ work. So it makes the gluing between them a little easier. The AI people, for example, can create their own software harnesses if they need to test something. It may not be good for production deployment, but it’s better than having to sit around and wait for a software person to come by and write you some custom code. Same way, the hardware people can also write a little bit of software to bring up a new hardware device, where otherwise they might have needed to wait for software people. So having AI just lets everybody do a little bit of everything. It makes them more generalist. And by being more generalist, it means that you have better touchpoints to interface with other people. You don’t necessarily need to have someone write you an explicit API to work with their code. You can actually just have the AI go and discover an API or create its own API, or you can just bypass the AI and connect directly at whatever level it wants to, whether in the database or within the codebase. So it’s naturally a force multiplier, but we haven’t done anything explicit with it. May You Live in Interesting Times Nivi: What are you trying to figure out right now? The reason I ask is because you rarely get to see work product from smart people while it’s in motion. One of my obsessions is trying to excavate the secrets and inner thoughts of smart people. Naval: The world is very different than it was a few years ago. There are two, maybe four, companies that are dominating AI—or five if you count hardware with Nvidia. And the question is, “Is that the stable situation?” Is this going to be a commodity business or is this going to be a monopoly business, or is it going to be an oligopoly business? Does it top out at some point? Do they run out of data and do the models stop improving? Or do we go all the way to AGI? Certainly the people inside the labs are believers in AGI, and think that all value is going to disappear into the AI labs. Does this end up even more consolidated than the Mag 7 world, where there’s just Mag 2 or Mag 1? Or does it somehow fragment? Does open source really have a chance? Or do people just always want the smartest model? And so for that, they’ll give up privacy, they’ll give up open source, and they’ll just pay up in the cloud? So I think these are huge questions. Huge. These are world-shattering questions, but I don’t know the answer to this. Can you train AI in a distributed way? Is distributed training possible, or are these things going to centralize more and more and more? I think now the conventional wisdom is going centralized training: two to four companies dominating, data centers and power are the limits, and everyone is rushing towards that. But what if that’s wrong? That would be an interesting contrarian bet. But I don’t yet see the evidence. I think the emerging conventional wisdom for that part in AI is right. As for AGI, I don’t know. I don’t want to be in the futurist business. Certainly the people in the frontier labs believe it. They’ve believed it for quite a while. The AI that I’m seeing has jagged intelligence. It’s also pretty bad at multimodal reasoning. I don’t think it has a good model of the world, although there are all these world model companies coming up. Although I think they confuse something that looks like a world that you navigate in, which people are like, “Oh, that’s a world model, because it looks like you’re generating something that looks like a world, and I can wander around in it.” That’s not a world model. A world model is when you have an agent that has a model of the world inside its head, which allows it to take actions and then predict the consequences of its actions, and then adjust its own behavior based on what happened—whether it learned or not—so you have like a reinforcement learning loop. That’s a world model. And so we’re seeing world model companies emerging. I think Yann LeCun famously did one recently with JEPA. And so we are going to see new kinds of models, new kinds of agents, new kinds of intelligence. Are we going to get to AGI? I don’t know. Now that’s the same thing that everybody’s trying to figure out, right? But this world is changing. The famous meme I think on X was like, “Nothing ever happens,” right? I think that’s over. I haven’t quite been able to put my finger on why, but I think anyone who is paying attention would tell you that post-COVID, the world is changing a lot faster. There was some dislocation around COVID, or perhaps it was just we were in unstable equilibrium and COVID just broke that equilibrium, and then we had a phase shift. But the world seems to be moving a lot faster now. And that’s true geopolitically. That’s true economically. That’s true technologically. VCs are now being forced to fund more hardware, rockets, drones, AI—you know, sci-fi technologies if you would call it. So I think sci-fi technologies are in high demand. Sci-fi scientists and sci-fi authors are in low supply. Sci-fi engineers are in low supply. So we are seeing the world shift, and maybe it’s for the better, maybe it’s for the worse, but things are changing very, very fast now. We are living within that Chinese curse of: ‘May you live in interesting times.’ Drones Democratize Violence Nivi: Is there anything you’re trying to figure out in the world of hardware? Naval: I think drones are still underleveraged, even though they’ve come to prominence on the battlefield recently. We still haven’t seen anywhere near the end game of drones. There’s nothing in particular I’m trying to figure out there. I mean, I think drone defense is going to be very difficult, because a drone that’s attacking has the advantage of both kinetic energy—because it’s coming down on you—and it’s got the advantage of surprise, where the attacker can mass all the attack drones in one area, whereas the defender is always spread thin. The defender has one advantage, which is short range. The defender has to traverse a much smaller range going up than the attacking drone probably had to cover coming in. But I think that drone warfare changes the structure of violence in society. So it’s going to actually fundamentally change how militaries and entire states are architected. You could argue that the modern state rose up as a consequence of the rifle, because a rifle allowed a former peasant to take down a feudal knight on the battlefield. Then you need a factory to make rifles, and you had to drill musket men and arm them and train them. And so nation states sprung up and became dominant instead of feudal states as the right structure to do that within. And then post-nuclear, there’s only seven to nine really independent sovereign nations, and everybody else lives underneath someone else’s nuclear umbrella. So those seven to nine call the shots, whether in the Security Council or elsewhere. And so nuclear weapons were the new logic of violence after 1945. Now the newest logic of violence is drones. And that’s going to fundamentally shift the game again, because drones bring the logic of mutually assured destruction down to the individual level. If you really hate somebody, in the future, a drone will be able to get them. That’s a weird form of violence coming up that’s going to basically restructure society as we know it. I don’t know which way it goes. Is it going to be the case that you have a few very large, very powerful countries that control all the drones? Or is it that drones get so democratized that any individual can be deadly? Biothreats Could Also Get Democratized Naval: Also, I think one of the fears with AI is biological weapons. I don’t want to get people worked up but, in theory, if you were smart in the past, you could have figured out how to make a biological weapon. But the number of people who could have done it—who had both the expertise and had the access—were very low. Although it was still too high because the coronavirus that coincidentally got unleashed right next to the bioweapons lab in Wuhan figured it out. So now that power is going to be democratized, just like vibe coding is democratized. Now the number of people who can vibe code is hundreds or thousands of times greater than the number of people who were coding. And so the same way, the number of people who can get access to biological weapons or viruses is hundreds of thousands of times what could have gotten access to them before. So that’s a pretty scary thought. Now we can also do the opposite, which is hopefully now the same AIs can also research how to create vaccines or how to create things to stop them. But the problem is that all the official research—all the good guy research—is always gated behind regulations and there are almost no regulations out there as bad as medical regulations. One of the real opportunities out there, I think, is for AI to solve medicine and biology and therapies. But to do that, you need the data. You need to be able to look at everyone’s dataset. You need to be able to look at all the outcomes. You want as much data as possible. And this data is hidden behind so many silos, and so many regulations and rules. And for good reason—you don’t want to target individuals. But if you could anonymize, clean up, and allow that dataset to get out there, and then you could let people test therapies with a right to try, then I think you could have reasonable defenses. But my fear is this will only happen in an emergency situation. Even during COVID, when we had the emergency situation, we took a long time with the vaccines, which turned out not to be that effective anyway. But it took a long time with the vaccines, because we just didn’t let people operate under volunteer situations and right to try. It just took way too long, whereas I think in the old days you would’ve had a bunch of healthy, young volunteers would’ve said, “Sure, give me this vaccine and then give me COVID. I’ll take one for the team.” But now because of “bioethicists,” we don’t even allow that. There’s just too much bureaucracy in the system. Too many people who can say “no” to the few people who are trying to get things done. And so for that, I do worry a little bit about the future. AI Interfaces Unlock Hardware Naval: What else is interesting in hardware? Hardware, I think, is going to undergo a renaissance, because historically the problem with a lot of hardware is that it’s very hard to write good software. And so you get all this incredible hardware coming out, but the software’s terrible so the device itself doesn’t function well. Apple has done really well because they integrate hardware with high-quality software. Most companies do one or two things well. Apple does two things really well: they build great hardware; they build great software. They’re not that good at cloud and AI. Google is very good at cloud, and very good at AI, but they’re not very good at hardware, for example. And software, I would say they’re good at certain kinds of software. They’re good at cloud software—they’re not good at consumer software. Now, all of a sudden, you have all these companies that are very good at hardware but not good at software—they can make good enough software. Or they don’t even need to make software. My AI agent will interact with the hardware directly and I don’t need software anymore. So if you’re someone, for example, who is making security cameras, or you’re making toys for kids, or you’re making programmable lamps, all of a sudden the software for that just got a lot easier. You can have some bright kid with Claude Code, just get in there and build you all the software that you need. Or maybe you don’t need any software because your security cameras are now controlled by each person’s agent and don’t need custom software any longer. So I think that hardware itself is getting unlocked through software. And this is, I think, one of the reasons why China is so big into open source. Now they’re behind, so when you’re behind, you try to catch up through open source. I think also it’s a little bit of their nationalist pride that, “We’re in it together.” Maybe the government’s funding them and encouraging them to do open source. But it also plays well into their hardware dominance. China is manufacturing most of the consumer electronics goods, and so for them, open source is hugely beneficial because it commoditizes their complement. Same thing for Nvidia. Nvidia just wants to sell as many cards as possible, so they want people to use as many AI models as possible. So they want it all to be open source. So you have a bunch of hardware players, including most of China and Nvidia, whose incentive is, “Hey, it should all be open source.” Hyperscalers also—they want it all open source. So they drive open source in the AI models, and then that commoditizes software, and the software unlocks more hardware. So I think we’re going to see more and more interesting usable hardware because now the software is figured out enough that that hardware becomes unlocked and quite usable. Optimism Requires Creativity Nivi: I don’t get scared or worked up about the future, partly because I’m a blind optimist and partly because I live in the first world. Naval: Yeah, I don’t get worked up about it because I think it’s just so much easier to imagine doom scenarios than it is to imagine positive scenarios. Because optimism requires creativity. For example, the job loss thing is a clear example. It’s very easy to look at existing jobs and see how they will go away, but it’s very hard to predict what the next job will be. Yet inevitably there’s always a next job. Because of that, I think people tend to fixate on the doom scenarios. It’s much easier to imagine the methods of doom than to imagine the methods of rising up. There is no one—no one 200 years ago—who could have imagined how we would end up where we are today in terms of technological advancement and capitalism and economics and the rise of various societies. They just couldn’t have imagined it. They couldn’t have imagined 10% of the jobs that exist today, because back then everybody was working on a farm. But nevertheless, here we are. So the same way, I think the doom scenarios they imagined are actually very similar to the same doom scenarios that we imagine today—like even a hundred years ago. Every decade I’ve been alive, there’s been a new environmental catastrophe to come along. Someone’s talking about the end of the world because of the environment. And then every decade there’s a catastrophe coming along because of a war that’s going to end the world. Yeah, sometimes you get really close. COVID was scary. If COVID had actually turned out to be a much more nasty virus, we could have been in a bad spot. If there was a World War III where we start exchanging nukes, that would be a very bad scenario. So these things are easier to imagine. They’re more legible to our minds, so we hold them closer to us. Plus the outcome there is so catastrophic that people obviously fixate on it. But I think it’s very hard to imagine creativity. It’s very hard to be optimistic. And so I think we have to nurture optimism. We have to reward optimism. We have to be irrationally optimistic, because that’s the only way out of this anyway. So whenever people do the crabs in a bucket thing where they try to pull the optimists back down and they keep saying, “Doom, doom, doom,” they might be right, but it’s certainly not helping matters. That’s not the person you want to be in a foxhole with.
English
12
14
169
72.5K
Naval
Naval@naval·
AIs replace UIs and APIs.
English
947
592
8.5K
2.1M
Naval retweetledi
Naval
Naval@naval·
Journalists aren't neutral - they're the cavalry in the culture wars.
English
250
2.3K
14.9K
0
Naval
Naval@naval·
“What did you build this week?” is the new “what did you get done this week?”
English
479
681
8K
255.7K
Naval
Naval@naval·
“Democratic Socialists” are just the “New Luddites” party.
English
126
132
2.7K
144.4K
Naval
Naval@naval·
@TrueBenGammon @joinladder I’m actually a ladder subscriber :-) But sometimes I want something a lot simpler, so I vibe coded the app on the side.
English
2
0
16
2.7K
BG
BG@TrueBenGammon·
@naval @naval I’ll gift you a free lifetime @joinladder membership so you can spend more time vibe‑coding the rest of your personal app store... But we’re just honored Ladder made the cut as inspo 🤝
English
1
0
5
2.4K
Naval
Naval@naval·
New podcast on vibe coding - A Return to Code. A Return to Coding 00:20 The Personal App Store 03:17 Vibe Coding Is a Video Game with Real-World Rewards 06:22 Pure Software Is Uninvestable 10:33 A Place for Each Model 14:22 AI Is Eager to Please 17:57 Why Math and Coding? 22:10 The Beginning of the End of Apple’s Dominance 24:17 Coding Agents As Customer Service Reps 27:55
English
201
740
6.5K
593.1K
Naval retweetledi
Brivael Le Pogam
Brivael Le Pogam@brivael·
Elon Musk avait dit un truc qui m'avait marqué sur l'allocation de ressources. En substance : passé un certain niveau de richesse, l'argent n'est plus de la consommation, c'est de l'allocation de capital. Cette phrase change tout. L'économie, dans le fond, c'est juste un problème d'allocation. Tu as des ressources finies et des usages infinis. Qui décide où va quoi ? Imagine une cour de récré. 100 enfants, des paquets de cartes Pokémon distribués au hasard. Tu laisses faire. Très vite, un ordre émerge. Les bons joueurs accumulent les cartes rares, les collectionneurs trient, les négociateurs trouvent des deals. Personne n'a planifié. Et pourtant chaque carte finit dans les mains de celui qui en tire le plus de valeur. Le système maximise le bonheur total de la cour. C'est ça, la main invisible. Maintenant fais entrer la maîtresse. Elle trouve ça injuste. Léo a 50 cartes, Tom en a 3. Elle confisque, redistribue, impose l'égalité. Trois effets immédiats. Les bons joueurs arrêtent de jouer, à quoi bon. Les mauvais n'ont plus de raison de progresser, ils auront leur part. Les échanges s'effondrent. La cour est égale, et morte. Elle a maximisé l'égalité, elle a détruit le bonheur. Le problème de la maîtresse, c'est qu'elle ne peut pas avoir l'information que la cour avait collectivement. C'est le problème du calcul économique de Mises, formulé en 1920. L'URSS a essayé de le résoudre pendant 70 ans avec le Gosplan. Résultat : pénuries, queues, effondrement. Pas parce que les Soviétiques étaient bêtes, parce que le problème est mathématiquement insoluble en mode centralisé. Quand Musk a 200 milliards, il ne les consomme pas, il les alloue. SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Chaque dollar est un pari sur le futur. Et lui a un track record. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX. Il a démontré qu'il sait identifier des problèmes immenses et y allouer des ressources avec un rendement spectaculaire. L'État aussi a un track record. Hôpitaux qui s'effondrent, éducation qui décline, dette qui explose, services publics qui se dégradent malgré des budgets en hausse constante. Le marché identifie les bons allocateurs, la politique identifie les bons communicants. Le profit n'est pas une finalité, c'est un signal. Il dit : tu as alloué des ressources rares vers un usage que les gens valorisent suffisamment pour payer. Plus le profit est gros, plus la création de valeur est grande. Quand Starlink est rentable, ça veut dire que des millions de gens dans des zones rurales ont enfin internet. Quand un ministère est en déficit, ça veut dire qu'il consomme plus qu'il ne produit. L'un crée, l'autre détruit, et on appelle ça redistribution. Dans nos sociétés il y a deux catégories d'acteurs. Les entrepreneurs et les bureaucrates. L'entrepreneur prend un risque personnel pour identifier un problème, mobiliser des ressources, créer une solution. S'il se trompe il perd. S'il a raison, ses clients gagnent, ses employés gagnent, ses fournisseurs gagnent, l'État collecte des impôts. Il est la cellule de base du progrès humain. Le bureaucrate ne prend aucun risque personnel. Son salaire est garanti. Au mieux il maintient une rente existante. Au pire il la détruit par excès de réglementation, mauvaise allocation forcée, incitations perverses qui découragent ceux qui produisent. Mais dans aucun cas il ne crée. Regarde les 50 dernières années. iPhone, internet civil, SpaceX, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Stripe, mRNA, ChatGPT. Toutes des inventions privées, portées par des entrepreneurs, financées par du capital risque. Pas un seul ministère n'a inventé quoi que ce soit qui ait changé ta vie au quotidien. La France est devenue le laboratoire mondial de la dérive bureaucratique. 57% du PIB en dépenses publiques, record absolu. Une administration tentaculaire, une fiscalité qui pénalise la création de richesse. Résultat : décrochage face aux États-Unis, à l'Allemagne, à la Suisse. Fuite des cerveaux. Désindustrialisation. Dette qui explose. Et le pire c'est que la mauvaise allocation s'auto-renforce. Plus l'État prélève, moins les entrepreneurs créent. Moins ils créent, moins il y a de base fiscale. Plus l'État s'endette et taxe. Boucle de rétroaction négative parfaite. La maîtresse pense qu'elle aide, et chaque année la cour produit moins. Dans nos sociétés, ce sont les entrepreneurs, toujours, qui font avancer la civilisation. Les bureaucrates au mieux maintiennent une rente, au pire la détruisent. Aucune société n'a jamais progressé en taxant ses créateurs pour subventionner ses gestionnaires. La question n'est jamais qui a combien. C'est qui alloue le mieux la prochaine unité de ressource pour maximiser le futur de l'humanité. La réponse depuis 200 ans n'a jamais changé. Ce ne sont pas les fonctionnaires.
Français
3.3K
16.5K
61.8K
81.5M