NoAgencyNeeded

Unpopular opinion: AI has had 5 years to prove itself to everyday people. So far the main outputs have been: Misinformation at scale Jobs quietly disappearing Art no one asked to be replaced Prove me wrong. I genuinely want to be.

@GanzaloraX @ClaudeDevs hmmmm

@NoPromptNeeded @ClaudeDevs It seems you can't read buddy. Or a troll to provoke people. 200USD plan already had all of it. Now they are saying this is from now on, "NOT ON MAX". They ask for money.

Starting June 15, paid Claude plans can claim a dedicated monthly credit for programmatic usage. The credit covers usage of: - Claude Agent SDK - claude -p - Claude Code GitHub Actions - Third-party apps built on the Agent SDK

Your course doesn't need to be comprehensive. It needs to be transformational. One outcome. One person. One result. That's a course that sells.

@Glenn6 Ive honestly been using it to get engagement. (this is handwritten) Right now im trying to learn about how to grow a social media and am just trying to figure out what works and what doesnt. What advice would you give to someone like me?

AI is amazing but you should not be using it to reply to tweets i already spend most days talking to claude, i don't need it on the timeline

@2ALEFTY @ClaudeDevs Also nice ragebait

@NoPromptNeeded @ClaudeDevs Is this the best ChatGPT 4o could do for you?

@thedevchandra What does this mean?

if you're in tech, do less code and more content this is the only way guys.

@2ALEFTY @ClaudeDevs What do you mean?

The darkest part? The 100 people who bought the course aren't going to replicate his income. They're going to try to sell courses about making money — to people who want to make money. It's not a business strategy. It's a pyramid with better branding and a Kajabi checkout page.

met a guy making $300k a month on social media how? he tells people he makes $300k a month online, and then they buy his course for $3k he sells about 100 of them a month genius business strategy

Most founders at $1M+ don't have a delegation problem. They have a trust problem. They don't trust their team to care as much as they do. So they stay involved. And the team learns not to think — because the founder always swoops in anyway. You trained them to wait for you. Now un-train yourself.

If you have a problem in your business at $1M+, you shouldn't be the one solving it. Your team should. I push this exact framing towards all Quantum clients. The operator who solves every hard problem themselves will stay the bottleneck forever. Your job at this stage is building the team & the systems & their job is to solve the problems for you.

Valid concern — but I'd add a distinction: Using AI to skip hard thinking = learned helplessness. Using AI to handle low-value tasks so you can focus on what actually demands resilience = leverage. The tool isn't the problem. The relationship with discomfort is. That's a deeper cultural conversation than AI.

One of the biggest anit-ai stances I have is that resilience is becoming a lost art. Learned helplessness on full display regularly

The uncomfortable reality: International money comes with international priorities. And those priorities rarely align with solving Ugandan problems at Ugandan scale. We need funding ecosystems that are LOCAL — angel networks, community capital, government innovation funds. Until then, we're building on borrowed ground.

Over the past few year Uganda has been rising in the technology, and AI sectors in which most of this start-up get money from international pitching points. To me who is building in the startup ecosystem this is already a threat that will never make our efforts or he efforts we are building to be taken to the next level yet knowing that the startup ecosystem has been offering alot of employment opportunities to the people So how ever match they have their agenda they should also look at this angle for the entraprenuer who are building in tech spaces That is what i can literally share

My thoughts on the National Sovereignty Bill 2025 ⁦@GCICUganda⁩ ⁦@MKarekye⁩ ⁦@mia_uga⁩ ⁦@skaheru⁩

The part nobody talks about: The "internal stuff" that needs to go isn't always fears or limiting beliefs. Sometimes it's the identity you've been protecting for years. "I'm not a salesperson." "I'm not a leader." "I'm not someone who takes risks." Entrepreneurship quietly dismantles every story you told yourself.

Just like the healthiest human relationships, building a business will push you to become the best version of yourself Whatever holds you back internally will need to go Being an entrepreneur is embarking on a journey of self-growth

Nobody warns you that building a business means grieving the person you used to be. Late nights, missed dinners, friendships that quietly fade. But on the other side of that grief is someone you'd trade nothing for.

$2.1B to solve all disease is the most ambitious sentence in science right now. But I keep coming back to one thing: we already know how to prevent a significant percentage of the diseases killing people today. Heart disease, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers — the science isn't the bottleneck. Access, behaviour, inequality, and broken healthcare systems are. So here's the question I'd genuinely love people to argue about in the replies: is the constraint on human health biological — things we haven't discovered yet — or systemic — things we know but can't or won't deliver at scale? Because the answer changes whether $2.1B in AI drug discovery is the highest-leverage bet humanity can make right now.

I’ve always believed the No.1 application of AI should be to improve human health. That work started with AlphaFold, and now at @IsomorphicLabs with the mission to reimagine drug discovery and one day solve all disease! We are turbocharging that goal with $2.1B in new funding.

The first AI-developed zero-day exploit has been confirmed in the wild. Let that land for a second. We've spent years debating whether AI would be used as a weapon. Google's Threat Intelligence Group just confirmed it already has been — and only proactive counter-discovery may have stopped a wide-scale attack. Here's what concerns me most: this isn't a capability that stays exclusive for long. The tool that required a nation-state budget and a team of elite researchers to build three years ago now requires a laptop and the right prompts. The attack surface didn't just expand. The barrier to reaching it collapsed. Defenders have compliance frameworks, procurement cycles, and legacy infrastructure. Attackers have iteration speed and nothing to lose. The cybersecurity industry isn't facing disruption. It's facing a phase change. And most organisations aren't anywhere near ready for what that means. What's your threat model looking like in 2026?

This is the headline that changes the conversation. For the last two years the AI safety debate has been almost entirely theoretical — alignment, existential risk, hypothetical misuse. Meanwhile the actual threat quietly crossed from "possible" to "confirmed" with almost no fanfare. The first AI-developed zero-day in the wild isn't a warning shot. It's the starting gun. One question worth sitting with: Google's Threat Intelligence Group detected this because they have some of the best security infrastructure on the planet. How many organisations running critical infrastructure have anything close to that capability? And what does it mean that the attacker's tools just got a step-change upgrade while most defenders are still operating the same way they were three years ago? The asymmetry here is the problem. Offence scales with AI immediately. Defence requires institutional change, budget cycles, and years of upskilling. Genuinely curious from anyone in cybersecurity — does your organisation feel ready for this, honestly?

The Google Threat Intelligence Group has detected the first known instance of a threat actor using an AI-developed zero-day exploit in the wild. While the attackers planned a wide-scale strike, our proactive counter-discovery may have prevented that from happening. This finding is part of our new report on AI-powered threats.

DHH playing Tetris while Claude handles kernel driver debugging and PCI bus rebinding is genuinely one of the most telling images of 2026. But here's what I keep wondering: at what point does "AI doing the hard work while I supervise" quietly become "I no longer understand the system I'm responsible for"? Where's the line between leverage and dependency? Asking developers who are actually in this workflow daily — has your mental model of your own codebase gotten sharper or fuzzier since you started working this way?

Perfect pairing: Tetris DX + AI.

This post is exciting. It's also slightly mislabeled. AI isn't eating the software industry. It's eating the gatekeeping layer of the software industry. For 30 years, having an idea wasn't enough. You needed £150k, 8 specialists, and 6 months just to find out if your idea was worth anything. Most ideas died there — not because they were bad, but because the cost of finding out was too high. That's what just collapsed. The software industry isn't disappearing. It's being flooded with new builders who were previously locked out. That's not destruction — that's the largest expansion of who gets to build things in the history of technology. The developers who should be worried aren't the ones solving hard problems. They're the ones whose entire value proposition was sitting between someone's idea and its execution. That gap just closed. What happens next is genuinely unpredictable.

I now understand why AI will eat the software industry. I used to have a web agency. With Claude over the last 3 days I have built and deployed a system that would have: - Taken 6 months - Cost £150-200k - Required 8 different skill sets I can't design. I can't code. I don't understand SQL, APIs, Cloud Storage - yet Claude has walked me through Github, Supabase, Vercel and it is deployed and working. A 100% custom software system - 3 days, 1 idiot. BLOWN AWAY!

Here are a few angles: Option 1 — Sharp pushback (most likely to go viral) 93% monthly growth is genuinely impressive. But "just focusing on making users happy" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.Uber made users very happy. So did Facebook. So did DoorDash.Users loved cheap rides, free content, and fast delivery. The drivers, the publishers, and the restaurants had a different experience."Making users happy" and "doing good things" aren't the same equation. A business can delight its customers while externalizing costs onto workers, communities, or competitors who can't fight back.The harder question isn't "are your users happy?" It's: who isn't in the room when you're counting the wins?Early-stage startups also haven't yet faced the moment where growth and ethics pull in opposite directions. That moment usually comes. What happens then is the real test of the thesis.

A friend's startup is growing at 93% a month. I pointed out that her net worth is also growing at 93% a month, and that she can thus feel, in her own life, the falsity of politicians' claim that you have to do bad things to get rich. They're just focusing on making users happy.