Owner 1win

a new car for the giveaway... drop your guesses in the comments

i can't believe nobody caught this. Anthropic's entire growth marketing team was just ONE PERSON (for 10 months, confirmed) a single non-technical person ran paid search, paid social, app stores, email marketing, and SEO for the $380B company behind claude here's exactly how one human is doing the job of a full marketing team: it starts with a CSV. 1. he exports all his existing ads from his ad platforms along with their performance metrics (click-through rates, conversions, spend, etc) 2. feeds the whole file into claude code 3. and tells it to find what's underperforming. claude analyzes the data, flags the weak ads, and generates new copy variations on the spot this is where he gets clever: he then splits the work into 2 specialized sub-agents: 1. one that only writes headlines (capped at 30 characters) 2. and one that only writes descriptions (capped at 90 characters). each agent is tuned to its specific constraint so the quality is way higher than cramming both into a single prompt so now he's got hundreds of fresh headlines and descriptions. but that's just the text. he still needs the actual visual ad creative, the images and banners that go on facebook, google, etc. so he built a figma plugin that: 1. takes all those new headlines and descriptions 2. finds the ad templates in his figma files 3. and automatically swaps the copy into each one. up to 100 ready-to-publish ad variations generated at half a second per batch. what used to take hours of duplicating frames and copy-pasting text by hand so now the ads are live. the next question is which ones are actually working. for that he built an MCP server (basically a custom integration that lets claude talk directly to external tools) connected to the meta ads API. so he can ask claude things like: • "which ads had the best conversion rate this week" • or "where am i wasting spend" and get real answers from live campaign data without ever opening the meta ads dashboard and the part that ties it all together and closes the loop: he set up a memory system that logs every hypothesis and experiment result across ad iterations. so when he goes back to step one and generates the next batch of variations... claude automatically pulls in what worked and what didn't from all previous rounds. the system literally gets smarter every cycle. that kind of systematic experimentation across hundreds of ads would normally need a dedicated analytics person just to track the numbers from the doc: ad creation went from 2 hours to 15 minutes. 10x more creative output. and he's now testing more variations across more channels than most full marketing teams a $380 billion company. and their entire growth marketing operation (not GTM) = just one person and claude code lol truly unbelievable

🚨: A petri dish of human brain cells just learned to play DOOM

🚨BREAKING: OpenAI published a paper proving that ChatGPT will always make things up. Not sometimes. Not until the next update. Always. They proved it with math. Even with perfect training data and unlimited computing power, AI models will still confidently tell you things that are completely false. This isn't a bug they're working on. It's baked into how these systems work at a fundamental level. And their own numbers are brutal. OpenAI's o1 reasoning model hallucinates 16% of the time. Their newer o3 model? 33%. Their newest o4-mini? 48%. Nearly half of what their most recent model tells you could be fabricated. The "smarter" models are actually getting worse at telling the truth. Here's why it can't be fixed. Language models work by predicting the next word based on probability. When they hit something uncertain, they don't pause. They don't flag it. They guess. And they guess with complete confidence, because that's exactly what they were trained to do. The researchers looked at the 10 biggest AI benchmarks used to measure how good these models are. 9 out of 10 give the same score for saying "I don't know" as for giving a completely wrong answer: zero points. The entire testing system literally punishes honesty and rewards guessing. So the AI learned the optimal strategy: always guess. Never admit uncertainty. Sound confident even when you're making it up. OpenAI's proposed fix? Have ChatGPT say "I don't know" when it's unsure. Their own math shows this would mean roughly 30% of your questions get no answer. Imagine asking ChatGPT something three times out of ten and getting "I'm not confident enough to respond." Users would leave overnight. So the fix exists, but it would kill the product. This isn't just OpenAI's problem. DeepMind and Tsinghua University independently reached the same conclusion. Three of the world's top AI labs, working separately, all agree: this is permanent. Every time ChatGPT gives you an answer, ask yourself: is this real, or is it just a confident guess?