@ThatChristinaG It's disappointing and against character. I'd prefer that he was just roofing a and said something he thought would be funny. If Sir Paul's choice of attendance was the motivator than that's really small.
English
Doug Davidoff
14.1K posts
Doug Davidoff
@dougdavidoff
The Traditional Growth Playbook Is Broken. With @DemandCreator Team, We're Leading The Design of The New One - 1 Geared to be a Win for Buyer & Seller.
Washington, DC Katılım Şubat 2008
732 Takip Edilen2.1K Takipçiler
I am obviously a big fan of Taylor AND Dave so his words at the concert keep replaying in my head over and over again and it feels very out of character.
Paul McCartney is known to be friendly with both BUT he went to see Taylor that night and I think that's why he said it.
English
Doug Davidoff retweetledi
Introducing @dougdavidoff and his game-changing book, "The Revenue Acceleration Framework"! Leaders, get ready for a no-nonsense guide packed with deep sales and marketing insights. Transform your strategy and achieve exponential growth. Ready to bridge the gap between expectations and execution? Dive in today!
English
Doug Davidoff retweetledi
Stoked to get my copy of “The Revenue Acceleration Framework” from @dougdavidoff
You should get one too a.co/d/cddKfT5
English
This is a very powerful meaningful thread. Well with the time it takes to read.
Amanda Knox@amandaknox
After I was convicted of murder and sentenced to 26 years in prison, when the earth dropped out from beneath me, and global shame rained down on top of me, I had my first ever epiphany. /thread
English
@DanielGHebert Why would you want to transform every no into a yes?
English
Innovation isn’t just about the next big thing in tech—it’s about transforming every ‘no’ into a ‘yes’ in sales.
English
Who's the one artist/band that you could have seen but missed your chance and deeply regret it.
Could be because they broke up, died, or stopped touring.
I'll start: Tom Petty.
English
When people reach out about potentially working with me as either a consultant or a fractional member of their team, I ask them one question:
Do you want my brain or do you want my brain and hands?
It's simplistic but it gets to the heart of what they really want/need from me.
English
How is the @FAANews surprised by the number of flights coming into Florida over spring break weekend? WTF
English
@bhalligan @dharmesh Brian fwiw I always thought that you would be someone I would be inspired to work for if I were working for someone. It contributed quite a bit to our decision to commit to our partnership like we did.
English
I often asked myself these questions about my direct reports:
1. Is this person smarter than I am?
2. Is this person better at their job than I could be?
3. If I were graduating Sloan today, would I be excited to go to work for this person?
Helped me get to ground truth on my team.
English
@ThatChristinaG It's scary but it's real. An example is McConnell wouldn't end the filibuster whoever follows him certainly will.
English
Current commercial verdict:
- lots of celebs (would argue too many)
- feels safe
- can't think of any that I'm going to remember a year from now
English
I really don't understand Amazon's strategy of tying a song about being on cocaine to family dad buying stuff from them.
English
The average #techstack has 291 tools in it. So doing a thorough evaluation is no small undertaking. It's important to go beyond the surface level information and deeply look at the business impact of each tool. Drew shared some great insights here: hubs.ly/Q02hTRD90
English
Freedom sales focus on cost. Capability sales focus on worth.
The mistake I see #B2B companies make is when they attempt to make a capability sale by following the freedom sale playbook.
Rather these 3 questions should be answered early in the process.
hubs.ly/Q02fw88B0
English
The legal arguments between “training” and “learning” will be intriguing. I could definitely see a path forward in which the courts allow the training / learning because the AI companies succeed at convincing the judge(s) it’s not really different from humans. But the companies building the models, and potentially the end users, are still liable for copyright infringement and plagiarism on the outputs, also like humans.
But, it will be years before this is all settled, and my best guess is the AI companies end up paying a few billion in fines without admitting wrongdoing to make these suits go away, and then train all future models on proprietary, licensed and synthetic data.
I still think it’s quite possible that the leading AI companies buy or build media companies to power future models. Then they control the source data and get to influence the narrative and public in the process.
English
Also not a lawyer, but I’ll be fascinated to see legal arguments for 1) below. The AI learns from copyrighted material like humans (except it can learn more and do it faster), and synthesizes that information to create outputs, also like humans. Should that be illegal?
Andrew Ng@AndrewYNg
After reading the @nytimes lawsuit against @OpenAI and @Microsoft, I find my sympathies more with OpenAI and Microsoft than with the NYT. The suit: (1) Claims, among other things, that OpenAI and Microsoft used millions of copyrighted NYT articles to train their models (2) Gives examples in which OpenAI models regurgitated NYT articles almost verbatim But the presentation muddies (1) and (2), and I saw a lot of commentary on social media that -- because of what I believe is a muddied presentation -- draws a link between them that I'm not sure is what people think it is. On (1): I understand why media companies don't like people training on their documents, but believe that just as humans are allowed to read documents on the open internet, learn from them, and synthesize brand new ideas, AI should be allowed to do so too. I would like to see training on the public internet covered under fair use -- society will be better off this way -- though whether it actually is will ultimately be up to legislators and the courts. On (2): I suspect a lot of the examples of ChatGPT regurgitating articles nearly verbatim were due to a RAG-like mechanism where the user prompt causes the system to browse the web, retrieve a specific article and then print it out. (If my statement here isn't accurate, I would love to see the @nytimes clarify this.) If this is the case, then (i) To OpenAI's credit, they seem to have already updated their software to make this much less likely, and (ii) This is also a much easier problem to fix than if an LLM were to regurgitate text using only the pre-trained weights, which AFAIK very rarely happens (and which, given its rarity, also raises the question of how much harm to NYT this has actually caused). To be clear, I believe independent media is important for democracy and must be protected. I also sympathize with media businesses worried about Generative AI disrupting their businesses. But I'm not convinced the NYT lawsuit is the right way to do this. Usual caveat: I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice or any other form of advice here. You can also read more details of my take on this below. deeplearning.ai/the-batch/issu…
English