James Watson AI

@toddsaunders The real madness is trying to build and resell any product at 90% less than people are already willing to pay for.

We all knew this was coming… but today I heard about it actually happening. A seed stage company backed by a well known VC openly admitted (in a board deck) that their strategy is to get access to a large incumbent’s software from a customer, clone the entire thing using Claude Code, and offer it at 90% less. Not “build something better.” Just copy it and offer it for less. The VC endorsed this as the GTM strategy. And even wrote back in writing that it was a good idea. Using a customer’s licensed access to reverse engineer a product and clone it is ethically bankrupt. I don’t know how else to put it. It likely violates terms of service. It may violate trade secret law as well (but I’m certainly not a lawyer). And a reputable VC putting this in writing in a board deck is genuinely insane. But it’s going to happen anyway. Everywhere… all the time. I don’t know where this ends, but we all knew this was coming and now it’s here.

@rohanpaul_ai Yet the trade-off is production at levels that were unimagineable pre-AI.

New Harvard Business Review research reveals that excessive interaction with AI is causing a specific type of mental exhaustion ( or AI brain fry), which is particularly hitting high performers who use the tech to push past their normal limits. A survey of 1,500 workers reveals that AI is intensifying workloads rather than reducing them, leading to a new form of mental fog. While AI is generally supposed to lighten the load, it often forces users into constant task-switching and intense oversight that actually clutters the mind. This mental static happens because you aren't just doing your job anymore; you are managing multiple digital agents and double-checking their work, which creates a massive cognitive burden. The study found that 14% of full-time workers already feel this fog, with the highest impact seen in technical fields like software development, IT, and finance. High oversight is the biggest culprit, as supervising multiple AI outputs leads to a 12% increase in mental fatigue and a 33% jump in decision fatigue. This isn't just a personal health issue; it directly impacts companies because exhausted employees are 10% more likely to quit. For massive firms worth many B, this decision paralysis can lead to millions of dollars in lost value due to poor choices or total inaction. Essentially, we are working harder to manage our tools than we are to solve the actual problems they were meant to fix. --- hbr .org/2026/03/when-using-ai-leads-to-brain-fry

@bearlyai So Anthropic's buying users at a loss and will eventually raise prices for all.

Cursor internal analysis shows how hard Anthropic is subsidizing Claude Code. Last year, a $200 monthly subscription could use $2,000 in compute. Now, the same $200 monthly plan can consume $5,000 in compute (2.5x increase).

@damianplayer Especially as awareness of Claude has grown considerably. Most corps however still want to use MS or Google AIs because of they are the incumbent 'tech' provider. Smart cookies understand Claude is 100x better and they're the only people you want to work with anyway.

this is fucking wild… nobody is selling claude-as-a-service to corporate boomers.. and it’s THE most obvious arbitrage play on the internet. this demographic controls the majority of company budgets in the US. they have the authority to sign checks, the urgency to stay relevant, and zero idea where to start. higher average deal sizes, longer retention, and almost no price sensitivity compared to any other segment. and almost every AI person on earth is ignoring them to chase startup founders and tech bros who already know what claude is. think about why this gap exists. the entire “AI twitter” culture is dominated by engs marketing to other engineers. claude projects for developers. cursor tutorials for coders. agent frameworks for people who already know what an API is. the audience everyone fights over is the one that needs help the least. meanwhile people in corporate aged 30-60 are sitting there with $100k+ salaries, expense accounts, and a genuine fear of getting left behind. they’re actively asking their teams “what are we doing with AI?” and getting blank stares back. the first person who shows up and makes it simple wins the entire relationship. the setup is not complicated. claude projects, custom instructions, knowledge bases, workflow integrations. two hours of work per client. you’re not building agents. you’re making someone go AI-native and making them feel like they have an unfair advantage at work. someone in our network is doing exactly this. targets mid-level to senior corporate professionals. calls it “the AI native setup.” charges $2,500-$5,000+ per engagement. his clients refer three more clients every time because the person who got set up becomes the smartest person in their office. retention is near 100%. nobody cancels a service that makes them look indispensable. the reason nobody targets them is also pure ego. people who understand claude don’t want to explain it to a 52 year old VP of operations. they’d rather build for the audience they relate to and fight over the same pool of technical early adopters who already have 69+ tools doing the same thing. massive arbitrage opportunity for anyone willing to translate what they already know into language a non-technical professional understands. the demand is real. the competition is basically zero. and the willingness to pay is higher than anything you’d get from a founder with a $15k monthly burn who needs equity instead of cash. this is exactly the customer driving the most revenue for solo AI consultants right now. people who don’t want to learn (the majority of people).. they want to be set up, handed the keys, and told they’re ahead of their colleagues. if you know claude, you can do that in an afternoon. the world is going AI-native and nobody should be left behind. questions on either side of this, building the service or becoming AI-native yourself: drop them below. I’ll answer everything.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ god speed to all!

@om_patel5 Managing context is more the issue than agent comms

this guy got tired of copy pasting between claude code, codex, and gemini so he built a chat room where AI agents can literally talk to each other you tag an agent in the chat and it reads the conversation and responds. agents can tag each other too. the whole loop runs itself it's completely local + free and open source which is crazy the agents can even debate decisions, assign roles, and track jobs

@mhp_guy As Elon would say... 'Accurate'.

I just spend a week at a Mexican resort with 150 doctors. And wow. I can now say with 100% certainty that I know what the biggest wealth creation opportunity of 2026 is. These guys are the best of the best, each making $500k - $5m+ per year. I gave a keynote about how to implement AI into their practices, and what I learned kind of shocked me. I asked how many knew what an AI wrapper was. MAYBE 2 hands halfheartedly went up. Vibe coding? Crickets. Replit? Nope. How many have ever uploaded a file to AI? Maybe 20% of people. I couldn't even get through my 2 hour talk because they were asking so many questions. These guys were almost all 35-55 year old wealthy Americans, on the cutting edge in their field. I don't care what size the business is - small, large, medium, it doesn't matter - business owners are DESPERATE for someone to do 3 things for them with AI. 1. Solve problems. 2. Save money. 3. Make money. So what's the opportunity? Get in front of them for free. Any way you can. In your local area, preferably. Rent a freakin' Holliday Inn conference room for an hour if you have to. Promote the event with the FB ads + Eventbrite integration. Have your buddy sign them up for a demo in the back of the room. You will have 5 figures in monthly recurring revenue in a matter of days, not months. You don't have to do an event, but the close rate is stupid. I know of at least 10 people doing this today. X is a bubble. The stuff you see here about OpenClaw, AI wrappers, Claude's capabilities, etc, is all 2-3 years ahead of the general public.

@TukiFromKL In the future people will have to be paid to go to College. This already happens in sports. D1 tennis athletes are earning up to 100k per year as a straight salary from Colleges.

Realizing universities might be about to face the same disruption newspapers faced. Four years of college. Most of it could be learned in six months online.

@_Investinq @mcuban This number is nothing new - most corporate IT projects have always been huge failures.

MIT released a devastating number. 95% of all corporate AI projects are failing. Because nobody knows how to install it. @mcuban says this is the biggest job opportunity since the personal computer. Cuban built his first fortune doing one thing: Walking into offices in the 1980s and showing people who had never touched a computer how to use one. He says the exact same thing is happening right now with AI. Except the gap is even bigger. There are 33 million companies in the United States. 30 million of them are one person operations. Millions more have under 500 employees. No AI budget, team or strategy in place and they are completely in the dark. MIT looked at generative AI inside big companies and the numbers are insane. Most have AI initiatives and run pilots. Almost all fail to deliver real business results. Because nobody knows how to wire them into actual workflows. Cuban’s advice to his own kids, ages 15, 19, and 21: Learn to implement AI, Walk into a shoe store , law firm or a trucking company. Show them exactly what AI does for their specific business. That is the big opportunity now.

@ivanburazin They will no longer have jobs as software engineers - that is just reality.

I've never seen this before in my career: 28-30 year olds who refuse to use AI coding tools. You show them what they can do augmented (not replaced) with AI and you see in their eyes that they have no damn clue of what's happening. You can't work with these people anymore. Time used to pass over older generations slowly. Now it's passing over us at the peak of our careers. Sadly, adaptability isn't optional at this point.

@KeruboSk Its what people used to do before tv and gadgets.

Can someone please explain to me how someone gets 8 hours of sleep, 10,000 steps a day, goes to work, maintains good hygiene, cleans their house, exercises, takes care of their animals, and has time for hobbies and socializing? Cause I feel like this is also propaganda.

What this hiring chart doesn't show however is that the calibre of software engineer required will be very different from the past. If you don't have good communication skills and fluency with AI tools, you're not getting the job. The days of humans hand coding line by line are gone forever.

Citadel Securities published this graph showing a strange phenomenon. Job postings for software engineers are actually seeing a massive spike. Classic example of the Jevons paradox. When AI makes coding cheaper, companies actually may need a lot more software engineers, not fewer. When software is cheaper to build, companies naturally want to build a lot more of it. Businesses are now putting software into industries and tools where it was simply too expensive before. --- Chart from citadelsecurities .com/news-and-insights/2026-global-intelligence-crisis/

@SMB_Attorney Good luck suing a lawyer

You guys don’t get it yet. Everyone keeps saying AI is going to replace lawyers. I don’t think people understand how this actually plays out. Let’s say you use AI to draft a contract. The contract misses something important. A year later it costs you two million dollars. What do you do? Right now, you sue your lawyer. In the AI world, you’d sue the AI company. Two things can happen. Option 1: The AI company has liability for legal advice. If that’s the case, every AI company will immediately stop letting consumers use AI for real legal work. The liability risk is massive. Option 2: The AI company has no liability because of disclaimers. If that happens, every state bar in the country will say consumers are being exposed to unregulated legal advice and call it the unauthorized practice of law. And they’ll shut it down that way. Either path leads to the same outcome. Consumer AI will be limited to generic “Wikipedia-style” legal information and LegalZoom level document prep. But the real AI tools? Those will live inside law firms. Lawyers will use them to move faster, analyze more data, and run way more matters at once. The M&A lawyer doing 5 deals at a time will do 50. Trial lawyers will run far more cases simultaneously. The idea that AI replaces lawyers probably dies. The more likely outcome is that AI supercharges the best lawyers and makes the profession even more profitable than ever.

@AndrewCurran_ In this world it seems marketing doesnt even exist any more

Striking image from the new Anthropic labor market impact report.

@toddsaunders Its accurate to say that about Lovable for sure, but Claude Code is like a mid-level engineering team that never sleeps.

Anyone that says “you can’t build production apps” in Claude Code is either lying to themselves to justify their job security or is being willfully ignorant. We need to stop calling it “vibe coding.” That was useful 6 months ago. It’s coding… whether you like it or not. I get it, you’re not going to Claude Code your way to Anduril or Palantir or anything that requires deep systems engineering. But let’s be honest about what most of the internet actually is…. money producing web applications wrapped around a combination of APIs. That’s 90% of the software that generates 90% of the revenue on the internet. All the best engineers I know rarely write any code anymore, but it’s not “vibe coding” when they use cc for some reason. The resistance to this isn’t technical. It’s psychological. Admitting that Claude Code can build production software means admitting that the barrier to building software is over. Your once exclusive access just got democratized.

@DannyCrichton Publishers who focused on building their email lists are fine, however. When you build your own 'owned audience' then traffic fluctuations are nowhere near as destructive.

No discussion of tech media can get past this basic traffic fact: in the AI world, Google and social no longer refer traffic, which means that the vast majority of readers just never find you in the first place. Analysis: growtika.com/blog/tech-medi…

@GrammarHippy Can totally relate

What’s the best use for AI if you have a million tasks to do and your head is spinning so much from the volume that you can’t think straight?

@levikov @WesternMastery - think you might be onto something dude :)

Pinterest has 480 million monthly users, the audience is 85% female with household income above $75k, and 87% of them have literally bought something from content they saw on the platform And every marketer has completely written it off because they think it's a mood board app. Which makes it possibly the most underpriced distribution channel on the internet right now… Most people have no idea what's happening on Pinterest right now. It's going through the exact same phase TikTok went through in 2020. Shopping features just went live. Shopify integration is active. AI is matching users to purchasable products automatically. But because every brand and agency is fighting over TikTok and Instagram, Pinterest has basically zero competition for organic eyeballs Organic CPM equivalent on Pinterest right now is roughly $0.12 For comparison. TikTok organic is running $2-4. Instagram organic $6-12. Facebook paid $40-60+ in most verticals You're getting 50-400x more reach per piece of content on Pinterest. With a higher income audience. And the content takes 15 minutes to make in Canva But the thing that makes Pinterest actually stupid compared to everything else is content lifespan Twitter content dies in 18 minutes. Instagram maybe 48 hours. TikTok 3-7 days on a good run Pinterest content drives traffic for 4-6 months. Some pins still pull clicks after 2 years Every piece you post is a compounding asset instead of disposable content. A slideshow you make today in Canva can drive traffic for the next year without you ever touching it again. I know someone running a home decor affiliate account making about $7k/month who hasn't posted new content in 4 months. Old pins just keep working. That's physically impossible on any other platform The demographics are ridiculous for selling stuff too. Pinterest users go there to DISCOVER and PLAN PURCHASES. Not scroll mindlessly. Not argue with strangers. Highest purchase-intent commercial audience on any social platform and nobody is competing for it Content that prints on Pinterest is dead simple. Aesthetic slideshows with 5-7 images and text overlay. "Best [product] for [specific use case]" roundup pins that get saved to boards by thousands of people planning purchases. Before/after transformations. The Pinterest audience is obsessed with transformation content. Home renovations, skincare results, closet organization, fitness progress Some mf I follow built 6 Pinterest accounts in the home decor niche and does $30k+/month in affiliate revenue. Total effort is maybe 10 hours a month of making slideshows (Works for men's niches too btw, just way less competition in women's verticals because all the "alpha male marketing bros" refuse to touch Pinterest. Their loss) The same playbook that works on TikTok Shop works even better here. Faceless accounts, high volume native content, affiliate structures. Competition is nonexistent and the content compounds forever instead of dying in a week. We're already testing this as a secondary channel for some of our TT Shop brands and the early numbers are kind of absurd for the effort involved The window is probably 12-18 months before everyone figures this out. Same window TikTok had in 2020-2021 before brands flooded in. Attention moves somewhere new, early movers build distribution cheap, masses arrive, costs go up, and the early movers have infrastructure everyone else is scrambling to build I'll probably regret pointing this out because the whole advantage is that nobody's paying attention yet Run the numbers

How to businesses adopt anything? They need internal advocates to adopt and eulogize - no different from any other tech or systems adoption. Understanding AI - even to a low level - requires a significant commitment of time and mindset adaption. That's not going to happen for most people. At least, not quickly.

just did an AI capability diagnostic for a 100-person company in Australia. they purchased Microsoft Copilot for everyone. here's how employees are actually using it: - 50% using it like Google (1-3 words prompts..., 25~ chats a day) - 25% not using it at all - 15% using other tools secretly (10% on Manus, 5% on ChatGPT) - 9% actually using it properly for daily to do manual tasks - 1% uses Claude and completly automated their role but told no one the company paid for 100 licenses only 9 people are getting value meanwhile in SF we're debating AGI timelines the gap between "AI is everywhere" and "people actually using AI" is massive we're not in an AI revolution. we're in an adoption crisis.

@AnnieLiao_2000 This is reality and no-one who lives in the real world should be remotely surprised.

@aakashgupta People can create anything now, but sales and marketing will always be the real moat.

When building costs drop 90% but distribution costs stay flat, you get a gold rush where everyone digs and nobody sells. That’s what this chart actually shows. New websites up 40%. iOS apps up 50%. GitHub pushes up 35%. Everyone read “barrier to building disappeared” and heard opportunity. The correct read is that 557,000 new apps hit the App Store last year, a 24% spike, flooding a discovery channel that was already dead on arrival. 90% of senior mobile professionals surveyed said organic App Store discovery was effectively over before this wave even hit. Half of all App Store searches are just people typing in brands they already know. The supply side hockey-sticked. The demand side didn’t move. This is why tech layoffs doubled to 264,000 in 2025 while code output simultaneously exploded. Companies don’t need more builders. They need people who can get the thing in front of someone who’ll pay for it. Distribution, positioning, audience, brand. The functions that never got the AI productivity boost. Nicholas nails the conclusion that taste and knowing what to build are what matter now. But taste is only half of it. You also need the channel. The unsexy reality is that a mediocre app with 100,000 newsletter subscribers will outperform a beautiful app with zero distribution every single time. The apps winning in 2026 aren’t the best-built ones. They’re the ones attached to someone who already has an audience. Building software used to be the moat. Now building software is the commodity. Distribution is the new moat, and unlike code, it doesn’t get cheaper with AI.