narendra 🎈 🏃🏻♂️
11.9K posts

narendra 🎈 🏃🏻♂️
@narendra
Stochastic parrot. Since 1995. Inventor - online photo sharing, the retweet. App/Video/Tech for @wser. MVLL Juniors Manager. @30boxes + building something new.


"We Must Act Now!" Ok, what should we do? "ummm......"





Satya Nadella just warned every company using AI: you are paying twice. Once with money. Again with something far more valuable. He published an article introducing something called the Reverse Information Paradox. And it changes how you think about every AI tool your company uses. Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow described the original paradox: a seller risks giving away knowledge just to sell it. Nadella says AI flips this completely. In the AI age, the buyer gives away knowledge just to use what they bought. Every time your team uses Claude or GPT at work, every prompt reveals what you are building. Every correction teaches the model what good looks like inside your company. Every eval shows what you value. Every trace exposes your workflow. The model provider learns more about you with every interaction. You learn almost nothing about what they are learning in return. Your corrections are distilled institutional know-how. The kind a competitor could never buy. And it leaks trace by trace, correction by correction, without you noticing. His line: "You can offload a task. You can offload a job. But you can never offload your learning." If the model provider disappears tomorrow, do you still own the intelligence your team built on top of it? Your evals. Your memory. Your traces. Your workflows. Or did all of that compound inside someone else's infrastructure? In the cloud era, companies accumulated data. In the AI era, they accumulate learning. Right now, most of that learning is compounding inside the model provider. Not inside the company paying for it. The CEO pushing AI harder than anyone just told you to protect your knowledge from the very tools he is selling you. That should tell you everything.






We're extending Claude Fable 5 access on all paid plans, as well as keeping Claude Code’s weekly rate limits 50% higher, through July 19.




I gave WIRED the exclusive on our hands launch, and they wrote a really weird article about how we are sexualizing robotics… wired.com/story/the-1x-n… I felt pretty betrayed because that’s not what they told me they were writing about not is that what I’ve ever been about… actually I stand for quite the opposite… But I’ve come to find a lot of dishonesty and malice in the journalism community so I wasn’t surprised. This is what I sent the author… I’m only sharing this because I hope it encourages journalists to resist the click bait trap and tell truly awesome stories because I for one don’t believe journalism is dead— I think it’s just starting and just needs to evolve past the weird corner of the internet where data driven optimization turns everything into smooth brained shocking brain rot bullshit. The technological revolution we are going through should inspire a journalism renaissance. Not let it fall into further decay. There is so much brilliance at play in the world and the stories should be told! My note: “[author name redacted], it was nice talking to you, but I wanted to let you know that I didn’t enjoy your article at all. I understand the need to be inflammatory because that seems to be the only thing that gets clicks these days but that doesnt mean you shouldn’t recognize when something special is in front of you. I trusted our PR team in saying we should offer you the exclusive on what is one of the most important technological developments in the history of Mankind and I deeply regret it. Good luck with the rest of your writing career. -Dar Sleeper”

If you’re an avid reader or podcast listener guy, you end up having this sort of weird one directional relationship with people you don’t know. But you kinda know them, or at least you know a version of them, the public version. And of course you don’t really know if that’s authentic or performative, but you make your assessment and that usually determines how likely you are to stay on their frequency. My take is that @markpinc is one of the real real ones. It’s a bit hard to describe but if you consume a lot of content online, you get pretty attuned to these kinds of things. It’s rare, rarer than it should be, but it’s also unmistakable.













