River Marchand

986 posts

River Marchand banner
River Marchand

River Marchand

@Riyvir

Creative Director and Design Engineer. Making cool stuff with startups at @neither___nor

Katılım Ekim 2021
1.1K Takip Edilen3.1K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
River Marchand
River Marchand@Riyvir·
what's your ideal inspiration process? you know i love cosmos, are.na, and pinterest. but i have problems with all of them. pinterest has a great discovery algo. but it's tuned for engagement, so once it starts feeding you a certain type of image you end up in a spiral that's hard to escape. cosmos is great when culture-drive curation is the goal. but heavy curation has a cost: you end up seeing the same references everyone else does. are.na is a wild child. no notes on that. but as much as i love quirky human curation, i also love an algorithm that feels like it understands how i think. i've tried mymind and i respect their commitment to no collaboration but i need collaborative features since i think the real unlocks happen when you combine personal thought, collaborative though, and algorithmic discovery. so this is why i'm building memio. memio is a local-first, creative memory companion. i've been tuning a similarity algorithm that’s been really fun to use. it's looser than pinterest and cosmos, which means it surfaces unexpected connections instead of just showing you more of what you already clicked on. the goal is for it to feel like a little like human curation. here's where memio is going: multi-modal. right now it handles images. text, links, video, and audio are all in the works. cli, mcp, and all the other acronyms too. private by default. your library lives on your computer or in your own cloud storage. the core algorithm runs entirely on-device, so you can do a lot without ever hitting an external api. collaborative when you want. you'll be able to choose which boards you share with other people and llms and that will extend what you can do in the base version. capture whatever. find connections you couldn't find any other way. make cool shit. i'm building this for all of us so tell me what you want from a tool like this!
English
36
17
580
47.1K
River Marchand retweetledi
Mo
Mo@atmoio·
I’ve been trying to find good analogies for this. The argument seems to be: “AI is intelligent because it does intelligent-like things, therefore it is cope to say it’s not intelligent.” Some analogies: - “The moon is really bright. Therefore it is capable of luminance.” Here of course we expose a manner of speaking. The moon reflects the sun’s light. The models reflect our own intelligence. The moon will never be a star. - “A snail on the bed of a tow truck is really fast. Look, it’s moving from A to B at 60mph, it’s clearly fast.” But of course the snail is borrowing the truck’s velocity. Notice how there is no controversy in calling the technology large language models because the term is perfectly apt: a map of language. This points to language as constructed by humans as the true source of magic, and LLMs being algorithms that can traverse this map at light speeds. Before you think I’m being pedantic, understand that the nature of the words we use is precisely what’s at stake. That the moon *looks* bright is incontrovertible. Insisting however that the moon itself has any concept of inherent luminance is when you start to gaslight people into deranged realities that they will not stand for. Attempting to appropriate ageless conceptions like consciousness and intelligence to corporate technology by playing axiomatic word games is insanity. Large language models do what they do and this is non-controversial. Personifying it with human-like attributes however is totally uncalled for, when it is easy enough for us to define new words that better capture the phenomenon. I’ve been thinking long and hard about this and I think a good phrase for these technologies can be—hear me out: “large language models”
nic carter@nic_carter

The “it’s not AGI because machine intelligence is jagged” is dumb cope. It’s obviously AGI. If you had a friend who had a 130 IQ, could write production code flawlessly, could write academic papers of a high research caliber, pass any exam in any field with flying colors, create a sophisticate LBO model, draw technical diagrams perfectly, compose poetry in any language, and could find solutions to significant unsolved mathematical problems, you would call that person a world historical genius. Certainly, no single human has ever had intelligence that “general” before. Now you think it’s “not AGI” because it sometimes slips up and makes mistakes - so does any human that you would consider “extraordinarily intelligent.” The professor might forget a colleagues name that he has known for a decade. He is still considered intelligent. The math genius might be a little autistic and shy, unable to maintain polite conversation. Still intelligent. You might stare at the fridge for 30 seconds unable to find the butter, despite 5 million years of evolution perfecting your visual intelligence. We give intelligent humans a pass when they have jagged intelligence. So why the double standard? The qualities people list as “necessary for AGI” are important traits to have, but no longer pertain to intelligence. People will say things like “true AGI requires agency, long term goal setting, embodiment, self-direct action”. But none of those things are intelligence. Those are “things that humans have that AI lacks”. Raw intelligence, AI has it in spades. That other stuff - important yet, but broader than and different from intelligence. The unwillingness of people to acknowledge that AGI obviously exists and has existed for a while is due to a kind of anthropic chauvinism - a psychological need to believe that humans are superior in every respect, that we possess soft skills that no machine could replicate. Yes humans are different from machines, but if we are limiting the discussion solely to general intelligence, AI has it already. That battle is over. If you want to reframe the discussion to matters of human dignity and personhood, fine, but that’s not an AGI question. That’s something else. Just take the loss on AGI already. It’s over.

English
104
99
669
35.5K
Mariusz
Mariusz@dotmariusz·
@Riyvir As long as LLM decides to not ignore variables and components and use whatever lives in training data 💀
English
0
0
0
16
River Marchand retweetledi
anks
anks@AnkitaxPriya·
every organisation around is suddenly marketing the fact that their non-tech teams like designers, ops, marketing, are now shipping PRs. while all that is cool but does that actually mean anything if the product still isn’t solving for the target customer? imho, shipping more PRs is not a business moat, it’s not even a productivity metric in isolation. it's easy for any company to ship at insane velocity and still create zero user value (unless of course you're Anthropic) customer outcome per engineer-hour is probably the metric that matters as of today and quite rare organisations recognise it. sorry but everything else around vibecoding and shipping 500+ PRs is merely nothing but performative productivity theatre.
English
1
2
34
1.1K
River Marchand
River Marchand@Riyvir·
Great thread. The silver lining to all these layoffs is that the big tech companies are sabotaging themselves and this is the perfect time to disrupt them. We have a narrow window to build something better before they see the mistake they’ve made.
Mick Douglas 🇺🇦🌻@bettersafetynet

Orgs are laying people off "because of AI" and I (and the entire industry) need to talk about how insane all of this is. I build AI tools. I like AI. This isn't an anti-AI rant. This is an anti-stupidity rant. Buckle up. Spicy takes galore! 🧵1

English
0
0
3
570
River Marchand
River Marchand@Riyvir·
Just as some thoughts are “inside thoughts” some designs are “inside designs.” It’s good to remember this.
English
0
0
5
163
River Marchand retweetledi
Salomé Sibonex
Salomé Sibonex@SalomeSibonex·
Remember the SEO blogging days, when everybody was filling their websites with useless articles that primarily served as painfully loaded SEO "keyword" containers? Slop is an eternally human creation, no matter the tools used.
English
12
9
71
2.2K
River Marchand retweetledi
Darius Dan
Darius Dan@dariusdan·
Designers don’t charge for the final file. They charge for every bad idea they killed before the client even saw it. 👀 AI shows you all of them and lets you pick. That doesn’t look like a service. That’s a burden.
English
11
4
83
14.8K
River Marchand retweetledi
Mo
Mo@atmoio·
tldr: ClickUp is hosting a company-wide Hunger Games where if you can figure out how the hell to make AI work you’ll win a million dollars.
Zeb Evans@DJ_CURFEW

Today we reduced headcount by 22%. The business is the strongest it's ever been. So I think it's important to be direct about what I'm seeing and why. First, I made this decision and I own it. I did it because the way to operate at the highest level of productivity is changing, and to win the future, ClickUp needs to change with it. Second, this wasn't about cutting costs. Most savings from this change will flow directly back into the people who stay. We'll be introducing million-dollar salary bands. If you create outsized impact using AI, you'll be paid outside of traditional bands. Most importantly, I have the deepest gratitude for those affected. We're doing this from a position of strength specifically so we can take care of people properly. Everyone affected receives a package aimed at honoring their contributions and easing the transition. I only see two options: wait for this to play out gradually in the market or be honest about what I'm seeing and act proactively. THE 100X ORGANIZATION The primary change is that we're restructuring around what I call 100x org. The goal is 100x output. The roles required to build at the highest level are fundamentally different than they were a year ago. Incremental improvements to existing systems won't get us there. We need new ones. That means creating enough disruption to rebuild rather than iterate on what's already broken. The common narrative is that AI makes everyone more productive. It doesn't. Many of the workflows of today, if left unchanged, create bottlenecks in AI systems. These roles will evolve. But waiting for that to happen naturally means falling behind now. The 100x org is actually heavily dependent on people - infinitely more than today. This is only possible with 10x people that have embraced and adopted new ways of working. THE BUILDERS, AGENT MANAGERS, AND FRONT-LINERS — THE BUILDERS: 10X ENGINEERS I don't think most companies have internalized what's actually happening with AI in engineering. The common narrative is that AI makes all engineers more productive. That may be true in isolation, but at an organization level - that is the farthest thing from reality. Here's what we've validated recently at ClickUp: the great engineers, the ones who can orchestrate, architect, and review, are becoming 100x engineers. They're not writing code. They're directing agents that write code. The skill is judgment. AI makes the best engineers wildly more productive, and everyone else using AI slows these engineers down. Think about it - the bottlenecks are (1) orchestration - telling AI what to do, and (2) reviewing - what AI did. Everything is leapfrogged and no longer needed. So who do you want orchestrating and reviewing code? And how do you want your best engineers to spend their time? If your best engineers are spending time reviewing other people's code, then this is inherently an inefficient bottleneck. These engineers can review their agent's code much faster than reviewing human code. The new world is about enabling your 10x engineers to become 100x. The wrong strategy is to push every engineer to use infinite tokens. Companies doing this are celebrating 500% more pull requests. But customer outcomes don't match the volume of code being generated. I call this the great reckoning of AI coding, and every company will face this soon if not already. More code is just another bottleneck to the best engineers, and ultimately to your company's impact as well. — THE BUILDERS: 10X PRODUCT MANAGERS Product management and design roles are merging. Designers that have customer focus, become more like product managers. And product managers that have intuition for UX become more like designers. The bottleneck of user research is gone. It takes us just one mention of an agent to kickoff research and analyze results. The bottleneck of product <> design iteration is also gone. The product builder iterates on their own, along with agents and skills that ensure alignment with quality and strategy. Also controversial today - I believe that the wrong strategy is to have your PMs shipping code - that just introduces another bottleneck that the best engineers will waste their time on. To be clear, PMs should be coding but they should do this in a playground to iterate, validate, and scope. That code should not go to production. Everything outside of managing systems, orchestrating AI, and reviewing output becomes a bottleneck. That's why the other roles that are critical along with these are the systems managers (to reduce bottlenecks) along with a bottleneck you can't replace - customer meeting time. — THE SYSTEM MANAGERS Ironically, the people that automate their jobs with AI will always have a job. They become owners of the AI systems - agent managers. We have many examples of these people at ClickUp. The underlying systems in which we operate are absolutely critical to get right. I think most companies are delusional to think they can iterate on existing systems and compete in this new world. You must create enough disruption so that old systems are deprecated entirely. If there's any definition for 'AI native' that's what it is. — THE FRONT-LINERS In a world that will become saturated with AI communication, the human touch will matter more than anything to customers. This is a bottleneck that you shouldn't replace - even when agents are high enough quality to do video meetings. One-on-one meeting time with customers is something that shouldn't be automated. The systems around the meetings should be - so that front-liners spend nearly 100% of their time with customers. REWARDING 100X IMPACT In a world where companies are able to do so much more with less, where does that excess money go? In our case, much of the savings in this new operating model will flow directly back to those that enabled it. We must reward people that create productivity accordingly. This aligns incentives on both sides. Plus, in a world where your best people create 100x impact, you can't afford to lose them. You should aim to retain these employees for decades. The context they have and their ability to efficiently orchestrate and review will be nearly impossible to replace. Compensation bands of today should be thrown out the door. We're introducing $1 million cash/year salary bands with a path available to nearly everyone in the company if they produce 100x impact by creating or managing AI systems. THE FUTURE Nearly every company will make changes like these. The ones that do it proactively will define what comes next. The future is not fewer people. It's different work, new roles, and better rewards for those who embrace it. We're already seeing entirely new roles emerge, like Agent Managers, that didn't exist a year ago. ClickUp is positioning to lead this shift, not just internally, but for our customers too. I've never been more certain about where we're headed.

English
112
163
3.2K
255.4K
Kris Puckett
Kris Puckett@krispuckett·
I sincerely regret boosting a post on this platform due to curiosity. Such a silly waste and pointless.
English
3
0
1
1.1K
River Marchand
River Marchand@Riyvir·
@hagdaughter Ahh that’ll do it. I’m from the Midwest but I’ve been out here on the coast for 10 years. So many colorful things here.
English
0
0
1
13
fenna
fenna@hagdaughter·
@Riyvir oooo interesting! i wonder if i'll see more of it once i move to sf it takes forever for things to reach the center of the country
English
1
0
1
54
fenna
fenna@hagdaughter·
cerulean has been a huge design trend over the last couple years but i've not seen it translated into any other areas (clothes, interior, etc) why
fenna tweet mediafenna tweet mediafenna tweet mediafenna tweet media
English
7
2
37
1.7K
River Marchand retweetledi
Dami Dina
Dami Dina@DamiDina·
sometimes i just wonder if i should have just built this in 2023....lmao this is openeditor ai btw (my dream app / ide of the future)
English
2
1
15
491
Putri Karunia
Putri Karunia@putrikarunian·
@Riyvir for me it’s context based 😄 if we’re talking about designs i say i’m a designer. if we’re talking about code i say i’m an engineer.
English
1
0
1
93
River Marchand
River Marchand@Riyvir·
Designer friends. When did you start calling yourself a "designer?" What did it mean to you then and how has that changed?
English
4
1
11
1K
River Marchand retweetledi
Karri Saarinen
Karri Saarinen@karrisaarinen·
And we’re hiring across roles. linear.app/careers The process is more involved by design. We want to make sure there’s genuine fit both way. Nothing about the culture is performative. No 996. No sleeping at the office (we’re remote, gather couple of times a year.) People are here because they care deeply about making something the best it can be.
English
12
12
543
118K
River Marchand retweetledi
Karri Saarinen
Karri Saarinen@karrisaarinen·
We never hired for layoffs. We hired with the hope that people would stay, grow alongside us, and build @linear in the long term. The deliberate pace of growth made the culture we have today. Trust, high bar for quality, and low attrition.
English
31
27
1K
62.3K