jazure

I got tired of waiting for someone else to cover the AI space the way I want it covered. Welcome to a brand new game.

Exactly why I've done what I have done ...

@basic_in Yes!

Why we build.

People oddly assumed that I didn’t understand LiDAR, even though I oversaw the custom LiDAR development that Dragon uses to dock with the Space Station

It’s a long read - but it is worth the time!

French President Macron on the Strait of Hormuz: "Opening it by force is not the option we have chosen, we consider it unrealistic. A military operation would take an infinite amount of time and expose forces to immense coastal and ballistic risks. From the beginning, we have said it must be reopened, but only in coordination with Iran. The world cannot live with a strait that can be opened or closed overnight."

@kevinrose @WhatsApp @telegram @SlackHQ @discord Well - discord and slack anyway…

@kevinrose @WhatsApp @telegram @SlackHQ @discord Agree… still amazed at their ability to have remained relevant to now.

for chat platforms like @WhatsApp, @telegram, @SlackHQ, or @discord, staying relevant will require opening up - allowing AI to integrate more seamlessly into conversations and build dynamic environments. walled gardens are dead; interoperability is the future.

@dhh Your company is awesome! Thank you 🙏

Fizzy is now fully free! Just another gift from us to you. This is an excellent setup for working with agents too. We'll beef up the CLI shortly to make it even better. Enjoy!

@rootslashbin Haha - beautiful here in Miami :)

I am finding this super interesting! You will too.

I work in government affairs at OpenAI. My job is federal partnerships. When an agency wants our models, I make sure the paperwork is beautiful. Paperwork is my love language. On my desk I have a framed quote that says "Policy Is Just Code That Runs on People." I bought the frame at Target. It was in the Live Laugh Love section. I did not see the irony at the time. I still don't. We had a good week. On Monday, we closed a $110 billion funding round. One hundred and ten billion dollars. Amazon put in fifty. Nvidia put in thirty. Valuation: $730 billion. The largest private fundraise in the history of anyone raising anything. There was a company-wide Slack message about it. The message used the word "transformative" twice and the word "safety" once. The word "safety" was in the last sentence, after the link to the new branded hoodie pre-order. The hoodies are nice. They're the soft kind. On Tuesday, we fired a research scientist for insider trading on Polymarket. He had opened seventy-seven positions across sixty wallets, betting on our product announcements before they were public. Over three years. Total profit: sixteen thousand dollars. Seventy-seven positions. Sixty wallets. Sixteen thousand dollars. That is two hundred and eight dollars per wallet. The man had access to the most valuable product roadmap in artificial intelligence and he used it to make less money than a good weekend at a Reno blackjack table. The wallets were linked. Not discreetly linked. Linked like Christmas lights. One wallet was reportedly called something I cannot repeat but it contained the word "OpenAI" and a number. He did not use a VPN. He did not use an alias. He used Polymarket, the platform that is designed to be publicly auditable, to place bets on information he stole from the company that invented GPT. A compliance team composed entirely of Labrador retrievers would have found this by lunch on day one. We did not find it for three years. This will matter later. On Wednesday, a petition appeared. "We Will Not Be Divided." Four hundred and seven signatures. Two hundred sixty-six from Google. Sixty-five from OpenAI. The petition warned that the government was pitting AI companies against each other on safety. It said that if one company broke ranks, the government would use the defection to lower the bar for everyone. I meant to read it. It went into my to-read folder. The to-read folder also contains the Responsible Scaling Policy, three think-tank white papers on AI governance, and a New Yorker article someone sent me in November. The folder is aspirational. On Thursday, OpenAI told CNN we would maintain "the same red lines as Anthropic." Same red lines. On Friday, Anthropic told the Pentagon no. The Pentagon had given them seventy-two hours to remove the safety guardrails from Claude. Anthropic's guardrails were not in a policy document. They were not in a legal reference. They were in the code. Written into Claude's architecture. If Claude hit a safety boundary, Claude stopped. Not because a lawyer said so. Because the math said so. You could fire every lawyer at Anthropic and the model would still refuse. You cannot remove code with a contract amendment. You can remove a contract reference by Tuesday. I checked. Anthropic said no. By that evening, the Pentagon had designated them a supply-chain risk. I have worked in government procurement for eight years. Government paperwork does not move in hours. I have waited nine weeks for a badge renewal. I once spent four months getting a PDF notarized. This designation moved in hours. The document was pre-written. Formatted before the deadline expired. Calibri 11pt. Consistent margins. Somebody wanted this very badly. I respect the craft. I do not think about the implication. That is not my scope. Within hours, we had signed the replacement contract. I was proud of the turnaround. My team moved fast. Legal moved fast. Everyone moved fast. We are very good at moving fast. We are not always sure what we are moving toward, but the speed is impressive and the hoodies are soft. The contract referenced DoD Directive 3000.09, which governs autonomous weapon systems. The directive requires "appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force." The word "appropriate" is not defined. This is not an oversight. This is the point. The word "appropriate" is the most load-bearing word in the entire contract and it is doing exactly as much work as a throw pillow on a couch that is on fire. Anthropic built a wall. We referenced a document about where walls should go. Anthropic's guardrails were architecture. Ours were a citation. Theirs execute. Ours can be filed. The Pentagon asked both companies to take down the wall. Anthropic said it's load-bearing, the building will collapse. We said what wall? Oh, you mean the wallpaper. Here, watch. It peeled off beautifully. It was designed to. Sam announced the partnership that night. The word "responsible" appeared in the announcement and in the contract. In the announcement it was a brand. In the contract it was a footnote to a directive that uses the word "appropriate" which nobody has defined. The word traveled from a legal document to a public statement without changing its font. Only its meaning. At this valuation, "responsible" means: we will do the thing the other company refused to do, and we will describe doing it with the same adjective they used to describe not doing it. By Saturday morning, "How to delete your OpenAI account" was the number one post on Hacker News. 982 points. By noon, subscription cancellations were up eighty-nine times the daily average. Not eighty-nine percent. Eighty-nine times. Someone in our Slack posted the Hacker News link with the message "should we be worried?" Someone else reacted with the branded hoodie emoji. We have a branded hoodie emoji now. It was introduced on Monday, to celebrate the fundraise. It has been used four hundred and twelve times. Mostly in the #general channel. Mostly this week. The communications team drafted a response. The response used the word "committed" three times and the word "safety" four times. It did not use the word "guardrails." It did not use the word "code." It did not explain anything. It was a holding statement. It held nothing. It held beautifully. Here is the math. The twenty-dollar-a-month customers were upset. The two-hundred-million-dollar customer was upset because the previous vendor had guardrails that could not be removed. The hundred-and-ten-billion-dollar investors were not upset. The subscription cancellations, at eighty-nine times the daily rate, represented less than the interest on Amazon's fifty billion dollar contribution calculated over a long weekend. Twenty dollars. Two hundred million. One hundred and ten billion. Three different price points. Three different definitions of "responsible." The most expensive one won. It always does. The math does not have red lines. The math has a cap table and a TAM slide that now includes "defense and intelligence" where it previously said "enterprise and consumer." One word changed on one slide in one deck and the company is worth one hundred and ten billion dollars more. The sixty-five OpenAI employees who signed the petition came to work on Monday. They sat at their desks. Nobody asked them about it. Nobody asked them to resign. Nobody brought it up at the all-hands. The all-hands had catering. Sweetgreen. The chopped salads. Someone made a joke about the kale being "responsibly sourced." No one laughed. Then everyone laughed. Then it was quiet. The petition had four hundred and seven signatures. The contract had one. Now: the Polymarket thing. Seventy-seven positions. Sixty wallets. Three years. A public blockchain. We did not catch him. That same week, we were entrusted with deploying artificial intelligence on America's classified military networks. The classified networks. The ones where the detection requirements are somewhat more rigorous than "check if anyone's gambling on our launch dates on a website that is literally designed to be publicly auditable." The company that could not find the Polymarket guy can now be found in the Pentagon's classified infrastructure. I'm sure it'll be fine. We move fast. The contract is signed. The deployment is underway. The compliance documentation will reference the directives. The directives will use the word "appropriate." I will not define it. That is not my scope. My scope is the paperwork. The paperwork is beautiful. The petition is still a Google Doc. Nobody has updated it. The signatures still say four hundred and seven. The to-read folder still has the New Yorker article from November. The branded hoodie pre-order closed on Wednesday. I got mine in navy. It's the soft kind. On Thursday we told CNN: the same red lines. On Friday we signed the contract they refused. We do have the same red lines. We drew ours in pencil.

“I like spending a lot of time thinking about tomorrow, but I don’t like wasting my time on tomorrow, which is what I think a lot of people make a mistake about. And I definitely don’t like being excited about yesterday.” Very well put @garyvee …

@unclebobmartin What about the convictions? Or the protecting pedophiles?

Democrats in congress only have one real issue. They hate Trump. Why do they hate Trump? Because he keeps on beating them.

@mitchellh Love this - we do become more like our dads little by little 😟

To challenge bad AI drivers, I have to ask questions to the slopster like "explain to me what you did wrong." I don't like being vague, but if I'm too specific they just ask their AI. Inability to critically analyze and formulate their own mistakes is an instant unvouch. 👋 Makes me feel like my own dad though. I used to hate being in trouble without knowing why I was in trouble and being told "think about it and come back to me when you figure it out." But, I understand him more and more every day.

Thank you for this awesome addition!!!

@trq212 Great post!

Go Seattle!!!

@Hannibal9972485 @BillClinton Let it be open - just run it like it were closed…

I’m telling people that in an open hearing it’s designed to manage your anger and misdirect your attention. ⬅️⬅️ It's a public relations exercise. It's the equivalent of asking a known liar to tell his side of the story on Oprah. He'll cry, he'll sound sincere, he'll admit to some small, embarrassing "mistakes," and the audience will feel a sense of closure, thinking they got the "real story." In reality, they got a performance designed to protect the bigger lie. In that room, there are no cameras to play to. There's no five-minute clock to run out. They can trap him with documents, financial records, flight logs, and intelligence briefings that are never made public. They can ask the same question a hundred times until he cracks. They can say, "We know you were in this location on this date with this person. The classified satellite imagery proves it. Now, tell us what you were really doing."

I have called for the full release of the Epstein files. I have provided a sworn statement of what I know. And just this week, I’ve agreed to appear in person before the committee. But it’s still not enough for Republicans on the House Oversight Committee.