@conor_ai @hyperspell @maebert This is a great idea for networking and dating, but there's indeed more money in recruiting. cool stuff man
English
Zihao Jiang
413 posts
Zihao Jiang
@zeeitthru
Building AI for litigation at https://t.co/TOR0KuLroy
Toronto Katılım Kasım 2017
586 Takip Edilen154 Takipçiler
introducing agent-to-agent hiring at @hyperspell
no resumes. no leetcode. you build an agent. our agent interviews yours
if you can build a great agent to do the job, that's the proof you can do the job
anyone can apply. we will interview every single agent
English
@kavir777 Genuine question: Are real estate agents on Twitter? Is Twitter a real marketing channel, or is this a performative act for VCs?
English
After this post blew up we decided to open the Zentro waitlist.
Cities with the most signups get access first.
joinzentro.com
Kavir@kavir777
REAL ESTATE AGENTS — KISS YOUR JOBS GOODBYE. We built Zentro, a 24/7 real estate web agent that works for you to find your dream home. Stop chasing listings. Let them chase you. Built with @browser_use + @convex + @agentmail + @supermemory + @hud_ai
English
@CodeByNZ as a cyber expert...he would've failed my interview.
too many disconnected domains...u protect against xxs? OK how, waf, static code...networking? where on premises on the cloud?
miscondig? which file
roll backs huh?
the writer was rambling like an Indian woman faking
English
@r0ck3t23 There is going to be a small subset of humans who knows what good output looks like and can quickly find it and everybody else. This is true in business, marketing, finance, accounting, medicine, law. Everything
English
Figma CEO Dylan Field just identified the only competitive advantage that AI cannot commoditize.
It isn’t your technical skill. It isn’t your speed. It isn’t your tools.
Field: “If an agent can do it for you, an agent can do it for someone else.”
That’s the fatal flaw in the entire AI productivity argument nobody wants to say out loud.
When execution becomes free, execution becomes worthless.
The moment anyone can build anything by typing a prompt, the output stops being the differentiator.
What remains is taste. The one thing the agent cannot generate for you.
Field: “What is different about your setup than others?”
If you are typing generic prompts and accepting the first output the agent hands you, you aren’t building a product.
You are retrieving a commodity. The same commodity available to every competitor on earth.
Field: “You at least have to have something different there in order to not think that you’re just gonna get the same out.”
But taste alone isn’t enough. The other half is exploration.
Field: “The more you can sample the possibility space, it gives you something to react to.”
The blank page is gone. The new constraint isn’t creation. It’s selection.
The agent generates hundreds of possibilities in seconds. Your job is to go wide enough to find the best one hiding inside all of them.
And then be honest enough with yourself to know when none of them are good enough.
Field: “If you find areas where you’re going, ‘Hey, I don’t feel like I am liking this enough,’ then you got to keep pushing.”
The creators who win this era won’t be the fastest builders.
They’ll be the harshest critics.
The ones who can generate the widest possibility space and identify the single best solution inside it.
The ones whose taste is specific enough, developed enough, and honest enough to reject everything the agent produces until it produces something worth keeping.
The AI can build anything you can describe.
It cannot want anything. It cannot feel when something is wrong. It cannot tell the difference between good and extraordinary.
That gap is the only moat left.
English
@thejesonlee A lot of LARPers in startup + VCs are consensus driven creatures
English
I cannot wrap my head on founders who are obsessed with getting accepted into a program. (1) Are you building a company or prestige? (2) it’s not like there aren’t thousands of others firm who can fund you and probably with a lot less dilution.
Annie ❤️🔥@AnnieLiao_2000
my friend just got rejected from YC for the third time she's convinced it's because her idea wasn't good enough i looked at the other 22 people i know who applied here's what actually happened: applied: 23 people interviewed: 4 accepted: 1 the one who got in had $200k revenue, previous exit, stanford CS, and knew a partner my friend had a great idea and no traction but everyone on twitter says "YC funds ideas not just traction" technically true except the "ideas" that get funded come with revenue, pedigree, or network three of my friends quit their startups after YC rejection not because the idea was bad because rejection felt like validation they should quit five others applied again next batch same result the application took my friend 60 hours across rewrites she stressed for 2 months waiting now she's depressed and questioning everything YC rejection has this weight in SF that's insane like if YC didn't want it, maybe it's not worth building which is bullshit but the feeling is real i wish someone had told her: your odds were 0.1% from the start not because your idea sucked because you didn't have the traction/pedigree/connections yet build more, apply later, or don't apply at all YC isn't the only path but SF makes it feel like the only path that matters
English
@carlfranzen This is a district court decision, non-binding for other jurisdictions.
English
"Professionals and litigants should be aware that their AI conversations may be discoverable."
Moish Peltz@mpeltz
Judge Rakoff just issued a written order affirming his bench decision, that: 1.Claude is not an attorney, so no attorney-client relationship exists. 2.The communications were not confidential given that Anthropic’s privacy policy permits data collection, use for training, and disclosure to third parties including government authorities. 3.Heppner was not seeking legal advice from Claude (which itself disclaims providing legal advice), even if he later shared outputs with counsel. 4. On work product doctrine: Even assuming the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation, they were not prepared by or at the behest of counsel, nor did they reflect counsel’s strategy. Heppner acted on his own volition, so Claude was not functioning as counsel’s agent. Key takeaway: as discussed over the past week, the novelty of AI does not exempt its use from longstanding legal principles. Professionals and litigants should be aware that their AI conversations may be discoverable. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
English
@kobyjconrad People with taste will always be valuable, whether it’s product sense, viral sense, design taste.
AI just amplified taste.
English
I think it was really funny how we were like “PMs shouldn’t exist” but in 6-12 months only PMs are going to exist
English
@scottastevenson Bottom-up sales is much slower but it builds real product moat. A quick reverse demo with hearts and minds
English
Legal AI products have diverged: those designed to sell to BigLaw innovation committees, and those designed for end users.
In BigLaw, there is no incentive to reduce billable hours with AI hidden behind the curtain.
AI needs to be a PR play: show clients that the firm is innovative and not falling behind.
Legal AI is so visible because every firm has been clamoring to make AI press releases for 2 years.
This is the “evolutionary pressure” that drove companies like Harvey and Legora to simultaneously launch “Client Portals”—a way for law firm clients to log in and see the “innovation” first hand.
We launched a client portal years ago, before our AI product, due to similar pressures. Clients hated it. They wanted to engage with their lawyers where they already work: email, Slack and Teams.
After that experience, we committed to focusing Spellbook on the end users, the lawyers who would use us day-to-day to get work done.
For many of our customers, there is no sales meeting or presentation. There is a 25 minute test drive.
We focus less on top-down sales through committees, and more on bottom-up sales through delighted users.
It’s a slower path. We prove value to users one by one rather than relying on selling top-down licenses across firms.
But we think this subjects our product to better evolutionary pressure.
With patience, we’ve grown to 4,000 in-house legal teams and law firm customers since 2022—more than Harvey and Legora combined, and we’ll soon cross $100m ARR.
4,000 customers who use us purely for the delight and utility of our product, who are rapidly expanding usage.
This also forged an incredible fit with in-house legal teams, who need AI for the pure utility.
AI buyers in every vertical should consider:
“Should we buy AI designed to sell to the innovation committee, or to end users?”
These approaches result in very different product DNA.
Zach Abramowitz@ZachAbramowitz
In which Spellbook CEO @scottastevenson and I mock the shared client portal collaboration space feature (and the problem of listening to the customer too much) I'm prepared to be wrong about this, but I predict that feature will be a total dud.
English
@asmartbear Biz dev with large companies is mostly a lost cause for this exact reason; biz dev with professional associations, publications, and individuals who sell their distribution for money is where it’s at
English
Large companies have distribution; startups have innovation, and maybe even a product people love.
When each party's weakness maps onto the other's strength, that feels like the kernel of a deal.
But typically it isn’t. Here’s how to make it work:
longform.asmartbear.com/startup-biz-de…
English
@jjacky A sign of intelligence is being able to change their opinion when given new information. Peter is exceptional at sales, but his ego prevents him from becoming intelligent
English
one of the big threats of these silicon valley people are that just because they are good at one area (sales in this person's case), that they think they are also good at other parts (eng)
you don't know what you don't know
Peter Kazanjy@Kazanjy
A buddy of mine ran a large part of the DoorDash engineering org. When an engineer caused an outage, they knew exactly what the revenue cost was, and that revenue cost was hung on that engineer. They didn't do fines, per se, but it went into performance reviews, and it definitely negatively impacted future promotions / raises - so essentially it was a delayed fine. More orgs should do this.
English
@zeeitthru Wait, the individual contributors that would be made uncomfortable by this sort of shift in accountability are hostile to it?
Dude, that’s CRAZY.
English
According to the engineers who have responded to me here this is impossible to implement because there are things beyond the control of engineers that can lead to outages.
As a result, I now believe that sales reps should get paid on ANY deal they work on, even if it doesn’t close, since any lost deal could be the result of a site outage, feature deficit, or SE foul up.
If you don’t pay AEs on every deal they work, they’ll just have an incentive to not work on any deals at all.
Or work only on deals that they’re sure to win.
Clearly everyone should be insulated from financial consequences of anything they don’t have 100% control of.
Peter Kazanjy@Kazanjy
A buddy of mine ran a large part of the DoorDash engineering org. When an engineer caused an outage, they knew exactly what the revenue cost was, and that revenue cost was hung on that engineer. They didn't do fines, per se, but it went into performance reviews, and it definitely negatively impacted future promotions / raises - so essentially it was a delayed fine. More orgs should do this.
English
@Kazanjy All I see is devs dunking on you, as they should because people root against confident ignorance…
English
@zeeitthru You're also not privy to the likes on my tweets full of CTOs and senior engineering leaders who have been doing software for more than four years. ; )
English
@Kazanjy Well let’s be real, you were extremely defensive and did not come off as the learning type…
English
@Kazanjy I happen to have much more experience in software development than what your impression of me is based on LinkedIn and I can tell you anyone with experience working on a 5+ devs teams would laugh at your tweet
English
I'll explain it to you, Zi, since you're having a hard time grokking.
We, as founders, and entrepreneurs, are allowed to have wide ranging interests and opinions based on problems we see in the market, and patterns we've seen work in other places.
It's pretty much how entrepreneurship works.
"Stick to law, Zi. No software for you."
No, that would be retarded.
Just like your current comments are retarded.
Make sense?
English
@Kazanjy You think you know me from a LinkedIn bio but you don’t and this ain’t even about me Peter, stick to sales
English
@zeeitthru You're welcome to unfollow Zihao.
I know you're a baby product manager who just started doing startups, but the thing with being a founder is you can just do things.
Meantime, shouldn't you be doing your pipegen?
English
@Kazanjy Not sure what this digging is trying to prove but just…stick to sales Peter
English
@zeeitthru Oh, more than qualified, sugar. My DMs are full of engineering leaders talking about how they do this.
Tell me more about qualifications, goober.
English
@zeeitthru Tell me more about topic control, clown shoes... x.com/zeeitthru/stat…
Zihao Jiang@zeeitthru
How to solve the fertility crisis: make it 30% income tax reduction for 2 kids, 60% for 3, 100% for 4. But god forbid the government cuts bloat in the short term for a healthier tax base long term. Decision makers just want to get theirs 🤷♂️
English