TiHIMothy

@saylor @AtlasHodld Ur ass is going to federal prison buster

Stretch your income a little further. $STRC

@ropeflowelite @esaagar U retards in the comments getting pissed off and can’t tell this is an AI generated engagement bait account

@esaagar i'm worried about how this energy crisis will affect athletes like me who compete internationally more expensive travel and less access to global events could be a reality soon

This unironically then is the beginning of the end of the US empire: Militarily unable to collapse the Iranian regime from the air, sparking a global energy crisis for critical US allies and then telling them to go and fix the crisis we created

@OracleCallsIt @BillyM2k Optimus is vaporware for the time being

@BillyM2k It doesn't matter whether we are close to AI. The only pragmatic question is whether robots like Optimus can replace human labor at scale.

i really don't think we're anywhere close to AGI

Every day we get closer and closer to this as our reality.

x.com/jason/status/1… Amazing track record

@TRobinsonNewEra Wow I can’t believe this actually happened 😱

Literally how it's going.

If your flyer is AI, I won’t go. If your book cover is AI, I won’t read. If your song is AI, I won’t listen. If your ad is AI, I won’t buy. If your profile pic is AI, I won't follow.

@saylor You’re going to jail buddy

You weren’t meant to live an uncomfortable life. $STRC

I wholeheartedly endorse this piece. It annoys the hell out of me that there's an entire cottage industry of business "journalism" that consists of taking some outlandish claim made by a tech CEO -- often in a tweet or offhand comment -- and then crafting karlbode.com/ceo-said-a-thi…

@excel_rator @TheSalonDon I’m agreeing with you But normies don’t pay attention to this type of shit. It was obvious to anyone really paying attention but we live in a country, and a world full of people that don’t pay attention to anything other than vibes.

@TheSalonDon > Obama signs JCPOA, a deal insuring no nuclear enrichment with inspection > Israel gets mad and supports GOP explicitly > Adelsons give 200m to trump > Saudis, UAE give hundreds of millions and exclusively back GOP what did u think that was for? goyims r unbelievable..

Strait closed means $200 oil There’s nothing Trump can do to open the strait This will cause Covid level lockdowns and hyper inflation at 30% + I voted for Trump but Attacking Iran will go down as the worst decision a president ever made

@LukasHozda Original tweet has to be ragebait right?

Oh god he's right

Losing my patience with the internet

@techNmak Actually it’s great advice because I like job security

"Do not learn to code" is the worst career advice of the decade. People are telling college students to skip Computer Science because AI will just automate it all. Andrew Ng just killed this myth at Stanford with a brilliant analogy. When he tried to generate images with Midjourney, he typed: "make pretty pictures of robots" and got garbage. His collaborator, however, understood Art History. He knew the exact vocabulary of lighting, genre, and palette. He spoke the "language of art," and generated masterpieces. Andrew Ng is seeing the exact same thing happen in software engineering right now. AI didn't replace the need to understand Computer Science. It made Computer Science the required vocabulary to control the AI. If you don't understand how computers actually work, you are just typing "make a pretty app" into Cursor and shipping fragile, unscalable logic. Here is Andrew Ng's exact hiring hierarchy today: Level 1: 10 years of experience, but codes by hand (He won't hire them). Level 2: Fresh college grad, but highly fluent in AI-assisted coding (He hires them over the 10-year veteran). Level 3 (God Tier): Deeply understands CS fundamentals AND uses AI-assisted coding. When humanity went from punch cards to keyboards, coding got easier, and more people coded. We are at that exact inflection point again. AI doesn't replace fundamentals. It multiplies them.

@shitpost9000 @chamath It mixes with the lead paint in their bodies and causes some horrible sort of chemical reaction

@chamath im becoming convinced that slop hits 50+ year olds differently than the rest of us

The biggest threat to Instagram’s moat is an incredible image model.

@Atticus_of_Oz @AOC That’s what packing the courts are for when you get a supermajority

@TiHIMothee @AOC SCOTUS won't allow that, unfortunately

Politicians - especially Dems - should pledge not to take AI money. They are buying up influence ahead of the midterms, and Dems who take AI $ will lose authority and trust as the public bears the cost. Their money will end up being toxic anyway. People are catching on.

@julesterpak “Let’s check in on our leader in these trying times! Surely he’ll have the answer! Dear leader, what do you have to say?” “…guys I’m scared”

Enjoying the leadership here

Pulling up to the court with the ChatGPT basketball and just asking some other guy to shoot for me

@TerryMoran They wallow in some sort of sick irony that everything he does and is as a human being is antithetical to everything they claim to stand for. They bask in every element of the post truth society as a bastion of their “victory” no matter how hard they’re personally fucked.

The thing about AI memes produced by Trump groupies is that he is always portrayed as vigorous and agile and dashing. But every time we see the real Trump, he is sagging and decrepit and barely able to stay awake. The contrast is hilarious, actually.

My company rolled out AI tools 11 months ago. Since then, every task I do takes longer. I am not allowed to say this out loud. Not because there is a policy. There is no policy. There is something worse than a policy. There is enthusiasm. There is a Slack channel called #ai-wins where people post screenshots of AI outputs with captions like "this just saved me an hour." There is a VP who opens every all-hands with "the companies that adopt fastest win." There is a Director who renamed his team from Operations to Intelligent Operations. There is a peer review question that now asks: "How have you leveraged AI tools to enhance your workflow this quarter?" If the answer is "I haven't, because I was faster before," that is a career decision. So I leverage. Emails. Before the tools, I wrote emails. This took the amount of time it takes to write an email. I did not measure it. Nobody measured it. The email got written and sent and it was fine. Now I write the email. Then I highlight the text and click "Enhance with AI." The AI rewrites my email. It replaces "Can we meet Thursday?" with "I'd love to explore the possibility of finding a mutually convenient time to align on this." I read the rewrite. I delete the rewrite. I send my original email. This takes 4 minutes instead of 2. The 2 extra minutes are the enhancement. I do this 11 times a day. That is 22 minutes I spend each day rejecting improvements to sentences that were already finished. In #ai-wins I posted a screenshot of the rewrite. I did not post the part where I deleted it. 23 people reacted with the rocket emoji. That is adoption. Meetings. We have an AI notetaker in every meeting now. It joins automatically. It records. It transcribes. It summarizes. After each meeting I receive a 3-paragraph summary of the meeting I just attended. I read the summary. This takes 3 minutes. I was in the meeting. I know what happened. I am reading a machine's account of something I experienced firsthand. Sometimes the account is wrong. Last Tuesday it attributed a comment about Q3 revenue to me. My manager made that comment. I spent 4 minutes correcting the transcript. Before the notetaker, I did not spend 7 minutes after each meeting correcting a robot's memory of something I personally witnessed. I attend 11 meetings a week. That is 77 minutes per week supervising a transcription nobody requested. I mentioned this once. My manager said "think about the people who weren't in the meeting." The people who weren't in the meeting do not read the summaries. I checked. The read receipts show single-digit opens. The summaries exist not because they are useful but because they are there. I read them for the same reason. Documents. I write a weekly status update. Before the tools, this took 10 minutes. I typed what happened. I sent it. My manager skimmed it. The system worked. Now I open the AI writing assistant. I give it my bullet points. It produces a draft. The draft says "Significant progress was achieved across multiple workstreams." I did not achieve significant progress across multiple workstreams. I updated a spreadsheet and sent 4 emails. I rewrite the draft to say what actually happened. Then I run my rewrite through the grammar tool. It suggests I change "done" to "completed" and "next week" to "in the forthcoming period." I click Ignore 9 times. Then I send the version I would have written in 10 minutes. The process now takes 30. I have been doing this every week for 11 months. I have added 20 minutes to a task that did not need 20 more minutes. I call this efficiency. I have been calling it efficiency for 11 months. That is what efficiency means now. It means the additional time you spend to arrive at the same outcome through a longer process. Nobody has questioned this definition. I have not offered it for review. I kept a log once. 2 weeks. Every task, timed. Before-AI and after-AI. The after number was larger in every case. Every single one. Not by a little. The range was 40 to 200 percent. I deleted the log. I deleted it because it was a document that said, in plain numbers, that the AI tools make me slower. And a document like that has no place in a company where AI adoption is a strategic priority. I could not send it to my manager. He championed the rollout. I could not post it in #ai-wins. I could not raise it in a meeting because the notetaker would transcribe it and the summary would read "[Name] expressed concerns about AI tool efficacy" and that summary would be the first one anyone actually reads. So I do what everyone does. I use the tools. I spend the extra time. I post in #ai-wins. I write "leveraged AI to streamline weekly reporting" in my review and my manager gives me a 4 out of 5 for innovation. I have innovated nothing. I have added steps to processes that were already finished. I have made simple things longer and labeled the difference with words that used to mean something. Every week in #ai-wins someone posts a screenshot. And 20 people react with the rocket emoji. And nobody posts the part where they deleted the output and did the task themselves. Nobody posts the revert. Nobody posts the before-and-after timer. Nobody will. Because "I was better at my job before the AI tools" is a sentence that cannot be said out loud in any company that has decided AI is the future. Every company has decided AI is the future. So we leverage. Quietly. Adding steps. Calling them optimization. Getting slightly less done, slightly more slowly, with slightly more steps, and reporting it as progress. My yearly review is next month. There is a new section this year. "AI Impact Assessment." It asks me to quantify the hours saved by AI tools per week. I will write a number. The number will be positive. It will not be true. But the AI writing assistant will help me phrase it convincingly. That is the one thing it does well.

“Sir the goy squares turned red, time to make shit up again”