Tech Investor

Manhattan, NY
Joined January 2011
Saastroworld retweeted
Last thought: The liquidated damages clauses of the contracts between neoclouds and their offtakers will be the final boss battle. If you don’t have experience building highly available compute, you will have outages that stress your uptime commitments. If you can’t remedy them, your offtaker will be extremely punitive. Terms that look good on paper now starts to shrivel under the LD terms of offtaker contracts. You’re already starting to see a few of these blow up - you lose your IG wrapper, a big hyperscaler dumps you etc etc. So anyone in the data center game needs to ultimately be excellent at management/uptime/maintenance. If you’re not, you may wilt when you inevitably have to manage some moment of downtime.
49
16
5
462
98,272
With the cyber threats accelerating as they are. I wouldn’t be surprised if @realDonaldTrump and the Gov enacted wartime policies to override any states push back on data centers. This has precedent dating back to WWII at a high level.
11
Saastroworld retweeted
There’s a world of difference between user-authorized agents (Muse, Instinct, Grokbot, etc.) and true unauthorized/rogue agents that could constitute cyberattacks. Most of the activity described in the Axios story appears to be the former: customers sharing credentials with agents so they can take actions on their behalf. This may violate bank terms requiring humans to log in themselves, but these are in no way cyberattacks. The direction banks should go is to support user-directed agents. For example, Amex is an authorized connection in Muse, making it easy for users to grant, limit, and revoke access. Read-only permission levels are a sensible interim step. Several banks already support or are moving toward them. Full write access (with user credentials) is a different risk category and should be approached carefully. Frightening the public by blurring the line between user-authorized agentic behavior and cyberattacks is irresponsible.
SCOOP: Major U.S. banks are detecting unauthorized third-party AI agents inside customer accounts, including some attempting to take actions that appear to be independent of user instructions, sources told Axios. The findings have alarmed banking executives, who are racing to restrict access to their systems as AI moves at a velocity faster than financial institutions can respond, multiple industry and bank executives told Axios. Several banks are now preparing for worst-case and even “day after” scenarios, including how to rapidly secure or restore customer accounts if things go wrong, the people said. Several bank executives told Axios they're struggling to distinguish between human users and AI agents. One executive said banks also struggle to determine whether agents are authorized by customers or potentially operating without their permission, more akin to rogue agent behavior. Read my latest for Axios here: axios.com/2026/10/22/ai-agen…
378
728
136
5,829
363,926
If this is the signal, then rest assured there is no bubble. There isn’t much oxygen at all.
In the roaring 90s and into early 2000s the industry did this with Public Relations executives; was widely commented on at the time.
15
Everyone is rushing to convert to ARR and ranges are low $70 to low $80bns - no matter what, market just needs to puke some more. Good luck out there people.
ANTHROPIC REPORTS $16.8B REVENUE IN Q3
37
$DDOG - this combo of security and efficiency is where datadog leads the industry. The below is basically an advertisement for DDOG and can’t be much more explicit.
75
New framework - who's got Bi-AI? Bi-sexua.. bi-directional AI that enabls adoption of both enterprise and Consumer agents: $TWLO $NET $DDOG $OKTA ... who else?
1
1
130
The fact America can clown this behavior is a positive step for AI. Don’t leave out the stutters next time …
Dario Amodei is at the desk to assure that the future of humanity is safe from AI
71
Saastroworld retweeted
All seven Databricks co-founders began our journey together at UC Berkeley. We started the company in a room in Soda Hall, moved to a small office on Addison Street, and spent our first few years in Berkeley before eventually heading to SF. Two of our co-founders are still on the faculty. Today we announced Databricks Field at California Memorial Stadium, our first collegiate athletics sponsorship. Berkeley shaped everything about how this company thinks, and this is our way of investing in the next generation of students and builders who'll do their best work on that campus. Go Bears! databricks.com/company/newsr…
124
220
53
2,343
228,791
Saastroworld retweeted
Meta will continue to be successful because they understand that a winning consumer AI strategy is “hey you can use AI to negotiate a good deal on a Peloton through Marketplace and btw we made a silly little AI character with a fluffy butt that you can look at on your new Meta Tamagotchi” not “run our open weight model 6.7.1 on this new Chinese orchestration architecture oh and btw it might take your job and kill you good luck”
88
235
36
3,934
193,922
Saastroworld retweeted
accidentally said app instead of domain-specific harness and they kicked me out of SF
106
370
58
8,771
246,436
What a life saver @Muse is for AI stocks which were looking uninvestable and just flat out hard. Enterprise AI: "OAI or ANT" "open source vs closed" "they're stealing your alpha [totaly false btw]" "pacing" "slowdown" "10% human extinction" Consumer AI:
33
The personalAI assistant opportunity is looking so much cleaner than enterprise AI .. on one side “open vs closed weights”, “stealing your alpha” , “10% human extinction”. While on the other side you have:
15
Saastroworld retweeted
And yet another sensible, consistent message if you believe there are security and safety considerations (like any platform or tech shift) but aren’t slinging x-risk, doomer rhetoric.
Last month I wrote about how we can build a positive and safe future for everyone: meta.com/thefutureisforevery… Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens. The reality is: - People won't want to use agents that are misaligned with them and that don't do what they ask, so labs have a strong natural incentive to make their models more aligned. There is a lot of debate about slowing progress on capabilities until alignment catches up. My view is that trust and alignment are quickly becoming the most important capabilities that will differentiate agents and models. Any lab that doesn't focus on alignment will fall behind. - Labs face significant liability if their models cause harm, so they have a strong incentive to prevent this as well. Meta delayed shipping Muse for several months to focus on safety and security. We didn't call for everyone else to do this before we would. We just did it as part of our day-to-day work because it was clearly the right thing for people and for us. I'm proud of the security foundations we've built. - Engaging independent evaluators and advisors is industry best practice. MSL already does this today in several areas because it helps produce better work. Other labs can just do this too. In general, it would be helpful for there to be a larger and more diverse ecosystem of evaluators. - Committing the significant majority of compute towards serving people rather than racing towards recursive self-improvement is one of the best ways to ensure we develop this technology safely. Meta has made this commitment and other labs can do this as well. I believe the key to building a positive future for everyone is maintaining the right balance of power. This is within our power to do.
9
8
156
9,595
Saastroworld retweeted
“Meta delayed shipping Muse for several months to focus on safety and security. We didn't call for everyone else to do this before we would. We just did it as part of our day-to-day work because it was clearly the right thing for people and for us.”
Last month I wrote about how we can build a positive and safe future for everyone: meta.com/thefutureisforevery… Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens. The reality is: - People won't want to use agents that are misaligned with them and that don't do what they ask, so labs have a strong natural incentive to make their models more aligned. There is a lot of debate about slowing progress on capabilities until alignment catches up. My view is that trust and alignment are quickly becoming the most important capabilities that will differentiate agents and models. Any lab that doesn't focus on alignment will fall behind. - Labs face significant liability if their models cause harm, so they have a strong incentive to prevent this as well. Meta delayed shipping Muse for several months to focus on safety and security. We didn't call for everyone else to do this before we would. We just did it as part of our day-to-day work because it was clearly the right thing for people and for us. I'm proud of the security foundations we've built. - Engaging independent evaluators and advisors is industry best practice. MSL already does this today in several areas because it helps produce better work. Other labs can just do this too. In general, it would be helpful for there to be a larger and more diverse ecosystem of evaluators. - Committing the significant majority of compute towards serving people rather than racing towards recursive self-improvement is one of the best ways to ensure we develop this technology safely. Meta has made this commitment and other labs can do this as well. I believe the key to building a positive future for everyone is maintaining the right balance of power. This is within our power to do.
186
378
32
6,692
401,663
Not my expertise. Clearly not any of ours either. Makes you realize how dumb we are ..
I must be among an extremely small group of people (n=1?) that have both 1) trained a frontier LLM and 2) designed and synthesized custom viruses in a lab with my own two hands. And I think that the takes on AI killing us all by creating dangerous viruses is total bogus.
48
The biggest misconception around @DarioAmodei ‘s post is he’s not calling to slow the AI pace we have seen thus far. He is saying the pace we are about see is so much faster that we need to buckle up. Knee jerk reaction is AI is going to slow but it’s about to accelerate.
28
Saastroworld retweeted
“Pacing” can be somewhat of a trigger word because it sounds like an arbitrary slow down of capability or a way to hobble competitors through undue regulation. However, the specific improvement goals laid out in Dario’s are absolute necessities in AI development. We expect equivalent in areas like aerospace, life sciences, health care, and other industries, and AI development likely shouldn’t be that different. AI is going to be the technology underpinning our financial trading systems, our medical devices, our biotech breakthroughs, defense systems, government workflows, and many more mission critical domains. So it completely stands to reason that we want these systems to be safe and “aligned”. How we get there -without meaningfully slowing down innovation progress or reducing competition- is one of the most complex questions in the 21st century, but the need is clearly real.
77
29
8
194
53,587