Dima Sable

AI made every message look serious. Signal requires commitment. Building proof before send.

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@i_mika_el @brandononchain thx for clarification, that makes sense.
cold outreach in a form we used to know it for decades - is dead- true. ai has hit the last nail into coffin.

but it will reborn in a new form - so cold weak ties will be powerful again. building it.

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@rarefounders yep, ai filters vs ai spam looks like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. And, btw, attack always beats defense.

ai is not bad, but it's mass usage became a surrogate: like blockchain is a cool technology, but its surrogate - crypto sh*t - is a worm, a total scam.

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@i_mika_el @Dmarketsniper 1) scale ruins everything: that's like chasing for your own tail - you either choose non scale and win, or scale --> and fail
2) w.intro - is better than nothing, but is is a) non scalable = slow and b) echo chamber = so w.intro is a slow echo chamber

weak ties rocks only

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@i_mika_el @brandononchain 1)not everyone who's worth to be listened to is known
2)if they are already known, they don't need to cold outreach
3)the same for common connections: if they are it's a warm intro but not a cold contact
4)w.intros are ok, but it's a curated serendipity, killing weak ties

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@bgurley Hi, Bill! was thrilled when saw this - every point is about me. Then I noticed it’s only for U.S. residents. Sadly. hope that changes in the future. Anyway wanna read your book asap! thx

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@signulll wanted to say - it's Yerevan

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@MartinGTobias ai didn't kill email. - it killed text as proof of effort.
the next layer isn't a better filter - it's proof before attention

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@MartinGTobias ai didn't kill email. - it killed text as proof of effort.
the next layer isn't a better filter - it's proof before attention

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@sflorimm She is too unconfident

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

ai made output cheap. so the scarce question:
[is this well made?] --> [where did this come from?]

who ,why, context, judgment + what was costly to fake?

trust starts one layer below the output.

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@lennysan I do myself 🍌🍌

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@RaminNasibov It looks like the word "chinchilla" is written in Russian in cursive 🖋️script.

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@Nick_Davidov I know, I have the 3rd version.

My message was about ear comfort while laying on a pillow.

I pre-set auto timer off at a player app, like 15, or 30'.

BTW shokz are extremely good to be used at jogging/🏃running.

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@Bencera were you hacked by Polsia?

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@Bencera @sami_babar463 there are short cuts using it
experience is valuable because we live it ourselves, not skipping it

"you can outsource thinking but not understanding" (c) A.K.

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

@n_wittensleger @paulg you're right, but alone it turn into pay to spam system. there were many and all failed.

rigidly tied up identity is also a missed layer there. has someone tried to use this primitive in your area, Neil?

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

AI inbox agents solve the volume problem by reading for you. But they create a trust problem:

now both you and the sender are judged by a machine interpreting cheap text.

how about adding proof before interpretation? :-)

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

1. being smart VS looking smart are no longer the same thing.
2. ai didn’t kill email. it killed text as proof of effort.
3. the problem is not spam. but a cheap outreach that no longer looks cheap.
4. in the old world, bad outreach looked bad. now cheap outreach looks thoughtful.
5. recipients can no longer judge the person by the polish of the message.

[Dima Sable @SableDima]

Ai mail-agent can summarize the message.
but how to prove why it deserved to be summarized in the first place?

So i do conclude: summaries reduce reading, but they don’t solve trust.