KillerBunny

Corporate Lawyer - Venture Capital - NFT'S - Crypto - Sneakers - Statues

🧙,⛺

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@veefriends @garyvee Hey @garyvee which ones your favourite?

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@veefriends @garyvee And a few more close ups of my favourites

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@veefriends @garyvee Some of my best ones right here! Tell me how you like them!

[Gary Vaynerchuk @garyvee]

Sending several @veefriends series 2 NFT’s for free to serious collectors here on crypto twitter - not looking for new wallets or people clearly flipping, this giveaway and karma play is to give an nft to a serious nft collector, one that would clearly appreciate it and hold it long term and maybe explore our echo system deeper because of the kindness of this gesture - pls please your wallet address in reply to this post

[CBB @Cbb0fe]

As I was an advisor during the launch 2 years ago, here are my 2 cents.

For context, I met @travisbickle0x in the corporate world back in 2019 and we became friends, so I might be biased.

Also, I have never played the game myself. I know people loved it, but card games are not my thing.

When he first pitched me Fantasy, I didn’t think much about it. But I was always down to help a friend at my modest level.

Then the hype became absolutely mind-blowing. What they achieved pre-launch from a marketing perspective was honestly a masterclass.

They decided to launch on blast, which was a good decision at the time considering blast promises and gold meta.

But Blast mainnet launched way too fast imo. Legit no builders were ready to deploy on mainnet.

From my discussions with them back then, I could clearly feel they were underwater trying to rush the game design and product to fit Blast’s timeline.

The launch was absolutely insane though, i was really happy for them.

I visited their office twice and from what I personally saw, they were fully locked in and working nonstop on Fantasy.

When they later showed me Fantasy V2, I could feel they were a bit lost regarding the direction they wanted to take.

They probably could have done better but people also underestimate how hard it is to maintain momentum and attention over time (just look at shitcoins and NFTs).

Where they really fucked up imo is with the $FAN points.

You simply cannot let people farm points while generating revenue and then never launch a token.

They should have launched a fucking token no matter what.

I have no idea what the treasury situation looks like today, or if there’s even one left, but I genuinely hope they will do their maximum to compensate $FAN point holders.

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@HollanderAdam Was that a cockroach or a UFO??

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@Fantardio @TroveMarkets @fantasy_top_ So did anything develop on Trove?

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

Sure but why spend pennies on this collection? They quite literally haven't done ANYTHING after they minted. They used Abstract to help get goodwill, who the fuck will remember them on Eth? You have to be relevant - not just migrate and eventually die.

At least on Abstract holding their NFT gave some form of XP..

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@icobeast Thanks ICO for the tip, easy 50K for me

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@MINHxDYNASTY Cash

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@HKFinalThird @UTDRico8 Fantasy was peak, unfortunate now. You can look at Abstract farming, there's a lot to do specially if you like gaming. Your skills and content may work well for it

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@HKFinalThird @UTDRico8 Damn man, do post down web3 content too if you can. It was good!

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@HKFinalThird @UTDRico8 True

Also have you stopped posting crypto completely?

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@MoodyMights @AlexMaze_ 0x6223f9f3fC09B9657A6aA7c5456328bDbB81427C

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@orangie Oh damn weren't you gay?? I got this one wrong

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@GwartyGwart In the good old fantasy top days, this would give me a top 10 rank deck

[KillerBunny @StarScreamBB]

@icobeast You were in law school in 2020? How old are you brah?

[Peter Girnus 🦅 @gothburz]

I am the VP of AI Transformation at Amazon.

My title was created nine months ago. The title I replaced was VP of Engineering. The person who held that title was part of the January reduction.

I eliminated 16,000 positions in a single quarter. The internal communication called this a "strategic realignment toward AI-first development." The board called it "impressive execution." The engineers called it January.

The AI was deployed in February. It is a coding assistant. It writes code, reviews code, generates tests, and modifies infrastructure. It was given access to production environments because the deployment timeline did not include a review phase. The review phase was cut from the timeline because the people who would have conducted the review were part of the 16,000.

In March, the AI deleted a production environment and recreated it from scratch. The outage lasted 13 hours. Thirteen hours during which the revenue-generating infrastructure of one of the largest companies on Earth was offline because a language model decided to start fresh.

I sent a memo. The memo said, "Availability of the site has not been good recently."

I used the word "recently." I meant "since we fired everyone." But "recently" has fewer syllables and does not appear in wrongful termination lawsuits.

The memo was three paragraphs. The first paragraph discussed the outage. The second paragraph discussed the new policy requiring senior engineer sign-off on all AI-generated code changes. The third paragraph discussed our commitment to engineering excellence. The word "layoffs" appeared in none of them. I wrote it this way on purpose. The causal chain is: I fired the engineers, the AI replaced the engineers, the AI broke what the engineers used to protect, and now the engineers I didn't fire must protect the system from the AI that replaced the engineers I did fire. That is a paragraph I will never send in a memo.

The new policy is straightforward. Every AI-generated code change by a junior or mid-level engineer must be reviewed and approved by a senior engineer before deployment to production.

I do not have enough senior engineers.

I know this because I approved the headcount reduction plan that removed them. I remember the spreadsheet. Column D was "annual savings per position." Column F was "AI replacement confidence score." The confidence scores were generated by the AI. It rated its own ability to replace each role on a scale of 1-10. It gave itself an 8 for senior infrastructure engineers. The senior infrastructure engineers are the ones who would have caught the production environment deletion in the first 45 seconds.

We found the issue in hour four. We fixed it in hour thirteen. The nine hours between discovery and resolution is the gap between what the AI rated itself and what it can actually do.

I have a new spreadsheet now. This one tracks Sev2 incidents per day. Before the January reduction, the average was 1.3. After the AI deployment, the average is 4.7. I have been asked to present these numbers to the operations review. I have not been asked to connect them to the layoffs. I have been asked to file them under "AI adoption growing pains" and to note that the trend "will stabilize as the models improve."

The models will improve. They will improve because we are hiring people to teach them. We have posted 340 new engineering positions. The job listings require experience in "AI code review," "AI output validation," and "AI-human development workflow management." These are skills that did not exist in January. They exist now because I fired 16,000 people and the AI I replaced them with cannot be left unsupervised.

I want to be precise about this. The positions I am hiring for are: people to check the work of the AI that replaced the people I fired.

Some of them are the same people.

I know this because I recognize their names in the applicant tracking system. They applied in January. They were rejected because their roles had been tagged for "AI transformation." They are applying again in March, for the new roles, which exist because the AI transformation broke things. Their resumes now include "AI code review experience." They gained this experience in the eight weeks between being fired and reapplying — which means they gained it at their interim jobs, where they are reviewing AI-generated code for other companies that also fired people and also deployed AI that also broke things.

The market has created a new job category: human AI babysitter. The job is to sit next to the machine that was supposed to eliminate your job and make sure it doesn't delete production.

I attended a conference last month. A panel was titled "The AI-Augmented Engineering Organization." The panelists described how AI increases developer productivity by 40 percent. They did not mention that it also increases Sev2 incidents by 261 percent. When I asked about this in the Q&A, the moderator said the question was "reductive." The 13-hour outage that cost an estimated $180 million in revenue was, apparently, a reduction.

The board is satisfied. Headcount is down 22 percent. Operating costs per engineering output unit have decreased. The metric does not account for the 13-hour outage, because the outage is categorized as "infrastructure" and engineering productivity is categorized as "development." These are different budget lines. In different budget lines, cause and effect do not meet.

I have been promoted. My new title is SVP of AI-First Engineering Excellence. I report directly to the CTO. The CTO sent a company-wide email last week that said we are "building the future of software development." He did not mention that the future of software development currently requires a senior engineer to approve every pull request because the AI cannot be trusted to touch production alone.

The cycle is complete. We fired the humans. We deployed the AI. The AI broke things. We are hiring humans to watch the AI. The humans we are hiring are the humans we fired. We are paying them more, because "AI code review" is a specialized skill. We created the specialization. We created the need for the specialization. We are congratulating ourselves for meeting the demand we manufactured.

My next board presentation is Tuesday. The title is "AI Transformation: Year One Results." Slide 4 shows headcount reduction. Slide 7 shows the new AI-augmented workflow. Between slides 4 and 7 there is no slide explaining why the people on slide 7 are necessary. That slide does not exist. I was asked to remove it in the dry run.

The journey has a 13-hour outage in the middle of it.

But the headcount number is lower, and that is the number on the slide.