Chris G. @clickfungo - Twitter Profile

🔥 Cape Verde almost pulled off one of the craziest World Cup upsets ever. Their 40-year-old keeper, @vozinahapr, was absolutely unreal, the second-oldest goalkeeper in the tournament and somehow he had Argentina sweating for their lives. Heartbreak for Cape Verde, but man… massive respect. Those island boys battled like lions. Argentina fans definitely aged about 10 years in those 90~ minutes 😂 🇨🇻⚽ #WorldCup2026

0

8

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

2 days ago

Love it

gxjo

@gxjo_dev

3 days ago

Somebody turned GitHub profiles into FIFA cards and I'm obsessed 😭

178

8K

365

3K

587K

0

14

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

2 days ago

apparently i'm a 67-rated RW. my commits do numbers, my cardio does not. get scouted → https://t.co/m83jDxpMzZ

0

3

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

3 days ago

@taka_aki I need to translate it first, but thank you!

0

10

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

5 days ago

A few bears in the chat , congrats either way @Etched

Cory Levy

@cory

5 days ago

congrats to the Etched team on coming out of stealth with a working chip and over $1 billion in signed customer contracts! and $800M raised at a $5B valuation proud to be their very first believer and investor in 2022 while they were still students at Harvard

cory's tweet photo. congrats to the Etched team on coming out of stealth with a working chip and over $1 billion in signed customer contracts!

and $800M raised at a $5B valuation

proud to be their very first believer and investor in 2022 while they were still students at Harvard https://t.co/p0SwuK5EFJ

36

781

21

135

82K

0

14

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

7 days ago

@doodlestein @jrysana @jrysana sit down @doodlestein is a legend, and you are just a hater.

1

3

0

167

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

8 days ago

@doodlestein How you manage so many projects is fascinating. I find the hardest part is finding the balance ⚖️ of making design choices vs letting the machine handle it all. For large projects it's even more challenging. I need to sign up for your skills site and see what I find that may help

0

1

0

130

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

8 days ago

Such a fascinating world we are entering and I'm excited for the future. Everyone now has the power of knowledge that only a few had in certain categories. How will you use it? What will you explore? What breakthrough will you come up with, with the help of your ai companion 💪

Jeffrey Emanuel

@doodlestein

11 months ago

A “camera lucida” is a device that uses a prism held by a metal armature to project an image of the scene in front of it onto a piece of paper below it, sort of like a modern-day projector hooked up to a live camera stream. These were probably invented in the early 1400s, although published accounts of them don’t appear until the late 1500s. Part of the reason for that is likely that they were closely guarded trade secrets of artists who used them to achieve a degree of accuracy that was previously impossible or at least extremely difficult to do in an unaided “freehand.” The artist David Hockney became very interested in this subject years ago and wrote a book about it in 2001. His basic theory was that the remarkable improvement in accuracy and realism was directly attributable to secret use of the camera lucida (and also an earlier device called a camera obscura). As he pointed out, before that period, you would never see a painting of a lute in perspective that didn’t look distorted and wrong. While you could use the “rules of perspective” to draw simple rectilinear shapes realistically, the more complex geometry of a lute was beyond normal human ability to portray realistically in space. This theory is known as the Hockney-Falco thesis. Ever since I learned about this in college in the early 2000s, I sort of mentally applied an asterisk to the works of certain painters. For instance, as much as I respect and admire Ingres and Caravaggio, the awe I had for their skills was tempered by the realization that they likely availed themselves of this sort of mechanical aid. And sure, much of the artistry is in the concept, the composition and framing, the colors, the paint strokes, etc. But that breathtaking lifelike realism is what impressed me the most, and that part of it was shattered at least partly by this revelation. It also made me respect even more the sculptural realism of Michelangelo (and also his studies which are clearly sketches made from life). In any case, the reason I bring this up now is that I believe we are on the verge of the same kind of thing happening in mathematical research fields with the advent of models like GPT-5 Pro. I’ve already used it to do what I suspect is genuinely new and interesting research (as I’ve detailed in recent threads), and we just today got an update from Sebastien Bubeck at OpenAI showing that the model was able to prove an interesting result in contemporary mathematics using a new proof, in a single shot no less. So this new age is suddenly upon us. We just saw a result from Chinese computer scientists last week beating a record for optimal sorting that stood for 45 years. I mused at the time about how I wondered whether AI was used in some way to generate that result. Also see the recent paper in the quoted tweet, which has a similar character in that it is both surprising and yet also elementary. These seem to me to be hallmarks of results that may have benefited from AI in some way. Now, I don’t want to accuse these authors of anything. For all I know, they did everything manually, just like the painters in the 1300s did. And even if they did use AI to help them, we don’t yet have accepted mores about how to deal with that: what disclosures are warranted, and how credit should be parceled out and considered. The whole concept of authorship must be reconsidered today. In my recent thread where I investigated alongside GPT-5 Pro about the use of Lie theory in deep learning, I devised the prompts myself, even though I would never in a million years be able to generate the theory and code that the model developed as a result of those prompts. Do I get the credit for the result if it turns out to revolutionize the field? What about my subsequent experiment, where I used my original prompts that I wrote myself along with a “meta prompt” to get GPT-5 Pro to come up with 10 more pairs of prompts modeled loosely after my own, but involving totally different branches of mathematics that developed in totally different directions. Do I get credit for those theories if they turn out to be important? I sure hope so, because I already published the ideas and code on GitHub and publicized them widely, so if anyone does follow up on those lines of inquiry, academic ethics would require them to cite me. But even if you think I deserve credit for steering the AI with my own prompt, then surely my claims to priority are somewhat weakened for the 10 other theories that are the result of using my prompt as a model for meta prompting, right? After all, I didn’t even know that “Tropical Geometry” was a thing a couple of days ago, yet now I have a theory and code that applies it to AI research. I would posit that, just as I started mentally applying an asterisk to certain artworks and artists akin to the asterisk next to Barry Bonds’ name in the Hall of Fame, I suspect that most scientists will start doing the same thing for any new mathematical theory-based papers in the next year or so. I suspect people will soon enough say things like “this guy is the real deal; he wrote his best papers pre-2025!” to distinguish between those who did all their work manually using their own brains versus those who used AI assistance. And that is absolutely a valid way to think about things if AI is able to not only answer hard theoretical problems but even pose the interesting questions on its own. If I’m right, we should prepare for a coming tsunami of shocking research papers that beat long standing records and limits, and shatter through walls that were long assumed to be relatively impenetrable short of some breakthrough theory. And I believe many of these results will share something in common: that they were always right there in front of us, but required combining theory from different areas of math and applied subjects in new ways that weren’t pursued before because of human, sociological reasons: different fields splitting across lines, with different terminology, journals, practices, departments, conferences, social networks, etc. The other form I suspect these results will take is to leverage elementary results in bizarre ways that, for whatever reason, don’t come naturally to human brains, but which we can understand once they are clearly explicated for us. Another form they might take is results that leverage long-forgotten esoterica from late 19th century analysis. The kinds of tricks that allowed Feynman to solve integrals that no one else could solve. These results are known and exist in books, but no one reads those books anymore, and the original theories they were developed for have been largely superseded by our modern machinery that operates at many levels of increased abstraction and generality. Another form they might take is simply applying known mathematics that is understood by just a few hundred specialized geniuses in the world who focus only on theory and not at all on applications. This math may have just been “sitting around” since the 1950s or 1970s, waiting for someone to apply it to a practical problem such as those in AI research. Many of the ideas I investigated with GPT-5 seem to fall into this category.

doodlestein's tweet photo. A “camera lucida” is a device that uses a prism held by a metal armature to project an image of the scene in front of it onto a piece of paper below it, sort of like a modern-day projector hooked up to a live camera stream.

These were probably invented in the early 1400s, although published accounts of them don’t appear until the late 1500s. Part of the reason for that is likely that they were closely guarded trade secrets of artists who used them to achieve a degree of accuracy that was previously impossible or at least extremely difficult to do in an unaided “freehand.”

The artist David Hockney became very interested in this subject years ago and wrote a book about it in 2001. His basic theory was that the remarkable improvement in accuracy and realism was directly attributable to secret use of the camera lucida (and also an earlier device called a camera obscura).

As he pointed out, before that period, you would never see a painting of a lute in perspective that didn’t look distorted and wrong. While you could use the “rules of perspective” to draw simple rectilinear shapes realistically, the more complex geometry of a lute was beyond normal human ability to portray realistically in space. This theory is known as the Hockney-Falco thesis.

Ever since I learned about this in college in the early 2000s, I sort of mentally applied an asterisk to the works of certain painters. For instance, as much as I respect and admire Ingres and Caravaggio, the awe I had for their skills was tempered by the realization that they likely availed themselves of this sort of mechanical aid.

And sure, much of the artistry is in the concept, the composition and framing, the colors, the paint strokes, etc. But that breathtaking lifelike realism is what impressed me the most, and that part of it was shattered at least partly by this revelation. It also made me respect even more the sculptural realism of Michelangelo (and also his studies which are clearly sketches made from life).

In any case, the reason I bring this up now is that I believe we are on the verge of the same kind of thing happening in mathematical research fields with the advent of models like GPT-5 Pro.

I’ve already used it to do what I suspect is genuinely new and interesting research (as I’ve detailed in recent threads), and we just today got an update from Sebastien Bubeck at OpenAI showing that the model was able to prove an interesting result in contemporary mathematics using a new proof, in a single shot no less.

So this new age is suddenly upon us. We just saw a result from Chinese computer scientists last week beating a record for optimal sorting that stood for 45 years.

I mused at the time about how I wondered whether AI was used in some way to generate that result.

Also see the recent paper in the quoted tweet, which has a similar character in that it is both surprising and yet also elementary. These seem to me to be hallmarks of results that may have benefited from AI in some way.

Now, I don’t want to accuse these authors of anything. For all I know, they did everything manually, just like the painters in the 1300s did.

And even if they did use AI to help them, we don’t yet have accepted mores about how to deal with that: what disclosures are warranted, and how credit should be parceled out and considered. The whole concept of authorship must be reconsidered today.

In my recent thread where I investigated alongside GPT-5 Pro about the use of Lie theory in deep learning, I devised the prompts myself, even though I would never in a million years be able to generate the theory and code that the model developed as a result of those prompts. Do I get the credit for the result if it turns out to revolutionize the field?

What about my subsequent experiment, where I used my original prompts that I wrote myself along with a “meta prompt” to get GPT-5 Pro to come up with 10 more pairs of prompts modeled loosely after my own, but involving totally different branches of mathematics that developed in totally different directions.

Do I get credit for those theories if they turn out to be important? I sure hope so, because I already published the ideas and code on GitHub and publicized them widely, so if anyone does follow up on those lines of inquiry, academic ethics would require them to cite me.

But even if you think I deserve credit for steering the AI with my own prompt, then surely my claims to priority are somewhat weakened for the 10 other theories that are the result of using my prompt as a model for meta prompting, right? After all, I didn’t even know that “Tropical Geometry” was a thing a couple of days ago, yet now I have a theory and code that applies it to AI research.

I would posit that, just as I started mentally applying an asterisk to certain artworks and artists akin to the asterisk next to Barry Bonds’ name in the Hall of Fame, I suspect that most scientists will start doing the same thing for any new mathematical theory-based papers in the next year or so.

I suspect people will soon enough say things like “this guy is the real deal; he wrote his best papers pre-2025!” to distinguish between those who did all their work manually using their own brains versus those who used AI assistance.

And that is absolutely a valid way to think about things if AI is able to not only answer hard theoretical problems but even pose the interesting questions on its own.

If I’m right, we should prepare for a coming tsunami of shocking research papers that beat long standing records and limits, and shatter through walls that were long assumed to be relatively impenetrable short of some breakthrough theory.

And I believe many of these results will share something in common: that they were always right there in front of us, but required combining theory from different areas of math and applied subjects in new ways that weren’t pursued before because of human, sociological reasons: different fields splitting across lines, with different terminology, journals, practices, departments, conferences, social networks, etc.

The other form I suspect these results will take is to leverage elementary results in bizarre ways that, for whatever reason, don’t come naturally to human brains, but which we can understand once they are clearly explicated for us.

Another form they might take is results that leverage long-forgotten esoterica from late 19th century analysis. The kinds of tricks that allowed Feynman to solve integrals that no one else could solve.

These results are known and exist in books, but no one reads those books anymore, and the original theories they were developed for have been largely superseded by our modern machinery that operates at many levels of increased abstraction and generality.

Another form they might take is simply applying known mathematics that is understood by just a few hundred specialized geniuses in the world who focus only on theory and not at all on applications.

This math may have just been “sitting around” since the 1950s or 1970s, waiting for someone to apply it to a practical problem such as those in AI research. Many of the ideas I investigated with GPT-5 seem to fall into this category.

19

218

44

202

111K

0

1

0

32

ClickFungo retweeted

Jeffrey Emanuel

@doodlestein

11 months ago

A “camera lucida” is a device that uses a prism held by a metal armature to project an image of the scene in front of it onto a piece of paper below it, sort of like a modern-day projector hooked up to a live camera stream. These were probably invented in the early 1400s, although published accounts of them don’t appear until the late 1500s. Part of the reason for that is likely that they were closely guarded trade secrets of artists who used them to achieve a degree of accuracy that was previously impossible or at least extremely difficult to do in an unaided “freehand.” The artist David Hockney became very interested in this subject years ago and wrote a book about it in 2001. His basic theory was that the remarkable improvement in accuracy and realism was directly attributable to secret use of the camera lucida (and also an earlier device called a camera obscura). As he pointed out, before that period, you would never see a painting of a lute in perspective that didn’t look distorted and wrong. While you could use the “rules of perspective” to draw simple rectilinear shapes realistically, the more complex geometry of a lute was beyond normal human ability to portray realistically in space. This theory is known as the Hockney-Falco thesis. Ever since I learned about this in college in the early 2000s, I sort of mentally applied an asterisk to the works of certain painters. For instance, as much as I respect and admire Ingres and Caravaggio, the awe I had for their skills was tempered by the realization that they likely availed themselves of this sort of mechanical aid. And sure, much of the artistry is in the concept, the composition and framing, the colors, the paint strokes, etc. But that breathtaking lifelike realism is what impressed me the most, and that part of it was shattered at least partly by this revelation. It also made me respect even more the sculptural realism of Michelangelo (and also his studies which are clearly sketches made from life). In any case, the reason I bring this up now is that I believe we are on the verge of the same kind of thing happening in mathematical research fields with the advent of models like GPT-5 Pro. I’ve already used it to do what I suspect is genuinely new and interesting research (as I’ve detailed in recent threads), and we just today got an update from Sebastien Bubeck at OpenAI showing that the model was able to prove an interesting result in contemporary mathematics using a new proof, in a single shot no less. So this new age is suddenly upon us. We just saw a result from Chinese computer scientists last week beating a record for optimal sorting that stood for 45 years. I mused at the time about how I wondered whether AI was used in some way to generate that result. Also see the recent paper in the quoted tweet, which has a similar character in that it is both surprising and yet also elementary. These seem to me to be hallmarks of results that may have benefited from AI in some way. Now, I don’t want to accuse these authors of anything. For all I know, they did everything manually, just like the painters in the 1300s did. And even if they did use AI to help them, we don’t yet have accepted mores about how to deal with that: what disclosures are warranted, and how credit should be parceled out and considered. The whole concept of authorship must be reconsidered today. In my recent thread where I investigated alongside GPT-5 Pro about the use of Lie theory in deep learning, I devised the prompts myself, even though I would never in a million years be able to generate the theory and code that the model developed as a result of those prompts. Do I get the credit for the result if it turns out to revolutionize the field? What about my subsequent experiment, where I used my original prompts that I wrote myself along with a “meta prompt” to get GPT-5 Pro to come up with 10 more pairs of prompts modeled loosely after my own, but involving totally different branches of mathematics that developed in totally different directions. Do I get credit for those theories if they turn out to be important? I sure hope so, because I already published the ideas and code on GitHub and publicized them widely, so if anyone does follow up on those lines of inquiry, academic ethics would require them to cite me. But even if you think I deserve credit for steering the AI with my own prompt, then surely my claims to priority are somewhat weakened for the 10 other theories that are the result of using my prompt as a model for meta prompting, right? After all, I didn’t even know that “Tropical Geometry” was a thing a couple of days ago, yet now I have a theory and code that applies it to AI research. I would posit that, just as I started mentally applying an asterisk to certain artworks and artists akin to the asterisk next to Barry Bonds’ name in the Hall of Fame, I suspect that most scientists will start doing the same thing for any new mathematical theory-based papers in the next year or so. I suspect people will soon enough say things like “this guy is the real deal; he wrote his best papers pre-2025!” to distinguish between those who did all their work manually using their own brains versus those who used AI assistance. And that is absolutely a valid way to think about things if AI is able to not only answer hard theoretical problems but even pose the interesting questions on its own. If I’m right, we should prepare for a coming tsunami of shocking research papers that beat long standing records and limits, and shatter through walls that were long assumed to be relatively impenetrable short of some breakthrough theory. And I believe many of these results will share something in common: that they were always right there in front of us, but required combining theory from different areas of math and applied subjects in new ways that weren’t pursued before because of human, sociological reasons: different fields splitting across lines, with different terminology, journals, practices, departments, conferences, social networks, etc. The other form I suspect these results will take is to leverage elementary results in bizarre ways that, for whatever reason, don’t come naturally to human brains, but which we can understand once they are clearly explicated for us. Another form they might take is results that leverage long-forgotten esoterica from late 19th century analysis. The kinds of tricks that allowed Feynman to solve integrals that no one else could solve. These results are known and exist in books, but no one reads those books anymore, and the original theories they were developed for have been largely superseded by our modern machinery that operates at many levels of increased abstraction and generality. Another form they might take is simply applying known mathematics that is understood by just a few hundred specialized geniuses in the world who focus only on theory and not at all on applications. This math may have just been “sitting around” since the 1950s or 1970s, waiting for someone to apply it to a practical problem such as those in AI research. Many of the ideas I investigated with GPT-5 seem to fall into this category.

19

218

44

202

111K

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

10 days ago

@Heistedxyz Heist

0

17

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

18 days ago

Video is 👌

Whop

@whop

19 days ago

The future isn't built with yesterday's tools. Next-gen businesses need new infrastructure.

66

573

54

327

126K

0

18

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

18 days ago

every AI tool eventually makes you answer the same question: how much do you wire up yourself vs. let the platform do it for you. Eve picks "let the platform do it." durability, memory, all baked in. convenient until the day you want out.

Guillermo Rauch

@rauchg

19 days ago

https://t.co/uNXS9jEgpg is Next.js for agents. I built Next with a simple premise: 𝚙𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚜/𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚡.𝚓𝚜 is all you need. Put some React in there and you’re good to go. Eve asks for even less. 𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚗𝚝/𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜.𝚖𝚍. Put some English in there and you’re good to go. Like Next, it embraces the filesystem. You can guess what 𝚝𝚘𝚘𝚕𝚜/𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚛𝚢-𝚍𝚋.𝚝𝚜 does. An agent is just a directory, whose entire spec fits in the tweet below. And like Next on Vercel, it’s seamless to deploy. The infra, like Sandbox, Gateway, Workflow… is the output of your creation.

175

2K

118

841

308K

0

14

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

19 days ago

How many you getting? 🤣

Nathie

@NathieVR

19 days ago

Evan Spiegel showing off the new Specs AR glasses to the public for the first time.

652

1K

66

361

7M

0

15

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

21 days ago

One of the most interesting engineering projects of the year. Consider becoming a contributer! Thanks @mvanhorn

Matt Van Horn

@mvanhorn

about 2 months ago

Introducing the Printing Press, a CLI-factory and a CLI-library. Built with @trevin. 🏭🖨📚 Most APIs suck for agents. Most MCPs suck for agents. Most official CLIs suck for agents. They waste tokens and time. @steipete started making his own because of this. 📚 A Library of agent-native CLIs you install today (Linear, ESPN, Flight GOAT (Google Flights + Kayak nonstop), Contact Goat (LinkedIn + Happenstance + Deepline more) +30+ more) 🏭 A factory that prints new ones for any service - just type /printing-press <product name> CLIs are fast, local, SQLite-backed. Work in Claude Code, Codex, OpenClaw, Hermes. 🌐 https://t.co/GjnN9E9yTH

225

3K

286

8K

1M

1

15

0

7

4K

Chris G.

@ClickFungo

21 days ago

@mvanhorn @dharmesh @HubSpot @slashlast30days Your interview really got me inspired. 20 years being a "nerd" here but not really part of the 'dev crowd' even though thats a dream. I've build many things this year but open source is where I'm headed next. Thanks for sharing your story! @mvanhorn

1

2

0

83