Jack Dorsey says the real threat isn’t open-source AI.
it’s five CEOs deciding what the world is allowed to build with AI.
“These AI companies are building platforms, and they’re all incentivized around their own models. You have to ask for permission, you hit rate limits, and even what the models return is constrained.”
“What technologies let you build without asking a company—or a CEO—for permission? The durable ones. That’s why open protocols matter.”
“When a handful of CEOs make the call, it caps the upside of great ideas that could move humanity forward. They might know what’s best for their company—but not what’s best for the world’s creativity.”
“Luckily, open-source AI is gaining real momentum. DeepSeek was a key moment—not just showing a different path, but proving it can be competitive, even better than what the big corporations are shipping.”
“We shouldn’t be dependent on five companies claiming they know best—and calling open source ‘dangerous.’ We should build in the open and race toward solutions that stay ahead of the risks.”
PS. If you found value in this post, like and repost this tweet + follow @uncover_ai to stay updated with the latest AI news.
See you in the next one:
Gatekeeping by “frontier AI companies” dressed as an innocent call for OTHERS to slow down
Regulatory capture via a new narrative now that the fear mongering one failed
DO NOT fall for this
Ask China the same thing.
Just winning some time in the headwinds of lacking inference for big models
And even against open weight models..
Is this how Anthropic wants to win? Forcing the politics?
We support this petition, signed by our CEO, several co-founders, and senior staff.
Our own research on recursive self-improvement, published last month, points to the need for tools to deliberately pace the frontier of AI development so society can prepare. We’re glad to see broad agreement across the field. https://t.co/DqwuQfa9xH
We support this petition, signed by our CEO, several co-founders, and senior staff.
Our own research on recursive self-improvement, published last month, points to the need for tools to deliberately pace the frontier of AI development so society can prepare. We’re glad to see broad agreement across the field. https://t.co/DqwuQfa9xH
I think the most interesting thing about Jack Dorsey's "Slack killer" is the idea around shared compute.
I haven't seen people talk about it so here are my thoughts FWIW:
Open models got good, close enough to the paid frontier stuff to run for real. But the strongest ones need expensive hardware most people probably won't buy alone, and it's kinda a pain to set up if you aren't technical.
Shared compute solves exactly that. In Buzz, one person runs the machine, loads up an open model like Google Gemma, and everyone in the community plugs into that same model.
Basically, a whole group has real AI they own and control together, running on their own hardware, learning from their own data.
Once you see it, a bunch of things click into place.
1. A community can now run a top open model together, on a machine they own, instead of renting from a lab.
2. It learns from the group's private data and gets sharper over time, and all of that stays inside the community.
3. A narrow, private model can quietly get better than ChatGPT for the one world your group lives in.
4. It's impossible to copy, because the edge is the private data on your machine, not the model itself.
5. The moat stops being how smart your AI is and becomes whose data it learned from.
6. Compute becomes something you share like a building shares a gym. 10 people split one machine instead of 10 people each renting forever.
7. Idle compute becomes income!!! Your machine sits dead half the day, so it earns money renting that time to someone who needs it.
8. Communities become the unit of intelligence instead of companies. The group with the smartest shared brain wins, and being a member means owning a piece of it.
9. A shared brain becomes an asset you build equity in. You put in money and data, it appreciates, and your slice is worth something the day you leave.
10. The whole thing runs on open protocols, so the group keeps full control and nobody outside can throttle it or shut it off.
You know me, obviously, my head went to what startup ideas come to mind here. Adding them to @ideabrowser soon.
Well…
1. The vertical brain. Pick one profession, tax lawyers or real estate agents or indie game devs, and build the shared machine trained on everything that group knows between them. A year in it's the smartest AI in that field, impossible to copy, and you own the club it lives in.
2. The rental marketplace for collective brains. Once these private models exist, outsiders will pay to use them. You build the layer where a group lists its brain, an outsider pays per task, and the money flows back to the members while you take a cut. A marketplace for expertise, not compute.
3. The idle-compute exchange. Every shared machine sits unused half the day. You build the market that rents that dead time to whoever needs the power right then, so owners earn money off a machine that was just sitting there.
Idk where Buzz goes, but it's cool to see Jack putting it out. Right now the way it works in AI is you rent your intelligence from a few giant labs that own the machine, set the price, and hold the off switch.
Shared compute flips that, because a community can run the model together, feed it their own private data, and keep full control of the whole thing.
It's one of those things that might look tiny today, but Jack does has a habit of being early.
if you only learned about jevons paradox primarily wrt software demand in the age of agentic engineering, you may not have fully internalized jevons parodox’s impact under the conditions of:
- humans who can wield coding agents well*
- coding agents breaking containment to all other knowledge work
as the efficiency of labor goes up/unit cost of knowledge work goes broadly down, the demand for total work and better knowledge goes up, not down.
what happened to coding isnt the exception; it’s the herald.
*aka AI Engineers
If you're wading in the swamp of churn prevention, it's already too late. The product sucks and you're just trying to move a few percentage points.
The faster path to a high retention low churn is actually having a real awesome product. Everything else is a small side effect.
@GergelyOrosz That feels VERY biased.
Is analogous to investment. Having 1M investment can’t compare with 100M. It’s the same thing, better stacks are a consequence of ROI alignment, and many many times over optimized wrongly
Google fired the guy that made the google workspace cli, because he made the google workspace cli.
Lucky me, Google can't fire me. https://t.co/o15a6lOxec
I gained so much appreciation for Dax after spending a few hours with him and realizing he's one of the very few devs who spends 95% of the time thinking, then 5% of the time building. It's counter-intuitive, until it's not.
1.5hrs of this shared btw: https://t.co/fHPSzLtWq1
It seems a mistake to call oneself a "non-technical founder." You're treating not knowing how to do something as a part of your identity. Surely it's better just to fix that.