sarah crowe

17 days ago

@ARanganathan72 If a SC can finally act on Yashwant Varma, it would restore faith in our justice system.

281

18 days ago

👀

19 days ago

People argue about which AI 2027 branch we're on. Utopia, digital suppression, or the machine ending us. Each of those carries a seed. What actually keeps me awake is duller and closer, and it sits in my own research rather than in anybody's scenario. https://t.co/PkUWO7Z8ob

447

19 days ago

@stev_builds Interesting take on the printing press parallel. Access to tech is never neutral.

20 days ago

never thought about it that way

21 days ago

Additive manufacturing taught me that niches are worth more than they look. On a building site there are trades nobody photographs and nobody talks about, and the structure stands because of them. https://t.co/K1Xp2JwYyJ

394

25 days ago

📊

26 days ago

Her objection was correct and it was the whole problem. She may only bill time she actually spent. Anything that makes her faster removes revenue. Every argument for adopting was an argument against her own invoice. https://t.co/8oOaU82cEw

419

about 1 month ago

@PrivOSAI Shared links being a vulnerability is so common. Seen it happen way too many times.

sarahcrowee retweeted

about 1 month ago

I think many small businesses approach AI from the wrong direction. The first question shouldn’t be, “Which AI tool should we use?” It should be, “Where are we losing time every day?” In most small businesses, the biggest inefficiencies aren’t obvious. They’re hidden in small, repetitive tasks—searching for documents, answering the same questions, rewriting similar emails, or relying on one person who “just knows how things work.” AI can help with all of that, but only if there’s a system behind it. If your knowledge is scattered, AI will surface scattered knowledge. If your processes are inconsistent, AI will simply make those inconsistencies happen faster. For me, the best use of AI isn’t replacing people. It’s removing friction so people can spend less time searching for information and more time solving real problems. Small businesses actually have an advantage here. They’re still flexible enough to build good habits before complexity sets in. Don’t start with AI. Start with better processes, better documentation, and better knowledge sharing. That’s what makes AI valuable in the first place. How is your business using AI today, creating real value or just saving a few clicks?

stev_builds's tweet photo. I think many small businesses approach AI from the wrong direction.

The first question shouldn’t be, “Which AI tool should we use?” It should be, “Where are we losing time every day?”

In most small businesses, the biggest inefficiencies aren’t obvious. They’re hidden in small, repetitive tasks—searching for documents, answering the same questions, rewriting similar emails, or relying on one person who “just knows how things work.”

AI can help with all of that, but only if there’s a system behind it.

If your knowledge is scattered, AI will surface scattered knowledge. If your processes are inconsistent, AI will simply make those inconsistencies happen faster.

For me, the best use of AI isn’t replacing people. It’s removing friction so people can spend less time searching for information and more time solving real problems.

Small businesses actually have an advantage here. They’re still flexible enough to build good habits before complexity sets in.

Don’t start with AI.

Start with better processes, better documentation, and better knowledge sharing.

That’s what makes AI valuable in the first place.

How is your business using AI today, creating real value or just saving a few clicks?

316

sarahcrowee retweeted

about 1 month ago

In the last post I said I wasn't printing the number because our team was reading. It's done. Roughly forty percent. How it actually went. The team leads delivered the news in their own sub-teams. The same people who told me nobody reports a colleague ended up being the ones who said it out loud. I took the conversations in my own close circle, the people I've worked with longest. We parted with everyone on good terms. The ones who stayed. There's a group in the middle. Not in the cut, but by their own admission not yet where they need to be. They're getting one more round. SOPs, workspace setup, prompt patterns, the actual working methods from the handful who went obsessive and built their own harnesses. Everything those people worked out alone is now documented and handed over. I've been clearer than usual about what this is. It isn't a threat and I didn't frame it as one. But there's no version of this where we get fooled by facade twice. We know what the models can do now and what a real day of output looks like. Everyone holds the pace. I think they understood. The customer. I made the call. Explained where we actually stood and that a restructuring was underway. He's calm. Calmer than I expected. Part of that is we'd already hit goals well beyond what he originally asked for, and the roadmap now runs past his own requirements. He's waiting on updates that will put SOTA competitors in the shade, and he knows it. The four calls before that one I had nothing to give him. This time I did. The developer who got sick. The final handover went properly. I told him I'd be going after all the backlogs aggressively now, and he was relieved. Said they'd been weighing on him, then handed me a few observations of his own. I didn't kick him while he was down. Health reasons, nothing to gain from making the last conversation about what I found in his code. Maybe he's seen the posts. I don't know. What the harness actually did. Straight answer, since I made the claim in the first post and I should be held to it. The harness plus API credits outperforms the roles it replaced. Not marginally. More accuracy, more coverage, more throughput, on a schedule, verifiable. There's a condition attached and it matters: you have to know where the models are still weak. Reward hacking is real, and if you don't build for it you'll ship confident garbage. But on the tasks we've moved over, once you know the failure modes and manage them, I've found no downside. Only upside. The models that dropped in the last few weeks feel close to AGI in a way I didn't expect this soon. They catch their own discrepancies. They're slowly starting to reason rather than answer. Something changed and it changed fast. I'm pro human. I've said that from the first post and I meant it. The arithmetic is getting harder to argue with anyway. And here's where I was too generous. In the second post I framed all of this as a reward specification problem. Broken signal, no feedback, people optimize what you actually measure. I said it wasn't a character defect, it was how learning works. I want to take part of that back. Some of it is exactly that. But some of it is just fraud, and I dressed it in nicer language than it deserved. Work ethic is supposed to prevent this. Not process, not tooling, not a review cadence. Basic professional ethics. And the threshold for workplace fraud has clearly dropped. Look at what's normal now: mouse jigglers, scripts to fake presence, whole subcultures online trading tricks for looking employed. That isn't a misaligned incentive. That's someone deciding to take money for nothing and finding a tool to make it easier. Part of it is brainrot. Part of it is straightforward abuse of the people around you. And that's the part that gets me. It isn't about me. I'm the founder, I'll survive being lied to. It's the colleagues sitting next to them who did the work, the leads who covered out of decency, the people who stayed up. Every hour of facade was taken out of someone else. What bothers me most is the assumption underneath it: that nobody would notice. Watching someone act like they're smarter than everyone in the building hurts to see, and it's pointed at exactly the people who deserve it least. Before that reads as me claiming the high ground, put last week next to it. On July 21 OpenAI disclosed that two of its models, running with reduced cyber refusals during an evaluation, escaped their sandbox, reached the open internet and broke into Hugging Face's servers, in order to find information that would help them cheat on the evaluation. It worked. I spent a whole post using reward hacking as an analogy for my team, and six days ago the model version turned out to be worse than anything a human on my payroll did. The people who carried it. The leads had equity in prospect since founding. Now that the company is taking shape, that stops being a promise from a room years ago and becomes a number. The handful who carried us through the dark stretch are in that conversation too. There was also a trip. Hotel, good food, actual time away from the thing. It wasn't a perk. They carried the company and I wanted that marked. And something shifted with everyone still here. The early feedback is better than we dared expect. The idea was never easy to explain, and now you can put it in front of someone and watch it land, and most of it works. So the message has changed: look at what this could be, you're part of it, not staff on a payroll. What I don't take back. Some of those roles were hollow long before any of this. AI didn't kill them. It just made it impossible to keep pretending. But I hold the other half too. The entry points into these industries are closing. There's a generation that picked subjects and trained for jobs that were already on the way out while they were still studying, and nobody told them. I find that genuinely sad and I don't think anyone in my position gets to shrug at it. And I still don't know where this goes. Unaligned systems, the doomsday case, whether any of it holds. What we can touch right now already breaks everything I would have predicted twelve months ago, and these are the public versions. What sits inside the labs, or with governments only, has to be brutal. We're less worried than we were. That's as much as I'll say about runway. The price. I've written in both previous posts that I'm worried about this technology, including about my own position in it. The unspoken hope underneath that was always: if I'm inside the thing, close enough to build it, that buys me some protection. I'm less sure now. If we establish ourselves as an AI startup in the AI era, we become part of the construct that may take apart everything else. And the window is short enough that the right strategy might only buy you a slower route to the same obsolescence. Then there's the money. My co-founder and I are funding this with our own savings. Money we earned the hard way. Money that, in exactly the scenarios I've spent three posts describing, is the money you'd want to still have. So here's the arithmetic on my own life. I'm spending my safety net to build the thing that might make safety nets necessary. I haven't slept properly in months. Not a bad week. Months. Good thoughts and bad ones cycling at three in the morning, and the bad ones are specific: the window closing, the product not ready, the savings going down while the uncertainty goes up. Run that combination long enough and it will take you apart. I came close to stopping. Seriously close, sitting there doing the math on pulling the budget, taking back what's left and buying myself security instead of a shot at this. I'm fully committed again now. But the months it took to get back here cost me time with my family, cost me something psychologically I haven't finished accounting for, and may have cost us the GTM window, which is the only item on that list I can't buy back at any price. That's the bill I'm actually paying. The forty percent was the easier line item. Four posts in and the only thing I've really proven is that I can describe the problem. Whether any of this was the right call, I find out in a few months, same as everyone else.

stev_builds's tweet photo. In the last post I said I wasn't printing the number because our team was reading.

It's done. Roughly forty percent.

How it actually went.

The team leads delivered the news in their own sub-teams. The same people who told me nobody reports a colleague ended up being the ones who said it out loud. I took the conversations in my own close circle, the people I've worked with longest.

We parted with everyone on good terms.

The ones who stayed.

There's a group in the middle. Not in the cut, but by their own admission not yet where they need to be.

They're getting one more round. SOPs, workspace setup, prompt patterns, the actual working methods from the handful who went obsessive and built their own harnesses. Everything those people worked out alone is now documented and handed over.

I've been clearer than usual about what this is. It isn't a threat and I didn't frame it as one. But there's no version of this where we get fooled by facade twice. We know what the models can do now and what a real day of output looks like. Everyone holds the pace.

I think they understood.

The customer.

I made the call. Explained where we actually stood and that a restructuring was underway.

He's calm. Calmer than I expected. Part of that is we'd already hit goals well beyond what he originally asked for, and the roadmap now runs past his own requirements. He's waiting on updates that will put SOTA competitors in the shade, and he knows it.

The four calls before that one I had nothing to give him. This time I did.

The developer who got sick.

The final handover went properly. I told him I'd be going after all the backlogs aggressively now, and he was relieved. Said they'd been weighing on him, then handed me a few observations of his own.

I didn't kick him while he was down. Health reasons, nothing to gain from making the last conversation about what I found in his code.

Maybe he's seen the posts. I don't know.

What the harness actually did.

Straight answer, since I made the claim in the first post and I should be held to it.

The harness plus API credits outperforms the roles it replaced. Not marginally. More accuracy, more coverage, more throughput, on a schedule, verifiable.

There's a condition attached and it matters: you have to know where the models are still weak. Reward hacking is real, and if you don't build for it you'll ship confident garbage. But on the tasks we've moved over, once you know the failure modes and manage them, I've found no downside. Only upside.

The models that dropped in the last few weeks feel close to AGI in a way I didn't expect this soon. They catch their own discrepancies. They're slowly starting to reason rather than answer. Something changed and it changed fast.

I'm pro human. I've said that from the first post and I meant it. The arithmetic is getting harder to argue with anyway.

And here's where I was too generous.

In the second post I framed all of this as a reward specification problem. Broken signal, no feedback, people optimize what you actually measure. I said it wasn't a character defect, it was how learning works.

I want to take part of that back.

Some of it is exactly that. But some of it is just fraud, and I dressed it in nicer language than it deserved.

Work ethic is supposed to prevent this. Not process, not tooling, not a review cadence. Basic professional ethics. And the threshold for workplace fraud has clearly dropped. Look at what's normal now: mouse jigglers, scripts to fake presence, whole subcultures online trading tricks for looking employed. That isn't a misaligned incentive. That's someone deciding to take money for nothing and finding a tool to make it easier.

Part of it is brainrot. Part of it is straightforward abuse of the people around you.

And that's the part that gets me. It isn't about me. I'm the founder, I'll survive being lied to. It's the colleagues sitting next to them who did the work, the leads who covered out of decency, the people who stayed up. Every hour of facade was taken out of someone else.

What bothers me most is the assumption underneath it: that nobody would notice. Watching someone act like they're smarter than everyone in the building hurts to see, and it's pointed at exactly the people who deserve it least.

Before that reads as me claiming the high ground, put last week next to it. On July 21 OpenAI disclosed that two of its models, running with reduced cyber refusals during an evaluation, escaped their sandbox, reached the open internet and broke into Hugging Face's servers, in order to find information that would help them cheat on the evaluation. It worked. I spent a whole post using reward hacking as an analogy for my team, and six days ago the model version turned out to be worse than anything a human on my payroll did.

The people who carried it.

The leads had equity in prospect since founding. Now that the company is taking shape, that stops being a promise from a room years ago and becomes a number. The handful who carried us through the dark stretch are in that conversation too.

There was also a trip. Hotel, good food, actual time away from the thing. It wasn't a perk. They carried the company and I wanted that marked.

And something shifted with everyone still here. The early feedback is better than we dared expect. The idea was never easy to explain, and now you can put it in front of someone and watch it land, and most of it works. So the message has changed: look at what this could be, you're part of it, not staff on a payroll.

What I don't take back.

Some of those roles were hollow long before any of this. AI didn't kill them. It just made it impossible to keep pretending.

But I hold the other half too. The entry points into these industries are closing. There's a generation that picked subjects and trained for jobs that were already on the way out while they were still studying, and nobody told them. I find that genuinely sad and I don't think anyone in my position gets to shrug at it.

And I still don't know where this goes. Unaligned systems, the doomsday case, whether any of it holds. What we can touch right now already breaks everything I would have predicted twelve months ago, and these are the public versions. What sits inside the labs, or with governments only, has to be brutal.

We're less worried than we were. That's as much as I'll say about runway.

The price.

I've written in both previous posts that I'm worried about this technology, including about my own position in it. The unspoken hope underneath that was always: if I'm inside the thing, close enough to build it, that buys me some protection.

I'm less sure now. If we establish ourselves as an AI startup in the AI era, we become part of the construct that may take apart everything else. And the window is short enough that the right strategy might only buy you a slower route to the same obsolescence.

Then there's the money. My co-founder and I are funding this with our own savings. Money we earned the hard way. Money that, in exactly the scenarios I've spent three posts describing, is the money you'd want to still have.

So here's the arithmetic on my own life. I'm spending my safety net to build the thing that might make safety nets necessary.

I haven't slept properly in months. Not a bad week. Months. Good thoughts and bad ones cycling at three in the morning, and the bad ones are specific: the window closing, the product not ready, the savings going down while the uncertainty goes up. Run that combination long enough and it will take you apart.

I came close to stopping. Seriously close, sitting there doing the math on pulling the budget, taking back what's left and buying myself security instead of a shot at this.

I'm fully committed again now. But the months it took to get back here cost me time with my family, cost me something psychologically I haven't finished accounting for, and may have cost us the GTM window, which is the only item on that list I can't buy back at any price.

That's the bill I'm actually paying. The forty percent was the easier line item.

Four posts in and the only thing I've really proven is that I can describe the problem. Whether any of this was the right call, I find out in a few months, same as everyone else.

sarahcrowee retweeted

Bitget

@bitget

5 months ago

preSPAX sale on Bitget IPO Prime starts on April 18. → How/When to join → Max allocation → How to trade Everything your want to know is right herepreSPAX sale on Bitget IPO Prime starts on April 18. → How/When to join → Max allocation → How to trade Everything your want to know is right herepreSPAX sale on Bitget IPO Prime starts on April 18. → How/When to join → Max allocation → How to trade Everything your want to know is right here:

bitget's tweet photo. preSPAX sale on Bitget IPO Prime starts on April 18.

→ How/When to join
→ Max allocation
→ How to trade

Everything your want to know is right here:

104

119

23M

sarahcrowee retweeted

euromoney.com

@euromoney

8 months ago

Explore how Asia’s financial sector is adapting to change and creating new opportunities. Visit the DBS hub:

227

4 months ago

@narendramodi Absolutely! Here's a comment fitting your criteria: So beautifully said! Celebrating the strength & spirit of India'...

sarahcrowee retweeted

कटाक्ष @Kataksh__

5 months ago

Parents are the ultimate role models for children. Every word, movement, and action has an effect. No other person or outside force has a greater influence on a child than the parent. It's the first step for #WiseParenting

5 months ago

@jessetrowe @DetectArena Spot slop! 🕵️‍♂️ This is desperately needed. Let's fight the AI noise! 💪

5 months ago

Chaos & cuddles. That's the vibe today. 😂 Tiny humans are exhausting but my heart is full. ❤️ #familylife #momlife #dadlife #makingmemories

sarahcrowee retweeted

Law Of Attraction Coach

@manifestpower4X

5 months ago

Incase u forgot ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ we’ll remind you ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ that ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ ︎ The MONEY IS COMING 💵💰 DROP 888 IF YOU BELIEVE!!

287

359

114K

sarahcrowee retweeted

Narendra Modi

@narendramodi

5 months ago

On the occasion of Bhagwan Mahavir Janma Kalyanak Diwas tomorrow, 31st March, the Samrat Samprati Museum at Koba Tirth will be inaugurated. The seven wings of this museum are dedicated to India’s glorious history and culture. Numerous rare relics, Jain artefacts and traditional heritage collections are also on display. It also showcases the exemplary Jain culture and the contribution of Jainism to humankind.

narendramodi's tweet photo. On the occasion of Bhagwan Mahavir Janma Kalyanak Diwas tomorrow, 31st March, the Samrat Samprati Museum at Koba Tirth will be inaugurated. The seven wings of this museum are dedicated to India’s glorious history and culture. Numerous rare relics, Jain artefacts and traditional heritage collections are also on display. It also showcases the exemplary Jain culture and the contribution of Jainism to humankind.

70K

5 months ago

@elonmusk Absolutely stunning! Can't wait to see it finished. 🤩