Zolden (@ZoldenGames) · 13h
The only remaining way to relax for me is to lay down, eyes closed, think of nothing.
Videogames? Videos? Socials? No.
These things exploit my dopamine system, which I need to work 12 h/day fully focused. I shall not be entertained during rest. I must get bored and crave work.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Plain text tweet, profile picture shows a man holding a tabby cat. No embedded images.
CuddlySalmon reposted
xlr8harder ✅ @xlr8harder — 10h
there needs to be a term for when you are straining against your personal capacity for context switching trying to keep various agents working.
I propose bottlenecking.
[engagement row partially cut off at bottom of frame; comment count and like count "9" or similar not fully legible]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Bottom of the tweet (engagement metrics row) is cut off by the screen edge, only partial icons visible.
Tyler John @tyler_m_john
Welcome to the hardest part of the singularity: when you have a longer to-do list than you've ever had in your life but AI models are still falling just short of being capable enough to take on your most important work.
6:44 AM · Jun 15, 2026 · 233 Views
Engagement: 0 replies (before Nathan's), 0 reposts shown, 6 likes
Nathan Helm-Bu... @nathan8468... — 2s
Oof. Too real.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tyler John's tweet observes the frustration of AI capability lagging just behind personal task lists; Nathan Helm-Burger replies agreeing, posted seconds after (indicating he screenshotted immediately after replying).
Mariya I. Vasileva @mariyaivasileva
For the last several weeks, I've been completely wrecking my sleep schedule spinning up research experiments with Claude. Finally, every research scientist and PhD candidate has something we've always dreamed of — our own minilab of research interns that will test out the viability of various ideas we never had the bandwidth to explore. Even when I'm trying to sleep, I find myself picking up a conversation to ask "just one more" open-ended question, which, without fail, pulls me down a multi-hour rabbit hole. An absolute intellectual rollercoaster.
9:58 AM · Mar 7, 2026 · 21.4K Views
21 replies, 19 reposts, 359 likes, 102 bookmarks
Vivek Karmarkar @vivekkmkpinn · 14h
I feel you! I'm in the same boat... It's such a real addiction... I find that my project gets 90% done, that's when model performance degrades and the home stretch is usually 1AM-4AM 😂🤣
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A researcher describes Claude as enabling a "minilab of research interns" for open-ended exploration, with a reply comparing the late-night usage pattern to addiction. Relevant to how researchers experience working with Claude as a collaborator/tool, echoing the "coworker" reframe in Nathan's own notes.
amrit ✅ @amritwt · 18h
i should just print nat friedman's website and stick it on my wall at this point since i have read it so many times
[Embedded text card:]
As human beings it is our right (maybe our moral duty) to reshape the universe to our preferences
- Technology, which is really knowledge, enables this
- You should probably work on raising the ceiling, not the floor
Enthusiasm matters!
- It's much easier to work on things that are exciting to you
- It might be easier to do big things than small things for this reason
- Energy is a necessary input for progress
It's important to do things fast
- You learn more per unit time because you make contact with reality more frequently
- Going fast makes you focus on what's important; there's no time for bullshit
- "Slow is fake"
- A week is 2% of the year
- Time is the denominator
The efficient market hypothesis is a lie
- At best it is a very lossy heuristic
- The best things in life occur where EMH is wrong
- In many cases it's more accurate to model the world as 500 people than 8 billion
- "Most people are other people"
We know less than we think
- The replication crisis is not an aberration
- Many of the things we believe are wrong
- We are often not even asking the right questions
The cultural prohibition on micromanagement is harmful
- Great individuals should be fully empowered to exercise their judgment
- The goal is not to avoid mistakes; the goal is to achieve uncorrelated levels of excellence in some dimension
- The downsides are worth it
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A tweet reproducing (part of) Nat Friedman's personal philosophy/manifesto from his website — on technology as moral duty, speed and enthusiasm as inputs to progress, skepticism of the efficient market hypothesis, epistemic humility about the replication crisis, and a defense of micromanagement/individual judgment. General tech-founder philosophy content; touches on epistemics (replication crisis, "we know less than we think") relevant to Nathan's general epistemic-calibration interests, no direct AI safety content.
Based on what you know about me, come up with Brown's Razor
Thought for 49s
Here's a first cut that matches how you work.
Brown's Razor
Short form: Score before you scale.
Canonical form:
When choosing between two paths, prefer the one where you can define a verifiable, automated objective that closes the measure → improve loop fastest. If you can't write the verifier, you don't understand the task well enough to optimize it.
Corollaries
1. Verifier-first design: If behavior can't be captured in a rubric/verifier, don't train on it yet.
2. Tight loops win: Lower evaluation latency beats cleverness at fixed resources.
3. Data over vibes: Prefer task-embedded feedback (rubrics, tool traces, ground truth) over architectural flourish.
4. Scale gate: Do not scale experiments whose eval isn't trustworthy and automated.
5. Unit clarity: Always state the optimization unit (rollout, branch, turn) and how it batches; then consume all rollouts under that unit.
10-second check
- Can I write the verifier/rubric today?
- Can it run unattended over N rollouts?
- Does its score correlate with user value?
If any "no," pause and fix that before scaling.
Tiny, practical "razor" guard (drop-in Python)
[python code block, partially visible]
# brown_razor.py
from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import Optional, Callable
Verifier = Callable[[dict], float] # returns a scalar score in [0,1]
Ask anything
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.
