the new voice (and video) mode is the best computer interface I’ve ever used. It feels like AI from the movies; and it’s still a bit surprising to me that it’s real. Getting to human-level response times and expressiveness turns out to be a big change.

Talking to a computer has never felt really natural for me; now it does. As we add (optional) personalization, access to your information, the ability to take actions on your behalf, and more, I can really see an exciting future where we are able to use computers to do much more than ever before.

https://www.fortunekorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=38180

People buy from people they know

해외에 나가 있으면 정말 위기의식을 느껴요. 한국의 위상이 작아지는 걸 느낍니다. BTS가 주목받고 넷플릭스에서 한국 드라마를 소개해서 반짝하는 거지, 밖에서 보면 ‘They don’t care’. 반면 인도 사람들은 실리콘밸리 톱 레벨을 채우고 있거든요. 이스라엘 사람들이 이미 금융을 정복한 것처럼요. 우리는 안에서만 싸우고 있죠. 넷플릭스에서 한국 드라마 노출을 줄이면 한국 드라마는 죽을 거예요. 진짜 위기의식이 엄청나요.
규제를 정말 많이 없애야 한다고 생각해요. 친기업 문제가 아니라, 빨리 뛰쳐나가서 돈 벌어야 해요. 2014년 출생아 수가 44만명이었어요. 지난해는 23만명입니다. 10만명대가 코앞이죠. 사람들이 밖에 나가서 외화벌이를 하든, 이민 정책을 바꿔서 사람들을 대거 들여오든 해야 해요. 벼랑 끝에 절벽이 다가오고 있다고 느낍니다.

Another day, another major OpenAI model announcement. This one is big. Today's GPT-4o announcement (the "o" is for omni) introduced a single AI model that can reason across audio, vision, and text at once. What's incredible about this model is that it has made working through different information and media types incredibly seamless and highly performant, including some amazing new consumer product experiences in ChatGPT. But for anyone building software in AI, one of the biggest components was the drop of GPT-4o pricing by 50% and the doubling of performance compared to GPT-4 Turbo.

That means that any developer building on GPT-4 woke up today and essentially had the cost of intelligence drop by 50% and access to it speed up by 2X. And incredibly, across numerous benchmarks, GPT-4o appears to be the best performing model generally available right now. The implications of this are massive, as this opens up yet another new threshold of use-cases that you can be building for due to the cost/performance improvement. It also is yet another reminder that you want to have a platform architecture that ensures you're getting access to all the latest AI breakthroughs no matter where they come from.

https://plus.hankyung.com/apps/newsinside.view?aid=202310045582r&category=home&sns=y

테크 분야 혁신 기업들은 운영 차원에서 조금만 도움을 받으면 큰 현금 흐름을 낼 수 있는 회사들입니다. 저희가 23년째 해온 일은 혁신을 가지고 있는 회사들을 수익을 낼 수 있는 회사로 변모시켜주는 것입니다. 그리고 그 수익을 가지고 다시 더 빠른 성장이라든지 연구개발이라든지 엔지니어링 연구라든지 하는 곳에 재투자를 할 수 있도록 도와주는 파트너십을 맺는 것이 저희의 노하우입니다. 지금까지 이런 간단한 공식을 지금까지 계속 반복해서 적용하고 있습니다.

저희는 하나의 어젠다를 세우고 기존 창업자와 경영진 그리고 임직원과 함께 일하는 것을 선호합니다. 경험이 누적된 파트너들이 비즈니스 요소를 분석하면 저희가 각 요소에 적합한 투자를 할 수 있기 때문입니다.

As someone who spent a lot of time making a browser and researching it, I can tell you that this integration of ChatGPT on to the computer belies a greater purpose—one where AI will eat the browser steadily. They will no longer have to be restricted by the Google's platform limits.

It’s not just the browser , AI is going to kill “browsing the web” as a paradigm. We are no longer in “search browse and find” era.

We are entering into an era of “ask and get”.

Jack’s first piece of advice is to make sure you have something to show investors:

“First and foremost, I always want to go to anyone that I want to work with with something to show.”

At Twitter, they made sure they had people using the service at some scale before pitching investors. And at Square, they had 7 merchants and a working prototype that people were actually using.

As Jack explains:

“If people can’t see it and feel it, it’s very hard to sell. And I don’t want to just go and tell people this is going to be the biggest thing ever. I want to be able to show that and have them feel it and walk away feeling that as well.”

Jack’s second piece of advice is to make sure you really like the person you’re raising money from because ultimately investors are like employees you can’t fire.

Ask yourself:

“Do we really want to work with this person? Is this going to to be someone that really pushes us in the way we need to be pushed?”

Jack recounts pitching Square early on and getting several term sheets from VCs that asked zero questions:

“I said, I don’t want a term sheet—especially if you’re not asking any questions. That means if they’re on our board that they’re actually not going to be all that constructive in terms of really asking the tough questions. That is the role of the board. It’s to look outside and bring all their insight and wisdom to us and help guide the company.”

With Square, Jack decided to work with Vinod Khosla who asked tough questions and after he invested would email Jack once a week asking things like: “Have you thought about this?”, “Are you doing this?”, “I know this person, can I make an introduction here?”

When people ask Jack which firms they should go pitch, Jack responds:

“It’s not just about money or the firm. It’s about the individual that you’re ultimately going to work with… Find the people you really want to work with in those firms. And if there’s someone that just really resonates with you and you love the idea of working with them, focus on them. You have to treat it as adding this person to your team.”

갑자기 유명해지는 사람은 경계할 필요가 있다는걸 다시 한번 상기해본다.

물론 글에서도 나와있는 것 처럼 차마스는 엄청난 성과를 거둔 사람인건 맞으나, 그 성과가 지속가능한 것일지는 다른 문제인 것이다.

계속해서 잘하는건 정말 정말 어려운 일이다. 그런 의미에서 최근에 버크셔 해서웨이 재탄생 + 버핏 투자조합 서한을 다 읽어보니 버핏은 레전드 of 레전드라는 생각밖에 들지 않았다.

https://www.newcomer.co/p/the-dictator-chamath-palihapitiyas

1/ Weekly 1:1s with direct reports are a staple of Silicon Valley management. The idea is to check in, see how they're doing, and provide feedback. I did this for 10+ years at Facebook & Dropbox. Frankly, I hated it and found it useless. But it's what "good" managers did.

2/ I'm now convinced these regular 1:1s do more harm than good. The simple reason: they condition people to do spot checks on happiness and constantly be critical about things that aren't ideal. In practice, 1:1s descend into nitpicking sessions.

3/ I want my employees to be resilient. To understand that not every week or month will be happy and pleasant. I want them to deal with it without constantly feeling bad. Weekly 1:1s undermine this.

4/ This doesn't mean feedback isn't useful. But it should be given every 3-6 months, not weekly. This forces managers to identify patterns and provide holistic guidance, rather than doing weekly "spot checks."

5/ Using 1:1s to track what someone is working on is also archaic. There are plenty of modern methods to assess output across a range of functions. Wasting time on status updates is inefficient.

6/ A better model is to be generally available over email/Slack for questions. Then have deeper career development conversations over a meal once a quarter or so. This is a more effective cadence.

7/ Save yourself and your reports time and emotional energy to focus on the things that really matter - executing and making the company successful. Excessive 1:1s are a distraction.

8/ If an employee is really struggling, then of course have more frequent check-ins. But for most folks, quarterly big picture conversations and real-time availability are sufficient.

9/ I know I'm arguing against orthodoxy here. But I believe the relentless cadence of weekly 1:1s, while well-intentioned, has become counterproductive. It's time to break free of this flawed Silicon Valley management "best practice." Your team will thank you.

https://x.com/adityaag/status/1790798956886438278?s=46&t=h5Byg6Wosg8MJb4pbPSDow

오픈AI에서 이제 Google Drive 또는 Microsoft OneDrive에서 직접 다양한 파일 형식(구글시트, 엑셀, 워드 등)을 추가할 수 있도록 했습니다.

또한 전체화면으로 GPT와 대화를 통해 데이터 분석을 할 수 있다고 합니다😀

https://openai.com/index/improvements-to-data-analysis-in-chatgpt/

이번 실적발표 시즌의 주인공인 실리콘투와 삼양식품. (뻔하지만) 결국 국내 회사들의 답은 글로벌이라는걸 다시 한번 확인할 수 있었다.

(개별종목 이야기 거의 안하는데, 이번껀 의미가 좀 남다른 것 같아서 아카이브...)

https://blog.naver.com/tosoha1/223449281696

https://blog.naver.com/foreconomy/223449103042