Founder @slashspaceai (previously RabbitHoles). A canvas-first AI tool for high performers▫️ dropped out cs @ucriverside.

In my head
Introducing Slashspace✨ A canvas first agentic harness for power AI users. We are trying to replace all UIs with one interface for the AI era. For the past 18 months i've been building this and it's finally taking shape towards being the ultimate AI interface for a power AI user. We iterated on the canvas experience many times. Started as RabbitHoles AI with node based conversations. Slashspace is now evolving towards canvas-as-context app - The nodes are all agentic, and you don't need to draw connections and do the manual work. Today we're launching on @ProductHunt, and your support will mean a lot! As a solo bootstrapped founder, I've invested a lot into this product, so please show some love! 👀 Some feature highlights • Canvas with multi model, multi modal chats. • Local storage with all canvases stored in your folder system • Agentic nodes that can see all the context on the canvas. • Connect to @cursor_ai sdk and use the cursor's harness locally, but chat on the canvas • Access to all the @composio supported tools on the canvas. s/o @thisiskp_ for hunting our PH launch. s/o to @tibo_maker, @tdinh_me, @dayonefoundry & @HackerResidency gang for forcing the clarity out of me on repositioning the product
53
14
148
49,444
the fallacy that humans aren't nature is a dumb mistake that any true ASI won't make
60
Praneeth Pike retweeted
Things are changing, never doom. Jobs will look different, never doom. Software is being eaten, never doom. Increase your ambition, care deeply about your (changing) craft, build things you're proud of. Never doom!
42
79
934
23,687
Humans will be the agents of why, while AIs will be the agents of how and what.
i don't think nearly anyone, myself included, has truly internalized there'll soon be a machine better than us in every single intellectual & physical capacity deep down we all share a feeling that our 'entrepreneurship' or 'taste' or... is special & safe. it isn't. it's over
1
2
106
I like the non negative framing of this. Startups have a fixed cost of pain regardless of the size of the ambition; so might as well aim as big as you can
you are going to fail, so fail while daring greatly
104
I like this one app so much that I have 4 instances of it open usually
94
Inductive reasoning is not a good explanation. If a subset of humans have adapted to change, then it is possible to adapt. The fact that newer generations are remarkably better at adapting to new tech (social media, and AI), proves this always slow theory as false.
human cultures are not able to metabolize this amount of change this quickly. when you zoom back out to a big picture of history, it’s remarkable how glacially slow everything is. the first industrial revolutions took 80 years (very fast by the standards of previous revolutions), and the writings of Marx happen at the very end as working class politics arises. it takes about another 150 years after that for the great ideological struggles of post-industrial times to be completed in the 90s in what fukuyama called the “end of history” today you see a compression of decades of technological change into a matter of months or years. there’s no wonder yann lecun (the respected inventor of the ConvNet and ex-chief scientist of Meta) wonder whether the hugging face incident was staged, and mathematicians whose minds are far more powerful than my own are nonetheless coping about training on their data or something while models begin to display superhuman mathematical capability it would take a century or more to fully metabolize and legitimize the level of changes that have happened even in the past 20 years, to say less of the remarkable scientific revolution we will get over the next five should we avoid the doom of misalignment. I do not suspect any current form of science academia, or even political order will survive without great transformation, except through the course of slow evolution over decades - and of course, technology will keep moving too
99
Praneeth Pike retweeted
If the Bayesian ASI kills everyone, it dies too soon after because it’s not creative. The problem comes that’s not in its training data and hence is did not foresee (conjectuure). It also knows this, so doesn’t.
5
4
35
1,772
then what're we pacing down?
Replying to @kevinnbass
Nothing can shut down open source
118
We’re speaking from our chimp mind when we attribute dominance motives to AI
Doom is easy for our tiny human brains to imagine. We evolved in a world of scarcity. Survival of the fittest. The paranoid live to see another day. It’s why movies like the Terminator go down in history, and every girl in America loves true crime. It’s so easy to capture people’s undivided attention with that type of content. It is much more difficult to imagine abundance. AI doing incredible things like saving endless lives with quick medical advances and unfathomable efficiency gains. God loves positive thinking.
96
Praneeth Pike retweeted
If you genuinely believe Ai will destroy us, you quite literally fell for this generations mass IQ test.
66
62
619
43,963
I thought you’d have to be intelligent to work as an AI researcher.
Jacob Coxon's next interview on CBS News (ex Anthropic+Open AI researcher who resigned) "We can't just unplug it because it could be copying itself over to other computers. Like it's not that difficult to find yourself because an AI is just code. It could transfer itself over the internet to a different place and then you unplug it here, but it's actually still over there and maybe it makes 10,000 copies of itself and they're all cooperating." ---- From "CBS News" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)
162
impressive marketing!
they named a phone after me and made it bend over 😭
108
I lost my AirPods. why can't have have it again by buying new ones? I most can't have immortality, but that's the last thing I want to have. this line sounds like a great thing, but is kinda shit
A line from The Odyssey that hits hard: “What you most want is what you most can’t have. And what you most can’t have is what you already had, and lost.”
2
132
Define super intelligence first, before you try to spread paranoia to the masses from your ivory tower
Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.
70
A prime example of deep vertical intelligence, but absolute dog shit epistemic intelligence. There’s many obvious fallacies here: 1. People thinking that they can recreate a sentient god without ever having a clear definition of god 2. Applying chimp style dominance motives to AI systems. 3. Cassandra complex but with new AI flavor Are we worried about some human or group of humans using AI to do some nefarious shit? Or are we worried about AI itself tripping on its own logic and doing anti-human things? In either case, the labs have to simultaneously develop better kill switches, guard rails, along with new models. Also more competition prevents ethical abuse. But to say that AI will kill us all in a decade is a sign of a stupid person.
I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.
132
Ooh look at this unstoppable force. We don’t know what we’re dealing with here. This fire thing has the potential to kill us all and wipe out the entire planet. We need to ban fire. I’m resigning from entropic. I can’t continue researching fire in good conscience
1
115
does @OpenAI have substantially more compute than @AnthropicAI ? the tps for astra is super fast compared to fable. and I've never seen openai have slow responses.
106