Serious

[N] Yoshua Bengio's latest letter addressing arguments against taking AI safety seriously

https://yoshuabengio.org/2024/07/09/reasoning-through-arguments-against-taking-ai-safety-seriously/ Summary by GPT-4o: "Reasoning through arguments against taking AI safety seriously" by Yoshua Bengio: Summary Introduction Bengio reflects on his year of advocating for AI safety, learning through debates, and synthesizing global expert views in the International Scientific Report on AI safety. He revisits arguments against AI safety concerns and shares his evolved perspective on the potential catastrophic risks of AGI and ASI. Headings and Summary The Importance of AI Safety Despite differing views, there is a consensus on the need to address risks associated with AGI and ASI. The main concern is the unknown moral and behavioral control over such entities. Arguments Dismissing AGI/ASI Risks Skeptics argue AGI/ASI is either impossible or too far in the future to worry about now. Bengio refutes this, stating we cannot be certain about the timeline and need to prepare regulatory frameworks proactively. For those who think AGI and ASI are impossible or far in the future He challenges the idea that current AI capabilities are far from human-level intelligence, citing historical underestimations of AI advancements. The trend of AI capabilities suggests we might reach AGI/ASI sooner than expected. For those who think AGI is possible but only in many decades Regulatory and safety measures need time to develop, necessitating action now despite uncertainties about AGI’s timeline. For those who think that we may reach AGI but not ASI Bengio argues that even AGI presents significant risks and could quickly lead to ASI, making it crucial to address these dangers. For those who think that AGI and ASI will be kind to us He counters the optimism that AGI/ASI will align with human goals, emphasizing the need for robust control mechanisms to prevent AI from pursuing harmful objectives. For those who think that corporations will only design well-behaving AIs and existing laws are sufficient Profit motives often conflict with safety, and existing laws may not adequately address AI-specific risks and loopholes. For those who think that we should accelerate AI capabilities research and not delay benefits of AGI Bengio warns against prioritizing short-term benefits over long-term risks, advocating for a balanced approach that includes safety research. For those concerned that talking about catastrophic risks will hurt efforts to mitigate short-term human-rights issues with AI Addressing both short-term and long-term AI risks can be complementary, and ignoring catastrophic risks would be irresponsible given their potential impact. For those concerned with the US-China cold war AI development should consider global risks and seek collaborative safety research to prevent catastrophic mistakes that transcend national borders. For those who think that international treaties will not work While challenging, international treaties on AI safety are essential and feasible, especially with mechanisms like hardware-enabled governance. For those who think the genie is out of the bottle and we should just let go and avoid regulation Despite AI's unstoppable progress, regulation and safety measures are still critical to steer AI development towards positive outcomes. For those who think that open-source AGI code and weights are the solution Open-sourcing AI has benefits but also significant risks, requiring careful consideration and governance to prevent misuse and loss of control. For those who think worrying about AGI is falling for Pascal’s wager Bengio argues that AI risks are substantial and non-negligible, warranting serious attention and proactive mitigation efforts. Conclusion Bengio emphasizes the need for a collective, cautious approach to AI development, balancing the pursuit of benefits with rigorous safety measures to prevent catastrophic outcomes.

Serious B2B businesses will not try to create a solution using AI - This is why. [i will not promote]

After architecting and developing multiple B2B SaaS platforms and resolving countless challenges, here's why I don't think a proper B2B solution can be developed using AI. You must have senior tech-folks in your teams - even if you choose to leverage AI for expediting some code generation. This isn't theory - this is battle-tested reality. You can use this as a template if you're building one. Core Considerations: Multi-Tenancy Foundation (B2B) Proper tenant isolation at every layer (data, compute, networking) Flexible deployment models (pooled vs. silo) based on customer tier Tenant-aware everything (logging, metrics, tracing) Identity & Security (B2B/Standalone) Enterprise-grade authentication, often with SSO support Role-based access control (RBAC) at tenant level (may need dynamic policy generation for resource access) Audit trails for all system actions (specially if you're in a regulated domain) Client/Tenant Management (B2B) Self-service onboarding with admin approval workflows Automated tenant provisioning/deprovisioning Tenant-specific configurations and customizations Cross-tenant analytics and administration Operational Excellence (B2B/Standalone) Zero-downtime deployments (helps with canary releases) Tenant-isolated debugging capabilities Resource quotas and throttling by tenant tier Automated backup and disaster recovery per tenant Scalability Architecture (B2B) Independent scaling of tenant workloads Resource isolation for "noisy neighbor" prevention Tier-based performance guarantees (SLAs) Dynamic resource allocation Each of these topics can be as complicated as you can think of - depends on the solution you're building. I have seen many seasoned architects and developers struggle also because of their "single-tenant" mindset. Here are some common pitfalls to avoid (B2B/Standalone): Standalone - mindset in database design Hard-coded configurations Lack of context in logging/monitoring Insufficient tenant isolation in shared services (B2B) Missing tenant-aware cost allocation (B2B) You need people great with infrastructure as well. They need to consider: Tenant-aware routing (API Gateway or whatever you're using) Code with isolation when/if required Data storage with proper partitioning Shared services vs. dedicated services strategy There are a number of common problems I have seen people often make. Often it's because of a pressure from high above. But every architectural decision must considered in terms of the solution you're building. In many cases, security cannot be bolted on later, observability must be tenant-aware from day one, operations must scale. This is just the foundation. Your actual business logic sits ON TOP of all this. Now, would you think these can be done by AI? I'll be waiting for that day. :-)

[SERIOUS] I'm really struggling with no interviews, looking for advice/improvements. A recent double master's aiming for Machine Learning/Data Science roles. Thanks :)

How a founder built a B2B AI startup to serve with 65+ global brands (including Fortune500 companies) (I will not promote)

AI Palette is an AI-driven platform that helps food and beverage companies predict emerging product trends. I had the opportunity recently to sit down with the founder to get his advice on building an AI-first startup, which he'll be going through in this post. (I will not promote) About AI Palette: Co-founders: >!2 (Somsubhra GanChoudhuri, Himanshu Upreti)!!100+!!$12.7M USD!!AI-powered predictive analytics for the CPG (Consumer Packaged Goods) industry!!Signed first paying customer in the first year!!65+ global brands, including Cargill, Diageo, Ajinomoto, Symrise, Mondelez, and L’Oréal, use AI Palette!!Every new product launched has secured a paying client within months!!Expanded into Beauty & Personal Care (BPC), onboarding one of India’s largest BPC companies within weeks!!Launched multiple new product lines in the last two years, creating a unified suite for brand innovation!Identify the pain points in your industry for ideas* When I was working in the flavour and fragrance industry, I noticed a major issue CPG companies faced: launching a product took at least one to two years. For instance, if a company decided today to launch a new juice, it wouldn’t hit the market until 2027. This long timeline made it difficult to stay relevant and on top of trends. Another big problem I noticed was that companies relied heavily on market research to determine what products to launch. While this might work for current consumer preferences, it was highly inefficient since the product wouldn’t actually reach the market for several years. By the time the product launched, the consumer trends had already shifted, making that research outdated. That’s where AI can play a crucial role. Instead of looking at what consumers like today, we realised that companies should use AI to predict what they will want next. This allows businesses to create products that are ahead of the curve. Right now, the failure rate for new product launches is alarmingly high, with 8 out of 10 products failing. By leveraging AI, companies can avoid wasting resources on products that won’t succeed, leading to better, more successful launches. Start by talking to as many industry experts as possible to identify the real problems When we first had the idea for AI Palette, it was just a hunch, a gut feeling—we had no idea whether people would actually pay for it. To validate the idea, we reached out to as many people as we could within the industry. Since our focus area was all about consumer insights, we spoke to professionals in the CPG sector, particularly those in the insights departments of CPG companies. Through these early conversations, we began to see a common pattern emerge and identified the exact problem we wanted to solve. Don’t tell people what you’re building—listen to their frustrations and challenges first. Going into these early customer conversations, our goal was to listen and understand their challenges without telling them what we were trying to build. This is crucial as it ensures that you can gather as much data about the problem to truly understand it and that you aren't biasing their answers by showing your solution. This process helped us in two key ways: First, it validated that there was a real problem in the industry through the number of people who spoke about experiencing the same problem. Second, it allowed us to understand the exact scale and depth of the problem—e.g., how much money companies were spending on consumer research, what kind of tools they were currently using, etc. Narrow down your focus to a small, actionable area to solve initially. Once we were certain that there was a clear problem worth solving, we didn’t try to tackle everything at once. As a small team of two people, we started by focusing on a specific area of the problem—something big enough to matter but small enough for us to handle. Then, we approached customers with a potential solution and asked them for feedback. We learnt that our solution seemed promising, but we wanted to validate it further. If customers are willing to pay you for the solution, it’s a strong validation signal for market demand. One of our early customer interviewees even asked us to deliver the solution, which we did manually at first. We used machine learning models to analyse the data and presented the results in a slide deck. They paid us for the work, which was a critical moment. It meant we had something with real potential, and we had customers willing to pay us before we had even built the full product. This was the key validation that we needed. By the time we were ready to build the product, we had already gathered crucial insights from our early customers. We understood the specific information they wanted and how they wanted the results to be presented. This input was invaluable in shaping the development of our final product. Building & Product Development Start with a simple concept/design to validate with customers before building When we realised the problem and solution, we began by designing the product, but not by jumping straight into coding. Instead, we created wireframes and user interfaces using tools like InVision and Figma. This allowed us to visually represent the product without the need for backend or frontend development at first. The goal was to showcase how the product would look and feel, helping potential customers understand its value before we even started building. We showed these designs to potential customers and asked for feedback. Would they want to buy this product? Would they pay for it? We didn’t dive into actual development until we found a customer willing to pay a significant amount for the solution. This approach helped us ensure we were on the right track and didn’t waste time or resources building something customers didn’t actually want. Deliver your solution using a manual consulting approach before developing an automated product Initially, we solved problems for customers in a more "consulting" manner, delivering insights manually. Recall how I mentioned that when one of our early customer interviewees asked us to deliver the solution, we initially did it manually by using machine learning models to analyse the data and presenting the results to them in a slide deck. This works for the initial stages of validating your solution, as you don't want to invest too much time into building a full-blown MVP before understanding the exact features and functionalities that your users want. However, after confirming that customers were willing to pay for what we provided, we moved forward with actual product development. This shift from a manual service to product development was key to scaling in a sustainable manner, as our building was guided by real-world feedback and insights rather than intuition. Let ongoing customer feedback drive iteration and the product roadmap Once we built the first version of the product, it was basic, solving only one problem. But as we worked closely with customers, they requested additional features and functionalities to make it more useful. As a result, we continued to evolve the product to handle more complex use cases, gradually developing new modules based on customer feedback. Product development is a continuous process. Our early customers pushed us to expand features and modules, from solving just 20% of their problems to tackling 50–60% of their needs. These demands shaped our product roadmap and guided the development of new features, ultimately resulting in a more complete solution. Revenue and user numbers are key metrics for assessing product-market fit. However, critical mass varies across industries Product-market fit (PMF) can often be gauged by looking at the size of your revenue and the number of customers you're serving. Once you've reached a certain critical mass of customers, you can usually tell that you're starting to hit product-market fit. However, this critical mass varies by industry and the type of customers you're targeting. For example, if you're building an app for a broad consumer market, you may need thousands of users. But for enterprise software, product-market fit may be reached with just a few dozen key customers. Compare customer engagement and retention with other available solutions on the market for product-market fit Revenue and the number of customers alone isn't always enough to determine if you're reaching product-market fit. The type of customer and the use case for your product also matter. The level of engagement with your product—how much time users are spending on the platform—is also an important metric to track. The more time they spend, the more likely it is that your product is meeting a crucial need. Another way to evaluate product-market fit is by assessing retention, i.e whether users are returning to your platform and relying on it consistently, as compared to other solutions available. That's another key indication that your solution is gaining traction in the market. Business Model & Monetisation Prioritise scalability Initially, we started with a consulting-type model where we tailor-made specific solutions for each customer use-case we encountered and delivered the CPG insights manually, but we soon realized that this wasn't scalable. The problem with consulting is that you need to do the same work repeatedly for every new project, which requires a large team to handle the workload. That is not how you sustain a high-growth startup. To solve this, we focused on building a product that would address the most common problems faced by our customers. Once built, this product could be sold to thousands of customers without significant overheads, making the business scalable. With this in mind, we decided on a SaaS (Software as a Service) business model. The benefit of SaaS is that once you create the software, you can sell it to many customers without adding extra overhead. This results in a business with higher margins, where the same product can serve many customers simultaneously, making it much more efficient than the consulting model. Adopt a predictable, simplistic business model for efficiency. Look to industry practices for guidance When it came to monetisation, we considered the needs of our CPG customers, who I knew from experience were already accustomed to paying annual subscriptions for sales databases and other software services. We decided to adopt the same model and charge our customers an annual upfront fee. This model worked well for our target market, aligning with industry standards and ensuring stable, recurring revenue. Moreover, our target CPG customers were already used to this business model and didn't have to choose from a huge variety of payment options, making closing sales a straightforward and efficient process. Marketing & Sales Educate the market to position yourself as a thought leader When we started, AI was not widely understood, especially in the CPG industry. We had to create awareness around both AI and its potential value. Our strategy focused on educating potential users and customers about AI, its relevance, and why they should invest in it. This education was crucial to the success of our marketing efforts. To establish credibility, we adopted a thought leadership approach. We wrote blogs on the importance of AI and how it could solve problems for CPG companies. We also participated in events and conferences to demonstrate our expertise in applying AI to the industry. This helped us build our brand and reputation as leaders in the AI space for CPG, and word-of-mouth spread as customers recognized us as the go-to company for AI solutions. It’s tempting for startups to offer products for free in the hopes of gaining early traction with customers, but this approach doesn't work in the long run. Free offerings don’t establish the value of your product, and customers may not take them seriously. You should always charge for pilots, even if the fee is minimal, to ensure that the customer is serious about potentially working with you, and that they are committed and engaged with the product. Pilots/POCs/Demos should aim to give a "flavour" of what you can deliver A paid pilot/POC trial also gives you the opportunity to provide a “flavour” of what your product can deliver, helping to build confidence and trust with the client. It allows customers to experience a detailed preview of what your product can do, which builds anticipation and desire for the full functionality. During this phase, ensure your product is built to give them a taste of the value you can provide, which sets the stage for a broader, more impactful adoption down the line. Fundraising & Financial Management Leverage PR to generate inbound interest from VCs When it comes to fundraising, our approach was fairly traditional—we reached out to VCs and used connections from existing investors to make introductions. However, looking back, one thing that really helped us build momentum during our fundraising process was getting featured in Tech in Asia. This wasn’t planned; it just so happened that Tech in Asia was doing a series on AI startups in Southeast Asia and they reached out to us for an article. During the interview, they asked if we were fundraising, and we mentioned that we were. As a result, several VCs we hadn’t yet contacted reached out to us. This inbound interest was incredibly valuable, and we found it far more effective than our outbound efforts. So, if you can, try to generate some PR attention—it can help create inbound interest from VCs, and that interest is typically much stronger and more promising than any outbound strategies because they've gone out of their way to reach out to you. Be well-prepared and deliberate about fundraising. Keep trying and don't lose heart When pitching to VCs, it’s crucial to be thoroughly prepared, as you typically only get one shot at making an impression. If you mess up, it’s unlikely they’ll give you a second chance. You need to have key metrics at your fingertips, especially if you're running a SaaS company. Be ready to answer questions like: What’s your retention rate? What are your projections for the year? How much will you close? What’s your average contract value? These numbers should be at the top of your mind. Additionally, fundraising should be treated as a structured process, not something you do on the side while juggling other tasks. When you start, create a clear plan: identify 20 VCs to reach out to each week. By planning ahead, you’ll maintain momentum and speed up the process. Fundraising can be exhausting and disheartening, especially when you face multiple rejections. Remember, you just need one investor to say yes to make it all worthwhile. When using funds, prioritise profitability and grow only when necessary. Don't rely on funding to survive. In the past, the common advice for startups was to raise money, burn through it quickly, and use it to boost revenue numbers, even if that meant operating at a loss. The idea was that profitability wasn’t the main focus, and the goal was to show rapid growth for the next funding round. However, times have changed, especially with the shift from “funding summer” to “funding winter.” My advice now is to aim for profitability as soon as possible and grow only when it's truly needed. For example, it’s tempting to hire a large team when you have substantial funds in the bank, but ask yourself: Do you really need 10 new hires, or could you get by with just four? Growing too quickly can lead to unnecessary expenses, so focus on reaching profitability as soon as possible, rather than just inflating your team or burn rate. The key takeaway is to spend your funds wisely and only when absolutely necessary to reach profitability. You want to avoid becoming dependent on future VC investments to keep your company afloat. Instead, prioritize reaching break-even as quickly as you can, so you're not reliant on external funding to survive in the long run. Team-Building & Leadership Look for complementary skill sets in co-founders When choosing a co-founder, it’s important to find someone with a complementary skill set, not just someone you’re close to. For example, I come from a business and commercial background, so I needed someone with technical expertise. That’s when I found my co-founder, Himanshu, who had experience in machine learning and AI. He was a great match because his technical knowledge complemented my business skills, and together we formed a strong team. It might seem natural to choose your best friend as your co-founder, but this can often lead to conflict. Chances are, you and your best friend share similar interests, skills, and backgrounds, which doesn’t bring diversity to the table. If both of you come from the same industry or have the same strengths, you may end up butting heads on how things should be done. Having diverse skill sets helps avoid this and fosters a more collaborative working relationship. Himanshu (left) and Somsubhra (right) co-founded AI Palette in 2018 Define roles clearly to prevent co-founder conflict To avoid conflict, it’s essential that your roles as co-founders are clearly defined from the beginning. If your co-founder and you have distinct responsibilities, there is no room for overlap or disagreement. This ensures that both of you can work without stepping on each other's toes, and there’s mutual respect for each other’s expertise. This is another reason as to why it helps to have a co-founder with a complementary skillset to yours. Not only is having similar industry backgrounds and skillsets not particularly useful when building out your startup, it's also more likely to lead to conflicts since you both have similar subject expertise. On the other hand, if your co-founder is an expert in something that you're not, you're less likely to argue with them about their decisions regarding that aspect of the business and vice versa when it comes to your decisions. Look for employees who are driven by your mission, not salary For early-stage startups, the first hires are crucial. These employees need to be highly motivated and excited about the mission. Since the salary will likely be low and the work demanding, they must be driven by something beyond just the paycheck. The right employees are the swash-buckling pirates and romantics, i.e those who are genuinely passionate about the startup’s vision and want to be part of something impactful beyond material gains. When employees are motivated by the mission, they are more likely to stick around and help take the startup to greater heights. A litmus test for hiring: Would you be excited to work with them on a Sunday? One of the most important rounds in the hiring process is the culture fit round. This is where you assess whether a candidate shares the same values as you and your team. A key question to ask yourself is: "Would I be excited to work with this person on a Sunday?" If there’s any doubt about your answer, it’s likely not a good fit. The idea is that you want employees who align with the company's culture and values and who you would enjoy collaborating with even outside of regular work hours. How we structure the team at AI Palette We have three broad functions in our organization. The first two are the big ones: Technical Team – This is the core of our product and technology. This team is responsible for product development and incorporating customer feedback into improving the technology Commercial Team – This includes sales, marketing, customer service, account managers, and so on, handling everything related to business growth and customer relations. General and Administrative Team – This smaller team supports functions like finance, HR, and administration. As with almost all businesses, we have teams that address the two core tasks of building (technical team) and selling (commercial team), but given the size we're at now, having the administrative team helps smoothen operations. Set broad goals but let your teams decide on execution What I've done is recruit highly skilled people who don't need me to micromanage them on a day-to-day basis. They're experts in their roles, and as Steve Jobs said, when you hire the right person, you don't have to tell them what to do—they understand the purpose and tell you what to do. So, my job as the CEO is to set the broader goals for them, review the plans they have to achieve those goals, and periodically check in on progress. For example, if our broad goal is to meet a certain revenue target, I break it down across teams: For the sales team, I’ll look at how they plan to hit that target—how many customers they need to sell to, how many salespeople they need, and what tactics and strategies they plan to use. For the technical team, I’ll evaluate our product offerings—whether they think we need to build new products to attract more customers, and whether they think it's scalable for the number of customers we plan to serve. This way, the entire organization's tasks are cascaded in alignment with our overarching goals, with me setting the direction and leaving the details of execution to the skilled team members that I hire.

Behind the scene : fundraising pre-seed of an AI startup

A bit of feedback from our journey at our AI startup. We started prototyping stuff around agentic AI last winter with very cool underlying tech research based on some academic papers (I can send you links if you're interested in LLM orchestration). I'm a serial entrepreneur with 2x exits, nothing went fancy but enough to keep going into the next topic. This time, running an AI project has been a bit different and unique due to the huge interest around the topic. Here are a few insights. Jan \~ Mar: Research Nothing was serious, just a side project with a friend on weekends (the guy became our lead SWE). Market was promising and we had the convinction that our tech can be game changer in computer systems workflows. March \~ April: Market Waking Up Devin published their pre-seed $20m fundraising led by Founders Fund; they paved the market with legitimacy. I decided to launch some coffee meetings with a few angels in my network. Interest confirmed. Back to work on some more serious early prototyping; hard work started here. April \~ May: YC S24 (Fail) Pumped up by our prospective angels and the market waking up on the agentic topic, I applied to YC as a solo founder (was still looking for funds and co-founders). Eventually got rejected (no co-founder and not US-based). May \~ July: VC Dance (Momentum 1) Almost randomly at the same time we got rejected from YC, I got introduced to key members of the VC community by one of our prospective angels. Interest went crazy... tons of calls. Brace yourself here, we probably met 30\~40 funds (+ angels). Got strong interests from 4\~5 of them (3 to 5 meetings each), ultimately closed 1 and some interests which might convert later in the next stage. The legend of AI being hype is true. Majority of our calls went only by word of mouth, lots of inbounds, people even not having the deck would book us a call in the next 48h after saying hi. Also lots of "tourists," just looking because of AI but with no strong opinion on the subject to move further. The hearsay about 90% rejection is true. You'll have a lot of nos, ending some days exhausted and unmotivated. End July: Closing, the Hard Part The VC roadshow is kind of an art you need to master. You need to keep momentum high enough and looking over-subscribed. Good pre-seed VC deals are over-competitive, and good funds only focus on them; they will have opportunities to catch up on lost chances at the seed stage later. We succeeded (arduously) to close our 18\~24mo budget with 1 VC, a few angels, and some state-guaranteed debt. Cash in bank just on time for payday in August (don't under-estimate time of processing) Now: Launching and Prepping the Seed Round We're now in our first weeks of go-to-market with a lot of uncertainty but a very ambitious plan ahead. The good part of having met TONS of VCs during the pre-seed roadshow is that we met probably our future lead investors in these. What would look like a loss of time in the initial pre-seed VC meetings has been finally very prolific, helping us to refine our strategy, assessing more in-depth the market (investors have a lot of insights, they meet a lot of people... that's their full-time job). We now have clear milestones and are heading to raise our seed round by end of year/Q1 if stars stay aligned :) Don't give up, the show must go on.

Lessons from 139 YC AI startups (S23)

YC's Demo Day was last week, and with it comes another deluge of AI companies. A record-breaking 139 startups were in some way related to AI or ML - up from 112 in the last batch. Here are 5 of my biggest takeaways: AI is (still) eating the world. It's remarkable how diverse the industries are - over two dozen verticals were represented, from materials science to social media to security. However, the top four categories were: AI Ops: Tooling and platforms to help companies deploy working AI models. We'll discuss more below, but AI Ops has become a huge category, primarily focused on LLMs and taming them for production use cases. Developer Tools: Apps, plugins, and SDKs making it easier to write code. There were plenty of examples of integrating third-party data, auto-generating code/tests, and working with agents/chatbots to build and debug code. Healthcare + Biotech: It seems like healthcare has a lot of room for automation, with companies working on note-taking, billing, training, and prescribing. And on the biotech side, there are some seriously cool companies building autonomous surgery robots and at-home cancer detection. Finance + Payments: Startups targeting banks, fintechs, and compliance departments. This was a wide range of companies, from automated collections to AI due diligence to "Copilot for bankers." Those four areas covered over half of the startups. The first two make sense: YC has always filtered for technical founders, and many are using AI to do what they know - improve the software developer workflow. But it's interesting to see healthcare and finance not far behind. Previously, I wrote: Large enterprises, healthcare, and government are not going to send sensitive data to OpenAI. This leaves a gap for startups to build on-premise, compliant \[LLMs\] for these verticals. And we're now seeing exactly that - LLMs focused on healthcare and finance and AI Ops companies targeting on-prem use cases. It also helps that one of the major selling points of generative AI right now is cost-cutting - an enticing use case for healthcare and finance. Copilots are king. In the last batch, a lot of startups positioned themselves as "ChatGPT for X," with a consumer focus. It seems the current trend, though, is "Copilot for X" - B2B AI assistants to help you do everything from KYC checks to corporate event planning to chip design to negotiate contracts. Nearly two dozen companies were working on some sort of artificial companion for businesses - and a couple for consumers. It's more evidence for the argument that AI will not outright replace workers - instead, existing workers will collaborate with AI to be more productive. And as AI becomes more mainstream, this trend of making specialized tools for specific industries or tasks will only grow. That being said - a Bing-style AI that lives in a sidebar and is only accessible via chat probably isn't the most useful form factor for AI. But until OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google change their approach (or until another company steps up), we'll probably see many more Copilots. AI Ops is becoming a key sector. "AI Ops" has been a term for only a few years. "LLM Ops" has existed for barely a year. And yet, so many companies are focused on training, fine-tuning, deploying, hosting, and post-processing LLMs it's quickly becoming a critical piece of the AI space. It's a vast industry that's sprung up seemingly overnight, and it was pretty interesting to see some of the problems being solved at the bleeding edge. For example: Adding context to language models with as few as ten samples. Pausing and moving training runs in real-time. Managing training data ownership and permissions. Faster vector databases. Fine-tuning models with synthetic data. But as much ~~hype~~ enthusiasm and opportunity as there might be, the size of the AI Ops space also shows how much work is needed to really productionalize LLMs and other models. There are still many open questions about reliability, privacy, observability, usability, and safety when it comes to using LLMs in the wild. Who owns the model? Does it matter? Nine months ago, anyone building an LLM company was doing one of three things: Training their own model from scratch. Fine-tuning a version of GPT-3. Building a wrapper around ChatGPT. Thanks to Meta, the open-source community, and the legions of competitors trying to catch up to OpenAI, there are now dozens of ways to integrate LLMs. However, I found it interesting how few B2B companies mentioned whether or not they trained their own model. If I had to guess, I'd say many are using ChatGPT or a fine-tuned version of Llama 2. But it raises an interesting question - if the AI provides value, does it matter if it's "just" ChatGPT behind the scenes? And once ChatGPT becomes fine-tuneable, when (if ever) will startups decide to ditch OpenAI and use their own model instead? "AI" isn't a silver bullet. At the end of the day, perhaps the biggest lesson is that "AI" isn't a magical cure-all - you still need to build a defensible company. At the beginning of the post-ChatGPT hype wave, it seemed like you just had to say "we're adding AI" to raise your next round or boost your stock price. But competition is extremely fierce. Even within this batch, there were multiple companies with nearly identical pitches, including: Solving customer support tickets. Negotiating sales contracts. Writing drafts of legal documents. Building no-code LLM workflows. On-prem LLM deployment. Automating trust and safety moderation. As it turns out, AI can be a competitive advantage, but it can't make up for a bad business. The most interesting (and likely valuable) companies are the ones that take boring industries and find non-obvious use cases for AI. In those cases, the key is having a team that can effectively distribute a product to users, with or without AI. Where we’re headed I'll be honest - 139 companies is a lot. In reviewing them all, there were points where it just felt completely overwhelming. But after taking a step back, seeing them all together paints an incredibly vivid picture of the current AI landscape: one that is diverse, rapidly evolving, and increasingly integrated into professional and personal tasks. These startups aren't just building AI for the sake of technology or academic research, but are trying to address real-world problems. Technology is always a double-edged sword - and some of the startups felt a little too dystopian for my taste - but I'm still hopeful about AI's ability to improve productivity and the human experience.

Better ways to get leads for my MVP development service? I will not promote

Hi I'm Jay, I've been a dev for over 7 years. I've worked with organisations like the Qatar Airlines Currently I run a small dev shop focusing on building MVPs for non-tech founders specifically. Now I've been running meta ads and it's been okay. Working on 2 interesting projects currently. The workload is lower than our capacity but it's alright. The problem is- most of the leads don't seem to be qualified enough and fall through. Instead of actual founders who want to build something and know what it takes, I get wannabe entrepreneurs who have way too much expectations for absolute peanuts for budget Bare in mind, I already charge pretty low for the MVP as one of my USPs is cost-effective ($5k). I legit had a meeting with someone who expected me to develop a fully fledged AI powered MARKETPLACE for $1000😭 It's so hard not to take offense to things like that and absolutely lose my sh*t because WHAT💀 Any advice on where or how to get qualified and serious clients? Is there a way to target founders who've raised pre-seed or seed funding? I know it's a long shot since most startups don't get funded pre MVP but just something I'm trying to consider just in case Any and all advice would be appreciated, thank you🙏🏼 PS: Sorry about the rant halfway through😭🙏🏼

Competing with much bigger companies that have lame products? How do I market and carve out a niche? (I will not promote)

I've been working on a product for the last few months that competes with CapCut, Adobe Premier, Veed, Descript, DaVinci Resolve, etc. Basically, it's a fancy video editor. (no link and I will not promote but just some background context) I'm very technical and started creating videos for TikTok but really wanted to take my game to the next level. My channel sort of blew up on me in the first month and I was able to get 2M views and 10k followers. My initial thinking was that I was going to use AI to make video editing fancy/faster and sort of have this as a "script" that I used personally. Basically, give myself a serious competitive advantage. However, it sort of spiraled out of control! What started off as a weekend project, turned into 2 weekends, which turned into about 2 months of continuous hacking. If I'm going to spend a significant amount of time on this, I might as well try to productize it and try to at least make enough money that I break even on my time. The thing I'm worried about, in the back of my mind, is that if I shop this, that my competitors, with their signifiant resources, could clone what I'm doing quickly. However, at the same time, why haven't they done so already? I mean maybe I have a better understanding of the market than they do because they don't actually use their products. I know that sounds like a bit of a cop out in a way but there are plenty of entrepreneurs who have started companies and crushed it just because they were heads down and focused. Another problem I face, is that I think VCs may not be super excited about this because it's B2C-ish and it's not in a super exciting space. Maybe you could say it's in the AI video space, and they're excited about AI video, but it's just an AI video editor, not fully creating AI videos from scratch like SORA. I think since I blew up my TikTok feed before, that I could do it again, and if I get 2M views, and I have a outro on my video, that I could start to convert some of these as customers. Especially, if I started to create videos for creators which is more focused on the target market. So without funding, can I really tackle these existing competitors? PS. "I will not promote" but I have to talk about this somewhat abstractly but I won't link to anything.

Behind the scene : fundraising pre-seed of an AI startup

A bit of feedback from our journey at our AI startup. We started prototyping stuff around agentic AI last winter with very cool underlying tech research based on some academic papers (I can send you links if you're interested in LLM orchestration). I'm a serial entrepreneur with 2x exits, nothing went fancy but enough to keep going into the next topic. This time, running an AI project has been a bit different and unique due to the huge interest around the topic. Here are a few insights. Jan \~ Mar: Research Nothing was serious, just a side project with a friend on weekends (the guy became our lead SWE). Market was promising and we had the convinction that our tech can be game changer in computer systems workflows. March \~ April: Market Waking Up Devin published their pre-seed $20m fundraising led by Founders Fund; they paved the market with legitimacy. I decided to launch some coffee meetings with a few angels in my network. Interest confirmed. Back to work on some more serious early prototyping; hard work started here. April \~ May: YC S24 (Fail) Pumped up by our prospective angels and the market waking up on the agentic topic, I applied to YC as a solo founder (was still looking for funds and co-founders). Eventually got rejected (no co-founder and not US-based). May \~ July: VC Dance (Momentum 1) Almost randomly at the same time we got rejected from YC, I got introduced to key members of the VC community by one of our prospective angels. Interest went crazy... tons of calls. Brace yourself here, we probably met 30\~40 funds (+ angels). Got strong interests from 4\~5 of them (3 to 5 meetings each), ultimately closed 1 and some interests which might convert later in the next stage. The legend of AI being hype is true. Majority of our calls went only by word of mouth, lots of inbounds, people even not having the deck would book us a call in the next 48h after saying hi. Also lots of "tourists," just looking because of AI but with no strong opinion on the subject to move further. The hearsay about 90% rejection is true. You'll have a lot of nos, ending some days exhausted and unmotivated. End July: Closing, the Hard Part The VC roadshow is kind of an art you need to master. You need to keep momentum high enough and looking over-subscribed. Good pre-seed VC deals are over-competitive, and good funds only focus on them; they will have opportunities to catch up on lost chances at the seed stage later. We succeeded (arduously) to close our 18\~24mo budget with 1 VC, a few angels, and some state-guaranteed debt. Cash in bank just on time for payday in August (don't under-estimate time of processing) Now: Launching and Prepping the Seed Round We're now in our first weeks of go-to-market with a lot of uncertainty but a very ambitious plan ahead. The good part of having met TONS of VCs during the pre-seed roadshow is that we met probably our future lead investors in these. What would look like a loss of time in the initial pre-seed VC meetings has been finally very prolific, helping us to refine our strategy, assessing more in-depth the market (investors have a lot of insights, they meet a lot of people... that's their full-time job). We now have clear milestones and are heading to raise our seed round by end of year/Q1 if stars stay aligned :) Don't give up, the show must go on.

How a founder built a B2B AI startup to serve with 65+ global brands (including Fortune500 companies) (I will not promote)

AI Palette is an AI-driven platform that helps food and beverage companies predict emerging product trends. I had the opportunity recently to sit down with the founder to get his advice on building an AI-first startup, which he'll be going through in this post. (I will not promote) About AI Palette: Co-founders: >!2 (Somsubhra GanChoudhuri, Himanshu Upreti)!!100+!!$12.7M USD!!AI-powered predictive analytics for the CPG (Consumer Packaged Goods) industry!!Signed first paying customer in the first year!!65+ global brands, including Cargill, Diageo, Ajinomoto, Symrise, Mondelez, and L’Oréal, use AI Palette!!Every new product launched has secured a paying client within months!!Expanded into Beauty & Personal Care (BPC), onboarding one of India’s largest BPC companies within weeks!!Launched multiple new product lines in the last two years, creating a unified suite for brand innovation!Identify the pain points in your industry for ideas* When I was working in the flavour and fragrance industry, I noticed a major issue CPG companies faced: launching a product took at least one to two years. For instance, if a company decided today to launch a new juice, it wouldn’t hit the market until 2027. This long timeline made it difficult to stay relevant and on top of trends. Another big problem I noticed was that companies relied heavily on market research to determine what products to launch. While this might work for current consumer preferences, it was highly inefficient since the product wouldn’t actually reach the market for several years. By the time the product launched, the consumer trends had already shifted, making that research outdated. That’s where AI can play a crucial role. Instead of looking at what consumers like today, we realised that companies should use AI to predict what they will want next. This allows businesses to create products that are ahead of the curve. Right now, the failure rate for new product launches is alarmingly high, with 8 out of 10 products failing. By leveraging AI, companies can avoid wasting resources on products that won’t succeed, leading to better, more successful launches. Start by talking to as many industry experts as possible to identify the real problems When we first had the idea for AI Palette, it was just a hunch, a gut feeling—we had no idea whether people would actually pay for it. To validate the idea, we reached out to as many people as we could within the industry. Since our focus area was all about consumer insights, we spoke to professionals in the CPG sector, particularly those in the insights departments of CPG companies. Through these early conversations, we began to see a common pattern emerge and identified the exact problem we wanted to solve. Don’t tell people what you’re building—listen to their frustrations and challenges first. Going into these early customer conversations, our goal was to listen and understand their challenges without telling them what we were trying to build. This is crucial as it ensures that you can gather as much data about the problem to truly understand it and that you aren't biasing their answers by showing your solution. This process helped us in two key ways: First, it validated that there was a real problem in the industry through the number of people who spoke about experiencing the same problem. Second, it allowed us to understand the exact scale and depth of the problem—e.g., how much money companies were spending on consumer research, what kind of tools they were currently using, etc. Narrow down your focus to a small, actionable area to solve initially. Once we were certain that there was a clear problem worth solving, we didn’t try to tackle everything at once. As a small team of two people, we started by focusing on a specific area of the problem—something big enough to matter but small enough for us to handle. Then, we approached customers with a potential solution and asked them for feedback. We learnt that our solution seemed promising, but we wanted to validate it further. If customers are willing to pay you for the solution, it’s a strong validation signal for market demand. One of our early customer interviewees even asked us to deliver the solution, which we did manually at first. We used machine learning models to analyse the data and presented the results in a slide deck. They paid us for the work, which was a critical moment. It meant we had something with real potential, and we had customers willing to pay us before we had even built the full product. This was the key validation that we needed. By the time we were ready to build the product, we had already gathered crucial insights from our early customers. We understood the specific information they wanted and how they wanted the results to be presented. This input was invaluable in shaping the development of our final product. Building & Product Development Start with a simple concept/design to validate with customers before building When we realised the problem and solution, we began by designing the product, but not by jumping straight into coding. Instead, we created wireframes and user interfaces using tools like InVision and Figma. This allowed us to visually represent the product without the need for backend or frontend development at first. The goal was to showcase how the product would look and feel, helping potential customers understand its value before we even started building. We showed these designs to potential customers and asked for feedback. Would they want to buy this product? Would they pay for it? We didn’t dive into actual development until we found a customer willing to pay a significant amount for the solution. This approach helped us ensure we were on the right track and didn’t waste time or resources building something customers didn’t actually want. Deliver your solution using a manual consulting approach before developing an automated product Initially, we solved problems for customers in a more "consulting" manner, delivering insights manually. Recall how I mentioned that when one of our early customer interviewees asked us to deliver the solution, we initially did it manually by using machine learning models to analyse the data and presenting the results to them in a slide deck. This works for the initial stages of validating your solution, as you don't want to invest too much time into building a full-blown MVP before understanding the exact features and functionalities that your users want. However, after confirming that customers were willing to pay for what we provided, we moved forward with actual product development. This shift from a manual service to product development was key to scaling in a sustainable manner, as our building was guided by real-world feedback and insights rather than intuition. Let ongoing customer feedback drive iteration and the product roadmap Once we built the first version of the product, it was basic, solving only one problem. But as we worked closely with customers, they requested additional features and functionalities to make it more useful. As a result, we continued to evolve the product to handle more complex use cases, gradually developing new modules based on customer feedback. Product development is a continuous process. Our early customers pushed us to expand features and modules, from solving just 20% of their problems to tackling 50–60% of their needs. These demands shaped our product roadmap and guided the development of new features, ultimately resulting in a more complete solution. Revenue and user numbers are key metrics for assessing product-market fit. However, critical mass varies across industries Product-market fit (PMF) can often be gauged by looking at the size of your revenue and the number of customers you're serving. Once you've reached a certain critical mass of customers, you can usually tell that you're starting to hit product-market fit. However, this critical mass varies by industry and the type of customers you're targeting. For example, if you're building an app for a broad consumer market, you may need thousands of users. But for enterprise software, product-market fit may be reached with just a few dozen key customers. Compare customer engagement and retention with other available solutions on the market for product-market fit Revenue and the number of customers alone isn't always enough to determine if you're reaching product-market fit. The type of customer and the use case for your product also matter. The level of engagement with your product—how much time users are spending on the platform—is also an important metric to track. The more time they spend, the more likely it is that your product is meeting a crucial need. Another way to evaluate product-market fit is by assessing retention, i.e whether users are returning to your platform and relying on it consistently, as compared to other solutions available. That's another key indication that your solution is gaining traction in the market. Business Model & Monetisation Prioritise scalability Initially, we started with a consulting-type model where we tailor-made specific solutions for each customer use-case we encountered and delivered the CPG insights manually, but we soon realized that this wasn't scalable. The problem with consulting is that you need to do the same work repeatedly for every new project, which requires a large team to handle the workload. That is not how you sustain a high-growth startup. To solve this, we focused on building a product that would address the most common problems faced by our customers. Once built, this product could be sold to thousands of customers without significant overheads, making the business scalable. With this in mind, we decided on a SaaS (Software as a Service) business model. The benefit of SaaS is that once you create the software, you can sell it to many customers without adding extra overhead. This results in a business with higher margins, where the same product can serve many customers simultaneously, making it much more efficient than the consulting model. Adopt a predictable, simplistic business model for efficiency. Look to industry practices for guidance When it came to monetisation, we considered the needs of our CPG customers, who I knew from experience were already accustomed to paying annual subscriptions for sales databases and other software services. We decided to adopt the same model and charge our customers an annual upfront fee. This model worked well for our target market, aligning with industry standards and ensuring stable, recurring revenue. Moreover, our target CPG customers were already used to this business model and didn't have to choose from a huge variety of payment options, making closing sales a straightforward and efficient process. Marketing & Sales Educate the market to position yourself as a thought leader When we started, AI was not widely understood, especially in the CPG industry. We had to create awareness around both AI and its potential value. Our strategy focused on educating potential users and customers about AI, its relevance, and why they should invest in it. This education was crucial to the success of our marketing efforts. To establish credibility, we adopted a thought leadership approach. We wrote blogs on the importance of AI and how it could solve problems for CPG companies. We also participated in events and conferences to demonstrate our expertise in applying AI to the industry. This helped us build our brand and reputation as leaders in the AI space for CPG, and word-of-mouth spread as customers recognized us as the go-to company for AI solutions. It’s tempting for startups to offer products for free in the hopes of gaining early traction with customers, but this approach doesn't work in the long run. Free offerings don’t establish the value of your product, and customers may not take them seriously. You should always charge for pilots, even if the fee is minimal, to ensure that the customer is serious about potentially working with you, and that they are committed and engaged with the product. Pilots/POCs/Demos should aim to give a "flavour" of what you can deliver A paid pilot/POC trial also gives you the opportunity to provide a “flavour” of what your product can deliver, helping to build confidence and trust with the client. It allows customers to experience a detailed preview of what your product can do, which builds anticipation and desire for the full functionality. During this phase, ensure your product is built to give them a taste of the value you can provide, which sets the stage for a broader, more impactful adoption down the line. Fundraising & Financial Management Leverage PR to generate inbound interest from VCs When it comes to fundraising, our approach was fairly traditional—we reached out to VCs and used connections from existing investors to make introductions. However, looking back, one thing that really helped us build momentum during our fundraising process was getting featured in Tech in Asia. This wasn’t planned; it just so happened that Tech in Asia was doing a series on AI startups in Southeast Asia and they reached out to us for an article. During the interview, they asked if we were fundraising, and we mentioned that we were. As a result, several VCs we hadn’t yet contacted reached out to us. This inbound interest was incredibly valuable, and we found it far more effective than our outbound efforts. So, if you can, try to generate some PR attention—it can help create inbound interest from VCs, and that interest is typically much stronger and more promising than any outbound strategies because they've gone out of their way to reach out to you. Be well-prepared and deliberate about fundraising. Keep trying and don't lose heart When pitching to VCs, it’s crucial to be thoroughly prepared, as you typically only get one shot at making an impression. If you mess up, it’s unlikely they’ll give you a second chance. You need to have key metrics at your fingertips, especially if you're running a SaaS company. Be ready to answer questions like: What’s your retention rate? What are your projections for the year? How much will you close? What’s your average contract value? These numbers should be at the top of your mind. Additionally, fundraising should be treated as a structured process, not something you do on the side while juggling other tasks. When you start, create a clear plan: identify 20 VCs to reach out to each week. By planning ahead, you’ll maintain momentum and speed up the process. Fundraising can be exhausting and disheartening, especially when you face multiple rejections. Remember, you just need one investor to say yes to make it all worthwhile. When using funds, prioritise profitability and grow only when necessary. Don't rely on funding to survive. In the past, the common advice for startups was to raise money, burn through it quickly, and use it to boost revenue numbers, even if that meant operating at a loss. The idea was that profitability wasn’t the main focus, and the goal was to show rapid growth for the next funding round. However, times have changed, especially with the shift from “funding summer” to “funding winter.” My advice now is to aim for profitability as soon as possible and grow only when it's truly needed. For example, it’s tempting to hire a large team when you have substantial funds in the bank, but ask yourself: Do you really need 10 new hires, or could you get by with just four? Growing too quickly can lead to unnecessary expenses, so focus on reaching profitability as soon as possible, rather than just inflating your team or burn rate. The key takeaway is to spend your funds wisely and only when absolutely necessary to reach profitability. You want to avoid becoming dependent on future VC investments to keep your company afloat. Instead, prioritize reaching break-even as quickly as you can, so you're not reliant on external funding to survive in the long run. Team-Building & Leadership Look for complementary skill sets in co-founders When choosing a co-founder, it’s important to find someone with a complementary skill set, not just someone you’re close to. For example, I come from a business and commercial background, so I needed someone with technical expertise. That’s when I found my co-founder, Himanshu, who had experience in machine learning and AI. He was a great match because his technical knowledge complemented my business skills, and together we formed a strong team. It might seem natural to choose your best friend as your co-founder, but this can often lead to conflict. Chances are, you and your best friend share similar interests, skills, and backgrounds, which doesn’t bring diversity to the table. If both of you come from the same industry or have the same strengths, you may end up butting heads on how things should be done. Having diverse skill sets helps avoid this and fosters a more collaborative working relationship. Himanshu (left) and Somsubhra (right) co-founded AI Palette in 2018 Define roles clearly to prevent co-founder conflict To avoid conflict, it’s essential that your roles as co-founders are clearly defined from the beginning. If your co-founder and you have distinct responsibilities, there is no room for overlap or disagreement. This ensures that both of you can work without stepping on each other's toes, and there’s mutual respect for each other’s expertise. This is another reason as to why it helps to have a co-founder with a complementary skillset to yours. Not only is having similar industry backgrounds and skillsets not particularly useful when building out your startup, it's also more likely to lead to conflicts since you both have similar subject expertise. On the other hand, if your co-founder is an expert in something that you're not, you're less likely to argue with them about their decisions regarding that aspect of the business and vice versa when it comes to your decisions. Look for employees who are driven by your mission, not salary For early-stage startups, the first hires are crucial. These employees need to be highly motivated and excited about the mission. Since the salary will likely be low and the work demanding, they must be driven by something beyond just the paycheck. The right employees are the swash-buckling pirates and romantics, i.e those who are genuinely passionate about the startup’s vision and want to be part of something impactful beyond material gains. When employees are motivated by the mission, they are more likely to stick around and help take the startup to greater heights. A litmus test for hiring: Would you be excited to work with them on a Sunday? One of the most important rounds in the hiring process is the culture fit round. This is where you assess whether a candidate shares the same values as you and your team. A key question to ask yourself is: "Would I be excited to work with this person on a Sunday?" If there’s any doubt about your answer, it’s likely not a good fit. The idea is that you want employees who align with the company's culture and values and who you would enjoy collaborating with even outside of regular work hours. How we structure the team at AI Palette We have three broad functions in our organization. The first two are the big ones: Technical Team – This is the core of our product and technology. This team is responsible for product development and incorporating customer feedback into improving the technology Commercial Team – This includes sales, marketing, customer service, account managers, and so on, handling everything related to business growth and customer relations. General and Administrative Team – This smaller team supports functions like finance, HR, and administration. As with almost all businesses, we have teams that address the two core tasks of building (technical team) and selling (commercial team), but given the size we're at now, having the administrative team helps smoothen operations. Set broad goals but let your teams decide on execution What I've done is recruit highly skilled people who don't need me to micromanage them on a day-to-day basis. They're experts in their roles, and as Steve Jobs said, when you hire the right person, you don't have to tell them what to do—they understand the purpose and tell you what to do. So, my job as the CEO is to set the broader goals for them, review the plans they have to achieve those goals, and periodically check in on progress. For example, if our broad goal is to meet a certain revenue target, I break it down across teams: For the sales team, I’ll look at how they plan to hit that target—how many customers they need to sell to, how many salespeople they need, and what tactics and strategies they plan to use. For the technical team, I’ll evaluate our product offerings—whether they think we need to build new products to attract more customers, and whether they think it's scalable for the number of customers we plan to serve. This way, the entire organization's tasks are cascaded in alignment with our overarching goals, with me setting the direction and leaving the details of execution to the skilled team members that I hire.

Billion Dollar industries beyond the shiny objects

this isn’t targeted towards anyone so keep reading or don’t… idc beyond the AI hype, the not so complex industries/solutions (whatever that might be), and the need to work on shiny objects, lay great opportunities for massive businesses. I have worked in manufacturing as an engineer and encountered many problems that can be solved with technology. I have investigated opportunities within supply chain, healthcare, defense, and pharmacy management. From my conclusions, there’s definitely great opportunities for the ones who are willing to deliver solutions to the deep rooted problems within these industries. to give an example, there’s a major demand for skilled machinists within all sectors manufacturing. At my previous job, we had about 12 machinists running 12 machines. Imagine the cost associated with that. Now imagine automation reducing the number of machinists needed by automating some of the tasks. Imagine if you could predict drug shortages using pharmacy data? Imagine if you could increase visibility within the supply chain by leveraging data, determined bottlenecks, and reduced costs? too many smart people seem to be working on things that do not deliver much value. Seriously, how many damn AI assistants do we need? Go beyond the shiny objects and dig for the gold.

I will not promote. I am looking for a collaborator to develop an AI agent.

Hi, I got an Idea and I am looking for someone to collaborate to develop an MVP. I am from Algeria (North Africa), I recently graduated from a university abroad. During my years of study a lot of people (mainly from non-western countries) reached out to me for helping them gather information about enrolling to universities. I helped a lot of the students, and a lot of them were available to pay me for it. There is a huge market for people from non-western countries wanting to study in western countries, and people in my country are available to pay 500 dollars for just getting the chance to get an admission and a visa to study aborad. We are talking generally about sons of rich dads who are lazy or lack information to do the procedure. The procedure to get enrolled is pretty repetitive, meaning that it can be replicated, and generally the universities ask for the same documents, with slightly different requirements. Based on this, I was thinking: Why not automating this? I already have a network of people that can test whatever this AI agent will look like. Now I am in a state in which I need a tech person (I am a techie too) to collaborate. I am serious, and I have personal savings that can be used for tech tools and frameworks to develop an MVP.

I just had the best idea for a startup! Wait… no… 10 ideas!

LLM wrappers on existing saas tools integrate everything all-in-one AI agent founder/mentorship/indiehacker tools piece of marketing (positioned as SaaS) coding tools for your coding tools AI automation to job hunt faster Sales faster, with … AI track all your things in one app, with Ai build a site in seconds… AI + webflow AI driven templates for your AI workflow Seriously that’s all this sub is bye 👋

Seeking advice from every type of business owner - if you have a moment & an opinion please chime in.

Hello everyone. I haven't started selling yet and wanted to get some insight from the community I'm trying to serve (that makes the most sense to me). So over the past couple months I've gotten into AI & Automation. I got a HighLevel account and went to town learning new things. I learned how to make automations and workflows that make running a business easier (my dad has been letting me use his concrete business as a guinea pig). I also learned how to build and train AI Chat Assistants. I want to start a service based business that uses AI & workflows to automate some of the customer service tasks & lead generation for business. What I'm seeking advice about are as follows: NICHE SELECTION: Part of me thinks I shouldn't niche down in the beginning and just take whoever comes and niche down once I find an industry I'm comfortable with. Another side thinks I should choose one. What is your opinion on niche selection in the beginning? PRICING: I know that pricing largely depends on the value I bring to the client, but I've seen people doing the same or similar things as I want to do and charging vastly different prices. From $300- $2,000. While I think these solutions could absolutely help companies get and retain new business and reduce some of the workload of their staff -- I'm not comfortable charging a high price until I've got enough experience and data to justify that. ​ THESE ARE THE SERVICES I'M THINKING OF OFFERING: Customer Service Chat Assistant. This will be on the website as a "Live Chat". It also connects to Facebook Messenger & Google Business Chat. I'd train the chat assistant on everything related to the company; pertinent info (NAP, company mission, industry background), contact info, services / products / pricing, FAQs, current specials &/or discount codes (this can be changed monthly), how to handle upset clients, etc. It can also connect to a calendar like Google or Calendly so customers can make an appointment or schedule a call directly from the conversation. Missed Call Follow Up. If you're familiar with the platform HighLevel it's commonly called "Missed Call Text Back". The idea is that when a call is missed a text message is automatically fired to the prospect's phone saying something along the lines of "Hey this is \\\\\\ from \\\\\\\_. How can I help you?" and the business owner is alerted to the missed call via text notification. People have said they see a lot of success for their clients with this alone due to the instant follow up. I see a lot of people charging $300 /m. for this. My issues with this are: 1). The text fires automatically when the call is missed, but if the business owner isn't available to actually follow up and keep texting after the customer texts back, they will look inconsistent and bothersome. 2). Without context a prospect may wonder why you didn't answer when they called, but texted them instead. So my answer to these problems are #3. SMS Answering Service. It is essentially taking 2 + 1 and combining them. The missed call text goes out to the prospect, but with context on why they're being texted (because no one is available to take the call at the moment) and IF the prospect responds, a Customer Service Chat Assistant will take over the conversation with the goal of answering their questions and either getting them on the phone with the company via a call back OR helping them schedule an appointment. This offers a more consistent solution than just a text to the business owner / team & the prospect is contacted and helped (hopefully) before they have a chance to start calling a competitor. Lead Nurture / Lead Qualifying Sales Funnel. This one is more than just AI & automation. It's a full funnel. It can be for either Facebook or Google. The process is AD -> Landing Page -> AI Text Message Convo -> Booking/Schedule Call/ Appointment. Typically the ad will offer a lead magnet which they will claim on the LP by giving their information. After the form is submitted, they get a text message and begin a conversation with the AI. It can be trained to just walk them through a booking process, nurture a sale by answering questions and handling objections or to qualify leads. Lead qualification via text works well if you want to weed out who is serious versus who is curious. To be clear; I'd be making the ad, landing page & training the AI -- all parts of the funnel. For whichever service a few things are universal: \- All conversations; no matter what platform they're had on, all go to one inbox which is pretty helpful to see them all in one place. \- When scheduling / booking these can also collect payment. \- Tags can be added to keep track of how they came into the business and where they are in a sales pipeline. There are a lot of fun things I can do with these automations and I'm excited about learning more everyday. I'd really like to know what you think these services could be worth to a business. If you do reply please tell me what type of business you're in so I have an idea of what industries I should be looking towards. Thank you for any response I get as I know this was a long read! SN: I currently do digital marketing & web design as a freelancer.

Struggling with Emotions Automating Jobs

Hey everyone, I run a small logistics company alongside my father that I recently began taking a more active role in. Many of the \~50 employees are quite behind on the tech side of things and therefore are lacking serious productivity, lots of pen and paper still. As part of my efforts to streamline things I worked with an automation/ai company that took a look at our processes and helped us implement some new tech, however I’m struggling emotionally with the outcome. ​ Unfortunately we no longer need several of our staff anymore, particularly those that handled tasks like our data entry, text customer service, invoicing, and dispatchers. It’s never fun letting anyone go, but I’m worried about some of the implications for our culture and other employees… ​ In a perfect world I’d love to keep these 4-5 full-time staff members on the team and train them to do other roles, but frankly after calculating it out and running the numbers we’re better off just reducing staff and taking the significant cost savings for now, and reallocating resources. ​ My question: How to toe this delicate line to do right by our staff that we respect and care about, while also keeping our business up to date with modern tech? I am leaning towards generous exit packages and providing support helping them find new jobs, but still don’t quite feel right.

My clients are obsessed with AI and it's driving me nuts – are there any actually useful AI tools for service businesses?

I have a roster of a few home service companies (plumbers, roofers, landscapers, etc.) that I do freelance marketing for. Lately, the owners I work with have developed a serious case of AI shiny object syndrome. They’re bombarding me with links to scammy IG ads for “game-changing” AI tools they think will save their businesses overnight. Even talking about replacing their CSRs with "virtual agents". This will obviously lead to some terrible customer experiences, but all they can see is dollar signs at the prospect of laying off that part of their labor force. If I keep pushing back and pointing out how short sighted some of these ideas are, they’ll eventually find someone else that will implement them. So, I’m trying to get out in front of this a little bit and find any AI tools that don’t suck—something I can pitch back to them that’s actually useful and not just a fancy new way to ruin their customer experience. Then when they brag to their other buddies in the trades about how "cutting edge" their business is, it will be in part because of me, not in spite of me. Any suggestions for AI tools that: Help small service businesses without completely alienating their customers? Automate repetitive tasks in a way that doesn’t scream “this was done by a robot”? Aren’t just some scammy overpriced subscription service with a flashy demo? If you’ve actually used something that works, I’d love to hear about it. Honestly, the bar is low. Just help me stop these guys from accidentally burning their businesses down with bad AI ideas.

How To Build An AI-Driven Business That Doesn't Suck In 2024 (My Take).

Hi everyone, this is for those of you wanting a full run through of the formula that scaled our business to around the $100,000 /m mark in less than 18 months. Why am I doing this? Since we started hitting the larger numbers I've been given considerable time back in my day as we elevate ourselves out of scrappy start-up land and have hired a full team. I've always wanted to take this time and pour it into educating others that are following the same path. There's nothing I've loved more in life (at the ripe age of 28) than connecting with other entrepreneurs that are obsessed with the game. Firstly, I want to tell you that this is absolutely possible. The main traits you need are: ➡️ Resilience to work hard around your normal life. ➡️ The willingness to put yourself outside of your comfort zone. ➡️ The awareness to place yourself in a fast-growing market with a great offering. Secondly, I want to tell you that you are probably structuring your day and your approach wrong. Here's why: ➡️ Your operations are the back-bone of your business. When correctly organised you should be in a pattern of understanding a new task, systemising it then automating it. If you do this you will build your business like you would build a lego house. ➡️ You should be setting goals that filter down into daily actions, that are being recorded and tracked so you can improve weekly. ➡️ You should start to get a good grip of cloud software like Hubspot, Trello, Notion & Slack for the various levers you need to pull inside your business. I'm seriously passionate about this and I've recorded my first Youtube video that breaks down our entire front-end and back-end funnel for our business - if you're looking for some no-nonsense education I'd equally love some feedback. You can check out the video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Mq9Xu9EK8 Apart from that, please ask me anything. I'm the Managing Director of doja, a team of 9 based in the UK with a team of 5 offshore. I'd love to connect with other entrepreneurs either ahead of me or following a similar path. I can answer questions on Strategy, R&D, Product, Marketing, Lead Generation, Business Development, Commerical, Onboard & Delivery funnels, as well as extensive knowledge about what's breaking through with the latest technology for small businesses.

Seeking advice from every type of business owner - if you have a moment & an opinion please chime in.

Hello everyone. I haven't started selling yet and wanted to get some insight from the community I'm trying to serve (that makes the most sense to me). So over the past couple months I've gotten into AI & Automation. I got a HighLevel account and went to town learning new things. I learned how to make automations and workflows that make running a business easier (my dad has been letting me use his concrete business as a guinea pig). I also learned how to build and train AI Chat Assistants. I want to start a service based business that uses AI & workflows to automate some of the customer service tasks & lead generation for business. What I'm seeking advice about are as follows: NICHE SELECTION: Part of me thinks I shouldn't niche down in the beginning and just take whoever comes and niche down once I find an industry I'm comfortable with. Another side thinks I should choose one. What is your opinion on niche selection in the beginning? PRICING: I know that pricing largely depends on the value I bring to the client, but I've seen people doing the same or similar things as I want to do and charging vastly different prices. From $300- $2,000. While I think these solutions could absolutely help companies get and retain new business and reduce some of the workload of their staff -- I'm not comfortable charging a high price until I've got enough experience and data to justify that. ​ THESE ARE THE SERVICES I'M THINKING OF OFFERING: Customer Service Chat Assistant. This will be on the website as a "Live Chat". It also connects to Facebook Messenger & Google Business Chat. I'd train the chat assistant on everything related to the company; pertinent info (NAP, company mission, industry background), contact info, services / products / pricing, FAQs, current specials &/or discount codes (this can be changed monthly), how to handle upset clients, etc. It can also connect to a calendar like Google or Calendly so customers can make an appointment or schedule a call directly from the conversation. Missed Call Follow Up. If you're familiar with the platform HighLevel it's commonly called "Missed Call Text Back". The idea is that when a call is missed a text message is automatically fired to the prospect's phone saying something along the lines of "Hey this is \\\\\\ from \\\\\\\_. How can I help you?" and the business owner is alerted to the missed call via text notification. People have said they see a lot of success for their clients with this alone due to the instant follow up. I see a lot of people charging $300 /m. for this. My issues with this are: 1). The text fires automatically when the call is missed, but if the business owner isn't available to actually follow up and keep texting after the customer texts back, they will look inconsistent and bothersome. 2). Without context a prospect may wonder why you didn't answer when they called, but texted them instead. So my answer to these problems are #3. SMS Answering Service. It is essentially taking 2 + 1 and combining them. The missed call text goes out to the prospect, but with context on why they're being texted (because no one is available to take the call at the moment) and IF the prospect responds, a Customer Service Chat Assistant will take over the conversation with the goal of answering their questions and either getting them on the phone with the company via a call back OR helping them schedule an appointment. This offers a more consistent solution than just a text to the business owner / team & the prospect is contacted and helped (hopefully) before they have a chance to start calling a competitor. Lead Nurture / Lead Qualifying Sales Funnel. This one is more than just AI & automation. It's a full funnel. It can be for either Facebook or Google. The process is AD -> Landing Page -> AI Text Message Convo -> Booking/Schedule Call/ Appointment. Typically the ad will offer a lead magnet which they will claim on the LP by giving their information. After the form is submitted, they get a text message and begin a conversation with the AI. It can be trained to just walk them through a booking process, nurture a sale by answering questions and handling objections or to qualify leads. Lead qualification via text works well if you want to weed out who is serious versus who is curious. To be clear; I'd be making the ad, landing page & training the AI -- all parts of the funnel. For whichever service a few things are universal: \- All conversations; no matter what platform they're had on, all go to one inbox which is pretty helpful to see them all in one place. \- When scheduling / booking these can also collect payment. \- Tags can be added to keep track of how they came into the business and where they are in a sales pipeline. There are a lot of fun things I can do with these automations and I'm excited about learning more everyday. I'd really like to know what you think these services could be worth to a business. If you do reply please tell me what type of business you're in so I have an idea of what industries I should be looking towards. Thank you for any response I get as I know this was a long read! SN: I currently do digital marketing & web design as a freelancer.

My clients are obsessed with AI and it's driving me nuts – are there any actually useful AI tools for service businesses?

I have a roster of a few home service companies (plumbers, roofers, landscapers, etc.) that I do freelance marketing for. Lately, the owners I work with have developed a serious case of AI shiny object syndrome. They’re bombarding me with links to scammy IG ads for “game-changing” AI tools they think will save their businesses overnight. Even talking about replacing their CSRs with "virtual agents". This will obviously lead to some terrible customer experiences, but all they can see is dollar signs at the prospect of laying off that part of their labor force. If I keep pushing back and pointing out how short sighted some of these ideas are, they’ll eventually find someone else that will implement them. So, I’m trying to get out in front of this a little bit and find any AI tools that don’t suck—something I can pitch back to them that’s actually useful and not just a fancy new way to ruin their customer experience. Then when they brag to their other buddies in the trades about how "cutting edge" their business is, it will be in part because of me, not in spite of me. Any suggestions for AI tools that: Help small service businesses without completely alienating their customers? Automate repetitive tasks in a way that doesn’t scream “this was done by a robot”? Aren’t just some scammy overpriced subscription service with a flashy demo? If you’ve actually used something that works, I’d love to hear about it. Honestly, the bar is low. Just help me stop these guys from accidentally burning their businesses down with bad AI ideas.

My clients are obsessed with AI and it's driving me nuts – are there any actually useful AI tools for service businesses?

I have a roster of a few home service companies (plumbers, roofers, landscapers, etc.) that I do freelance marketing for. Lately, the owners I work with have developed a serious case of AI shiny object syndrome. They’re bombarding me with links to scammy IG ads for “game-changing” AI tools they think will save their businesses overnight. Even talking about replacing their CSRs with "virtual agents". This will obviously lead to some terrible customer experiences, but all they can see is dollar signs at the prospect of laying off that part of their labor force. If I keep pushing back and pointing out how short sighted some of these ideas are, they’ll eventually find someone else that will implement them. So, I’m trying to get out in front of this a little bit and find any AI tools that don’t suck—something I can pitch back to them that’s actually useful and not just a fancy new way to ruin their customer experience. Then when they brag to their other buddies in the trades about how "cutting edge" their business is, it will be in part because of me, not in spite of me. Any suggestions for AI tools that: Help small service businesses without completely alienating their customers? Automate repetitive tasks in a way that doesn’t scream “this was done by a robot”? Aren’t just some scammy overpriced subscription service with a flashy demo? If you’ve actually used something that works, I’d love to hear about it. Honestly, the bar is low. Just help me stop these guys from accidentally burning their businesses down with bad AI ideas.

My clients are obsessed with AI and it's driving me nuts – are there any actually useful AI tools for service businesses?

I have a roster of a few home service companies (plumbers, roofers, landscapers, etc.) that I do freelance marketing for. Lately, the owners I work with have developed a serious case of AI shiny object syndrome. They’re bombarding me with links to scammy IG ads for “game-changing” AI tools they think will save their businesses overnight. Even talking about replacing their CSRs with "virtual agents". This will obviously lead to some terrible customer experiences, but all they can see is dollar signs at the prospect of laying off that part of their labor force. If I keep pushing back and pointing out how short sighted some of these ideas are, they’ll eventually find someone else that will implement them. So, I’m trying to get out in front of this a little bit and find any AI tools that don’t suck—something I can pitch back to them that’s actually useful and not just a fancy new way to ruin their customer experience. Then when they brag to their other buddies in the trades about how "cutting edge" their business is, it will be in part because of me, not in spite of me. Any suggestions for AI tools that: Help small service businesses without completely alienating their customers? Automate repetitive tasks in a way that doesn’t scream “this was done by a robot”? Aren’t just some scammy overpriced subscription service with a flashy demo? If you’ve actually used something that works, I’d love to hear about it. Honestly, the bar is low. Just help me stop these guys from accidentally burning their businesses down with bad AI ideas.

My Manager Thinks ML Projects Takes 5 Minutes 🤦‍♀️

Hey, everyone! I’ve got to vent a bit because work has been something else lately. I’m a BI analyst at a bank, and I’m pretty much the only one dealing with machine learning and AI stuff. The rest of my team handles SQL and reporting—no Python, no R, no ML knowledge AT ALL. You could say I’m the only one handling data science stuff So, after I did a Python project for retail, my boss suddenly decided I’m the go-to for all things ML. Since then, I’ve been getting all the ML projects dumped on me (yay?), but here’s the kicker: my manager, who knows nothing about ML, acts like he’s some kind of expert. He keeps making suggestions that make zero sense and setting unrealistic deadlines. I swear, it’s like he read one article and thinks he’s cracked the code. And the best part? Whenever I finish a project, he’s all “we completed this” and “we came up with these insights.” Ummm, excuse me? We? I must’ve missed all those late-night coding sessions you didn’t show up for. The higher-ups know it’s my work and give me credit, but my manager just can’t help himself. Last week, he set a ridiculous deadline of 10 days for a super complex ML project. TEN DAYS! Like, does he even know that data preprocessing alone can take weeks? I’m talking about cleaning up messy datasets, handling missing values, feature engineering, and then model tuning. And that’s before even thinking about building the model! The actual model development is like the tip of the iceberg. But I just nodded and smiled because I was too exhausted to argue. 🤷‍♀️ And then, this one time, they didn’t even invite me to a meeting where they were presenting my work! The assistant manager came to me last minute, like, “Hey, can you explain these evaluation metrics to me so I can present them to the heads?” I was like, excuse me, what? Why not just invite me to the meeting to present my own work? But nooo, they wanted to play charades on me So, I gave the most complicated explanation ever, threw in all the jargon just to mess with him. He came back 10 minutes later, all flustered, and was like, “Yeah, you should probably do the presentation.” I just smiled and said, “I know… data science isn’t for everyone.” Anyway, they called me in at the last minute, and of course, I nailed it because I know my stuff. But seriously, the nerve of not including me in the first place and expecting me to swoop in like some kind of superhero. I mean, at least give me a cape if I’m going to keep saving the day! 🤦‍♀️ Honestly, I don’t know how much longer I can keep this up. I love the work, but dealing with someone who thinks they’re an ML guru when they can barely spell Python is just draining. I have built like some sort of defense mechanism to hit them with all the jargon and watch their eyes glaze over How do you deal with a manager who takes credit for your work and sets impossible deadlines? Should I keep pushing back or just let it go and keep my head down? Any advice! TL;DR: My manager thinks ML projects are plug-and-play, takes credit for my work, and expects me to clean and process data, build models, and deliver results in 10 days. How do I deal with this without snapping? #WorkDrama

[Help Needed] Developing an AI to Play Mini Metro – Struggling with Data Extraction & Strategy method

Hello everyone ! First of all, please excuse my English if i do mistakes, as it is not my native language and I am not necessarily comfortable with it :) Regarding this project, I will explain my initial intention. I know very little about coding, but I enjoy it and have had some Python lessons, along with a few small personal projects for fun, mostly using YouTube tutorials. Nothing too advanced... However, now I want to take it to the next level. Since I have some familiarity with coding, I’ve wanted to work on artificial intelligence for a while. I have never coded AI myself, but I enjoy downloading existing projects (for chess, checkers, cat-and-mouse games, etc.), testing their limits, and understanding how they work. One of my favorite strategy game genres is management games, especially Mini Metro. Given its relatively simple mechanics, I assumed there would already be AI projects for it. But to my surprise, I could only find mods that add maps ! I admit that I am neither the best nor the most patient researcher, so I haven’t spent hours searching, but the apparent lack of projects for this game struck me. Maybe the community is just small ? I haven't looked deeply into it. So, I got it into my head to create my own AI. After all, everything is on the internet, and perseverance is key ! However, perseverance alone is not enough when you are not particularly experienced, so I am turning to the community to find knowledgeable people who can help me. The First Obstacle: Getting Game Data I quickly realized that the biggest challenge is that Mini Metro does not have an accessible API (at least, not one I could find). This means I cannot easily extract game data. My initial idea was to have an AI analyze the game, think about the best move, and then write out the actions to be performed, instead of coding a bot that directly manipulates the game. But first, I needed a way to retrieve and store game data. Attempt #1: Image Recognition (Failed) Since there was no API, I tried using image recognition to gather game data. Unfortunately, it was a disaster. I used mss for screenshots ,Tesseract for OCR, andNumPy to manipulate images in the HSV color space but it produced unreliable results : It detected many false positives (labeling empty spaces as stations) It failed to consistently detect numbers (scores or resources like trains and lines) Dotted bridge indicators over rivers were misinterpreted as stations While I could detect stations, lines, and moving trains, the data was chaotic and unreliable Attempt #2: Manual Data Entry (Partially Successful but Impractical) Since image recognition was unreliable, I decided to manually update the game data in real-time. I created a script that : Displays an overlay when I press Shift+R. Allows me to manually input stations, lines, and other game elements. Saves the current state when I press Shift+R again, so I can resume playing. Implements a simple resource management system (trains, lines, etc.). This works better than image recognition because I control the input, but I’m running into serious limitations : Some game mechanics are hard to implement manually (adding a station in the middle of a line, extending the correct line when two lines overlap at a station) Keeping track of station demands (the shapes passengers want to travel to) becomes overwhelming as the game progresses Updating the score in real-time is practically impossible manually, and the score is essential for training an AI (for my reward systems) My Dilemma At this point, I am unsure of how to proceed. My questions for the community : Am I going in the right direction? Should I continue improving my manual tracking system or is it a dead end? Should I have persevered with image recognition instead? Is there a better way to extract game data that I haven’t thought of? I would appreciate any guidance or ideas. Thanks in advance ! if you need more info, i have posted my codes here : https://github.com/Dmsday/mini\metro\data\analyzer (for the image detection version I'm not sure that it's the latest version aka the most "functional" version that I could do because I think I deleted it out of boredom...)

Advice Needed

Hey everyone, I’ve been diving into Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning recently, but I find myself a little confused about how to approach the learning process effectively. My goal isn’t just to secure a job but to actually build cool AI products or startups—something innovative and impactful, like what companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, or ElevenLabs are doing. I often see founders or engineers building incredible AI-driven startups, and I can’t help but wonder: • What kind of learning path did these people follow? • Surely they didn’t just stick to basic Udemy or YouTube courses that most people use for job prep. • What resources or approaches do serious AI practitioners use? I’ve heard that implementing research papers is a great way to gain a deep, intuitive understanding of AI concepts. But as someone who is still a beginner, I’m unsure how to start implementing papers without feeling overwhelmed. Here’s what I’m hoping to get clarity on: Where should I begin as a complete beginner? What resources, projects, or habits would you recommend to build solid fundamentals in AI/ML? How do I progress from beginner to a level where I can implement research papers? Are there intermediate steps I need to take before diving into papers? What would the ideal roadmap look like for someone who wants to build startups in AI? If you’re an AI practitioner, researcher, or startup founder, I’d love to hear about your experiences and learning pathways. What worked for you? What didn’t? Any advice or resources would be immensely appreciated. I’m ready to put in the hard work, I just want to make sure I’m moving in the right direction. Thanks in advance! Looking forward to learning from this community.

GPT Weekly - 19the June Edition - OpenAI's function calling, Meta's free LLM, EU Regulation and more.

This is a recap covering the major news from last week. 🔥Top 3 news - OpenAI’s updates, Meta’s upcoming free LLM and EU Regulation 🗞️Interesting reads include PSA about protecting your keys, The GPT ouroboros, Reddit - OpenAI’s moat, and more.. 🧑‍🎓Learning includes a Step-by-step guide from a non-technical founder who launched his MVP, Chatbot for your Gdrive and more 🔥Top 3 AI news in the past week OpenAI: New Pricing, Models, & Functions OpenAI has been on a roll. Last week we saw the release of OpenAI best practice on using GPT. This week we saw some amazing updates. Three major buckets were: First, the price decreases for both embeddings and GPT-3.5 tokens. Second, new models for gpt-4 and gpt-3.5. A new longer context model for gpt-3.5. Third, a new function calling capability. Why is it important? Previously, the output from OpenAI was all text. So, calling an external API from GPT was quite difficult. You had to parse the text data and things were often incorrect. Langchain created the Agents and Tools feature to tackle this problem. It was still unreliable and prone to issues. Now you get native support to generate a fixed format output. You can use the output to generate functional calls and also pass functions which need to be called. For example, if your app has multiple API endpoints then you can use GPT to generate the API calls with parameters. You can also pass the endpoints as function calls to ensure the correct function is executed. This functionality can further be used to generate structured data (JSON) out of GPT. So, you can generate data from GPT and load it into your backend. What’s next? This functionality allows turning natural language responses into structured data. This can be used to create “intelligent” backends using LLMs. We might see implementations in no-code tools to allow more robust and natural-language tools for non-technical folks. The structured data process goes both ways. You can also feed structured data into GPT for better responses. This feature also has its share of issues. Function calling suffers from the same prompt injection issues. Malicious actors can pass malicious code in function or the responses. For example, creation of queries using functions might contain malicious code to delete data. Without proper user validation this code will be executed automatically and delete data. So, using LLM as the back-end layer needs proper security implementation. Meta's LLM: Commercial Use Ahead Llama has been a boon for the open source community. Many of the open source models rely on Llama. The issue is that Llama is research-only and cannot be used commercially. So, no one can use it to build any product. Meta is now working on the next version of the model. This model will be available for commercial use. This is in stark contrast to both OpenAI and Google. Both safe-guarde their models and make it available through API. Why is it important? Certain industries cannot use LLM APIs because of strict restrictions on data privacy. These companies would want to run their own instance of a foundational model. A commercially available foundational model is also going to help people who want to keep their “API call” costs next to 0. A commercially available free-for-all model will also help push the open source community further. Just like Llama. What’s next? Sam Altman has said OpenAI didn’t release GPT-3 as open-source because they didn’t think people would be able to run it. Now OpenAI is working on an open-source model. This is going to be weaker than GPT-4. Let the battle of LLMs begin. EU's Proposed Legislation and Its Impact on AI Usage The EU parliament voted to move ahead with the E.U. AI Act. This act aims to ensure consumer protection against the dangers of AI. Why is it important? OpenAI and Sam Altman want regulations for models. They have proposed a IAEA-type of agency to stop the proliferation of LLM models. As per OpenAI, all models should be regulated and monitored. The suggestion of a license based regulation has led to significant backlash. Many people have called it “regulatory capture” - with the aim of shutting down competing LLMs. Licensing based regulations might not really be effective. The EU is approaching regulation from a different angle. It doesn’t focus on how models are developed. Rather focuses on how AI will/can be used. They have broken down use cases into 4 categories - unacceptable (prohibited), high, medium and low risk. For example, Building a Pre-Crime software,on%20crimes%20not%20yet%20committed.) to predict crimes? Building a Social credit system? Unacceptable. Using tools to influence elections or recommendation algorithms? High (Highly regulated). Using generative AI tools to create text or images on news sites? Medium (Add label that the content is AI generated) AI providers also need to disclose their training source. To me this sounds like good legislation. What do you guys think? But, OpenAI has warned that EU regulations might force them to pull out completely. What’s next? The disclosure requirements might help various publishing companies. AI and media companies are in talks to pay for training data. Google has been leading the charge. Additionally, OpenAI and Deepmind will open their models for safety and research purposes to the UK government. 🗞️10 AI news highlights and interesting reads PSA: If you are using Repl to write code, you might want to check your OpenAI API keys. If you have left them embedded then people can pirate and steal the keys. LLMs rely on human annotation or human feedback to learn. And one way to generate human annotation is crowdsourcing. But what if the crowdsource human annotators use LLMs? Research shows 33-46% workers used LLMs. So, basically we go from Human -> AI -> Human -> AI. The AI ouroboros. Researchers also say generated data to train models might cause serious issue. All the talks about moats \- Reddit might be OpenAI’s \future\ moat. Given the amount of complaints about how Google search experience has deteriorated during the blackout, this might be true? Doctors are using ChatGPT but not to diagnose.Rather to be more empathetic. We discussed this just a month ago. And guess where the data for this study came from? Reddit AskDocs. Moat FTW?! Beatles to make a comeback…using Generative AI. SnapFusion - Text to Image diffusion on mobile phones. Large context lengths are important for better GPT experience. The secret sauce for 100k context length. There is a lot of bad AI research out there. Some border on snake oil. Most AI “research” should be double checked and challenged. A new research on huggingface said that GPT-4 can ace MIT curriculum. Now someone is replicating the results and say that GPT-4 can’t beat MIT. Are we seeing peak AI? Especially when people from Deepmind and Meta are involved? Mistral AI raised $113 million in seed round with no product. Some might say this funding is for the team and the team is really solid. The issue though is whether the valuation is justified when OpenAI and Google already have a head start. The AI Hype Wall of Shame. \- Collection of articles which mislead people about AI in various aspects. 🧑‍🎓3 Learning Resources Building and Launching a company using GPT-4 with prompts. (The author didn’t know how to code but created and launched the MVP in a month). Chatbot for your Gdrive - https://www.haihai.ai/gpt-gdrive/ Building ChatGPT plugin using Supabase - https://supabase.com/blog/building-chatgpt-plugins-template That’s it folks. Thank you for reading and have a great week ahead. If you are interested in a focused weekly recap delivered to your inbox on Mondays you can subscribe here. It is FREE!

Here is an interesting article on the potential future risks of AI to humanity.

"There is a tremendous amount of enthusiasm in the media surrounding the topic of AI, and for good reason.  This exciting new technology has the potential to automate almost every boring, repetitive task in our lives.  It also offers exciting new opportunities to tap into new businesses, solve difficult problems with ease, and even offer new outlets for creative expression. What often does not get equal play in these discussions are the potential dangers of AI to humanity associated with this new technology.  Every new technology comes with risks that must be addressed, and it often takes a meltdown before safety concerns are taken seriously.  Often, those raising concerns are labeled as “chicken little” or a Johnny Raincloud spreading fud and dismissed or ignored.  This is common when the potential of the opportunities is so exciting. As I always say, emotion clouds the mind, and when optimism and enthusiasm run high, if we are honest, we often find a way to bring ourselves to believe what we want to believe.  All errors have consequences, for example, the risks associated with falling for a get-rich-quick scam may have consequences for an individual. However, consequences increase with the number of people that a mistake affects. With more powerful technology comes more power for good, but also a greater potential for great harm. In this article, I will attempt to balance out some of the enthusiasm and excitement with a healthy amount of caution.  I hope that the public will not just be swept away by the excitement of another new technology.  Rather, I hope that the public will demand responsibility, accountability, and regulation of this technology, before any AI version of Chornobyl, or worse, consigning the planet to a hellish dystopian hellscape reminiscent of post-apocalyptic sci-fi movies." https://ai-solutions.pro/dangers-and-risks-of-ai-to-humanity/

How me and my team made 15+ apps and not made a single sale in 2023

Hey, my name is Michael, I am in Auckland NZ. This year was the official beginning of my adult life. I graduated from university and started a full-time job. I’ve also really dug into indiehacking/bootstrapping and started 15 projects (and it will be at least 17 before the year ends). I think I’ve learned a lot but I consciously repeated mistakes. Upto (Nov) Discord Statuses + Your Location + Facebook Poke https://preview.redd.it/4nqt7tp2tf5c1.png?width=572&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0223484bc54b45b5c65e0b1afd0dc52f9c02ad1 This was the end of uni, I often messaged (and got messaged) requests of status and location to (and from my) friends. I thought, what if we make a social app that’s super basic and all it does is show you where your friends are? To differentiate from snap maps and others we wanted something with more privacy where you select the location. However, never finished the codebase or launched it. This is because I slowly started to realize that B2C (especially social networks) are way too hard to make into an actual business and the story with Fistbump would repeat itself. However, this decision not to launch it almost launched a curse on our team. From that point, we permitted ourselves to abandon projects even before launching. Lessons: Don’t do social networks if your goal is 10k MRR ASAP. If you build something to 90% competition ship it or you will think it’s okay to abandon projects Insight Bites (Nov) Youtube Summarizer Extension ​ https://preview.redd.it/h6drqej4tf5c1.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f211456c390ac06f4fcb54aa51f9d50b0826658 Right after Upto, we started ideating and conveniently the biggest revolution in the recent history of tech was released → GPT. We instantly began ideating. The first problem we chose to use AI for is to summarize YouTube videos. Comical. Nevertheless, I am convinced we have had the best UX because you could right-click on a video to get a slideshow of insights instead of how everyone else did it. We dropped it because there was too much competition and unit economics didn’t work out (and it was a B2C). PodPigeon (Dec) Podcast → Tweet Threads https://preview.redd.it/0ukge245tf5c1.png?width=2498&format=png&auto=webp&s=23303e1cab330578a3d25cd688fa67aa3b97fb60 Then we thought, to make unit economics work we need to make this worthwhile for podcasters. This is when I got into Twitter and started seeing people summarize podcasts. Then I thought, what if we make something that converts a podcast into tweets? This was probably one of the most important projects because it connected me with Jason and Jonaed, both of whom I regularly stay in contact with and are my go-to experts on ideas related to content creation. Jonaed was even willing to buy Podpigeon and was using it on his own time. However, the unit economics still didn’t work out (and we got excited about other things). Furthermore, we got scared of the competition because I found 1 - 2 other people who did similar things poorly. This was probably the biggest mistake we’ve made. Very similar projects made 10k MRR and more, launching later than we did. We didn’t have a coherent product vision, we didn’t understand the customer well enough, and we had a bad outlook on competition and a myriad of other things. Lessons: I already made another post about the importance of outlook on competition. Do not quit just because there are competitors or just because you can’t be 10x better. Indiehackers and Bootstrappers (or even startups) need to differentiate in the market, which can be via product (UX/UI), distribution, or both. Asking Ace Intro.co + Crowdsharing ​ https://preview.redd.it/0hu2tt16tf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3d397568ef2331e78198d64fafc1a701a3e75999 As I got into Twitter, I wanted to chat with some people I saw there. However, they were really expensive. I thought, what if we made some kind of crowdfunding service for other entrepreneurs to get a private lecture from their idols? It seemed to make a lot of sense on paper. It was solving a problem (validated via the fact that Intro.co is a thing and making things cheaper and accessible is a solid ground to stand on), we understood the market (or so we thought), and it could monetize relatively quickly. However, after 1-2 posts on Reddit and Indiehackers, we quickly learned three things. Firstly, no one cares. Secondly, even if they do, they think they can get the same information for free online. Thirdly, the reasons before are bad because for the first point → we barely talked to people, and for the second people → we barely talked to the wrong people. However, at least we didn’t code anything this time and tried to validate via a landing page. Lessons Don’t give up after 1 Redditor says “I don’t need this” Don’t be scared to choose successful people as your audience. Clarito Journaling with AI analyzer https://preview.redd.it/8ria2wq6tf5c1.jpg?width=1108&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=586ec28ae75003d9f71b4af2520b748d53dd2854 Clarito is a classic problem all amateur entrepreneurs have. It’s where you lie to yourself that you have a real problem and therefore is validated but when your team asks you how much you would pay you say I guess you will pay, maybe, like 5 bucks a month…? Turns out, you’d have to pay me to use our own product lol. We sent it off to a few friends and posted on some forums, but never really got anything tangible and decided to move away. Honestly, a lot of it is us in our own heads. We say the market is too saturated, it’ll be hard to monetize, it’s B2C, etc. Lessons: You use the Mom Test on other people. You have to do it yourself as well. However, recognizing that the Mom Test requires a lot of creativity in its investigation because knowing what questions to ask can determine the outcome of the validation. I asked myself “Do I journal” but I didn’t ask myself “How often do I want GPT to chyme in on my reflections”. Which was practically never. That being said I think with the right audience and distribution, this product can work. I just don’t know (let alone care) about the audience that much (and I thought I was one of them)/ Horns & Claw Scrapes financial news texts you whether you should buy/sell the stock (news sentiment analysis) ​ https://preview.redd.it/gvfxdgc7tf5c1.jpg?width=1287&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63977bbc33fe74147b1f72913cefee4a9ebec9c2 This one we didn’t even bother launching. Probably something internal in the team and also seemed too good to be true (because if this works, doesn’t that just make us ultra-rich fast?). I saw a similar tool making 10k MRR so I guess I was wrong. Lessons: This one was pretty much just us getting into our heads. I declared that without an audience it would be impossible to ship this product and we needed to start a YouTube channel. Lol, and we did. And we couldn’t even film for 1 minute. I made bold statements like “We will commit to this for at least 1 year no matter what”. Learnery Make courses about any subject https://preview.redd.it/1nw6z448tf5c1.jpg?width=1112&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f2c73e8af23b0a6c3747a81e785960d4004feb48 This is probably the most “successful” project we’ve made. It grew from a couple of dozen to a couple of hundred users. It has 11 buy events for $9.99 LTD (we couldn’t be bothered connecting Stripe because we thought no one would buy it anyway). However what got us discouraged from seriously pursuing it more is, that this has very low defensibility, “Why wouldn’t someone just use chatGPT?” and it’s B2C so it’s hard to monetize. I used it myself for a month or so but then stopped. I don’t think it’s the app, I think the act of learning a concept from scratch isn’t something you do constantly in the way Learnery delivers it (ie course). I saw a bunch of similar apps that look like Ass make like 10k MRR. Lessons: Don’t do B2C, or if you do, do it properly Don’t just Mixpanel the buy button, connect your Stripe otherwise, it doesn’t feel real and you won’t get momentum. I doubt anyone (even me) will make this mistake again. I live in my GPT bubble where I make assumptions that everyone uses GPT the same way and as much as I do. In reality, the argument that this has low defensibility against GPT is invalid. Platforms that deliver a differentiated UX from ChatGPT to audiences who are not tightly integrated into the habit of using ChatGPT (which is like - everyone except for SOME tech evangelists). CuriosityFM Make podcasts about any subject https://preview.redd.it/zmosrcp8tf5c1.jpg?width=638&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d04ddffabef9050050b0d87939273cc96a8637dc This was our attempt at making Learnery more unique and more differentiated from chatGPT. We never really launched it. The unit economics didn’t work out and it was actually pretty boring to listen to, I don’t think I even fully listened to one 15-minute episode. I think this wasn’t that bad, it taught us more about ElevenLabs and voice AI. It took us maybe only 2-3 days to build so I think building to learn a new groundbreaking technology is fine. SleepyTale Make children’s bedtime stories https://preview.redd.it/14ue9nm9tf5c1.jpg?width=807&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=267e18ec6f9270e6d1d11564b38136fa524966a1 My 8-year-old sister gave me that idea. She was too scared of making tea and I was curious about how she’d react if she heard a bedtime story about that exact scenario with the moral that I wanted her to absorb (which is that you shouldn’t be scared to try new things ie stop asking me to make your tea and do it yourself, it’s not that hard. You could say I went full Goebbels on her). Zane messaged a bunch of parents on Facebook but no one really cared. We showed this to one Lady at the place we worked from at Uni and she was impressed and wanted to show it to her kids but we already turned off our ElevenLabs subscription. Lessons: However, the truth behind this is beyond just “you need to be able to distribute”. It’s that you have to care about the audience. I don’t particularly want to build products for kids and parents. I am far away from that audience because I am neither a kid anymore nor going to be a parent anytime soon, and my sister still asked me to make her tea so the story didn’t work. I think it’s important to ask yourself whether you care about the audience. The way you answer that even when you are in full bias mode is, do you engage with them? Are you interested in what’s happening in their communities? Are you friends with them? Etc. User Survey Analyzer Big User Survey → GPT → Insights Report Me and my coworker were chatting about AI when he asked me to help him analyze a massive survey for him. I thought that was some pretty decent validation. Someone in an actual company asking for help. Lessons Market research is important but moving fast is also important. Ie building momentum. Also don’t revolve around 1 user. This has been a problem in multiple projects. Finding as many users as possible in the beginning to talk to is key. Otherwise, you are just waiting for 1 person to get back to you. AutoI18N Automated Internationalization of the codebase for webapps This one I might still do. It’s hard to find a solid distribution strategy. However, the idea came from me having to do it at my day job. It seems a solid problem. I’d say it’s validated and has some good players already. The key will be differentiation via the simplicity of UX and distribution (which means a slightly different audience). In the backlog for now because I don’t care about the problem or the audience that much. Documate - Part 1 Converts complex PDFs into Excel https://preview.redd.it/8b45k9katf5c1.jpg?width=1344&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=57324b8720eb22782e28794d2db674b073193995 My mom needed to convert a catalog of furniture into an inventory which took her 3 full days of data entry. I automated it for her and thought this could have a big impact but there was no distribution because there was no ICP. We tried to find the ideal customers by talking to a bunch of different demographics but I flew to Kazakhstan for a holiday and so this kind of fizzled out. I am not writing this blog post linearity, this is my 2nd hour and I am tired and don’t want to finish this later so I don’t even know what lessons I learned. Figmatic Marketplace of high-quality Figma mockups of real apps https://preview.redd.it/h13yv45btf5c1.jpg?width=873&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aaa2896aeac2f22e9b7d9eed98c28bb8a2d2cdf1 This was a collab between me and my friend Alex. It was the classic Clarito where we both thought we had this problem and would pay to fix it. In reality, this is a vitamin. Neither I, nor I doubt Alex have thought of this as soon as we bought the domain. We posted it on Gumroad, sent it to a bunch of forums, and called it a day. Same issue as almost all the other ones. No distribution strategy. However, apps like Mobin show us that this concept is indeed profitable but it takes time. It needs SEO. It needs a community. None of those things, me and Alex had or was interested in. However shortly after HTML → Figma came out and it’s the best plugin. Maybe that should’ve been the idea. Podcast → Course Turns Podcaster’s episodes into a course This one I got baited by Jason :P I described to him the idea of repurposing his content for a course. He told me this was epic and he would pay. Then after I sent him the demo, he never checked it out. Anyhow during the development, we realized that doesn’t actually work because A podcast doesn’t have the correct format for the course, the most you can extract are concepts and ideas, seldom explanations. Most creators want video-based courses to be hosted on Kajabi or Udemy Another lesson is that when you pitch something to a user, what you articulate is a platform or a process, they imagine an outcome. However, the end result of your platform can be a very different outcome to what they had in mind and there is even a chance that what they want is not possible. You need to understand really well what the outcome looks like before you design the process. This is a classic problem where we thought of the solution before the problem. Yes, the problem exists. Podcasters want to make courses. However, if you really understand what they want, you can see how repurposing a podcast isn’t the best way to get there. However I only really spoke to 1-2 podcasters about this so making conclusions is dangerous for this can just be another asking ace mistake with the Redditor. Documate Part 2 Same concept as before but now I want to run some ads. We’ll see what happens. https://preview.redd.it/xb3npj0ctf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3cd4884a29fd11d870d010a2677b585551c49193 In conclusion https://preview.redd.it/2zrldc9dtf5c1.jpg?width=1840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b3105073e752ad41c23f205dbd1ea046c1da7ff It doesn’t actually matter that much whether you choose to do a B2C, or a social network or focus on growing your audience. All of these can make you successful. What’s important is that you choose. If I had to summarize my 2023 in one word it’s indecision. Most of these projects succeeded for other people, nothing was as fundamentally wrong about them as I proclaimed. In reality that itself was an excuse. New ideas seduce, and it is a form of discipline to commit to a single project for a respectful amount of time. https://preview.redd.it/zy9a2vzdtf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=901c621227bba0feb4efdb39142f66ab2ebb86fe Distribution is not just posting on Indiehackers and Reddit. It’s an actual strategy and you should think of it as soon as you think of the idea, even before the Figma designs. I like how Denis Shatalin taught me. You have to build a pipeline. That means a reliable way to get leads, launch campaigns at them, close deals, learn from them, and optimize. Whenever I get an idea now I always try to ask myself “Where can I find 1000s leads in one day?” If there is no good answer, this is not a good project to do now. ​ https://preview.redd.it/2boh3fpetf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c0d5d7b000716fcbbb00cbad495e8b61e25be66 Talk to users before doing anything. Jumping on designing and coding to make your idea a reality is a satisfying activity in the short term. Especially for me, I like to create for the sake of creation. However, it is so important to understand the market, understand the audience, understand the distribution. There are a lot of things to understand before coding. https://preview.redd.it/lv8tt96ftf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c8735aa6ad795f216ff9ddfa2341712e8277724 Get out of your own head. The real reason we dropped so many projects is that we got into our own heads. We let the negative thoughts creep in and kill all the optimism. I am really good at coming up with excuses to start a project. However, I am equally as good at coming up with reasons to kill a project. And so you have this yin and yang of starting and stopping. Building momentum and not burning out. I can say with certainty my team ran out of juice this year. We lost momentum so many times we got burnt out towards the end. Realizing that the project itself has momentum is important. User feedback and sales bring momentum. Building also creates momentum but unless it is matched with an equal force of impact, it can stomp the project down. That is why so many of our projects died quickly after we launched. The smarter approach is to do things that have a low investment of momentum (like talking to users) but result in high impact (sales or feedback). Yes, that means the project can get invalidated which makes it more short-lived than if we built it first, but it preserves team life energy. At the end of 2023 here is a single sentence I am making about how I think one becomes a successful indiehacker. One becomes a successful Indiehacker when one starts to solve pain-killer problems in the market they understand, for an audience they care about and consistently engage with for a long enough timeframe. Therefore an unsuccessful Indiehacker in a single sentence is An unsuccessful Indiehacker constantly enters new markets they don’t understand to build solutions for people whose problems they don’t care about, in a timeframe that is shorter than than the time they spent thinking about distribution. However, an important note to be made. Life is not just about indiehacking. It’s about learning and having fun. In the human world, the best journey isn’t the one that gets you the fastest to your goals but the one you enjoy the most. I enjoyed making those silly little projects and although I do not regret them, I will not repeat the same mistakes in 2024. But while it’s still 2023, I have 2 more projects I want to do :) EDIT: For Devs, frontend is always react with vite (ts) and backend is either node with express (ts) or python. For DB either Postgres or mongo (usually Prisma for ORM). For deployment all of it is on AWS (S3, EC2). In terms of libraries/APIs Whisper.cpp is best open source for transcription Obviously the gpt apis Eleven labs for voice related stuff And other random stuff here and there

How me and my team made 15+ apps and not made a single sale in 2023

Hey, my name is Michael, I am in Auckland NZ. This year was the official beginning of my adult life. I graduated from university and started a full-time job. I’ve also really dug into indiehacking/bootstrapping and started 15 projects (and it will be at least 17 before the year ends). I think I’ve learned a lot but I consciously repeated mistakes. Upto (Nov) Discord Statuses + Your Location + Facebook Poke https://preview.redd.it/4nqt7tp2tf5c1.png?width=572&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0223484bc54b45b5c65e0b1afd0dc52f9c02ad1 This was the end of uni, I often messaged (and got messaged) requests of status and location to (and from my) friends. I thought, what if we make a social app that’s super basic and all it does is show you where your friends are? To differentiate from snap maps and others we wanted something with more privacy where you select the location. However, never finished the codebase or launched it. This is because I slowly started to realize that B2C (especially social networks) are way too hard to make into an actual business and the story with Fistbump would repeat itself. However, this decision not to launch it almost launched a curse on our team. From that point, we permitted ourselves to abandon projects even before launching. Lessons: Don’t do social networks if your goal is 10k MRR ASAP. If you build something to 90% competition ship it or you will think it’s okay to abandon projects Insight Bites (Nov) Youtube Summarizer Extension ​ https://preview.redd.it/h6drqej4tf5c1.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f211456c390ac06f4fcb54aa51f9d50b0826658 Right after Upto, we started ideating and conveniently the biggest revolution in the recent history of tech was released → GPT. We instantly began ideating. The first problem we chose to use AI for is to summarize YouTube videos. Comical. Nevertheless, I am convinced we have had the best UX because you could right-click on a video to get a slideshow of insights instead of how everyone else did it. We dropped it because there was too much competition and unit economics didn’t work out (and it was a B2C). PodPigeon (Dec) Podcast → Tweet Threads https://preview.redd.it/0ukge245tf5c1.png?width=2498&format=png&auto=webp&s=23303e1cab330578a3d25cd688fa67aa3b97fb60 Then we thought, to make unit economics work we need to make this worthwhile for podcasters. This is when I got into Twitter and started seeing people summarize podcasts. Then I thought, what if we make something that converts a podcast into tweets? This was probably one of the most important projects because it connected me with Jason and Jonaed, both of whom I regularly stay in contact with and are my go-to experts on ideas related to content creation. Jonaed was even willing to buy Podpigeon and was using it on his own time. However, the unit economics still didn’t work out (and we got excited about other things). Furthermore, we got scared of the competition because I found 1 - 2 other people who did similar things poorly. This was probably the biggest mistake we’ve made. Very similar projects made 10k MRR and more, launching later than we did. We didn’t have a coherent product vision, we didn’t understand the customer well enough, and we had a bad outlook on competition and a myriad of other things. Lessons: I already made another post about the importance of outlook on competition. Do not quit just because there are competitors or just because you can’t be 10x better. Indiehackers and Bootstrappers (or even startups) need to differentiate in the market, which can be via product (UX/UI), distribution, or both. Asking Ace Intro.co + Crowdsharing ​ https://preview.redd.it/0hu2tt16tf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3d397568ef2331e78198d64fafc1a701a3e75999 As I got into Twitter, I wanted to chat with some people I saw there. However, they were really expensive. I thought, what if we made some kind of crowdfunding service for other entrepreneurs to get a private lecture from their idols? It seemed to make a lot of sense on paper. It was solving a problem (validated via the fact that Intro.co is a thing and making things cheaper and accessible is a solid ground to stand on), we understood the market (or so we thought), and it could monetize relatively quickly. However, after 1-2 posts on Reddit and Indiehackers, we quickly learned three things. Firstly, no one cares. Secondly, even if they do, they think they can get the same information for free online. Thirdly, the reasons before are bad because for the first point → we barely talked to people, and for the second people → we barely talked to the wrong people. However, at least we didn’t code anything this time and tried to validate via a landing page. Lessons Don’t give up after 1 Redditor says “I don’t need this” Don’t be scared to choose successful people as your audience. Clarito Journaling with AI analyzer https://preview.redd.it/8ria2wq6tf5c1.jpg?width=1108&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=586ec28ae75003d9f71b4af2520b748d53dd2854 Clarito is a classic problem all amateur entrepreneurs have. It’s where you lie to yourself that you have a real problem and therefore is validated but when your team asks you how much you would pay you say I guess you will pay, maybe, like 5 bucks a month…? Turns out, you’d have to pay me to use our own product lol. We sent it off to a few friends and posted on some forums, but never really got anything tangible and decided to move away. Honestly, a lot of it is us in our own heads. We say the market is too saturated, it’ll be hard to monetize, it’s B2C, etc. Lessons: You use the Mom Test on other people. You have to do it yourself as well. However, recognizing that the Mom Test requires a lot of creativity in its investigation because knowing what questions to ask can determine the outcome of the validation. I asked myself “Do I journal” but I didn’t ask myself “How often do I want GPT to chyme in on my reflections”. Which was practically never. That being said I think with the right audience and distribution, this product can work. I just don’t know (let alone care) about the audience that much (and I thought I was one of them)/ Horns & Claw Scrapes financial news texts you whether you should buy/sell the stock (news sentiment analysis) ​ https://preview.redd.it/gvfxdgc7tf5c1.jpg?width=1287&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63977bbc33fe74147b1f72913cefee4a9ebec9c2 This one we didn’t even bother launching. Probably something internal in the team and also seemed too good to be true (because if this works, doesn’t that just make us ultra-rich fast?). I saw a similar tool making 10k MRR so I guess I was wrong. Lessons: This one was pretty much just us getting into our heads. I declared that without an audience it would be impossible to ship this product and we needed to start a YouTube channel. Lol, and we did. And we couldn’t even film for 1 minute. I made bold statements like “We will commit to this for at least 1 year no matter what”. Learnery Make courses about any subject https://preview.redd.it/1nw6z448tf5c1.jpg?width=1112&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f2c73e8af23b0a6c3747a81e785960d4004feb48 This is probably the most “successful” project we’ve made. It grew from a couple of dozen to a couple of hundred users. It has 11 buy events for $9.99 LTD (we couldn’t be bothered connecting Stripe because we thought no one would buy it anyway). However what got us discouraged from seriously pursuing it more is, that this has very low defensibility, “Why wouldn’t someone just use chatGPT?” and it’s B2C so it’s hard to monetize. I used it myself for a month or so but then stopped. I don’t think it’s the app, I think the act of learning a concept from scratch isn’t something you do constantly in the way Learnery delivers it (ie course). I saw a bunch of similar apps that look like Ass make like 10k MRR. Lessons: Don’t do B2C, or if you do, do it properly Don’t just Mixpanel the buy button, connect your Stripe otherwise, it doesn’t feel real and you won’t get momentum. I doubt anyone (even me) will make this mistake again. I live in my GPT bubble where I make assumptions that everyone uses GPT the same way and as much as I do. In reality, the argument that this has low defensibility against GPT is invalid. Platforms that deliver a differentiated UX from ChatGPT to audiences who are not tightly integrated into the habit of using ChatGPT (which is like - everyone except for SOME tech evangelists). CuriosityFM Make podcasts about any subject https://preview.redd.it/zmosrcp8tf5c1.jpg?width=638&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d04ddffabef9050050b0d87939273cc96a8637dc This was our attempt at making Learnery more unique and more differentiated from chatGPT. We never really launched it. The unit economics didn’t work out and it was actually pretty boring to listen to, I don’t think I even fully listened to one 15-minute episode. I think this wasn’t that bad, it taught us more about ElevenLabs and voice AI. It took us maybe only 2-3 days to build so I think building to learn a new groundbreaking technology is fine. SleepyTale Make children’s bedtime stories https://preview.redd.it/14ue9nm9tf5c1.jpg?width=807&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=267e18ec6f9270e6d1d11564b38136fa524966a1 My 8-year-old sister gave me that idea. She was too scared of making tea and I was curious about how she’d react if she heard a bedtime story about that exact scenario with the moral that I wanted her to absorb (which is that you shouldn’t be scared to try new things ie stop asking me to make your tea and do it yourself, it’s not that hard. You could say I went full Goebbels on her). Zane messaged a bunch of parents on Facebook but no one really cared. We showed this to one Lady at the place we worked from at Uni and she was impressed and wanted to show it to her kids but we already turned off our ElevenLabs subscription. Lessons: However, the truth behind this is beyond just “you need to be able to distribute”. It’s that you have to care about the audience. I don’t particularly want to build products for kids and parents. I am far away from that audience because I am neither a kid anymore nor going to be a parent anytime soon, and my sister still asked me to make her tea so the story didn’t work. I think it’s important to ask yourself whether you care about the audience. The way you answer that even when you are in full bias mode is, do you engage with them? Are you interested in what’s happening in their communities? Are you friends with them? Etc. User Survey Analyzer Big User Survey → GPT → Insights Report Me and my coworker were chatting about AI when he asked me to help him analyze a massive survey for him. I thought that was some pretty decent validation. Someone in an actual company asking for help. Lessons Market research is important but moving fast is also important. Ie building momentum. Also don’t revolve around 1 user. This has been a problem in multiple projects. Finding as many users as possible in the beginning to talk to is key. Otherwise, you are just waiting for 1 person to get back to you. AutoI18N Automated Internationalization of the codebase for webapps This one I might still do. It’s hard to find a solid distribution strategy. However, the idea came from me having to do it at my day job. It seems a solid problem. I’d say it’s validated and has some good players already. The key will be differentiation via the simplicity of UX and distribution (which means a slightly different audience). In the backlog for now because I don’t care about the problem or the audience that much. Documate - Part 1 Converts complex PDFs into Excel https://preview.redd.it/8b45k9katf5c1.jpg?width=1344&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=57324b8720eb22782e28794d2db674b073193995 My mom needed to convert a catalog of furniture into an inventory which took her 3 full days of data entry. I automated it for her and thought this could have a big impact but there was no distribution because there was no ICP. We tried to find the ideal customers by talking to a bunch of different demographics but I flew to Kazakhstan for a holiday and so this kind of fizzled out. I am not writing this blog post linearity, this is my 2nd hour and I am tired and don’t want to finish this later so I don’t even know what lessons I learned. Figmatic Marketplace of high-quality Figma mockups of real apps https://preview.redd.it/h13yv45btf5c1.jpg?width=873&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aaa2896aeac2f22e9b7d9eed98c28bb8a2d2cdf1 This was a collab between me and my friend Alex. It was the classic Clarito where we both thought we had this problem and would pay to fix it. In reality, this is a vitamin. Neither I, nor I doubt Alex have thought of this as soon as we bought the domain. We posted it on Gumroad, sent it to a bunch of forums, and called it a day. Same issue as almost all the other ones. No distribution strategy. However, apps like Mobin show us that this concept is indeed profitable but it takes time. It needs SEO. It needs a community. None of those things, me and Alex had or was interested in. However shortly after HTML → Figma came out and it’s the best plugin. Maybe that should’ve been the idea. Podcast → Course Turns Podcaster’s episodes into a course This one I got baited by Jason :P I described to him the idea of repurposing his content for a course. He told me this was epic and he would pay. Then after I sent him the demo, he never checked it out. Anyhow during the development, we realized that doesn’t actually work because A podcast doesn’t have the correct format for the course, the most you can extract are concepts and ideas, seldom explanations. Most creators want video-based courses to be hosted on Kajabi or Udemy Another lesson is that when you pitch something to a user, what you articulate is a platform or a process, they imagine an outcome. However, the end result of your platform can be a very different outcome to what they had in mind and there is even a chance that what they want is not possible. You need to understand really well what the outcome looks like before you design the process. This is a classic problem where we thought of the solution before the problem. Yes, the problem exists. Podcasters want to make courses. However, if you really understand what they want, you can see how repurposing a podcast isn’t the best way to get there. However I only really spoke to 1-2 podcasters about this so making conclusions is dangerous for this can just be another asking ace mistake with the Redditor. Documate Part 2 Same concept as before but now I want to run some ads. We’ll see what happens. https://preview.redd.it/xb3npj0ctf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3cd4884a29fd11d870d010a2677b585551c49193 In conclusion https://preview.redd.it/2zrldc9dtf5c1.jpg?width=1840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b3105073e752ad41c23f205dbd1ea046c1da7ff It doesn’t actually matter that much whether you choose to do a B2C, or a social network or focus on growing your audience. All of these can make you successful. What’s important is that you choose. If I had to summarize my 2023 in one word it’s indecision. Most of these projects succeeded for other people, nothing was as fundamentally wrong about them as I proclaimed. In reality that itself was an excuse. New ideas seduce, and it is a form of discipline to commit to a single project for a respectful amount of time. https://preview.redd.it/zy9a2vzdtf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=901c621227bba0feb4efdb39142f66ab2ebb86fe Distribution is not just posting on Indiehackers and Reddit. It’s an actual strategy and you should think of it as soon as you think of the idea, even before the Figma designs. I like how Denis Shatalin taught me. You have to build a pipeline. That means a reliable way to get leads, launch campaigns at them, close deals, learn from them, and optimize. Whenever I get an idea now I always try to ask myself “Where can I find 1000s leads in one day?” If there is no good answer, this is not a good project to do now. ​ https://preview.redd.it/2boh3fpetf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c0d5d7b000716fcbbb00cbad495e8b61e25be66 Talk to users before doing anything. Jumping on designing and coding to make your idea a reality is a satisfying activity in the short term. Especially for me, I like to create for the sake of creation. However, it is so important to understand the market, understand the audience, understand the distribution. There are a lot of things to understand before coding. https://preview.redd.it/lv8tt96ftf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c8735aa6ad795f216ff9ddfa2341712e8277724 Get out of your own head. The real reason we dropped so many projects is that we got into our own heads. We let the negative thoughts creep in and kill all the optimism. I am really good at coming up with excuses to start a project. However, I am equally as good at coming up with reasons to kill a project. And so you have this yin and yang of starting and stopping. Building momentum and not burning out. I can say with certainty my team ran out of juice this year. We lost momentum so many times we got burnt out towards the end. Realizing that the project itself has momentum is important. User feedback and sales bring momentum. Building also creates momentum but unless it is matched with an equal force of impact, it can stomp the project down. That is why so many of our projects died quickly after we launched. The smarter approach is to do things that have a low investment of momentum (like talking to users) but result in high impact (sales or feedback). Yes, that means the project can get invalidated which makes it more short-lived than if we built it first, but it preserves team life energy. At the end of 2023 here is a single sentence I am making about how I think one becomes a successful indiehacker. One becomes a successful Indiehacker when one starts to solve pain-killer problems in the market they understand, for an audience they care about and consistently engage with for a long enough timeframe. Therefore an unsuccessful Indiehacker in a single sentence is An unsuccessful Indiehacker constantly enters new markets they don’t understand to build solutions for people whose problems they don’t care about, in a timeframe that is shorter than than the time they spent thinking about distribution. However, an important note to be made. Life is not just about indiehacking. It’s about learning and having fun. In the human world, the best journey isn’t the one that gets you the fastest to your goals but the one you enjoy the most. I enjoyed making those silly little projects and although I do not regret them, I will not repeat the same mistakes in 2024. But while it’s still 2023, I have 2 more projects I want to do :) EDIT: For Devs, frontend is always react with vite (ts) and backend is either node with express (ts) or python. For DB either Postgres or mongo (usually Prisma for ORM). For deployment all of it is on AWS (S3, EC2). In terms of libraries/APIs Whisper.cpp is best open source for transcription Obviously the gpt apis Eleven labs for voice related stuff And other random stuff here and there

Solo Entrepreneurs, This One’s for You! After Studying 15+ AI Directories, I’m Building a New Hub for AI, SaaS, and Tools (but the concept is unique)—Submit Yours for FREE 🚀 (Big Companies, Please Stay Away)

I’ve been in your shoes—tight budgets, limited resources, and a constant search for marketing solutions that actually work. Lately, I’ve been checking out more than 15 AI directories here on Reddit, and honestly, they all seem to have the same issues. They’re cluttered, confusing, and often filled with sponsored listings that don’t really help anyone. This got me thinking: if these tools aren’t helping users, how can any of our tools succeed? After a lot of thought (and some serious brainstorming), I’ve come up with an idea that I think could be a game-changer. This isn’t just another directory. I’m aiming to build something that’s genuinely useful for solo entrepreneurs and regular users alike. My goal is to create a platform that people actually want to use, because when that happens, your tools get natural, organic exposure. I’m also planning to integrate AI into the platform to make it even more powerful. I can’t spill all the details just yet If you want to get in early, I’m offering to add your tools to the platform for free, especially if you’re a solo entrepreneur. I’m still working out the details, but I’m aiming to launch within the next 1-2 months. Here’s how you can get involved: comment below with the name of your SaaS, AI, or tool, along with a short description of why it’s helpful and why it should be included. I haven’t finalized the domain yet, but for now, I’m planning to host it on my subdomain: toolkit dot unwiring dot tech

Built an AI to stop me from procrastinating on Reddit, it actually spies on my browser tabs & it's kinda freaking me out (but it works)

hey guys, So, I have a problem. A major procrastination problem. You know the type? I start all good, like, "ok, I'm gonna spend the next 2 hrs REALLY researching this specific Reddit thread about optimizing workflow automation for small businesses." (That's literally what I'm supposed to be doing rn, lol) And then... BAM. Suddenly I'm 15 posts deep into r/aww looking at baby sloths, or somehow I've ended up on Wikipedia reading about competitive hot dog eating. It's like my brain has a mind of its own, seriously. I've tried everything. Cold Turkey, Freedom, all those blocker apps. And honestly? They kinda suck. They're so... blunt. Like, "NO REDDIT FOR U!!" But I need Reddit for my actual research! It is my research, ffs. The problem is those apps just see a URL and block it. They don't understand context. They're just digital bouncers, and terrible ones. Total roadblocks, and a complete pain. That's why I got desperate. I even spent, like, 3 solid hrs one night just chatting with an AI cuz I was too embarrassed to admit to my friends how bad I was at staying on track. Pathetic, I know. But that's when it hit me. I needed something that understood what I was supposed to be doing, and then actively, intelligently, stopped me when I got sidetracked. Something that, like, gets that this is what I meant to use, so it blocks other posts or subs. So, I built it. It's a Chrome extension, and it's basically like having a tiny, hyper-observant AI therapist/drill sergeant living in my browser. Here's the freaky part: it actually watches what I'm doing. Like, it learns my specific task. If I tell it I'm researching on Reddit, it lets me use Reddit, but only for that specific research. If I try to sneak off to r/funny or check my notifs, it knows. It's not just blocking URLs; it's analyzing the content of the pages I'm on and comparing it to what I'm supposed to be doing. It even has these lil "achievement" things, which sound cheesy, but seeing "Focused for 90 mins straight!" pop up is weirdly motivating. And it has this brutal feature that shows u, in plain numbers, how much time you've wasted. Ouch. It's been working, which is amazing, and scary at the same time! Like, the scary part is, it feels weird sharing my own edge over procrastination. I mean, if u use my lil tool too! It also kinda gives off that creepy, AI overlord watching my thoughts vibe? Why I'm even posting this: I'm looking for a few (maybe 5?) people who are as desperate as I was. People who've tried every productivity hack, app, and technique, and are still staring at the ceiling at 3 am, filled with regret. If this sounds familiar, DM "DM me". Tell me your worst procrastination story. The winner (loser?) gets a copy. I need honest, brutally honest, feedback. Does this actually work for anyone else, or am I just fooling myself? Edit: shared the extension with some of you, and for others you can give it a spin here i made it live to the chrome store: https://getfocusai.com/

How me and my team made 15+ apps and not made a single sale in 2023

Hey, my name is Michael, I am in Auckland NZ. This year was the official beginning of my adult life. I graduated from university and started a full-time job. I’ve also really dug into indiehacking/bootstrapping and started 15 projects (and it will be at least 17 before the year ends). I think I’ve learned a lot but I consciously repeated mistakes. Upto (Nov) Discord Statuses + Your Location + Facebook Poke https://preview.redd.it/4nqt7tp2tf5c1.png?width=572&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0223484bc54b45b5c65e0b1afd0dc52f9c02ad1 This was the end of uni, I often messaged (and got messaged) requests of status and location to (and from my) friends. I thought, what if we make a social app that’s super basic and all it does is show you where your friends are? To differentiate from snap maps and others we wanted something with more privacy where you select the location. However, never finished the codebase or launched it. This is because I slowly started to realize that B2C (especially social networks) are way too hard to make into an actual business and the story with Fistbump would repeat itself. However, this decision not to launch it almost launched a curse on our team. From that point, we permitted ourselves to abandon projects even before launching. Lessons: Don’t do social networks if your goal is 10k MRR ASAP. If you build something to 90% competition ship it or you will think it’s okay to abandon projects Insight Bites (Nov) Youtube Summarizer Extension ​ https://preview.redd.it/h6drqej4tf5c1.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f211456c390ac06f4fcb54aa51f9d50b0826658 Right after Upto, we started ideating and conveniently the biggest revolution in the recent history of tech was released → GPT. We instantly began ideating. The first problem we chose to use AI for is to summarize YouTube videos. Comical. Nevertheless, I am convinced we have had the best UX because you could right-click on a video to get a slideshow of insights instead of how everyone else did it. We dropped it because there was too much competition and unit economics didn’t work out (and it was a B2C). PodPigeon (Dec) Podcast → Tweet Threads https://preview.redd.it/0ukge245tf5c1.png?width=2498&format=png&auto=webp&s=23303e1cab330578a3d25cd688fa67aa3b97fb60 Then we thought, to make unit economics work we need to make this worthwhile for podcasters. This is when I got into Twitter and started seeing people summarize podcasts. Then I thought, what if we make something that converts a podcast into tweets? This was probably one of the most important projects because it connected me with Jason and Jonaed, both of whom I regularly stay in contact with and are my go-to experts on ideas related to content creation. Jonaed was even willing to buy Podpigeon and was using it on his own time. However, the unit economics still didn’t work out (and we got excited about other things). Furthermore, we got scared of the competition because I found 1 - 2 other people who did similar things poorly. This was probably the biggest mistake we’ve made. Very similar projects made 10k MRR and more, launching later than we did. We didn’t have a coherent product vision, we didn’t understand the customer well enough, and we had a bad outlook on competition and a myriad of other things. Lessons: I already made another post about the importance of outlook on competition. Do not quit just because there are competitors or just because you can’t be 10x better. Indiehackers and Bootstrappers (or even startups) need to differentiate in the market, which can be via product (UX/UI), distribution, or both. Asking Ace Intro.co + Crowdsharing ​ https://preview.redd.it/0hu2tt16tf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3d397568ef2331e78198d64fafc1a701a3e75999 As I got into Twitter, I wanted to chat with some people I saw there. However, they were really expensive. I thought, what if we made some kind of crowdfunding service for other entrepreneurs to get a private lecture from their idols? It seemed to make a lot of sense on paper. It was solving a problem (validated via the fact that Intro.co is a thing and making things cheaper and accessible is a solid ground to stand on), we understood the market (or so we thought), and it could monetize relatively quickly. However, after 1-2 posts on Reddit and Indiehackers, we quickly learned three things. Firstly, no one cares. Secondly, even if they do, they think they can get the same information for free online. Thirdly, the reasons before are bad because for the first point → we barely talked to people, and for the second people → we barely talked to the wrong people. However, at least we didn’t code anything this time and tried to validate via a landing page. Lessons Don’t give up after 1 Redditor says “I don’t need this” Don’t be scared to choose successful people as your audience. Clarito Journaling with AI analyzer https://preview.redd.it/8ria2wq6tf5c1.jpg?width=1108&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=586ec28ae75003d9f71b4af2520b748d53dd2854 Clarito is a classic problem all amateur entrepreneurs have. It’s where you lie to yourself that you have a real problem and therefore is validated but when your team asks you how much you would pay you say I guess you will pay, maybe, like 5 bucks a month…? Turns out, you’d have to pay me to use our own product lol. We sent it off to a few friends and posted on some forums, but never really got anything tangible and decided to move away. Honestly, a lot of it is us in our own heads. We say the market is too saturated, it’ll be hard to monetize, it’s B2C, etc. Lessons: You use the Mom Test on other people. You have to do it yourself as well. However, recognizing that the Mom Test requires a lot of creativity in its investigation because knowing what questions to ask can determine the outcome of the validation. I asked myself “Do I journal” but I didn’t ask myself “How often do I want GPT to chyme in on my reflections”. Which was practically never. That being said I think with the right audience and distribution, this product can work. I just don’t know (let alone care) about the audience that much (and I thought I was one of them)/ Horns & Claw Scrapes financial news texts you whether you should buy/sell the stock (news sentiment analysis) ​ https://preview.redd.it/gvfxdgc7tf5c1.jpg?width=1287&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63977bbc33fe74147b1f72913cefee4a9ebec9c2 This one we didn’t even bother launching. Probably something internal in the team and also seemed too good to be true (because if this works, doesn’t that just make us ultra-rich fast?). I saw a similar tool making 10k MRR so I guess I was wrong. Lessons: This one was pretty much just us getting into our heads. I declared that without an audience it would be impossible to ship this product and we needed to start a YouTube channel. Lol, and we did. And we couldn’t even film for 1 minute. I made bold statements like “We will commit to this for at least 1 year no matter what”. Learnery Make courses about any subject https://preview.redd.it/1nw6z448tf5c1.jpg?width=1112&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f2c73e8af23b0a6c3747a81e785960d4004feb48 This is probably the most “successful” project we’ve made. It grew from a couple of dozen to a couple of hundred users. It has 11 buy events for $9.99 LTD (we couldn’t be bothered connecting Stripe because we thought no one would buy it anyway). However what got us discouraged from seriously pursuing it more is, that this has very low defensibility, “Why wouldn’t someone just use chatGPT?” and it’s B2C so it’s hard to monetize. I used it myself for a month or so but then stopped. I don’t think it’s the app, I think the act of learning a concept from scratch isn’t something you do constantly in the way Learnery delivers it (ie course). I saw a bunch of similar apps that look like Ass make like 10k MRR. Lessons: Don’t do B2C, or if you do, do it properly Don’t just Mixpanel the buy button, connect your Stripe otherwise, it doesn’t feel real and you won’t get momentum. I doubt anyone (even me) will make this mistake again. I live in my GPT bubble where I make assumptions that everyone uses GPT the same way and as much as I do. In reality, the argument that this has low defensibility against GPT is invalid. Platforms that deliver a differentiated UX from ChatGPT to audiences who are not tightly integrated into the habit of using ChatGPT (which is like - everyone except for SOME tech evangelists). CuriosityFM Make podcasts about any subject https://preview.redd.it/zmosrcp8tf5c1.jpg?width=638&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d04ddffabef9050050b0d87939273cc96a8637dc This was our attempt at making Learnery more unique and more differentiated from chatGPT. We never really launched it. The unit economics didn’t work out and it was actually pretty boring to listen to, I don’t think I even fully listened to one 15-minute episode. I think this wasn’t that bad, it taught us more about ElevenLabs and voice AI. It took us maybe only 2-3 days to build so I think building to learn a new groundbreaking technology is fine. SleepyTale Make children’s bedtime stories https://preview.redd.it/14ue9nm9tf5c1.jpg?width=807&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=267e18ec6f9270e6d1d11564b38136fa524966a1 My 8-year-old sister gave me that idea. She was too scared of making tea and I was curious about how she’d react if she heard a bedtime story about that exact scenario with the moral that I wanted her to absorb (which is that you shouldn’t be scared to try new things ie stop asking me to make your tea and do it yourself, it’s not that hard. You could say I went full Goebbels on her). Zane messaged a bunch of parents on Facebook but no one really cared. We showed this to one Lady at the place we worked from at Uni and she was impressed and wanted to show it to her kids but we already turned off our ElevenLabs subscription. Lessons: However, the truth behind this is beyond just “you need to be able to distribute”. It’s that you have to care about the audience. I don’t particularly want to build products for kids and parents. I am far away from that audience because I am neither a kid anymore nor going to be a parent anytime soon, and my sister still asked me to make her tea so the story didn’t work. I think it’s important to ask yourself whether you care about the audience. The way you answer that even when you are in full bias mode is, do you engage with them? Are you interested in what’s happening in their communities? Are you friends with them? Etc. User Survey Analyzer Big User Survey → GPT → Insights Report Me and my coworker were chatting about AI when he asked me to help him analyze a massive survey for him. I thought that was some pretty decent validation. Someone in an actual company asking for help. Lessons Market research is important but moving fast is also important. Ie building momentum. Also don’t revolve around 1 user. This has been a problem in multiple projects. Finding as many users as possible in the beginning to talk to is key. Otherwise, you are just waiting for 1 person to get back to you. AutoI18N Automated Internationalization of the codebase for webapps This one I might still do. It’s hard to find a solid distribution strategy. However, the idea came from me having to do it at my day job. It seems a solid problem. I’d say it’s validated and has some good players already. The key will be differentiation via the simplicity of UX and distribution (which means a slightly different audience). In the backlog for now because I don’t care about the problem or the audience that much. Documate - Part 1 Converts complex PDFs into Excel https://preview.redd.it/8b45k9katf5c1.jpg?width=1344&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=57324b8720eb22782e28794d2db674b073193995 My mom needed to convert a catalog of furniture into an inventory which took her 3 full days of data entry. I automated it for her and thought this could have a big impact but there was no distribution because there was no ICP. We tried to find the ideal customers by talking to a bunch of different demographics but I flew to Kazakhstan for a holiday and so this kind of fizzled out. I am not writing this blog post linearity, this is my 2nd hour and I am tired and don’t want to finish this later so I don’t even know what lessons I learned. Figmatic Marketplace of high-quality Figma mockups of real apps https://preview.redd.it/h13yv45btf5c1.jpg?width=873&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aaa2896aeac2f22e9b7d9eed98c28bb8a2d2cdf1 This was a collab between me and my friend Alex. It was the classic Clarito where we both thought we had this problem and would pay to fix it. In reality, this is a vitamin. Neither I, nor I doubt Alex have thought of this as soon as we bought the domain. We posted it on Gumroad, sent it to a bunch of forums, and called it a day. Same issue as almost all the other ones. No distribution strategy. However, apps like Mobin show us that this concept is indeed profitable but it takes time. It needs SEO. It needs a community. None of those things, me and Alex had or was interested in. However shortly after HTML → Figma came out and it’s the best plugin. Maybe that should’ve been the idea. Podcast → Course Turns Podcaster’s episodes into a course This one I got baited by Jason :P I described to him the idea of repurposing his content for a course. He told me this was epic and he would pay. Then after I sent him the demo, he never checked it out. Anyhow during the development, we realized that doesn’t actually work because A podcast doesn’t have the correct format for the course, the most you can extract are concepts and ideas, seldom explanations. Most creators want video-based courses to be hosted on Kajabi or Udemy Another lesson is that when you pitch something to a user, what you articulate is a platform or a process, they imagine an outcome. However, the end result of your platform can be a very different outcome to what they had in mind and there is even a chance that what they want is not possible. You need to understand really well what the outcome looks like before you design the process. This is a classic problem where we thought of the solution before the problem. Yes, the problem exists. Podcasters want to make courses. However, if you really understand what they want, you can see how repurposing a podcast isn’t the best way to get there. However I only really spoke to 1-2 podcasters about this so making conclusions is dangerous for this can just be another asking ace mistake with the Redditor. Documate Part 2 Same concept as before but now I want to run some ads. We’ll see what happens. https://preview.redd.it/xb3npj0ctf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3cd4884a29fd11d870d010a2677b585551c49193 In conclusion https://preview.redd.it/2zrldc9dtf5c1.jpg?width=1840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b3105073e752ad41c23f205dbd1ea046c1da7ff It doesn’t actually matter that much whether you choose to do a B2C, or a social network or focus on growing your audience. All of these can make you successful. What’s important is that you choose. If I had to summarize my 2023 in one word it’s indecision. Most of these projects succeeded for other people, nothing was as fundamentally wrong about them as I proclaimed. In reality that itself was an excuse. New ideas seduce, and it is a form of discipline to commit to a single project for a respectful amount of time. https://preview.redd.it/zy9a2vzdtf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=901c621227bba0feb4efdb39142f66ab2ebb86fe Distribution is not just posting on Indiehackers and Reddit. It’s an actual strategy and you should think of it as soon as you think of the idea, even before the Figma designs. I like how Denis Shatalin taught me. You have to build a pipeline. That means a reliable way to get leads, launch campaigns at them, close deals, learn from them, and optimize. Whenever I get an idea now I always try to ask myself “Where can I find 1000s leads in one day?” If there is no good answer, this is not a good project to do now. ​ https://preview.redd.it/2boh3fpetf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c0d5d7b000716fcbbb00cbad495e8b61e25be66 Talk to users before doing anything. Jumping on designing and coding to make your idea a reality is a satisfying activity in the short term. Especially for me, I like to create for the sake of creation. However, it is so important to understand the market, understand the audience, understand the distribution. There are a lot of things to understand before coding. https://preview.redd.it/lv8tt96ftf5c1.jpg?width=1456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c8735aa6ad795f216ff9ddfa2341712e8277724 Get out of your own head. The real reason we dropped so many projects is that we got into our own heads. We let the negative thoughts creep in and kill all the optimism. I am really good at coming up with excuses to start a project. However, I am equally as good at coming up with reasons to kill a project. And so you have this yin and yang of starting and stopping. Building momentum and not burning out. I can say with certainty my team ran out of juice this year. We lost momentum so many times we got burnt out towards the end. Realizing that the project itself has momentum is important. User feedback and sales bring momentum. Building also creates momentum but unless it is matched with an equal force of impact, it can stomp the project down. That is why so many of our projects died quickly after we launched. The smarter approach is to do things that have a low investment of momentum (like talking to users) but result in high impact (sales or feedback). Yes, that means the project can get invalidated which makes it more short-lived than if we built it first, but it preserves team life energy. At the end of 2023 here is a single sentence I am making about how I think one becomes a successful indiehacker. One becomes a successful Indiehacker when one starts to solve pain-killer problems in the market they understand, for an audience they care about and consistently engage with for a long enough timeframe. Therefore an unsuccessful Indiehacker in a single sentence is An unsuccessful Indiehacker constantly enters new markets they don’t understand to build solutions for people whose problems they don’t care about, in a timeframe that is shorter than than the time they spent thinking about distribution. However, an important note to be made. Life is not just about indiehacking. It’s about learning and having fun. In the human world, the best journey isn’t the one that gets you the fastest to your goals but the one you enjoy the most. I enjoyed making those silly little projects and although I do not regret them, I will not repeat the same mistakes in 2024. But while it’s still 2023, I have 2 more projects I want to do :) EDIT: For Devs, frontend is always react with vite (ts) and backend is either node with express (ts) or python. For DB either Postgres or mongo (usually Prisma for ORM). For deployment all of it is on AWS (S3, EC2). In terms of libraries/APIs Whisper.cpp is best open source for transcription Obviously the gpt apis Eleven labs for voice related stuff And other random stuff here and there

[D] Why I'm Lukewarm on Graph Neural Networks

TL;DR: GNNs can provide wins over simpler embedding methods, but we're at a point where other research directions matter more I also posted it on my blog here, has footnotes, a nicer layout with inlined images, etc. I'm only lukewarm on Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). There, I said it. It might sound crazy GNNs are one of the hottest fields in machine learning right now. [There][1] were at least [four][2] [review][3] [papers][4] just in the last few months. I think some progress can come of this research, but we're also focusing on some incorrect places. But first, let's take a step back and go over the basics. Models are about compression We say graphs are a "non-euclidean" data type, but that's not really true. A regular graph is just another way to think about a particular flavor of square matrix called the [adjacency matrix][5], like this. It's weird, we look at run-of-the-mill matrix full of real numbers and decide to call it "non-euclidean". This is for practical reasons. Most graphs are fairly sparse, so the matrix is full of zeros. At this point, where the non-zero numbers are matters most, which makes the problem closer to (computationally hard) discrete math rather than (easy) continuous, gradient-friendly math. If you had the full matrix, life would be easy If we step out of the pesky realm of physics for a minute, and assume carrying the full adjacency matrix around isn't a problem, we solve a bunch of problems. First, network node embeddings aren't a thing anymore. A node is a just row in the matrix, so it's already a vector of numbers. Second, all network prediction problems are solved. A powerful enough and well-tuned model will simply extract all information between the network and whichever target variable we're attaching to nodes. NLP is also just fancy matrix compression Let's take a tangent away from graphs to NLP. Most NLP we do can be [thought of in terms of graphs][6] as we'll see, so it's not a big digression. First, note that Ye Olde word embedding models like [Word2Vec][7] and [GloVe][8] are [just matrix factorization][9]. The GloVe algorithm works on a variation of the old [bag of words][10] matrix. It goes through the sentences and creates a (implicit) [co-occurence][11] graph where nodes are words and the edges are weighed by how often the words appear together in a sentence. Glove then does matrix factorization on the matrix representation of that co-occurence graph, Word2Vec is mathematically equivalent. You can read more on this in my [post on embeddings][12] and the one (with code) on [word embeddings][13]. Even language models are also just matrix compression Language models are all the rage. They dominate most of the [state of the art][14] in NLP. Let's take BERT as our main example. BERT predicts a word given the context of the rest of the sentence. This grows the matrix we're factoring from flat co-occurences on pairs of words to co-occurences conditional on the sentence's context, like this We're growing the "ideal matrix" we're factoring combinatorially. As noted by [Hanh & Futrell][15]: [...] human language—and language modelling—has infinite statistical complexity but that it can be approximated well at lower levels. This observation has two implications: 1) We can obtain good results with comparatively small models; and 2) there is a lot of potential for scaling up our models. Language models tackle such a large problem space that they probably approximate a compression of the entire language in the [Kolmogorov Complexity][16] sense. It's also possible that huge language models just [memorize a lot of it][17] rather than compress the information, for what it's worth. Can we upsample any graph like language models do? We're already doing it. Let's call a first-order embedding of a graph a method that works by directly factoring the graph's adjacency matrix or [Laplacian matrix][18]. If you embed a graph using [Laplacian Eigenmaps][19] or by taking the [principal components][20] of the Laplacian, that's first order. Similarly, GloVe is a first-order method on the graph of word co-occurences. One of my favorites first order methods for graphs is [ProNE][21], which works as well as most methods while being two orders of magnitude faster. A higher-order method embeds the original matrix plus connections of neighbours-of-neighbours (2nd degree) and deeper k-step connections. [GraRep][22], shows you can always generate higher-order representations from first order methods by augmenting the graph matrix. Higher order method are the "upsampling" we do on graphs. GNNs that sample on large neighborhoods and random-walk based methods like node2vec are doing higher-order embeddings. Where are the performance gain? Most GNN papers in the last 5 years present empirical numbers that are useless for practitioners to decide on what to use. As noted in the [OpenGraphsBenchmark][4] (OGB) paper, GNN papers do their empirical section on a handful of tiny graphs (Cora, CiteSeer, PubMed) with 2000-20,000 nodes. These datasets can't seriously differentiate between methods. Recent efforts are directly fixing this, but the reasons why researchers focused on tiny, useless datasets for so long are worth discussing. Performance matters by task One fact that surprises a lot of people is that even though language models have the best performance in a lot of NLP tasks, if all you're doing is cram sentence embeddings into a downstream model, there [isn't much gained][23] from language models embeddings over simple methods like summing the individual Word2Vec word embeddings (This makes sense, because the full context of the sentence is captured in the sentence co-occurence matrix that is generating the Word2Vec embeddings). Similarly, [I find][24] that for many graphs simple first-order methods perform just as well on graph clustering and node label prediction tasks than higher-order embedding methods. In fact higher-order methods are massively computationally wasteful for these usecases. Recommended first order embedding methods are ProNE and my [GGVec with order=1][25]. Higher order methods normally perform better on the link prediction tasks. I'm not the only one to find this. In the BioNEV paper, they find: "A large GraRep order value for link prediction tasks (e.g. 3, 4);a small value for node classification tasks (e.g.1, 2)" (p.9). Interestingly, the gap in link prediction performance is inexistant for artificially created graphs. This suggests higher order methods do learn some of the structure intrinsic to [real world graphs][26]. For visualization, first order methods are better. Visualizations of higher order methods tend to have artifacts of their sampling. For instance, Node2Vec visualizations tend to have elongated/filament-like structures which come from the embeddings coming from long single strand random walks. See the following visualizations by [Owen Cornec][27] created by first embedding the graph to 32-300 dimensions using a node embedding algorithm, then mapping this to 2d or 3d with the excellent UMAP algorithm, like this Lastly, sometimes simple methods soundly beat higher order methods (there's an instance of it in the OGB paper). The problem here is that we don't know when any method is better than another and we definitely don't know the reason. There's definitely a reason different graph types respond better/worse to being represented by various methods. This is currently an open question. A big part of why is that the research space is inundated under useless new algorithms because... Academic incentives work against progress Here's the cynic's view of how machine learning papers are made: Take an existing algorithm Add some new layer/hyperparameter, make a cute mathematical story for why it matters Gridsearch your hyperparameters until you beat baselines from the original paper you aped Absolutely don't gridsearch stuff you're comparing against in your results section Make a cute ACRONYM for your new method, put impossible to use python 2 code on github (Or no code at all!) and bask in the citations I'm [not][28] the [only one][29] with these views on the state reproducible research. At least it's gotten slightly better in the last 2 years. Sidebar: I hate Node2Vec A side project of mine is a [node embedding library][25] and the most popular method in it is by far Node2Vec. Don't use Node2Vec. [Node2Vec][30] with p=1; q=1 is the [Deepwalk][31] algorithm. Deepwalk is an actual innovation. The Node2Vec authors closely followed the steps 1-5 including bonus points on step 5 by getting word2vec name recognition. This is not academic fraud -- the hyperparameters [do help a tiny bit][32] if you gridsearch really hard. But it's the presentable-to-your-parents sister of where you make the ML community worse off to progress your academic career. And certainly Node2Vec doesn't deserve 7500 citations. Progress is all about practical issues We've known how to train neural networks for well over 40 years. Yet they only exploded in popularity with [AlexNet][33] in 2012. This is because implementations and hardware came to a point where deep learning was practical. Similarly, we've known about factoring word co-occurence matrices into Word embeddings for at least 20 years. But word embeddings only exploded in 2013 with Word2Vec. The breakthrough here was that the minibatch-based methods let you train a Wikipedia-scale embedding model on commodity hardware. It's hard for methods in a field to make progress if training on a small amount of data takes days or weeks. You're disincentivized to explore new methods. If you want progress, your stuff has to run in reasonable time on commodity hardware. Even Google's original search algorithm [initially ran on commodity hardware][34]. Efficiency is paramount to progress The reason deep learning research took off the way it did is because of improvements in [efficiency][35] as well as much better libraries and hardware support. Academic code is terrible Any amount of time you spend gridsearching Node2Vec on p and q is all put to better use gridsearching Deepwalk itself (on number of walks, length of walks, or word2vec hyperparameters). The problem is that people don't gridsearch over deepwalk because implementations are all terrible. I wrote the [Nodevectors library][36] to have a fast deepwalk implementation because it took 32 hours to embed a graph with a measly 150,000 nodes using the reference Node2Vec implementation (the same takes 3min with Nodevectors). It's no wonder people don't gridsearch on Deepwalk a gridsearch would take weeks with the terrible reference implementations. To give an example, in the original paper of [GraphSAGE][37] they their algorithm to DeepWalk with walk lengths of 5, which is horrid if you've ever hyperparameter tuned a deepwalk algorithm. From their paper: We did observe DeepWalk’s performance could improve with further training, and in some cases it could become competitive with the unsupervised GraphSAGE approaches (but not the supervised approaches) if we let it run for >1000× longer than the other approaches (in terms of wall clock time for prediction on the test set) I don't even think the GraphSAGE authors had bad intent -- deepwalk implementations are simply so awful that they're turned away from using it properly. It's like trying to do deep learning with 2002 deep learning libraries and hardware. Your architectures don't really matter One of the more important papers this year was [OpenAI's "Scaling laws"][38] paper, where the raw number of parameters in your model is the most predictive feature of overall performance. This was noted even in the original BERT paper and drives 2020's increase in absolutely massive language models. This is really just [Sutton' Bitter Lesson][39] in action: General methods that leverage computation are ultimately the most effective, and by a large margin Transformers might be [replacing convolution][40], too. As [Yannic Kilcher said][41], transformers are ruining everything. [They work on graphs][6], in fact it's one of the [recent approaches][42], and seems to be one of the more succesful [when benchmarked][1] Researchers seem to be putting so much effort into architecture, but it doesn't matter much in the end because you can approximate anything by stacking more layers. Efficiency wins are great -- but neural net architectures are just one way to achieve that, and by tremendously over-researching this area we're leaving a lot of huge gains elsewhere on the table. Current Graph Data Structure Implementations suck NetworkX is a bad library. I mean, it's good if you're working on tiny graphs for babies, but for anything serious it chokes and forces you to rewrite everything in... what library, really? At this point most people working on large graphs end up hand-rolling some data structure. This is tough because your computer's memory is a 1-dimensional array of 1's and 0's and a graph has no obvious 1-d mapping. This is even harder when we take updating the graph (adding/removing some nodes/edges) into account. Here's a few options: Disconnected networks of pointers NetworkX is the best example. Here, every node is an object with a list of pointers to other nodes (the node's edges). This layout is like a linked list. Linked lists are the [root of all performance evil][43]. Linked lists go completely against how modern computers are designed. Fetching things from memory is slow, and operating on memory is fast (by two orders of magnitude). Whenever you do anything in this layout, you make a roundtrip to RAM. It's slow by design, you can write this in Ruby or C or assembly and it'll be slow regardless, because memory fetches are slow in hardware. The main advantage of this layout is that adding a new node is O(1). So if you're maintaining a massive graph where adding and removing nodes happens as often as reading from the graph, it makes sense. Another advantage of this layout is that it "scales". Because everything is decoupled from each other you can put this data structure on a cluster. However, you're really creating a complex solution for a problem you created for yourself. Sparse Adjacency Matrix This layout great for read-only graphs. I use it as the backend in my [nodevectors][25] library, and many other library writers use the [Scipy CSR Matrix][44], you can see graph algorithms implemented on it [here][45]. The most popular layout for this use is the [CSR Format][46] where you have 3 arrays holding the graph. One for edge destinations, one for edge weights and an "index pointer" which says which edges come from which node. Because the CSR layout is simply 3 arrays, it scales on a single computer: a CSR matrix can be laid out on a disk instead of in-memory. You simply [memory map][47] the 3 arrays and use them on-disk from there. With modern NVMe drives random seeks aren't slow anymore, much faster than distributed network calls like you do when scaling the linked list-based graph. I haven't seen anyone actually implement this yet, but it's in the roadmap for my implementation at least. The problem with this representation is that adding a node or edge means rebuilding the whole data structure. Edgelist representations This representation is three arrays: one for the edge sources, one for the edge destinations, and one for edge weights. [DGL][48] uses this representation internally. This is a simple and compact layout which can be good for analysis. The problem compared to CSR Graphs is some seek operations are slower. Say you want all the edges for node #4243. You can't jump there without maintaining an index pointer array. So either you maintain sorted order and binary search your way there (O(log2n)) or unsorted order and linear search (O(n)). This data structure can also work on memory mapped disk array, and node append is fast on unsorted versions (it's slow in the sorted version). Global methods are a dead end Methods that work on the entire graph at once can't leverage computation, because they run out of RAM at a certain scale. So any method that want a chance of being the new standard need to be able to update piecemeal on parts of the graph. Sampling-based methods Sampling Efficiency will matter more in the future Edgewise local methods. The only algorithms I know of that do this are GloVe and GGVec, which they pass through an edge list and update embedding weights on each step. The problem with this approach is that it's hard to use them for higher-order methods. The advantage is that they easily scale even on one computer. Also, incrementally adding a new node is as simple as taking the existing embeddings, adding a new one, and doing another epoch over the data Random Walk sampling. This is used by deepwalk and its descendants, usually for node embeddings rather than GNN methods. This can be computationally expensive and make it hard to add new nodes. But this does scale, for instance [Instagram][49] use it to feed their recommendation system models Neighbourhood sampling. This is currently the most common one in GNNs, and can be low or higher order depending on the neighborhood size. It also scales well, though implementing efficiently can be challenging. It's currently used by [Pinterest][50]'s recommendation algorithms. Conclusion Here are a few interesting questions: What is the relation between graph types and methods? Consolidated benchmarking like OGB We're throwing random models at random benchmarks without understanding why or when they do better More fundamental research. Heree's one I'm curious about: can other representation types like [Poincarre Embeddings][51] effectively encode directed relationships? On the other hand, we should stop focusing on adding spicy new layers to test on the same tiny datasets. No one cares. [1]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.00982.pdf [2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.11867.pdf [3]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.08434.pdf [4]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.00687.pdf [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjacency_matrix [6]: https://thegradient.pub/transformers-are-graph-neural-networks/ [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word2vec [8]: https://nlp.stanford.edu/pubs/glove.pdf [9]: https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2014/file/feab05aa91085b7a8012516bc3533958-Paper.pdf [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bag-of-words_model [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-occurrence [12]: https://www.singlelunch.com/2020/02/16/embeddings-from-the-ground-up/ [13]: https://www.singlelunch.com/2019/01/27/word-embeddings-from-the-ground-up/ [14]: https://nlpprogress.com/ [15]: http://socsci.uci.edu/~rfutrell/papers/hahn2019estimating.pdf [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity [17]: https://bair.berkeley.edu/blog/2020/12/20/lmmem/ [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplacian_matrix [19]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=1F03130B02DC485C78BF364266B6F0CA?doi=10.1.1.19.8100&rep=rep1&type=pdf [20]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principalcomponentanalysis [21]: https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/2019/0594.pdf [22]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2806416.2806512 [23]: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=SyK00v5xx [24]: https://github.com/VHRanger/nodevectors/blob/master/examples/link%20prediction.ipynb [25]: https://github.com/VHRanger/nodevectors [26]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.2636.pdf [27]: http://byowen.com/ [28]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.03341.pdf [29]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kee4ch3miVA [30]: https://cs.stanford.edu/~jure/pubs/node2vec-kdd16.pdf [31]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.6652.pdf [32]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.11726.pdf [33]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlexNet [34]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googledatacenters#Original_hardware [35]: https://openai.com/blog/ai-and-efficiency/ [36]: https://www.singlelunch.com/2019/08/01/700x-faster-node2vec-models-fastest-random-walks-on-a-graph/ [37]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.02216.pdf [38]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.08361.pdf [39]: http://incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html [40]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11929 [41]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrdevFK_am4 [42]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10903.pdf [43]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHNmRkzxHWs [44]: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.sparse.csr_matrix.html [45]: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/sparse.csgraph.html [46]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparsematrix#Compressedsparserow(CSR,CRSorYaleformat) [47]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmap [48]: https://github.com/dmlc/dgl [49]: https://ai.facebook.com/blog/powered-by-ai-instagrams-explore-recommender-system/ [50]: https://medium.com/pinterest-engineering/pinsage-a-new-graph-convolutional-neural-network-for-web-scale-recommender-systems-88795a107f48 [51]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.08039.pdf

[D] Misuse of Deep Learning in Nature Journal’s Earthquake Aftershock Paper

Recently, I saw a post by Rajiv Shah, Chicago-based data-scientist, regarding an article published in Nature last year called Deep learning of aftershock patterns following large earthquakes, written by scientists at Harvard in collaboration with Google. Below is the article: Stand Up for Best Practices: Misuse of Deep Learning in Nature’s Earthquake Aftershock Paper The Dangers of Machine Learning Hype Practitioners of AI, machine learning, predictive modeling, and data science have grown enormously over the last few years. What was once a niche field defined by its blend of knowledge is becoming a rapidly growing profession. As the excitement around AI continues to grow, the new wave of ML augmentation, automation, and GUI tools will lead to even more growth in the number of people trying to build predictive models. But here’s the rub: While it becomes easier to use the tools of predictive modeling, predictive modeling knowledge is not yet a widespread commodity. Errors can be counterintuitive and subtle, and they can easily lead you to the wrong conclusions if you’re not careful. I’m a data scientist who works with dozens of expert data science teams for a living. In my day job, I see these teams striving to build high-quality models. The best teams work together to review their models to detect problems. There are many hard-to-detect-ways that lead to problematic models (say, by allowing target leakage into their training data). Identifying issues is not fun. This requires admitting that exciting results are “too good to be true” or that their methods were not the right approach. In other words, it’s less about the sexy data science hype that gets headlines and more about a rigorous scientific discipline. Bad Methods Create Bad Results Almost a year ago, I read an article in Nature that claimed unprecedented accuracy in predicting earthquake aftershocks by using deep learning. Reading the article, my internal radar became deeply suspicious of their results. Their methods simply didn’t carry many of the hallmarks of careful predicting modeling. I started to dig deeper. In the meantime, this article blew up and became widely recognized! It was even included in the release notes for Tensorflow as an example of what deep learning could do. However, in my digging, I found major flaws in the paper. Namely, data leakage which leads to unrealistic accuracy scores and a lack of attention to model selection (you don’t build a 6 layer neural network when a simpler model provides the same level of accuracy). To my earlier point: these are subtle, but incredibly basic predictive modeling errors that can invalidate the entire results of an experiment. Data scientists are trained to recognize and avoid these issues in their work. I assumed that this was simply overlooked by the author, so I contacted her and let her know so that she could improve her analysis. Although we had previously communicated, she did not respond to my email over concerns with the paper. Falling On Deaf Ears So, what was I to do? My coworkers told me to just tweet it and let it go, but I wanted to stand up for good modeling practices. I thought reason and best practices would prevail, so I started a 6-month process of writing up my results and shared them with Nature. Upon sharing my results, I received a note from Nature in January 2019 that despite serious concerns about data leakage and model selection that invalidate their experiment, they saw no need to correct the errors, because “Devries et al. are concerned primarily with using machine learning as [a] tool to extract insight into the natural world, and not with details of the algorithm design.” The authors provided a much harsher response. You can read the entire exchange on my github. It’s not enough to say that I was disappointed. This was a major paper (it’s Nature!) that bought into AI hype and published a paper despite it using flawed methods. Then, just this week, I ran across articles by Arnaud Mignan and Marco Broccardo on shortcomings that they found in the aftershocks article. Here are two more data scientists with expertise in earthquake analysis who also noticed flaws in the paper. I also have placed my analysis and reproducible code on github. Standing Up For Predictive Modeling Methods I want to make it clear: my goal is not to villainize the authors of the aftershocks paper. I don’t believe that they were malicious, and I think that they would argue their goal was to just show how machine learning could be applied to aftershocks. Devries is an accomplished earthquake scientist who wanted to use the latest methods for her field of study and found exciting results from it. But here’s the problem: their insights and results were based on fundamentally flawed methods. It’s not enough to say, “This isn’t a machine learning paper, it’s an earthquake paper.” If you use predictive modeling, then the quality of your results are determined by the quality of your modeling. Your work becomes data science work, and you are on the hook for your scientific rigor. There is a huge appetite for papers that use the latest technologies and approaches. It becomes very difficult to push back on these papers. But if we allow papers or projects with fundamental issues to advance, it hurts all of us. It undermines the field of predictive modeling. Please push back on bad data science. Report bad findings to papers. And if they don’t take action, go to twitter, post about it, share your results and make noise. This type of collective action worked to raise awareness of p-values and combat the epidemic of p-hacking. We need good machine learning practices if we want our field to continue to grow and maintain credibility. Link to Rajiv's Article Original Nature Publication (note: paywalled) GitHub repo contains an attempt to reproduce Nature's paper Confrontational correspondence with authors

[Discussion] When ML and Data Science are the death of a good company: A cautionary tale.

TD;LR: At Company A, Team X does advanced analytics using on-prem ERP tools and older programming languages. Their tools work very well and are designed based on very deep business and domain expertise. Team Y is a new and ambitious Data Science team that thinks they can replace Team X's tools with a bunch of R scripts and a custom built ML platform. Their models are simplistic, but more "fashionable" compared to the econometric models used by Team X, and team Y benefits from the ML/DS moniker so leadership is allowing Team Y to start a large scale overhaul of the analytics platform in question. Team Y doesn't have the experience for such a larger scale transformation, and is refusing to collaborate with team X. This project is very likely going to fail, and cause serious harm to the company as a whole financially and from a people perspective. I argue that this is not just because of bad leadership, but also because of various trends and mindsets in the DS community at large. Update (Jump to below the line for the original story): Several people in the comments are pointing out that this just a management failure, not something due to ML/DS, and that you can replace DS with any buzz tech and the story will still be relevant. My response: Of course, any failure at an organization level is ultimately a management failure one way or the other. Moreover, it is also the case that ML/DS when done correctly, will always improve a company's bottom line. There is no scenario where the proper ML solution, delivered at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion, will somehow hurt the company's bottom line. My point is that in this case management is failing because of certain trends and practices that are specific to the ML/DS community, namely: The idea that DS teams should operate independently of tech and business orgs -- too much autonomy for DS teams The disregard for domain knowledge that seems prevalent nowadays thanks to the ML hype, that DS can be generalists and someone with good enough ML chops can solve any business problem. That wasn't the case when I first left academia for the industry in 2009 (back then nobody would even bother with a phone screen if you didn't have the right domain knowledge). Over reliance on resources who check all the ML hype related boxes (knows Python, R, Tensorflow, Shiny, etc..., has the right Coursera certifications, has blogged on the topic, etc...), but are lacking in depth of experience. DS interviews nowadays all seem to be: Can you tell me what a p-value is? What is elastic net regression? Show me how to fit a model in sklearn? How do you impute NAs in an R dataframe? Any smart person can look those up on Stackoverflow or Cross-Validated,.....Instead teams should be asking stuff like: why does portfolio optimization use QP not LP? How does a forecast influence a customer service level? When should a recommendation engine be content based and when should it use collaborative filtering? etc... (This is a true story, happening to the company I currently work for. Names, domains, algorithms, and roles have been shuffled around to protect my anonymity)  Company A has been around for several decades. It is not the biggest name in its domain, but it is a well respected one. Risk analysis and portfolio optimization have been a core of Company A's business since the 90s. They have a large team of 30 or so analysts who perform those tasks on a daily basis. These analysts use ERP solutions implemented for them by one the big ERP companies (SAP, Teradata, Oracle, JD Edwards,...) or one of the major tech consulting companies (Deloitte, Accenture, PWC, Capgemini, etc...) in collaboration with their own in house engineering team. The tools used are embarrassingly old school: Classic RDBMS running on on-prem servers or maybe even on mainframes, code written in COBOL, Fortran, weird proprietary stuff like ABAP or SPSS.....you get the picture. But the models and analytic functions were pretty sophisticated, and surprisingly cutting edge compared to the published academic literature. Most of all, they fit well with the company's enterprise ecosystem, and were honed based on years of deep domain knowledge.  They have a tech team of several engineers (poached from the aforementioned software and consulting companies) and product managers (who came from the experienced pools of analysts and managers who use the software, or poached from business rivals) maintaining and running this software. Their technology might be old school, but collectively, they know the domain and the company's overall architecture very, very well. They've guided the company through several large scale upgrades and migrations and they have a track record of delivering on time, without too much overhead. The few times they've stumbled, they knew how to pick themselves up very quickly. In fact within their industry niche, they have a reputation for their expertise, and have very good relations with the various vendors they've had to deal with. They were the launching pad of several successful ERP consulting careers.  Interestingly, despite dealing on a daily basis with statistical modeling and optimization algorithms, none of the analysts, engineers, or product managers involved describe themselves as data scientists or machine learning experts. It is mostly a cultural thing: Their expertise predates the Data Science/ML hype that started circa 2010, and they got most of their chops using proprietary enterprise tools instead of the open source tools popular nowadays. A few of them have formal statistical training, but most of them came from engineering or domain backgrounds and learned stats on the fly while doing their job. Call this team "Team X".  Sometime around the mid 2010s, Company A started having some serious anxiety issues: Although still doing very well for a company its size, overall economic and demographic trends were shrinking its customer base, and a couple of so called disruptors came up with a new app and business model that started seriously eating into their revenue. A suitable reaction to appease shareholders and Wall Street was necessary. The company already had a decent website and a pretty snazzy app, what more could be done? Leadership decided that it was high time that AI and ML become a core part of the company's business. An ambitious Manager, with no science or engineering background, but who had very briefly toyed with a recommender system a couple of years back, was chosen to build a data science team, call it team "Y" (he had a bachelor's in history from the local state college and worked for several years in the company's marketing org). Team "Y" consists mostly of internal hires who decided they wanted to be data scientists and completed a Coursera certification or a Galvanize boot camp, before being brought on to the team, along with a few of fresh Ph.D or M.Sc holders who didn't like academia and wanted to try their hand at an industry role. All of them were very bright people, they could write great Medium blog posts and give inspiring TED talks, but collectively they had very little real world industry experience. As is the fashion nowadays, this group was made part of a data science org that reported directly to the CEO and Board, bypassing the CIO and any tech or business VPs, since Company A wanted to claim the monikers "data driven" and "AI powered" in their upcoming shareholder meetings. In 3 or 4 years of existence, team Y produced a few Python and R scripts. Their architectural experience  consisted almost entirely in connecting Flask to S3 buckets or Redshift tables, with a couple of the more resourceful ones learning how to plug their models into Tableau or how to spin up a Kuberneties pod.  But they needn't worry: The aforementioned manager, who was now a director (and was also doing an online Masters to make up for his qualifications gap and bolster his chances of becoming VP soon - at least he now understands what L1 regularization is), was a master at playing corporate politics and self-promotion. No matter how few actionable insights team Y produced or how little code they deployed to production, he always had their back and made sure they had ample funding. In fact he now had grandiose plans for setting up an all-purpose machine learning platform that can be used to solve all of the company's data problems.  A couple of sharp minded members of team Y, upon googling their industry name along with the word "data science", realized that risk analysis was a prime candidate for being solved with Bayesian models, and there was already a nifty R package for doing just that, whose tutorial they went through on R-Bloggers.com. One of them had even submitted a Bayesian classifier Kernel for a competition on Kaggle (he was 203rd on the leaderboard), and was eager to put his new-found expertise to use on a real world problem. They pitched the idea to their director, who saw a perfect use case for his upcoming ML platform. They started work on it immediately, without bothering to check whether anybody at Company A was already doing risk analysis. Since their org was independent, they didn't really need to check with anybody else before they got funding for their initiative. Although it was basically a Naive Bayes classifier, the term ML was added to the project tile, to impress the board.  As they progressed with their work however, tensions started to build. They had asked the data warehousing and CA analytics teams to build pipelines for them, and word eventually got out to team X about their project. Team X was initially thrilled: They offered to collaborate whole heartedly, and would have loved to add an ML based feather to their already impressive cap. The product owners and analysts were totally onboard as well: They saw a chance to get in on the whole Data Science hype that they kept hearing about. But through some weird mix of arrogance and insecurity, team Y refused to collaborate with them or share any of their long term goals with them, even as they went to other parts of the company giving brown bag presentations and tutorials on the new model they created.  Team X got resentful: from what they saw of team Y's model, their approach was hopelessly naive and had little chances of scaling or being sustainable in production, and they knew exactly how to help with that. Deploying the model to production would have taken them a few days, given how comfortable they were with DevOps and continuous delivery (team Y had taken several months to figure out how to deploy a simple R script to production). And despite how old school their own tech was, team X were crafty enough to be able to plug it in to their existing architecture. Moreover, the output of the model was such that it didn't take into account how the business will consume it or how it was going to be fed to downstream systems, and the product owners could have gone a long way in making the model more amenable to adoption by the business stakeholders. But team Y wouldn't listen, and their leads brushed off any attempts at communication, let alone collaboration. The vibe that team Y was giving off was "We are the cutting edge ML team, you guys are the legacy server grunts. We don't need your opinion.", and they seemed to have a complete disregard for domain knowledge, or worse, they thought that all that domain knowledge consisted of was being able to grasp the definitions of a few business metrics.  Team X got frustrated and tried to express their concerns to leadership. But despite owning a vital link in Company A's business process, they were only \~50 people in a large 1000 strong technology and operations org, and they were several layers removed from the C-suite, so it was impossible for them to get their voices heard.  Meanwhile, the unstoppable director was doing what he did best: Playing corporate politics. Despite how little his team had actually delivered, he had convinced the board that all analysis and optimization tasks should now be migrated to his yet to be delivered ML platform. Since most leaders now knew that there was overlap between team Y and team X's objectives, his pitch was no longer that team Y was going to create a new insight, but that they were going to replace (or modernize) the legacy statistics based on-prem tools with more accurate cloud based ML tools. Never mind that there was no support in the academic literature for the idea that Naive Bayes works better than the Econometric approaches used by team X, let alone the additional wacky idea that Bayesian Optimization would definitely outperform the QP solvers that were running in production.  Unbeknownst to team X, the original Bayesian risk analysis project has now grown into a multimillion dollar major overhaul initiative, which included the eventual replacement of all of the tools and functions supported by team X along with the necessary migration to the cloud. The CIO and a couple of business VPs are on now board, and tech leadership is treating it as a done deal. An outside vendor, a startup who nobody had heard of, was contracted to help build the platform, since team Y has no engineering skills. The choice was deliberate, as calling on any of the established consulting or software companies would have eventually led leadership to the conclusion that team X was better suited for a transformation on this scale than team Y.  Team Y has no experience with any major ERP deployments, and no domain knowledge, yet they are being tasked with fundamentally changing the business process that is at the core of Company A's business. Their models actually perform worse than those deployed by team X, and their architecture is hopelessly simplistic, compared to what is necessary for running such a solution in production.  Ironically, using Bayesian thinking and based on all the evidence, the likelihood that team Y succeeds is close to 0%. At best, the project is going to end up being a write off of 50 million dollars or more. Once the !@#$!@hits the fan, a couple of executive heads are going to role, and dozens of people will get laid off. At worst, given how vital risk analysis and portfolio optimization is to Company A's revenue stream, the failure will eventually sink the whole company. It probably won't go bankrupt, but it will lose a significant portion of its business and work force. Failed ERP implementations can and do sink large companies: Just see what happened to National Grid US, SuperValu or Target Canada.  One might argue that this is more about corporate disfunction and bad leadership than about data science and AI. But I disagree. I think the core driver of this debacle is indeed the blind faith in Data Scientists, ML models and the promise of AI, and the overall culture of hype and self promotion that is very common among the ML crowd.  We haven't seen the end of this story: I sincerely hope that this ends well for the sake of my colleagues and all involved. Company A is a good company, and both its customers and its employees deserver better. But the chances of that happening are negligible given all the information available, and this failure will hit my company hard.

[D] The Rants of an experienced engineer who glimpsed into AI Academia (Briefly)

Background I recently graduated with a master's degree and was fortunate/unfortunate to glimpse the whole "Academic" side of ML. I took a thesis track in my degree because as an immigrant it's harder to get into a good research lab without having authorship in a couple of good papers (Or so I delude myself ). I worked as a Full-stack SWE for a startup for 4+ years before coming to the US for a master’s degree focused on ML and AI. I did everything in those years. From project management to building fully polished S/W products to DevOps to even dabbled in ML. I did my Batchelor’s degree from a university whose name is not even worth mentioning. The university for my master’s degree is in the top 20 in the AI space. I didn't know much about ML and the curiosity drove me to university. Come to uni and I focused on learning ML and AI for one 1-1.5 years after which I found advisors for a thesis topic. This is when the fun starts. I had the most amazing advisors but the entire peer review system and the way we assess ML/Science is what ticked me off. This is where the rant begins. Rant 1:Acadmia follows a Gated Institutional Narrative Let's say you are a Ph.D. at the world's top AI institution working under the best prof. You have a way higher likelihood of you getting a good Postdoc at a huge research lab vs someone's from my poor country doing a Ph.D. with a not-so-well-known advisor having published not-so-well-known papers. I come from a developing nation and I see this many times here. In my country academics don't get funding as they do at colleges in the US. One of the reasons for this is that colleges don't have such huge endowments and many academics don't have wealthy research sponsors. Brand names and prestige carry massive weight to help get funding in US academic circles. This prestige/money percolates down to the students and the researchers who work there. Students in top colleges get a huge advantage and the circles of top researchers keep being from the same sets of institutions. I have nothing against top researchers from top institutions but due to the nature of citations and the way the money flows based on them, a vicious cycle is created where the best institutions keep getting better and the rest don't get as much of a notice. Rant 2: Peer Review without Code Review in ML/AI is shady I am a computer scientist and I was appalled when I heard that you don't need to do code reviews for research papers. As a computer scientist and someone who actually did shit tons of actual ML in the past year, I find it absolutely garbage that code reviews are not a part of this system. I am not saying every scientist who reads a paper should review code but at least one person should for any paper's code submission. At least in ML and AI space. This is basic. I don't get why people call themselves computer scientists if they don't want to read the fucking code. If you can't then make a grad student do it. But for the collective of science, we need this. The core problem lies in the fact that peer review is free. : There should be better solutions for this. We ended up creating Git and that changed so many lives. Academic Research needs something similar. Rant 3: My Idea is Novel Until I see Someone Else's Paper The volume of scientific research is growing exponentially. Information is being created faster than we can digest. We can't expect people to know everything and the amount of overlap in the AI/ML fields requires way better search engines than Google Scholar. The side effect of large volumes of research is that every paper is doing something "novel" making it harder to filter what the fuck was novel. I have had so many experiences where I coded up something and came to realize that someone else has done something symbolically similar and my work just seems like a small variant of that. That's what fucks with my head. Is what I did in Novel? What the fuck is Novel? Is stitching up a transformer to any problem with fancy embeddings and tidying it up as a research paper Novel? Is just making a transformer bigger Novel? Is some new RL algorithm tested with 5 seeds and some fancy fucking prior and some esoteric reasoning for its success Novel? Is using an over parameterized model to get 95% accuracy on 200 sample test set Novel? Is apply Self-supervised learning for some new dataset Novel? If I keep on listing questions on novelty, I can probably write a novel asking about what the fuck is "Novel". Rant 4: Citation Based Optimization Promotes Self Growth Over Collective Growth Whatever people may say about collaboration, Academia intrinsically doesn't promote the right incentive structures to harbor collaboration. Let me explain, When you write a paper, the position of your name matters. If you are just a Ph.D. student and a first author to a paper, it's great. If you are an nth author Not so great. Apparently, this is a very touchy thing for academics. And lots of egos can clash around numbering and ordering of names. I distinctly remember once attending some seminar in a lab and approaching a few students on research project ideas. The first thing that came out of the PhD student's mouth was the position in authorship. As an engineer who worked with teams in the past, this was never something I had thought about. Especially because I worked in industry, where it's always the group over the person. Academia is the reverse. Academia applauds the celebration of the individual's achievements. All of this is understandable but it's something I don't like. This makes PhDs stick to their lane. The way citations/research-focus calibrate the "hire-ability" and "completion of Ph.D. thesis" metrics, people are incentivized to think about themselves instead of thinking about collaborations for making something better. Conclusion A Ph.D. in its most idealistic sense for me is the pursuit of hard ideas(I am poetic that way). In a situation like now when you have to publish or perish and words on paper get passed off as science without even seeing the code that runs it, I am extremely discouraged to go down that route. All these rants are not to diss on scientists. I did them because "we" as a community need better ways to addressing some of these problems. P.S. Never expected so many people to express their opinions about this rant. U shouldn’t take this seriously. As many people have stated I am an outsider with tiny experience to give a full picture. I realize that my post as coming out as something which tries to dichotomize academia and industry. I am not trying to do that. I wanted to highlight some problems I saw for which there is no one person to blame. These issues are in my opinion a byproduct of the economics which created this system. Thank you for gold stranger.

[N] Netflix and European Space Agency no longer working with Siraj Raval

According to article in The Register: A Netflix spokesperson confirmed to The Register it wasn’t working with Raval, and the ESA has cancelled the whole workshop altogether. “The situation is as it is. The workshop is cancelled, and that’s all,” Guillaume Belanger, an astrophysicist and the INTEGRAL Science Operations Coordinator at the ESA, told The Register on Monday. Raval isn’t about to quit his work any time soon, however. He promised students who graduated from his course that they would be referred to recruiters at Nvidia, Intel, Google and Amazon for engineering positions, or matched with a startup co-founder or a consulting client. In an unlisted YouTube video recorded live for his students discussing week eight of his course, and seen by El Reg, he read out a question posed to him: “Will your referrals hold any value now?” “Um, yeah they’re going to hold value. I don’t see why they wouldn’t. I mean, yes, some people on Twitter were angry but that has nothing to do with… I mean… I’ve also had tons of support, you know. I’ve had tons of support from people, who, uh, you know, support me, who work at these companies. He continues to justify his actions: “Public figures called me in private to remind me that this happens. You know, people make mistakes. You just have to keep going. They’re basically just telling me to not to stop. Of course, you make mistakes but you just keep going,” he claimed. When The Register asked Raval for comment, he responded: I've hardly taken any time off to relax since I first started my YouTube channel almost four years ago. And despite the enormous amount of work it takes to release two high quality videos a week for my audience, I progressively started to take on multiple other projects simultaneously by myself – a book, a docu-series, podcasts, YouTube videos, the course, the school of AI. Basically, these past few weeks, I've been experiencing a burnout unlike anything I've felt before. As a result, all of my output has been subpar. I made the [neural qubits] video and paper in one week. I remember wishing I had three to six months to really dive into quantum machine-learning and make something awesome, but telling myself I couldn't take that long as it would hinder my other projects. I plagiarized large chunks of the paper to meet my self-imposed one-week deadline. The associated video with animations took a lot more work to make. I didn't expect the paper to be cited as serious research, I considered it an additional reading resource for people who enjoyed the associated video to learn more about quantum machine learning. If I had a second chance, I'd definitely take way more time to write the paper, and in my own words. I've given refunds to every student who's asked so far, and the majority of students are still enrolled in the course. There are many happy students, they're just not as vocal on social media. We're on week 8 of 10 of my course, fully committed to student success. “And, no, I haven't plagiarized research for any other paper,” he added. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/14/ravelaiyoutube/

[D] Why can't you guys comment your fucking code?

Seriously. I spent the last few years doing web app development. Dug into DL a couple months ago. Supposedly, compared to the post-post-post-docs doing AI stuff, JavaScript developers should be inbred peasants. But every project these peasants release, even a fucking library that colorizes CLI output, has a catchy name, extensive docs, shitloads of comments, fuckton of tests, semantic versioning, changelog, and, oh my god, better variable names than ctxh or langhs or fuckyoufortryingto_understand. The concepts and ideas behind DL, GANs, LSTMs, CNNs, whatever – it's clear, it's simple, it's intuitive. The slog is to go through the jargon (that keeps changing beneath your feet - what's the point of using fancy words if you can't keep them consistent?), the unnecessary equations, trying to squeeze meaning from bullshit language used in papers, figuring out the super important steps, preprocessing, hyperparameters optimization that the authors, oops, failed to mention. Sorry for singling out, but look at this - what the fuck? If a developer anywhere else at Facebook would get this code for a review they would throw up. Do you intentionally try to obfuscate your papers? Is pseudo-code a fucking premium? Can you at least try to give some intuition before showering the reader with equations? How the fuck do you dare to release a paper without source code? Why the fuck do you never ever add comments to you code? When naming things, are you charged by the character? Do you get a bonus for acronyms? Do you realize that OpenAI having needed to release a "baseline" TRPO implementation is a fucking disgrace to your profession? Jesus christ, who decided to name a tensor concatenation function cat?

[D] The current and future state of AI/ML is shockingly demoralizing with little hope of redemption

I recently encountered the PaLM (Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways) paper from Google Research and it opened up a can of worms of ideas I’ve felt I’ve intuitively had for a while, but have been unable to express – and I know I can’t be the only one. Sometimes I wonder what the original pioneers of AI – Turing, Neumann, McCarthy, etc. – would think if they could see the state of AI that we’ve gotten ourselves into. 67 authors, 83 pages, 540B parameters in a model, the internals of which no one can say they comprehend with a straight face, 6144 TPUs in a commercial lab that no one has access to, on a rig that no one can afford, trained on a volume of data that a human couldn’t process in a lifetime, 1 page on ethics with the same ideas that have been rehashed over and over elsewhere with no attempt at a solution – bias, racism, malicious use, etc. – for purposes that who asked for? When I started my career as an AI/ML research engineer 2016, I was most interested in two types of tasks – 1.) those that most humans could do but that would universally be considered tedious and non-scalable. I’m talking image classification, sentiment analysis, even document summarization, etc. 2.) tasks that humans lack the capacity to perform as well as computers for various reasons – forecasting, risk analysis, game playing, and so forth. I still love my career, and I try to only work on projects in these areas, but it’s getting harder and harder. This is because, somewhere along the way, it became popular and unquestionably acceptable to push AI into domains that were originally uniquely human, those areas that sit at the top of Maslows’s hierarchy of needs in terms of self-actualization – art, music, writing, singing, programming, and so forth. These areas of endeavor have negative logarithmic ability curves – the vast majority of people cannot do them well at all, about 10% can do them decently, and 1% or less can do them extraordinarily. The little discussed problem with AI-generation is that, without extreme deterrence, we will sacrifice human achievement at the top percentile in the name of lowering the bar for a larger volume of people, until the AI ability range is the norm. This is because relative to humans, AI is cheap, fast, and infinite, to the extent that investments in human achievement will be watered down at the societal, educational, and individual level with each passing year. And unlike AI gameplay which superseded humans decades ago, we won’t be able to just disqualify the machines and continue to play as if they didn’t exist. Almost everywhere I go, even this forum, I encounter almost universal deference given to current SOTA AI generation systems like GPT-3, CODEX, DALL-E, etc., with almost no one extending their implications to its logical conclusion, which is long-term convergence to the mean, to mediocrity, in the fields they claim to address or even enhance. If you’re an artist or writer and you’re using DALL-E or GPT-3 to “enhance” your work, or if you’re a programmer saying, “GitHub Co-Pilot makes me a better programmer?”, then how could you possibly know? You’ve disrupted and bypassed your own creative process, which is thoughts -> (optionally words) -> actions -> feedback -> repeat, and instead seeded your canvas with ideas from a machine, the provenance of which you can’t understand, nor can the machine reliably explain. And the more you do this, the more you make your creative processes dependent on said machine, until you must question whether or not you could work at the same level without it. When I was a college student, I often dabbled with weed, LSD, and mushrooms, and for a while, I thought the ideas I was having while under the influence were revolutionary and groundbreaking – that is until took it upon myself to actually start writing down those ideas and then reviewing them while sober, when I realized they weren’t that special at all. What I eventually determined is that, under the influence, it was impossible for me to accurately evaluate the drug-induced ideas I was having because the influencing agent the generates the ideas themselves was disrupting the same frame of reference that is responsible evaluating said ideas. This is the same principle of – if you took a pill and it made you stupider, would even know it? I believe that, especially over the long-term timeframe that crosses generations, there’s significant risk that current AI-generation developments produces a similar effect on humanity, and we mostly won’t even realize it has happened, much like a frog in boiling water. If you have children like I do, how can you be aware of the the current SOTA in these areas, project that 20 to 30 years, and then and tell them with a straight face that it is worth them pursuing their talent in art, writing, or music? How can you be honest and still say that widespread implementation of auto-correction hasn’t made you and others worse and worse at spelling over the years (a task that even I believe most would agree is tedious and worth automating). Furthermore, I’ve yet to set anyone discuss the train – generate – train - generate feedback loop that long-term application of AI-generation systems imply. The first generations of these models were trained on wide swaths of web data generated by humans, but if these systems are permitted to continually spit out content without restriction or verification, especially to the extent that it reduces or eliminates development and investment in human talent over the long term, then what happens to the 4th or 5th generation of models? Eventually we encounter this situation where the AI is being trained almost exclusively on AI-generated content, and therefore with each generation, it settles more and more into the mean and mediocrity with no way out using current methods. By the time that happens, what will we have lost in terms of the creative capacity of people, and will we be able to get it back? By relentlessly pursuing this direction so enthusiastically, I’m convinced that we as AI/ML developers, companies, and nations are past the point of no return, and it mostly comes down the investments in time and money that we’ve made, as well as a prisoner’s dilemma with our competitors. As a society though, this direction we’ve chosen for short-term gains will almost certainly make humanity worse off, mostly for those who are powerless to do anything about it – our children, our grandchildren, and generations to come. If you’re an AI researcher or a data scientist like myself, how do you turn things back for yourself when you’ve spent years on years building your career in this direction? You’re likely making near or north of $200k annually TC and have a family to support, and so it’s too late, no matter how you feel about the direction the field has gone. If you’re a company, how do you standby and let your competitors aggressively push their AutoML solutions into more and more markets without putting out your own? Moreover, if you’re a manager or thought leader in this field like Jeff Dean how do you justify to your own boss and your shareholders your team’s billions of dollars in AI investment while simultaneously balancing ethical concerns? You can’t – the only answer is bigger and bigger models, more and more applications, more and more data, and more and more automation, and then automating that even further. If you’re a country like the US, how do responsibly develop AI while your competitors like China single-mindedly push full steam ahead without an iota of ethical concern to replace you in numerous areas in global power dynamics? Once again, failing to compete would be pre-emptively admitting defeat. Even assuming that none of what I’ve described here happens to such an extent, how are so few people not taking this seriously and discounting this possibility? If everything I’m saying is fear-mongering and non-sense, then I’d be interested in hearing what you think human-AI co-existence looks like in 20 to 30 years and why it isn’t as demoralizing as I’ve made it out to be. ​ EDIT: Day after posting this -- this post took off way more than I expected. Even if I received 20 - 25 comments, I would have considered that a success, but this went much further. Thank you to each one of you that has read this post, even more so if you left a comment, and triply so for those who gave awards! I've read almost every comment that has come in (even the troll ones), and am truly grateful for each one, including those in sharp disagreement. I've learned much more from this discussion with the sub than I could have imagined on this topic, from so many perspectives. While I will try to reply as many comments as I can, the sheer comment volume combined with limited free time between work and family unfortunately means that there are many that I likely won't be able to get to. That will invariably include some that I would love respond to under the assumption of infinite time, but I will do my best, even if the latency stretches into days. Thank you all once again!

[D] Why is the AI Hype Absolutely Bonkers

Edit 2: Both the repo and the post were deleted. Redacting identifying information as the author has appeared to make rectifications, and it’d be pretty damaging if this is what came up when googling their name / GitHub (hopefully they’ve learned a career lesson and can move on). TL;DR: A PhD candidate claimed to have achieved 97% accuracy for coronavirus from chest x-rays. Their post gathered thousands of reactions, and the candidate was quick to recruit branding, marketing, frontend, and backend developers for the project. Heaps of praise all around. He listed himself as a Director of XXXX (redacted), the new name for his project. The accuracy was based on a training dataset of ~30 images of lesion / healthy lungs, sharing of data between test / train / validation, and code to train ResNet50 from a PyTorch tutorial. Nonetheless, thousands of reactions and praise from the “AI | Data Science | Entrepreneur” community. Original Post: I saw this post circulating on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6645711949554425856-9Dhm Here, a PhD candidate claims to achieve great performance with “ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE” to predict coronavirus, asks for more help, and garners tens of thousands of views. The repo housing this ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE solution already has a backend, front end, branding, a README translated in 6 languages, and a call to spread the word for this wonderful technology. Surely, I thought, this researcher has some great and novel tech for all of this hype? I mean dear god, we have branding, and the author has listed himself as the founder of an organization based on this project. Anything with this much attention, with dozens of “AI | Data Scientist | Entrepreneur” members of LinkedIn praising it, must have some great merit, right? Lo and behold, we have ResNet50, from torchvision.models import resnet50, with its linear layer replaced. We have a training dataset of 30 images. This should’ve taken at MAX 3 hours to put together - 1 hour for following a tutorial, and 2 for obfuscating the training with unnecessary code. I genuinely don’t know what to think other than this is bonkers. I hope I’m wrong, and there’s some secret model this author is hiding? If so, I’ll delete this post, but I looked through the repo and (REPO link redacted) that’s all I could find. I’m at a loss for thoughts. Can someone explain why this stuff trends on LinkedIn, gets thousands of views and reactions, and gets loads of praise from “expert data scientists”? It’s almost offensive to people who are like ... actually working to treat coronavirus and develop real solutions. It also seriously turns me off from pursuing an MS in CV as opposed to CS. Edit: It turns out there were duplicate images between test / val / training, as if ResNet50 on 30 images wasn’t enough already. He’s also posted an update signed as “Director of XXXX (redacted)”. This seems like a straight up sleazy way to capitalize on the pandemic by advertising himself to be the head of a made up organization, pulling resources away from real biomedical researchers.

[D] Elon Musk has a complex relationship with the A.I. community

Update: Yann LeCun stepped in, and I think they made peace, after agreeing on the awesomeness of PyTorch 😂 An article about Elon Musk and the machine learning research community leading to some interesting discussions between the head of Facebook AI research (apparently it is not Yann Lecun anymore, but some other dude), and Elon himself. Quotes from the article: Multiple AI researchers from different companies told CNBC that they see Musk’s AI comments as inappropriate and urged the public not to take his views on AI too seriously. The smartest computers can still only excel at a “narrow” selection of tasks and there’s a long way to go before human-level AI is achieved. “A large proportion of the community think he’s a negative distraction,” said an AI executive with close ties to the community who wished to remain anonymous because their company may work for one of Musk’s businesses. “He is sensationalist, he veers wildly between openly worrying about the downside risk of the technology and then hyping the AGI (artificial general intelligence) agenda. Whilst his very real accomplishments are acknowledged, his loose remarks lead to the general public having an unrealistic understanding of the state of AI maturity.” An AI scientist who specializes in speech recognition and wished to remain anonymous to avoid public backlash said Musk is “not always looked upon favorably” by the AI research community. “I instinctively fall on dislike, because he makes up such nonsense,” said another AI researcher at a U.K university who asked to be kept anonymous. “But then he delivers such extraordinary things. It always leaves me wondering, does he know what he’s doing? Is all the visionary stuff just a trick to get an innovative thing to market?” CNBC reached out to Musk and his representatives for this article but is yet to receive a response. (Well, they got one now! 👇) “I believe a lot of people in the AI community would be ok saying it publicly. Elon Musk has no idea what he is talking about when he talks about AI. There is no such thing as AGI and we are nowhere near matching human intelligence. #noAGI” (Jérôme Pesenti, VP of AI at Facebook) “Facebook sucks” (Elon Musk) Article: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/elon-musk-has-a-complex-relationship-with-the-ai-community.html

[Discussion] When ML and Data Science are the death of a good company: A cautionary tale.

TD;LR: At Company A, Team X does advanced analytics using on-prem ERP tools and older programming languages. Their tools work very well and are designed based on very deep business and domain expertise. Team Y is a new and ambitious Data Science team that thinks they can replace Team X's tools with a bunch of R scripts and a custom built ML platform. Their models are simplistic, but more "fashionable" compared to the econometric models used by Team X, and team Y benefits from the ML/DS moniker so leadership is allowing Team Y to start a large scale overhaul of the analytics platform in question. Team Y doesn't have the experience for such a larger scale transformation, and is refusing to collaborate with team X. This project is very likely going to fail, and cause serious harm to the company as a whole financially and from a people perspective. I argue that this is not just because of bad leadership, but also because of various trends and mindsets in the DS community at large. Update (Jump to below the line for the original story): Several people in the comments are pointing out that this just a management failure, not something due to ML/DS, and that you can replace DS with any buzz tech and the story will still be relevant. My response: Of course, any failure at an organization level is ultimately a management failure one way or the other. Moreover, it is also the case that ML/DS when done correctly, will always improve a company's bottom line. There is no scenario where the proper ML solution, delivered at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion, will somehow hurt the company's bottom line. My point is that in this case management is failing because of certain trends and practices that are specific to the ML/DS community, namely: The idea that DS teams should operate independently of tech and business orgs -- too much autonomy for DS teams The disregard for domain knowledge that seems prevalent nowadays thanks to the ML hype, that DS can be generalists and someone with good enough ML chops can solve any business problem. That wasn't the case when I first left academia for the industry in 2009 (back then nobody would even bother with a phone screen if you didn't have the right domain knowledge). Over reliance on resources who check all the ML hype related boxes (knows Python, R, Tensorflow, Shiny, etc..., has the right Coursera certifications, has blogged on the topic, etc...), but are lacking in depth of experience. DS interviews nowadays all seem to be: Can you tell me what a p-value is? What is elastic net regression? Show me how to fit a model in sklearn? How do you impute NAs in an R dataframe? Any smart person can look those up on Stackoverflow or Cross-Validated,.....Instead teams should be asking stuff like: why does portfolio optimization use QP not LP? How does a forecast influence a customer service level? When should a recommendation engine be content based and when should it use collaborative filtering? etc... (This is a true story, happening to the company I currently work for. Names, domains, algorithms, and roles have been shuffled around to protect my anonymity)  Company A has been around for several decades. It is not the biggest name in its domain, but it is a well respected one. Risk analysis and portfolio optimization have been a core of Company A's business since the 90s. They have a large team of 30 or so analysts who perform those tasks on a daily basis. These analysts use ERP solutions implemented for them by one the big ERP companies (SAP, Teradata, Oracle, JD Edwards,...) or one of the major tech consulting companies (Deloitte, Accenture, PWC, Capgemini, etc...) in collaboration with their own in house engineering team. The tools used are embarrassingly old school: Classic RDBMS running on on-prem servers or maybe even on mainframes, code written in COBOL, Fortran, weird proprietary stuff like ABAP or SPSS.....you get the picture. But the models and analytic functions were pretty sophisticated, and surprisingly cutting edge compared to the published academic literature. Most of all, they fit well with the company's enterprise ecosystem, and were honed based on years of deep domain knowledge.  They have a tech team of several engineers (poached from the aforementioned software and consulting companies) and product managers (who came from the experienced pools of analysts and managers who use the software, or poached from business rivals) maintaining and running this software. Their technology might be old school, but collectively, they know the domain and the company's overall architecture very, very well. They've guided the company through several large scale upgrades and migrations and they have a track record of delivering on time, without too much overhead. The few times they've stumbled, they knew how to pick themselves up very quickly. In fact within their industry niche, they have a reputation for their expertise, and have very good relations with the various vendors they've had to deal with. They were the launching pad of several successful ERP consulting careers.  Interestingly, despite dealing on a daily basis with statistical modeling and optimization algorithms, none of the analysts, engineers, or product managers involved describe themselves as data scientists or machine learning experts. It is mostly a cultural thing: Their expertise predates the Data Science/ML hype that started circa 2010, and they got most of their chops using proprietary enterprise tools instead of the open source tools popular nowadays. A few of them have formal statistical training, but most of them came from engineering or domain backgrounds and learned stats on the fly while doing their job. Call this team "Team X".  Sometime around the mid 2010s, Company A started having some serious anxiety issues: Although still doing very well for a company its size, overall economic and demographic trends were shrinking its customer base, and a couple of so called disruptors came up with a new app and business model that started seriously eating into their revenue. A suitable reaction to appease shareholders and Wall Street was necessary. The company already had a decent website and a pretty snazzy app, what more could be done? Leadership decided that it was high time that AI and ML become a core part of the company's business. An ambitious Manager, with no science or engineering background, but who had very briefly toyed with a recommender system a couple of years back, was chosen to build a data science team, call it team "Y" (he had a bachelor's in history from the local state college and worked for several years in the company's marketing org). Team "Y" consists mostly of internal hires who decided they wanted to be data scientists and completed a Coursera certification or a Galvanize boot camp, before being brought on to the team, along with a few of fresh Ph.D or M.Sc holders who didn't like academia and wanted to try their hand at an industry role. All of them were very bright people, they could write great Medium blog posts and give inspiring TED talks, but collectively they had very little real world industry experience. As is the fashion nowadays, this group was made part of a data science org that reported directly to the CEO and Board, bypassing the CIO and any tech or business VPs, since Company A wanted to claim the monikers "data driven" and "AI powered" in their upcoming shareholder meetings. In 3 or 4 years of existence, team Y produced a few Python and R scripts. Their architectural experience  consisted almost entirely in connecting Flask to S3 buckets or Redshift tables, with a couple of the more resourceful ones learning how to plug their models into Tableau or how to spin up a Kuberneties pod.  But they needn't worry: The aforementioned manager, who was now a director (and was also doing an online Masters to make up for his qualifications gap and bolster his chances of becoming VP soon - at least he now understands what L1 regularization is), was a master at playing corporate politics and self-promotion. No matter how few actionable insights team Y produced or how little code they deployed to production, he always had their back and made sure they had ample funding. In fact he now had grandiose plans for setting up an all-purpose machine learning platform that can be used to solve all of the company's data problems.  A couple of sharp minded members of team Y, upon googling their industry name along with the word "data science", realized that risk analysis was a prime candidate for being solved with Bayesian models, and there was already a nifty R package for doing just that, whose tutorial they went through on R-Bloggers.com. One of them had even submitted a Bayesian classifier Kernel for a competition on Kaggle (he was 203rd on the leaderboard), and was eager to put his new-found expertise to use on a real world problem. They pitched the idea to their director, who saw a perfect use case for his upcoming ML platform. They started work on it immediately, without bothering to check whether anybody at Company A was already doing risk analysis. Since their org was independent, they didn't really need to check with anybody else before they got funding for their initiative. Although it was basically a Naive Bayes classifier, the term ML was added to the project tile, to impress the board.  As they progressed with their work however, tensions started to build. They had asked the data warehousing and CA analytics teams to build pipelines for them, and word eventually got out to team X about their project. Team X was initially thrilled: They offered to collaborate whole heartedly, and would have loved to add an ML based feather to their already impressive cap. The product owners and analysts were totally onboard as well: They saw a chance to get in on the whole Data Science hype that they kept hearing about. But through some weird mix of arrogance and insecurity, team Y refused to collaborate with them or share any of their long term goals with them, even as they went to other parts of the company giving brown bag presentations and tutorials on the new model they created.  Team X got resentful: from what they saw of team Y's model, their approach was hopelessly naive and had little chances of scaling or being sustainable in production, and they knew exactly how to help with that. Deploying the model to production would have taken them a few days, given how comfortable they were with DevOps and continuous delivery (team Y had taken several months to figure out how to deploy a simple R script to production). And despite how old school their own tech was, team X were crafty enough to be able to plug it in to their existing architecture. Moreover, the output of the model was such that it didn't take into account how the business will consume it or how it was going to be fed to downstream systems, and the product owners could have gone a long way in making the model more amenable to adoption by the business stakeholders. But team Y wouldn't listen, and their leads brushed off any attempts at communication, let alone collaboration. The vibe that team Y was giving off was "We are the cutting edge ML team, you guys are the legacy server grunts. We don't need your opinion.", and they seemed to have a complete disregard for domain knowledge, or worse, they thought that all that domain knowledge consisted of was being able to grasp the definitions of a few business metrics.  Team X got frustrated and tried to express their concerns to leadership. But despite owning a vital link in Company A's business process, they were only \~50 people in a large 1000 strong technology and operations org, and they were several layers removed from the C-suite, so it was impossible for them to get their voices heard.  Meanwhile, the unstoppable director was doing what he did best: Playing corporate politics. Despite how little his team had actually delivered, he had convinced the board that all analysis and optimization tasks should now be migrated to his yet to be delivered ML platform. Since most leaders now knew that there was overlap between team Y and team X's objectives, his pitch was no longer that team Y was going to create a new insight, but that they were going to replace (or modernize) the legacy statistics based on-prem tools with more accurate cloud based ML tools. Never mind that there was no support in the academic literature for the idea that Naive Bayes works better than the Econometric approaches used by team X, let alone the additional wacky idea that Bayesian Optimization would definitely outperform the QP solvers that were running in production.  Unbeknownst to team X, the original Bayesian risk analysis project has now grown into a multimillion dollar major overhaul initiative, which included the eventual replacement of all of the tools and functions supported by team X along with the necessary migration to the cloud. The CIO and a couple of business VPs are on now board, and tech leadership is treating it as a done deal. An outside vendor, a startup who nobody had heard of, was contracted to help build the platform, since team Y has no engineering skills. The choice was deliberate, as calling on any of the established consulting or software companies would have eventually led leadership to the conclusion that team X was better suited for a transformation on this scale than team Y.  Team Y has no experience with any major ERP deployments, and no domain knowledge, yet they are being tasked with fundamentally changing the business process that is at the core of Company A's business. Their models actually perform worse than those deployed by team X, and their architecture is hopelessly simplistic, compared to what is necessary for running such a solution in production.  Ironically, using Bayesian thinking and based on all the evidence, the likelihood that team Y succeeds is close to 0%. At best, the project is going to end up being a write off of 50 million dollars or more. Once the !@#$!@hits the fan, a couple of executive heads are going to role, and dozens of people will get laid off. At worst, given how vital risk analysis and portfolio optimization is to Company A's revenue stream, the failure will eventually sink the whole company. It probably won't go bankrupt, but it will lose a significant portion of its business and work force. Failed ERP implementations can and do sink large companies: Just see what happened to National Grid US, SuperValu or Target Canada.  One might argue that this is more about corporate disfunction and bad leadership than about data science and AI. But I disagree. I think the core driver of this debacle is indeed the blind faith in Data Scientists, ML models and the promise of AI, and the overall culture of hype and self promotion that is very common among the ML crowd.  We haven't seen the end of this story: I sincerely hope that this ends well for the sake of my colleagues and all involved. Company A is a good company, and both its customers and its employees deserver better. But the chances of that happening are negligible given all the information available, and this failure will hit my company hard.

[D] Misuse of Deep Learning in Nature Journal’s Earthquake Aftershock Paper

Recently, I saw a post by Rajiv Shah, Chicago-based data-scientist, regarding an article published in Nature last year called Deep learning of aftershock patterns following large earthquakes, written by scientists at Harvard in collaboration with Google. Below is the article: Stand Up for Best Practices: Misuse of Deep Learning in Nature’s Earthquake Aftershock Paper The Dangers of Machine Learning Hype Practitioners of AI, machine learning, predictive modeling, and data science have grown enormously over the last few years. What was once a niche field defined by its blend of knowledge is becoming a rapidly growing profession. As the excitement around AI continues to grow, the new wave of ML augmentation, automation, and GUI tools will lead to even more growth in the number of people trying to build predictive models. But here’s the rub: While it becomes easier to use the tools of predictive modeling, predictive modeling knowledge is not yet a widespread commodity. Errors can be counterintuitive and subtle, and they can easily lead you to the wrong conclusions if you’re not careful. I’m a data scientist who works with dozens of expert data science teams for a living. In my day job, I see these teams striving to build high-quality models. The best teams work together to review their models to detect problems. There are many hard-to-detect-ways that lead to problematic models (say, by allowing target leakage into their training data). Identifying issues is not fun. This requires admitting that exciting results are “too good to be true” or that their methods were not the right approach. In other words, it’s less about the sexy data science hype that gets headlines and more about a rigorous scientific discipline. Bad Methods Create Bad Results Almost a year ago, I read an article in Nature that claimed unprecedented accuracy in predicting earthquake aftershocks by using deep learning. Reading the article, my internal radar became deeply suspicious of their results. Their methods simply didn’t carry many of the hallmarks of careful predicting modeling. I started to dig deeper. In the meantime, this article blew up and became widely recognized! It was even included in the release notes for Tensorflow as an example of what deep learning could do. However, in my digging, I found major flaws in the paper. Namely, data leakage which leads to unrealistic accuracy scores and a lack of attention to model selection (you don’t build a 6 layer neural network when a simpler model provides the same level of accuracy). To my earlier point: these are subtle, but incredibly basic predictive modeling errors that can invalidate the entire results of an experiment. Data scientists are trained to recognize and avoid these issues in their work. I assumed that this was simply overlooked by the author, so I contacted her and let her know so that she could improve her analysis. Although we had previously communicated, she did not respond to my email over concerns with the paper. Falling On Deaf Ears So, what was I to do? My coworkers told me to just tweet it and let it go, but I wanted to stand up for good modeling practices. I thought reason and best practices would prevail, so I started a 6-month process of writing up my results and shared them with Nature. Upon sharing my results, I received a note from Nature in January 2019 that despite serious concerns about data leakage and model selection that invalidate their experiment, they saw no need to correct the errors, because “Devries et al. are concerned primarily with using machine learning as [a] tool to extract insight into the natural world, and not with details of the algorithm design.” The authors provided a much harsher response. You can read the entire exchange on my github. It’s not enough to say that I was disappointed. This was a major paper (it’s Nature!) that bought into AI hype and published a paper despite it using flawed methods. Then, just this week, I ran across articles by Arnaud Mignan and Marco Broccardo on shortcomings that they found in the aftershocks article. Here are two more data scientists with expertise in earthquake analysis who also noticed flaws in the paper. I also have placed my analysis and reproducible code on github. Standing Up For Predictive Modeling Methods I want to make it clear: my goal is not to villainize the authors of the aftershocks paper. I don’t believe that they were malicious, and I think that they would argue their goal was to just show how machine learning could be applied to aftershocks. Devries is an accomplished earthquake scientist who wanted to use the latest methods for her field of study and found exciting results from it. But here’s the problem: their insights and results were based on fundamentally flawed methods. It’s not enough to say, “This isn’t a machine learning paper, it’s an earthquake paper.” If you use predictive modeling, then the quality of your results are determined by the quality of your modeling. Your work becomes data science work, and you are on the hook for your scientific rigor. There is a huge appetite for papers that use the latest technologies and approaches. It becomes very difficult to push back on these papers. But if we allow papers or projects with fundamental issues to advance, it hurts all of us. It undermines the field of predictive modeling. Please push back on bad data science. Report bad findings to papers. And if they don’t take action, go to twitter, post about it, share your results and make noise. This type of collective action worked to raise awareness of p-values and combat the epidemic of p-hacking. We need good machine learning practices if we want our field to continue to grow and maintain credibility. Link to Rajiv's Article Original Nature Publication (note: paywalled) GitHub repo contains an attempt to reproduce Nature's paper Confrontational correspondence with authors

We made $325k in 2023 from AI products, starting from 0, with no-code, no funding and no audience

I met my co-founder in late 2022 after an introduction from a mutual friend to talk about how to find contract Product Management roles. I was sporadically contracting at start-up at the time and he had just come out of another start-up that was wiped out by the pandemic. We hit it off, talking about ideas, sharing what other indie-hackers were doing, and given GPT-3’s prominence at the time, we started throwing around ideas about things we could build with it, if nothing else, just to learn. I should caveat, neither of us were AI experts when starting out, everything we learned has been through Twitter and blogs, my background is as an accountant, and his a consultant. Here’s how it went since then: &#x200B; Nov 2022 (+$50) \- We built a simple tool in around a week using GPT-3 fine-tuning and a no-code tool (Bubble) that helped UK university students write their personal statements for their applications \- We set some Google Ads going and managed to make a few sales (\~$50) in the first week \- OpenAI were still approving applications at the time and said this went against their “ethics” so we had to take it down &#x200B; Dec 2022 (+$200) \- We couldn’t stop coming up with ideas related to AI fine-tuning, but realised it was almost impossible to decide which to pursue \- We needed a deadline to force us so we signed up for the Ben’s Bites hackathon in late December \- In a week, we built and launched a no-code fine-tuning platform, allowing people to create fine-tuned models by dragging and dropping an Excel file onto it \- We launched it on Product Hunt, having no idea how to price it, and somehow managed to get \~2,000 visitors on the site and make 2 sales at $99 &#x200B; Jan 2023 (+$3,000) \- We doubled down on the fine-tuning idea and managed to get up to \~$300 MRR, plus a bunch of one-time sales and a few paid calls to help people get the most out of their models \- We quickly realised that people didn’t want to curate models themselves, they just wanted to dump data and get magic out \- That was when we saw people building “Talk with x book/podcast” on Twitter as side projects and realised that was the missing piece, we needed to turn it into a tool \- We started working on the new product in late January &#x200B; Feb 2023 (+$9,000) \- We started pre-selling access to an MVP for the new product, which allowed people to “chat with their data/content”, we got $5,000 in pre-sales, more than we made from the previous product in total \- By mid-February, after 3 weeks of building we were able to launch and immediately managed to get traction, getting to $1k MRR in < 1 week, building on the hype of ChatGPT and AI (we were very lucky here) &#x200B; Mar - Jul 2023 (+$98,000) \- We worked all the waking hours to keep up with customer demand, bugs, OpenAI issues \- We built integrations for a bunch of services like Slack, Teams, Wordpress etc, added tons of new functionality and continue talking to customers every day \- We managed to grow to $17k MRR (just about enough to cover our living expenses and costs in London) through building in public on Twitter, newsletters and AI directories (and a million other little things) \- We sold our fine-tuning platform for \~$20k and our university project for \~$3k on Acquire &#x200B; Aug 2023 (+$100,000) \- We did some custom development work based on our own product for a customer that proved pretty lucrative &#x200B; Sep - Oct 2023 (+$62,000) \- After 8 months of building constantly, we started digging more seriously into our usage and saw subscriptions plateauing \- We talked to and analysed all our paying users to identify the main use cases and found 75% were for SaaS customer support \- We took the leap to completely rebuild a version of our product around this use case, our biggest to date (especially given most features with no-code took us <1 day) &#x200B; Nov - Dec 2023 (+$53,000) \- We picked up some small custom development work that utilised our own tech \- We’re sitting at around $22k MRR now with a few bigger clients signed up and coming soon \- After 2 months of building and talking to users, we managed to finish our “v2” of our product, focussed squarely on SaaS customer support and launched it today. &#x200B; We have no idea what the response will be to this new version, but we’re pretty happy with it, but couldn’t have planned anything that happened to us in 2023 so who knows what will come of 2024, we just know that we are going to be learning a ton more. &#x200B; Overall, it is probably the most I have had to think in my life - other jobs you can zone out from time to time or rely on someone else if you aren’t feeling it - not when you are doing this, case and point, I am writing this with a banging head-cold right now, but wanted to get this done. A few more things we have learned along the way - context switching is unreal, as is keeping up with, learning and reacting to AI. There isn’t a moment of the day I am not thinking about what we do next. But while in some way we now have hundreds of bosses (our customers) I still haven’t felt this free and can’t imagine ever going back to work for someone else. Next year we’re really hoping to figure out some repeatable distribution channels and personally, I want to get a lot better at creating content/writing, this is a first step! Hope this helps someone else reading this to just try starting something and see what happens.

How a Small Startup in Asia Secured a Contract with the US Department of Homeland Security

Uzair Javaid, a Ph.D. with a passion for data privacy, co-founded Betterdata to tackle one of AI's most pressing challenges: protecting privacy while enabling innovation. Recently, Betterdata secured a lucrative contract with the US Department of Homeland Security, 1 of only 4 companies worldwide to do so and the only one in Asia. Here's how he did it: The Story So what's your story? I grew up in Peshawar, Pakistan, excelling in coding despite studying electrical engineering. Inspired by my professors, I set my sights on studying abroad and eventually earned a Ph.D. scholarship at NUS Singapore, specializing in data security and privacy. During my research, I ethically hacked Ethereum and published 15 papers—three times the requirement. While wrapping up my Ph.D., I explored startup ideas and joined Entrepreneur First, where I met Kevin Yee. With his expertise in generative models and mine in privacy, we founded Betterdata. Now, nearly three years in, we’ve secured a major contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—one of only four companies globally and the only one from Asia. The Startup In a nutshell, what does your startup do? Betterdata is a startup that uses AI and synthetic data generation to address two major challenges: data privacy and the scarcity of high-quality data for training AI models. By leveraging generative models and privacy-enhancing technologies, Betterdata enables businesses, such as banks, to use customer data without breaching privacy regulations. The platform trains AI on real data, learns its patterns, and generates synthetic data that mimics the real thing without containing any personal or sensitive information. This allows companies to innovate and develop AI solutions safely and ethically, all while tackling the growing need for diverse, high-quality data in AI development. How did you conduct ideation and validation for your startup? The initial idea for Betterdata came from personal experience. During my Ph.D., I ethically hacked Ethereum’s blockchain, exposing flaws in encryption-based data sharing. This led me to explore AI-driven deep synthesis technology—similar to deepfakes but for structured data privacy. With GDPR impacting 28M+ businesses, I saw a massive opportunity to help enterprises securely share data while staying compliant. To validate the idea, I spoke to 50 potential customers—a number that strikes the right balance. Some say 100, but that’s impractical for early-stage founders. At 50, patterns emerge: if 3 out of 10 mention the same problem, and this repeats across 50, you have 10–15 strong signals, making it a solid foundation for an MVP. Instead of outbound sales, which I dislike, we used three key methods: Account-Based Marketing (ABM)—targeting technically savvy users with solutions for niche problems, like scaling synthetic data for banks. Targeted Content Marketing—regular customer conversations shaped our thought leadership and outreach. Raising Awareness Through Partnerships—collaborating with NUS, Singapore’s PDPC, and Plug and Play to build credibility and educate the market. These strategies attracted serious customers willing to pay, guiding Betterdata’s product development and market fit. How did you approach the initial building and ongoing product development? In the early stages, we built synthetic data generation algorithms and a basic UI for proof-of-concept, using open-source datasets to engage with banks. We quickly learned that banks wouldn't share actual customer data due to privacy concerns, so we had to conduct on-site installations and gather feedback to refine our MVP. Through continuous consultation with customers, we discovered real enterprise data posed challenges, such as missing values, which led us to adapt our prototype accordingly. This iterative approach of listening to customer feedback and observing their usage allowed us to improve our product, enhance UX, and address unmet needs while building trust and loyalty. Working closely with our customers also gives us a data advantage. Our solution’s effectiveness depends on customer data, which we can't fully access, but bridging this knowledge gap gives us a competitive edge. The more customers we test on, the more our algorithms adapt to diverse use cases, making it harder for competitors to replicate our insights. My approach to iteration is simple: focus solely on customer feedback and ignore external noise like trends or advice. The key question for the team is: which customer is asking for this feature or solution? As long as there's a clear answer, we move forward. External influences, such as AI hype, often bring more confusion than clarity. True long-term success comes from solving real customer problems, not chasing trends. Customers may not always know exactly what they want, but they understand their problems. Our job is to identify these problems and solve them in innovative ways. While customers may suggest specific features, we stay focused on solving the core issue rather than just fulfilling their exact requests. The idea aligns with the quote often attributed to Henry Ford: "If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." The key is understanding their problems, not just taking requests at face value. How do you assess product-market fit? To assess product-market fit, we track two key metrics: Customers' Willingness to Pay: We measure both the quantity and quality of meetings with potential customers. A high number of meetings with key decision-makers signals genuine interest. At Betterdata, we focused on getting meetings with people in banks and large enterprises to gauge our product's resonance with the target market. How Much Customers Are Willing to Pay: We monitor the price customers are willing to pay, especially in the early stages. For us, large enterprises, like banks, were willing to pay a premium for our synthetic data platform due to the growing need for privacy tech. This feedback guided our product refinement and scaling strategy. By focusing on these metrics, we refined our product and positioned it for scaling. What is your business model? We employ a structured, phase-driven approach for out business model, as a B2B startup. I initially struggled with focusing on the core value proposition in sales, often becoming overly educational. Eventually, we developed a product roadmap with models that allowed us to match customer needs to specific offerings and justify our pricing. Our pricing structure includes project-based pilots and annual contracts for successful deployments. At Betterdata, our customer engagement unfolds across three phases: Phase 1: Trial and Benchmarking \- We start with outreach and use open-source datasets to showcase results, offering customers a trial period to evaluate the solution. Phase 2: Pilot or PoC \- After positive trial results, we conduct a PoC or pilot using the customer’s private data, with the understanding that successful pilots lead to an annual contract. Phase 3: Multi-Year Contracts \- Following a successful pilot, we transition to long-term commercial contracts, focusing on multi-year agreements to ensure stability and ongoing partnerships. How do you do marketing for your brand? We take a non-conventional approach to marketing, focusing on answering one key question: Which customers are willing to pay, and how much? This drives our messaging to show how our solution meets their needs. Our strategy centers around two main components: Building a network of lead magnets \- These are influential figures like senior advisors, thought leaders, and strategic partners. Engaging with institutions like IMDA, SUTD, and investors like Plug and Play helps us gain access to the right people and foster warm introductions, which shorten our sales cycle and ensure we’re reaching the right audience. Thought leadership \- We build our brand through customer traction, technology evidence, and regulatory guidelines. This helps us establish credibility in the market and position ourselves as trusted leaders in our field. This holistic approach has enabled us to navigate diverse market conditions in Asia and grow our B2B relationships. By focusing on these areas, we drive business growth and establish strong trust with stakeholders. What's your advice for fundraising? Here are my key takeaways for other founders when it comes to fundraising: Fundraise When You Don’t Need To We closed our seed round in April 2023, a time when we weren't actively raising. Founders should always be in fundraising mode, even when they're not immediately in need of capital. Don’t wait until you have only a few months of runway left. Keep the pipeline open and build relationships. When the timing is right, execution becomes much easier. For us, our investment came through a combination of referrals and inbound interest. Even our lead investor initially rejected us, but after re-engaging, things eventually fell into place. It’s crucial to stay humble, treat everyone with respect, and maintain those relationships for when the time is right. Be Mindful of How You Present Information When fundraising, how you present information matters a lot. We created a comprehensive, easily digestible investment memo, hosted on Notion, which included everything an investor might need—problem, solution, market, team, risks, opportunities, and data. The goal was for investors to be able to get the full picture within 30 minutes without chasing down extra details. We also focused on making our financial model clear and meaningful, even though a 5-year forecast might be overkill at the seed stage. The key was clarity and conciseness, and making it as easy as possible for investors to understand the opportunity. I learned that brevity and simplicity are often the best ways to make a memorable impact. For the pitch itself, keep it simple and focus on 4 things: problem, solution, team, and market. If you can summarize each of these clearly and concisely, you’ll have a compelling pitch. Later on, you can expand into market segments, traction, and other metrics, but for seed-stage, focus on those four areas, and make sure you’re strong in at least three of them. If you do, you'll have a compelling case. How do you run things day-to-day? i.e what's your operational workflow and team structure? Here's an overview of our team structure and process: Internally: Our team is divided into two main areas: backend (internal team) and frontend (market-facing team). There's no formal hierarchy within the backend team. We all operate as equals, defining our goals based on what needs to be developed, assigning tasks, and meeting weekly to share updates and review progress. The focus is on full ownership of tasks and accountability for getting things done. I also contribute to product development, identifying challenges and clearing obstacles to help the team move forward. Backend Team: We approach tasks based on the scope defined by customers, with no blame or hierarchy. It's like a sports team—sometimes someone excels, and other times they struggle, but we support each other and move forward together. Everyone has the creative freedom to work in the way that suits them best, but we establish regular meetings and check-ins to ensure alignment and progress. Frontend Team: For the market-facing side, we implement a hierarchy because the market expects this structure. If I present myself as "CEO," it signals authority and credibility. This distinction affects how we communicate with the market and how we build our brand. The frontend team is split into four main areas: Business Product (Software Engineering) Machine Learning Engineering R&D The C-suite sits at the top, followed by team leads, and then the executors. We distill market expectations into actionable tasks, ensuring that everyone is clear on their role and responsibilities. Process: We start by receiving market expectations and defining tasks based on them. Tasks are assigned to relevant teams, and execution happens with no communication barriers between team members. This ensures seamless collaboration and focused execution. The main goal is always effectiveness—getting things done efficiently while maintaining flexibility in how individuals approach their work. In both teams, there's an emphasis on accountability, collaboration, and clear communication, but the structure varies according to the nature of the work and external expectations.

Raised $450k for my startup, here are the lessons I've learned along the way

2021 has been a pretty amazing year for Omnisearch. Having started initial work on Omnisearch at the end of 2020, we entered the new year with a working MVP yet no revenue, no significant partnerships, and no funding. Fast forward to the end of 2021, and we now have fantastic revenue growth, a partnership with a public company, and a far more powerful, complete and polished product. But one milestone really changed Omnisearch’s trajectory: our $450,000 USD pre-seed round by GoAhead Ventures. In this post I want to share the story of how it came about and offer a couple of takeaways to keep in mind when preparing for fundraising. &#x200B; The story Contrary to most advice, my co-founder Matej and I didn’t allocate a specific time to switch to “fundraising mode” but rather talked to investors on an ongoing basis. It was a bit of a distraction from working on the product, but on the positive side we were able to constantly get feedback on the idea, pitch, go-to-market strategy and hiring, as well as hearing investors’ major concerns sooner rather than later. That being said, our six-month long fundraising efforts weren’t yielding results - we talked to about twenty investors, mostly angels or smaller funds, with no success. The feedback was generally of the “too early for us” variety (since we were still pre-revenue), with additional questions about our go-to-market strategy and ideal customer persona. The introduction to our eventual investors, California-based GoAhead Ventures, came through a friend who had pitched them previously. We wrote a simple blurb and sent our pitch deck. We then went through GoAhead’s hyper-efficient screening process, consisting of a 30-minute call, a recorded three-minute pitch, and filling out a simple Google doc. Throughout the whole process, the GoAhead team left an awesome impression thanks to their knowledge of enterprise software and their responsiveness. They ended up investing and the whole deal was closed within two weeks, which is super fast even by Silicon Valley standards. While our fundraising experience is a single data point and your case might be different, here are the key takeaways from our journey. &#x200B; Perseverance wins: Like I said above, we talked to about twenty investors before we closed our round. Getting a series of “no”s sucks, but we took the feedback seriously and tried to prepare better for questions that caught us off guard. But we persevered, keeping in mind that from a bird’s eye perspective it’s an amazing time to be building startups and raising funds. Focus on traction: Sounds pretty obvious, right? The truth is, though, that even a small amount of revenue is infinitely better than none at all. One of the major differences between our eventual successful investor pitch and the earlier ones was that we had actual paying customers, though our MRR was low. This allows you to talk about customers in the present tense, showing there’s actual demand for your product and making the use cases more tangible. And ideally, highlight a couple of customer testimonials to boost your credibility. Have a demo ready: In Omnisearch’s case, the demo was oftentimes the best received part of the pitch or call. We’d show investors the live demo, and for bonus points even asked them to choose a video from YouTube and then try searching through it. This always had a “wow” effect on prospective investors and made the subsequent conversation more exciting and positive. Accelerators: Accelerators like Y Combinator or Techstars can add enormous value to a startup, especially in the early stages. And while it’s a great idea to apply, don’t rely on them too heavily. Applications happen only a few times a year, and you should have a foolproof fundraising plan in case you don’t get in. In our case, we just constantly looked for investors who were interested in our space (defined as enterprise SaaS more broadly), using LinkedIn, AngelList, and intros from our own network. Practice the pitch ad nauseam: Pitching is tough to get right even for seasoned pros, so it pays to practice as often as possible. We took every opportunity to perfect the pitch: attending meetups and giving the thirty-second elevator pitch to other attendees over beer and pizza, participating in startup competitions, going to conferences and exhibiting at our own booth, attending pre-accelerator programs, and pitching to friends who are in the startup world. Show an understanding of the competition: Frankly, this was one of the strongest parts of our pitch and investor conversations. If you’re in a similar space to ours, Gartner Magic Quadrants and Forrester Waves are an awesome resource, as well as sites like AlternativeTo or Capterra and G2. By thoroughly studying these resources we gained a great understanding of the industry landscape and were able to articulate our differentiation more clearly and succinctly. Presenting this visually in a coordinate system or a feature grid is, from our experience, even more effective. Remember it’s just the beginning! Getting your first round of funding is just the beginning of the journey, so it’s important to avoid euphoria and get back to building and selling the product as soon as possible. While securing funding enables you to scale the team, and is a particular relief if the founders had worked without a salary, the end goal is still to build a big, profitable, and overall awesome startup.

How a founder built a B2B AI startup to serve with 65+ global brands (including Fortune500 companies)

AI Palette is an AI-driven platform that helps food and beverage companies predict emerging product trends. I had the opportunity recently to sit down with the founder to get his advice on building an AI-first startup, which he'll be going through in this post. About AI Palette: Co-founders: >!2 (Somsubhra GanChoudhuri, Himanshu Upreti)!!100+!!$12.7M USD!!AI-powered predictive analytics for the CPG (Consumer Packaged Goods) industry!!Signed first paying customer in the first year!!65+ global brands, including Cargill, Diageo, Ajinomoto, Symrise, Mondelez, and L’Oréal, use AI Palette!!Every new product launched has secured a paying client within months!!Expanded into Beauty & Personal Care (BPC), onboarding one of India’s largest BPC companies within weeks!!Launched multiple new product lines in the last two years, creating a unified suite for brand innovation!Identify the pain points in your industry for ideas* When I was working in the flavour and fragrance industry, I noticed a major issue CPG companies faced: launching a product took at least one to two years. For instance, if a company decided today to launch a new juice, it wouldn’t hit the market until 2027. This long timeline made it difficult to stay relevant and on top of trends. Another big problem I noticed was that companies relied heavily on market research to determine what products to launch. While this might work for current consumer preferences, it was highly inefficient since the product wouldn’t actually reach the market for several years. By the time the product launched, the consumer trends had already shifted, making that research outdated. That’s where AI can play a crucial role. Instead of looking at what consumers like today, we realised that companies should use AI to predict what they will want next. This allows businesses to create products that are ahead of the curve. Right now, the failure rate for new product launches is alarmingly high, with 8 out of 10 products failing. By leveraging AI, companies can avoid wasting resources on products that won’t succeed, leading to better, more successful launches. Start by talking to as many industry experts as possible to identify the real problems When we first had the idea for AI Palette, it was just a hunch, a gut feeling—we had no idea whether people would actually pay for it. To validate the idea, we reached out to as many people as we could within the industry. Since our focus area was all about consumer insights, we spoke to professionals in the CPG sector, particularly those in the insights departments of CPG companies. Through these early conversations, we began to see a common pattern emerge and identified the exact problem we wanted to solve. Don’t tell people what you’re building—listen to their frustrations and challenges first. Going into these early customer conversations, our goal was to listen and understand their challenges without telling them what we were trying to build. This is crucial as it ensures that you can gather as much data about the problem to truly understand it and that you aren't biasing their answers by showing your solution. This process helped us in two key ways: First, it validated that there was a real problem in the industry through the number of people who spoke about experiencing the same problem. Second, it allowed us to understand the exact scale and depth of the problem—e.g., how much money companies were spending on consumer research, what kind of tools they were currently using, etc. Narrow down your focus to a small, actionable area to solve initially. Once we were certain that there was a clear problem worth solving, we didn’t try to tackle everything at once. As a small team of two people, we started by focusing on a specific area of the problem—something big enough to matter but small enough for us to handle. Then, we approached customers with a potential solution and asked them for feedback. We learnt that our solution seemed promising, but we wanted to validate it further. If customers are willing to pay you for the solution, it’s a strong validation signal for market demand. One of our early customer interviewees even asked us to deliver the solution, which we did manually at first. We used machine learning models to analyse the data and presented the results in a slide deck. They paid us for the work, which was a critical moment. It meant we had something with real potential, and we had customers willing to pay us before we had even built the full product. This was the key validation that we needed. By the time we were ready to build the product, we had already gathered crucial insights from our early customers. We understood the specific information they wanted and how they wanted the results to be presented. This input was invaluable in shaping the development of our final product. Building & Product Development Start with a simple concept/design to validate with customers before building When we realised the problem and solution, we began by designing the product, but not by jumping straight into coding. Instead, we created wireframes and user interfaces using tools like InVision and Figma. This allowed us to visually represent the product without the need for backend or frontend development at first. The goal was to showcase how the product would look and feel, helping potential customers understand its value before we even started building. We showed these designs to potential customers and asked for feedback. Would they want to buy this product? Would they pay for it? We didn’t dive into actual development until we found a customer willing to pay a significant amount for the solution. This approach helped us ensure we were on the right track and didn’t waste time or resources building something customers didn’t actually want. Deliver your solution using a manual consulting approach before developing an automated product Initially, we solved problems for customers in a more "consulting" manner, delivering insights manually. Recall how I mentioned that when one of our early customer interviewees asked us to deliver the solution, we initially did it manually by using machine learning models to analyse the data and presenting the results to them in a slide deck. This works for the initial stages of validating your solution, as you don't want to invest too much time into building a full-blown MVP before understanding the exact features and functionalities that your users want. However, after confirming that customers were willing to pay for what we provided, we moved forward with actual product development. This shift from a manual service to product development was key to scaling in a sustainable manner, as our building was guided by real-world feedback and insights rather than intuition. Let ongoing customer feedback drive iteration and the product roadmap Once we built the first version of the product, it was basic, solving only one problem. But as we worked closely with customers, they requested additional features and functionalities to make it more useful. As a result, we continued to evolve the product to handle more complex use cases, gradually developing new modules based on customer feedback. Product development is a continuous process. Our early customers pushed us to expand features and modules, from solving just 20% of their problems to tackling 50–60% of their needs. These demands shaped our product roadmap and guided the development of new features, ultimately resulting in a more complete solution. Revenue and user numbers are key metrics for assessing product-market fit. However, critical mass varies across industries Product-market fit (PMF) can often be gauged by looking at the size of your revenue and the number of customers you're serving. Once you've reached a certain critical mass of customers, you can usually tell that you're starting to hit product-market fit. However, this critical mass varies by industry and the type of customers you're targeting. For example, if you're building an app for a broad consumer market, you may need thousands of users. But for enterprise software, product-market fit may be reached with just a few dozen key customers. Compare customer engagement and retention with other available solutions on the market for product-market fit Revenue and the number of customers alone isn't always enough to determine if you're reaching product-market fit. The type of customer and the use case for your product also matter. The level of engagement with your product—how much time users are spending on the platform—is also an important metric to track. The more time they spend, the more likely it is that your product is meeting a crucial need. Another way to evaluate product-market fit is by assessing retention, i.e whether users are returning to your platform and relying on it consistently, as compared to other solutions available. That's another key indication that your solution is gaining traction in the market. Business Model & Monetisation Prioritise scalability Initially, we started with a consulting-type model where we tailor-made specific solutions for each customer use-case we encountered and delivered the CPG insights manually, but we soon realized that this wasn't scalable. The problem with consulting is that you need to do the same work repeatedly for every new project, which requires a large team to handle the workload. That is not how you sustain a high-growth startup. To solve this, we focused on building a product that would address the most common problems faced by our customers. Once built, this product could be sold to thousands of customers without significant overheads, making the business scalable. With this in mind, we decided on a SaaS (Software as a Service) business model. The benefit of SaaS is that once you create the software, you can sell it to many customers without adding extra overhead. This results in a business with higher margins, where the same product can serve many customers simultaneously, making it much more efficient than the consulting model. Adopt a predictable, simplistic business model for efficiency. Look to industry practices for guidance When it came to monetisation, we considered the needs of our CPG customers, who I knew from experience were already accustomed to paying annual subscriptions for sales databases and other software services. We decided to adopt the same model and charge our customers an annual upfront fee. This model worked well for our target market, aligning with industry standards and ensuring stable, recurring revenue. Moreover, our target CPG customers were already used to this business model and didn't have to choose from a huge variety of payment options, making closing sales a straightforward and efficient process. Marketing & Sales Educate the market to position yourself as a thought leader When we started, AI was not widely understood, especially in the CPG industry. We had to create awareness around both AI and its potential value. Our strategy focused on educating potential users and customers about AI, its relevance, and why they should invest in it. This education was crucial to the success of our marketing efforts. To establish credibility, we adopted a thought leadership approach. We wrote blogs on the importance of AI and how it could solve problems for CPG companies. We also participated in events and conferences to demonstrate our expertise in applying AI to the industry. This helped us build our brand and reputation as leaders in the AI space for CPG, and word-of-mouth spread as customers recognized us as the go-to company for AI solutions. It’s tempting for startups to offer products for free in the hopes of gaining early traction with customers, but this approach doesn't work in the long run. Free offerings don’t establish the value of your product, and customers may not take them seriously. You should always charge for pilots, even if the fee is minimal, to ensure that the customer is serious about potentially working with you, and that they are committed and engaged with the product. Pilots/POCs/Demos should aim to give a "flavour" of what you can deliver A paid pilot/POC trial also gives you the opportunity to provide a “flavour” of what your product can deliver, helping to build confidence and trust with the client. It allows customers to experience a detailed preview of what your product can do, which builds anticipation and desire for the full functionality. During this phase, ensure your product is built to give them a taste of the value you can provide, which sets the stage for a broader, more impactful adoption down the line. Fundraising & Financial Management Leverage PR to generate inbound interest from VCs When it comes to fundraising, our approach was fairly traditional—we reached out to VCs and used connections from existing investors to make introductions. However, looking back, one thing that really helped us build momentum during our fundraising process was getting featured in Tech in Asia. This wasn’t planned; it just so happened that Tech in Asia was doing a series on AI startups in Southeast Asia and they reached out to us for an article. During the interview, they asked if we were fundraising, and we mentioned that we were. As a result, several VCs we hadn’t yet contacted reached out to us. This inbound interest was incredibly valuable, and we found it far more effective than our outbound efforts. So, if you can, try to generate some PR attention—it can help create inbound interest from VCs, and that interest is typically much stronger and more promising than any outbound strategies because they've gone out of their way to reach out to you. Be well-prepared and deliberate about fundraising. Keep trying and don't lose heart When pitching to VCs, it’s crucial to be thoroughly prepared, as you typically only get one shot at making an impression. If you mess up, it’s unlikely they’ll give you a second chance. You need to have key metrics at your fingertips, especially if you're running a SaaS company. Be ready to answer questions like: What’s your retention rate? What are your projections for the year? How much will you close? What’s your average contract value? These numbers should be at the top of your mind. Additionally, fundraising should be treated as a structured process, not something you do on the side while juggling other tasks. When you start, create a clear plan: identify 20 VCs to reach out to each week. By planning ahead, you’ll maintain momentum and speed up the process. Fundraising can be exhausting and disheartening, especially when you face multiple rejections. Remember, you just need one investor to say yes to make it all worthwhile. When using funds, prioritise profitability and grow only when necessary. Don't rely on funding to survive. In the past, the common advice for startups was to raise money, burn through it quickly, and use it to boost revenue numbers, even if that meant operating at a loss. The idea was that profitability wasn’t the main focus, and the goal was to show rapid growth for the next funding round. However, times have changed, especially with the shift from “funding summer” to “funding winter.” My advice now is to aim for profitability as soon as possible and grow only when it's truly needed. For example, it’s tempting to hire a large team when you have substantial funds in the bank, but ask yourself: Do you really need 10 new hires, or could you get by with just four? Growing too quickly can lead to unnecessary expenses, so focus on reaching profitability as soon as possible, rather than just inflating your team or burn rate. The key takeaway is to spend your funds wisely and only when absolutely necessary to reach profitability. You want to avoid becoming dependent on future VC investments to keep your company afloat. Instead, prioritize reaching break-even as quickly as you can, so you're not reliant on external funding to survive in the long run. Team-Building & Leadership Look for complementary skill sets in co-founders When choosing a co-founder, it’s important to find someone with a complementary skill set, not just someone you’re close to. For example, I come from a business and commercial background, so I needed someone with technical expertise. That’s when I found my co-founder, Himanshu, who had experience in machine learning and AI. He was a great match because his technical knowledge complemented my business skills, and together we formed a strong team. It might seem natural to choose your best friend as your co-founder, but this can often lead to conflict. Chances are, you and your best friend share similar interests, skills, and backgrounds, which doesn’t bring diversity to the table. If both of you come from the same industry or have the same strengths, you may end up butting heads on how things should be done. Having diverse skill sets helps avoid this and fosters a more collaborative working relationship. Himanshu (left) and Somsubhra (right) co-founded AI Palette in 2018 Define roles clearly to prevent co-founder conflict To avoid conflict, it’s essential that your roles as co-founders are clearly defined from the beginning. If your co-founder and you have distinct responsibilities, there is no room for overlap or disagreement. This ensures that both of you can work without stepping on each other's toes, and there’s mutual respect for each other’s expertise. This is another reason as to why it helps to have a co-founder with a complementary skillset to yours. Not only is having similar industry backgrounds and skillsets not particularly useful when building out your startup, it's also more likely to lead to conflicts since you both have similar subject expertise. On the other hand, if your co-founder is an expert in something that you're not, you're less likely to argue with them about their decisions regarding that aspect of the business and vice versa when it comes to your decisions. Look for employees who are driven by your mission, not salary For early-stage startups, the first hires are crucial. These employees need to be highly motivated and excited about the mission. Since the salary will likely be low and the work demanding, they must be driven by something beyond just the paycheck. The right employees are the swash-buckling pirates and romantics, i.e those who are genuinely passionate about the startup’s vision and want to be part of something impactful beyond material gains. When employees are motivated by the mission, they are more likely to stick around and help take the startup to greater heights. A litmus test for hiring: Would you be excited to work with them on a Sunday? One of the most important rounds in the hiring process is the culture fit round. This is where you assess whether a candidate shares the same values as you and your team. A key question to ask yourself is: "Would I be excited to work with this person on a Sunday?" If there’s any doubt about your answer, it’s likely not a good fit. The idea is that you want employees who align with the company's culture and values and who you would enjoy collaborating with even outside of regular work hours. How we structure the team at AI Palette We have three broad functions in our organization. The first two are the big ones: Technical Team – This is the core of our product and technology. This team is responsible for product development and incorporating customer feedback into improving the technology Commercial Team – This includes sales, marketing, customer service, account managers, and so on, handling everything related to business growth and customer relations. General and Administrative Team – This smaller team supports functions like finance, HR, and administration. As with almost all businesses, we have teams that address the two core tasks of building (technical team) and selling (commercial team), but given the size we're at now, having the administrative team helps smoothen operations. Set broad goals but let your teams decide on execution What I've done is recruit highly skilled people who don't need me to micromanage them on a day-to-day basis. They're experts in their roles, and as Steve Jobs said, when you hire the right person, you don't have to tell them what to do—they understand the purpose and tell you what to do. So, my job as the CEO is to set the broader goals for them, review the plans they have to achieve those goals, and periodically check in on progress. For example, if our broad goal is to meet a certain revenue target, I break it down across teams: For the sales team, I’ll look at how they plan to hit that target—how many customers they need to sell to, how many salespeople they need, and what tactics and strategies they plan to use. For the technical team, I’ll evaluate our product offerings—whether they think we need to build new products to attract more customers, and whether they think it's scalable for the number of customers we plan to serve. This way, the entire organization's tasks are cascaded in alignment with our overarching goals, with me setting the direction and leaving the details of execution to the skilled team members that I hire.

Follow Along as I Flip this Website - Case Study

I am starting a new case study where I will be documenting my attempt to flip a website that I just purchased from Flippa. However, unlike most case studies where people hide certain parts and details from the public I will instead be sharing everything. That means you will know the exact URL of the site that I purchased and I will share everything with you all as I progress.I know that case studies are lot more interesting and you can learn better when you can see real examples of what I am talking about. Enough of the chatting, let's jump straight into this new case study and I will explain what this is all about. Before you get into the case study I want to give you the option of reading this one my website where all of the images can be seen within the post and it is easier to read. I also want to say that I have nothing to sell you or anything close to it. So if you want to read it there you can do so here ##Introductory Video I have put together a video that talks about many of the things that I cover in this article. So if you would rather watch a video you can watch that here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE3SxtNnqts However, I go into more detail in the actual article FYI. Also, I plan on using Youtube very frequently in this case study so be on the lookout for new videos.There is going to be a video that will accompany every single case study post because I like having it being presented in two different mediums. ##The Website I Just Bought Around a week ago I made a new website purchase from Flippa and you can view the website's Flippa listing here - https://flippa.com/6439965-hvactraining101-com Screenshot of the Homepage - http://imgur.com/T6Iv1QN I paid $1,250 for the site and you will soon see that I got a really good deal. As you might be able to tell from the URL, this site is focused around training and education for becoming a HVAC technician. This is a lucrative niche to be in and Adsense pays very well. I do not have control of the site yet due to the transfer process not being completed. However, I am hoping within a few days everything will be finalized and I will take full control of the site. In the meantime, I figured it would be a good time to put together the introduction post for this new case study! ##Why I Bought this Website Now that you have a general idea of the website that I purchased, I now want to explain the reasoning behind the purchase. There are 3 major reasons for this purchase and I will explain each one of them below. GREAT Price As I mentioned earlier, I bought this website for $1,250. However, that doesn't mean a whole lot unless you know how much the site is making each month. Screenshot of the earnings for the last 12 months - http://imgur.com/NptxCHy Average Monthly Profits: 3 Month = $126 6 Month = $128 12 Month = $229.50 Let's use the 6 month average of $128/month as our baseline average. Since it is making on average $128/month and it was sold for $1,250 then that means I bought this site at a multiple of 9.76x! Most sites in today's market go for 20x-30x multiples. As you can see, I got a great deal on this site. Although the great price was the biggest reason for me buying this site there are other factors that persuaded me as well. You need to remember that just because you can get a website for a good price it doesn't mean it is a good deal. There are other factors that you need to look at as well. Extremely Under Optimized This site is currently being monetized mainly by Adsense and a very small amount from Quinstreet. From my experience with testing and optimizing Adsense layouts for my site in my Website Investing case study I know the common ad layouts that work best for maximizing Adsense revenue. With that being said, I can quickly determine if a website is being under optimized in terms of the ad layout. One of the first things I did when analyzing this site was examine the ad layout it was using. Screenshot of the website with the ad layout the previous owner was using - http://imgur.com/wqleLVA There is only ONE ad per page being used, that's it. Google allows up to 6 total ads to be used per page and you can imagine how much money is being left on the table because of this. I am estimating that I can probably double the earnings for the site practically overnight once I add more ads to the site. Adding more ads in combination with my favorite Adsense plugin, AmpedSense, I will be able to easily boost the earnings for this site quickly. It is also worth mentioning how lucrative this niche is and how much advertisers are willing to spend on a per click basis. The average CPC for the top keywords this site is currently ranking for in Google - http://imgur.com/ifxiy8B Look at those average CPC numbers, they are insanely high! I could be making up to $25 per click for some of those keywords, which is so absurd to me. Combine these extremely high CPC with the fact that the site currently only has one ad per page and you can start to understand just how under optimized this site truly is. I also plan on utilizing other ad networks such as Quinstreet and Campus Explorer more as well. These two networks are targeted at the education niche which works very well with my site. I will be testing to see if these convert better than normal Adsense ads. Goldmine of Untapped Keywords One of the biggest opportunities I see for growing this site is to target local keywords related to HVAC training. As of right now, the site has only scratched the surface when it comes to trying to rank for state/city keywords. Currently there are only two pages on the entire website which go after local keywords, those two pages target Texas and Florida HVAC search terms. These two pages are two of the more popular pages in terms of total amount of traffic. See the screenshot of the Google Analytics - http://imgur.com/NB0xJ4G Two out of the top five most popular pages for the entire website are focused on local search terms. However, these are the ONLY two pages that target local search terms on the whole site! There are 48 other states, although there may not be search volume for all states, and countless cities that are not being targeted. Why do I think this is such a good opportunity? For a few reasons: Local keywords are a lot easier to rank for in Google than more general keywords This site has been able to rank for two states successfully already and it proves it is possible Traffic going to these local pages is WAY more targeted and will convert at a much higher rate, which means more commissions for me There are so many more states and cities that get a good amount of searches that I can target To give you an idea of the type of keywords these local pages rank for, you can see the top keywords that the Florida page is ranking for in Google: Top ranking keywords for the Florida page - http://imgur.com/j7uKzl2 As you can see these keywords don't get a ton of searches each month, but ranking 1st for a keyword getting 90 searches a month is better than being ranked 10th for a keyword getting 1,000 searches a month. I have started to do some keyword research for other states and I am liking what I am finding so far. Keywords that I have found which I will be targeting with future articles - http://imgur.com/8CCCCWU I will go into more detail about my keyword research in future articles, but I wanted to give you an idea of what my strategy will be! I also wanted to share why I am super excited about the future potential to grow this site by targeting local keywords. ##Risks Yes, there are many good things about this website, but there are always risks involved no matter what the investment is. The same thing goes for this site. Below are some of the risks that I currently see. HTML Site This website is a HTML site and I will need to transfer it to Wordpress ASAP. I have been doing some research on this process and it shouldn't be too hard to get this over to Wordpress. In doing so it will make adding content, managing the back end and just about everything else easier. Also, I am hoping that when I transfer it to Wordpress that it will become more optimized for Google which will increase keyword rankings. Declining Earnings Looking at the last 12 months of earnings you will notice a drop off from last year till now. Earnings from the last 12 months - http://imgur.com/WsotZsj In May of 2015 it looks like the site earned right around $500, which is much higher than the $128 that it is earning now. However, the last 7 or so months have been consistent which is a good sign. Even though the earnings are much lower now then they were a year ago it is good to know that this site has the potential to earn $500/month because it has done it before. Slightly Declining Traffic In the last 12 months the site's traffic has declined, however, it looks like it is picking back up. Traffic from the last 12 months - http://imgur.com/aiYZW9W The decline is nothing serious, but there is a drop on traffic. Let's take a look at the complete history of this site's traffic so we can get a better idea of what is going on here: Complete traffic history - http://imgur.com/tYmboVn The above screenshot is from 2012 all the way up to right now. In the grand scheme of things you can see that the traffic is still doing well and it looks like it is on the upswing now. Those three risks mentioned above are the three biggest risks with this site at this point. It is always good to note the risks and do everything you can to prevent them from causing a problem. ##My Growth Strategy Whenever I purchase a new site I always create an outline or plan on how I will grow the site. Right now, I have some basic ideas on how I will grow this site, but as I go on I will continue to change and optimize my strategies to be more effective. Below I have outlined my current plans to grow: Add more Adsense Ads The very first thing I will do once I get control of the site is add more ads per page. I am predicting that by just adding a few more ads per page I will be able to more than likely double the earnings. I will touch on exactly how I will be optimizing the ad layouts in future posts. Test other Ad Networks I will be doing a lot of testing and experimenting when it comes to the ad networks. I plan on trying out Adsense, Media.net, Quinstreet, Campus Explorer and finding the combination of those 4 which produces the most revenue. The Adsense and Media.net ads will perform well on the more general pages while Quinstreet and Campus Explorer ads will be geared towards the local search terms. There will probably be other ad networks I will try out but these are the four which I will be using right away. If you are aware of any other ad networks out there which are geared towards the education niche please let me know in the comments below! Target Local Keywords with new Content I have already touched on this, but I will starting to produce content targeting these local keywords ASAP. The sooner I add the content to the site the sooner it will start to rank and bring in traffic. I will not be writing my own content and instead I will be outsourcing all of it via Upwork. I will show you all how I go about outsourcing content production and you can see my process for doing that. ##Goals for this Website My goal for the website is to have it valued at $10,000+ within 12 months. Let's break down this larger goal into smaller chunks which will make achieving it easier and more attainable. Earnings - $500/month To get the site valued at $10,000 the site will need to be making $500/month using a 20x monthly multiple. Right now, the site is making around $130/month so it has a ways to before it reaches the $500 a month mark. However, after doing some Adsense optimization I think we could push the earnings to around $300/month without much work. From there, it will come down to trying to bring in more traffic! Traffic - 5,000 Visitors per Month Why 5,000 visitors? Because that is how much traffic it is going to take to get to the $500/month goal. Let me explain how I came to this conclusion: The average RPM for this site is currently $50, which means for every 1,000 page views the site earns $50. After I optimize the Adsense layout for the site and add more ads per page I think I will be able to double the RPM to $100. Using the RPM of $100 the site will need to have 5,000 monthly visitors to earn $500. So 5,000 monthly visitors is the traffic goal I have set and aiming for! The site is currently getting around 3,000 visitors per month so I will need to add an extra 2,000 visitors to get to this goal. ##Want to Follow this Case Study? I will be using Youtube a lot in this case study so make sure to follow my Youtube channel here - www.youtube.com/c/joshshogren Other than that, I think that is going to bring us to the end of the introductory post for this new case study. I hope that you enjoyed reading and that you are excited to follow along! If you have any suggestions to make this case study better PLEASE let me know in the comment below. I want to make this case study the best one I have done yet. Talk to you all in the comment section.

We made $325k in 2023 from AI products, starting from 0, with no-code, no funding and no audience

I met my co-founder in late 2022 after an introduction from a mutual friend to talk about how to find contract Product Management roles. I was sporadically contracting at start-up at the time and he had just come out of another start-up that was wiped out by the pandemic. We hit it off, talking about ideas, sharing what other indie-hackers were doing, and given GPT-3’s prominence at the time, we started throwing around ideas about things we could build with it, if nothing else, just to learn. I should caveat, neither of us were AI experts when starting out, everything we learned has been through Twitter and blogs, my background is as an accountant, and his a consultant. Here’s how it went since then: &#x200B; Nov 2022 (+$50) \- We built a simple tool in around a week using GPT-3 fine-tuning and a no-code tool (Bubble) that helped UK university students write their personal statements for their applications \- We set some Google Ads going and managed to make a few sales (\~$50) in the first week \- OpenAI were still approving applications at the time and said this went against their “ethics” so we had to take it down &#x200B; Dec 2022 (+$200) \- We couldn’t stop coming up with ideas related to AI fine-tuning, but realised it was almost impossible to decide which to pursue \- We needed a deadline to force us so we signed up for the Ben’s Bites hackathon in late December \- In a week, we built and launched a no-code fine-tuning platform, allowing people to create fine-tuned models by dragging and dropping an Excel file onto it \- We launched it on Product Hunt, having no idea how to price it, and somehow managed to get \~2,000 visitors on the site and make 2 sales at $99 &#x200B; Jan 2023 (+$3,000) \- We doubled down on the fine-tuning idea and managed to get up to \~$300 MRR, plus a bunch of one-time sales and a few paid calls to help people get the most out of their models \- We quickly realised that people didn’t want to curate models themselves, they just wanted to dump data and get magic out \- That was when we saw people building “Talk with x book/podcast” on Twitter as side projects and realised that was the missing piece, we needed to turn it into a tool \- We started working on the new product in late January &#x200B; Feb 2023 (+$9,000) \- We started pre-selling access to an MVP for the new product, which allowed people to “chat with their data/content”, we got $5,000 in pre-sales, more than we made from the previous product in total \- By mid-February, after 3 weeks of building we were able to launch and immediately managed to get traction, getting to $1k MRR in < 1 week, building on the hype of ChatGPT and AI (we were very lucky here) &#x200B; Mar - Jul 2023 (+$98,000) \- We worked all the waking hours to keep up with customer demand, bugs, OpenAI issues \- We built integrations for a bunch of services like Slack, Teams, Wordpress etc, added tons of new functionality and continue talking to customers every day \- We managed to grow to $17k MRR (just about enough to cover our living expenses and costs in London) through building in public on Twitter, newsletters and AI directories (and a million other little things) \- We sold our fine-tuning platform for \~$20k and our university project for \~$3k on Acquire &#x200B; Aug 2023 (+$100,000) \- We did some custom development work based on our own product for a customer that proved pretty lucrative &#x200B; Sep - Oct 2023 (+$62,000) \- After 8 months of building constantly, we started digging more seriously into our usage and saw subscriptions plateauing \- We talked to and analysed all our paying users to identify the main use cases and found 75% were for SaaS customer support \- We took the leap to completely rebuild a version of our product around this use case, our biggest to date (especially given most features with no-code took us <1 day) &#x200B; Nov - Dec 2023 (+$53,000) \- We picked up some small custom development work that utilised our own tech \- We’re sitting at around $22k MRR now with a few bigger clients signed up and coming soon \- After 2 months of building and talking to users, we managed to finish our “v2” of our product, focussed squarely on SaaS customer support and launched it today. &#x200B; We have no idea what the response will be to this new version, but we’re pretty happy with it, but couldn’t have planned anything that happened to us in 2023 so who knows what will come of 2024, we just know that we are going to be learning a ton more. &#x200B; Overall, it is probably the most I have had to think in my life - other jobs you can zone out from time to time or rely on someone else if you aren’t feeling it - not when you are doing this, case and point, I am writing this with a banging head-cold right now, but wanted to get this done. A few more things we have learned along the way - context switching is unreal, as is keeping up with, learning and reacting to AI. There isn’t a moment of the day I am not thinking about what we do next. But while in some way we now have hundreds of bosses (our customers) I still haven’t felt this free and can’t imagine ever going back to work for someone else. Next year we’re really hoping to figure out some repeatable distribution channels and personally, I want to get a lot better at creating content/writing, this is a first step! Hope this helps someone else reading this to just try starting something and see what happens.

Started a content marketing agency 6 years ago - $0 to $5,974,324 (2023 update)

Hey friends, My name is Tyler and for the past 6 years, I’ve been documenting my experience building a content marketing agency called Optimist. Year 1 - 0 to $500k ARR Year 2 - $500k to $1MM ARR Year 3 - $1MM ARR to $1.5MM(ish) ARR Year 4 - $3,333,686 Revenue Year 5 - $4,539,659 Revenue How Optimist Works First, an overview/recap of the Optimist business model: We operate as a “collective” of full time/professional freelancers Everyone aside from me is a contractor Entirely remote/distributed team Each freelancer earns $65-85/hour Clients pay us a flat monthly fee for full-service content marketing (research, strategy, writing, editing, design/photography, reporting and analytics, targeted linkbuilding, and more) We recently introduced hourly engagements for clients who fit our model but have some existing in-house support Packages range in price from $10-20k/mo We offer profit share to everyone on our core team as a way to give everyone ownership in the company In 2022, we posted $1,434,665 in revenue. It was our highest revenue year to date and brings our lifetime total to $5,974,324. Here’s our monthly revenue from January 2017 to December of 2022. But, like every year, it was a mix of ups and downs. Here’s my dispatch for 2023. — Running a business is like spilling a drink. It starts as a small and simple thing. But, if you don’t clean it up, the spill will spread and grow — taking up more space, seeping into every crack. There’s always something you could be doing. Marketing you could be working on. Pitches you could be making. Networking you could be doing. Client work you could help with. It can be all-consuming. And it will be — if you don’t clean up the spill. I realized this year that I had no containment for the spill that I created. Running an agency was spilling over into nearly every moment of my life. When I wasn’t working, I was thinking about work. When I wasn’t thinking about work, I was dreaming about it. Over the years, I’ve shared about a lot of my personal feelings and experience as an entrepreneur. And I also discussed my reckoning with the limitations of running the business we’ve built. My acceptance that it was an airplane but not a rocket. And my plan to try to compartmentalize the agency to make room in my life for other things — new business ideas, new revenue streams, and maybe some non-income-producing activity. 🤷 What I found in 2022 was that the business wasn’t quite ready for me to make that move. It was still sucking up too much of my time and attention. There were still too many gaps to fill and I was the one who was often filling them. So what do you do? Ultimately you have two choices on the table anytime you run a business and it’s not going the way you want it: Walk away Turn the ship — slowly For a huge number of reasons (personal, professional, financial, etc), walking away from Optimist was not really even an option or the right move for me. But it did feel like things needed to change. I needed to keep turning the ship to get it to the place where it fit into my life — instead of my life fitting around the business. This means 2022 was a year of transition for the agency. (Again?) Refocusing on Profit Some money is better than no money. Right? Oddly, this was one of the questions I found myself asking in 2022. Over the years, we’ve been fortunate to have many clients who have stuck with us a long time. In some cases, we’ve had clients work with us for 2, 3, or even 4 years. (That’s over half of our existence!) But, things have gotten more expensive — we’ve all felt it. We’ve had to increase pay to remain competitive for top talent. Software costs have gone up. It’s eaten into our margin. Because of our increasing costs and evolving scope, many of our best, most loyal clients were our least profitable. In fact, many were barely profitable — if at all. We’ve tried to combat that by increasing rates on new, incoming clients to reflect our new costs and try to make up for shrinking margin on long-term clients. But we didn’t have a good strategy in place for updating pricing for current clients. And it bit us in the ass. Subsidizing lower-profit, long-term clients with new, higher-margin clients ultimately didn’t work out. Our margins continued to dwindle and some months we were barely breaking even while posting six-figures of monthly revenue. 2022 was our highest revenue year but one of our least profitable. It only left one option. We had to raise rates on some of our long-term clients. But, of course, raising rates on a great, long-term client can be delicate. You’ve built a relationship with these people over the years and you’re setting yourself up for an ultimatum — are you more valuable to the client or is the client more valuable to you? Who will blink first? We offered all of these clients the opportunity to move to updated pricing. Unfortunately, some of them weren’t on board. Again, we had 2 options: Keep them at a low/no profit rate Let them churn It seems intuitive that having a low-profit client is better than having no client. But we’ve learned an important lesson many times over the years. Our business doesn’t scale infinitely and we can only handle so many clients at a time. That means that low-profit clients are actually costing us money in some cases. Say our average client generates $2,500 per month in profit — $30,000 per year. If one of our clients is only generating $500/mo in profit, working with them means missing out on bringing on a more profitable client (assuming our team is currently at capacity). Instead of $30,000/year, we’re only making $6,000. Keeping that client costs us $24,000. That’s called opportunity cost. So it’s clear: We had to let these clients churn. We decided to churn about 25% of our existing clients. On paper, the math made sense. And we had a pretty consistent flow of new opportunities coming our way. At the time, it felt like a no-brainer decision. And I felt confident that we could quickly replace these low-profit clients with higher-margin ones. I was wrong. Eating Shit Right after we initiated proactively churning some of our clients, other clients — ones we planned to keep — gave us notice that they were planning to end the engagement. Ouch. Fuck. We went from a 25% planned drop in revenue to a nearly 40% cliff staring us right in the face. Then things got even worse. Around Q3 of this year, talk of recession and layoffs really started to intensify. We work primarily with tech companies and startups. And these were the areas most heavily impacted by the economic news. Venture funding was drying up. Our leads started to slow down. This put us in a tough position. Looking back now, I think it’s clear that I made the wrong decision. We went about this process in the wrong way. The reality sinks in when you consider the imbalance between losing a client and gaining a client. It takes 30 days for someone to fire us. It’s a light switch. But it could take 1-3 months to qualify, close, and onboard a new client. We have lots of upfront work, research, and planning that goes into the process. We have to learn a new brand voice, tone, and style. It’s a marathon. So, for every client we “trade”, there’s a lapse in revenue and work. This means that, in retrospect, I would probably have made this transition using some kind of staggered schedule rather than a cut-and-dry approach. We could have gradually off-boarded clients when we had more definitive work to replace them. I was too confident. But that’s a lesson I had to learn the hard way. Rebuilding & Resetting Most of the voluntary and involuntary churn happened toward the end of 2022. So we’re still dealing with the fall out. Right now, it feels like a period of rebuilding. We didn’t quite lose 50% of our revenue, but we definitely saw a big hit heading into 2023. To be transparent: It sucks. It feels like a gigantic mistake that I made which set us back significantly from our previous high point. I acted rashly and it cost us a lot of money — at least on the surface. But I remind myself of the situation we were in previously. Nearly twice the revenue but struggling to maintain profitability. Would it have been better to try to slowly fix that situation and battle through months of loss or barely-break-even profits? Or was ripping off the bandaid the right move after all? I’m an optimist. (Heh, heh) Plus, I know that spiraling over past decisions won’t change them or help me move forward. So I’m choosing to look at this as an opportunity — to rebuild, reset, and refocus the company. I get to take all of the tough lessons I’ve learned over the last 6 years and apply them to build the company in a way that better aligns with our new and current goals. It’s not quite a fresh, clean start, but by parting ways with some of our oldest clients, we’ve eliminated some of the “debt” that’s accumulated over the years. We get a chance to fully realize the new positioning that we rolled out last year. Many of those long-term clients who churned had a scope of work or engagement structure that didn’t fit with our new positioning and focus. So, by losing them, we’re able to completely close up shop on the SOWs that no longer align with the future version of Optimist. Our smaller roster of clients is a better fit for that future. My job is to protect that positioning by ensuring that while we’re rebuilding our new roster of clients we don’t get desperate. We maintain the qualifications we set out for future clients and only take on work that fits. How’s that for seeing the upside? Some other upside from the situation is that we got an opportunity to ask for candid feedback from clients who were leaving. We asked for insight about their decision, what factors they considered, how they perceived us, and the value of our work. Some of the reasons clients left were obvious and possibly unavoidable. Things like budget cuts, insourcing, and uncertainty about the economy all played at least some part of these decisions. But, reading between the lines, where was one key insight that really struck me. It’s one of those, “oh, yeah — duh — I already knew that,” things that can be difficult to learn and easy to forget…. We’re in the Relationship Business (Plan Accordingly) For all of our focus on things like rankings, keywords, content, conversions, and a buffet of relevant metrics, it can be easy to lose the forest for the trees. Yes, the work itself matters. Yes, the outcomes — the metrics — matter. But sometimes the relationship matters more. When you’re running an agency, you can live or die by someone just liking you. Admittedly, this feels totally unfair. It opens up all kinds of dilemmas, frustration, opportunity for bias and prejudice, and other general messiness. But it’s the real world. If a client doesn’t enjoy working with us — even if for purely personal reasons — they could easily have the power to end of engagement, regardless of how well we did our actual job. We found some evidence of this in the offboarding conversations we had with clients. In some cases, we had clients who we had driven triple- and quadruple-digital growth. Our work was clearly moving the needle and generating positive ROI and we had the data to prove it. But they decided to “take things in another direction” regardless. And when we asked about why they made the decision, it was clear that it was more about the working relationship than anything we could have improved about the service itself. The inverse is also often true. Our best clients have lasting relationships with our team. The work is important — and they want results. But even if things aren’t quite going according to plan, they’re patient and quick to forgive. Those relationships feel solid — unshakeable. Many of these folks move onto new roles or new companies and quickly look for an opportunity to work with us again. On both sides, relationships are often more important than the work itself. We’ve already established that we’re not building a business that will scale in a massive way. Optimist will always be a small, boutique service firm. We don’t need 100 new leads per month We need a small, steady roster of clients who are a great fit for the work we do and the value we create. We want them to stick around. We want to be their long-term partner. I’m not built for churn-and-burn agency life. And neither is the business. When I look at things through this lens, I realize how much I can cut from our overall business strategy. We don’t need an ultra-sophisticated, multi-channel marketing strategy. We just need strong relationships — enough of them to make our business work. There are a few key things we can take away from this as a matter of business strategy: Put most of our effort into building and strengthening relationships with our existing clients Be intentional about establishing a strong relationship with new clients as part of onboarding Focus on relationships as the main driver of future business development Embracing Reality: Theory vs Practice Okay, so with the big learnings out the way, I want to pivot into another key lesson from 2022. It’s the importance of understanding theory vs practice — specifically when it comes to thinking about time, work, and life. It all started when I was considering how to best structure my days and weeks around running Optimist, my other ventures, and my life goals outside of work. Over the years, I’ve dabbled in many different ways to block time and find focus — to compartmentalize all of the things that are spinning and need my attention. As I mapped this out, I realized that I often tried to spread myself too thin throughout the week. Not just that I was trying to do too much but that I was spreading that work into too many small chunks rather than carving out time for focus. In theory, 5 hours is 5 hours. If you have 5 hours of work to get done, you just fit into your schedule whenever you have an open time slot. In reality, a single 5-hour block of work is 10x more productive and satisfying than 10, 30-minute blocks of work spread out across the week. In part, this is because of context switching. Turning your focus from one thing to another thing takes time. Achieving flow and focus takes time. And the more you jump from one project to another, the more time you “lose” to switching. This is insightful for me both in the context of work and planning my day, but also thinking about my life outside of Optimist. One of my personal goals is to put a finite limit on my work time and give myself more freedom. I can structure that in many different ways. Is it better to work 5 days a week but log off 1 hour early each day? Or should I try to fit more hours into each workday so I can take a full day off? Of course, it’s the latter. Both because of the cost of context switching and spreading work into more, smaller chunks — but also because of the remainder that I end up with when I’m done working. A single extra hour in my day probably means nothing. Maybe I can binge-watch one more episode of a new show or do a few extra chores around the house. But it doesn’t significantly improve my life or help me find greater balance. Most things I want to do outside of work can’t fit into a single extra hour. A full day off from work unlocks many more options. I can take the day to go hiking or biking. I can spend the day with my wife, planning or playing a game. Or I can push it up against the weekend and take a 3-day trip. It gives me more of the freedom and balance that I ultimately want. So this has become a guiding principle for how I structure my schedule. I want to: Minimize context switching Maximize focused time for work and for non-work The idea of embracing reality also bleeds into some of the shifts in business strategy that I mentioned above. In theory, any time spent on marketing will have a positive impact on the company. In reality, focusing more on relationships than blasting tweets into the ether is much more likely to drive the kind of growth and stability that we’re seeking. As I think about 2023, I think this is a recurring theme. It manifests in many ways. Companies are making budget cuts and tough decisions about focus and strategy. Most of us are looking for ways to rein in the excess and have greater impact with a bit less time and money. We can’t do everything. We can’t even do most things. So our #1 priority should be to understand the reality of our time and our effort to make the most of every moment (in both work and leisure). That means thinking deeply about our strengths and our limitations. Being practical, even if it feels like sacrifice. Update on Other Businesses Finally, I want to close up by sharing a bit about my ventures outside of Optimist. I shared last year how I planned to shift some of my (finite) time and attention to new ventures and opportunities. And, while I didn’t get to devote as much as I hoped to these new pursuits, they weren’t totally in vain. I made progress across the board on all of the items I laid out in my post. Here’s what happened: Juice: The first Optimist spin-out agency At the end of 2021, we launched our first new service business based on demand from Optimist clients. Focused entirely on building links for SEO, we called the agency Juice. Overall, we made strong progress toward turning this into a legitimate standalone business in 2022. Relying mostly on existing Optimist clients and a few word-of-mouth opportunities (no other marketing), we built a team and set up a decent workflow and operations. There’s still many kinks and challenges that we’re working through on this front. All told, Juice posted almost $100,000 in revenue in our first full year. Monetizing the community I started 2022 with a focus on figuring out how to monetize our free community, Top of the Funnel. Originally, my plan was to sell sponsorships as the main revenue driver. And that option is still on the table. But, this year, I pivoted to selling paid content and subscriptions. We launched a paid tier for content and SEO entrepreneurs where I share more of my lessons, workflows, and ideas for building and running a freelance or agency business. It’s gained some initial traction — we reached \~$1,000 MRR from paid subscriptions. In total, our community revenue for 2022 was about $2,500. In 2023, I’m hoping to turn this into a $30,000 - $50,000 revenue opportunity. Right now, we’re on track for \~$15,000. Agency partnerships and referrals In 2022, we also got more serious about referring leads to other agencies. Any opportunity that was not a fit for Optimist or we didn’t have capacity to take on, we’d try to connect with another partner. Transparently, we struggled to operationalize this as effectively as I would have liked. In part, this was driven by my lack of focus here. With the other challenges throughout the year, I wasn’t able to dedicate as much time as I’d like to setting goals and putting workflows into place. But it wasn’t a total bust. We referred out several dozen potential clients to partner agencies. Of those, a handful ended up converting into sales — and referral commission. In total, we generated about $10,000 in revenue from referrals. I still see this as a huge opportunity for us to unlock in 2023. Affiliate websites Lastly, I mentioned spending some time on my new and existing affiliate sites as another big business opportunity in 2022. This ultimately fell to the bottom of my list and didn’t get nearly the attention I wanted. But I did get a chance to spend a few weeks throughout the year building this income stream. For 2022, I generated just under $2,000 in revenue from affiliate content. My wife has graciously agreed to dedicate some of her time and talent to these projects. So, for 2023, I think this will become a bit of a family venture. I’m hoping to build a solid and consistent workflow, expand the team, and develop a more solid business strategy. Postscript — AI, SEO, OMG As I’m writing this, much of my world is in upheaval. If you’re not in this space (and/or have possibly been living under a rock), the release of ChatGPT in late 2022 has sparked an arms race between Google, Bing, OpenAI, and many other players. The short overview: AI is likely to fundamentally change the way internet search works. This has huge impact on almost all of the work that I do and the businesses that I run. Much of our focus is on SEO and understanding the current Google algorithm, how to generate traffic for clients, and how to drive traffic to our sites and projects. That may all change — very rapidly. This means we’re standing at a very interesting point in time. On the one hand, it’s scary as hell. There’s a non-zero chance that this will fundamentally shift — possibly upturn — our core business model at Optimist. It could dramatically change how we work and/or reduce demand for our core services. No bueno. But it’s also an opportunity (there’s the optimist in me, again). I certainly see a world where we can become leaders in this new frontier. We can pivot, adjust, and capitalize on a now-unknown version of SEO that’s focused on understanding and optimizing for AI-as-search. With that, we may also be able to help others — say, those in our community? — also navigate this tumultuous time. See? It’s an opportunity. I wish I had the answers right now. But, it’s still a time of uncertainty. I just know that there’s a lot of change happening and I want to be in front of it rather than trying to play catch up. Wish me luck. — Alright friends — that's my update for 2023! I’ve always appreciated sharing these updates with the Reddit community, getting feedback, being asked tough questions, and even battling it out with some of my haters (hey!! 👋) As usual, I’m going to pop in throughout the next few days to respond to comments or answer questions. Feel free to share thoughts, ideas, and brutal takedowns in the comments. If you're interested in following the Optimist journey and the other projects I'm working on in 2023, you can follow me on Twitter. Cheers, Tyler P.S. - If you're running or launching a freelance or agency business and looking for help figuring it out, please DM me. Our subscription community, Middle of the Funnel, was created to provide feedback, lessons, and resources for other entrepreneurs in this space.

Dangers of not adopting AI strategies?

Tldr: I need to know how AI is threatening different types of businesses. Please share your perspective. I'll reply to every comment. Hi, this is for anyone concerned with how to respond to the emergence of new AI tools. (to grow instead of going out of business, find opportunities instead of getting beat by competitors, etc. I need to find the best ways to use AI to give my clients an advantage. (I’m a mod at r/writingservice & a content/brand strategist.) Not just automation. That's weak. I mean innovation. Using AI to do stuff that has never been done in your industry. Lots of virtual assistants (for business owners) will make the mistake of learning how to use these tools only in a general way, without applying them in the real world. I don’t want to make that mistake. It will help me if you share what’s on your mind, what’s unique about the way AI affects your industry, or your unique business model, etc. So this is basically like an informal research study. And it's the kind where you get something if you participate - I will seriously spend time to offer the best stuff I know in the comments if you just share your perspective, how AI is affecting you in the unique way you are situation in your industry and among your competitors. Have you been finding ways to incorporate AI in your marketing, customer service, etc.? I have a feeling a lot of business owners are worried right now, because all our experience is from the old landscape prior to everything being automated with AI. Even if you have questions on your mind and share them, that can help me. My problem: I’m learning to use GPT/Gemini/Invideo/Perplexity and others, but it’s not good enough until I see how they apply in different situations, industries, business models. If you share some ideas, I’ll reply to every comment and try to offer something helpful. I’ve already made a lot of progress learning how the strengths/weaknesses of different AI tools for different situations. Thinking about the way their competitors might surpass you by using them, or about opportunities for you to surpass them.... what concerns are on your mind? Or what have you learned, what are you doing, etc.

How To Learn About AI Agents (A Road Map From Someone Who's Done It)

If you are a newb to AI Agents, welcome, I love newbies and this fledgling industry needs you! You've hear all about AI Agents and you want some of that action right?  You might even feel like this is a watershed moment in tech, remember how it felt when the internet became 'a thing'?  When apps were all the rage?  You missed that boat right?   Well you may have missed that boat, but I can promise you one thing..... THIS BOAT IS BIGGER !  So if you are reading this you are getting in just at the right time.  Let me answer some quick questions before we go much further: Q: Am I too late already to learn about AI agents? A: Heck no, you are literally getting in at the beginning, call yourself and 'early adopter' and pin a badge on your chest! Q: Don't I need a degree or a college education to learn this stuff?  I can only just about work out how my smart TV works! A: NO you do not.  Of course if you have a degree in a computer science area then it does help because you have covered all of the fundamentals in depth... However 100000% you do not need a degree or college education to learn AI Agents.  Q: Where the heck do I even start though?  Its like sooooooo confusing A: You start right here my friend, and yeh I know its confusing, but chill, im going to try and guide you as best i can. Q: Wait i can't code, I can barely write my name, can I still do this? A: The simple answer is YES you can. However it is great to learn some basics of python.  I say his because there are some fabulous nocode tools like n8n that allow you to build agents without having to learn how to code...... Having said that, at the very least understanding the basics is highly preferable. That being said, if you can't be bothered or are totally freaked about by looking at some code, the simple answer is YES YOU CAN DO THIS. Q: I got like no money, can I still learn? A: YES 100% absolutely.  There are free options to learn about AI agents and there are paid options to fast track you.  But defiantly you do not need to spend crap loads of cash on learning this.  So who am I anyway? (lets get some context)  I am an AI Engineer and I own and run my own AI Consultancy business where I design, build and deploy AI agents and AI automations.  I do also run a small academy where I teach this stuff, but I am not self promoting or posting links in this post because im not spamming this group.  If you want links send me a DM or something and I can forward them to you.  Alright so on to the good stuff, you're a newb, you've already read a 100 posts and are now totally confused and every day you consume about 26 hours of youtube videos on AI agents.....I get you, we've all been there.  So here is my 'Worth Its Weight In Gold' road map on what to do: \[1\]  First of all you need learn some fundamental concepts.  Whilst you can defiantly jump right in start building, I strongly recommend you learn some of the basics.  Like HOW to LLMs work, what is a system prompt, what is long term memory, what is Python, who the heck is this guy named Json that everyone goes on about?  Google is your old friend who used to know everything, but you've also got your new buddy who can help you if you want to learn for FREE.  Chat GPT is an awesome resource to create your own mini learning courses to understand the basics. Start with a prompt such as: "I want to learn about AI agents but this dude on reddit said I need to know the fundamentals to this ai tech, write for me a short course on Json so I can learn all about it. Im a beginner so keep the content easy for me to understand. I want to also learn some code so give me code samples and explain it like a 10 year old" If you want some actual structured course material on the fundamentals, like what the Terminal is and how to use it, and how LLMs work, just hit me, Im not going to spam this post with a hundred links. \[2\] Alright so let's assume you got some of the fundamentals down.  Now what? Well now you really have 2 options.  You either start to pick up some proper learning content (short courses) to deep dive further and really learn about agents or you can skip that sh\*t and start building!  Honestly my advice is to seek out some short courses on agents, Hugging Face have an awesome free course on agents and DeepLearningAI also have numerous free courses. Both are really excellent places to start.  If you want a proper list of these with links, let me know.  If you want to jump in because you already know it all, then learn the n8n platform!   And no im not a share holder and n8n are not paying me to say this.  I can code, im an AI Engineer and I use n8n sometimes.   N8N is a nocode platform that gives you a drag and drop interface to build automations and agents.  Its very versatile and you can self host it.  Its also reasonably easy to actually deploy a workflow in the cloud so it can be used by an actual paying customer.  Please understand that i literally get hate mail from devs and experienced AI enthusiasts for recommending no code platforms like n8n.  So im risking my mental wellbeing for you!!!    \[3\] Keep building!   ((WTF THAT'S IT?????))  Yep. the more you build the more you will learn.  Learn by doing my young Jedi learner.  I would call myself pretty experienced in building AI Agents, and I only know a tiny proportion of this tech.  But I learn but building projects and writing about AI Agents.  The more you build the more you will learn.  There are more intermediate courses you can take at this point as well if you really want to deep dive (I was forced to - send help) and I would recommend you do if you like short courses because if you want to do well then you do need to understand not just the underlying tech but also more advanced concepts like Vector Databases and how to implement long term memory.  Where to next? Well if you want to get some recommended links just DM me or leave a comment and I will DM you, as i said im not writing this with the intention of spamming the crap out of the group. So its up to you.  Im also happy to chew the fat if you wanna chat, so hit me up.  I can't always reply immediately because im in a weird time zone, but I promise I will reply if you have any questions. THE LAST WORD (Warning - Im going to motivate the crap out of you now) Please listen to me:  YOU CAN DO THIS.  I don't care what background you have, what education you have, what language you speak or what country you are from..... I believe in you and anyway can do this.  All you need is determination, some motivation to want to learn and a computer (last one is essential really, the other 2 are optional!) But seriously you can do it and its totally worth it.  You are getting in right at the beginning of the gold rush, and yeh I believe that.   AI Agents are going to be HUGE. I believe this will be the new internet gold rush.

Started a content marketing agency 8 years ago - $0 to $7,863,052 (2025 update)

Hey friends, My name is Tyler and for the past 8 years, I’ve been documenting my experience building a content marketing agency called Optimist. Year 1 — 0 to $500k ARR Year 2 — $500k to $1MM ARR Year 3 — $1MM ARR to $1.5MM(ish) ARR Year 4 — $3,333,686 Revenue Year 5 — $4,539,659 Revenue Year 6 — $5,974,324 Revenue Year 7 - $6,815,503 Revenue (Edit: Seems like links are banned now. You can check my post history for all of my previous updates with lessons and learnings.) How Optimist Works First, an overview/recap of the Optimist business model: We operate as a “collective” of full time/professional freelancers Everyone aside from me is a contractor Entirely remote/distributed team We pay freelancers a flat fee for most work, working out to roughly $65-100/hour. Clients pay us a flat monthly fee for full-service content marketing (research, strategy, writing, editing, design/photography, reporting and analytics, targeted linkbuilding, and more)\ Packages range in price from \~$10-20k/mo \This is something we are revisiting now* The Financials In 2024, we posted $1,032,035.34 in revenue. This brings our lifetime revenue to $7,863,052. Here’s our monthly revenue from January 2017 to December of 2024. (Edit: Seems like I'm not allowed to link to the chart.) The good news: Revenue is up 23% YoY. EBITDA in Q4 trending up 1-2 points. We hosted our first retreat in 4 years, going to Ireland with about half the team. The bad news: Our revenue is still historically low. At $1MM for the year, we’re down about 33% from our previous years over $1.5MM. Revenue has been rocky. It doesn’t feel like we’ve really “recovered” from the bumps last year. The trend doesn’t really look great. Even though, anecdotally, it feels like we are moving in a good direction. EBITDA is still hovering at around 7%. Would love to get that closer to 20%. (For those who may ask: I’m calculating EBITDA after paying taxes and W2 portion of my income.) — Almost every year, my update starts the same way: This has been a year of growth and change. Both for my business—and me personally. 2024 was no different. I guess that tells you something about entrepreneurship. It’s a lot more like sailing a ship than driving a car. You’re constantly adapting, tides are shifting, and any blip of calm is usually just a moment before the next storm. As with past years, there’s a lot to unpack from the last 12 months. Here we go again. Everything is Burning In the last 2 years, everything has turned upside down in the world of content and SEO. Back in 2020, we made a big decision to re-position the agency. (See post history) We decided to narrow our focus to our most successful, profitable, and consistent segment of clients and re-work our entire operation to focus on serving them. We defined our ICP as: \~Series A ($10mm+ funding) with 6-12 months runway to scale organic as a channel Product-led company with “simple” sales cycle involving fewer stakeholders Demonstrable opportunity to use SEO to drive business growth Our services: Content focused on growing organic search (SEO) Full-service engagements that included research, planning, writing, design, reporting And our engagement structure: Engaged directly with an executive; ownership over strategy and day-to-day execution 1-2 points of contact or stakeholders Strategic partner that drives business growth (not a service vendor who makes content) Most importantly, we decided that we were no longer going to offer a broader range of content that we used to sell. That included everything from thought leadership content to case studies and ebooks. We doubled-down on “SEO content” for product-led SaaS companies. And this worked phenomenally for us. We started bringing on more clients than ever. We developed a lot of internal system and processes that helped us scale and take on more work than we’ve ever had and drive great outcomes for our ideal clients. But in 2023 and 2024, things started going awry. One big change, of course, was the rise of AI. Many companies and executives (and writers) feel that AI can write content just as well as an agency like ours. That made it a lot harder to sell a $10,000 per month engagement when they feel like the bulk of the work could be “done for free.” (Lots of thoughts on this if you want my opinions.) But it wasn’t just that. Google also started tinkering with their algorithm, introducing new features like AI Overviews, and generally changing the rules of the game. This created 3 big shifts in our world: The perceived value of content (especially “SEO content”) dropped dramatically in many people’s minds because of AI’s writing capabilities SEO became less predictable as a source of traffic and revenue It’s harder than ever for startups and smaller companies to rank for valuable keywords (let alone generate any meaningful traffic or revenue from them) The effect? The middle of the content market has hollowed out. People—like us—providing good, human-crafted content aimed on driving SEO growth saw a dramatic decline in demand. We felt it all year. Fewer and fewer leads. The leads we did see usually scoffed at our prices. They were indexing us against the cost of content mills and mass-produced AI articles. It was a time of soul-searching and looking for a way forward. I spent the first half of the year convinced that the only way to survive was to run toward the fire. We have to build our own AI workflows. We have to cut our rates internally. We have to get faster and cheaper to stay competitive with the agencies offering the same number of deliverables for a fraction of our rates. It’s the only way forward. But then I asked myself a question… Is this the game I actually want to play? As an entrepreneur, do I want to run a business where I’m competing mostly on price and efficiency rather than quality and value? Do I want to hop into a race toward cheaper and cheaper content? Do I want to help people chase a dwindling amount of organic traffic that’s shrinking in value? No. That’s not the game I want to play. That’s not a business I want to run. I don’t want to be in the content mill business. So I decided to turn the wheel—again. Repositioning Part II: Electric Boogaloo What do you do when the whole world shifts around you and the things that used to work aren’t working anymore? You pivot. You re-position the business and move in another direction. So that’s what we decided to do. Again. There was only one problem: I honestly wasn’t sure what opportunities existed in the content marketing industry outside of what we were already doing. We lived in a little echo chamber of startups and SEO. It felt like the whole market was on fire and I had fight through the smoke to find an escape hatch. So I started making calls. Good ol’ fashioned market research. I reached out to a few dozen marketing and content leaders at a bunch of different companies. I got on the phone and just asked lots of questions about their content programs, their goals, and their pain points. I wanted to understand what was happening in the market and how we could be valuable. And, luckily, this process really paid off. I learned a lot about the fragmentation happening across content and how views were shifting. I noticed key trends and how our old target market really wasn’t buying what we were selling. Startups and small companies are no longer willing to invest in an agency like ours. If they were doing content and SEO at all, they were focused entirely on using AI to scale output and minimize costs. VC money is still scarce and venture-backed companies are more focused on profitability than pure growth and raising another round. Larger companies (\~500+ employees) are doing more content than ever and drowning in content production. They want to focus on strategy but can barely tread water keeping up with content requests from sales, demand gen, the CEO, and everyone else. Many of the companies still investing in content are looking at channels and formats outside of SEO. Things like thought leadership, data reports, interview-driven content, and more. They see it as a way to stand out from the crowd of “bland SEO content.” Content needs are constantly in flux. They range from data reports and blog posts to product one-pagers. The idea of a fixed-scope retainer is a total mismatch for the needs of most companies. All of this led to the logical conclusion: We were talking to the wrong people about the wrong things\.\ Many companies came to one of two logical conclusions: SEO is a risky bet, so it’s gotta be a moonshot—super-low cost with a possibility for a big upside (i.e., use AI to crank out lots of content. If it works, great. If it doesn’t, then at least we aren’t out much money.) SEO is a risky bet, so we should diversify into other strategies and channels to drive growth (i.e., shift our budget from SEO and keyword-focused content to video, podcasts, thought leadership, social, etc) Unless we were going to lean into AI and dramatically cut our costs and rates, our old buyers weren’t interested. And the segment of the market that needs our help most are looking primarily for production support across a big range of content types. They’re not looking for a team to run a full-blown program focused entirely on SEO. So we had to go back to the drawing board. I’ve written before about our basic approach to repositioning the business. But, ultimately it comes down to identifying our unique strengths as a team and then connecting them to needs in the market. After reviewing the insights from my discussions and taking another hard look at our business and our strengths, I decided on a new direction: Move upmarket: Serve mid-size to enterprise businesses with \~500-5,000 employees instead of startups Focus on content that supports a broader range of business goals instead of solely on SEO and organic growth (e.g., sales, demand gen, brand, etc) Shift back to our broader playbook of content deliverables, including thought leadership, data studies, and more Focus on content execution and production to support an internally-directed content strategy across multiple functions In a way, it’s sort of a reverse-niche move. Rather than zooming in specifically on driving organic growth for startups, we want to be more of an end-to-end content production partner that solves issues of execution and operations for all kinds of content teams. It’s early days, but the response here has been promising. We’ve seen an uptick in leads through Q4. And more companies in our pipeline fit the new ICP. They’re bigger, often have more budget. (But they move more slowly). We should know by the end of the quarter if this maneuver is truly paying off. Hopefully, this will work out. Hopefully our research and strategy are right and we’ll find a soft landing serving a different type of client. If it doesn’t? Then it will be time to make some harder decisions. As I already mentioned, I’m not interested in the race to the bottom of AI content. And if that’s the only game left in town, then it might be time to think hard about a much bigger change. — To be done: Build new content playbooks for expanded deliverables Build new showcase page for expanded deliverables Retooling the Operation It’s easy to say we’re doing something new. It’s a lot harder to actually do it—and do it well. Beyond just changing our positioning, we have to do open-heart surgery on the entire content operation behind the scenes. We need to create new systems that work for a broader range of content types, formats, and goals. Here’s the first rub: All of our workflows are tooled specifically for SEO-focused content. Every template, worksheet, and process that we’ve built and scaled in the last 5 years assumes that the primary goal of every piece of content is SEO. Even something as simple as requiring a target keyword is a blocker in a world where we’re not entirely focused on SEO. This is relatively easy to fix, but it requires several key changes: Update content calendars to make keywords optional Update workflows to determine whether we need an optimization report for each deliverable Next, we need to break down the deliverables into parts rather than a single line item. In our old system, we would plan content as a single row in a Content Calendar spreadsheet. It was a really wide sheet with lots of fields where we’d define the dimensions of each individual article. This was very efficient and simple to follow. But every article had the same overall scope when it came to the workflow. In Asana (our project management tool), all of the steps in the creation were strung together in a single task. We would create a few basic templates for each client, and then each piece would flow through the same steps: Briefing Writing Editing Design etc. If we had anything that didn’t fit into the “standard” workflow, we’d just tag it in the calendar with an unofficial notation \[USING BRACKETS\]. It worked. But it wasn’t ideal. Now we need the steps to be more modular. Imagine, for example, a client asks us to create a mix of deliverables: 1 article with writing + design 1 content brief 1 long-form ebook with an interview + writing + design Each of these would require its own steps and its own workflow. We need to break down the work to accommodate for a wider variety of workflows and variables. This means we need to update the fields and structure of our calendar to accommodate for the new dimensions—while also keeping the planning process simple and manageable. This leads to the next challenge: The number of “products” that we’re offering could be almost infinite. Just looking at the example scope above, you can mix and match all of these different building blocks to create a huge variety of different types of work, each requiring its own workflow. This is part of the reason we pivoted away from this model to focus on a productized, SEO-focused content service back in 2020. Take something as simple as a case study. On the surface, it seems like one deliverable that can be easily scoped and priced, right? Well, unpack what goes into a case study: Is there already source material from the customer or do we need to conduct an interview? How long is it? Is it a short overview case study or a long-form narrative? Does it need images and graphics? How many? Each of these variables opens up 2-3 possibilities. And when you combine them, we end up with something like 10 possible permutations for this single type of deliverable. It gets a bit messy. But not only do we have to figure out how to scope and price all for all of these variables, we also have to figure out how to account for these variables in the execution. We have to specify—for every deliverable—what type it is, how long, which steps are involved and not involved, the timeline for delivery, and all of the other factors. We’re approaching infinite complexity, here. We have to figure out a system that allows for a high level of flexibility to serve the diverse needs of our clients but is also productized enough that we can build workflows, process, and templates to deliver the work. I’ve spent the last few months designing that system. Failed Attempt #1: Ultra-Productization In my first pass, I tried to make it as straight forward as possible. Just sit down, make a list of all of the possible deliverables we could provide and then assign them specific scopes and services. Want a case study? Okay that’ll include an interview, up to 2,000 words of content, and 5 custom graphics. It costs $X. But this solution quickly fell apart when we started testing it against real-world scenarios. What if the client provided the brief instead of us creating one? What if they didn’t want graphics? What if this particular case study really needs to be 3,000 words but all of the others should be 2,000? In order for this system to work, we’d need to individual scope and price all of these permutations of each productized service. Then we’d need to somehow keep track of all of these and make sure that we accurately scope, price, and deliver them across dozens of clients. It’s sort of like a restaurant handling food allergies by creating separate versions of every single dish to account for every individual type of allergy. Most restaurants have figured out that it makes way more sense to have a “standard” and an “allergy-free” version. Then you only need 2 options to cover 100% of the cases. Onto the next option. Failed Attempt #2: Deliverable-Agnostic Services Next, I sat down with my head of Ops, Katy, to try to map it out. We took a big step back and said: Why does the deliverable itself even matter? At the end of the day, what we’re selling is just a few types of work (research, writing, editing, design, etc) that can be packaged up in an infinite number of ways. Rather than try to define deliverables, shouldn’t we leave it open ended for maximum flexibility? From there, we decided to break down everything into ultra-modular building blocks. We started working on this super complex system of modular deliverables where we would have services like writing, design, editing, etc—plus a sliding scale for different scopes like the length of writing or the number of images. In theory, it would allow us to mix and match any combination of services to create custom deliverables for the client. In fact, we wanted the work to be deliverable-agnostic. That way we could mold it to fit any client’s needs and deliver any type of content, regardless of the format or goal. Want a 5,000-word case study with 15 custom graphics? That’ll be $X. Want a 2,000-word blog post with an interview and no visuals? $Y. Just want us to create 10 briefs, you handle the writing, and we do design? It’s $Z. Again, this feels like a reasonable solution. But it quickly spiraled out of amuck. (That’s an Office reference.) For this to work, we need to have incredibly precise scoping process for every single deliverable. Before we can begin work (or even quote a price), we need to know pretty much the exact word count of the final article, for example. In the real world? This almost never happens. The content is as long as the content needs to be. Clients rarely know if the blog post should be 2,000 words or 3,000 words. They just want good content. We have a general ballpark, but we can rarely dial it in within just 1,000 words until we’ve done enough research to create the brief. Plus, from a packaging and pricing perspective, it introduces all kind of weird scenarios where clients will owe exactly $10,321 for this ultra-specific combination of services. We were building an open system that could accommodate any and all types of potential deliverables. On the face that seems great because it makes us incredibly flexible. In reality, the ambiguity actually works against us. It makes it harder for us to communicate to clients clearly about what they’ll get, how much it will cost, and how long it will take. That, of course, also means that it hurts our client relationships. (This actually kind of goes back to my personal learnings, which I’ll mention in a bit. I tend to be a “let’s leave things vague so we don’t have to limit our options” kind of person. But I’m working on fixing this to be more precise, specific, and clear in everything that we do.) Dialing It In: Building a Closed System We were trying to build an open system. We need to build a closed system. We need to force clarity and get specific about what we do, what we don’t do, and how much it all costs. Then we need a system to expand on that closed system—add new types of deliverables, new content playbooks, and new workflows if and when the need arises. With that in mind, we can start by mapping out the key dimensions of any type of deliverable that we would ever want to deliver. These are the universal dimensions that determine the scope, workflow, and price of any deliverable—regardless of the specific type output. Dimensions are: Brief scope Writing + editing scope Design scope Interview scope Revision (rounds) Scope, essentially, just tells us how many words, graphics, interviews, etc are required for the content we’re creating. In our first crack at the system, we got super granular with these scopes. But to help force a more manageable system, we realized that we didn’t need tiny increments for most of this work. Instead, we just need boundaries—you pay $X for up to Y words. We still need some variability around the scope of these articles. Obviously, most clients won’t be willing to pay the same price for a 1,000-word article as a 10,000-word article. But we can be smarter about the realistic break points. We boiled it down to the most common ranges: (Up to) 250 words 1,000 words 3,000 words 6,000 words 10,000 words This gives us a much more manageable number of variables. But we still haven’t exactly closed the system. We need one final dimension: Deliverable type. This tells us what we’re actually building with these building blocks. This is how we’ll put a cap on the potentially infinite number of combinations we could offer. The deliverable type will define what the final product should look like (e.g., blog post, case study, ebook, etc). And it will also give us a way to put standards and expectations around different types of deliverables that we want to offer. Then we can expand on this list of deliverables to offer new services. In the mean time, only the deliverables that we have already defined are, “on the menu,” so to speak. If a client comes to us and asks for something like a podcast summary article (which we don’t currently offer), we’ll have to either say we can’t provide that work or create a new deliverable type and define the dimensions of that specific piece. But here’s the kicker: No matter the deliverable type, it has to still fit within the scopes we’ve already defined. And the pricing will be the same. This means that if you’re looking for our team to write up to 1,000 words of content, it costs the same amount—whether it’s a blog post, an ebook, a LinkedIn post, or anything else. Rather than trying to retool our entire system to offer this new podcast summary article deliverable, we’ll just create the new deliverable type, add it to the list of options, and it’s ready to sell with the pre-defined dimensions we’ve already identified. To do: Update onboarding workflow Update contracts and scope documents Dial in new briefing process Know Thyself For the last year, I’ve been going through personal therapy. (Huge shout out to my wife, Laura, for her support and encouragement throughout the process.) It’s taught me a lot about myself and my tendencies. It’s helped me find some of my weaknesses and think about how I can improve as a person, as a partner, and as an entrepreneur. And it’s forced me to face a lot of hard truths. For example, consider some of the critical decisions I’ve made for my business: Unconventional freelance “collective” model No formal management structure Open-ended retainers with near-infinite flexibility General contracts without defined scope “Take it or leave it” approach to sales and marketing Over the years, I’ve talked about almost everything on this list as a huge advantage. I saw these things as a reflection of how I wanted to do things differently and better than other companies. But now, I see them more as a reflection of my fears and insecurities. Why did I design my business like this? Why do I want so much “flexibility” and why do I want things left open-ended rather than clearly defined? One reason that could clearly explain it: I’m avoidant. If you’re not steeped in the world of therapy, this basically means that my fight or flight response gets turned all the way to “flight.” If I’m unhappy or uncomfortable, my gut reaction is usually to withdraw from the situation. I see commitment and specificity as a prelude to future conflict. And I avoid conflict whenever possible. So I built my business to minimize it. If I don’t have a specific schedule of work that I’m accountable for delivering, then we can fudge the numbers a bit and hope they even out in the end. If I don’t set a specific standard for the length of an article, then I don’t have to let the client know when their request exceeds that limit. Conflict….avoided? Now, that’s not to say that everything I’ve built was wrong or bad. There is a lot of value in having flexibility in your business. For example, I would say that our flexible retainers are, overall, an advantage. Clients have changing needs. Having flexibility to quickly adapt to those needs can be a huge value add. And not everything can be clearly defined upfront (at least not without a massive amount of time and work just to decide how long to write an article). Overly-rigid structures and processes can be just as problematic as loosey-goosey ones. But, on the whole, I realized that my avoidant tendencies and laissez faire approach to management have left a vacuum in many areas. The places where I avoided specificity were often the places where there was the most confusion, uncertainty, and frustration from the team and from clients. People simply didn’t know what to expect or what was expected of them. Ironically, this often creates the conflict I’m trying to avoid. For example, if I don’t give feedback to people on my team, then they feel uneasy about their work. Or they make assumptions about expectations that don’t match what I’m actually expecting. Then the client might get upset, I might get upset, and our team members may be upset. Conflict definitely not avoided. This happens on the client side, too. If we don’t define a specific timeline when something will be delivered, the client might expect it sooner than we can deliver—creating frustration when we don’t meet their expectation. This conflict actually would have been avoided if we set clearer expectations upfront. But we didn’t do that. I didn’t do that. So it’s time to step up and close the gaps. Stepping Up and Closing the Gaps If I’m going to address these gaps and create more clarity and stability, I have to step up. Both personally and professionally. I have to actually face the fear and uncertainty that drives me to be avoidant. And then apply that to my business in meaningful ways that aren’t cop-out ways of kinda-sorta providing structure without really doing it. I’ve gotta be all in. This means: Fill the gaps where I rely on other people to do things that aren’t really their job but I haven’t put someone in place to do it Set and maintain expectations about our internal work processes, policies, and standards Define clear boundaries on things like roles, timelines, budgets, and scopes Now, this isn’t going to happen overnight. And just because I say that I need to step up to close these gaps doesn’t mean that I need to be the one who’s responsible for them (at least not forever). It just means that, as the business leader, I need to make sure the gaps get filled—by me or by someone else who has been specifically charged with owning that part of the operation. So, this is probably my #1 focus over the coming quarter. And it starts by identifying the gaps that exist. Then, step into those gaps myself, pay someone else to fill that role, or figure out how to eliminate the gap another way. This means going all the way back to the most basic decisions in our business. One of the foundational things about Optimist is being a “different kind” of agency. I always wanted to build something that solved for the bureaucracy, hierarchy, and siloed structure of agencies. If a client has feedback, they should be able to talk directly to the person doing the work rather than going through 3 layers of account management and creative directors. So I tried to be clever. I tried to design all kinds of systems and processes that eliminated these middle rungs. (In retrospect, what I was actually doing was designing a system that played into my avoidant tendencies and made it easy to abdicate responsibility for lots of things.) Since we didn’t want to create hierarchy, we never implemented things like Junior and Senior roles. We never hired someone to manage or direct the individual creatives. We didn’t have Directors or VPs. (Hell, we barely had a project manager for the first several years of existence.) This aversion to hierarchy aligned with our values around elevating ownership and collective contribution. I still believe in the value a flat structure. But a flat structure doesn’t eliminate the complexity of a growing business. No one to review writers and give them 1:1 feedback? I guess I’ll just have to do that….when I have some spare time. No Content Director? Okay, well someone needs to manage our content playbooks and roll out new ones. Just add it to my task list. Our flat structure didn’t eliminate the need for these roles. It just eliminated the people to do them. All of those unfilled roles ultimately fell back on me or our ops person, Katy. Of course, this isn’t the first time we’ve recognized this. We’ve known there were growing holes in our business as it’s gotten bigger and more complex. Over the years, we’ve experimented with different ways to solve for it. The Old Solution: Distributed Ops One system we designed was a “distributed ops” framework. Basically, we had one person who was the head of ops (at the time, we considered anything that was non-client-facing to be “ops”). They’d plan and organize all of the various things that needed to happen around Optimist. Then they’d assign out the work to whoever was able to help. We had a whole system for tying this into the our profit share and even gave people “Partner” status based on their contributions to ops. It worked—kinda. One big downfall is that all of the tasks and projects were ad hoc. People would pick up jobs, but they didn’t have much context or expertise to apply. So the output often varied. Since we were trying to maintain a flat structure, there was minimal oversight or management of the work. In other words, we didn’t always get the best results. But, more importantly, we still didn’t close all of the gaps entirely. Because everything was an ad-hoc list of tasks and projects, we never really had the “big picture” view of everything that needed to be done across the business. This also meant we rarely had clarity on what was important, what was trivial, and what was critical. We need a better system. Stop Reinventing the Wheel (And Create a Damn Org Chart) It’s time to get serious about filling the gaps in our business. It can’t be a half-fix or an ad hoc set of projects and tasks. We need clarity on the roles that need to be filled and then fill them. The first step here is to create an org chart. A real one. Map out all of the jobs that need to be done for Optimist to be successful besides just writers and designers. Roles like: Content director Design director SEO manager Reporting Finance Account management Business development Sales Marketing Project management It feels a bit laughable listing all of these roles. Because most are either empty or have my name attached to them. And that’s the problem. I can’t do everything. And all of the empty roles are gaps in our structure—places where people aren’t getting the direction, feedback, or guidance they need to do their best work. Or where things just aren’t being done consistently. Content director, for example, should be responsible for steering the output of our content strategists, writers, and editors. They’re not micromanaging every deliverable. But they give feedback, set overall policy, and help our team identify opportunities to get better. Right now we don’t have anyone in that role. Which means it’s my job—when I have time. Looking at the org chart (a real org chart that I actually built to help with this), it’s plain as day how many roles look like this. Even if we aren’t going to implement a traditional agency structure and a strict hierarchy, we still need to address these gaps. And the only way for that to happen is face the reality and then create a plan to close the gaps. Now that we have a list of theoretical roles, we need to clearly define the responsibilities and boundaries of those roles to make sure they cover everything that actually needs to happen. Then we can begin the process of delegating, assigning, hiring, and otherwise addressing each one. So that’s what I need to do. To be done: Create job descriptions for all of the roles we need to fill Hire Biz Dev role Hire Account Lead role(s) Hire Head of Content Playing Offense As we move into Q1 of 2025 and I reflect on the tumultuous few years we’ve had, one thought keeps running through my head. We need to play offense. Most of the last 1-2 years was reacting to changes that were happening around us. Trying to make sense and chart a new path forward. Reeling. But what I really want—as a person and as an entrepreneur—is to be proactive. I want to think and plan ahead. Figure out where we want to go before we’re forced to change course by something that’s out of our control. So my overarching focus for Q1 is playing offense. Thinking longer term. Getting ahead of the daily deluge and creating space to be more proactive, innovative, and forward thinking. To do: Pilot new content formats Audit and update our own content strategy Improve feedback workflows Build out long-term roadmap for 1-2 years for Optimist Final Note on Follow-Through and Cadence In my reflection this year, one of the things I’ve realized is how helpful these posts are for me. I process by writing. So I actually end up making a lot of decisions and seeing things more clearly each time I sit down to reflect and write my yearly recap. It also gives me a space to hold myself accountable for the things I said I would do. So, I’m doing two things a bit differently from here on out. First: I’m identifying clear action items that I’m holding myself accountable for getting done in the next 3 months (listed in the above sections). In each future update, I’ll do an accounting of what I got done and what wasn’t finished (and why). Second: I’m going to start writing shorter quarterly updates. This will gives me more chances each year to reflect, process, and make decisions. Plus it gives me a shorter feedback loop for the action items that I identified above. (See—playing offense.) — Okay friends, enemies, and frenemies. This is my first update for 2025. Glad to share with y’all. And thanks to everyone who’s read, commented, reached out, and shared their own experiences over the years. We are all the accumulation of our connections and our experiences. As always, I will pop in to respond to comments and answer questions. Feel free to share your thoughts, questions, and general disdain down below. Cheers, Tyler

How a Small Startup in Asia Secured a Contract with the US Department of Homeland Security

Uzair Javaid, a Ph.D. with a passion for data privacy, co-founded Betterdata to tackle one of AI's most pressing challenges: protecting privacy while enabling innovation. Recently, Betterdata secured a lucrative contract with the US Department of Homeland Security, 1 of only 4 companies worldwide to do so and the only one in Asia. Here's how he did it: The Story So what's your story? I grew up in Peshawar, Pakistan, excelling in coding despite studying electrical engineering. Inspired by my professors, I set my sights on studying abroad and eventually earned a Ph.D. scholarship at NUS Singapore, specializing in data security and privacy. During my research, I ethically hacked Ethereum and published 15 papers—three times the requirement. While wrapping up my Ph.D., I explored startup ideas and joined Entrepreneur First, where I met Kevin Yee. With his expertise in generative models and mine in privacy, we founded Betterdata. Now, nearly three years in, we’ve secured a major contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—one of only four companies globally and the only one from Asia. The Startup In a nutshell, what does your startup do? Betterdata is a startup that uses AI and synthetic data generation to address two major challenges: data privacy and the scarcity of high-quality data for training AI models. By leveraging generative models and privacy-enhancing technologies, Betterdata enables businesses, such as banks, to use customer data without breaching privacy regulations. The platform trains AI on real data, learns its patterns, and generates synthetic data that mimics the real thing without containing any personal or sensitive information. This allows companies to innovate and develop AI solutions safely and ethically, all while tackling the growing need for diverse, high-quality data in AI development. How did you conduct ideation and validation for your startup? The initial idea for Betterdata came from personal experience. During my Ph.D., I ethically hacked Ethereum’s blockchain, exposing flaws in encryption-based data sharing. This led me to explore AI-driven deep synthesis technology—similar to deepfakes but for structured data privacy. With GDPR impacting 28M+ businesses, I saw a massive opportunity to help enterprises securely share data while staying compliant. To validate the idea, I spoke to 50 potential customers—a number that strikes the right balance. Some say 100, but that’s impractical for early-stage founders. At 50, patterns emerge: if 3 out of 10 mention the same problem, and this repeats across 50, you have 10–15 strong signals, making it a solid foundation for an MVP. Instead of outbound sales, which I dislike, we used three key methods: Account-Based Marketing (ABM)—targeting technically savvy users with solutions for niche problems, like scaling synthetic data for banks. Targeted Content Marketing—regular customer conversations shaped our thought leadership and outreach. Raising Awareness Through Partnerships—collaborating with NUS, Singapore’s PDPC, and Plug and Play to build credibility and educate the market. These strategies attracted serious customers willing to pay, guiding Betterdata’s product development and market fit. How did you approach the initial building and ongoing product development? In the early stages, we built synthetic data generation algorithms and a basic UI for proof-of-concept, using open-source datasets to engage with banks. We quickly learned that banks wouldn't share actual customer data due to privacy concerns, so we had to conduct on-site installations and gather feedback to refine our MVP. Through continuous consultation with customers, we discovered real enterprise data posed challenges, such as missing values, which led us to adapt our prototype accordingly. This iterative approach of listening to customer feedback and observing their usage allowed us to improve our product, enhance UX, and address unmet needs while building trust and loyalty. Working closely with our customers also gives us a data advantage. Our solution’s effectiveness depends on customer data, which we can't fully access, but bridging this knowledge gap gives us a competitive edge. The more customers we test on, the more our algorithms adapt to diverse use cases, making it harder for competitors to replicate our insights. My approach to iteration is simple: focus solely on customer feedback and ignore external noise like trends or advice. The key question for the team is: which customer is asking for this feature or solution? As long as there's a clear answer, we move forward. External influences, such as AI hype, often bring more confusion than clarity. True long-term success comes from solving real customer problems, not chasing trends. Customers may not always know exactly what they want, but they understand their problems. Our job is to identify these problems and solve them in innovative ways. While customers may suggest specific features, we stay focused on solving the core issue rather than just fulfilling their exact requests. The idea aligns with the quote often attributed to Henry Ford: "If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." The key is understanding their problems, not just taking requests at face value. How do you assess product-market fit? To assess product-market fit, we track two key metrics: Customers' Willingness to Pay: We measure both the quantity and quality of meetings with potential customers. A high number of meetings with key decision-makers signals genuine interest. At Betterdata, we focused on getting meetings with people in banks and large enterprises to gauge our product's resonance with the target market. How Much Customers Are Willing to Pay: We monitor the price customers are willing to pay, especially in the early stages. For us, large enterprises, like banks, were willing to pay a premium for our synthetic data platform due to the growing need for privacy tech. This feedback guided our product refinement and scaling strategy. By focusing on these metrics, we refined our product and positioned it for scaling. What is your business model? We employ a structured, phase-driven approach for out business model, as a B2B startup. I initially struggled with focusing on the core value proposition in sales, often becoming overly educational. Eventually, we developed a product roadmap with models that allowed us to match customer needs to specific offerings and justify our pricing. Our pricing structure includes project-based pilots and annual contracts for successful deployments. At Betterdata, our customer engagement unfolds across three phases: Phase 1: Trial and Benchmarking \- We start with outreach and use open-source datasets to showcase results, offering customers a trial period to evaluate the solution. Phase 2: Pilot or PoC \- After positive trial results, we conduct a PoC or pilot using the customer’s private data, with the understanding that successful pilots lead to an annual contract. Phase 3: Multi-Year Contracts \- Following a successful pilot, we transition to long-term commercial contracts, focusing on multi-year agreements to ensure stability and ongoing partnerships. How do you do marketing for your brand? We take a non-conventional approach to marketing, focusing on answering one key question: Which customers are willing to pay, and how much? This drives our messaging to show how our solution meets their needs. Our strategy centers around two main components: Building a network of lead magnets \- These are influential figures like senior advisors, thought leaders, and strategic partners. Engaging with institutions like IMDA, SUTD, and investors like Plug and Play helps us gain access to the right people and foster warm introductions, which shorten our sales cycle and ensure we’re reaching the right audience. Thought leadership \- We build our brand through customer traction, technology evidence, and regulatory guidelines. This helps us establish credibility in the market and position ourselves as trusted leaders in our field. This holistic approach has enabled us to navigate diverse market conditions in Asia and grow our B2B relationships. By focusing on these areas, we drive business growth and establish strong trust with stakeholders. What's your advice for fundraising? Here are my key takeaways for other founders when it comes to fundraising: Fundraise When You Don’t Need To We closed our seed round in April 2023, a time when we weren't actively raising. Founders should always be in fundraising mode, even when they're not immediately in need of capital. Don’t wait until you have only a few months of runway left. Keep the pipeline open and build relationships. When the timing is right, execution becomes much easier. For us, our investment came through a combination of referrals and inbound interest. Even our lead investor initially rejected us, but after re-engaging, things eventually fell into place. It’s crucial to stay humble, treat everyone with respect, and maintain those relationships for when the time is right. Be Mindful of How You Present Information When fundraising, how you present information matters a lot. We created a comprehensive, easily digestible investment memo, hosted on Notion, which included everything an investor might need—problem, solution, market, team, risks, opportunities, and data. The goal was for investors to be able to get the full picture within 30 minutes without chasing down extra details. We also focused on making our financial model clear and meaningful, even though a 5-year forecast might be overkill at the seed stage. The key was clarity and conciseness, and making it as easy as possible for investors to understand the opportunity. I learned that brevity and simplicity are often the best ways to make a memorable impact. For the pitch itself, keep it simple and focus on 4 things: problem, solution, team, and market. If you can summarize each of these clearly and concisely, you’ll have a compelling pitch. Later on, you can expand into market segments, traction, and other metrics, but for seed-stage, focus on those four areas, and make sure you’re strong in at least three of them. If you do, you'll have a compelling case. How do you run things day-to-day? i.e what's your operational workflow and team structure? Here's an overview of our team structure and process: Internally: Our team is divided into two main areas: backend (internal team) and frontend (market-facing team). There's no formal hierarchy within the backend team. We all operate as equals, defining our goals based on what needs to be developed, assigning tasks, and meeting weekly to share updates and review progress. The focus is on full ownership of tasks and accountability for getting things done. I also contribute to product development, identifying challenges and clearing obstacles to help the team move forward. Backend Team: We approach tasks based on the scope defined by customers, with no blame or hierarchy. It's like a sports team—sometimes someone excels, and other times they struggle, but we support each other and move forward together. Everyone has the creative freedom to work in the way that suits them best, but we establish regular meetings and check-ins to ensure alignment and progress. Frontend Team: For the market-facing side, we implement a hierarchy because the market expects this structure. If I present myself as "CEO," it signals authority and credibility. This distinction affects how we communicate with the market and how we build our brand. The frontend team is split into four main areas: Business Product (Software Engineering) Machine Learning Engineering R&D The C-suite sits at the top, followed by team leads, and then the executors. We distill market expectations into actionable tasks, ensuring that everyone is clear on their role and responsibilities. Process: We start by receiving market expectations and defining tasks based on them. Tasks are assigned to relevant teams, and execution happens with no communication barriers between team members. This ensures seamless collaboration and focused execution. The main goal is always effectiveness—getting things done efficiently while maintaining flexibility in how individuals approach their work. In both teams, there's an emphasis on accountability, collaboration, and clear communication, but the structure varies according to the nature of the work and external expectations.

101 best SEO tips to help you drive traffic in 2k21

Hey guys! I don't have to tell you how SEO can be good for your business - you can drive leads to your SaaS on autopilot, drive traffic to your store/gym/bar/whatever, etc. The thing with SEO, though, is that most SEO tips on the internet are just not that good. Most of the said tips: Are way too simple & basic (“add meta descriptions to your images”*) Are not impactful. Sure, adding that meta tag to an image is important, but that’s not what’s going to drive traffic to your website Don’t talk much about SEO strategy (which is ultimately the most important thing for SEO). Sure, on-page SEO is great, but you sure as hell won't drive much traffic if you can't hire the right writers to scale your content. And to drive serious SEO traffic, you'll need a LOT more than that. Over the past few years, my and my co-founder have helped grow websites to over 200k+ monthly traffic (check out our older Reddit post if you want to learn more about us, our process, and what we do), and we compiled all our most important SEO tips and tricks, as well as case studies, research, and experiments from the web, into this article. Hope you like it ;) If you think we missed something super important, let us know and we'll add it to the list. And btw, we also published this article on our own blog with images, smart filters, and all that good stuff. If you want to check it out, click here. That said, grab some coffee (or beer) & let's dive in - this is going to be a long one. SEO Strategy Tips Tip #1. A Lot of SEO Tips On The Internet Are NOT Necessarily Factual A lot of the SEO content you’ll read on the internet will be based on personal experiences and hearsay. Unfortunately, Google is a bit vague about SEO advice, so you have to rely more on experiments conducted by SEO pros in the community. So, sometimes, a lot of this information is questionable, wrong, or simply based on inaccurate data.  What we’re getting at here is, whenever you hear some new SEO advice, take it with a grain of salt. Google it to double-check other sources, and really understand what this SEO advice is based on (instead of just taking it at face value). Tip #2. SEO Takes Time - Get Used to It Any way you spin it, SEO takes time.  It can take around 6 months to 2 years (depending on the competition in your niche) before you start seeing some serious results.  So, don’t get disappointed if you don’t see any results within 3 months of publishing content. Tip #3. SEO Isn’t The Best Channel for Everyone That said, if you need results for your business tomorrow, you might want to reconsider SEO altogether.  If you just started your business, for example, and are trying to get to break-even ASAP, SEO is a bad idea - you’ll quit before you even start seeing any results.  If that’s the case, focus on other marketing channels that can have faster results like content marketing, PPC, outreach, etc. Tip #4. Use PPC to Validate Keywords Not sure if SEO is right for your business? Do this: set up Google Search ads for the most high-intent keywords in your niche. See how well the traffic converts and then decide if it’s worthwhile to focus on SEO (and rank on these keywords organically). Tip #5. Use GSC to See If SEO Is Working While it takes a while to see SEO results, it IS possible to see if you’re going in the right direction. On a monthly basis, you can use Search Console to check if your articles are indexed by Google and if their average position is improving over time. Tip #6. Publish a TON of Content The more content you publish on your blog, the better. We recommend a minimum of 10,000 words per month and optimally 20,000 - 30,000 (especially if your website is fresh). If an agency offers you the typical “4 500-word articles per month” deal, stay away. No one’s ever gotten results in SEO with short, once-per-week articles. Tip #7. Upgrade Your Writers Got a writer that’s performing well? Hire them as an editor and get them to oversee content operations / edit other writers’ content. Then, upgrade your best editor to Head of Content and get them to manage the entire editor / writer ops. Tip #8. Use Backlink Data to Prioritize Content When doing keyword research, gather the backlink data of the top 3 ranking articles and add it to your sheet. Then, use this data to help you prioritize which keywords to focus on first. We usually prioritize keywords that have lower competition, high traffic, and a medium to high buyer intent. Tip #9. Conduct In-Depth Keyword Research Make your initial keyword research as comprehensive as possible. This will give you a much more realistic view of your niche and allow you to prioritize content the right way. We usually aim for 100 to 300 keywords (depending on the niche) for the initial keyword research when we start working with a client. Tip #10. Start With Competitive Analysis Start every keyword research with competitive analysis. Extract the keywords your top 3 competitors are ranking on.  Then, use them as inspiration and build upon it. Use tools like UberSuggest to help generate new keyword ideas. Tip #11. Get SEMrush of Ahrefs You NEED SEMrush or Ahrefs, there’s no doubt about it. While they might seem expensive at a glance (99 USD per month billed annually), they’re going to save you a lot of manpower doing menial SEO tasks. Tip #12. Don’t Overdo It With SEO Tools Don’t overdo it with SEO tools. There are hundreds of those out there, and if you’re the type that’s into SaaS, you might be tempted to play around with dozens at a time. And yes, to be fair, most of these tools ARE helpful one way or another. To effectively do organic SEO, though, you don’t really need that many tools. In most cases, you just need the following: SEMrush/Ahrefs Screaming Frog RankMath/Yoast SEO Whichever outreach tool you prefer (our favorite is snov.io). Tip #13. Try Some of the Optional Tools In addition to the tools we mentioned before, you can also try the following 2 which are pretty useful & popular in the SEO community: Surfer SEO - helps with on-page SEO and creating content briefs for writers. ClusterAI - tool that helps simplify keyword research & save time. Tip #14. Constantly Source Writers Want to take your content production to the next level? You’ll need to hire more writers.  There is, however, one thing that makes this really, really difficult: 95 - 99% of writers applying for your gigs won’t be relevant. Up to 80% will be awful at writing, and the remainder just won’t be relevant for your niche. So, in order to scale your writing team, we recommend sourcing constantly, and not just once every few months. Tip #15. Create a Process for Writer Filtering As we just mentioned, when sourcing writers, you’ll be getting a ton of applicants, but most won’t be qualified. Fun fact \- every single time we post a job ad on ProBlogger, we get around 300 - 500 applications (most of which are totally not relevant). Trust us, you don’t want to spend your time going through such a huge list and checking out the writer samples. So, instead, we recommend you do this: Hire a virtual assistant to own the process of evaluating and short-listing writers. Create a process for evaluating writers. We recommend evaluating writers by: Level of English. If their samples aren’t fluent, they’re not relevant. Quality of Samples. Are the samples engaging / long-form content, or are they boring 500-word copy-pastes? Technical Knowledge. Has the writer written about a hard-to-explain topic before? Anyone can write about simple topics like traveling - you want to look for someone who knows how to research a new topic and explain it in a simple and easy to read way. If someone’s written about how to create a perfect cover letter, they can probably write about traveling, but the opposite isn’t true. The VA constantly evaluates new applicants and forwards the relevant ones to the editor. The editor goes through the short-listed writers and gives them trial tasks and hires the ones that perform well. Tip #16. Use The Right Websites to Source Writers “Is UpWork any good?” This question pops up on social media time and time again. If you ask us, no, UpWork is not good at all. Of course, there are qualified writers there (just like anywhere else), but from our experience, those writers are few and far in-between. Instead, here are some of our favorite ways to source writers: Cult of Copy Job Board ProBlogger Headhunting on LinkedIn If you really want to use UpWork, use it for headhunting (instead of posting a job ad) Tip #17. Hire Writers the Right Way If you want to seriously scale your content production, hire your writers full-time. This (especially) makes sense if you’re a content marketing agency that creates a TON of content for clients all the time. If you’re doing SEO just for your own blog, though, it usually makes more sense to use freelancers. Tip #18. Topic Authority Matters Google keeps your website's authoritativeness in mind. Meaning, if you have 100 articles on digital marketing, you’re probably more of an authority on the topic than someone that has just 10. Hence, Google is a lot more likely to reward you with better rankings. This is also partially why content volume really matters: the more frequently you publish content, the sooner Google will view you as an authority. Tip #19. Focus on One Niche at a Time Let’s say your blog covers the following topics: sales, accounting, and business management.  You’re more likely to rank if you have 30 articles on a single topic (e.g. accounting) than if you have 10 articles on each. So, we recommend you double-down on one niche instead of spreading your content team thin with different topics. Tip #20. Don’t Fret on the Details While technical SEO is important, you shouldn’t get too hung up on it.  Sure, there are thousands of technical tips you can find on the internet, and most of them DO matter. The truth, though, is that Google won’t punish you just because your website doesn’t load in 3 milliseconds or there’s a meta description missing on a single page. Especially if you have SEO fundamentals done right: Get your website to run as fast as possible. Create a ton of good SEO content. Get backlinks for your website on a regular basis. You’ll still rank, even if your website isn’t 100% optimized. Tip #21. Do Yourself a Favor and Hire a VA There are a TON of boring SEO tasks that your team should really not be wasting time with. So, hire a full-time VA to help with all that. Some tasks you want to outsource include gathering contacts to reach out to for link-building, uploading articles on WordPress, etc. Tip #22. Google Isn’t Everything While Google IS the dominant search engine in most parts of the world, there ARE countries with other popular search engines.  If you want to improve your SEO in China, for example, you should be more concerned with ranking on Baidu. Targeting Russia? Focus on Yandex. Tip #23. No, Voice Search is Still Not Relevant Voice search is not and will not be relevant (no matter what sensationalist articles might say). It’s just too impractical for most search queries to use voice (as opposed to traditional search). Tip #24. SEO Is Not Dead SEO is not dead and will still be relevant decades down the line. Every year, there’s a sensationalist article talking about this.  Ignore those. Tip #25. Doing Local SEO? Focus on Service Pages If you’re doing local SEO, focus on creating service-based landing pages instead of content.  E.g. if you’re an accounting firm based in Boston, you can make a landing page about /accounting-firm-boston/, /tax-accounting-boston/, /cpa-boston/, and so on. Thing is, you don’t really need to rank on global search terms - you just won’t get leads from there. Even if you ranked on the term “financial accounting,” it wouldn’t really matter for your bottom line that much. Tip #26. Learn More on Local SEO Speaking of local SEO, we definitely don’t do the topic justice in this guide. There’s a lot more you need to know to do local SEO effectively and some of it goes against the general SEO advice we talk about in this article (e.g. you don't necessarily need blog content for local SEO). We're going to publish an article on that soon enough, so if you want to check it out, DM me and I'll hit you up when it's up. Tip #27. Avoid Vanity Metrics Don’t get side-tracked by vanity metrics.  At the end of the day, you should care about how your traffic impacts your bottom line. Fat graphs and lots of traffic are nice and all, but none of it matters if the traffic doesn’t have the right search intent to convert to your product/service. Tip #28. Struggling With SEO? Hire an Expert Failing to make SEO work for your business? When in doubt, hire an organic SEO consultant or an SEO agency.  The #1 benefit of hiring an SEO agency or consultant is that they’ve been there and done that - more than once. They might be able to catch issues an inexperienced SEO can’t. Tip #29. Engage With the Community Need a couple of SEO questions answered?  SEO pros are super helpful & easy to reach! Join these Facebook groups and ask your question - you’ll get about a dozen helpful answers! SEO Signals Lab SEO & Content Marketing The Proper SEO Group. Tip #30. Stay Up to Date With SEO Trends SEO is always changing - Google is constantly pumping out new updates that have a significant impact on how the game is played.  Make sure to stay up to date with the latest SEO trends and Google updates by following the Google Search Central blog. Tip #31. Increase Organic CTR With PPC Want to get the most out of your rankings? Run PPC ads for your best keywords. Googlers who first see your ad are more likely to click your organic listing. Content & On-Page SEO Tips Tip #32. Create 50% Longer Content On average, we recommend you create an article that’s around 50% longer than the best article ranking on the keyword.  One small exception, though, is if you’re in a super competitive niche and all top-ranking articles are already as comprehensive as they can be. For example, in the VPN niche, all articles ranking for the keyword “best VPN” are around 10,000 - 11,000 words long. And that’s the optimal word count - even if you go beyond, you won’t be able to deliver that much value for the reader to make it worth the effort of creating the content. Tip #33. Longer Is Not Always Better Sometimes, a short-form article can get the job done much better.  For example, let’s say you’re targeting the keyword “how to tie a tie.”  The reader expects a short and simple guide, something under 500 words, and not “The Ultimate Guide to Tie Tying for 2021 \[11 Best Tips and Tricks\]” Tip #34. SEO is Not Just About Written Content Written content is not always best. Sometimes, videos can perform significantly better. E.g. If the Googler is looking to learn how to get a deadlift form right, they’re most likely going to be looking for a video. Tip #35. Don’t Forget to Follow Basic Optimization Tips For all your web pages (articles included), follow basic SEO optimization tips. E.g. include the keyword in the URL, use the right headings etc.  Just use RankMath or YoastSEO for this and you’re in the clear! Tip #36. Hire Specialized Writers When hiring content writers, try to look for ones that specialize in creating SEO content.  There are a LOT of writers on the internet, plenty of which are really good.  However, if they haven’t written SEO content before, chances are, they won’t do that good of a job. Tip #37. Use Content Outlines Speaking of writers - when working with writers, create a content outline that summarizes what the article should be about and what kind of topics it needs to cover instead of giving them a keyword and asking them to “knock themselves out.”   This makes it a lot more likely for the writer to create something that ranks. When creating content outlines, we recommend you include the following information: Target keyword Related keywords that should be mentioned in the article Article structure - which headings should the writer use? In what order? Article title Tip #38. Find Writers With Niche Knowledge Try to find a SEO content writer with some experience or past knowledge about your niche. Otherwise, they’re going to take around a month or two to become an expert. Alternatively, if you’re having difficulty finding a writer with niche knowledge, try to find someone with experience in technical or hard to explain topics. Writers who’ve written about cybersecurity in the past, for example, are a lot more likely to successfully cover other complicated topics (as opposed to, for example, a food or travel blogger). Tip #39. Keep Your Audience’s Knowledge in Mind When creating SEO content, always keep your audience’s knowledge in mind. If you’re writing about advanced finance, for example, you don’t need to teach your reader what an income statement is. If you’re writing about income statements, on the other hand, you’d want to start from the very barebone basics. Tip #40. Write for Your Audience If your readers are suit-and-tie lawyers, they’re going to expect professionally written content. 20-something hipsters? You can get away with throwing a Rick and Morty reference here and there. Tip #41. Use Grammarly Trust us, it’ll seriously make your life easier! Keep in mind, though, that the app is not a replacement for a professional editor. Tip #42. Use Hemingway Online content should be very easy to read & follow for everyone, whether they’re a senior profession with a Ph.D. or a college kid looking to learn a new topic. As such, your content should be written in a simple manner - and that’s where Hemingway comes in. It helps you keep your blog content simple. Tip #43. Create Compelling Headlines Want to drive clicks to your articles? You’ll need compelling headlines. Compare the two headlines below; which one would you click? 101 Productivity Tips \[To Get Things Done in 2021\] VS Productivity Tips Guide Exactly! To create clickable headlines, we recommend you include the following elements: Keyword Numbers Results Year (If Relevant) Tip #44. Nail Your Blog Content Formatting Format your blog posts well and avoid overly long walls of text. There’s a reason Backlinko content is so popular - it’s extremely easy to read and follow. Tip #45. Use Relevant Images In Your SEO Content Key here - relevant. Don’t just spray random stock photos of “office people smiling” around your posts; no one likes those.  Instead, add graphs, charts, screenshots, quote blocks, CSS boxes, and other engaging elements. Tip #46. Implement the Skyscraper Technique (The Right Way) Want to implement Backlinko’s skyscraper technique?  Keep this in mind before you do: not all content is meant to be promoted.  Pick a topic that fits the following criteria if you want the internet to care: It’s on an important topic. “Mega-Guide to SaaS Marketing” is good, “top 5 benefits of SaaS marketing” is not. You’re creating something significantly better than the original material. The internet is filled with mediocre content - strive to do better. Tip #47. Get The URL Slug Right for Seasonal Content If you want to rank on a seasonal keyword with one piece of content (e.g. you want to rank on “saas trends 2020, 2021, etc.”), don’t mention the year in the URL slug - keep it /saas-trends/ and just change the headline every year instead.  If you want to rank with separate articles, on the other hand (e.g. you publish a new trends report every year), include the year in the URL. Tip #48. Avoid content cannibalization.  Meaning, don’t write 2+ articles on one topic. This will confuse Google on which article it should rank. Tip #49. Don’t Overdo Outbound Links Don’t include too many outbound links in your content. Yes, including sources is good, but there is such a thing as overdoing it.  If your 1,000 word article has 20 outbound links, Google might consider it as spam (even if all those links are relevant). Tip #50. Consider “People Also Ask” To get the most out of SERP, you want to grab as many spots on the search result as possible, and this includes “people also ask (PAA):” Make a list of the topic’s PAA questions and ensure that your article answers them.  If you can’t fit the questions & answers within the article, though, you can also add an FAQ section at the end where you directly pose these questions and provide the answers. Tip #51. Optimize For Google Snippet Optimize your content for the Google Snippet. Check what’s currently ranking as the snippet. Then, try to do something similar (or even better) in terms of content and formatting. Tip #52. Get Inspired by Viral Content Want to create content that gets insane shares & links?  Reverse-engineer what has worked in the past. Look up content in your niche that went viral on Reddit, Hacker News, Facebook groups, Buzzsumo, etc. and create something similar, but significantly better. Tip #53. Avoid AI Content Tools No, robots can’t write SEO content.  If you’ve seen any of those “AI generated content tools,” you should know to stay away. The only thing those tools are (currently) good for is creating news content. Tip #54. Avoid Bad Content You will never, ever, ever rank with one 500-word article per week.  There are some SEO agencies (even the more reputable ones) that offer this as part of their service. Trust us, this is a waste of time. Tip #55. Update Your Content Regularly Check your top-performing articles annually and see if there’s anything you can do to improve them.  When most companies finally get the #1 ranking for a keyword, they leave the article alone and never touch it again… ...Until they get outranked, of course, by someone who one-upped their original article. Want to prevent this from happening? Analyze your top-performing content once a year and improve it when possible. Tip #56. Experiment With CTR Do your articles have low CTR? Experiment with different headlines and see if you can improve it.  Keep in mind, though, that what a “good CTR” is really depends on the keyword.  In some cases, the first ranking will drive 50% of the traffic. In others, it’s going to be less than 15%. Link-Building Tips Tip #57. Yes, Links Matter. Here’s What You Need to Know “Do I need backlinks to rank?” is probably one of the most common SEO questions.  The answer to the question (alongside all other SEO-related questions) is that it depends on the niche.  If your competitors don’t have a lot of backlinks, chances are, you can rank solely by creating superior content. If you’re in an extremely competitive niche (e.g. VPN, insurance, etc.), though, everyone has amazing, quality content - that’s just the baseline.  What sets top-ranking content apart from the rest is backlinks. Tip #58. Sometimes, You’ll Have to Pay For Links Unfortunately, in some niches, paying for links is unavoidable - e.g. gambling, CBD, and others. In such cases, you either need a hefty link-building budget, or a very creative link-building campaign (create a viral infographic, news-worthy story based on interesting data, etc.). Tip #59. Build Relationships, Not Links The very best link-building is actually relationship building.  Make a list of websites in your niche and build a relationship with them - don’t just spam them with the standard “hey, I have this amazing article, can you link to it?”.  If you spam, you risk ruining your reputation (and this is going to make further outreach much harder). Tip #60. Stick With The Classics At the end of the day, the most effective link-building tactics are the most straightforward ones:  Direct Outreach Broken Link-Building Guest Posting Skyscraper Technique Creating Viral Content Guestposting With Infographics Tip #61. Give, Don’t Just Take! If you’re doing link-building outreach, don’t just ask for links - give something in return.  This will significantly improve the reply rate from your outreach email. If you own a SaaS tool, for example, you can offer the bloggers you’re reaching out to free access to your software. Or, alternatively, if you’re doing a lot of guest posting, you can offer the website owner a link from the guest post in exchange for the link to your website. Tip #62. Avoid Link Resellers That guy DMing you on LinkedIn, trying to sell you links from a Google Sheet?  Don’t fall for it - most of those links are PBNs and are likely to backfire on you. Tip #63. Avoid Fiverr Like The Plague Speaking of spammy links, don’t touch anything that’s sold on Fiverr - pretty much all of the links there are useless. Tip #64. Focus on Quality Links Not all links are created equal. A link is of higher quality if it’s linked from a page that: Is NOT a PBN. Doesn’t have a lot of outbound links. If the page links to 20 other websites, each of them gets less link juice. Has a lot of (quality) backlinks. Is part of a website with a high domain authority. Is about a topic relevant to the page it’s linking to. If your article about pets has a link from an accounting blog, Google will consider it a bit suspicious. Tip #65. Data-Backed Content Just Works Data-backed content can get insane results for link-building.  For example, OKCupid used to publish interesting data & research based on how people interacted with their platform and it never failed to go viral. Each of their reports ended up being covered by dozens of news media (which got them a ton of easy links). Tip #66. Be Creative - SEO Is Marketing, After All Be novel & creative with your link-building initiatives.  Here’s the thing: the very best link-builders are not going to write about the tactics they’re using.  If they did, you’d see half the internet using the exact same tactic as them in less than a week! Which, as you can guess, would make the tactic cliche and significantly less effective. In order to get superior results with your link-building, you’ll need to be creative - think about how you can make your outreach different from what everyone does. Experiment it, measure it, and improve it till it works! Tip #67. Try HARO HARO, or Help a Reporter Out, is a platform that matches journalists with sources. You get an email every day with journalists looking for experts in specific niches, and if you pitch them right, they might feature you in their article or link to your website. Tip #68. No-Follow Links Aren’t That Bad Contrary to what you might’ve heard, no-follow links are not useless. Google uses no-follow as more of a suggestion than anything else.  There have been case studies that prove Google can disregard the no-follow tag and still reward you with increased rankings. Tip #69. Start Fresh With an Expired Domain Starting a new website? It might make sense to buy an expired one with existing backlinks (that’s in a similar niche as yours). The right domain can give you a serious boost to how fast you can rank. Tip #70. Don’t Overspend on Useless Links “Rel=sponsored” links don’t pass pagerank and hence, won’t help increase your website rankings.  So, avoid buying links from media websites like Forbes, Entrepreneur, etc. Tip #71. Promote Your Content Other than link-building, focus on organic content promotion. For example, you can repost your content on Facebook groups, LinkedIn, Reddit, etc. and focus on driving traffic.  This will actually lead to you getting links, too. We got around 95 backlinks to our SEO case study article just because of our successful content promotion. Tons of people saw the article on the net, liked it, and linked to it from their website. Tip #72. Do Expert Roundups Want to build relationships with influencers in your niche, but don’t know where to start?  Create an expert roundup article. If you’re in the sales niche, for example, you can write about Top 21 Sales Influencers in 2021 and reach out to the said influencers letting them know that they got featured. Trust us, they’ll love you for this! Tip #73. .Edu Links are Overhyped .edu links are overrated. According to John Mueller, .edu domains tend to have a ton of outbound links, and as such, Google ignores a big chunk of them. Tip #74. Build Relationships With Your Customers Little-known link-building hack: if you’re a SaaS company doing SEO, you can build relationships with your customers (the ones that are in the same topical niche as you are) and help each other build links! Tip #75. Reciprocal Links Aren’t That Bad Reciprocal links are not nearly as bad as Google makes them out to be. Sure, they can be bad at scale (if trading links is all you’re doing). Exchanging a link or two with another website / blog, though, is completely harmless in 99% of cases. Tip #76. Don’t Overspam Don’t do outreach for every single post you publish - just the big ones.  Most people already don’t care about your outreach email. Chances are, they’re going to care even less if you’re asking them to link to this new amazing article you wrote (which is about the top 5 benefits of adopting a puppy). Technical SEO Tips Tip #77. Use PageSpeed Insights If your website is extremely slow, it’s definitely going to impact your rankings. Use PageSpeed Insights to see how your website is currently performing. Tip #78. Load Speed Matters While load speed doesn’t impact rankings directly, it DOES impact your user experience. Chances are, if your page takes 5 seconds to load, but your competition’s loads instantly, the average Googler will drop off and pick them over you. Tip #79. Stick to a Low Crawl Depth Crawl depth of any page on your website should be lower than 4 (meaning, any given page should be possible to reach in no more than 3 clicks from the homepage).  Tip #80. Use Next-Gen Image Formats Next-gen image formats such as JPEG 2000, JPEG XR, and WebP can be compressed a lot better than PNG or JPG. So, when possible, use next-get formats for images on your website. Tip #81. De-Index Irrelevant Pages Hide the pages you don’t want Google to index (e.g: non-public, or unimportant pages) via your Robots.txt. If you’re a SaaS, for example, this would include most of your in-app pages or your internal knowledge base pages. Tip #82. Make Your Website Mobile-Friendly Make sure that your website is mobile-friendly. Google uses “mobile-first indexing.” Meaning, unless you have a working mobile version of your website, your rankings will seriously suffer. Tip #83. Lazy-Load Images Lazy-load your images. If your pages contain a lot of images, you MUST activate lazy-loading. This allows images that are below the screen, to be loaded only once the visitor scrolls down enough to see the image. Tip #84. Enable Gzip Compression Enable Gzip compression to allow your HTML, CSS and JS files to load faster. Tip #85. Clean Up Your Code If your website loads slowly because you have 100+ external javascript files and stylesheets being requested from the server, you can try minifying, aggregating, and inlining some of those files. Tip 86. Use Rel-Canonical Have duplicate content on your website? Use rel-canonical to show Google which version is the original (and should be prioritized for search results). Tip #87. Install an SSL Certificate Not only does an SSL certificate help keep your website safe, but it’s also a direct ranking factor. Google prioritizes websites that have SSL certificates over the ones that don’t. Tip #88. Use Correct Anchor Texts for Internal Links When linking to an internal page, mention the keyword you’re trying to rank for on that page in the anchor text. This helps Google understand that the page is, indeed, about the keyword you’re associating it with. Tip #89. Use GSC to Make Sure Your Content is Interlinked Internal links can have a serious impact on your rankings. So, make sure that all your blog posts (especially the new ones) are properly linked to/from your past content.  You can check how many links any given page has via Google Search Console. Tip #90. Bounce rate is NOT a Google ranking factor. Meaning, you can still rank high-up even with a high bounce rate. Tip #91. Don’t Fret About a High Bounce Rate Speaking of the bounce rate, you’ll see that some of your web pages have a higher-than-average bounce rate (70%+).  While this can sometimes be a cause for alarm, it’s not necessarily so. Sometimes, the search intent behind a given keyword means that you WILL have a high bounce rate even if your article is the most amazing thing ever.  E.g. if it’s a recipe page, the reader gets the recipe and bounces off (since they don’t need anything else). Tip #92. Google Will Ignore Your Meta Description More often than not, Google won’t use the meta description you provide - that’s normal. It will, instead, automatically pick a part of the text that it thinks is most relevant and use it as a meta description. Despite this, you should always add a meta description to all pages. Tip #93. Disavow Spammy & PBN Links Keep track of your backlinks and disavow anything that’s obviously spammy or PBNy. In most cases, Google will ignore these links anyway. However, you never know when a competitor is deliberately targeting you with too many spammy or PBN links (which might put you at risk for being penalized). Tip #94. Use The Correct Redirect  When permanently migrating your pages, use 301 redirect to pass on the link juice from the old page to the new one. If the redirect is temporary, use a 302 redirect instead. Tip #95. When A/B Testing, Do This A/B testing two pages? Use rel-canonical to show Google which page is the original. Tip #96. Avoid Amp DON’T use Amp.  Unless you’re a media company, Amp will negatively impact your website. Tip #97. Get Your URL Slugs Right Keep your blog URLs short and to-the-point. Good Example: apollodigital.io/blog/seo-case-study Bad Example: apollodigital.io/blog/seo-case-study-2021-0-to-200,000/ Tip #98. Avoid Dates in URLs An outdated date in your URL can hurt your CTR. Readers are more likely to click / read articles published recently than the ones written years back. Tip #99. Social Signals Matter Social signals impact your Google rankings, just not in the way you think. No, your number of shares and likes does NOT impact your ranking at all.  However, if your article goes viral and people use Google to find your article, click it, and read it, then yes, it will impact your rankings.  E.g. you read our SaaS marketing guide on Facebook, then look up “SaaS marketing” on Google, click it, and read it from there. Tip #100. Audit Your Website Frequently Every other month, crawl your website with ScreamingFrog and see if you have any broken links, 404s, etc. Tip #101. Use WordPress Not sure which CMS platform to use?  99% of the time, you’re better off with WordPress.  It has a TON of plugins that will make your life easier.  Want a drag & drop builder? Use Elementor. Wix, SiteGround and similar drag & drops are bad for SEO. Tip #102. Check Rankings the Right Way When checking on how well a post is ranking on Google Search Console, make sure to check Page AND Query to get the accurate number.  If you check just the page, it’s going to give you the average ranking on all keywords the page is ranking for (which is almost always going to be useless data). Conclusion Aaand that's about it - thanks for the read! Now, let's circle back to Tip #1 for a sec. Remember when we said a big chunk of what you read on SEO is based on personal experiences, experiments, and the like? Well, the tips we've mentioned are part of OUR experience. Chances are, you've done something that might be different (or completely goes against) our advice in this article. If that's the case, we'd love it if you let us know down in the comments. If you mention something extra-spicy, we'll even include it in this article.

I realized that AI will create equal footing for non-technical / non-coders compared to coders

Hey fellow entrepreneurs, I started my current entrepreneurial journey following the advice to “build something that solves a problem you have.” As a coder, I wanted to code faster/better/stronger/etc. So I tried out dozens of AI coding tools to see the state of the market.  I took the best components I saw and started making my own flavor of tool, but sort of shelved it because as a coder I felt that the results were a bit alien (such as getting the AI to follow my code style, write idiomatic code, or refactor the same way I would.) I concluded that building AI coding tools for coders is tricky because as coders we’re so particular about the specifics of our code. Meanwhile, my absolutely non-technical friend was hitting me up to help him build a website for a new real-estate company that he’s launching, and he wanted my help. I really respect his hustle, but I was swamped trying to figure out my own product/market, so I told him he could use my AI coder and I would try to help out when he got stuck. He didn’t get stuck though, not once, and he launched his site over the weekend. I was truly shocked he did it all on his own, so I asked him to share his logs. It was wild – he managed to code a more or less state of the art website (good design, SEO, well-structured source code, Google Analytics, mailing lists. etc.) with absolutely no help. It cost him less than $100 in AI credits, instead of the price quotes of $20,000 - $50,000 from freelancers and agencies. Now I’m seriously pursuing AI coding tools again, but this time with a new passion: AI for non-coder / non-technical people is a 100x game changer. I think 2025 is going to be the year of the entrepreneur, where there will be a hundred times the businesses started because what held people back before was the lack of a technical co-founder or the cash to compensate engineers. Now it costs next to nothing to get started. I’m curious if anyone else has had a similar realization? Anyway, I’ve put the link below to my GitHub if you want to try it (open source, you pay for AI credits). But the main reason for my post is that I feel like I’m living in this new world of realization that being a human on earth is going to get a LOT more interesting in the coming years. There’s literally no excuse to take a job you hate, and nothing stopping people from launching a business. For anyone interested in checking it out or providing feedback you can search for kodu ai on github or kodu ai on google Best of luck to everyone on your entrepreneurial journey! P.s not sure if this is the right flair

Feedback appreciated 🙏🏻 : a tool for solo entrepreneurs and small startups to help with marketing | app.maestrix.ai

Hey friends, I've run a boutique marketing agency for almost 8 years and since chatGPT has arrived a year ago, the game has really changed. I'm sure there are here a handful of you who have tried AI in some fashion for a marketing-related task; My realization has quickly been that this could (and will) make my (and a ton of ) marketing jobs obsolete. That made me start to go very serious about writing extremely specific instructions for marketing tasks. I started to map out all my knowledge and operating frameworks that I knew with 20+ years of experience. I ended up organizing these core marketing activities with AI: positioning and value proposition canvases, buyer's journey analysis target audience analysis SEO strategy campaign messaging blog and social copywriting landing pages — Fast forward 6 months today, I''ve built the no-code tool that runs with OpenAi's latest model (LLM) available via API (GPT-4-Turbo-preview for the geeks) : app.maestrix.ai I'd love to get your feedback on the following items: \- the quality of the outputs generated for your product/service \- the tasks that are missing for your current projects. \- how I can make it more useful down the road Your feedbacks are very precious 🙏🏻 Guillaume — P.S: DM me if you have tested it so I can give you thank-you task credits 🎁

Detailed Guide - How I've Been Self Employed for 2 Years Selling Posters

Hey everyone, bit of context before you read through this. I have been selling POD posters full time for over 2 years now. My next venture is that I have started my own Print on Demand company for posters, PrintShrimp. As one way of creating customers for our service, we are teaching people for free how to also sell posters. Here is a guide I have written on how to sell posters on Etsy. Feel free to have a read through and then check out PrintShrimp, hopefully can help some of you guys out (and get us some more customers!) All of this is also available in video format on our website too, if you prefer to learn that way. Thanks guys! And as some people asked in other subs, no this isn't written with AI 😅 This took a couple of weeks to put together! Through this guide, we will teach you everything you need to know about starting to sell posters and generate some income. We will also show you why PrintShrimp is the best POD supplier for all of your poster needs. Trust me, you won’t need much convincing.  So, why are posters the best product to sell? Also, just thought I’d quickly answer the question - why posters? If you’ve been researching Print on Demand you’ve probably come across the infinite options of t-shirts, mugs, hats, phone cases, and more. All of these are viable options, however we think posters are the perfect place to start. You can always expand into other areas further down the line! So a brief summary of why posters are the perfect product for Print on Demand: \-They are very easy to design! Posters are a very easy shape to deal with - can’t go wrong with a rectangle. This makes designing products very easy. \-Similarly to this, what you see is what you get with a poster. You can literally see your finished product as you design it in either canva or photoshop. With T-Shirts for example, you have to make your design, and then place it on a t-shirt. Then you have to coordinate with your printers the size you would like the design on the tshirt and many other variables like that. There is no messing about with posters - what you see is what you get. \-The same high quality, everywhere. With other products, if you want to reap the benefits of a printing in various countries, you need to ensure each of your global suppliers stocks the same t-shirts, is able to print in the same way, carries the same sizes etc. Again with posters you avoid all of this hassle- your products will come out the same, no matter which of our global locations are used. \-They have a very favorable profit margin. As you will see later, the cost price of posters is very low. And people are prepared to pay quite a lot for a decent bit of wall art! I have tried out other products, and the profit margin combined with the order quantity of posters makes them my most profitable product, every single time. Using PrintShrimp, you can be sure to enjoy profits of anywhere between £6 - £40 pure profit per sale.  \-They are one of the easiest to print white label. This makes them perfect for Print on Demand. Your posters are simply put in a tube, and off they go. There are no extras you need to faff around with, compared to the extra elements other products come with, such as clothing labels on t-shirts.  Picking your poster niche So, you are ready to start selling posters. Great! Now, the blessing and curse with selling posters is that there are infinite possibilities regarding what you can sell. So, it can easily be quite overwhelming at first.  The first thing I would recommend doing is having a look at what others are selling. Etsy is a wonderful place for this (and will likely be a key part of your poster selling journey). So, log on to Etsy and simply type in ‘poster’ in the search bar. Get ready to write a massive list of the broad categories and type of posters that people are selling.  If you do not have more than 50 categories written down by the end, you are doing something wrong. There are seriously an infinite amount of posters! For example, here are some popular ones to get you started: Star sign posters, Kitchen posters, World map posters, Custom Dog Portrait posters, Music posters, Movie posters, Fine art posters, Skiing posters, Girl Power posters and Football posters.  Now, you have a huge list of potential products to sell. What next? There are a few important things you need to bear in mind when picking your niche: \-Does this interest me?  Don’t make the mistake of going down a niche that didn’t actually interest you just because it would probably be a money maker. Before you know it, what can be a very fun process of making designs can become incredibly \\\monotonous, and feel like a chore\\\. You need to bear in mind that you will be spending a lot of time creating designs - if it is something you are interested in you are much less likely to get burnt out! As well, \\\creativity will flow\\\ far better if it is something you are interested in, which at the end of the day will lead to better designs that are more likely to be purchased by customers.  \-Is this within my design range? Don’t let this put you off too much. We will go through how to get started on design later on in this guide. However, it is important to note that the plain truth of it is that some niches and designs are a hell of a lot more complicated than others. For example, quote posters can essentially be designed by anyone when you learn about how to put nice fonts together in a good color scheme. On the other hand, some posters you see may have been designed with complex illustrations in a program like Illustrator. To start with, it may be better to pick a niche that seems a bit more simple to get into, as you can always expand your range with other stores further down the line. A good way of evaluating the design complexity is by identifying if this poster is \\\a lot of elements put together\\\ or is \\\a lot of elements created by the designer themselves\\\\\.\\ Design can in a lot of cases be like a jigsaw - putting colours, shapes and text together to create an image. This will be a lot easier to start with and can be learnt by anyone, compared to complex drawings and illustrations.  \-Is this niche subject to copyright issues? Time to delve deep into good old copyright. Now, when you go through Etsy, you will without a doubt see hundreds of sellers selling music album posters, car posters, movie posters and more. Obviously, these posters contain the property of musicians, companies and more and are therefore copyrighted. The annoying thing is - these are \\\a complete cash cow.\\\ If you go down the music poster route, I will honestly be surprised if you \\don’t\\ make thousands. However it is only a matter of time before the copyright strikes start rolling in and you eventually get banned from Etsy.  So I would highly recommend \\\not making this mistake\\\. Etsy is an incredible platform for selling posters, and it is a hell of a lot easier to make sales on there compared to advertising your own website. And, you \\\only get one chance on Etsy.\\\ Once you have been banned once, you are not allowed to sign up again (and they do ID checks - so you won’t be able to rejoin again under your own name).  So, don’t be shortsighted when it comes to entering Print on Demand. If you keep your designs legitimate, they will last you a lifetime and you will then later be able to crosspost them to other platforms, again without the worry of ever getting shut down.  So, how do I actually design posters? Now you have an idea of what kind of posters you want to be making, it’s time to get creative and make some designs! Photoshop (and the creative cloud in general) is probably the best for this. However, when starting out it can be a scary investment (it costs about £30 a month unless you can get a student rate!).  So, while Photoshop is preferable in the long term, when starting out you can learn the ropes of design and get going with Canva. This can be great at the start as they have a load of templates that you can use to get used to designing and experimenting (while it might be tempting to slightly modify these and sell them - this will be quite saturated on places like Etsy so we would recommend doing something new).  What size format should I use? The best design format to start with is arguably the A sizes - as all the A sizes (A5, A4, A3, A2, A1, A0) are scalable. This means that you can make all of your designs in one size, for example A3, and these designs will be ready to fit to all other A sizes. For example, if you design an A3 poster and someone orders A1, you can just upload this A3 file to PrintShrimp and it will be ready to print. There is a wide range of other sizes you should consider offering on your shop, especially as these sizes are very popular with the American market. They have a wide range of popular options, which unfortunately aren’t all scalable with each other. This does mean that you will therefore have to make some slight modifications to your design in order to be able to offer them in American sizing, in a few different aspect ratios. What you can do however is design all of your products in UK sizing, and simply redesign to fit American sizing once you have had an order. Essentially: design in UK sizing, but list in both UK and US sizing. Then when you get a non-A size order, you can quickly redesign it on demand. This means that you don’t have to make a few different versions of each poster when first designing, and can simply do a quick redesign for US sizing when you need to. Below is PrintShrimps standard size offering. We can also offer any custom sizing too, so please get in touch if you are looking for anything else. With these sizes, your poster orders will be dispatched domestically in whatever country your customer orders from. Our recommendations for starting design One thing that will not be featured in this guide is a written out explanation or guide on how to design. Honestly, I can’t think of a more boring, or frankly worse, way to learn design. When it comes to getting started, experimenting is your best friend! Just have a play around and see what you can do. It is a really fun thing to get started with, and the satisfaction of when a poster design comes together is like no other. A good way to start is honestly by straight up copying a poster you see for sale online. And we don’t mean copying to sell! But just trying to replicate other designs is a great way to get a feel for it and what you can do. We really think you will be surprised at how easy it is to pull together a lot of designs that at first can appear quite complicated! Your best friend throughout this whole process will be google. At the start you will not really know how to do anything - but learning how to look into things you want to know about design is all part of the process. At first, it can be quite hard to even know how to search for what you are trying to do, but this will come with time (we promise). Learning how to google is a skill that you will learn throughout this process.  Above all, what we think is most important is this golden rule: take inspiration but do not steal. You want to be selling similar products in your niche, but not copies. You need to see what is selling in your niche and get ideas from that, but if you make designs too similar to ones already available, you won’t have much luck. At the end of the day, if two very similar posters are for sale and one shop has 1000 reviews and your newer one has 2, which one is the customer going to buy? You need to make yours offer something different and stand out enough to attract customers. Etsy SEO and maximizing your sales You may have noticed in this guide we have mentioned Etsy quite a few times! That is because we think it is hands down the best place to start selling posters. Why? Etsy is a go to place for many looking to decorate their homes and also to buy gifts. It might be tempting to start selling with your own website straight away, however we recommend Etsy as it brings the customers to you. For example, say you start selling Bathroom Posters. It is going to be a hell of a lot easier to convert sales when you already have customers being shown your page after searching ‘bathroom decor’, compared to advertising your own website. This is especially true as it can be hard to identify your ideal target audience to then advertise to via Meta (Facebook/Instagram) for example. Websites are a great avenue to explore eventually like I now have, but we recommend starting with Etsy and going from there. What costs do I need to be aware of? So, setting up an Etsy sellers account is currently costs £15. The only other upfront cost you will have is the cost of listing a product - this is 20 cents per listing. From then on, every time you make a sale you will be charged a transaction fee of 6.5%, a small payment processing fee, plus another 20 cents for a renewed listing fee. It normally works out to about 10% of each order, a small price to pay for all the benefits Etsy brings. No matter what platform you sell on, you will be faced with some form of transaction fee. Etsy is actually quite reasonable especially as they do not charge you to use their platform on a monthly basis.  What do I need to get selling? Getting your shop looking pretty \-Think of a shop name and design (now you are a professional designer) a logo \-Design a banner for the top of your shop \-Add in some about me info/shop announcement \-I recommend running a sale wherein orders of 3+ items get a 20% of discount. Another big benefit of PrintShrimp is that you receive large discounts when ordering multiple posters. This is great for attracting buyers and larger orders.  Making your products look attractive That is the bulk of the ‘decor’ you will need to do. Next up is placing your posters in mock ups! As you may notice on Etsy, most shops show their posters framed and hanging on walls. These are 99% of the time not real photos, but digital mock ups. This is where Photoshop comes in really handy, as you can automate this process through a plug in called Bulk Mock Up. If you don’t have photoshop, you can do this on Canva, you will just have to do it manually which can be rather time consuming.  Now, where can you get the actual Mock Ups? One platform we highly recommend for design in general is platforms like Envato Elements. These are design marketplaces where you have access to millions of design resources that you are fully licensed to use!  Titles, tags, and descriptions  Now for the slightly more nitty gritty part. You could have the world's most amazing looking poster, however, if you do not get the Etsy SEO right, no one is going to see it! We will take you through creating a new Etsy listing field by field so you can know how to best list your products.  The key to Etsy listing optimisation is to maximise. Literally cram in as many key words as you possibly can! Before you start this process, create a word map of anything you can think of relating to your listing. And come at this from the point of view of, if I was looking for a poster like mine, what would I search? Titles \-Here you are blessed with 140 characters to title your listing. Essentially, start off with a concise way of properly describing your poster. And then afterwards, add in as many key words as you can! Here is an example of the title of a well selling Skiing poster: Les Arcs Skiing Poster, Les Arcs Print, Les Alpes, France Ski Poster, Skiing Poster, Snowboarding Poster, Ski Resort Poster Holiday, French This is 139 characters out of 140 - you should try and maximise this as much as possible! As you can see, this crams in a lot of key words and search terms both related to Skiing as a whole, the poster category, and then the specifics of the poster itself (Les Arcs resort in France). Bear in mind that if you are listing a lot of listings that are of the same theme, you won’t have to spend time creating an entirely new title. For example if your next poster was of a ski resort in Italy, you can copy this one over and just swap out the specifics. For example change “France ski poster” to “Italy ski poster”, change “Les Arcs” to “The Dolomites”, etc.  Description \-Same logic applies for descriptions - try and cram in as many key words as you can! Here is an example for a Formula One poster: George Russell, Mercedes Formula One Poster  - item specific keywords Bright, modern and vibrant poster to liven up your home.  - Describes the style of the poster All posters are printed on high quality, museum grade 200gsm poster paper. Suitable for framing and frames. - Shows the quality of the print. Mentions frames whilst showing it comes unframed Experience the thrill of the racetrack with this stunning Formula One poster. Printed on high-quality paper, this racing car wall art print features a dynamic image of a Formula One car in action, perfect for adding a touch of speed and excitement to any motorsports room or man cave. Whether you're a die-hard fan or simply appreciate the adrenaline of high-speed racing, this poster is sure to impress. Available in a range of sizes, it makes a great addition to your home or office, or as a gift for a fellow Formula One enthusiast. Each poster is carefully packaged to ensure safe delivery, so you can enjoy your new piece of art as soon as possible. - A nice bit of text really highlighting a lot of key words such as gift, motorsports, racetrack etc.  You could go further with this too, by adding in extra things related to the poster such as ‘Perfect gift for a Mercedes F1 fan’ etc.  Tags Now, these are actually probably the most important part of your listing! You get 13 tags (20 character limit for each) and there are essentially search terms that will match your listing with what customers search for when shopping.  You really need to maximize these - whilst Title and Description play a part, these are the main things that will bring buyers to your listing. Once again, it is important to think about what customers are likely to be searching when looking for a poster similar to yours. Life hack alert! You can actually see what tags other sellers are using. All you need to do is go to a listing similar to yours that is selling well, scroll down and you can actually see them listed out at the bottom of the page! Here is an example of what this may look like: So, go through a few listings of competitors and make notes on common denominators that you can integrate into your listing. As you can see here, this seller uses tags such as ‘Birthday Gift’ and ‘Poster Print’. When you first start out, you may be better off swapping these out for more listing specific tags. This seller has been on Etsy for a few years however and has 15,000+ sales, so are more likely to see success from these tags.  If it’s not clear why, think about it this way. If you searched ‘poster print’ on Etsy today, there will be 10s of thousands of results. However, if you searched ‘Russell Mercedes Poster’, you will (as of writing) get 336 results. Etsy is far more likely to push your product to the top of the latter tag, against 300 other listings, rather than the top of ‘Poster Print’ where it is incredibly competitive. It is only when you are a more successful shop pulling in a high quantity of orders that these larger and more generic tags will work for you, as Etsy has more trust in your shop and will be more likely to push you to the front.  SKUs \-One important thing you need to do is add SKUs to all of your products! This is worth doing at the start as it will make your life so much easier when it comes to making sales and using PrintShrimp further down the line. What is an SKU? It is a ‘stock keeping unit’, and is essentially just a product identifier. Your SKUs need to match your file name that you upload to PrintShrimp. For example, if you made a poster about the eiffel tower, you can literally name the SKU eiffel-tower. There is no need to complicate things! As long as your file name (as in the image name of your poster on your computer) matches your SKU, you will be good to go.  \-It may be more beneficial to set up a system with unique identifiers, to make organising your files a lot easier further down the line. Say you get to 1000 posters eventually, you’ll want to be able to quickly search a code, and also ensure every SKU is always unique, so you won’t run into accidentally using the same SKU twice further down the line. For example, you can set it up so at the start of each file name, you have \[unique id\]\[info\], so your files will look like -  A1eiffeltower A2france And further down the line: A99aperolspritz B1potatoart This not only removes the potential issue of duplicating SKUs accidentally (for example if you made a few posters of the same subject), but also keeps your files well organised. If you need to find a file, you can search your files according to the code, so just by searching ‘a1’ for example, rather than having to trawl through a load of different files until you find the correct one. \-If your poster has variations, for example color variations, you can set a different SKU for each variation. Just click the little box when setting up variations that says ‘SKUs vary for each (variation)’. So if you have a poster available either in a white or black background, you can name each file, and therefore each SKU, a1eiffel-tower-black and a1eiffel-tower-white for example. \-The same goes for different sizes. As different American sizes have different aspect ratios, as mentioned above you may have to reformat some posters if you get a sale for one of these sizes. You can then add in the SKU to your listing once you have reformatted your poster. So for example if you sell a 16x20” version of the eiffel tower poster, you can name this file eiffel-tower-white-1620. Whilst this involves a little bit of set up, the time it saves you overall is massive!  Variations and Prices \-So, when selling posters there is a huge variety of sizes that you can offer, as mentioned previously. Non-negotiable is that you should be offering A5-A1. These will likely be your main sellers! Especially in the UK. It is also a good idea to offer inch sizing to appeal to a global audience (as bear in mind with PrintShrimp you will be able to print in multiple countries around the world!).  Below is a recommended pricing structure of what to charge on Etsy. Feel free to mess around with these! You may notice on Etsy that many shops charge a whole lot more for sizes such as A1, 24x36” etc. In my experience I prefer charging a lower rate to attract more sales, but there is validity in going for a lower amount of sales with higher profits. As mentioned above, you can also offer different variations on items - for example different colour schemes on posters. This is always a decent idea (if it suits the design) as it provides the customer with more options, which might help to convert the sale. You can always add this in later however if you want to keep it simple while you start! Setting up shipping profiles Etsy makes it very easy to set up different shipping rates for different countries. However, luckily with PrintShrimp you can offer free shipping to the majority of the major countries that are active on Etsy!  Using PrintShrimp means that your production costs are low enough in each domestic market to justify this. If you look on Etsy you can see there are many shops that post internationally to countries such as the US or Australia. Therefore, they often charge £8-10 in postage, and have a delivery time of 1-2 weeks. This really limits their customer base to their domestic market.  Using PrintShrimp avoids this and means you can offer free shipping (as we absorb the shipping cost in our prices) to the major markets of the UK, Australia, and USA (Europe coming soon!).  We also offer a 1 day processing time, unlike many POD poster suppliers. This means you can set your Etsy processing time to just one day, which combined with our quick shipping, means you will be one of the quickest on Etsy at sending out orders. This is obviously very attractive for customers, who are often very impatient with wanting their orders!  Getting the sales and extra tips \-Don’t list an insane amount of listings when you first get started. Etsy will be like ‘hang on a second’ if a brand new shop suddenly has 200 items in the first week. Warm up your account, and take things slow as you get going. We recommend 5 a day for the first week or so, and then you can start uploading more. You don’t want Etsy to flag your account for suspicious bot-like activity when you first get going.  \-It is very easy to copy listings when creating a new one. Simply select an old listing and press copy, and then you can just change the listing specific details to create a new one, rather than having to start from scratch. It can feel like a bit of a ball-ache setting up your first ever listing, but from then on you can just copy it over and just change the specifics.  \-Try and organize your listings into sections! This really helps the customer journey. Sometimes a customer will click onto your shop after seeing one of your listings, so it really helps if they can easily navigate your shop for what they are looking for. So, you now have a fully fledged Etsy shop. Well done! Time to start making £3,000 a month straight away right? Not quite. Please bear in mind, patience is key when starting out. If you started doing this because you are £10,000 in debt to the Albanian mafia and need to pay it off next week, you have come into this in the wrong frame of mind. If you have however started this to slowly build up a side hustle which hopefully one day become your full time gig, then winner winner chicken dinner.  Starting out on Etsy isn’t always easy. It takes time for your shop to build up trust! As I’ve said before, a buyer is far more likely to purchase from a shop with 1000s of reviews, than a brand new one with 0. But before you know it, you can become one of these shops! One thing you can do at the very start is to encourage your friends and family to buy your posters! This is a slightly naughty way of getting a few sales at the start, of course followed by a few glowing 5\* reviews. It really helps to give your shop this little boost at the start, so if this is something you can do then I recommend it.  Okay, so once you have a fully fledged shop with a decent amount of listings, you might be expecting the sales to start rolling in. And, if you are lucky, they indeed might. However, in my experience, you need to give your listings a little boost. So let us introduce you to: The wonderful world of Etsy ads Ads!! Oh no, that means money!! We imagine some of you more risk averse people are saying to yourself right now. And yes, it indeed does. But more often than not unfortunately you do have to spend money to make money.  Fortunately, in my experience anyway, Etsy ads do tend to work. This does however only apply if your products are actually good however, so if you’re back here after paying for ads for 2 months and are losing money at the same rate as your motivation, maybe go back to the start of this guide and pick another niche.  When you first start out, there are two main strategies.  Number 1: The Safer Option So, with PrintShrimp, you will essentially be making a minimum of £6 profit per order. With this in mind, I normally start a new shop with a safer strategy of advertising my products with a budget of $3-5 dollars a day. This then means that at the start, you only need to make 1 sale to break even, and anything above that is pure profit! This might not seem like the most dazzling proposition right now, but again please bear in mind that growth will be slow at the start. This means that you can gradually grow your shop, and therefore the trust that customers have in your shop, over time with a very small risk of ever actually losing money. Number 2: The Billy Big Balls Option If you were yawning while reading the first option, then this strategy may be for you. This will be better suited to those of you that are a bit more risk prone, and it also helps if you have a bit more cash to invest at the start. Through this strategy, you can essentially pay your way to the top of Etsy's rankings. For this, you’ll probably be looking at spending $20 a day on ads. So, this can really add up quickly and is definitely the riskier option. In my experience, the level of sales with this may not always match up to your spend every day. You may find that some days you rake in about 10 sales, and other days only one. But what this does mean is that as your listings get seen and purchased more, they will begin to rank higher in Etsy’s organic search rankings, at a much quicker rate than option one. This is the beauty of Etsy’s ads. You can pay to boost your products, but then results from this paid promotion feed into the organic ranking of your products. So you may find that you can splash the cash for a while at the start in order to race to the top, and then drop your ad spending later on when your products are already ranking well.  Sending your poster orders So, you’ve now done the hard bit. You have a running Etsy store, and essentially all you need to now on a daily basis is send out your orders and reply to customer messages! This is where it really becomes passive income.  \-Check out the PrintShrimp order portal. Simply sign up, and you can place individual orders through there. \-Bulk upload: We have an option to bulk upload your Esty orders via csv.  Seriously, when you are up and running with your first store, it is really as easy as that.  Once you have your first Etsy store up and running, you can think about expanding. There are many ways to expand your income. You can set up other Etsy stores, as long as the type of posters you are selling varies. You can look into setting up your own Shopify stores, and advertise them through Facebook, Instagram etc. Through this guide, we will teach you everything you need to know about starting to sell posters and generate some income. We will also show you why PrintShrimp is the best POD supplier for all of your poster needs. Trust me, you won’t need much convincing.

The 15 Best (Free to Use) AI Tools for Creating Websites, Presentations, Graphics, UIs, Photos, and more

While we wait for ChatGPT to roll out its own official image input+output tool, I wanted to put together a list of the best AI design tools I've seen so far. Obviously text-based tasks like writing and coding get the bulk of the attention, but I wanted to see how it’s being used in design and more visual tasks. From UI and full-on website design, to graphics and photo generation, there are a ton of interesting and free tools coming out that are worth trying and using as inspiration for your own projects. These tools cover a bunch of different use cases and can hopefully help some of you, whether you’re a professional designer looking to automate parts of your work or just someone who wants to find ways to speed up the design work for your business/side projects. All of them are free to try, but most have some kind of paid plan or limit on the number of free generations. Fair enough given it costs money to run the models, but I've tried to include notes on any that don't have permanent free plans. Let me know if you know of any tools I’ve missed so I can add them to the list! I’ve grouped them by categories, to make it easier to see what each tool is capable of, then given a bit more detail under each specific tool. AI Website, Graphic and UI Generators: Framer: Describe the website you want, and Framer will create it for you. Edit and instantly publish your site from their platform. Ironically my favorite thing about Framer isn’t its AI tool. Its real advantage is its website editor which is the best I’ve seen on any platform (and usable for free). It’s like Figma if Figma let you publish directly to the web. Microsoft Designer: Generates designs based on user input for social media posts, logos, and business graphics. It’s free to use with a Microsoft account, and fairly impressive if not always consistent. If you pay a lot or spend a ton of time on design/social media content, Designer is definitely worth checking out. UIzard: Transforms text and images into design mockups, wireframes, and full user interfaces. It’s an ambitious concept, but very cool. While Framer was better for generating websites from text prompts, UIZard offers something none of the others did: taking a sketch drawing and turning it into a UI and/or wireframing. Visualizations, Graphics and Illustrations: Taskade: AI powered productivity tool to visualize your notes, projects, and tasks. Taskade lets you easily generate mind maps and other visualizations of your work, and makes use of AI in a bunch of cool ways. For example, you can generate a mind map to help you brainstorm and then ask it to expand on a certain point or even research it for you with the internet. Bing Image Creator: Generate images from natural text descriptions, powered by DALL-E. Whether you’re looking for blog illustrations, images for your site’s pages or any other purpose, it’s worth trying. AutoDraw: Autodraw is a Google Project that lets you draw something freehand with your cursor, and AutoDraw uses AI to transform it into a refined image with icons and predrawn designs, all for free in your browser. AI Presentations and Slides: Plus AI for Google Slides: AI generated slides and full-on presentations, all within Google Slides. I liked how Plus AI worked within Google Slides and made it easy to make changes to the presentation (as lets be real, no AI tool is going to generate exactly* the content and formatting you need for a serious presentation). SlidesGo: Generate slides with illustrations, images, and icons chosen by AI. SlidesGo also has their own editor to let you edit and refine the AI generated presentation. Tome: Tell Tome what you want to say to your audience, and it will create a presentation that effectively communicates it clearly and effectively. Tome actually goes beyond just presentations and has a few cool formats worth checking out that I could see being useful for salespeople and anyone who needs to pitch an idea or product at work or to clients. Product Photography: These are all fairly similar so I’ve kept the descriptions short, but it’s genuinely a pretty useful category if you run any kind of business or side hustle that needs product photos. These photos establish the professionalism of your store/brand, and all the ones I tried had genuinely impressive results that seemed much better than what I could do myself. Pebblely: AI image generator for product images in various styles and settings. 40 free images, paid after that. Booth.ai: Generates professional-quality product photos using AI, focused on furniture, fashion, and packaged goods. Stylized.ai: Generates product photos integrated into ecommerce platforms like Shopify. Miscellaneous Tools: Fronty: Converts uploaded images or drawings into HTML and CSS code using AI. It’s a bit clunky, but a cool concept nonetheless. LetsEnhance: Uses AI to enhance the resolution of images and photographs. Generally works pretty well from my experience, and gives you 10 free credits with signup. Unfortunately beyond that it is a paid product. Remove.bg: Specializes in recognizing and removing image backgrounds effectively. Doesn’t promise much, but it does the job and doesn’t require you to sign up. TL;DR/Overall favorites: These are the ones I've found the most use for in my day-to-day work. Framer: responsive website design with a full-featured editor to edit and publish your site all in one place. Free + paid plans. Taskade: visualize and automate your workflows, projects, mind maps, and more with AI powered templates. Free + paid plans. Microsoft Designer: generate social media and other marketing graphics with AI. Free to use. Plus AI: plugin for Google Slides to generate slide content, designs, and make tweaks with AI. Free + paid plans. Pebblely: professional-quality product photos in various settings and backgrounds, free to generate up to 40 images* (through you can always sign up for another account…)

Looking for a co-founder for a B2B AI startup. I have a development team and funds for at least a year of operations.

Hello, As the title said I'm looking for a co-founder. I built with my team a few ventures that generate revenues but I don't believe that any of them has a future. I have 15 years of experience in Software Engineering and AI. Worked in various industries, but always in data-driven applications. I spent the last 3 years as an entrepreneur and raised successfully money from VCs. &#x200B; A few preconceptions I have: \- B2C is extremely hard. Very quickly you realize that you need to spend all your resources on marketing. \- B2B is extremely hard - but for different reasons. Sales cycles take months. If you want to reach serious buyers and decision-makers, you need to have an amazing network. Even then, companies will prioritize 90% of the time to do things internally rather than paying for anything. \- I hate when people say that "ideas are garbage", and I think that execution is overhyped. Execution is a matter of finding the right people, and paying them (I am confident to say that I can guarantee good execution). Ideas are not garbage, ideas need validation, and garbage "entrepreneurs" are too lazy to validate anything. &#x200B; Your ideal profile: \- You have a great idea, something that has been brewing for some time but you lack resources or technical experience to execute by yourself. \- You have domain expertise, experience, and a network. If we build an MVP in 3 months, you can get 20 interviews with industry people to validate the solution. Once the MVP is built you can put it in front of another 40 people. \- You are a product person. \- You can do efficient sales calls. (Bonus: You are a sales person) If you are an ideal profile, please reach out.

I am a software engineer looking for partners to work on any kind of project

I am a software developer, I am sick of working 9 to 5, looking for someone who have a business a startup idea or other developers that plan to make something useful and can benefit from my experience, I can spin up full stack solutions including AI (no frontend) I made so many projects that didn’t make any profits but I think it just needs a group of serious people to start a business.

The only video you need to Master N8N + AI agents (For complete beginners)

Serious about Implementing AI? Shortcut your Path HERE, and connect with +300 entrepreneurs on the same mission: https://www.skool.com/scrapes This is a comprehensive 4hr course with all the secrets I've learned from 8 months of building out N8N workflows for my clients (over 100+ workflows!). During this course we'll cover everything you need to shortcut your journey into building automations with N8N, AI Agents & workflow automation! 🛠️ Links (affiliate) • n8n: https://n8n.partnerlinks.io/scrapesai 📧 Curated roundups of real-world AI implementations 📧 https://scrapes-ai.kit.com/b6b1a73dfd Want more? https://www.youtube.com/@simonscrapes?sub_confirmation=1 🚧 Looking for custom built AI agents for your business? 🚧 https://automake.io 💬 Share in the comments what you learnt during the video! 0:00:00 - Course Overview 0:04:12 - SECTION 1 - Getting started 0:09:57 - 1.1. Setting up N8N 0:15:10 - 1.2. Building blocks of N8N 0:16:52 - 1.3. The N8N Canvas 0:19:02 - 1.4. Triggers & Actions 0:24:55 - 1.5. Connect nodes 0:30:09 - 1.6. Visualising Data 0:32:13 - 1.7. JSON vs Table vs Schema 0:35:12 - 1.8. Mastering Static Data 0:38:10 - 1.9. Dynamic Data 0:43:21 - 1.10. Referencing Nodes (Foolproof) 0:47:05 - 1.11. Pinning Data 0:49:26 - 1.12. Simple Retry Logic 0:52:15 - 1.13. Node Naming 0:57:38 - SECTION 2 - Building Your First Automation with Data From Your Business 0:58:45 - 2.1. Planning Your Workflow 1:02:05 - 2.2. Monitoring Your Gmail 1:04:15 - 2.3. Setting up Google Credentials 1:09:01 - 2.4. Manipulating Data with Set 1:13:11 - 2.5. Data Format Comparison (HTML, Markdown) 1:15:55 - 2.6. Your First Automation 1:20:46 - 2.7. Building an Invoice Parsing System & Tackling File Formats 1:30:42 - 2.8. Cleaning Data with Code Node 1:39:19 - 2.9. Conditionals (IF) 1:44:24 - 2.10. Multiple Inputs 1:46:04 - 2.11. Merging Data 1:50:03 - 2.12. Memory Management 1:51:15 - 2.13. Large Data Sets (Loops) 1:54:52 - 2.14. Rounding Up Our Automation 1:55:16 - SECTION 3 - Agentic Workflows & AI Agents 1:56:07 - 3.1. Agentic vs Non-Agentic Workflows 1:59:28 - 3.2. Agentic Examples You Might Use 2:05:16 - 3.3. N8N AI Nodes 2:12:55 - 3.4. AI Agents - So What Are They? 2:20:42 - 3.5. AI Agents - What Business Use Do They Have? 2:25:05 - 3.6. Setting Up AI in Our Workflow 2:27:58 - 3.7. Prompting for Beginners 2:33:29 - 3.8. Openrouter for AI Models 2:39:10 - 3.9. Getting Consistent Outputs 2:45:53 - 3.10. Rounding Up Your Invoice Parsing Workflow 2:46:49 - 3.11. Mapping Back to Your Database 2:54:00 - SECTION 4 - Data From Outside Your Business 2:59:10 - 4.1. Connecting to an API with N8N 3:01:29 - 4.2. Reading API Docs Made Easy 3:04:24 - 4.3. API Authorisation 3:06:50 - 4.4. POST Request - PDFco 3:12:47 - 4.5. Uploading Our Files via API 3:22:18 - 4.6. Completing Our API Uploads 3:25:37 - 4.7. Connect to ANY API in 2 mins 3:29:30 - 4.8. Push Data Back to Our Table 3:35:03 - SECTION 5 - Making Your Life Easy & Scalable 3:37:27 - 5.1. Naming Workflows & Tagging 3:38:43 - 5.2. Workflow Separation 3:41:11 - 5.3. Modular Design 3:48:12 - 5.4. Error Handling 3:52:31 - 5.5. Debugging (easy Mode!) 3:53:31 - 5.6. Community Nodes 3:56:31 - 5.7. N8N Template Library 3:59:14 - 5.8. Getting Help #N8N #n8ntutorial #N8NBeginner

YT_Emerging_Technologies_Introduction_to_AI

YouTube Channel: Emerging Technologies Playlist: Introduction to AI Instructor: Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani Dear Students, I have uploaded all relevant material here for your quick access and learning. I hope you will find it beneficiary Yours Truly, Zeeshan =========================================== Video title: Resources Books to Order: Artificial Intelligence by Zeeshan Usmani - https://gufhtugu.com/artificial-intelligence Artificial Intelligence by Baqir Naqvi - https://gufhtugu.com/masnoi-zahanat/ Recommended Books • Gödel, Escher, Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter A classic, poetic, philosophical defense of AI. • Machines Who Think by Pamela McCorduck. A good review of early AI history. • Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind by Hans P. Moravec Somewhat hyped book by a CMU robotics researcher. • Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us by Rodney Allen Brooks Reasonably decent book by MIT's leading robotics researcher. • Wired for War by Peter Warren Singer Reviews growing use of robots and unmanned vehicles in warfare. • Behind Deep Blue: Building the Computer That Defeated the World Chess Champion by Feng-Hsiung Hsu Autobiographical book on the development of a history making game-playing system. Interesting personal story of the hard engineering work that went into the system, with a few interesting facts on the technical aspects. • The Age of Spiritual Machines : When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence by Ray Kurzweil A recent view by an AI entrepreneur that has content if you ignore all the hype and overly-optimistic trust that Moore's law will magically solve all of the major problems. • Hal's Legacy : 2001's Computer As Dream and Reality An interesting collection of edited articles written to celebrate the fictional birthday of a famous intelligent computer who's true birthday must unfortunately be delayed, pending AI's inevitable progress. • The Sciences of the Artificial by Herbert Simon AI as science by one of its founders. • Models of My Life by Herbert Simon. An autobiography of one of AI's founders who's intellectual contributions also include fundamental contributions to economics (for which he won the Nobel prize), cognitive psychology, and computer science (such as co-inventing the linked list in the 1950's). • Alan Turing: The Enigma by Alan Hodges. A biography of one of the founders of CS and originator of the Turing test. Also a testimony to the tragic implications of homophobia. • The Emperor's New Mind : Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics and Shadows of the Mind : A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness and The Large, the Small and the Human Mind by Roger Penrose A completely bogus argument against AI by a hopelessly Platonic mathematician. The last book contains an appended article by Stephen Hawking (a colleague of Penrose's) who of course doesn't buy his bogus argument. • The Mind's New Science : A History of the Cognitive Revolution by Howard Gardner A nice history of the development of cognitive science. • How the Mind Works , The Language Instinct , and Words and Rules : The Ingredients of Language by Steven Pinker Fun reading on lots of interesting issues in modern Cognitive Science and Linguistics if you don't take his exaggerated beliefs in nativism and evolutionary psychology too seriously. • Bots : The Origin of New Species by Andrew Leonard A light, somewhat hyped book on on Internet agents, chatterbots, etc. with a few funny stories. • Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline A very nice book on the failed enterprise of using logic to build a firm foundation for infallible mathematics and the role of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in the philosophy of mathematics. • Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel by Rebecca Goldstein An interesting biography of Kurt Gödel. Too bad he was such a Platonist that, unlike Turing, he did not understand the true implications of his own theorems (interesting author connection: Goldstein is Pinker's wife). Links: • AAAI AI Topics Basic info on AI from the American Association for Artificial Intelligence: http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/welcome.html • Loebner Prize for limited Turing test: http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html • IBM's Deep Blue Page: http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/ • Robocup: Robotic Soccer Competition: http://www.robocup.org/ • NY Times Article on Proof of the Robbins Theorem: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/1210math.html • NY Times article on Bayes Nets at Microsoft Research: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/07/biztech/articles/17lab.html =========================================== Video title: Numbers Infinity Video Link - •https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlXHwMgS06c https://www.cbs.com/shows/numb3rs/ http://numb3rs.wolfram.com/ =========================================== Video title: 20 Hours Rule and Assisgnemnt Assignment - https://www.urdufake2020.cicling.org/ =========================================== Video title: Assignments – P1 Mostly Human - https://money.cnn.com/mostly-human =========================================== Video title: Assignments – P2 Assignment – 2 - https://replika.ai/ Assignment – 3 – Teachable Machines https://teachablemachine.withgoogle.com/ Assignment – 4 – Tensor Flow Playground https://playground.tensorflow.org Assignment – 5 – GPT-3 Paper (175B Parameters) https://debuild.co/ Assignment – 6 - Image GPT-3 https://openai.com/blog/image-gpt/ =========================================== Video title: Create your own Deep Fake 1.https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1mGg_fmvhTpvkPkclw2yKkhALVzmawfvT?usp=sharing 2.https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wW1bxRV2S7Ce8gc3VDTzMQABE3-WCc_Y?usp=sharing •go into you gdrive > find cloned folder and ensure that this folder must have: vox-adv-cpk.pth.tar & vox-cpk.pth.tar failes •Aliaksandr Siarohin : https://github.com/AliaksandrSiarohin/first-order-model

How I Code Profitable Apps SOLO (no wasted time / beginner friendly / with AI)

Check out Scrimba – my preferred platform for learning to code (get an extra 20% off Pro with my links): AI Engineer Path: https://scrimba.com/the-ai-engineer-path-c02v?via=edmundyong Frontend Developer Career Path: https://scrimba.com/the-frontend-developer-career-path-c0j?via=edmundyong All Courses: https://scrimba.com/courses?via=edmundyong ===== Join Startup Club - A community for solo makers: https://discord.gg/YFPJQRBTrA Mobbin - A library of design inspiration for your apps: https://mobbin.com/?via=edmund Try my Startup (Easy Folders): https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/chatgpt-folders-search-pr/gdocioajfidpnaejbgmbnkflgmppibfe?utm_source=youtube Socials: https://www.instagram.com/e.yongg/ https://www.twitter.com/edmund_io/ ===== Wishing all you happy holidays 🎄🎅 Sharing a general roadmap on how I approach coding apps that earn money. Resources used in this video (let me know if I am missing any): https://roadmap.sh/ https://dev.to/rowsanali/do-you-have-shiny-object-syndrome-as-a-dev-4ld7 https://longform.asmartbear.com/slc/ https://www.getbeamer.com/blog/customer-feedback-management-startups https://x.com/namyakhann/status/1863525098529194293 https://x.com/namyakhann/status/1861816326496399830 ===== 00:00 - Intro 00:46 - The mindset you need to adopt 01:23 - Setting clear goals (seriously) 02:51 - The building phase 05:34 - The marketing phase 06:25 - The iterating phase ===== #SeoulVlog #dayinthelife #korean #koreanvlog #startups #SeoulLife #indiehackers #DigitalNomad #softwareengineer #softwaredeveloper #codingvlog #solotravel #solopreneur #startupvlog