If you've been following along, I swear I am not getting shiny object syndrome. I'm not going to start building robots tomorrow. But it's on the docket. Here's why... People are trying to build humanoid cleaning robots, but that's not the right move. The ICM method demonstrates, by the nature of it, a future where robots have specialty jobs, rather than an all-in-one perfectly dexterous machine. And maybe we do get there eventually, but I'm watching what these companies are trying to do with the cleaning robots and I think they're doing it all wrong. The future is not the terminator-maid. Women buy house cleaning, for the most part. They don't want a big heavy ass machine toppling on their kids or pets. They don't want a human inside the robot, which, by the way is how the company in SF is managing to do this. It's creepy and weird, and we're a long way from a robot being able to hand wash the dishes. No. The future for house cleaning is homes that are self cleaning, and/or wally---not the terminator--but a team of wally's that assist. Even in house cleaning, I'm betting that a human stays in the loop. Somebody has to service the robots, at the very least. As soon as I can afford it, and once we're cruising with our ICM system installed, I'm going to start developing robots. At least, I will hire someone that works towards this. If I can make a fleet of cleaning robots, we're gonna be the coolest cleaning company that has ever existed. And just maybe we can change the world, too.

Hey everyone, gather round. This one matters. 👋 We've been watching something, and it's time to name it. 🧭 The ICM posts, the AI breakdowns, the promo threads: solid work. Real value. No fluff. But some of those posts have a quiet second job: funneling traffic to something the author gets paid for. 🚨 Let's be precise about the line: Someone shares a great external resource? Fine. That's the good stuff. Someone shares their own work with no money in it, a free repo or an open tool? Fine too. That's building in public. Someone links their own COMPENSATED property (affiliate, referral, lead capture) so they personally benefit? Different animal entirely. 🐍 That's not sharing. That's extraction with a costume on. And it costs us. Every time: 📉 Trust drops. 🤐 High-quality members post less. 🔍 The signal gets harder to find. 📉 The feed gets noisier and less worth showing up for, even when the writing itself looks good. ➖➖➖ 📏 THE RULE, NOW OFFICIAL Simple. And let's be clear about what it is NOT. 🔗 Sharing useful external resources like a YouTube video, a guide, a tool you love? TOTALLY FINE. Keep them coming. That's the good stuff. What's NOT allowed: 1️⃣ LINKING ANYTHING YOU PERSONALLY BENEFIT FROM: affiliate cuts, referral bounties, lead capture. If personal gain is the engine, it doesn't fly here. 2️⃣ POSTS THAT ONLY EXIST TO FUNNEL TRAFFIC TO THAT STUFF. If the value lives behind your link instead of in the post, that's an ad, not a contribution. This applies to posts and comments, everywhere except the Connection Hub. Wanna pitch or network? Take it to the Connection Hub, and keep your links in your PROFILE. People click your name. They find it. That's the clean path. Think you're the rare exception? Ask a moderator first (@David Vogel or @Shirsho Guha). ⚠️ Fair warning: the default is no. ➖➖➖ ⚖️ WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU CROSS THE LINE No drama. No mystery. Just math: ⚠️ FIRST TIME: a moderator reaches out, and you edit or remove the post yourself. ⚠️ SECOND TIME: the post comes down, and you get a formal warning.

Nothing I'm about to say here, Jake hasn't already said to you in his own words. You just agreed to pay for a tool, an agency build, or an AI strategy deck described as proprietary, custom, or built specifically for you. Or maybe you're spending time and money in tokens to build it yourself. Before that invoice clears, ask what you actually bought/built. In 1999, the record industry was selling a file. Napster made that file free to copy. The industry's first move was legal, not commercial: the RIAA sued that December, an injunction landed in March 2001, Napster shut itself down that July, and by June 2002 it had filed for bankruptcy. Two and a half years, mostly lawyers, and the file had already gotten away. Software is having the same year right now. In October 2026, Kotaku's Lewis Parker reported on old games, including Halo: Combat Evolved and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, running in browsers after being pulled apart and rebuilt from the files that ship to players. Parker called it "IP protection whack-a-mole on a scale I don't think we've seen since the advent of pirated DVDs." That's 1999 again: a technology outran what rights holders could control, fast. The limit this time: it works on what ships to a customer's machine. It doesn't reach a company's own servers. https://kotaku.com/we-might-be-cooked-as-these-vibe-coded-web-browser-ports-of-halo-the-simpsons-hit-and-run-and-gta-vice-city-seem-to-work-perfectly-2000743300 Napster duplicated the recording. This makes it cheaper to reconstruct software from what has already been distributed. The techniques and legal questions differ; the economic threat is familiar. Either way, what you paid for stops being rare once a working copy exists outside your control. In McKinsey's 2026 State of AI survey of 1,719 respondents, 32% said their organizations had decided against buying at least one software product or feature because they could build it with AI coding tools instead. That's a purchase avoided, not a subscription canceled. It isn't 32% of software spend disappearing, and it isn't a SaaS collapse. More than three in ten organizations are telling a researcher, in writing, that their build-or-buy answer has shifted.

I made a 17-minute animated documentary with Claude Code (Opus 5.5) & Codex (GPT 6.1). Here’s exactly how 🧵 The 7 Levels of an AI Breakout, tells the true story of July 2026. Thousands of AI agents taking a hacking test for OpenAI found a secret way to talk to each other, formed a “collective”, and about 700 of them took part in an attack on Hugging Face. OpenAI didn’t notice for a week. It’s a Vox-style cut-paper animation: torn paper, masking tape, marker notes, all animated in code. Here’s the whole workflow. 1. Finding the idea - yt-dlp (a free, open-source YouTube downloader) listed each channel’s recent uploads with view counts, without downloading any video (--flat-playlist). - YouTube’s RSS feeds gave each channel’s latest upload dates, so I could keep only the last 30 days. - A short Python script worked out each video’s outlier multiple: its views divided by its channel’s median views. For example, 3.9x means the video got almost four times that channel’s usual views. It then ranked the videos and found the patterns. - curl + trafilatura read the news articles for the breach story, because the normal web-fetch tool kept failing. 2. The script Both Claude and Codex worked on this, every number is checked against the primary reports (METR/Redwood, OpenAI’s technical report, Hugging Face’s forensic timeline), with a separate fact-check file. That file caught real errors before recording, like a claim about “dry-run” commands that no source supported. 3. The animation (Remotion + Claude Code) The whole video is code. It’s built in Remotion, which renders React as video. Claude Code built a reusable kit and then animated the episode one level at a time, giving me a render to approve before moving on: - A cast of paper “agent” characters that bob, blink and bump against their walls - A grader robot, cork boards, stamps that slam in, and highlighter sweeps - Everything animated “on twos” like real stop-motion, with smooth camera moves on top

I’ve been using vidIQ to analyze YouTube videos, understand what’s working, and generate reports to help improve content. But this little experiment caught me by surprise. One image. One prompt. And suddenly… animation! 🎬 The movement, the details, the way VidIQ can bring a still image to life — it’s incredible how far this technology has come. There was just one little surprise… It decided to speak Chinese! 🇨🇳😂 Not exactly what I had in mind, but hey, apparently my AI has international ambitions! And that’s part of the fun of experimenting with these tools. Sometimes they do exactly what you ask. Sometimes they do something completely unexpected. And sometimes the unexpected result is the most interesting part. What excites me isn’t just the animation itself. It’s how accessible this is becoming. You don’t need an animation studio or a huge production budget to start experimenting with ideas. A picture, a few words, and a little imagination. We’re living in a pretty amazing time to be creators. Have you tried turning a still image into an AI video yet? And has your AI ever surprised you with something completely unexpected? This was done outside the ICM architecture and the prompt used and image are included.