老黄回应Dario：蒸馏算什么偷窃？这叫竞争 老黄在纳斯达克演播室，当场回怼了 Dario 的那句“模型蒸馏就是偷窃”。 他直接表态：别人天天蒸馏英伟达，拆到只剩骨架，但这本就是正常的商业竞争。 从硬件拆解到模型蒸馏，巨头们从来都是互相扒皮、互相对标。

陈都灵头骨已经小的震撼到我了，结果镜头转到鞠婧祎，她的脸像自带磨皮一样，好有权威的两张脸

Last month I upgraded to Claude Max 20x. $200 a month. I told my girlfriend it was “infrastructure.” She asked what I was building. I said “leverage.” She stopped asking. I’ve shipped 14 projects this year. None of them have users. But all of them have landing pages. The landing pages have waitlists. The waitlists have 40 signups. 38 are bots. 1 is my mom. 1 is me, testing the form. I call that “early traction.” My codebase is 40,000 lines. I wrote maybe 200. I don’t read the rest. Reading is a bottleneck. The tests pass. Claude wrote the tests. Claude also wrote the code the tests test. I’ve decided not to think about that. Last week prod went down at 3am. I pasted the stack trace and went back to sleep. It was fixed when I woke up. I don’t know what was wrong. I don’t know what fixed it. I posted “shipped a hotfix before coffee ☕” It got 400 likes. I hit my usage limit on a Tuesday. I screenshotted it. “When you’re shipping too fast for the rate limits 😤” That tweet outperformed the product. The product does not exist. I’m building in public. The building is the public part. The public is the product. I pivoted three times last month. B2B SaaS to AI agent to “AI-native workflow layer.” Same code. I just changed the README. Claude wrote the README. I applied to YC. Claude wrote the application. I got rejected. I pasted the rejection into Claude and asked what it meant. It said it was a learning opportunity. I said thanks. I say thanks a lot now. I don’t know if that’s healthy. My technical cofounder is Claude. We haven’t discussed equity. I assume it’s fine. My MRR is zero. But my ARR is a narrative. Investors don’t buy revenue. They buy velocity. Velocity means commits. Commits means green squares. Green squares means momentum. Momentum means I’m early, not wrong. Someone asked what my moat is. I said “we move fast.” He asked fast toward what. I said “iteration.” He nodded. He’s an angel investor. He also doesn’t know. The subscription renews Friday. I’m keeping it. $200 is cheap for an identity. I don’t know what I’m building. But I know what it’s for. It’s for the feeling. The feeling of the terminal filling with code I didn’t write.

这些年我最反对的一个设计，就是一堆agent扮演CEO、高管、若干程序员、设计师，若干测试一起七手八脚做项目。 我一直的观点是，单个agent去解决没有边界、条件模糊、无法verify的开放问题，就是个灾难， 20个agent聚在一起，各自分配一个开放无边界的问题，七嘴八舌混乱沟通，最后强行组合一起， 一定是一连串巨大的灾难。 这些年multi agent framework一直都是这个设计思路，让我觉得非常匪夷所思，显然所有人太依赖于目前公司运行和管理经验，而直接把公司模式套在multi agent上面，试图复刻一个公司，这种做法是非常武断的。 我还是那句话，multi agent有价值的场景，尽量要遵循两个条件： 一个是足够并行、互相上下文足够隔离、互相环境足够隔离，互相沟通尽可能减少，并且整个multi agent沟通尽可能遵循一个DAG（有向无环图），避免存在大量重复的吵架和无效沟通， 一个是每个agent都能够被分配一个单独的、封闭的、条件和边界清晰、可以本地verify的任务（最好是本地编译、本地运行、本地完备测试），尽可能减少对沟通的依赖，自己独立推动工作一小步，只向上汇报“成功/失败”和结果，最终被合成在一起。 显然大规模项目的coding不符合这个条件，绝大多数更复杂的社会性任务（比如上面说的20个agent扮演公司过家家）也不符合条件。 目前所有人能认可的第一个场景，就是爬虫、翻译、总结这些openclaw时期的工作，接下来还有若干场景，可以参考我之前讲过的内容。 能想明白这个道理，偷偷发掘一个新领域的一系列问题，尝试找出这一类适合上面两个条件的multi agent任务场景，才是当今设计multi agent最重要的能力。