So I noticed most of the time sales is the same repetitive task done again and again. Like data scraping or buying it from a reputable source. Then data validation, like email verification and checking if the website and the client you got are high quality or low quality, and then filtering out the low quality and invalid. And then reaching out to the client through the most viable channel like LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and email. Previously the software didn't communicate with each other or didn't connect with each other at all, but now because of AI, we are at the point where AI can make simple decisions on our behalf, and we can be involved in deep decisions, like actually chatting with the client who is interested in our product and services. I have a technical background, and I am a 3D artist, so because of this, I managed to automate 80% of my sales process. Now I only do meetings and close the deal. I'm operating at a large scale, like sending 60,000 emails per month and sending 1,500 personalized WhatsApp messages and 400 messages on LinkedIn. I strongly believe that in the future there will be a lot of one-man companies and in thousands and thousands of dollars.

The way most people use AI today reminds me of how we used the internet in the 1990s. Open it.Look something up.Close it. A few days ago, I was speaking with a professional who told me he uses Claude only when he needs help drafting an email or answering a question. Nothing wrong with that. But it made me realise how much the conversation around AI is still focused on answers, while the real value is shifting towards actions. The turning point for me was seeing how AI tools are no longer limited to chat windows. Today, they can search emails, summarise inboxes, analyse documents, generate spreadsheets, browse websites, create visualisations, and execute repeatable workflows. Instead of asking AI for information, you can ask it to find what needs attention. Instead of creating reports manually, you can have them generated automatically. Instead of repeating the same instructions every day, you can build reusable systems that work for you. That changes the role of AI completely. It stops being a tool you consult and starts becoming a system that supports how work gets done. The biggest productivity gains won’t come from better prompts. They’ll come from building workflows where AI handles the repetitive work, leaving people free to focus on decisions that matter. How are you using AI today: as a search tool, or as part of your workflow?

Two days after Claude doubled Cowork limits, OpenAI fired back at Codex. The usage-limit war is officially on 👇 What OpenAI launched: → Banked resets — instead of your limit reset firing automatically on a timer, you can now save it and trigger it whenever you want. You control when you get topped up. → A referral program — invite a friend, they complete their first Codex task, and you BOTH earn an extra reset. Up to 3 friends, two-week window. Totally free. My take on what's actually happening: Remember my Cowork post? Claude doubled limits because Codex runs on fewer tokens. Now OpenAI counters — not by adding raw capacity, but by making their limits feel generous and putting growth on autopilot through referrals. This is the same war, two different moves. Claude throws firepower. OpenAI throws flexibility + a growth loop. Both are fighting for the same thing: developer loyalty in agentic coding. The smart bit OpenAI pulled: they took their single biggest complaint — confusing, inflexible resets — and flipped it into a feature you control. That's a clinic in turning a weakness into a retention play. Why you should care as a builder: You're the winner here. Two labs are competing on how much they'll give you, and how much control you get over it. Pick the tool that fits your workflow — but right now is the cheapest, most generous moment to be running agentic coding on either platform. The bigger lesson is the playbook itself: take your #1 customer complaint and turn it into your next feature. That works in YOUR business too. Team Claude or team Codex right now? And be honest 👇

Hey everyone! I'm thrilled to announce something that's going to take our community to the next level - Monthly Competitions starting this month! Here's what's up for grabs for our top performers each month: 🏆 Priority Work Opportunities - Our top contributors will be much more likely to receive work directly from our team. When projects come up, we'll be reaching out to you first! 🎁 FREE Lifetime Access to our paid community "Agents to Scale" - No more subscription fees, you're in for life! How to Win: - Share valuable insights and knowledge - Help other members with their questions - Post your wins and case studies - Engage consistently and spread positive energy - Contribute content that moves our community forward As you can see in the picture attached, at the end of the month the #1 Rank will be the winner and in the future will provide rewards for #2 and #3 as well! (if you have suggestions for what #2 or #3 should receive then suggest it down below) We believe in rewarding the people who make this community amazing. You're not just building your own success - you're helping everyone else level up too. The competition starts NOW, so let's see who's ready to step up and lead the way! 💪 Keep sharing, keep building, keep growing. Our community gets stronger because of each and every one of you. Let's make this month legendary! 🔥 Drop a 🚀 if you're ready to compete! Cheers guys, Nick

So everybody is pumping out these cool websites and video games that Fable can make in one prompt (no shade). If you guys look through any little bit of the system card for this thing, it's fucking terrifying. THOUGHTS!? https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c342ee809620.pdf 1. Silent degradation for AI/ML work This is the biggest one. Anthropic says Fable 5 has special safeguards for frontier LLM development. But unlike cyber/bio/chem safeguards, these are not visible to the user. “Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user.” They say Fable 5 will not fall back to another model. Instead, they may reduce effectiveness through: - prompt modification - steering vectors - PEFT/fine-tuning interventions The user still gets an answer, but it may be an altered / steered answer without disclosure. You don’t know if Claude is failing because the task is hard, because your prompt sucks, or because Anthropic quietly nerfed the model. 2. Anti-competitive access split: Mythos for trusted partners, Fable for everyone else Anthropic frames this as responsible deployment: - Mythos 5 = stronger model, trusted partners only. - Fable 5 = public model, safeguards added. The system card says Mythos is available only to a small set of vetted/trusted partners, starting with Project Glasswing. So we've established precedent for intelligence class divide. The most capable model goes to governments, big labs, banks, and major tech companies. Everyone else gets the restricted. 3. “Safety” classifiers can become capability control For cyber, bio, chemistry, and distillation, Fable may route the user to a weaker model or block the request. Anthropic presents this as necessary risk reduction. Fair enough for bioweapons/cybercrime. But the category list includes distillation attempts and frontier AI