User
Write something
Pinned
Second brain - what is and why
Here's what we actually built — and why it matters for you— and **please join this SKOOL group!** If you came here from the second brain post, welcome. Let me show you the actual work. The "second brain that works across AIs, agents, and claws" isn't a concept. It's live infrastructure. Here's what we've built and what you can use right now: openbrainsystem.com — The deep dive on what an open brain system actually is, how to architect one, and why the tools most people are using (Obsidian, Notion, Tiago Forte's PARA) aren't built for the agent-first world we're operating in now. secondbrain.us.com — The technical layer. pgvector, MCP integration, end-to-end build guides. If you want to build rather than just read about it, start here. aiknowledgestack.com — The commercial angle. How AI knowledge infrastructure maps to real business leverage — content operations, client work, agency scale. All of it points toward the same thing: novcog.dev — the actual NovCog Brain implementation. A vectorized, cross-agent memory system that runs across Claude, local models, OpenClaw agents, and anything else in the stack. Not a product pitch. A working system you can replicate. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In other words, you can build this in an afternoon. This afternoon. The hardened, battle-tested brain that Triston Goodwin has been selling to clients. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This is what we do here. We build the thing, document it, and hand you the blueprint. The resources above are free. But if you want to be in the room where this gets built in real time — where the sessions, office hours, peer accountability, and live agent builds happen — that's the Hidden State Drift Mastermind. $105/month. Small group by design. Practitioners only. 👉 Upgrade to HSD Mastermind in the membership tab above. If you're not ready for that yet, you're still in the right place. Drop a post and tell us what you're building.
6
0
Pinned
welcome to the Burstiness and Perplexity community
Our mission is to create a true learning community where an exploration of AI, tools, agents and use cases can merge with thoughtful conversations about implications and fundamental ideas. To get a deeper overview of this Skool, click on the Classroom tab above, and enter the Welcome Classroom If you are joining, please consider engaging, not just lurking.Tell us about yourself and where you are in life journey and how tech and AI intersect it. for updates on research, models, and use cases, click on the Classrooms tab and then find the Bleeding Edge Classroom
Pinned
a learning content automation system
I built an automated content generation system that runs 24/7 on a Mac Mini in my house. No n8n. No Make. No Docker. No external orchestration dependencies. Pure Python, stdlib, launchd. It publishes across 18 sites daily. Every article is quality-scored against AP Style rubrics before it goes live. Here's the part most automation builders skip: the scoring model had a bias problem. GPT-4.1-mini's safety training bleeds into quality scoring. Political content — elections, protests, international conflict — gets reflexively penalized 3-4 out of 10 regardless of actual writing quality. The fix was chain-of-thought scoring: force the model to reason about specific criteria (headline accuracy, factual coherence, structure, tone) before outputting a score. That eliminated the topic-sensitivity reflex entirely. The quality gate rejects anything below 5.0/10. What passes gets a hero image generated via Fal.ai, publishes through WordPress REST API, and distributes to Bluesky, Telegram, and Tumblr — all with viral scoring that tiers articles into boost, standard, or skip. Cost: $0.92/day. Budget-capped at $2/day, $10/week. But the content generation is only half the system. Every article embeds a 1x1 tracking pixel from a Cloudflare Worker. That pixel tells me exactly which AI crawlers are ingesting the content and when. Within hours of publishing, I can see GPTBot, ClaudeBot, ByteSpider, Meta's external agent — all hitting the content. Not guessing. Measuring. Last week we deployed a 10-article interlinked content series across the network. 500 pixel hits in the first window. Breakdown: 14% GPTBot, 10% Meta, 4% ByteSpider, 2% ClaudeBot, 42% human readers. The content entered at least four major AI training pipelines within hours of publishing. The system improves daily without intervention. Quality scores trend upward because the rubric catches what the model misses. Publishing cadence stays natural with randomized 13-23 minute intervals — no fixed pattern for crawlers to fingerprint. Every run logs to a SQLite database. A daily email report hits my inbox at 7:03am with per-site metrics, quality trends, cost tracking, and pixel data.
Grok 4.6 is "the equal of Fable 5" on one number. On the other ten, it loses seven.
Grok 4.6 shipped 12 August. The headline everywhere is parity with Fable 5, and on one measure that is fair: the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index puts Grok 4.6 at 61 against Fable 5 Max at 62, level with GPT-5.6 Sol Max at 61. One point. On the individual shared benchmarks it reverses. By xAI's own disclosure Grok 4.6 loses to Fable 5 Max on seven of ten, and on DeepSWE it lands at 65.9% against Sol Max's 73%. Two more things the coverage skipped: several reported wins fall inside Artificial Analysis' published confidence intervals, which makes them statistical ties rather than leads — and the comparison chart does not include Claude Opus 5, the model that currently leads that index. Worth saying plainly: one point off the top composite, from a post-training run on an existing base, is a real result. It is just not the same claim as parity. Full breakdown (9 min): https://youtu.be/DLQbqIsfU7o Every figure and who reported it: https://grok46.novcog.us.com/ Curriculum tie-in: Phase-0 "which measure is this true on, and who is missing from the chart". A composite index and a head-to-head count can disagree about the same two models on the same day. Full method map → https://hiddenstatedrift.com/method
0
0
DeepSeek shipped a flagship at 1/46 the price. Nobody has checked the benchmarks.
DeepSeek V4 Pro went GA yesterday as build 0813. The price is real and it is on DeepSeek's own pricing page: $0.435 per million input tokens on a cache miss, $0.003625 on a hit, $0.87 per million output, 1M context. Against Fable 5 at $10/$50 that is roughly 1/46 on a blended workload. Note it is not "1/57 the price" — that figure is output-only. Input is about 1/23. Three different claims got compressed into one number. The performance side is where the discipline is needed. The agent jumps everyone is quoting — DeepSWE 12.8 → 62.7, Terminal Bench 2.1 72.1 → 87.9, CyberGym 52.7 → 83.3 — are DeepSeek's own chart, measured against DeepSeek's own preview build, circulated via a screenshot. Third-party benchmark tables for the model are currently empty. DeepSeek's changelog has no entry for the release either, which makes the rollout under-documented rather than imaginary. And the first hands-on report on HN is a useful counterweight: one commenter measured V4 Pro at 12m02s and $0.12, shipping a bug, against Grok 4.6 at 3m18s and $1.41 with none. Cheap is not the same as finished. Full breakdown (9 min): https://youtu.be/8F7U8kBNR9Q Every figure and who reported it: https://dsv4pro.novcog.us.com/ Curriculum tie-in: Phase-0 "who measured this, and against what baseline". A vendor chart comparing a model to its own preview is a real data point and not an independent one, and the difference is the whole story here. Full method map → https://hiddenstatedrift.com/method
1-30 of 111
⚡Burstiness and Perplexity⚡
skool.com/burstiness-and-perplexity
AI-native SEO, autonomous agents, and automation pipelines. Built for practitioners who build— not collect. Home of the Hidden State Drift Mastermind.
Powered by