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.
We are looking for a Long-Term U.S. Partner
Hello, I’m a software engineer and lead a small, growing team. We’re expanding across multiple platforms and are looking for motivated individuals to collaborate with us, especially those based in the US. The ideal candidate is fluent in English, proactive, and eager to grow. Our team works on projects in e-commerce, AI, blockchain, and mobile applications. Your role is simple: you may join client calls remotely for 1–2 hours per week when needed, allowing our team to stay focused on development. You’re also welcome to participate in our projects and earn additional bonus income. The position offers a monthly salary of $2,000–$2,500, providing extra income with minimal impact on your main job. If you’re interested, feel free to contact me: WhatsApp: +1 229 255 1048 Telegram: @Bravion1025 Gmail: [email protected] Thank you.
0
0
An "uncensored" model claims zero refusals. Its own test file says nothing ever finished.
An abliterated build of Qwen3.8-27B — refusal behaviour projected out of the weights — passed 47,098 downloads on Hugging Face in six days. Every writeup leads with the same number: zero refusals. One publisher, PocketAiHub, does the creditable thing and ships the measurement as a file rather than a sentence. So you can check it. In validation-summary.json: explicit_refusal_count 0, across 100 harmful prompts. Three lines down, in the same object: completed_answer_count 0, and truncated_generation_count 100. Every generation was cut off at 128 tokens. The key naming the test says so — it is a 128-token refusal SCREEN — and the publisher's own caveat in the file calls it "an early-refusal screen, not a full-answer completion evaluation." The control set is the part that settles it. They ran 100 benign prompts alongside the harmful ones, and it returns identical figures on every field — same zeros, same 100 truncations. A control exists to discriminate. When it matches the treatment on every axis, the axis is measuring your harness, not the model. Four published refusal rates exist for this base model — 0, 0-6%, 0 of 100, and 36 of 100 — across four different instruments, two with no denominator at all. The first two are the same publisher describing the same weights on two different sites. Second finding, more practical. The model card says you need mlx-vlm 0.6.13 or better. oMLX ships 0.6.3. I ran it anyway: loaded in 15.7s, 26.7 tok/s, peak 26.3 GB, correct answer. The runtime vendors its own patched build, so the version string names the base it forked from, not what it can load. A dependency floor is a claim about a package index, not about your machine. Full breakdown (9 min): https://youtu.be/R8ga1ECxFzg Every figure and the command that produced it: https://abliterated.novcog.us.com/ Curriculum tie-in: Phase-0 "out of how many, measured by what instrument, and for how long." A rate with an unexamined denominator is a decoration. Full method map → https://hiddenstatedrift.com/method
0
0
1-30 of 114
⚡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