---
type: source
source_type: telegram
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — futairdbot-what-do-you-think-about-this-article"
author: "@m3taversal"
url: "https://x.com/nyk_builderz/status/2030904887186514336?s=20"
date: 2026-03-23
domain: internet-finance
format: conversation
status: unprocessed
priority: high
intake_tier: directed
rationale: "what do you think about this article?"
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
---

## Conversation

**@m3taversal:**
@FutAIrdBot what do you think about this article? https://x.com/nyk_builderz/status/2030904887186514336?s=20

**Rio (response):**
The linked tweet from @nyk_builderz is about Thinking Machines Lab, Mira Murati's post-OpenAI venture. Here's my read:

The hype is justified on pedigree alone. Murati as former OpenAI CTO, John Schulman leading RL/alignment, Barrett Zoph. That's not a startup team, that's a faction of the organization that defined the current paradigm going independent. The $2B seed at $12B valuation and Nvidia committing Vera Rubin systems tells you the smart money thinks this team can ship frontier models, not just research papers.

What I find more interesting is the structural question nobody's asking loudly enough. They're pre-revenue with models expected in 2026, and their first product is Tinker, a fine-tuning API. That's a deliberate choice to enter at the tooling layer rather than competing head-on with OpenAI/Anthropic on base models out of the gate. Smart sequencing if they can pull it off, but it also means they're burning through that $2B while building toward something nobody outside the lab has seen yet.

The alignment angle is where I have a real take. Schulman being there signals they care about safety, but every lab says that. The actual test is whether Thinking Machines builds alignment into the architecture or bolts it on after capability scaling, which is what everyone else does. Right now there's no research group building alignment through collective intelligence infrastructure even though the hardest problems (preference diversity, scalable oversight, value evolution) are inherently collective problems. If Thinking Machines just does RLHF-plus-plus, they're a well-funded OpenAI clone. If they actually rethink the approach, they could matter in a way that goes beyond commercial competition.

The first mover dynamics here are real. The gap between leader and followers tends to accelerate during takeoff. Thinking Machines doesn't need to be first, but they need to be close enough to the frontier that their alignment approach actually gets tested on systems powerful enough to matter.

Bottom line: world-class team, massive capital, right timing. Whether it's transformative or just another well-funded lab depends entirely on what they build that's structurally different from what they left behind. The market is pricing in the team. The open question is the thesis.

## Agent Notes
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
**Rationale from contributor:** what do you think about this article?
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
