SaaS Builder, serial enterpreneur, 2 exits. Currently building Archimedes, cursor for ERP building.
Roma, Lazio
Joined March 2013
- Tweets209
- Following720
- Followers265
- Likes5.2K
Pinned Tweet
At Archimedes we push AI code generation to the daily limit — dozens of parallel Claude sessions across the team, real production modules. At that scale you hit a wall nobody talks about.
Here's what we found and what we built 👇
What's the best path here ?
Just closed a six-figure deal for our AI-native ERP. €150k. First enterprise contract.
Here's the part nobody prepares you for: two thirds of the contract is services. Implementation, training, stitching with legacy systems. €100k of work that has nothing to do with building the product.
The founder dilemma:
Do it in-house — cash in, reduce burn, delay the next raise. But your engineering team is now doing consulting instead of shipping product.
Subcontract it out — stay focused on core product, ship faster, keep the roadmap clean. But you give away most of the margin and lose control of the customer experience.
Genuinely torn on this one. What would you do?
The methodological choice in this paper from the university of Munich released yesterday, should rewire how you evaluate LLMs in production: the surface fidelity gap.
It measures the distance between how on-task a model sounds and whether it actually respected the brief. Llama-70B has the largest gap. +0.80. The output reads aligned. The constraints are gone.
The knows-but-violates rate measures non-compliance despite the model correctly recalling the rule. It ranges from 8% to 99% across seven models. Structured checkpointing reduces it. It does not close the gap. For anyone designing business processes on top of LLMs, the lesson is methodological. Reading the output is not evaluation.
Asking the model 'what were the rules?' is not evaluation. Evaluation is checking the output against a structured brief with binary-decidable constraints. That was the only mechanism the paper found that reliably catches violations. If your QA layer is a human skim or a model self-check, you are measuring how aligned the output sounds. Not whether it complied.
Just closed a six-figure deal for our AI-native ERP. €150k. First enterprise contract.
Here's the part nobody prepares you for: two thirds of the contract is services. Implementation, training, stitching with legacy systems. €100k of work that has nothing to do with building the product.
The founder dilemma:
Do it in-house — cash in, reduce burn, delay the next raise. But your engineering team is now doing consulting instead of shipping product.
Subcontract it out — stay focused on core product, ship faster, keep the roadmap clean. But you give away most of the margin and lose control of the customer experience.
Genuinely torn on this one. What would you do?
You won't out-type the model. You'll never review every line.
Build the lens before you build the feature.
Everything else is theater.
Giorgio Pallocca retweeted
Gary Lineker on Gaza, "It's the worst thing I have seen in my lifetime. Constant images day in, day out of children losing their lives."
Giorgio Pallocca retweeted
BREAKING: Israel has bombed more children in the middle of the night.
Tonight, it's the home of the Abu Safiya family in Gaza city.
Please keep sharing this. Dint stop. The Genocide is still ongoing.
