1,187 karma · joined January 28, 2019
I agree with all of this. But I disagree that code alone is enough to understand the why.
All code is written under constraints, and most constraints live outside the code.
Specifically this part:
> There's 1000 chatgpt clones but everyone still uses chatgpt. There might be 1000 jev clones soon enough but people won't switch unless there's something significantly better about it.
The fact that Jev will be cloned is exactly why brand and distribution matter even more. When 1,000 products do the same thing, you'll use the one you know.
It's also why Meta can make Muse and get a lot of users even though there's 10,000 personal agent startups
For one, Howard is not the successor, Greg Abel is. Howard is a Stewart of culture, but he is not the leader.
He also isn’t inheriting Buffetts fortune so the generational rot won’t be the same.
Next, both Greg and Howard have been at Berkshire for decades, and however is next up will likely be similar. So there is time to pass on the values.
Laslty, Berkshire is a decentralized company. The company itself has less than 50 employees. All of the companies they own have their own leadership structures and cultures, and Berkshire does not burden itself in managing it. This makes the successor problem a lot easier
The grandson has a pretty successful career already anyways (helped obviously by his relation to Warren)
Not exactly, he's there to oversee the culture of Berkshire and ensure it's continuity. Buffett is donating all of his wealth (and has already donated $66B), so there isn't a fortune to protect.
Berkshire is an institution of sorts at this point, and requires strong stewardship to prevent enshittification (for lack of a better word).
Why is that so? Fast growth, when achieved honestly, is a result of solving user pain that others haven't. Maybe you think so because users != the public, but I think in totality the public is a collection of users who all have needs they want met.
The theory I subscribe to is a few fold:
1) People like to buy "generic" homes that are easier to renovate/personalize 2) But then they don't end up personalizing, because they're afraid to tank it's market value 3) Thus homes stay boring and generic
Still requires lots of work to shape the output correctly, but it's still crazy to me that I literally don't write code any more. And in that way, coding is solved for me.
I don't care about human vs AI, I just want my issue resolved. Whatever does that the best and fastest. Or even better, for there to not be an issue in the first place.
In this case, the govt used Anthropic's word in the way Anthropic wanted them to.
Anthropic has publicly stated that AI is too powerful and needs to be regulated. They've done this repeatedly. More recently, they've withheld releasing Mythos claiming that it's not safe.
Sacks isn't using Anthropic's words against them. He's more or less doing what they asked!