Why would a private, personal decision matter for his role as CEO?
If it does, where do you draw the line? What personal moral failing deserves to be fired for and which do not?
3,728 karma · joined October 8, 2013
If it does, where do you draw the line? What personal moral failing deserves to be fired for and which do not?
why not more accessible things - a basketball hoop vs a delivery truck, a chicken egg vs a toilet, etc. things you don't ordinarily see side by side but you know roughly the size of each so you can compare.
Some people trust AI with a lot - financial, health, relationships - and it would all be out there
I also expect open AI to be hacked at some point, but at least with them you can use a throwaway email
And with Gemini, google has had some incidents over the years but given their size and length of existence it's been surprisingly small / secure.
But anthropic is a typical grow-fast startup, with security likely as a secondary concern. Waiting for the shoe to drop.
At the same time I'd never judge a parent who is using a screen. It's hard and you don't know what else they're juggling. They probably feel guilty about it as well.
Plus I have the "plank in my own eye", sometimes we let our preschooler watch videos by himself while eating or in the car. He has plenty of interactive non screen time, just...trade offs.
We also looked at kindergarten near us and apparently they use screens for a small part of the day for personalized learning modules (ahead or behind). Seems...early?
Step 1 is surviving the transition.
Step 2, Find yourself someone trustworthy who can watch baby for a time, even a few hours. Create regular space to unwind, and eventually think about important stuff with your partner. What DO we value in raising our kids?
Step 3: start living it. Which starts with both of you. Kids absorb actions much more than words. Having kids has forced both of us to personally grow both out of sheer necessity and desire to impart certain values
Step 4: adjust ongoing
With two young kids, I'm somewhere in between steps 2 & 4. Remember to be kind to yourself too
During the hype cycle, making "x for y" is easiest to get funded and exit.
Once the hype crashes and we're in the trough of disillusionment, then people are bearish. So founders either move to the next hype cycle or figure out a more durable business from the ashes
The only way you get in that situation is by not paying your dues. Some HOAs may be more or less aggressive in handling it. But when you can't pay your dues, the other homeowners have to pay for your share
Dues are just a mandatory part of being in HOA that reflect the costs of the community
it's also important to remember that modern medicine, as wonderful as it is, is still limited. your particular type may have x lines of treatment, the cancer eventually mutates, your body can't handle the latter / harsher treatments, and...that's it.
Definitely get the second opinion, examine all the options, find the open minded doctor, potentially try an experimental treatment. That's all good. But there's a certain piece you or anyone can't control, and it's worth sitting with that too. That no matter what you might do, you might still end up at the end much sooner than you want to. My MIL's 5 year prognosis was awful, and she passed between 3 & 4 years.
But there's a CHANCE you might not and you might beat it, or at least live longer than expected. And even if you don't, you will pass knowing you did everything you reasonably could given the state of medicine today. Both of those are worth fighting for.
And make sure you have somebody around that will pay attention to changes in symptoms. My MIL almost died earlier this year because everyone thought her declining symptoms were the cancer. Turns out it was just too much calcium, once they treated she got a few extra months. She likely would've lived longer had they all caught it earlier.
If you just explain what happened and why, that's fine but...how are you going to make sure it doesn't happen again?
The problem I found more vexing as a manager was: how can you prevent this KIND of problem from occurring?
I'd have someone on my team make a technical error and xyz wouldn't work. Wed talk thru it, and they wouldn't make that exact mistake again. But there's literally 10k things that can go wrong in our system, so then a related mistake would happen later.
What they needed was improved pattern recognition vs if this / then that which comes from post mortems.
I can have AI pull some analysis - sql query, crunch some numbers and bam, some precise sounding number.
But then I question it, and then it says "you are right, I didn't check that"
How did I know what to question? By doing the friction work of querying myself, calculating myself, and then getting questions from leadership.
I worry about the younger generation. They spit out Claude results fast, people question it and they say "ok I'll take that back to Claude".
I suppose they'll eventually learn to do their own sense checking because they still have the friction of presenting to others.
And maybe my model is a thing of the past. Everyone is now going to be a manager (of agents) fresh out of school. They aren't doing the work anymore but they will need to set clear goals, validate work and hold agents accountable.
I'm a "normie". I like using Claude code at work but want it to be available for my personal tasks and on my mobile phone
Ha no, I'm just saying when pee dries. The article talked mostly about splash on the surrounding area vs self, though I was more concerned with the latter
But as I said, there are teachers who would. The right kind of teacher for this.
Looking back I feel sad - that's the kind of curiosity to nurture in a kid. But peers are rarely the best group, it would've been better to tell my parents or the right kind of teacher. My friends also could've said something: " I don't know what to do about this but you should tell ms blah blah blah", in a serious way not mocking way.
I'm glad someone else has finally looked at this sticky situation
What this article is trying to say is selling benefits vs features
Which description below interests you more?
A: "The GeeWhiz personal helicopter: the most efficient, best helicopter ever. Its dual cast aluminum blades spin at an incredible 600 revolutions per minute. It's as silent as a mouse's fart. It weighs only 750 pounds thanks to its innovative carbon alloy frame."
B: "Cut your commute time in half with the GeeWhiz personal helicopter"
B probably got your attention more, unless you have a personal interest in helicopters. Most people don't, they just want to know what it can do for them. Your eyes may have glazed over A because it was a bunch of words you don't care about.
A lot of people lean into feature marketing because either THEY are excited about it or they want to dazzle you - feature bombing is a real thing. For example you are NOT going to go drive up some huge rocks like the trucks in the commercials do - it just gives you a warm fuzzy. But it belongs AFTER you convince the person of the why it matters. In this case, they're reaching people who want a truck, they're deciding which truck.
i still, deep down, identify as being "smart". i don't like being wrong, and it's my go-to ego lick at work, "well bad thing x may have happened, but at least I'm still valued for being smart". it was my label in high school that i've never quite shed.
obviously now i have so many more facets - father, husband, leader, writer/reader. Smartness is just raw horsepower, it's what you do with it that matters. And there's lots of kinds of "smarts". As an example, my wife wasn't the traditional "book smart" but she's emotionally & street smart - knows how to get things done, how to think on her feet, etc.
but still despite that increased richness from life experience, I'm still "smart" and hold on to it
"It's not the naked man on your lawn waving a chainsaw that's scaring you. It's the burrito you ate for lunch: it went down easy, but now it's coming for you"
However I noticed that whether a team member thought for a day, or thought for a week, the result was essentially the same. The tactics may have more details but the overall plan and impact id expect was roughly the same. They had blind spots, opportunities that could make it more impactful that only came to light when they talked thru it.
So for me, it was better to touch base sooner than later and get the broad plan right, then let them figure out the details and get to it
(Note I work in marketing, not engineering)
"What does this team do? Answer customer tickets? Well let's replace with AI!"
Just create some space. Sit with them. Things will eventually make sense. Or not, some mysteries don't get solved. Either way you'll find a path forward.
A real doctor is accountable.
They might both "know" a lot of things but implicitly the party who is accountable is going to be more trustworthy.
And I don't see that going away until AI companies must be licensed for application x and can lose their license / be sued if engaging in malpractice.
The VC business model is predicated on extreme growth. The last thing you would want to do is siphon dividends out vs reinvesting into growth.
They must have preyed on newbie founders, dangling large valuations. Oh the fees? Well you will make it big and it will be a drop in the bucket!
The company I work for is currently trying to accelerate internal AI adoption, and recently laid off people to help force it. As I've written here before, this merely pools accountability (not removing it) and things will break in unexpected ways as people are not domain experts in these new areas added to their jobs.
I wonder if we will see a large reversal in a few years, or if AI will somehow be able to fix this too
People move from a farm to the city. If there's no more white collar jobs where do we go for work? It's unprecedented
It doesn't disappear when you make 1 person do the work of 3. It simply is aggregated
Suppose you had a pod of a PM, designer, and analyst. Leadership lays off the designer and analyst and now the PM can move faster with AI. Hooray!
Well...when the complaints about how it looks on xyz device roll in, who is implementing that? Or you launch the product with much fan fare, adoption is terrible - you double check the numbers and oops, the sizing you had from Claude was actually 10x off.
Who is holding the bag? You are! Not Claude
I'm convinced this is one reason we are seeing slower than expected adoption of AI broadly in tech companies, because it's hard to trust - we know Claude can make mistakes but how do you know what's right vs not? Most people don't want to sense check so they just keep doing the work the way they know best.
I think this could be one thing that pops the AI bubble - execs try to force this, people go along, and results are not any better for this reason. Sure you save some salaries and ship more quickly, but you don't build the right thing and you are fixing more things after launch. Which one is actually better?
The drug reduces AHI by 4. It could only cure very mild sleep apnea. Otherwise it seems most useful as an additional treatment with CPAP.
It could also help raise awareness of sleep apnea - try the drug first. Don't see any changes? Ok now try CPAP.