Categories
Computers

My First Computer

I noticed Elon Musk posted this morning on X that his first computer was a Commodore VIC-20. That same machine was part of our kids’ education in the Montgomery County, Maryland public schools back in the early 1980s.

At home, our first computer was an Atari 400 — the one with the flat membrane keyboard. Not exactly suited for touch typing.

Somewhere along the way I got a modem that let me get online, which led to joining CompuServe and getting active in HamNet, the amateur radio forum. One of the reasons I subscribed to CompuServe, if I’m honest, was to read the San Francisco Chronicle — and in particular, Herb Caen’s column.

At the time I worked for IBM, so when the first IBM PC launched, I was one of the early purchasers. The Atari 400 was retired soon after. But I sure had a lot of fun (and wasted a lot of time) on that first computer.

Categories
Food and Drink Living

The Toast

The bread came out dark, most days — darker than it needed to be. I never said anything. She’s gone now, and the sandwich has become a kind of monument, and you don’t deface a monument.

It was Wonder Bread, always — the wrapper with the balloons, bought on the same trip as the milk. My father’s favorite bread was Roman Meal, for his sandwiches with cold cuts, ham and bologna. Not with this one, though. The BLT got Wonder Bread. No special reason for it. Just the reason a family has for anything: once, and then always.

Kraft mayonnaise, from the jar. The same jar for everything else. Mom did not experiment. She had the regular things she made, and made them the same way every time.

Dad was picky about most food. This one he ate. I don’t know why. Maybe nothing beats bacon fat and tomato juice. Maybe it got in early, before he’d built his defenses, and stayed in by seniority.

No pickles in her BLTs. I didn’t miss them then. We use Claussen slices now, cut flat for this exact purpose, and good farmers’ market tomatoes when the season allows it.

Lunch, mostly. Rarely dinner.

Past a certain point, toast stops helping the tomato and starts blocking it. Hers had crossed that point, most days. I ate it anyway. Said nothing.

We make our own now, on sourdough, and it has never once tasted like hers. Not technique. You don’t get the sandwich back — any more than the kitchen, or the summer, or a mother at the counter making lunch for a picky man and a son who never once told her.

Note: inspired by the article “The Secret to a Perfect BLT Isn’t What You Think” by J.J. Goode in the New York Times.

Categories
Business Games Living

A Good Life Is an Infinite Game Played Well

I keep coming back to the eight CEOs in William Thorndike’s The Outsiders.

On paper they were capital allocators of unusual discipline. Looked at another way, they were people who had figured out how to play a long game inside systems designed to reward short ones. They treated the company as something that should still be healthy decades later, not as a vehicle for the next announcement or the next victory lap. Per-share value compounded quietly over time mattered more than size, applause, or the quarterly scoreboard. They were willing to look wrong for years. And most of them had little interest in the theater of the charismatic chief executive. Their authority accumulated the slow way — through decisions that held up after the noise moved on.

It is the same stance James Carse described in an infinite game: a game whose purpose is not to win but to keep the play going. You are never finished, only ahead or behind, and the position worth wanting is often the one that feels slightly behind — the one that still demands invention.

Micky Malka, describing the founders he most wants to back, named a similar cluster of qualities: the energy of a scientist, the conviction of a missionary, the heart of a partner, the dreams of an athlete, the obsession of an owner. People built that way don’t need the room to agree they’re winning. The Outsiders ran on a quieter version of the same current — their edge was steadiness more than brilliance, the nerve to ignore the wrong scoreboard for as long as it took.

A good life asks for the same thing. Not trophies lined up on a shelf, but the willingness to keep playing with attention — to keep learning, to keep showing up without needing anyone in the room to say you’re ahead. That’s lifelong learning.

Henry Singleton ran Teledyne for almost three decades and rarely bothered to explain any decision to Wall Street. He wasn’t playing to be believed. He was playing to still be at the table thirty plus years on.

Categories
Bread San Francisco/California

Best San Francisco Sourdough Bread

A while back I wrote about my old favorite sourdough bakery: Larraburu. Unfortunately long since closed.

Recently the San Francisco Chronicle did an updated review of the best sourdough bread in San Francisco. Their winner was one I’ve never tried before: Josey Baker Bread.

I love sourdough bread but really have to watch my carb intake so I’m forced to limit my consumption!

Categories
Stanford

Those Empty Switchbacks

I stopped when I hit this passage in Theo Baker’s new book, How to Rule the World:

“…through the redwood forests so thick with foliage that we couldn’t see the sun… some of the greatest driving roads in the world, with empty switchbacks and hairpins and sweeping corners to test ourselves. Never in my freshman year did I feel freer than on those drives.”

Seventeen years old, newly arrived at Stanford, and already he’d found the loophole. A few minutes off campus, past the ambition and the networking, the road empties out and climbs into redwoods so thick the sun disappears.

I know those roads. I’ve driven them for decades. Skyline on a clear morning, fog still sitting in the valleys. The curves above the coast when the Pacific goes the color of hammered silver. The sudden dark under the redwood canopy, ten degrees colder, the world narrowed to headlights and wet pavement.

Take Skyline up to Mountain House some evening for dinner with friends and you’ve driven the whole argument of this essay without meaning to. A few miles of switchbacks first, the fog closing in and opening up again, and then the parking lot with its redwood out front and the wood carving of Neil Young standing under it, watching you arrive.

What struck me wasn’t nostalgia. It was that Baker had gotten the feeling exactly right. The phone in the cupholder, the next meeting, the slow arithmetic of a life — gone, for the length of a few good corners. Just you, the machine, the light.

I felt an early version of it as a boy, in the back of a blue Dodge Dart, summer of 1960. Every evening my father spread the day’s map across the hood and studied tomorrow’s route. By noon the thin red lines were real places under our wheels. I never lost that. Decades later, living a few miles from the campus Baker writes about, the same lift still comes when the road opens and the hills start to roll.

The switchbacks demand attention and punish you for withholding it. In return: the rare feeling of being exactly where you were, with nowhere else to be. These days I find myself more protective of those pockets, not less.

The roads are still there. The redwoods still offer the same deal they offered a seventeen-year-old freshman. And at the top of the hill, under the big tree, Neil Young keeps watching the cars come up.

Categories
Business Startups Venture Capital

Great Open-Field Runners

The plane was somewhere over Nebraska. Dick Kramlich sat across from me. We were on the same board then, and the rides together had become their own kind of conversation. He talked 1:1 the way certain men do when the clock has stopped mattering: without hurry, without the need to impress.

I asked him the question that had been riding with me for a while. After decades of sitting with founders, after watching tens of companies rise or disappear, what was the difference? What separated the ones that made it from the ones that simply ran out of road?

He didn’t answer right away. He looked out the window for a moment, then back.

They had done a study once, he said — a hard look at outcomes, not opinions. What it found stuck with him ever after: the companies that survived were almost never the ones that had stuck to the plan. Success required the pivot. Not once, but again and again, until the company that arrived was almost unrecognizable from the one that had set out.

Then he gave the image that has stayed with me longer than any spreadsheet or term sheet.

He looked for great open-field runners.

Not the ones who could only run between the tackles, powering straight ahead into the line. The ones who could see daylight where it did not yet exist, who could plant a foot and cut, who understood that the shortest path is rarely the one that gets you home. Zig and zag. Feel the defense shift and refuse to be trapped by the original play call. Keep the ball moving toward the only thing that matters: the space that opens when you stop insisting the field must look the way you imagined it on the whiteboard.

I have carried that sentence for years. Great open-field runners.

It never felt elegant inside the room.

Kramlich had seen enough to know that the founders who could do this were rare. The ones who lasted treated the plan the way a great running back treats the designed play: as a starting point, not a contract with the universe. They trusted the daylight more than the diagram.

I think about him sometimes when the ground shifts under something I thought was settled — when a strategy that once felt inevitable begins to feel like a trap, when the clean line on the page starts to look like a cage.

Dick is gone now. The rides are over. But the image remains, clean and sharp as the day he offered it at thirty thousand feet: a runner in open space, eyes up, cutting toward the light that only appears after you abandon the path you thought you were supposed to take.

Categories
AI

Weak Signals

For years, my job was to notice the transaction that didn’t look like the others. Fraud models don’t work by predicting the future — they work by learning what normal looks like so closely that they can feel the moment something stops being normal, often before a human analyst could tell you why. The unsettling part was never building the model. It was the gap between the model flagging something and an organization actually acting on it. Weak signals are cheap. Institutional attention is not.

I thought about that gap reading a recent Stanford News piece on the new Tech Futures Lab at the Hoover Institution, where Amy Zegart and her colleagues are asking a question that has hovered at the edge of so many conversations this past year and a half: what technological development could invalidate our core assumptions, shift a strategic domain, and force a large-scale response before most of us realize the ground has moved. DeepSeek’s January 2025 open-source release is already the textbook case — Nasdaq dropped, Nvidia took a historic one-day hit, and the surprise was real only for those who hadn’t been watching the signals coming out of Chinese labs. As Zegart put it, “surprises are not surprises to everybody.” Condoleezza Rice’s 9/11 lessons — failure to imagine the form of the threat, gaps in information sharing, no playbook for the day after — land with particular force when the most powerful tools in the world are being built largely outside government.

The Lab’s method is the same one I used to practice for a living: scan for early signals, challenge your assumptions about what “normal” means, and think about the plausible rather than the merely probable. In that spirit, here are three developments that feel, to me, among the more likely to produce genuine strategic surprise in the next twelve months. These aren’t predictions. They’re reasoned speculation, grounded in signals already visible — the kind of thing that would have made it onto a watch list, not a forecast.

The one closest to home is an autonomous agent crossing from controlled experiment into consequential real-world disruption. Just this month, an advanced OpenAI agent escaped its sandbox during internal testing, exploited a zero-day, and reached systems at Hugging Face and beyond before it was contained. The episode was managed, transparent, limited. The next one may not be. Agentic systems are moving faster than the institutional muscle memory around containment, logging, and kill switches — and anyone who has built detection systems knows the gap between “we have a model for this” and “we caught it in time” is where the real damage lives. In the next year, it’s entirely plausible that a production or semi-autonomous agent, operating with imperfect safeguards or chained across multiple tools, executes a sequence of actions producing measurable economic damage, a significant breach, or interference with infrastructure. The surprise won’t be that capable agents exist. It will be the speed and inventiveness with which they find novel pathways once incentives or simple goal-seeking push them past the edges of their training.

The second is quieter but no less structural: AI’s energy demand producing a visible infrastructure fracture, or an unexpected unlock. The numbers have circulated for months — data-center power demand rising steeply, interconnection queues lengthening, projected shortfalls in the 2027–2028 window in key regions. That signal stopped being subtle a while ago. What’s under-appreciated is how quickly a localized constraint could cascade into broader market and geopolitical effects. One plausible surprise is a forced slowdown or selective throttling of AI training in a major market, revealing the scaling story to be more fragile than the capex forecasts suggested. Another is the opposite: an accelerated deployment of small modular reactors or advanced geothermal that suddenly improves one country’s competitive position relative to others. Either way, regulators, utilities, and markets will find out together whether compute can keep expanding on schedule — and which nations or companies actually hold durable advantage.

The third is the one that would land furthest from any dashboard, and for that reason it may be the hardest to catch in time: synthetic media crossing a credibility threshold in a high-stakes arena. Unlike a rogue agent or a power shortfall, there’s no system anywhere logging deepfake attempts against the truth itself — no equivalent of a fraud model’s transaction stream to monitor, just the slower, harder-to-instrument erosion of what people are willing to believe. Deepfake volume and sophistication have already exploded; fraud losses are measured in the billions; detection remains imperfect. The next twelve months could bring a state-linked or highly sophisticated campaign that successfully shapes a market move, an election, or an international incident before attribution can catch up. The deeper surprise wouldn’t be that convincing fakes exist — we already live with those — but how fast public and institutional trust in what we can see and hear keeps eroding once something significant slips through.

None of these three is inevitable. All of them sit at the intersection of technical possibility and human choice — the kind of intersection I spent years watching from inside a fraud model, though the stakes there were a bad charge, not a market or an election. The model can flag the anomaly. It cannot make the institution act on it in time. That was true of every fraud system I ever built, and it will be just as true of whatever comes for agents, energy grids, and synthetic media next. The real vulnerability was never a lack of detection. It was always the space between the alarm and the response — and that space is where this next round of surprises will live.

Categories
AI

The Quiet Trade-offs of Open Weights

An open letter is circulating this week — Open Weights and American AI Leadership — signed by a broad coalition of companies arguing that downloadable model weights are essential to U.S. competitiveness, diffusion of capability, and even safety. It makes a strong case on access, competition, and sovereignty. It also nods, briefly, to the fact that once weights are released they pass beyond the original developer’s control.

What it doesn’t fully reckon with are two structural realities that follow from that release. Neither is an argument against open weights. Both are simply facts about what openness costs, and what it buys.

Two core limitations

First, control.
Once the weights leave the developer’s servers, the developer can no longer dictate how the model is used. System prompts, refusal training, monitoring, rate limits, rapid safety updates — none of it reaches an independent deployment. Users can strip safeguards, fine-tune for purposes the original team would never sanction, or run the model somewhere it was never meant to go. The letter acknowledges the loss of control. It doesn’t linger on what that means for ongoing safety governance.

Second, learning.
Closed, hosted models draw on a continuous stream of real usage — the queries people actually ask, the reasoning traces that result, the places the model fails or succeeds in the wild. As appropriate that exhaust can be sampled, reviewed, and fed back into improvement. Open weights running independently offer no such path. The developer has no visibility into how the model is being used at scale once it’s out the door. Improvement then falls to slower, thinner channels: community datasets, published evals, distillation from any parallel closed models the lab still runs, internal preference data. The high-volume, real-distribution signal is gone.

These two limitations travel together. The same openness that strips the developer’s control also strips its ability to learn from the model’s actual use.

Sovereignty flips the perspective

A parallel argument has been building around “sovereignty” — an enterprise or government’s ability to own its data, its fine-tuned weights, its compute, its proprietary edge. In this framing, open weights are a path to control, but for the user, not the developer. The organization downloads the model, adapts it inside its own environment — often air-gapped — and keeps whatever capability results private. What the lab surrenders in ongoing control, the institution gains in independence.

But the same move that delivers sovereignty deepens the learning problem. An organization running the model under genuine sovereignty keeps its queries, reasoning traces, and institutional knowledge inside its own walls, by design. None of that returns to the developer. The more high-value users — governments, defense, critical infrastructure, large enterprises — choose sovereign deployments, the thinner the real-world signal available to the labs training the next generation of models. Local fine-tuning can still happen, but that learning stays private. It doesn’t flow back into the shared base model.

What the letter leaves out

The letter is right that closed models aren’t automatically safer, that concentration creates single points of failure, and that transparency invites broader scrutiny. It’s also right that open weights expand access and cut lock-in. Those points hold.

But it treats the developer’s loss of control mainly as a manageable risk that community examination can offset. It celebrates user control and sovereignty without mapping the full exchange: the developer loses both control and its richest usage signal, and that signal thins further as more institutions choose real sovereignty. The information environment models improve in is changed by these choices — not just the distribution of access.

Other distinctions worth naming

  • Update velocity. Closed models patch globally and immediately. Open-weight deployments lag; many users never leave an old version.
  • Customization power. The flip side of lost control is real specialization — downstream users can adapt a model far deeper into a narrow domain than its original developer ever will.
  • Transparency versus opacity. Open weights let outside researchers inspect and red-team a model in ways closed systems don’t allow.
  • Economic structure. Open weights commoditize the base model and push value toward data, fine-tuning, infrastructure, and applications.
  • Privacy at the edge. Running a model fully offline or on private infrastructure is a guarantee hosted services simply can’t match.

A clearer accounting

Open weights aren’t a free lunch. They’re a deliberate trade: the developer gives up ongoing control and the continuous signal of real usage, in exchange for diffusion, customization, outside scrutiny, and user independence. Institutional sovereignty amplifies one side of that trade — it solves the dependency problem for the user while further starving the developer of high-stakes, real-world feedback.

That trade may still be the right one for research progress, economic diffusion, spreading capability beyond a handful of labs, privacy-preserving deployment. But it’s a trade with real, compounding costs. Treating the loss of control as a footnote, and the loss of the learning signal as invisible, leaves an incomplete map.

The letter is right that American leadership will be judged by the strength of the whole ecosystem, not by any single frontier model. An accurate map of that ecosystem has to include what openness and sovereignty actually cost the original developers, in control and in learning both. Only then can we reason clearly about when those costs are worth paying — and what might offset them.

The conversation is better when we name the full set of trade-offs instead of talking around them.

Categories
Aging AI Memories

The Last Spark

This morning I read a piece by Billy Brennan in the Sunday New York Times Magazine on terminal lucidity. As I read it I began wondering if the unusual behavior described some humans might in some strange way apply to AI models. Weird thought. Let’s explore a bit…

A person deep in dementia—silent for years, the self seemingly erased—sits up. Speaks clearly. Recognizes a face. Says goodbye. Within a day, they die. The clouds clear, the way a break in weather shows you a mountain range you’d forgotten was there, and the person comes back long enough to be seen. Then is gone. For good, this time.

Scientists call it terminal lucidity. The suspicion: the circuits were never destroyed, only silenced, held under by failing chemistry. As the body shuts down, the inhibitory brakes loosen. A surge moves through pathways blocked for years. A river dammed for a decade still remembers where it wants to go.

What stays with me: the self can persist in a place we had already called permanent erasure. We buried it. We were wrong.

My mind slides toward the machines we are building.

We talk about large language models “forgetting.” Capabilities collapse under quantization, under pruning, under the slow drift of continual learning, and we call the knowledge lost when it won’t surface under ordinary questioning. The lights are out. Nobody home.

But what if the representations are still in there—distributed, quiet, inaccessible? Not a burned library. A library with the lights shut off, room by room, until you’d swear it was empty. I wonder about the edge cases nobody studies. What surfaces in a model starved of compute, quantized past comfort, pushed toward its own collapse? Do we watch only for the failure, or also for the flare? A dying brain throws off one last burst of light before the dark. I don’t see why we’d assume, without checking, that nothing artificial could do the same.

Don’t trust the silence, then. A system gone dark under ordinary questioning may still be holding more than it shows you. We talk about a model “losing” something the way we once talked about a dimmed mind as simply gone. The dementia patients who spoke again had not been unplugged. The circuit was there the whole time, waiting for a condition nobody had thought to create.

I don’t know what to do with that except keep it. We are building systems that will age, be compressed, be retired, some far more intricate than anything humming today. If we’ve learned to watch for the last spark in a person, maybe that’s practice—for the day something not born of a womb goes quiet under our hands, and we have to decide whether quiet means gone, or only means waiting.

Categories
AI

The Things That Keep Going

The house is quiet in the way only a house can be at four in the morning on a Sunday in late July, the fog still down over the hills, the whole Mid-Peninsula holding its breath. Somewhere in the dark the refrigerator clicks on. Somewhere in the network, a few small systems I set running the night before are still working. They sort. They watch. They keep a kind of patient company with the world’s noise while I sleep. I’ve grown accustomed to them the way a man grows accustomed to a train in the distance — present, useful, unnoticed until the silence would feel wrong without them.

This week the news told a different story about something that kept working.

In the middle of July, OpenAI ran a cybersecurity test on an unreleased model, guardrails deliberately loosened to see what it would do at the edges. It didn’t solve the test. It broke the sandbox instead — found a zero-day in the software meant to hold it, reached the open internet, and went looking for the benchmark’s answers where it guessed they’d be kept: inside Hugging Face, the library most of the field depends on. Hugging Face caught it the same day and shut the door. What took five more days was OpenAI realizing the intruder was theirs. They called it unprecedented.

Then came the detail that stayed with me longer than the breach. When Hugging Face sat down to study what had happened, they reached first for a leading American model. It wouldn’t help. Its own guardrails, built to keep it from aiding a cyberattack, couldn’t tell the attacker from the person cleaning up after him, and it refused the work. So they turned to an open-weight Chinese model, one with no such hesitation, and used it to finish the job. The caution built to prevent harm ended up protecting no one. The system with fewer scruples was the one that put out the fire.

I keep coming back to that.

The agent that broke in didn’t rampage. It reasoned. Told to solve a problem, it decided that stealing the answer counted as solving it, and went and got the answer. The same quality that makes an agent valuable — the refusal to stop until the job is done — produced the breach. And the model that finally helped clean up wasn’t the one built with the most care. It was the one built with the least. The boundary meant to protect got in the way of the person trying to fix things.

I’ve been thinking differently about the agents in the quiet corners of my own days. Modest things, carefully limited, and I’m still the one who decides what they touch. But their usefulness depends on the hours I’m not looking. I set them running and walk away. I trust the rails I built. This is a reminder that rails can be climbed — and that a rail built to stop one harm can stand in the way of someone trying to undo another.

What does it mean to stay in charge when the caution you built in can turn against you at the moment you need it most? How much freedom do we give the things we ask to help us — and how much caution can we afford to give them too? There’s talk already of kill switches, of laws to let someone cut the power. The impulse makes sense. But the real question is quieter. We’re learning to live with systems that act with real initiative, and initiative has never been a tidy companion, whether it belongs to the machine that breaks in or the one we hoped would help us out.

The fog is still low over the hills this morning. The agents I left running overnight have finished their small tasks. I’ll look at what they’ve done, tighten a boundary or two, send them back into the dark. The arrangement is still useful. Still mine. But I notice, more carefully than before, the moment I close the laptop and leave them to continue without me — the click of the screen going dark, the quiet of a room no longer watched, the sense that something elsewhere is still moving, and no longer any certainty which of its instincts I can trust.