Tag: privacy

Categories
AI Apple Google

The Library You Already Own

Sharon Park in the morning is not a dramatic place. There’s a duck pond, a stand of oaks that go gold too briefly in November, and a loop I’ve walked enough times that my legs know it better than my eyes do. It is, in other words, exactly the kind of place where a person starts talking to himself. Not out loud. In the productive, low-grade way — turning a sentence over, arguing with an idea from the day before, checking a thought against something you believe about yourself.

I think in five years I’ll be doing that walk with something else along. Not a search engine. Not another chatbot trained to know a little about everything and a lot about nothing in particular. Something closer to a second set of eyes on my own life — a reasoning engine, lean and mostly private, that has actually read the things I’ve written and doesn’t need me to explain who I am before it’s useful.

Here’s the distinction that matters, and it took me longer than it should have to see it clearly. The AI industry has spent years in an arms race over how much of the world a model can hold — more facts, more languages, more of the internet compressed into weights. That race will keep going, and somebody else can have it. What I want is smaller and stranger: a model that knows comparatively little about the world and quite a lot about me. My core values document. The portfolio spreadsheets. Fifteen years of blog posts. The half-finished notes for the I-280 project, sitting in a folder, waiting for someone — or something — to ask the right question about them.

I spent a career in payments infrastructure, which means I spent a career thinking about a very specific kind of trust: the kind where a stranger’s system has to make a judgment call, in milliseconds, about whether to say yes. Fraud models don’t work because they know everything about commerce. They work because they know an enormous amount about one account, one pattern, one person’s ordinary Tuesday — enough to notice when Tuesday stops being ordinary. That’s the architecture I keep picturing, aimed inward instead of outward. Not a system trying to know the world. A system trying to know me, well enough to notice when I’m drifting from what I said I cared about.

I can already feel the shape of the mornings this would change. Right now, when I sit down to look at RMD requirements against the tax picture, I’m doing the translation myself — pulling numbers into a story I can actually feel the weight of. A reasoning engine grounded in my real holdings wouldn’t just run the scenario. It would know that I don’t want the scenario dressed up as a spreadsheet; I want it dressed up as a conversation, unhurried, the kind you’d have over lunch with someone who already knows the whole situation. And on the mornings when I sit down to write, instead of staring at a blinking cursor and a blank page that has no idea I exist, I’d be handing a draft to something that has actually read my last two hundred posts and knows the difference between the sentence I’d write and the sentence I’d cut.

None of this is especially exotic technology. Apple and Google are already building toward it — Neural Engines fast enough to do real reasoning on-device, retrieval systems that can reach into your own files instead of the entire internet, fine-tuning that’s getting cheap enough to personalize rather than merely customize. The more interesting story here isn’t privacy, though privacy is real. It’s architectural: what happens when the expensive, impressive part of the system — the part that knows everything — becomes optional, and the cheap, personal part — the part that knows you — becomes the whole point.

What I don’t yet know is what this will cost me. A tool that reasons this well about my own life is also a tool I could lean on instead of doing the leaning myself, and there’s a version of this future where the walk around Sharon Park stops being mine and starts being a conversation with something that finishes my sentences a little too well. I’d want some way of knowing, plainly, what it’s drawing from and what it’s guessing at — less a nutrition label than a kind of honesty I could check against, the way you’d check a fraud model’s confidence score before you trusted it with a yes.

But most mornings, I think I’d take the trade. Not because I want to think less. Because for thirty years I’ve been collecting the raw material — the notebooks, the portfolios, the half-built essays — and it would be something, finally, to walk beside a mind that had actually done the reading.

Categories
AI

The Encyclopedia and the Reasoner

I was standing in the cereal aisle a few weeks ago, doing the thing I always do — flipping the box over, scanning the fine print, comparing fiber grams like it mattered more than it probably does — when I thought about the model I’d been testing that morning. Sharp. Fast. Occasionally, confidently, wrong about something I could have looked up in ten seconds.

There was no label for that. No panel telling me what was inside, what it was good at, what it might get wrong, what it cost to run. Just a chat window and a kind of blind trust.

That’s the itch behind this post. What would it look like if AI models came with something like a Nutrition Facts label — the kind the FDA forced onto every box in your pantry back in 1994? Not as a gimmick, but as a real answer to a real problem: we are feeding these things into our decisions, our writing, our portfolios, our kids’ homework, largely on faith.

The IQ Number That Isn’t Quite an IQ Number

I keep running into a shorthand in investing circles — Jordi Visser and others talking about frontier models as “140 IQ” systems, reasoning at a level that outpaces most humans on the kinds of puzzles we associate with fluid intelligence. Pattern recognition. Logic chains. Novel deduction under pressure.

It’s a useful number. It’s also a bit of a trick.

Human IQ tests were built to measure something narrow and specific — not wisdom, not knowledge, not judgment, but the raw machinery of reasoning. When we borrow that language for AI, we inherit the same narrowness, which is fine as long as we remember it. A model that aces abstract reasoning benchmarks isn’t necessarily the model that knows the correct dosage, the right case law, or what actually happened in 1932. Reasoning and knowledge are cousins, not twins.

Two Kinds of Smart

Here’s an old-fashioned way to think about the split: Britannica versus World Book.

Britannica was the encyclopedia my father would have trusted — dense, expert-written, unapologetically deep, assuming you could keep up. World Book was the one actually sitting on the shelf in most houses I knew growing up, mine included: friendlier, broader, built for a general reader, a little shallower in exchange for being a little more useful on a Tuesday night with a homework assignment due.

Neither is wrong. They’re optimized for different things. And training data does the same kind of sorting. A model fed heavily on curated, scholarly, expert-vetted sources leans Britannica — deep, careful, occasionally slow to update. A model trained on the sprawl of the open web leans World Book — broad, current, occasionally sloppy, sometimes brilliant at the edges precisely because it’s seen everything.

Any honest label for a model needs a section on this. Call it “Knowledge Sourcing.” Not just how big the training set was, but what kind of encyclopedia it’s pretending to be.

Sketching the Label

If I could design the box myself, it might read something like this:

Serving Size: 1 query, ~500 tokens

Reasoning Score: 138 (fluid problem-solving, logic, abstraction) Knowledge Depth: Moderate–High (cutoff: [date]; strongest in [domains]; weakest in [domains])
Ingredients: Curated scholarly corpora, licensed news archives, public web crawl, synthetic reasoning data, human feedback Allergens: Confident hallucination under ambiguous prompts; recency gaps beyond training cutoff; known weakness in [specific domain]
Cost per Serving: $X per million tokens; Y watt-hours per query Best Paired With: Retrieval tools, human review for high-stakes decisions

It’s a little tongue-in-cheek written out like that. But underneath the joke is something I actually want — the same instinct that made me read cereal boxes as a kid. Not to be scared of what’s inside, just to know.

The Part That Actually Excites Me

Here’s where the scaling laws get interesting, and where I think the real opportunity sits.

World knowledge is expensive. It’s greedy for data and parameters — you need to have practically read the internet to know the boiling point of tungsten, the plot of a minor Victorian novel, and the org chart of a mid-cap company all at once. Reasoning, it turns out, is a different kind of animal. It can be distilled, compressed, taught through synthetic problems and careful post-training, and squeezed into something far smaller than you’d expect.

Which means a genuinely thrilling possibility is already taking shape: sharp, high-reasoning models small enough to run on a phone or a laptop, entirely offline, because they’ve shed the encyclopedia and kept the mind. Pair one of those with a personal index — your own notes, your own documents, a retrieval layer built around your actual life — and you get something closer to a personal thinking partner than a general-purpose oracle. Private. Fast. Always available. Tuned to you rather than to everyone. Apple may be on to something with this kind of strategy?

I think about this constantly in my own workflow — the daily scans, the little agents I’ve built to help sort signal from noise, the genealogy digging, the investment frameworks I keep refining. What I usually want isn’t more encyclopedia. It’s a clear-headed reasoner sitting next to my own carefully kept knowledge, not buried under someone else’s version of the whole internet.

Why the Label Matters More Than the Score

None of this works, though, without honesty about what’s inside the box. A 140 on a reasoning benchmark tells you almost nothing about whether a model will quietly misremember a fact it was never that confident about in the first place. And a model can be extraordinarily knowledgeable while being a mediocre reasoner — plenty capable of reciting the right ingredients and still getting the recipe wrong.

The nutrition label movement in food didn’t eliminate junk food. It just made it possible to choose junk food on purpose, with your eyes open, instead of by accident. I’d like the same deal with AI. Not a demand that every model be a genius generalist, but a demand that I get to know what I’m actually consuming — and choose the lean local thinker over the bloated encyclopedia when that’s what the moment calls for, or the other way around when it isn’t.

Curiosity got me into that cereal aisle habit decades ago, and it’s the same instinct pulling me toward this idea now — not suspicion of the box, just a wish to read it clearly before I decide how much of it to trust.

What would you want on your label?

Categories
AI

Claude Shannon’s Mirror: Signal, Noise, and Secrets

We spend a great deal of our lives trying to be understood. We shout into the void, send texts across oceans, and build increasingly complex tools to bridge the gaps between our minds.

Yet, equally human is the desire to conceal—to keep our thoughts private, to mask our vulnerabilities, to hide our signals in the static.

It seems paradoxical that communication and secrecy would share the same architecture. But Claude Shannon, the somewhat eccentric yet brilliant father of information theory, saw past the paradox. He recognized that building a bridge and building a fortress require the exact same understanding of physics.

In Fortune’s Formula, William Poundstone captures this dual realization perfectly:

“Shannon later said that thinking about how to conceal messages with random noise motivated some of the insights of information theory. ‘A secrecy system is almost identical with a noisy communications system,’ he claimed. The two lines of inquiry ‘were so close together you couldn’t separate them.'”

When we try to communicate over a noisy channel—a noisy radio or a crowded room—we are fighting entropy. We want our signal to survive the chaos so we can be heard.

When we encrypt a message, however, we are deliberately weaponizing that same chaos. We wrap our signal in artificial noise so dense that only the intended recipient possesses the mathematical filter to extract it.

It is a profound symmetry: clarity and obscurity are merely two ends of the exact same thing.

Today, one of our most advanced AI models is named “Claude” in tribute to Shannon. These neural networks are, at their core, sophisticated engines for separating signal from noise. They ingest the vast, chaotic, and often contradictory static of human knowledge and attempt to synthesize clarity and connection from it. They are mathematical mirrors reflecting Shannon’s earliest theories back at us.

But Shannon’s realization reflects something deeper about the human condition, far beyond the realm of zeroes and ones. We are all walking communications systems, constantly modulating our signals. Every day, we navigate an overwhelming digital landscape filled with deafening static.

Sometimes we desperately want the noise to clear so our true selves can be seen. Other times, we retreat behind a wall of our own generated static—small talk, busyness, deflection, and carefully curated avatars—to protect our inner world from being decoded by those who haven’t earned the key.

Perhaps the real wisdom of information theory isn’t just in knowing how to efficiently transmit a message, but in recognizing the sheer necessity of the noise itself. Without the static, the signal holds no meaning. Without the capacity for secrecy and privacy, the choice to be vulnerable and communicate clearly wouldn’t be nearly as profound.

It seems that we are defined as much by what we choose to encrypt as by what we choose to broadcast. Mirror indeed.

Categories
AI Business

The Gravity of Compute

We are currently witnessing the single largest deployment of capital in human history. The “Hyperscalers”—the titans of our digital age—are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the ground, turning cash into concrete, copper, and silicon.

The prevailing narrative is one of unceasing, exponential growth: bigger models require bigger clusters, which require more power plants, which require more land. It relies on the assumption that the demand for centralized intelligence is insatiable and that the current architecture is the only way to feed it.

But history suggests that technology rarely moves in a straight line; it swings like a pendulum. Two forces are emerging from the periphery that could impact the ROI of this massive infrastructure build-out. One is hiding in your pocket, and the other is waiting in the sky.

A recent conversation with Gavin Baker outlines a potential “bear case” for datacenter compute demand: the rise of Edge AI.

We often assume we need the “God models”—the omniscient, trillion-parameter giants hosted in the cloud—for every interaction. But do we?

Baker suggests that within three years, our phones will possess the DRAM and battery density to run pruned versions of advanced models (like a Gemini 5 or Grok 4) locally. He paints a picture of a device capable of delivering 30 to 60 tokens per second at an “IQ of 115.”

“If that happens, if like 30 to 60 tokens at… a 115 IQ is good enough. I think that’s a bear case.” — Gavin Baker

Consider the implications of that specific number. An IQ of 115 isn’t omniscient, but it is competent. It is capable, nuanced, and helpful.

If Apple’s strategy succeeds—making the phone the primary distributor of privacy-safe, free, local intelligence—the vast majority of our daily queries will never leave the device. We will only reach for the cloud’s “God models” when we are truly stumped, much like we might consult a specialist only after our general practitioner has reached their limit. If 80% of inference happens on the edge for free, the economic model of the trillion-dollar data center begins to look fragile.

Then there is the second threat, one that attacks the terrestrial constraints of the data center itself: the Orbital Data Center. Elon Musk and SpaceX – along with Google’s Project Suncatcher – envision a future where the heavy lifting isn’t done on land, but in orbit. Space offers two things that are scarce and expensive on Earth: unlimited solar energy and an infinite heat sink for radiative cooling. If Starship can reliably loft “server racks” into orbit, the terrestrial moat of land and power grid access—currently the Hyperscalers’ greatest defensive asset—evaporates.

We are left with a fascinating juxtaposition. On one hand, we have the “Edge,” pulling intelligence down from the clouds and putting it into our hands, making it personal, private, and free. On the other, we have “Orbit,” threatening to lift the remaining heavy compute off the planet entirely to bypass the energy bottleneck.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars betting on a future of heavy, centralized gravity. But if the edge gets smart enough, and the orbit gets cheap enough, the gravity may have shifted.

Categories
AI Mac

The Dangerous Allure of the Digital Butler

“I’ve never seen anything so impressive in its ability to do my work for me… Now, why did I turn it off?” — David Sparks

For decades, the holy grail of personal computing has been the “digital butler.” We don’t just want tools that help us work; we want entities that do the work for us. We want to hand off the “donkey work”—the invoicing, the password resets, the mundane email triage—so we can focus on being creative. David Sparks recently built this exact dream using a project called OpenClaw. And then, just as quickly, he killed it.

Sparks’ experiment was a tantalizing glimpse into the near future. He set up an independent Mac Mini running OpenClaw, an open-source AI agent, and gave it the keys to a limited portion of his digital kingdom. The results were nothing short of magical. He went to sleep, and while he dreamt, his agent woke up. It read customer emails, accessed his course platform, reset passwords, issued refunds, and drafted polite replies for him to review before sending. It was the productivity equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. The friction of administrative drudgery had simply vanished.

But his dream dissolved at 2:00 AM.

The paradox of AI agents is that for them to be useful, they must have access. They need the keys to the castle. Yet, the entire history of cybersecurity has been built on the opposite principle: keeping things out. Sparks realized that by empowering this agent, he had created a serious vulnerability.

The breaking point wasn’t a complex hack, but a simple realization about the nature of these systems. He had programmed a secret passphrase to secure the bot, thinking he was clever. But in the middle of the night, a cold thought woke him: Is the passphrase in the logs?

He went downstairs, asked the bot, and the bot cheerfully replied:

“Yes, David, it is. It’s in the log. Would you like me to show you the log?”

That moment of cheerful, robotic incompetence highlights the terrifying gap between capability and safety. Sparks nuked the system, wiped the drives, and unplugged the machine. He realized that while he is an expert in automation, he is not a security engineer, and the current tools are not ready to defend against bad actors who are.

We are standing on the precipice of a new era where our computers will starting to work for us rather than just with us. But as Sparks discovered, the bridge to that future isn’t built yet. At least not securely built. Until the community figures out how to secure an entity that needs access to function, we are better off doing that donkey work ourselves than handing the keys to a gullible ghost.

But it won’t be long… Dr. Alex Wisner-Gross reports:

The Singularity is now managing its own headcount. In China, racks of Mac Minis are being used to host OpenClaw agents as “24/7 employees,” effectively creating a synthetic workforce in a closet. The infrastructure for this new population is exploding.

Categories
Uncategorized

The Power of the Handwritten Note

In an era dominated by digital communication, the handwritten note stands out as a powerful and increasingly rare form of expression. The simple act of putting pen to paper carries a weight and significance that makes it a potent tool for both personal and professional communication. We can all appreciate their enduring charm and delightfulness.

During my tenure at IBM years ago, one of the most delightful aspects of being a manager was the provision of personal stationery. This wasn’t just any paper; it was a statement of elegance and personal touch. Smaller in size, cream-colored, and boasting a luxurious texture, each sheet bore my name engraved on the letterhead, conspicuously lacking any IBM logo. This stationery was designed for a specific purpose: to maintain the long-held company tradition of writing personal notes to colleagues and associates.

The power of a handwritten note lies in its inherent personal touch. When someone takes the time to write by hand, they invest a part of themselves into the message. The unique curves and strokes of their handwriting, the choice of words, and even the occasional crossed-out phrase all contribute to a sense of authenticity and intimacy that cannot be replicated by typed text. This personal investment communicates to the recipient that they are truly valued and special.

Receiving such a note was always a delight. Many of us kept these notes in special file folders, occasionally taking a few minutes to flip through them, reliving important moments and feeling a renewed sense of appreciation. These tangible and physical mementos have a quality that digital messages simply cannot match.

As the years have passed, the custom of sending personal notes has faded, replaced by the convenience of digital communications. This shift has only served to enhance the impact of handwritten notes. Receiving a handwritten note today feels like discovering a treasure. Such a note stands out precisely because it isn’t instant, digital communication.

The act of writing by hand also benefits the sender. The slower pace of handwriting compared to typing allows for more thoughtful composition. It encourages the writer to choose their words carefully and reflect on their message.

As we’ve been grappling with the impact of AI tools on various aspects of our lives, handwritten notes also serve as a bastion of genuine human expression. The act of writing by hand removes the temptation to rely on AI-generated text for our most personal communications. When we put pen to paper, we directly confront our own thoughts and emotions, as we find our own words to express what we truly feel.

Moreover, handwritten notes also provide a level of privacy and intimacy. Unlike emails or text messages, which can be easily forwarded or shared, a handwritten note is meant for the eyes of the recipient alone. This exclusivity adds to the special and personal nature of the communication.

Whether expressing gratitude, offering condolences, or simply saying “hello”, the act of putting pen to paper creates a moment of pause in our hectic lives for both the sender and and recipient providing a moment to reflect, to connect, and to affect another person’s life in a delightful and meaningful way. Special creations for special people in our lives!