Tag: Silicon Valley

Categories
Etiquette Founders

How to Be in a Room

I happened to notice this in a post on X: Slow Ventures ran a 4-hour etiquette class for founders. This is actually a brilliant idea. A non-trivial amount of founders (and VCs) could use some help in this department.

So I asked AI: what would a course syllabus for something like this look like? Below is the response (which I quite like!):

This is a genuinely good idea — etiquette as a business skill is perennially under-taught, especially for technical founders who may have gone deep on product/engineering but shallow on navigating rooms. Here’s how I’d structure a day-long or modular course built around the Slow Ventures premise.

Founder Etiquette — A Field Guide

4-hour intensive · 5 modules · lecture + role-play format

Morning Block — First Impressions

Module 1 · 45 min — The room before the meeting

Arrivals, introductions, and presence under observation

  • Timing: the cost of early vs. late
  • Handshakes, eye contact, the graceful exit from a name you missed
  • Business card and phone etiquette
  • How to work a room without appearing to work a room
Module 2 · 45 min — Table stakes: dining fluency

The business meal as performance and ritual

  • Place settings, utensils, and the BMW rule
  • Who orders first, who orders what
  • Wine: fluency without performance
  • Dietary restrictions — yours and theirs
  • The check: the ritual, the timing, the dodge
  • When and how to talk business at the table

Mid-Morning Block — Communication

Module 3 · 45 min — Communication that doesn’t leak desperation

Written and verbal signals investors actually read

  • Email: subject lines, length, tone, and the follow-up cadence
  • Reading the room on Slack/text vs. formal channels
  • The thank-you note — when, how, why it still matters
  • Saying no, disagreeing, and delivering bad news
  • How to receive feedback without deflecting or over-agreeing
  • The exit from a conversation: graceful, not abrupt

Afternoon Block — High-Stakes Scenarios

Module 4 · 45 min — Investor relations: the long game

Board rooms, pitch meetings, and the unwritten VC code

  • Board meeting protocols — who speaks, in what order
  • Managing up to your board without managing them
  • The warm intro — how to ask, how to use, how to close the loop
  • Confidence vs. bravado: what the room hears
  • What to do when the meeting is going badly
  • Conference behavior: panels, hallways, and the after-party
Module 5 · 60 min — The edges: cultural fluency and hard situations

Where etiquette meets judgment

  • Cross-cultural norms: Japan, Middle East, Europe, India — the high-risk differentials
  • Power dynamics: how to behave when you have more (or less)
  • Navigating someone else’s social gaffe gracefully
  • Gift-giving: what to give, what never to give
  • The fine line between casual and sloppy in casual settings
  • Live role-play: difficult scenarios, coached debrief

A few things I’d stress if actually running this:

Module 3 is where the real behavioral work happens for founders specifically. The desperation signal leaks through email more than anywhere else — the too-fast reply, the over-explanation, the follow-up that arrives four hours after the first message. That’s the stuff that’s hard to see in yourself.

One thing Slow Ventures probably got right: four hours is about the right ceiling. Any longer and you start to feel like you’re at finishing school, which kills the energy.

After reviewing this, I thought it might be useful to add two role playing scenarios to the course. Here’s what the AI recommended:

First, add this role play in after Module 2:

Role-play 1 · 20 min — The wrong bread plate

Recovering from a gaffe without losing the room

A founder is taken to lunch by a partner at a firm they’ve been trying to get in front of for six months. It’s going well — good rapport, the partner seems genuinely interested. Then the founder accidentally takes the partner’s bread roll, realizes it mid-bite, and has to navigate the next ten minutes without letting the gaffe collapse the energy in the room. Secondary layer: the check arrives and it’s ambiguous who’s hosting.

This tests everything from Modules 1 and 2 simultaneously — table fluency, recovery under embarrassment, reading whether to acknowledge the mistake or absorb it silently, and the check ritual. Low-stakes enough to be funny, high-stakes enough to feel real.

Next, add this role play after Modules 3, 4, and 5:

Role-play 2 · 30 min — The meeting that’s going sideways

Holding the room when the numbers missed

A founder is in a board meeting presenting quarterly numbers that missed. Midway through, one board member interrupts with a pointed question the founder doesn’t have a clean answer to. A second board member piles on. The founder has to hold the room — not deflect, not over-apologize, not go defensive — while also reading which of the two is genuinely concerned versus performing concern for the room. Cultural wrinkle: the more aggressive questioner comes from a context where directness reads as respect, not attack.

This pulls from Modules 3, 4, and 5 simultaneously. It’s the hardest scenario in the course and should feel that way. The coached debrief afterward is where most of the learning actually happens — ending here means it lands with weight, which is the right note to close on.

More commentary from the AI:

The dining module is the most load-bearing. A remarkable amount of professional signaling happens at the table and most people don’t realize they’re broadcasting anything. The BMW rule alone (bread-meal-water, left to right, so you don’t eat someone else’s roll) is the kind of thing nobody tells you until you’ve already grabbed the wrong bread plate in front of a Series B lead. The live role-play after Module 2 brings this to life.

The live role-play in Module 5 is what separates a good version of this class from a mediocre one. You can lecture about graceful exits from bad meetings all day. Watching someone flail through one in real time, then getting coached on the spot, is what actually moves the needle.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models China

Cranes on the Horizon

In 2005, during my first trip to Shanghai and Beijing, the most striking feature of the skyline wasn’t the architecture—it was the cranes. More than I could possibly count, perched atop half-finished skyscrapers like a mechanical forest. Entire districts seemed to be mid-construction simultaneously, as if someone had pressed a button and the whole country decided to build everything at once. Dan Wang in his book “Breakneck” described China as the “engineering state” that approaches national problems with physical solutions. Back in 2005, coming from Silicon Valley, I thought I understood what growth looked like. I didn’t.

I’ve been thinking about that trip while reading Nathan Lambert’s recent piece, “Notes from Inside China’s AI Labs.” Lambert — who runs the Interconnects newsletter and does serious work tracking the open-weight LLM ecosystem — just returned from visiting essentially every major AI lab in China. Moonshot, Zhipu, Meituan, Xiaomi, Qwen, Ant Ling, 01.ai. He went in with genuine curiosity and came back with humility. That combination is rarer than it should be.

What he found was the cranes. Different domain, same energy.

Lambert’s central observation is about culture, not capability. The Chinese labs aren’t winning on any single technical breakthrough — they’re winning on execution discipline. He describes researchers, many of them active students, who bring no ego to the work. They absorb context fast, drop assumptions faster, and seem genuinely unbothered by the philosophical debates that seem to swirl constantly in the American AI community. When he tried to engage Chinese researchers on the long-term social risks of models or the ethics of AI behavior, those questions “hung in the air with a simple confusion. It’s a category error to them.” Their role is to build the best model. Full stop. To them, an LLM isn’t a philosophical entity to be interrogated; it’s a piece of infrastructure to be optimized.

That description landed for me. Not as a criticism of American research culture, but as a real observation about what the moment demands. Building good LLMs today is, as Lambert puts it, meticulous work across the entire stack — “all points of the model can give some improvements, and fitting them in together is a complex process.”

The work that matters most right now isn’t the 0-to-1 creative leap; it’s the thousand unglamorous decisions executed without complaint. Students who haven’t yet learned to lobby for their own ideas turn out to be well-suited for exactly this.

Lambert ends on a note that’s hard to shake. Looking up from his laptop on a high-speed train, he keeps seeing cranes on the horizon. He draws the same connection I did, though from the inside: the construction everywhere fits the broader culture and energy around building. “When I look up from my laptop and always see bunches of cranes on the horizon, it obviously fits in with the broader culture and energy around building in China.”

Twenty years after my first visit, the cranes are still there. They’ve just moved indoors — into server rooms and training runs and model releases that land every few months with quiet confidence. In 2005, what China was building was obvious: you could see the steel frames going up. What’s being built now is harder to see, which may be exactly why it keeps surprising us.

Check out Lambert’s essay – it’s remarkable. If the 20th century was defined by who could move the most earth, the 21st will be defined by who can move the most tokens. And right now, the cranes are moving faster than we think.

Categories
AI

The Geometry of Speed

We are surprised when witnessing something move faster than our intuition expects. We are inherently wired to understand slow, compounding growth. We expect the long, grinding years of the plateau—the quiet periods where nothing seems to happen before a sudden breakthrough.

I was looking at a chart Patrick Collison shared this morning, and it challenged that very intuition. It’s a simple, stark visualization: AI model intelligence relative to the formation date of the lab that built it.

If you trace the lines for Google and OpenAI on the right side of the graph, you see the history we’ve all lived through. Thousands of days—more than a decade of quiet, methodical, often unglamorous research—before their trend lines finally bend and shoot upward. It is a geometry of patience. It’s the visual representation of laying bricks, one by one, year by year, until you have a foundation sturdy enough to support the weight of a revolution.

And then, on the far left of the chart, there is a red line. MSL. The team behind Meta’s new Muse Spark model, released today.

The red line doesn’t curve. It doesn’t slope. It simply strikes straight up, like a lightning bolt in reverse.

In roughly 200 days since formation, this new effort achieved a level of capability that took the early pioneers thousands of days to reach. Collison noted how much he loves seeing things done quickly, and it’s hard not to share that specific, visceral thrill of seeing the boundaries pushed so aggressively.

I find myself thinking about the architecture of speed and what it means for the rest of us.

We spend so much of our lives absorbing the lesson that “good things take time.” We are taught that the crucible of meaningful work requires a long, slow simmer. And mostly, that remains true. The compound interest of human experience is real, and wisdom is rarely rushed.

Yet, every once in a while, a new paradigm emerges that doesn’t just accelerate the timeline—it collapses it entirely.

The pioneers cut the agonizingly slow path through the jungle, taking the brunt of the time, the friction, and the missteps. The ones who follow—like xAI, Anthropic, and now MSL—don’t have to clear the brush from scratch. They can look at the map, pave the road, and simply drive.

What does it mean for our own mental models when the timeline from “formation” to “frontier” shrinks from five thousand days to a few hundred?

It is a jarring reminder that the past pace of performance is not a law of physics.

I think about my own assumptions—how often I assume a project, a habit, or a societal shift will take a while, simply because similar things took a while in the past. We anchor our expectations to old geometry.

Meta’s release of Muse Spark is a technical feat, certainly. But the chart itself holds a broader, more human lesson. It’s a visual prompt to constantly re-evaluate our assumptions about how long the impossible is supposed to take.

The future doesn’t always arrive on a comfortable, predictable schedule. Sometimes, it just shows up unannounced, demanding we adjust our stride to keep up.

Categories
AI Programming Work

The Currency of Restlessness

There is a specific kind of vertigo that comes from watching a machine effortlessly perform your life’s work. For Aditya Agarwal, an early Facebook engineer and former CTO of Dropbox, that vertigo hit after a weekend of coding with an AI assistant. His realization was absolute: we will never write code by hand again.

When the specialized skills we have spent decades mastering become free and abundant, the foundation of our professional identity inevitably trembles. Agarwal captures the duality of this moment perfectly, describing it as a mixture of “wonder with a profound sadness.”

“There’s something deeply disorienting about watching the pillars of your professional identity, what you built and how you built it, get reproduced in a weekend by a tool that doesn’t need to eat or sleep.”

The conversation around AI tends to flatten this emotional reality into two distinct camps: the doomers who foresee total replacement, and the boosters who promise a frictionless utopia.

But lived experience is messier. We are capable of holding grief and wonder in the same hand.

We can mourn the craftsmen we were, even as we sprint toward the architects we are about to become.

Because here is the secret about the disorientation of progress: it passes.

Once the initial shock fades, what replaces it is a wild, unconstrained energy.

When the mechanical friction of creation vanishes—when a week’s worth of coding can be accomplished in an afternoon—the scope of our ambition expands. We are no longer limited by the keystrokes we can manage in a day, but by the edges of our imagination. We aren’t watching ourselves become obsolete; we are watching our lifelong constraints dissolve.

This shift is rewriting the social contract of knowledge work, starting with how we evaluate human potential. For decades, the corporate world has relied on a calcified heuristic for hiring: brand-name universities, FAANG experience, and years of tenure. We worshipped the resume.

Now, that playbook is breaking down. In evaluating engineers and founders navigating this transition, Agarwal notes that traditional pedigrees predict almost nothing about a person’s ability to thrive. The new dividing line isn’t generational, and it certainly isn’t educational. It is entirely dispositional.

“The trait that matters most isn’t intelligence, or credentials or years of experience. It’s someone’s relationship with change—not whether they’ve seen change before, but whether they run toward it.”

The new currency of the working world is restlessness.

Restlessness is the refusal to settle into the comfort of the way things used to be. It is the constitution of a builder who cannot stop tinkering, who treats every new AI tool as a puzzle to be solved before the day is out. In an economy where the “how” of knowledge work is increasingly automated, the premium shifts entirely to adaptability, curiosity, and vision.

This democratization of capability forces a deeply uncomfortable, deeply human reckoning. We have to let go of the identities we forged under old paradigms to become whatever comes next.

The technology didn’t create this human challenge—it merely made it impossible to ignore.

Categories
AI Farming History

The Harvest and the Algorithm: What 1990s Farms Teach Us About AI

There’s a strange kind of wisdom hiding in dusty old books about agriculture.

When you’re caught in the middle of a technological revolution—and with AI, there’s no question that we are—it’s tempting to keep your eyes fixed on the horizon. But sometimes the most clarifying thing you can do is look back.

Tracy Alloway at Bloomberg recently pointed to something genuinely instructive from the past: Richard Critchfield’s 1990 book, Trees, Why Do You Wait? America’s Changing Rural Culture, which traced the collapse of the family farm as industrial agriculture swept through the Midwest.

The broad strokes are familiar. As machinery got more expensive and efficiency became everything, scale won. The 80-acre husband-and-wife operation got swallowed by the 2,000-acre neighbor with access to capital. It wasn’t complicated. It was just gravity.

But here’s the part that should make your ears prick up.

The Seed That Was Supposed to Save Everyone

In the late 1980s, agricultural biotechnology arrived with a very specific promise. The idea was almost elegant: if you could bake the magic directly into the seed, you wouldn’t need all that expensive machinery, all those sprawling acres, all that fertilizer. The playing field would tilt back toward the small farmer.

Critchfield quoted an Office of Technology Assessment report from 1986 that captured the mood of the moment:

“The Office of Technology Assessment in 1986 forecast that biotechnology in crops would be more quickly adopted by richer farmers… Others argue that the more that gets built into the seed itself, the more it means higher yields at lower cost… If it reduced farm income, it could work to the smaller farmer’s advantage. As it is with all new technology, it is hard to foresee the consequences.”

You can feel the cautious optimism in that language. Hard to foresee the consequences. The understatement of a century.

What Actually Happened

The biotech did raise yields. Nobody disputes that. What it didn’t do was leave the gains in the hands of the people doing the actual farming.

Thanks to intellectual property law, patent protections, and a level of corporate consolidation that would have seemed cartoonish if you’d predicted it in advance, the value flowed straight upstream. We didn’t get “more in the seed, less paid for inputs.” We got more in the seed, and vastly more paid for proprietary inputs. The tech giants of agriculture captured the surplus. The farmers got the risk.

Now Listen to How We Talk About AI

We are told AI will democratize expertise. That a one-person startup will be able to code like a ten-person engineering team. That a small business will generate world-class marketing copy. That this is, finally, the great leveler.

Sound familiar?

Alloway’s analysis lands hard precisely because it forces the uncomfortable question: who will actually capture this value? The ownership structure of AI looks eerily similar to the agricultural biotech boom—proprietary models, walled-off training data, and a handful of enormous tech companies positioned to act as tollbooths between everyone else and their own productivity gains.

She’s right to note that “the ultimate distribution of benefits isn’t determined by technology alone. Policy also plays a role.” That sentence is doing a lot of quiet work.

If the agricultural analogy holds, productivity gains from AI won’t naturally flow to the individual worker or the small business owner. Without a robust open-source ecosystem or some deliberate policy intervention, those gains will be captured by whoever controls the compute and the models.

Where the Analogy Might Break Down

Here’s where I think there’s room for genuine optimism—not naive optimism, but structurally grounded optimism.

You cannot open-source arable land. Reverse-engineering a patented biological seed is genuinely hard, legally risky, and practically difficult. Code and model weights are different. They’re infinitely replicable. The marginal cost of distribution is essentially zero.

The battle between closed, proprietary AI and open-source models is still very much live. That’s not nothing. AI is fundamentally more commoditizable than a physical farm, and the history of software suggests that open ecosystems have a real shot when the community is motivated enough to build them.

Who Owns the Harvest?

Technology can reshape daily workflows in months. Power structures take decades to budge, if they budge at all. The mistake would be assuming the former automatically changes the latter.

The question worth sitting with isn’t what can AI do—that list gets longer every week. The question is who decides how the productivity it unlocks gets distributed. That’s not an algorithm problem. It’s a political and economic one.

If we want the AI revolution to be a rising tide rather than another tractor paving over the family farm, we have to look past the technology itself. We have to decide, deliberately, who owns the harvest.

Questions to Ponder

On history and pattern recognition: The agricultural biotech optimists weren’t stupid—they were looking at the technology and making reasonable inferences. What does that tell us about the limits of predicting who benefits from a new technology by studying the technology itself?

On open source as a counterweight: The open-source AI movement (Llama, Mistral, DeepSeek) is often framed as a technical story. Should we be thinking about it primarily as a political economy story—a structural check on proprietary capture?

On the role of policy: Antitrust law, data ownership rights, compute access regulation—which levers, if any, seem realistic? And who has the incentive to pull them?

On the worker vs. the firm: If AI raises individual productivity, does the gain show up in wages, prices, profits, or somewhere else? What would need to be true for workers to actually keep a meaningful share?

On commoditization speed: Software and model weights can be replicated freely—but does speed matter? If proprietary models establish deep lock-in before open alternatives mature, does the theoretical commoditizability even help?

Inspired by Tracy Alloway’s analysis at Bloomberg and Richard Critchfield’s Trees, Why Do You Wait? (1990)

Categories
AI India

Intelligence as a Public Good: India’s “AI ka UPI” Revolution

There is a recurring rhythm to human progress: a breakthrough is born as a luxury, matures into a commodity, and ultimately solidifies into infrastructure.

We saw it with electricity, we saw it with the internet, and in 2016, we saw India do it with money through the Unified Payments Interface (UPI). UPI took the friction out of digital finance, transforming it from a walled garden guarded by private banks into a digital public good.

Now, it appears India is attempting to do for intelligence what they did for payments.

The global narrative around Artificial Intelligence is currently dominated at one end by massive private moats. At the other end are various open source/open weight efforts.

Silicon Valley primarily approaches AI as a capital-intensive arms race. Trillion-dollar tech players ramp huge compute, train very large models, and rent out intelligence via by the drink APIs. This intelligence is a proprietary and monetized luxury.

Enter the “AI ka UPI” initiative and the IndiaAI Mission discussed by Ashwini Vaishnaw at this week’s India AI Impact Summit.

Instead of treating AI as a product to be sold, India is architecting it as a Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI). The government is doing the heavy lifting—subsidizing the compute, curating population-scale datasets, and building foundational models.

Currently, they are making over 38,000 GPUs available to startups and researchers at around ₹65 (less than a dollar) an hour, a sheer fraction of the global cost. They are rolling out sovereign stacks like BharatGen and conversational models fluent in 22 regional languages.

“They are building an ‘orchestration layer’ for cognition.”

If a developer wants to build a voice-agent to help a rural farmer diagnose a crop disease, they don’t have to worry about the backend compute, the dataset acquisition, or paying a premium to a tech giant. They just plug into the public rails.

As I watch this unfold, I am struck by the philosophical shift it represents. We have become deeply conditioned to view AI through the lens of scarcity and subscription. But what happens when intelligence becomes a public utility?

It shifts the center of gravity of innovation. It becomes about who can solve the most acute, localized, human problems. The friction of creation drops to near zero. A bootstrapped team in a tier-two city can suddenly wield the same computational reasoning as a VC funded Silicon Valley startup.

There is also an element of sovereignty here. In the 21st century, relying on foreign infrastructure for your population’s cognitive processing seems akin to relying on a foreign nation for your electricity. True technological independence requires sovereign AI—models trained on indigenous data, reflecting local culture, nuances, and values, rather than the implicit biases of others.

The implications could be staggering. We are moving from an era where AI is an elite tool to an era where it is the invisible, ubiquitous fabric of daily life for over a billion people.

The true measure of AI’s ultimate impact won’t be found in benchmark scores on a server farm. It will be found in the quiet dignity of a citizen accessing global markets through a vernacular voice assistant, or a rural clinic predicting patient outcomes with public compute.

I look forward to following India’s AI efforts as this and other AI initiatives are more clearly defined.

Questions to consider

1. The Value of Human Capital: If artificial intelligence becomes as ubiquitous, reliable, and cheap as public electricity, what uniquely human skills will become the new premium in a hyper-automated society?

2. Cognitive Sovereignty: How will the geopolitical landscape shift when emerging economies no longer need to import their “cognitive infrastructure” and inherent cultural biases from Western tech players?

3. The Centralization of Truth: When a government builds and curates the foundational AI models for over a billion people, where is the line between providing a democratized public good and engineering a centralized cultural narrative?

What else???

Categories
AI India

The Polyglot Machine

There is a subtle but profound shift happening in the global architecture of artificial intelligence. For the past few years, the gravitational pull of the AI revolution has been overwhelmingly centralized—anchored in the server farms and venture capital boardrooms of Silicon Valley. But if you look closely at the horizon, the center of gravity is beginning to disperse.

Activity in India’s AI ecosystem is accelerating (witness this week’s India AI Impact Summit in Delhi), and it feels less like a replication of what we’ve seen in the West and more like an entirely new paradigm.

Take Sarvam AI, for example. What strikes me about their approach isn’t just the technical ambition of building foundation models, but the philosophical underpinning of why they are building them. They are focusing heavily on Indic languages. This is not a trivial detail; it is the crux of the matter.

“We often forget that language is the original operating system of human culture. It shapes how we think, how we empathize, and how we conceptualize reality.”

When the foundational models of artificial intelligence are trained overwhelmingly on English, they inadvertently inherit a distinctly Western worldview. They learn the biases, the idioms, and the cultural frameworks of a specific slice of humanity, leaving the rest of the world to interact with technology through a translation layer that often strips away nuance.

India, a nation woven together by dozens of distinct languages and thousands of dialects, presents the ultimate crucible for AI. What happens when a machine doesn’t just translate, but actually “thinks” and generates natively in Hindi, Tamil, or Bengali?

The rise of AI in India represents a push for digital and cultural sovereignty. It is a recognition that the future of technology cannot be a monolith. For AI to truly serve humanity, it must reflect the pluralism of humanity. It must understand the local context, the regional slang, and the deeply rooted cultural histories that define how people live and work.

Watching companies like Sarvam AI pick up momentum reminds me that the next great frontier in technology isn’t just about achieving higher parameters or faster compute times. It’s about representation. The models that will truly change the world won’t just be the smartest; they will be the most deeply attuned to the beautiful, noisy, and diverse chorus of the human experience.

Categories
Creativity Curiosity Living Work

The Human Router

There is a distinct difference between information and wisdom, and often, that difference is measured in velocity. We are accustomed to thinking that faster is better—fiber optic cables, 5G, real-time Slack notifications. We want knowledge to travel at the speed of light.

But Dan Wang, in his book Breakneck, captures a sociological truth about Silicon Valley that defies this obsession with speed:

“When I worked in Silicon Valley, people liked to say that knowledge travels at the speed of beer. Engineers like to talk to each other to solve technical problems, which is how knowledge diffuses.”

It is a charming, slightly irreverent metric, but it points to something profound about how humans solve difficult problems. There is “codified knowledge”—the explicit instructions found in textbooks, API documentation, and internal wikis. This travels instantly. It is frictionless. It is also, usually, insufficient for true innovation.

Then there is “tacit knowledge.” This is the intuition, the heuristic, the war story about why a specific architecture failed three years ago. This knowledge is heavy. It doesn’t travel through fiber optics; it travels through proximity. It requires the social friction of a shared table and the serendipitous collision of two engineers venting about a seemingly unrelated problem.

Crucially, this mechanism requires a specific type of operator: the Connector. These are the unsung heroes of the “speed of beer” economy. They aren’t always the 10x engineers on the leaderboard. They are the “human routers”—the people who instinctively know that the problem you are facing today is the same one Sarah from the Platform team solved last year. They are the ones who drag the introverted genius out to the pub, not to distract them, but to plug them into the grid. They curate the environment where the spark can jump the gap.

In our modern drive for remote efficiency, we are optimizing for the transfer of data. But we must be careful not to optimize away the people who pour the drinks, literal or metaphorical. That slow, liquid diffusion of ideas is often where the real breakthrough hides—steered by those special few who know exactly who needs to talk to whom.

Categories
Interstate 280 San Francisco/California San Jose

The Scenic Route Home

“In a world optimized for speed and engagement, 280 is a reminder that infrastructure can be art.”

It is a strange paradox that in the heart of Silicon Valley—a place defined by the ephemeral, the digital, and the instantaneous—a cherished shared experience is a physical ribbon of highway that hasn’t changed much in fifty years.

My post from last April, “The World’s Most Beautiful Freeway,” has recently found a new wave of readers. I’ve been asking myself: Why? Why does a blog post about Interstate 280, written by a retiree exploring local history, resonate so deeply right now?

Perhaps it’s because I-280 is more than just a commute. As I noted in the original piece, even Sunset Magazine in 1967 recognized it as “a modern and scenic boulevard.” It was a bold claim for a freeway, yet it stuck. While its sibling, US 101, is a clogged artery of billboard-choked utility, 280 feels like a deep breath. It is the “scenic route” we are lucky enough to take right in our own backyard.

There is a powerful nostalgia in that drive. We all remember the sign that used to sit in the median near Cupertino—the one that literally proclaimed it “The World’s Most Beautiful Freeway”—before it vanished. We remember the way the fog rolls over the Santa Cruz Mountains, spilling into the crystal bowl of the reservoir.

But I think the recent interest goes deeper than pretty scenery. We are living in an era of rapid, often disorienting change. I used ChatGPT to help research the history of that road, a small testament to how AI is weaving into our daily inquiries. Yet, the road itself remains a constant. It was designed by engineers like Othmar Ammann and planners who chose the harder, more expensive route through the foothills rather than paving over El Camino Real. They chose beauty over pure efficiency.

That choice resonates today. In a world optimized for speed and engagement, 280 is a reminder that infrastructure can be art. It connects the headquarters of the companies building our future (Apple, Google, Meta) with the wild, golden hills of California’s past. It is a physical timeline of the Peninsula.

Maybe we are revisiting this post because we are craving that balance. We want to know that even as we rush toward the future at freeway speeds, we can still look out the window and see something timeless, something beautiful, something that reminds us where we are.

Categories
AI Living Productivity

The Reality Gap

“I follow AI adoption pretty closely, and I have never seen such a yawning inside/outside gap. People in SF are putting multi-agent claudeswarms in charge of their lives… people elsewhere are still trying to get approval to use Copilot in Teams.” — Kevin Roose

There is a specific kind of vertigo that comes from scrolling through the “Inside” of the AI bubble while the rest of the world simply goes to work. It is the dizziness of watching a new species of behavior emerge—”wireheading” and “claudeswarms”—while the vast majority of the economy is still asking for permission to use a spellchecker.

The future isn’t just unevenly distributed; it is becoming mutually unintelligible.

Roose notes a “yawning inside/outside gap” that feels distinct from previous tech cycles. In one reality—geographically centered in San Francisco and digitally centered in specific discords—people are operating with a level of agency only sci-fi writers dared to imagine. They are deploying multi-agent swarms to manage their lives and consulting large language models for existential guidance.

In the other reality—the one inhabited by the vast majority of the global workforce—people are still waiting for an IT ticket to clear so they can use a basic productivity assistant.

It is tempting to look at this divide solely through the lens of technical access, but Roose hits on a deeper truth: “there seems to be a cultural takeoff happening in addition to the technical one.”

This is the friction of our current moment. It is not just that the tools are different; the permissions we give ourselves to use them are different. The “Inside” is operating with a mindset of radical experimentation and integration. The “Outside” is operating within legacy frameworks of risk mitigation and bureaucratic approval.

The danger of this gap isn’t just economic inequality, though that is a guaranteed downstream effect. The immediate danger is a loss of shared context. When the creators of technology live in a reality where “claudeswarms” run the day, they risk losing the ability to design for, or even empathize with, a world that is still fighting for permission to use the tools at all.

We are living in the same year, but we are no longer inhabiting the same time. The challenge for those of us on the “Inside” is to resist the intoxication of the bubble long enough to build bridges, rather than just building faster escape pods.

Meanwhile, in China (from the Financial Times)…

“I’ve witnessed first hand how China has grown from having zero AI talent 20 years ago to mass producing them,” he said. “Some of our most cutting-edge work is now done by fresh graduates. The real geniuses to change the world soon could well be among them.”