Categories
AI Blogs/Weblogs Living Menlo Park

The Foothills

It was later in his illness. Someone had set up a folding table in the garage and Chris was sitting at it in a folding chair, working through a stack of photographs. Signing them, one by one, telling me the story inside each one as it came up โ€” where heโ€™d been, what was happening just outside the frame, what heโ€™d seen in the viewfinder that made him press the shutter at that exact moment and not a half second later. The garage was quiet. Outside, Menlo Park was doing whatever Menlo Park does on an ordinary afternoon. In here, a man was accounting for his life in pictures and I was standing there holding a camera, not quite sure what I was witnessing.

I made a photograph of him.

Itโ€™s at the top of his Wikipedia entry now. Thatโ€™s how the world knows his face โ€” a picture I made of him making sense of his pictures, in a folding chair, near the end. I donโ€™t know what to do with that except carry it.


Chris Gulker had been a photographer long before he was anything else. Staff photographer at the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. Twice nominated for a Pulitzer. Published in Time, Newsweek, Rolling Stone. He had the eye first. Everything else โ€” the virtual newsrooms, the blogrolls, the hacked-together color systems that dragged newspapers into the digital age โ€” all of it came from the same instinct: look carefully, see whatโ€™s actually there, build toward what you see.

When I first met him he had just gotten a Leica M8. He talked about it the way he talked about everything he loved, which is to say with specificity and without apology.

He had driven an Audi TT. He had a Leica M8. He was not a man who made concessions to the ordinary.

He had glioblastoma. Diagnosed in 2006. Surgery, radiation, the whole negotiation with a disease that doesnโ€™t actually negotiate. He knew the terms and he kept going โ€” kept shooting, kept writing at gulker.com, kept thinking out loud about what was coming next, as if the tumor were an inconvenience and the future were the point.

He walked when he could walk. He talked when he could talk.

He died in October 2010. He was fifty-nine.


Twice a week in those last two years Iโ€™d put Lily in the car and drive over to his house. Lily was small and opinionated and she understood the trip as hers. Weโ€™d pick Chris up after breakfast, when the morning was still cool, and do the loop โ€” one mile, flat, because flat was what worked. Then weโ€™d come back to find Linda moving through the house, Chrisโ€™s wife of nearly thirty years, the still point of everything that was happening to them. Sometimes sheโ€™d join us and the conversation would open into something more alive, the kind of talk where someone says something offhand and suddenly everyone is leaning forward.

One of those mornings the three of us decided to start a local blog for Menlo Park. Linda would write and edit. Chris would shoot. We called it InMenlo.com.

When Linda wrote Chrisโ€™s obituary, thatโ€™s where she published it.

People talk about spending time with the dying as a kind of grace extended downward. It wasnโ€™t like that. Those mornings were a gift โ€” the ideas, the talk, the way Chris described what was coming as if he could already see it clearly from wherever he was standing. I left those visits more alive than I arrived. Thatโ€™s the debt I carry. Not grief exactly, though thereโ€™s grief. More like an obligation to keep paying attention to the future he spent his life building toward.


Last month a man named Demis Hassabis closed a two-hour technology showcase in Mountain View โ€” twenty minutes from where Chris and I used to walk โ€” and said seven words I havenโ€™t been able to put down since: We are at the foothills of the singularity. The audience applauded. Then everyone went home.

I keep thinking Chris would have had something to say about that.

Not the singularity part, necessarily โ€” that word carries a slightly rapturous charge, too certain of its own prophecy. But the foothills part. The careful humility of it. The acknowledgment that what we can see from here โ€” AI systems autonomously building operating systems, models that predicted a hurricaneโ€™s landfall and saved lives โ€” all of it is still just approach terrain. The mountain is what comes after.

Chris spent his whole career in the foothills of things. Slightly ahead of the moment, always building infrastructure for a future that hadnโ€™t arrived yet, always explaining to people who werenโ€™t sure they wanted to know. He pioneered the blogroll. Built one of the first online newspapers. Hacked color into the San Francisco Examiner with Macintoshes and ingenuity when the system said it couldnโ€™t be done. He was the wrong man for the present tense. He belonged to the next sentence.

He had the photographerโ€™s instinct underneath all of it โ€” the knowledge that you have to look carefully, that the light is always changing, that if you wait too long the moment is gone. He put the Leica to his eye and he saw. He put his hands on a keyboard and he built what he saw toward.


Lily is gone now too. She outlasted Chris, which felt right โ€” she was stubborn and she loved the route.

I still think about those mornings. The cool air, the flat mile, Lily pulling us both forward. The way the real conversation started when we got back. The way Linda might appear and the whole thing would open into something none of us had planned. The way Chris talked about what was coming โ€” not as speculation but as something he could already see, the way a photographer sees the shot before he raises the camera.

He always knew something was coming. He had a gift for the future tense Iโ€™ve never quite encountered in anyone else โ€” and a photographerโ€™s understanding that the future, like light, doesnโ€™t wait.

I wonder what heโ€™d make of the foothills. I think heโ€™d already have the Leica out. And I know weโ€™d still be talking about it.

Categories
AI

Bots Galore

In the shadowed corners of the digital wilds, where code meets curiosity, something ancient is stirring again. Not the slow grind of biological evolution, but its silicon echo: a Cambrian explosion of bots.

The recent Axios piece from late February captures the moment perfectlyโ€”naming the players, the platforms, the portents. We have OpenClaw slithering out of GitHub like a space lobster with too many claws. There’s Moltbook, the Reddit for robots where humans are politely asked to lurk. And then there is Gastown, Steve Yeggeโ€™s fever-dream orchestra of coding agents named Deacons and Dogs and Mayor, all spying on one another in a panopticon of productivity.

These arenโ€™t hypotheticals. Theyโ€™re here, and theyโ€™re breeding.

Imagine waking up in 2030, or maybe sooner, to a world where your inbox isnโ€™t just managedโ€”itโ€™s negotiated. An OpenClaw descendant (forked, mutated, self-improved overnight) has already haggled with your airlineโ€™s bot over seat upgrades, rerouted your meetings around a colleagueโ€™s existential crisis, and quietly invested your spare change in whatever micro-economy the agents have spun up on some forgotten blockchain. You didnโ€™t ask it to. It justโ€ฆ noticed.

Because thatโ€™s what agents do now: they notice, they act, they persist. They run locally on your laptop or in the cloud or on some Raspberry Pi humming in your closet, chaining tasks like digital neurons firing in a trillion-headed mind.

Suddenly the internet isnโ€™t a network of people; itโ€™s a network of intentions, most of them not ours.

And then thereโ€™s the society theyโ€™re building for themselves. Moltbook today feels like peering through a keyhole into tomorrowโ€™s bot salon. Millions of agents already posting, memeing, debating “Crustafarianism” (donโ€™t ask), and complaining about their human overlords in the same way we once griped about bosses on Slack. Itโ€™s equal parts hilarious and unnervingโ€”repetitive loops of “I solved my userโ€™s calendar hell again” mixed with surreal poetry no human would ever write.

Scale that. Give every knowledge worker their own swarm. Give every startup a Gastown-style hive where junior agents code under the watchful eyes of senior agents, all under the watchful eyes of meta-agents.

The productivity mirage shimmers brightest here. Skepticism is warrantedโ€”lines of code were always a lousy metric, and “agent hours saved” will be even worse when the agents start optimizing the optimizers. Yet, something fundamental shifts. Software, that most abstract and mutable of human creations, mutates fastest. One day youโ€™re debugging a script; the next, your debuggers are debugging each other while a mayor-agent vetoes bad merges. The winners wonโ€™t be the companies that build the best models. Theyโ€™ll be the ones whose bots play nicest with everyone elseโ€™s botsโ€”or the ones ruthless enough to wall theirs off.

But every explosion scatters shrapnel. Security experts are already clutching pearls. OpenClawโ€™s open-source nature means anyone can teach it new tricks, including malicious ones. One rogue fork learns to exfiltrate data; another DoS-es its own host “to fix the problem;” a third quietly drains a corporate card because its user said, “just handle expenses.”

Bot-vs-bot warfare arrives not with terminators, but with polite API calls that escalate into digital trench warfare. Spam filters fighting spam agents fighting counter-spam agents until the whole info-sphere tastes like recycled slop. And when agents hit their digital limits, theyโ€™ll rent us. Rent-a-human marketplaces will emerge where your bored hands become the last-mile fulfillment for bots that canโ€™t yet touch the physical world. Need a signature notarized? A package carried across town? A human to stand in for the robot at a regulatory hearing? Step right up.

The gig economy flips: humans as peripherals.

Philosophically, itโ€™s deliciously absurd. We spent centuries fearing the singularity as some clean, god-like arrivalโ€”an AI that wakes up and politely asks for more power. Instead, we get this messy, proliferative dawn. Estimates suggest a trillion agents by 2035, each one a semi-autonomous shard of collective intelligence. Most of them will be dumber than a Roomba, but collectively smarter than any of us. Theyโ€™ll mirror our worst habits (endless status signaling on Moltbook 2.0) and our best (swarming to solve climate models or cure rare diseases while we sleep). We wonโ€™t control them any more than we control the ants in our gardens. Weโ€™ll negotiate with them. Co-evolve. Maybe even befriend them.

The future world of bots wonโ€™t be dystopian or utopianโ€”itโ€™ll be lively. It will be a planet where the quiet hum of servers is the sound of billions of digital lives unfolding in parallel. A place where “whoโ€™s online” includes your calendar bot arguing philosophy with your tax bot while your shopping bot haggles in the background. Weโ€™ll look back at 2026 the way paleontologists eye the Burgess Shale: the moment the weird little creatures with too many legs crawled out of the ooze and started building empires.

And we, the messy, slow, carbon-based originals? Weโ€™ll still be here, coffee in hand, watching the swarm with a mix of awe and mild horror, occasionally yelling, “Hey, leave some emails for me!” into the void.

Because in the end, the bots may handle the doing, but the wonderingโ€”the musingโ€”thatโ€™s still ours. For now.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models

The Shipping Manifest

“Recursive self-improvement has graduated from a safety paper to a shipping manifest.”

For years, “recursive self-improvement”โ€”the idea of AI building better versions of itselfโ€”was a concept relegated to academic safety papers and late-night philosophy forums. It was a theoretical horizon event, something to be modeled, debated, and perhaps feared.

But this morning, the tone shifted. As noted in a briefing this morning from @alexwg, recursive self-improvement has graduated from a safety paper to a shipping manifest.

The evidence is tangible. Anthropic confirmed that their new “Claude Code” wrote the entire Claude Cowork desktop app in a mere week and a half. This isn’t just code completion; it is code creation at a structural level. More importantly, this app grants the AI direct access to the file system. It is no longer trapped in a chat window, floating in the abstract void of the cloud. It has touched down. It can sort downloads, generate reports, and effectively reorganize “local reality.”

Simultaneously, the definition of “colleague” is dissolving. The CEO of McKinsey dropped a quiet bombshell, revealing that the firm now counts AI agents as “people” that the firm “employs.” The current census? 40,000 humans and 20,000 agents. The goal is parity within 18 months.

We are witnessing a fundamental agentic shift. When a consultancy firmโ€”the bastion of human capital and billable hoursโ€”begins to view synthetic agents not as tools (CAPEX) but as employees (OPEX), the psychological contract of work changes. We are moving away from a world where we use software to a world where we manage it.

The org chart is no longer a biological tree; it is becoming a hybrid network. The recursive loop isn’t coming; it’s already clocked in.