agi son 👾 retweeted
Yesterday was my last day at Anthropic.
I created Claude Code on desktop because I believe everyone can be a builder. Every feature request and bug report we got from this community was a gift that impacted millions of lives. I’m eternally grateful for those gifts, the product wouldn’t be what it is without you.
Anthropic is doing some of the most important work of our time. Contributing to that mission will forever be a career highlight for me. I never imagined I’d get to contribute to something so special in my lifetime.
Walking away from my best friends, a product I poured my heart into, and the mission was the hardest thing I’ve done in my career. But now I have some free time for GTA VI.
I'm already itching to get back to addressing all your feedback. I'll share what's next soon!
For a founder, it gets easier when you realize you’re essentially getting paid to play.
Even if you don’t win big financially, you gain unique experience and network.
Of course, opportunity cost is real, and not every founder is making smart bets.
But net-net it’s a win-win.
saas are mom and pop shops of the internet
small amount of people like them
rollup funds kind of like them
labs love them
build the product people love
Data brokers are now buying up SaaS data sets for anywhere from $100K to $2M
SaaS are struggling now and some extra money to fill the gap by declining revenues is nice
That data is then re-sold to AI training companies and AI frontier labs for the exact purpose of integrating whatever that SaaS did into the AI frontier lab's app
Pretty obvious to see where this is going
>be me
>get fired
>raise $10m for your vertical ai startup
>buy daily ads on banner planes in sf
>get disappointed by weak pmf
>fire everyone. say you’re agentic first
>shut it down
>sell 4 years of slack to a lab
>2x return
>call it a successful exit
Choose where to live not because of the hype, but because of the phase you’re in and what you’re trying to compound.
love when @rauchg is cooking!
Muse, Instinct, OpenClaw, Claude Code…
All successful agents have 3 key components:
🧠 Brain → model, harness (logic)
👐 Hands → tools, computer, browser
🗃️ Files → memories, skills, repos
The 'easy' way is to throw all these in 1 stateful computer (a Mac Mini)
Like, you run 𝚌𝚕𝚊𝚞𝚍𝚎 or 𝚏𝚡 in your mac, you keep it running all day with 𝚌𝚊𝚏𝚏𝚎𝚒𝚗𝚊𝚝𝚎, it has storage, and CLIs and apps installed.
But if you want to cost-efficiently run agents in the cloud, you actually start breaking down these parts.
🧠 The harness can run in Fluid compute. To make it reliable across restarts, rollouts, crashes, you make its event log durable using Workflow.
👐 The hands can be a dedicated browser fleet like Browserbase/Kernel, a computer like Sandbox, and even more efficient lightweight tools like just-bash.
🗃️ 🆕 What was missing was a way to also decouple storage. Imagine you want to run a memory consolidation cron job every night ("dreaming"). You can read/write to the files directly without 'booting up' the agent's full computer.
Today we're introducing the perfect companion to Sandbox: Drives. We shipped the computer for agents, now we're giving you the 'external disk' you can attach at will. It's early, and we'll be expanding capabilities here quickly.
Btw, breaking apart the agent into these independent parts not only optimizes costs in a big way, it also *massively* improves security and auditability. I'd argue you can't even run a secure agent otherwise!
🤔
>be me
>discover effective altruism
>apparently normal charity is inefficient
>why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing
>fair enough
>buy mosquito nets
>save lives
>numbers look good
>feel powerful
>couple years later
>someone asks an innocent question
>why only count people alive today
>huh
>future people matter too
>obviously
>my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet
>reasonable.jpg
>keep following logic
>what about their grandchildren
>also yes
>what about people in 500 years
>sure
>5000 years
>why not
>500 million years
>starting to get weird but morality is morality
>open calculator
>humanity could survive for an astronomically long time
>could colonize galaxy
>could have trillions upon trillions of descendants
>maybe digital people too
>maybe simulated civilizations
>maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds
>calculator starts smoking
>realize currently living humans are rounding error
>8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta
>future contains potentially 10^something people
>can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets
>new moral priority unlocked
>protect the long-term future
>stop thinking in units of "people helped"
>start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved"
>malaria?
>terrible
>but only kills existing humans
>AI extinction could delete the entire light cone
>nuclear war could permanently derail civilization
>bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years
>someone invents wrong constitution in 2140
>quadrillions suffer
>better fund governance workshop now
>friend says maybe we should improve hospitals
>explain opportunity cost
>friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people
>explain scope sensitivity
>friend stops inviting me to dinner
>need to decide what to fund
>easy
>expected value
>suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction
>sounds tiny
>but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives
>multiply
>mother of god
>$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies
>charity evaluation complete
>someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from
>expert judgement
>which expert
>us
>how calibrated
>extremely thoughtfully
>reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative
>still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude
>epistemic robustness achieved
>someone says maybe project doesn't work
>assign 20% chance
>still astronomical
>maybe project makes problem worse
>assign 5% chance
>still astronomical
>why 5
>because 30 felt pessimistic
>publish 46-page report
>contains seventeen sensitivity analyses
>every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign
>critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities
>yes
>that's literally why it's important
>critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical
>make probability smaller
>critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong
>make probability smaller again
>critic begins rubbing temples
>discover AI safety
>perfect longtermist cause
>AI might kill everyone
>or create utopia
>or seize galaxy
>or tile universe with paperclips
>or create billions of conscious software minds
>finally a problem with numbers big enough for me
>start AI safety nonprofit
>mission: prevent dangerous AI
>hire smartest people available
>smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI
>interesting
>we must understand capabilities to understand safety
>we must scale models to study alignment
>we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first
>we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong
>we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous
>outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies
>complicated field
>company releases stronger model
>very concerned
>company begins training even stronger model
>extremely concerned
>company raises $14 billion
>concern reaches unprecedented levels
>need to influence government
>future is at stake
>normal democratic process too slow
>politicians don't understand exponential curves
>public doesn't understand x-risk
>experts must guide them
>who counts as expert
>people who understand x-risk
>who understands x-risk
>our friends
>someone objects that this seems politically convenient
>explain we're representing future generations
>future generations unavailable for comment
>develop concept of value lock-in
>terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever
>therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in
>whose values
>let's circle back
>begin with impartial morality
>end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want
>beautiful arc
>meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things
>voting wrong
>having parochial attachments
>loving family more than strangers
>caring about local community
>getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible
>evolutionary biases everywhere
>explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted
>except intuition that future digital people count
>and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad
>and intuition that our probability estimates are sane
>and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future
>those intuitions survived peer review
>someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter
>inefficient
>could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher
>think of all the simulated people you just killed
>okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly
>PR team says "future generations deserve a voice"
>much better
>journalist asks what longtermism means
>say "future people matter"
>everyone agrees
>great
>journalist asks what follows from that
>well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures
>journalist raises eyebrow
>return to "future people matter"
>motte has entered the chat
>critic: of course future people matter
>me: glad we agree
>critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them
>me: why do you hate our grandchildren
>eventually notice uncomfortable implication
>if future value dominates everything
>then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future
>education matters because future institutions
>health matters because future productivity
>democracy matters because future trajectory
>human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy
>see starving child
>feel compassion
>check spreadsheet
>child's direct welfare contribution negligible
>but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality
>compassion restored
>tell myself this is impartial altruism
>one day assistant asks obvious question
>"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?"
>silence
>open spreadsheet
>increase column width
>add confidence interval
>assistant asks again
>"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?"
>stare into cosmic light cone
>10^50 people staring back
>none of them exist
>none of them can tell me
>none of them can falsify my assumptions
>realize I have invented the perfect constituency
>infinitely important
>completely silent
>and always represented by me
agi son 👾 retweeted
Yep! Directed cyberattacks and harms caused by specific AI agents should make individuals/ companies liable for the outcomes, which will align very quickly what people decide to do at these labs. don’t understand the whole alignment debate, isn’t this a common sense ?
