Management is a tool used by people with their own motivations to acheive their goals. But a lack of management lets those same people acheive those same goals in different ways. Whether that's starting up duplicate projects and products, causing chaos and confusion by inserting themselves into topics that don't concern them, or simply picking fights. The same people get along in any organisation, the tool of management is just the easiest to spot from below.

I don't know what you think market forces are going to do here?

At the end of the day though, he doesn't address the clearest problem with these backdoors which is that the payoff value of being able to blanket unencrypted cloud data is of such high value it's extremely likely to get exploited, and for the average person you're more worried about being exposed as part of a broad attack on infrastructure not a targeted attack on your individually.

It's also pretty difficult to give credence to the idea that they need this tool to tackle CSAM or organised crime. The reason you can't believe that is because they don't tackle CSAM or organised crime by and large. The UK government simply hasn't prioritized policing that, so we're not in a context of "we're doing all we can but we need more powers", we're in the context of "We can't be bothered, curtail people's rights so our job is easier". I'm sure Apple is not in favour of CSAM, but Apple isn't a member of the British police responsible for investigating and tackling CSAM, why are we trying to recruit them to be?

[1]https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1893936287477912035

Let's say the model is mediocre. Do you think Karpathy could come out on X and say "this model sucks"? Or do you think that even if it sucks people are going to come out and say positive things because they don't want the blow back?

This is a real issue - I once got approached by a recruiter for a company, it was a good fit, I think I would've walked the interview and been a great hire - I'd heard of them before. The founder had acted like a dick head to one of my friends, I just immediately turned it down. There is a cost to very publicly treating people poorly. People don't seem to understand that these things that big companies might get away with due to scale, smaller companies cannot. People talk.

Because fundamentally I think there is an effect where the people in proximity to lots of money earn more. Obviously the Walmart receptionist and the JP Morgan receptionist are doing basically the same job. But the JP Morgan receptionist is surrounded by people who wouldn't think twice about doubling the receptionists pay and I would imagine that has a significant effect.

So what we'll probably end up with is real self driving Waymos all over the place and fake self-driving Teslas that 'self-drive' as long as you're still really driving.

The only real concern I have is whether Musk exploits his position to impact the regulations to push both Waymo and Tesla into a bucket called "self-driving" where they get categorized the same and both still require drivers, essentially using the regulations to knee cap any rival that is ahead of Tesla.

The other side of it is that I think we'd all be very happy if Musk went back to just lying about his electric vehicles.

Take a look at Aaron Swartz's case for example, people may be sympathetic to his motives but he still got pursued for a 50 year federal sentence and ended up killing himself.

Also, given that this is the author's work laptop, what's the economic justification for not investing in the primary tool you use for work?