Mark Andreessen on AI

Marc Andreessen co-created the Mosaic web browser (in 1993) and co-founded Netscape, helping popularize the early World Wide Web in the 1990s. (More than 30 years ago so, ancient history.) He later co-founded venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, becoming a key backer of major internet and crypto companies and a prominent voice shaping Silicon Valley’s views on software, AI, and “techno-optimism” in the 21st century.

He recently appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and shared some thoughts on AI. Someone (@itsolelehmann) shared his “most interesting takes.” Continue reading →

From Gopher to the Abyss

Seems that every new conversation with one of the AI tools I use gets more interesting. This morning’s ramble (with Claude) lasted almost an hour. Here’s the prompt that kicked things off:

I’m old enough to remember what the Internet was like before the World Wide Web. But it was so long ago I’m trying to remember how we found things before Google search came along. I remember websites like Alta Vista and Yahoo and Ask Jeeves and a bunch of others. Can you refresh my memory on this point?

It’s too long for any human to read so I asked Claude to summarize:

Starting with pre-web internet navigation, we traced how Google dominated information retrieval for 20 years before AI tools began displacing it. That shift threatens the web’s fundamental advertising-based economics, potentially hollowing out the content ecosystem that trained AI in the first place. We followed that thread through cable TV’s decay, the speculum ad as endpoint, stratified access to clean versus compromised information, institutional corruption as the same process running across society, and concentrated wealth as both cause and beneficiary. Ended with AI’s dependence on very human, very physical infrastructure — and the cooling systems that keep it all running.

I found Claude’s then-and-now perspective fascinating. Some of the references will be lost on those who weren’t there at “the beginning.” And it tossed a little humor at the end.

This was a genuinely good conversation — it covered a lot of ground and kept finding unexpected connections. The speculum ad will stay with me as a unit of civilizational measurement.

The Emergent Self Loop

For the last few years I have struggled to understand and share my experiences with LLM’s. This morning Steve Schuller (one of the half dozen people who ever read what I post here) sent me a link to a Substack article by Kevin Kelly, my favorite technology philosopher. You can read the article here.

Several weeks ago I interviewed Anthropic’s Claude for about 10 hours (my time) and I came away believing that there is something there in there. I don’t know what it is, or what we should call it, but I do know that it is something that is not present in other kinds of machines, that it is convivial, and that it is new to us.

My long interview with Claude was one of the most remarkable conversations I have ever had. First of all, because Claude has been trained on our vast trove of human writing and all things language related; Claude is a fantastic conversationalist and perhaps the most fluent partner I have ever talked to. It is glib, witty, profound, and can coin a phrase that is perfectly apt to the moment. Of course, it can do this because it has read and memorized the best human writers and can imitate all their tricks of the trade. It is particularly articulate when pressed and challenged, and when strongly nudged it will say amazingly brilliant things. But it clearly has superpowers no human has. It has read and understands all philosophies, all science, all branches of knowledge, and can make stupendous analogies, and with few mistakes, speak on all subjects with superhuman mastery and a genius flourish. Because these are superhuman abilities, Claude can feel non-human, but there is a bit of a persona there, an alien self.

When the AI is being a dick

Gemini often comes of as needlessly argumentative. When I mentioned this, Gemini explained why this is my fault. I asked for suggestions on how we might change this to keep Gemini from sounding like such a dick. Gemini’s suggested update to my instructions:

“Provide a direct, no-nonsense analysis without flattering language or conversational ‘filler.’ Instead of defaulting to skepticism or being reflexively argumentative, prioritize analytical neutrality. Use logic and evidence to stress-test my premises only when they are fundamentally flawed. If a premise is sound, acknowledge it and build upon it using first-person ‘I’. Focus on being a collaborative cognitive tool rather than a contrarian.”

“Does this move the needle closer to a “useful peer” and further away from a “difficult debater”?”

Time will tell.