Hathaway Field Notes

"Anthropic's Safety Superpower"

Ben Thompson, on how Anthropic’s safety rationale keeps lining up with its commercial interest:

I expect Anthropic to increasingly expose their model’s capabilities to end users through endpoints increasingly tailored to different workflows, even as they start to restrict the API. This replacement of software and restriction of access will be done in the name of safety.

The company really believes that they are the only ones who believe in super intelligence, and thus are the only ones who are sufficiently concerned about the dangers. That excuses decision after decision, policy after policy.

The history of brilliant people convinced they know what humanity needs is a sordid one, precisely because they have convinced themselves that their intentions are good, justifying actions that very much are not.

John Gruber, linking to the piece, adds the part I keep coming back to:

I tend to think the Anthropic true believers are all wet — that LLMs, amazing though they are, are not a path toward “super intelligence”. But, they used to be clearly behind OpenAI in technical capability, then caught up, and now with Mythos/Fable, they are clearly ahead. I still think they’re wrong about where this is heading, but I don’t think we can say we know they’re wrong.

I agree. I think LLMs are a dead-end when it comes to “super intelligence.” But will they become capable enough to help us find a new approach that can get there, and help build it? That feels more likely to me.

stratechery.com
Anthropic's Safety Superpower

Anthropic's public safety justifications consistently map onto self-serving business imperatives — moving closer to users, retaining data, and restricting competitors' access to frontier capability.

Fox buys the box

The New York Times, on Fox Corp.’s $22 billion deal to acquire Roku:

Since the Disney deal, which slimmed down the family’s media holding significantly, Fox Corp. has focused more narrowly on sports, news and entertainment, along with building up its streaming abilities. The deal with Roku will immediately put Fox Corp. into greater competition with other major providers of connected-TV devices, such as Comcast, which reaches internet and TV customers with proprietary software that binds Comcast to subscribers and provides it with valuable data. As the traditional cable business continues to erode, those devices make TV distributors a key link between customers and streaming services like Netflix and Disney+.

Buying Roku will allow Fox to own a piece of the infrastructure that powers a major chunk of the streaming business. Roku sells TVs that are powered by its proprietary operating system and owns the Roku Channel, a free, ad-supported channel for shows and movies. The company also makes audio devices and sells subscriptions to other streaming services, such as Peacock and Paramount.

The deal with Fox may test Roku’s relationships with rival content companies like Netflix and Amazon, because Roku has thrived by establishing itself as neutral third-party in the entertainment industry. During the question-and-answer session, Mr. Wood said that Roku had experience in that arena, featuring the Roku Channel alongside streaming apps from other media companies.

Interesting move — and one that sits awkwardly with what made Roku valuable in the first place. A platform’s strength is horizontal: it integrates with as many providers as it can and stays neutral among them, so every streaming service wants to be on the box. That neutrality is the product.

And the smart case for the deal depends on it. The value isn’t the box; it’s the scale — an audience large enough that advertisers have to buy — and that scale holds only as long as the rival services stay. So the bull case asks Fox to keep the platform neutral, which is the one thing its ownership gives it every reason to undo.

nytimes.com
Fox to Acquire Roku, Joining the Battle for the Living Room

The $22 billion deal is one of the biggest moves yet by Lachlan Murdoch, who took over for his father as chairman of Fox in 2023.

So why not have all forms of computing?

Horace Dediu, on why each new computing interface tends to add to the others rather than replace them:

The touch UI did not immediately obviate the need for traditional personal computing interfaces. The smartphone brought computing to more people and more contexts but keyboard and pointer computing cannot be fully replaced by touch. We have a situation where there is co-existence between touch and non-touch computing. Indeed we also have sensor computing in the form of Apple Watch and AirPods. Perhaps there were will also be Apple spectacles to expand the compute real estate on the body.

Intent computing will probably reside primarily with our phones and wearables but Spatial Computing will strengthen their position alongside keyboard computing. Spatial was always a “high commitment” interface. To use it you strapped in, settled down and became acclimated. Then you became productive. A session was going to last at least 20 minutes, perhaps even a few hours.

Intent computing is a few seconds of use. Perhaps a few seconds strung out in multiple sessions but it was far more “glance” computing than “sit down” computing.

So why not have all forms of computing?

As the diagram on the coral of life shows, evolution results in a multitude of “form factors”. Some do become extinct (see the scroll wheel iPod or the stylus PDA.) But most survive and coexist.

I agree with Horace. Intent computing will build on top of the platforms we already have, not replace them. An AI pin isn’t going to displace the smartphone. Even when you can just ask your phone to do something, you’ll still pick it up to read, watch, and look things up.

asymco.com
Intent Computing vs. Spatial Computing

You don’t have to choose. In the grand debate on the future of computing, we’ve been led to believe that there was a choice coming, a new interface to replace the touch UI interface tha…

Without human direction, you have compute running in circles.

Satya Nadella, making the case that the model itself becomes a commodity — and that the value moves to the learning loop a company builds on top of it:

Every company is going to have to build what I think of as human capital and token capital. Human capital comprises the knowledge, judgment, relationships, ingenuity, and pattern recognition of its people, while token capital is the firm’s AI capability it builds and owns.

Importantly, human capital does not become less valuable as token capital grows. It only becomes more valuable! I believe human agency will be the driver of token capital growth. Humans will set ambitious goals, connect dots across domains, build relationships, and recognize patterns that matter most. Without human direction, you have compute running in circles.

This means the real opportunity is not in picking the best model but instead in building a learning loop on top of models where human capital and token capital compound. You can offload a task, or even a job, but you can never offload your learning. The future of the firm is the ability to compound that learning across people and AI.

This requires a new architectural approach where every business is able to build agentic systems that improve over time, while still retaining control over their IP. A company should be able to switch out a “generalist” model without losing the “company veteran” expertise built into their learning system. This is the key “test” of your control and sovereignty in the era ahead.

He’s right about the headline: without human direction, you’re leaving compute to wander. The creativity, the instinct, the judgment about what’s worth doing — call it taste — still has to come from people. No model supplies that for you.

But his bias shows in the vision he paints. Microsoft is vulnerable in exactly the future he describes — one where the model-makers absorb the very expertise he’s urging firms to protect. And given the economics, that absorption isn’t a risk they’re guarding against; it’s their imperative to do precisely that.

snscratchpad.com
A frontier without an ecosystem is not stable

I’ve been thinking a lot about the future of the firm in an AI-driven economy.

Measuring the wrong company

3 min read

Companies are taking a hard look at their AI spending and deciding the numbers don’t add up. Uber blew through its entire 2026 AI budget in four months — on a coding tool its engineers couldn’t stop using. Another company spent half a billion dollars before anyone thought to set a limit. Forrester now expects enterprises to postpone about a quarter of their planned AI investment into 2027 because the returns haven’t shown up.

I’ve heard this argument before. It’s the same one people made about the cloud in the early 2010s.

Back then the case against moving to AWS went like this: we already run our own data centers, we run them well, and we run them for less than Amazon would charge us. So why move? On the spreadsheet, the skeptics were often right. A company that had already sunk the capital into its racks and knew how to keep them humming could beat cloud pricing on raw unit cost for years.

They were answering the wrong question.

The cloud was never about running the same workloads for less money. It was about what you no longer had to think about. Moving to AWS turned infrastructure from a capital expense into an operating expense, from a thing you bought, racked, and depreciated into a thing you rented by the hour and stopped paying for the moment you stopped using it.

I lived this one. In my early days as CTO of Mailprotector, our real weakness wasn’t the software — it was everything underneath it: buying, racking, and babysitting the hardware our products ran on. Before AWS was anywhere close to ready to replace a data center, I wrote “AWS as a data center?” in a notebook and circled it. A year or two later we started migrating — and not to save money; the spreadsheet didn’t make that case yet. We did it to stop spending our attention on machines and put it where we could actually differentiate: the software. A couple of years after that, we turned the lights off on our last data center and never looked back. In hindsight it’s hard to separate that one decision from the company’s success — maybe even its survival.

Most companies never framed it that way. They measured the cloud against their own data centers, saw a higher unit cost, and stopped there — and because they already had data centers, the shift didn’t help them. It helped the company that didn’t exist yet. A startup in 2012 could spin up infrastructure that would have required millions in upfront capital a few years earlier, and pay for it out of revenue as it grew. Whole categories of companies got built that couldn’t have raised the money to build themselves the old way.

That generalizes well past the cloud. A general-purpose technology rarely just lowers the cost of what you already do; what it offers is a different cost structure, and different cost structures get used by different companies.

When an established company asks whether AI is worth what it’s spending, the buried question is whether AI makes the current operation cheaper. Often the honest answer is: not by enough to matter. Bolting a model onto a process that was designed around people rarely pays for itself. A lot of the spending getting scrutinized right now genuinely is waste. The scrutiny isn’t wrong.

But “our AI spending isn’t paying off” and “AI doesn’t pay off” are very different conclusions, and the distance between them is exactly where the data-center operators got caught. They weren’t wrong about the numbers. They were measuring the wrong company.

The company that mattered was being built on rented infrastructure, with a cost structure they could never reach by trimming their own. It’s being built again now, with AI in the foundation instead of bolted to the side. That’s the spend worth watching, and it isn’t yours.

March 2016

How secure is an email message?

5 min read

Email is a communication medium that is used by nearly everyone on the Internet. It’s one of the few protocols so widely used, second only to maybe HTTP. That is the power of email. Everyone has it and uses it.

But the security of email is a topic that is often misunderstood. This is largely because there is no single answer to the question, “how secure is an email message?” As a general rule of thumb, by default it should be treated as a very insecure medium of communication. There are ways to secure your email but let’s start out with a discussion of the different pieces at play.

How secure is the email message content?

When discussing the security of an email message, you need to break it up into two pieces. First comes the content of the email message itself.

The most insecure parts of an email message are the sender, recipient, and subject of the message. This information is extremely insecure and visible to anyone who touches the message. Think of it like the names and addresses on the outside of a mail envelope. So you should treat these parts carefully because even if you are using encryption on the email message itself, which we’ll discuss later, these components will not be protected.

This is the virtual envelope with your content on the inside. If you were to come across a letter, how easy would it be to view what’s inside? Not that hard, right? You simply open the envelope. Email messages, by default, are no different. While in transit and once they get to their destination, email messages are like envelopes that anyone with access can open and view the contents.

How secure are email transmissions?

The second aspect of email message security is the transmission of messages from the sender to the recipient. This area is very misunderstood. By default, you have very little control over how a message is handled in transit. Sure, you can make sure your email client is using SSL or TLS when connecting to send the message, and you should, but once you hand it off to the first email server, you are also handing over control on how that message is handled from that point on. Depending on who you are sending the message to it may or may not be transmitted using encrypted connections from hop to hop. This essentially means that the contents of your message could be openly transmitted over the Internet by a bad email provider or ISP. And when this happens, an unencrypted message could be viewed by telcos, ISPs, or government organizations.

Any decent email hosting company will use encrypted connections when receiving and sending email to other email hosts. At Mailprotector, we always default to using TLS encryption for all email message transmissions. Unfortunately many other email hosting companies still don’t support encrypted connections, so whenever you send a message, you have to consider the possibility that it isn’t going to be transmitted securely.

How to make your email more secure

So now we know why email is, by default, a very insecure communication method. But there are ways to make it more secure.

Check your email client settings

Start by checking your email client settings to make sure you are using SSL or TLS in your inbound (receiving) and outbound (sending) connections. Any competent email provider offers this option and if yours doesn’t, switch to one that does immediately. Setting your client to use a secure connection is especially important when using public networks or wifi (like you find at Starbucks) or when on an airplane. Take this recent story by Steven Petrow, a reporter who had his emails hacked mid-air while writing an Apple-FBI story…now that’s irony.

“I hacked your email on the plane and read everything you sent and received. I did it to most people on the flight.” He had verbatim detail of a long email that he repeated back to me essentially word for word.

The victim in this example wasn’t using a virtual private network (VPN) or even SSL/TLS connections when sending and receiving his emails. If you were in a similar situation, anyone on the same network as you could use software to capture the data being transmitted and view it since the data isn’t encrypted. Using SSL/TLS options for sending and receiving email is the bare minimum protection you should have on public networks. Ideally, you should also be using a VPN to protect any data you are transmitting while on public networks.

Look into full encryption options

If the security of your email is a high enough priority, you should also consider encrypting the content of the email messages you send. These technologies protect the actual content inside the message. Based on the mail analogy cited earlier, if someone were to get a hold of your encrypted email message, they wouldn’t be able to view or understand the content. It would be like opening a letter written in code.

A couple of methods for encrypting email content are S/MIME and PGP. However, there is a downside to both of these technologies. Each requires the sender and recipient to exchange encryption keys prior to sending an encrypted message. So there is a barrier to using these technologies and managing the keys can become frustrating. There are better options available.

At Mailprotector, for instance, we offer a way to make email encryption much easier with our Bracket Encrypted Email service. Not everyone needs this level of security, but some people do. Bracket lets you securely send encrypted email containing corporate and financial data, personal info, legal docs, medical records, but it’s much easier for people to use.

Summary: 3 steps to improve email privacy

  1. Check your email client settings to make sure you’re sending and receiving email over encrypted connections
  2. Ask your email provider if they encrypt all email in and out of their networks, and if they don’t find one who does (hint, hint)
  3. Look into the possibility of utilizing full email encryption options

So while email remains one of the most popular and useful communication mediums, it can be quite insecure by default. That said, you do have options when improving the security of your email.

Your goal needs a system

1 min read

The goal is your destination. The system is your vehicle.

The key to accomplishing something significant is not in the large success but in the small successes. These small successes are based on the habits that will continually move you towards accomplishing your goal.

Most people think the secret of goals is to simply set a big goal and then everything else will just magically happen. They aim high and then never take the first step because it seems too big. They view accomplishing the goal as one giant step. This is where most goals fizzle out.

There is an important piece missing here. It’s not enough to just aim for something. Creating a system is the key.

I think there is a place for both goals and systems. However, they work better together than they do separately. You need to set goals to know where you want to go. But setting goals is not enough. You need to have a system that will get you there. The goal is your destination. The system is your vehicle.

The system should be actionable steps that you can consistently perform to move you toward your goal. These consistent steps will form habits. Those habits are the foundation for your system. Once you have a goal, work backwards to determine the habits that will are required to take you to your goal.

Systems people succeed every time they apply their systems, not only when they hit their ultimate goal. These small successes create momentum. And momentum is a powerful thing.

January 2014

Google’s Nest acquisition has very little to do with selling thermostats and smoke detectors in particular. Instead, it’s about Google having the ability to do consumer hardware right, in general.

— John Gruber
daringfireball.net
On Google’s Acquisition of Nest

Google’s Nest acquisition has very little to do with selling thermostats and smoke detectors in particular. Instead, it’s about Google having the ability to do consumer hardware right, in general.

I’ve long had a love affair with Netflix. But perhaps more so than any other service, the relationship has changed over time. Not in a bad way, necessarily — it’s just different. And it’s different, because Netflix is different. It’s a service that keeps re-inventing itself.

That should be obvious to anyone paying attention. But it took this post by Felix Salmon to point out the obvious to me: in its transition to full-on streaming, Netflix is no longer about movies.

Said another way: Netflix has ramped up the “net” and wound down the “flix”.

— MG Siegler
parislemon.com
Netflix, Hold The "Flix"

I've long had a love affair with Netflix. But perhaps more so than any other service, the relationship has changed over time. Not in a bad way, necessarily — it's just different. And it's different,...

December 2013

Knowledge may be priceless, but a higher education is clearly not. University administrators keep hiking tuition, the wages of graduates keep falling, and a whole generation of Americans is struggling under the crushing burden of debt as they postpone their dreams for a tomorrow that may never come.

— Peter Thiel

Berkshire Hathaway, despite a market value now approaching one quarter of a trillion dollars, is managed from a tiny office with a staff smaller than a soccer team’s starting roster. Buffett is not the slave to a corporate calendar jammed with the humdrum inanities of business life like performance assessments, facilities planning, analyst meetings, compliance training, budget reviews and travel. This leaves him time to read and think so that for Buffett the only real difference between a weekday and the weekend is that for two days the markets are closed. Buffett is no fan of spreadsheets or reams of analytical mumbo-jumbo. Facts, a pen, a sheet of paper and an agile mind are his tools.

— Michael Moritz
linkedin.com
The Collected Wisdom of Warren Buffett

There is no greater advertisement for the potent combination of formidable intelligence, commonsense, consistency and self-discipline than Warren Buffett. Tap Dancing to Work, Warren Buffett on Practically Everything, 1966 – 2012, a collection of articles about and by Omaha’s most famous citizen, dr

During the 4-hour meeting, Hsieh talked about how Zappos’ traditional organizational structure is being replaced with Holacracy, a radical “self-governing” operating system where there are no job titles and no managers. The term Holacracy is derived from the Greek word holon, which means a whole that’s part of a greater whole. Instead of a top-down hierarchy, there’s a flatter “holarchy” that distributes power more evenly. The company will be made up of different circles—there will be around 400 circles at Zappos once the rollout is complete in December 2014—and employees can have any number of roles within those circles. This way, there’s no hiding under titles; radical transparency is the goal.

— Quartz
qz.com
Zappos is going holacratic: no job titles, no managers, no hierarchy

Zappos is known for its zany corporate culture. The company’s Q4 “All Hands” meeting in November was aptly-themed “Gone Wild”: one female employee voluntarily climbed into a case filled with tarantulas to win a $250 gift card. The event opened with a Lion King performance put on by employees at the Smith Center in downtown Las Vegas and closed with an after party at the museum next door. Focusing on company culture and customer service is how CEO Tony Hsieh built Zappos into a billion-dollar online retailer. While he’s not getting rid of those priorities, Hsieh is laying the groundwork for a major reorganization.

May 2013

The tax that comes with introducing any new feature into your product is high. I cannot stress this enough. Sure, maybe the new feature isn’t hard to build, maybe it only takes a couple days and a handful of people, maybe it can be shipped and delivered by next week. And maybe the additional cognitive load for a user isn’t high — it’s just an extra icon here, after all, or an extra slot in a menu there. But once your new feature is out there, it’s out there. A real thing used by real people.

— PandoDaily
pandodaily.com
The tax of new
April 2011

A biz monkey is a replaceable, Powerpoint toting, suit wearing, acronym-spewing middle manager business dude drone. They are quick to comment and sneer, slow to actually ship.

People who understand technology and are willing to bend it to their will, on the other hand, are scarce. They can’t be found with a classified ad on Craigslist or in a blind project ad on eLance.

— Andrew Chen
sethgodin.typepad.com
Biz monkey

At 37signals, however, we have a different position on ambition. We’re not big fans of what I consider “vertical” ambition—that is, the usual career-path trajectory, in which a newbie moves up the ladder from associate to manager to vice president over a number of years of service. On the other hand, we revere “horizontal” ambition—in which employees who love what they do are encouraged to dig deeper, expand their knowledge, and become better at it. We always try to hire people who yearn to be master craftspeople, that is, designers who want to be great designers, not managers of designers; developers who want to master the art of programming, not management.

— Jason Fried
inc.com
Master craftspeople
March 2011

“I'll just give you a new one”

That is what was said to me after about 30 seconds of me explaining why I was bringing my 8 month old Magic Trackpad back in. It was that easy and the customer (me) was happy.

I purchased the Magic Trackpad back in July 2010 when they were released and from the get go, it was having weird issues where it would randomly get a mind of its own and start moving around erratically and even clicking on things. It finally reached a point where it closed windows that I was working in and I lost information. At that point I threw it aside and went back to a Magic Mouse.

Months later I came across it again and realized I had forgot to take it back. I figured they didn’t have any reason to help me with it now because it had been so long but since Apple has taken good care of me many times before I thought I would give it a shot.

I took it in its original box back to the Apple Store in Greenville, SC and explained my story. No half truths or trying to get around the fact I just waited a long time to bring it back. Sarah helped me out and gave me a new one. No questions asked. No stupid forms to fill out. The simplicity of her solution was great. “I’ll just give you a new one.” This is why I buy and recommend Apple products to others. Not just because their products are great, but because they care about their customers and making them happy.

By the way, the new Magic Trackpad works great. No issues at all.

February 2011

Build a company to own it

The idea of building a company to flip it has always annoyed me. There is a fundamental flaw in that plan. When you are faced with the tough decisions, you tend to take the quick and easy road. That is not going to be the best choice for the long term health of the company or product. It takes time to develop a good company or product.

It’s not only good software that takes a decade to develop, good companies do too. If you agree that’s true, it follows that you wouldn’t want promising entrepreneurs to go chasing waterfalls before they know how to paddle in the pond. Or something like that.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that I want to see evolution get a chance to work its magic, but if great products and companies keep getting abandoned or bought after 3-5 years, there’ll be less of that. And that’s a damn shame.

I’ve always thought you should build a company to own it. This leaves you with good options for the long term. If you decide to keep it, you have done things the right way without cutting corners. And if you decide to sell it, you have made it much more valuable. After all, if you built something that you want to own, someone else is likely to feel the same way and even pay more for it.

37signals.com
The obsession with next

The tech world is obsessed with what’s next. It has become so used to the constant flow of new products and new companies that newness itself has been placed on a pedestal. But outside of a few breakthroughs here and there, most things that are good are good because they got there slowly. …

July 2007

Pushing Safari on the Apple iPhone to the limit

Apple did a great thing when they put their full Safari web browser on the Apple iPhone. The functionality of the Safari browser paired with an unlimited data plan from AT&T, or even better a Wi-Fi hot spot, turns your iPhone into a mini laptop.

I just purchased the iPhone this weekend while on a business trip and on the way home, I found a deal on an item on eBay that I really wanted to bid on. My first thought was to call my brother and have him login and place the bid for me. This is what I would have normally done in the past.

Then I realized, I have everything I need to buy something on eBay with my iPhone.

Right before the auction ended, I jumped on my iPhone, opened up Safari and went to eBay.com. Placed my bid for the item and a few minutes later received an email, on my iPhone, that said I had won the item.

This is only one great example of how useful and powerful the iPhone device is. Try doing the same thing I did with this on a traditional cell phone. I know it can be done on some smart phones but not nearly as easy and as quickly as I was able to do with the iPhone.

The Safari web browser on the iPhone opens up a huge world of opportunities for iPhone specific web applications. But it is not limited to only web applications designed for it, you can use the iPhone Safari web browser with pretty much any existing web site.

Think about how much functionality is available to you right there in that one feature of the iPhone.

January 2007

Apple iPhone: simplicity at its best

1 min read

When I read the initial news about the Apple iPhone, I was excited to see what Apple had come up with.

I had no idea that I would be as impressed as I was after watching all of the iPhone demo videos.

Once again Apple has made all other related devices look like a complicated mess with their simple approach to user interfaces.

Apple has set a new bar for cell phone technology that all other companies are going to have to match. Even the most elegant of cell phones like the LG Chocolate series of phones looks obsolete next to the iPhone.

One thing I was tired of hearing about new cell phones on the market is how nice the built in cameras are and that being a key selling point for the phone. You will not see one mention of the built in camera in Apples demo because even though it is there, it is not the reason you should want the iPhone.

Apple has done what all other cell phone manufacturers should do and built a personal communications device instead of adding all sorts of useless features to the already over complicated devices that are out there. And especially recently with the approach of a “new” model being the same old phone in multiple colors.

The hardest part now is waiting until July when they are expected to be released. I am glad that I already am a Cingular customer. If this phone really lives up the expectations, it would be reason enough for anyone to switch to Cingular if necessary for the iPhone.