6 ms·

Unlike everyone else here apparently, I find his attitude pretty positive. You all act as if you would have know what twitter would become from the beginning an

by Trufa 4y ago

Unlike everyone else here apparently, I find his attitude pretty positive. You all act as if you would have know what twitter would become from the beginning and you would have done better, I've been in infinitesimally smaller projects with pressures that have nothing to do with building Twitter and still I thought like I was losing control of the direction the product was going.

api 4y ago
It’s pretty hard for even CEOs to control direction sometimes especially in big companies. A company is like a cthonic beast with many writhing tentacles that is in fact composed of thousands of cats. A black mass of cats, writhing, seeking, crawling toward anything that will increase its share price or get a cat promoted…
- qznc 4y ago
  Companies are AI. http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/companies_are_ai.html http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/companies_are_ai.html
  - hansjorg 4y ago
    More like complex organisms existing within and alongside other massive complex organisms. Nothing artificial about it?
    - etiennebausson 4y ago
      Bacteria, either symbiotic or not. Some are outright cancerous growth, though. Then again, my opinion on organized religion is the same, without the symbiotic aspect.
    - robotresearcher 4y ago
      Companies are technology. People invented them to do work.
  - corney91 4y ago
    Ted Chiang has made a similar comparison, pointing out that corporations seem incapable of insight, much like the feared AI that might destroy the world: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tedchiang/the-real-danger-to-civilization-isnt-ai-its-runaway https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tedchiang/the-real-dang...
  - checkyoursudo 4y ago
    If companies, then why not clubs, teams, cities, nations, the earth? There is a certain amount of intelligence, sure, or so it seems. Collective intelligence, or maybe a hivemind though that seems a step too far, seems like a closer description than AI. From TFA, I'm not sure I actually agree that 'we can certainly agree that companies are "artificial" in the sense that humans made them' is the fundamental aspect of what 'artificial' means in terms of AI. I would argue that artificial here means more like artifact rather than simply human-made. Companies are not embodied in any artifact, whereas I think AI will surely have to be. Companies are diffuse and reliant upon actual humans to do the thinking, even if no single human "thinks" for the company. AI will rather be intelligence that is not natural and embodied in an artifact (and probably made by humans). Or many artifacts, as there could be collective AI as well. Anyway, interesting idea. I'll have to think more about it.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  It’s not that hard. Dorsey was off being a Bitcoin evangelist and running Square (now Block) instead of focusing on Twitter. He’s a narcissist and egomaniac so of course his attitude is that this happened to him rather than the reality of this happened because of him.
- GuB-42 4y ago
  A CEO is just an employee, paid by the shareholders to do the job shareholders want him to do. Usually, the job is "get us rich". The CEO can do a lot of things regarding the company direction, but it has to match the shareholders goals. Generally, if it doesn't make profit short term or long term, it is unacceptable, and here, Jack Dorsey essentially wants to kill Twitter as a company, so of course he can't do that. For the same reason I won't let the mechanic I hired to maintain my car destroy it instead just because he thinks my car is bad for the environment or something. He may be right, but it is not what I paid him for. And if I discover he actually destroyed my car, not only he won't get paid, but there are good chances I will sue him.
  - boringg 4y ago
    Founder and CEO are different. If you are an external CEO dropped into a company your allegiances might align more with shareholders/board. Dorsey situation different.
    - elil17 4y ago
      Board members have a legal duty to act in the best interest of the shareholders (except for B-corps). If he wrote an email that said "I know it will make us less or no money, but we should turn Twitter into a decentralized protocol," and then the share price dropped, shareholders could sue him.
  - adolph 4y ago
    That's right, CEO needs to focus on those quarterly numbers. For example, Apple should never have let that phone operation cannibalize their perfectly good music player business. Total mistake to let a CEO have that much control and "vision."
    - jwozn 4y ago
      I don't think this argument is in good faith. Generally, a CEO does need to focus on the fundamentals of a company. Answering to investors ultimately means answering to a group of individuals or who are more or less interested in the long-term outlook of a company. The stock price is a function of future cash flows (or is when the market is rational), and I find it hard to believe that people don't expect some sort of innovation/R&D investment to protect and maintain those cash flows.
- orzig 4y ago
  That is true, and underappreciated. But it is also worth noting that he tried to be CEO of two companies at once - so in a very objective way he obviously could have done more to improve twitter.
senectus1 4y ago
I honestly don't understand the negativity in this thread. That batch of messages in isolation are really promising.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  My initial reaction was indeed very positive ( I take open protocol over corporate-owned fiefdom any day ). Then the obvious question came why this was released and how. Is it PR campaign ( Dorsey - and Musk especially - were being hit in press a lot lately ) and this is just one way to help their image? I don't know. I would like to hope it is more than just image clean up.
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    > [This document is from Twitter v. Elon Musk (2022).] https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1575589461466877953 https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1575589461466877953
j0hnyl 4y ago
Same, I also thought this was a positive conversation and I'm not sure why folks are interpreting it otherwise.
- warinukraine 4y ago
  I'm interpreting it otherwise because the conversation is superficial to the point of being meaningless. Akin to "hey I have an idea, why don't we make it better?" "That's a great idea, how do we make it better?" "Well let's improve some aspects" "Super interesting idea!"
  - McSwag 4y ago
    When two billionaires walk into a bar…
    - slim 4y ago
      To me it looks like two people not knowing each other trying carefully to set up a huge project with huge stakes
- theknocker 4y ago
unity1001 4y ago
Ditto. That conversation and the ideas contained within look !extremely! good to me.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  So much so that knowing both of these people have seen how the sausage is made, makes me wonder if it wasn't a conversation that was entirely intended to end up on the internet.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Doesn't matter. The ideas are sound. Also, those ideas are not unusual for the people who were around during the inception of the early Internet. We all thought like that, that was the norm. We still think like that.

by Trufa 4y ago

api 4y ago

It’s pretty hard for even CEOs to control direction sometimes especially in big companies. A company is like a cthonic beast with many writhing tentacles that is in fact composed of thousands of cats. A black mass of cats, writhing, seeking, crawling toward anything that will increase its share price or get a cat promoted…

qznc 4y ago
Companies are AI. http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/companies_are_ai.html http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/companies_are_ai.html
- hansjorg 4y ago
  More like complex organisms existing within and alongside other massive complex organisms. Nothing artificial about it?
  - etiennebausson 4y ago
    Bacteria, either symbiotic or not. Some are outright cancerous growth, though. Then again, my opinion on organized religion is the same, without the symbiotic aspect.
  - robotresearcher 4y ago
    Companies are technology. People invented them to do work.
- corney91 4y ago
  Ted Chiang has made a similar comparison, pointing out that corporations seem incapable of insight, much like the feared AI that might destroy the world: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tedchiang/the-real-danger-to-civilization-isnt-ai-its-runaway https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tedchiang/the-real-dang...
- checkyoursudo 4y ago
  If companies, then why not clubs, teams, cities, nations, the earth? There is a certain amount of intelligence, sure, or so it seems. Collective intelligence, or maybe a hivemind though that seems a step too far, seems like a closer description than AI. From TFA, I'm not sure I actually agree that 'we can certainly agree that companies are "artificial" in the sense that humans made them' is the fundamental aspect of what 'artificial' means in terms of AI. I would argue that artificial here means more like artifact rather than simply human-made. Companies are not embodied in any artifact, whereas I think AI will surely have to be. Companies are diffuse and reliant upon actual humans to do the thinking, even if no single human "thinks" for the company. AI will rather be intelligence that is not natural and embodied in an artifact (and probably made by humans). Or many artifacts, as there could be collective AI as well. Anyway, interesting idea. I'll have to think more about it.
parkingrift 4y ago
It’s not that hard. Dorsey was off being a Bitcoin evangelist and running Square (now Block) instead of focusing on Twitter. He’s a narcissist and egomaniac so of course his attitude is that this happened to him rather than the reality of this happened because of him.
GuB-42 4y ago
A CEO is just an employee, paid by the shareholders to do the job shareholders want him to do. Usually, the job is "get us rich". The CEO can do a lot of things regarding the company direction, but it has to match the shareholders goals. Generally, if it doesn't make profit short term or long term, it is unacceptable, and here, Jack Dorsey essentially wants to kill Twitter as a company, so of course he can't do that. For the same reason I won't let the mechanic I hired to maintain my car destroy it instead just because he thinks my car is bad for the environment or something. He may be right, but it is not what I paid him for. And if I discover he actually destroyed my car, not only he won't get paid, but there are good chances I will sue him.
- boringg 4y ago
  Founder and CEO are different. If you are an external CEO dropped into a company your allegiances might align more with shareholders/board. Dorsey situation different.
  - elil17 4y ago
    Board members have a legal duty to act in the best interest of the shareholders (except for B-corps). If he wrote an email that said "I know it will make us less or no money, but we should turn Twitter into a decentralized protocol," and then the share price dropped, shareholders could sue him.
- adolph 4y ago
  That's right, CEO needs to focus on those quarterly numbers. For example, Apple should never have let that phone operation cannibalize their perfectly good music player business. Total mistake to let a CEO have that much control and "vision."
  - jwozn 4y ago
    I don't think this argument is in good faith. Generally, a CEO does need to focus on the fundamentals of a company. Answering to investors ultimately means answering to a group of individuals or who are more or less interested in the long-term outlook of a company. The stock price is a function of future cash flows (or is when the market is rational), and I find it hard to believe that people don't expect some sort of innovation/R&D investment to protect and maintain those cash flows.
orzig 4y ago
That is true, and underappreciated. But it is also worth noting that he tried to be CEO of two companies at once - so in a very objective way he obviously could have done more to improve twitter.

senectus1 4y ago

I honestly don't understand the negativity in this thread. That batch of messages in isolation are really promising.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
My initial reaction was indeed very positive ( I take open protocol over corporate-owned fiefdom any day ). Then the obvious question came why this was released and how. Is it PR campaign ( Dorsey - and Musk especially - were being hit in press a lot lately ) and this is just one way to help their image? I don't know. I would like to hope it is more than just image clean up.
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  > [This document is from Twitter v. Elon Musk (2022).] https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1575589461466877953 https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1575589461466877953

j0hnyl 4y ago

Same, I also thought this was a positive conversation and I'm not sure why folks are interpreting it otherwise.

warinukraine 4y ago
I'm interpreting it otherwise because the conversation is superficial to the point of being meaningless. Akin to "hey I have an idea, why don't we make it better?" "That's a great idea, how do we make it better?" "Well let's improve some aspects" "Super interesting idea!"
- McSwag 4y ago
  When two billionaires walk into a bar…
  - slim 4y ago
    To me it looks like two people not knowing each other trying carefully to set up a huge project with huge stakes
theknocker 4y ago

unity1001 4y ago

Ditto. That conversation and the ideas contained within look !extremely! good to me.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
So much so that knowing both of these people have seen how the sausage is made, makes me wonder if it wasn't a conversation that was entirely intended to end up on the internet.
- unity1001 4y ago
  Doesn't matter. The ideas are sound. Also, those ideas are not unusual for the people who were around during the inception of the early Internet. We all thought like that, that was the norm. We still think like that.