I'm hopeful for tinygrad as a piece of software, but I'm skeptical about the future of the tinybox if they keep waffling on the hardware so much.
[1] https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2023/05/24/the-t...
Both him and Musk are quite intelligent in their respective areas, there shouldn't be any doubt about that. But there is a big issue with intelligent people where they often end up on completely wrong tracks. There are some studies that show its actually easier to convince smarter people of wrong information than ordinary people.
Generally, the way someone gets very smart in a certain area is through repeated exposure to material. The only way to have that sort of dedication is that you have intrinsic desire to do certain things because it fulfills some purpose in your life, which basically means that you have an ideology attached to that desire. That ideology can be any number of things, from wanting to help humanity, to a more selfish one of just viewing yourself as better than other people because you can accomplish stuff they cant.
The thing is, for a very smart person who has a personality like that, you can take a narrative that fits within that ideology, and they are almost guaranteed to believe it, whether its actually true or not. Because them denying it would mean that their ideology isn't correct, which means that their entire life has been wasted on wrong things - and no person would ever self destruct like that.
Its for this reason Musk believes in all the right wing conspiracy theories despite him having multiple successful startups. To him, democrats are bad (because of the exclusion of Tesla from environmental fund under Biden, which admittedly was pretty shitty), and then everything anti democrat must be correct - you can trace the start of his descent into madness right up to that event.
Same thing with Hotz. Super smart dude, but he managed to pick a fight with Sony and basically lost, which would leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth, then he read Unqualified Reservations, which perfectly explained the world in such a way where he is the good guy, and the rest follows. As such, he things literature like Atlas Shrugged is actually very good, aligns heavily with Musk because Musk is anti leftism, e.t.c. At Comma he was heavily against WFH because Musk was against WFH (for very, very stupid reasons), prided himself on being extremely selective with hiring only people that are both smart and are driven, but now with Tiny Grad, he has come to sort realize that you sort of need to hire remote people if you want to have talent, BUT instead of actually hiring people, he only has a few employees and the rest of the work is on a bounty system (being claimed as the future of employment).
One could make an argument that when looking at successful tech companies that "won" at a sector, like Apple with consumer electronics, Amazon with online shopping, none of them did it like Comma or Tiny Grad. I personally want nothing more for Hotz companies to succeed, which would truly be disruption at its core, but I don't think they will. It seems that you have to essentially engage with all people as humans and appeal to them, but when you view humanity from a viewpoint of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and tweet about it, its pretty clear that you dislike a large portion of humanity. And of course, engaging with people like that means that you have to appeal to the "professional managerial class" which goes strictly against his ideology.
For Comma Ai, that would look like playing nice with investors, getting more money, hiring a wide range of talent local and remote, which would put them on a stage where car companies take them seriously and want to work with them, at which point instead of dedicating resources to making hardware they can be actually making the software a shitload better, which is core to their mission of solving AI. And yes, there would have to be a bunch of bullshit that they would have to sift through, but thats just unavoidable fact of life.
You can view Tinycorp in the same light.
In any timeframe there are people who rise by luck with timing and opportunity. Musk is that guy. He bet on EVs just before massive subsidies became available for them and then got lucky as the incumbent companies mostly did nothing.
He bet on space just before the US lost its only human capable system and again hovered by taxpayer funds and contracts.
All again in an era of free money post 2008.
As for the products? Teslas are some of them worst built cars ever made and Tesla produced vehicles for segments Americans don’t want. Minivans, sedans and limousines.
Space X meanwhile makes rockets which are a step back from the Shuttle in terms of capability and which will now require 6-8 launches what Apollo could do in 1. All built on lies about building a Mars capable craft which will carry 100 people - a feat Starship will never attain as it’s too small.
Musk has had an incredible string of luck but makes awful decisions, has no design sense and pretends to be a genius.
He’s very average indeed. His politics and attitudes are like a lot of gamers because that’s all he is.
> Musk is that guy. He bet on EVs just before massive subsidies became available for them and then got lucky as the incumbent companies mostly did nothing.
Execution of an idea is 10000% times harder than actually having an idea. Furthermore, even if you consider just the idea of putting money into something that makes you money, your "logic" of getting lucky can be used to discredit most anyone who predicted anything and made money off of it, saying that they just got lucky. When in reality, that prediction was probably made through a bunch of research and reasoning that nobody else did.
>As for the products? Teslas are some of them worst built cars ever made and Tesla produced vehicles for segments Americans don’t want.
Model Y is literally the best selling car in the world, which is more impressive given the general anti Musk sentiment, especially in more socially progressive countries. You can't honestly think that saying "well all these people want this car, but they are all wrong because the car is horribly built", makes you sound anywhere near coherent.
>Space X meanwhile makes rockets which are a step back from the Shuttle in terms of capability and which will now require 6-8 launches what Apollo could do in 1.
And yet, it still has a shitload of contracts, including a pretty big one from NASA.
>Musk has had an incredible string of luck but makes awful decisions, has no design sense and pretends to be a genius.
And yet, Twitter is still alive and kicking, Space X is doing really good, Tesla is doing good.
The problem with people like you posting your baseless opinions like this is you make it harder to actually criticize people like Musk, because it gives credence to the idea that people/media just want to push a negative narrative against them, and to anyone on the fence, they are more likely to see all the dumb shit he does with a skeptical view, believing that the stories are vastly exaggerated.
IMO, if he, Elon Musk, and Steven Bonnell/Destiny sat down together and had like a 4 hour long discussion with the prefaces to explore ideas, I feel like thats an easy 10 million view Youtube video. Musk has the knowledge of how industry works, George is a lot more philosophically grounded in tech, and Steven is the best representation of the humanities aspect.