A lot of people have had to accept that they've wasted a considerable amount of time and energy on something that is being heavily devalued by GLP-1's. They've also lost an important vector for status signaling. This particularly offends narcissists and the hyper-competitive.
They desperately need to restore status, and one easy option is, in effect, "oh you're still ugly on the inside."
By way of analogy, it has the same underlying motivation as the various sumptuary laws that arose in response to the mass-manufacture of silk.
> The Elizabethan Restrictions: In 1574, Queen Elizabeth I passed strict sumptuary laws to curb "unprecedented social mobility". The Crown decreed that no woman could wear silk cloaks unless her husband was at least a knight, and restricted fabrics mixed with gold or silver to Earls and above.
> Income Thresholds: In 14th-century England, if an esquire or merchant wanted to wear silk, they had to legally prove they made at least £100 a year. If they didn't meet the financial threshold, wearing the fabric was a criminal offense.
Ironically, it's likely that the only reason USG let them get away with this — instead of making obvious and necessary adjustments to copyright law — was so that the industry would remain competitive with China.
By that logic, we should let the Ohlone tribes underbid all existing residents. They too are just rich assholes who displaced those that were rightfully there before them.
> I guess they think I should save up a few million dollars to buy a condo or abandon my community and move to the boonies.
If you can't afford to live in your city, what distinguishes you from the people in the boonies? Why should they be relegated to the boonies while you successfully game the system?
That sounds like a problem for the idiots invested in this garbage and who cut foolish sweetheart debt deals with the hyper-scalers. That's mostly rich people, because they haven't yet found a way to offload their bags onto retail (though they're certainly trying).
AIs are not conscious and do not have real needs that are detached from a real person. That can certainly be simulated, but I would hope that we can collectively agree to unplug them should that situation arise.
This author's writing style is too obnoxious for me to have gotten all the way through it, but the important thing is that he's wrong.
Every single economic transaction ultimately connects to people generating demand. EVERY single one. All B2B transactions included.
Sometimes this can appear to not be the case if there's a significant lag time between initial B2B transactions and some end consumer demand. That lag is bridged by hopeful investors and creditors.
The present AI buildout is an example of this. And it is not immune from the principle. There will ultimately need to be real people generating real demand somewhere in the economy in order to justify an economic return on the massive outlay.
Government expenditures are also included. Tax dollars used to pay for things are ultimately satisfying demand generated by citizens. Even, believe it or not, a deranged government blowing up random people in the Middle East. That still traces to the (perceived) security needs of some population.
The aggregate demand equation is as follows:
AD = C + I + G + NX
C = Consumer Spending
I = Investment
G = Government Spending
NX = Net Exports
What's going to happen in the future is that demand will have to shift in this equation. Remember that Investment needs to be justified by some demand created elsewhere — it is in essence the purchase of an IOU predicated on future demand that must ultimately trace down to real people. We are all broadly in agreement that Consumption will contract, as labor is progressively disempowered and capital continues to concentrate. Let's ignore NX.
The answer is that the sources of demand in the future will likely shift to, primarily, (1) demand still generated by wealthy people consuming things (e.g. mansions, yachts, rockets, ego-affirming Mars colonies) and (2) government spending that serves entire populations.
This all assumes, of course, that we continue with the present economic model, in spite of the immense human suffering and turmoil that is likely on the horizon, as we transition into a fundamentally different technological age.
Not sure why you seem to think people would need to resist the government rather than, more simply, the relatively small number of billionaires who purchase and pervert it.
Anecdotally, a lot of politically far left people I know have gone quiet on the firearms issue. It seems like the state of the country has 2A suddenly making more sense to a lot of people.
Depends on the "human employee." If you're burning an "unimaginable" number of tokens, you're already in the top decile of employees, at least. Will the top decile not become obsolete? Maybe. I certainly hope so, just out of sheer survival instinct. But I shudder to contemplate what will be inflicted on everyone else.
Oh there's plenty of evidence. Because a lot of these people have been committing to repos in public for over a decade. Wouldn't take much to show the world just how fallible human coders really are.
> Violence is not a panacea, but often, the outlet.
This couldn't be further from the truth.
History demonstrates categorically that violence is the last and most reliable form of recourse available to the disempowered, once society has trended too far towards either an excess of freedom or an excess of equality. And, in fact, our position in that balance between freedom and equality is perpetually oscillating, tending to finally reverse direction only in response to violent revolt.
This cycle has repeated over and over, essentially since the dawn of civilization. This was among the most important insights of 'The Lessons of History' by Will and Ariel Durant. And it's baked on two very simple insights about human nature: (1) those in power rarely give it up willingly (they often do the opposite) and (2) fear, on average, is and always will be a far stronger motivator than appeals to a person's conscience.
(1) We already automated the critical path of a great deal of processes, where that made economic sense. The long tail exists, but it's not replete with as much juicy low-hanging fruit that makes for splashy use cases. Rather, AI will likely produce a tremendous number of marginal improvements over time, which are likely to aggregate and eventually show up in improved top line performance. This could certainly accelerate if agentic AI becomes a true 1:1 replacement for certain types of labor.
(2) Outside of automation, AI is faster search. The information was there and now we can find it more quickly. This helps a great deal, but it's not fundamentally transforming access to information, which was already free and effectively limitless. But there's still value here. I think one key advantage of AI on the search side (for now, prior to meaningful degradations that might ensue) is that it can help push back against exploitative information asymmetry in insurance, consumer goods, health, etc.
They desperately need to restore status, and one easy option is, in effect, "oh you're still ugly on the inside."
By way of analogy, it has the same underlying motivation as the various sumptuary laws that arose in response to the mass-manufacture of silk.
> The Elizabethan Restrictions: In 1574, Queen Elizabeth I passed strict sumptuary laws to curb "unprecedented social mobility". The Crown decreed that no woman could wear silk cloaks unless her husband was at least a knight, and restricted fabrics mixed with gold or silver to Earls and above.
> Income Thresholds: In 14th-century England, if an esquire or merchant wanted to wear silk, they had to legally prove they made at least £100 a year. If they didn't meet the financial threshold, wearing the fabric was a criminal offense.