It's not about the minor offenses of uninteresting people, but what happens because a change in political orientation makes you suddenly interesting. Even more so when AI automates this: Dear computer, we just got some ruling to remove citizenship of people that were not born in the country if they commit event the stupidest offenses: Go look them up.
It makes no sense for the authoritarian to anger everyone at once, but if you just convince people that complaining is bad for them, or expressing negative affect against the government, they can ge much done with little, and it doesn't take that much surveillance. We are already seeing governments that pursue their enemies to the fullest extent of the law for things that are, at best, dubious. Automation just makes this easier to do.
I mean, I also get obsessed with their horror when, after coming from abroad, I am back at my American suburb. All this mandatory front yard and setbacks that must be lawn, even though nobody in the entire subdivision seems to use said front lawn, ever. It's not the grass itself, but the utter waste of space, pushing any chance of walkability away, as it's ultimately increasing the distances to anywhere. It's not so different from the typical giant parking lot that is never half full.
When you prefer a better environment, but said better environment means having to at least leave the state... yeah, strong feelings seem warranted to me.
On one end we have Coase's theory of the firm, but then we have the realities of the modern tech megacap company, which is 20+ companies in a trench coat, and where it's clear the alignment between the best interest of a middle manager, the company as a whole, and of the consumer have absolutely nothing to do with each other. But pointing at one working thing in an investor call seems quite valuable, so we aren't seeing investors actually demanding to spin off companies with minimal actual synergy.
So we end up with companies acting in ways that don't help themselves or the consumer, but which have no reasonable mechanisms to correct any of this. So we end up with the two best entrants in the AI space being independent companies, all while we know that, in case of significant cuts, it's the companies that are attached to other huge, unrelated sources of revenue that will have easier time surviving. Gemini can mess up all they want as long as management still has Ads and youtube sitting there subsidizing them.
What they are often talking about there is countries where the official exchange rate is very different from a real world exchange rate: This happened in Argentina quite often. That led to special black market stores where people would give you local currency for dollars at better rates, and often also had some crypto support. You are then going past the legal market either way.
Far fewer than you'd think: The vast majority of Europe is in the same boat as the US.
Whenever there's value in agglomeration (ie, all the time), the value of well placed properties just skyrockets, because growth is only going to make that land better. That's why a common recommendation is to up the tax of land as to make speculation with valuable property a bad investment: It's already price like an auction, so higher taxes cannot increase rent prices. The problem is political, as countries with housing problems have a whole lot of individuals have a big percentage of their net worth in housing. Big tax increases would make their property values drop, and they'd be quite upset. So it solves the problem while losing elections.
Instead, governments are happy providing tax advantages to existing residents, in practice making prices go up even faster.
America already has plenty of cities that aren't doing very well, and aren't getting migration, so new cities aren't going to help. There's plenty of cheap housing inventory in the US, just not in the places where the jobs are.
There's quite the history of straight out cheating in high level MtG, and yes, insufficient randomization is one of the most typical ways around it. If all you do is cut their deck, and do zero shuffles, you will find a perfect interweaving of lands and spells either way.
Also see Magic players being fond of pile shuffles, which, of course, do very little randomization, and guarantee a good mana weave. Without a few shuffles of your own, most Magic decks ever presented are not sufficiently randomized, and it's even worse in Commander, where we are talking 100 card decks.
Disney has an especially difficult problem, as optimizing for revenue for an org might actually lower total revenue for the entire company. See how many movies do badly because people expect them to see them in D+ quickly. A company this complicated need a very special kind of leadership, along with creative teams that reliably deliver hits. Now the batting average is way worse than it needs to be, and a lot of the leadership is just uninterested on the bigger problems, and more focused on personal strip mining. How many RSUs you get becomes more important than making sure the stock ever goes up (and it's not going up)
The shareholders have little to do with this, ultimately. You see the same rot happen in private companies where the main investor really has full control.
It doesn't take much time seeing companies grow to see the cultural differences take hold when a company goes wrong. You end up with execs and middle management that do not want to rock boats, and where any disagreement is clearly career suicide. At that point, people push for what is good for them and is not good for the company, and people realize that letting things decay is in their best interest. Once your org has enough levels of management, anyone that is part of the big decisions and isn't a team player has already been filtered out, so you see large meetings where hundreds of millions are supposedly distributed, yet not one person is ever going to complain about obvious grift, or decisions that will harm the company in the long run. Open discussion is too dangerous, and coordinating action against bad behavior becomes more and more expensive. Therefore, the company just naturally erodes.
You can get there too with just a bad enough leader that values sycophancy enough... and after enough billions, basically every leader ends up having a lot of trouble accepting news of bad behavior from their advisors.
Ridiculous tracking happened before AI too. Go read the book about Bridgewater, describing, among other things, how internal security worked when it was led by James Comey (yes, the one you know from the news, and was later FBI director)
The biggest difference there isn't production costs, but the physical costs of maintaining the giant library, in a way that is reasonable streamable at a good cost from any device, with many dubbings, and even video differences per version. Go see how many little differences are there in a random Pixar movie due to localization. The infrastructure per hour watched is relevant, and there's a lot of differences between one is willing to spend on something that is being watched hundreds of thousands of times today, and some 30 year old episode of a series nobody followed. It's a much different production than sending music files over.
Even with licensing costs at zero, the infra of Youtube, the closest thing to Spotify for video, is a very different beast. And I'd argue youtube doesn't go far enough.
It's the first step to building the top companies: You first need enough agglomeration of that labor so that, whenever there's a recession, you can scoop up some of that labor for a startup.
And as demand of those cheap engineers go up, salaries rise. It's not just Poland: Go see what happens to engineering salaries in, say, Spain vs Berlin. You find Capgemini opening offices, because the labor is that cheap. New grads making as little as 20k in some regions.
So compared to that, having big tech moving over and paying over local market rates, and expanding enough so salaries end up rising is much better than the alternative: They don't come, there's no money, the engineers emigrate, and the country becomes poorer.
We opened the Cloud Code floodgates all at once in my org. After a few months we looked at stats, and asked managers for impressions on performance changes. The API cost per engineer doesn't correlate with the apparent increases in performance, but it sure seems that the vast majority of people that used to have good reviews got a lot better, while the bottom third just didn't, even though they use the LLMs about as much. It makes the performance differences in teams look like an abyss. Someone appears stuck in a task, and we see what they've been prompting, and then one of the best seniors comes in, actually asks the questions well, and the LLM does all the debugging and all the fixing in 20 minutes.
It's not that the best performers are magical prompt engineers providing detailed instructions: They ask better questions that the LLM knows how to try to answer, and provide the specific information that the LLM would take a while finding. It's as if some people just had no "theory of mind" of the LLM, and what it can know, and others just do. It's not a living thing or anything like that, but it's still so useful to predict it, put yourself in it's shoes, so to speak. Just like you'd do with a new hire, or a random junior.
Yes, in a reasonable microservice land where the places you need to connect to are all documented in very concise places, you have have extremely productive $10 days. In the giant monorepo with everything custom, you can't just rely on built in knowledge of 80% of you libraries, so it's a very different world.
A place like Google has to be so much better off just training library concepts in, given how much of the things the LLM will "instinctively" reach for are unlikely to be available. Not unlike the acclimation period what happens when someone comes in or out of a company like that, and suddenly every library and infra tool you were used to are just not available. We need a lot more searching when that happens to us, and the LLM suffers from the same context issue. The human just has all of that trained in after a 6 months, but the LLM doesn't.
It comes down to two things. One is the well documented issue of how, when you are that rich, you are treated differently, and how that will ultimately modify your behavior. The other is the prerequisites to get to the job. Chances are you aren't fully self-made, receiving no investment. From convincing investors, to having immense faith in a project that cannot be obviously good, as otherwise you'd be building what already exists, to the personality to handle the road upward.
This second effect happens in all kinds of places where you have to jumps througha lot of hoops to just get to get there. Every hoop discards candidates, and promotes different things. Sometimes in ways that make sure that nobody capable of attaining the job is fit to actually do it well. You can see the issue all over the place, once you track people's careers. Sometimes things that should be disqualifying for a role are actually requirements in practice.
You have to look at it from both sides though: If I started a business with Stripe as a processor, it's in Stripe's best interest for my business to grow as much as possible, because the higher my volume, the more they make. They'll want a good cut, but their goal is a long term relationship. It's not the same thing with Amazon: Every piece of intel I give them is an opportunity for them to eat my business.
I guess that if Amazon threw a crazy enough amount of money at them, then sure, everyone has a price, but how is joining Bezos' empire helping them? There's very little synergy in the other direction, so the premium for such an acquisition would have to be very large.
When you put the premium there, along with how being acquired by Amazon makes the competition more attractive, makes me think that something like that is unlikely.
It makes no sense for the authoritarian to anger everyone at once, but if you just convince people that complaining is bad for them, or expressing negative affect against the government, they can ge much done with little, and it doesn't take that much surveillance. We are already seeing governments that pursue their enemies to the fullest extent of the law for things that are, at best, dubious. Automation just makes this easier to do.