> some sites as a source of objective truth (Wikipedia, science journals, reputable sources of news etc)
the irony is that finding "objective truth" is a very non-trivial human game but in all cases costly. E.g journalism has been decimated after losing their traditional ad revenue. Wikipedia and science journals survive because they rely on informal and formal public funds etc.
I agree it is a quantitative difference at its core but cheap automation can dramatically lower the signal to noise. Crossing a certain quality threshold may eventually precipitate binary behavioral changes for users (i.e. conclude that certain online tools are unusable / untrustworthy)
I also agree that authoritative sources become critical. Yet those typically rely on very human assessments (with their own pitfals and controversies) and in any case much more slow / costly to develop.
How exactly this all will play out is not clear (to me). But the naive technosolutionism of deploying "AI at scale" and believing that it will just work as advertised seems misplaced. The human condition is very reflexive.
Irrespective of whether major search engines might use language models, fake web sites will use them.This could make it increasingly difficult to find valid information and maybe precipitate some sort of arms race between algorithms that detect algorithms
A pathetic scenario but somehow consistent with the rules (or lack thereof) of the game
Identifying a key variable (resources) helps but doesnt really solve the optimisation problem.
Resources depend on the context and business model and that might not be under the control of the developer.
Resources may also be variable over time, e.g when the funny money runs out. In the post and comments you see the anxiety about having to support diverse codebases.
Thinking longer term you also need to address how platforms and stacks and the application requirements might evolve over a few years. You dont want to compromise your future options. This is even more critical for open source projects.
Further, it is not even a binary choice as there are multiple types of "native" and "hybrid" per platform. E.g. on android you could have pure java, or some variable amount of kotlin (or even qt/c++, depending on your definition of native) and desktop is much worse.
The bottom line is that its much more of a gamble than might have been in the past.
I have read the post and 60 comments but the "future" is as clouded as ever. I wonder if there was ever a period where developers had such difficulty identifying how to best deliver applications.
This might be a too sanguine view that flies on the face of countless warning signs. All digital behavior inceasingly happens through the same mobile device which had been a true wild west, commingling vast personal information islands (location, behavior, health/biometric, financial etc).
Social media apps have already manifested themselves (in the East) as "super apps" and purportetdly this might also be the target business model for some western outfits
Businesses, especially small entities will simply dance to the tune being played. Elites refers to the technocratic policy bodies that influence regulation and legislation. In various places cash is actively deprecated even while the digital domain is a fiasco harboring enormous risks.
Btw I am not defending cash technology as such, I am offering an example of why the "logging off" option might be less available than what people think.
In real life people developed (over millenia) a wide range of mechanisms to support stable social interactions.
Concepts like ownership, privacy, authority etc. are not laws of nature but deeply rooted behavioral patterns that proved to be useful in some global sense.
What happens currently with the explosion of "digital society" is that, largely due to greed, certain first mover groups are dismantling all that - basically because they can given the widespread digital illiteracy and the lack of any regulatory mechanisms.
The response will be indeed people trying to log off. But if you consider the callous insistence with which ruling elites impose e.g., cash-less, fully digital transactions, its arguable that the escape hatches have been locked already.
Unless some new benevolent dynamic shows up that can harness the digital domain more congruently with welfare prepare for a period of great social unrest and the destruction of major social contracts.
the irony is that finding "objective truth" is a very non-trivial human game but in all cases costly. E.g journalism has been decimated after losing their traditional ad revenue. Wikipedia and science journals survive because they rely on informal and formal public funds etc.