The age of the grift shift(tante.cc)
tante.cc
The age of the grift shift
https://tante.cc/2023/09/21/the-age-of-the-grift-shift/
249 comments
> to make money it helps to insert yourself between people and something they may want or need. this is how pretty much every business works.
Even though there is a seemingly inexhaustible supply of grifters and rentiers, it's unreasonable to say that "this is how pretty much every business works".
If you buy a car the mfr is hardly inserting themselves between something you could have without them. Same for a haircut, a restaurant, or the food the restaurant used, for that matter.
There is even a small segment of the banking industry that does more than just insert itself and charge a toll!
Even though there is a seemingly inexhaustible supply of grifters and rentiers, it's unreasonable to say that "this is how pretty much every business works".
If you buy a car the mfr is hardly inserting themselves between something you could have without them. Same for a haircut, a restaurant, or the food the restaurant used, for that matter.
There is even a small segment of the banking industry that does more than just insert itself and charge a toll!
> If you buy a car
That's a particularly amusing example to pick considering that dealers are the dominant distribution channel from which to acquire a car, at least in the U.S.
That's a particularly amusing example to pick considering that dealers are the dominant distribution channel from which to acquire a car, at least in the U.S.
>> If you buy a car
>That's a particularly amusing example to pick considering that _dealers_
Fyi... The gp you replied to specifically wrote about manufacturer as the example and not dealers when he wrote: "If you buy a car the _mfr_ is hardly inserting themselves"
>That's a particularly amusing example to pick considering that _dealers_
Fyi... The gp you replied to specifically wrote about manufacturer as the example and not dealers when he wrote: "If you buy a car the _mfr_ is hardly inserting themselves"
Ohhhhh I thought ‘mfr’ was ‘motherfucker,’ but ‘manufacturer’ makes more sense
Yeah, since gumby wrote that, I assumed it was motherfucker, too! Maybe he was referring to Tesla.
The point stands even if the example was bad.
The other day I purchased some particle board and had them cut it to size. I do not believe that hardware store is on the same level of grift as the companies being described in this article.
The other day I purchased some particle board and had them cut it to size. I do not believe that hardware store is on the same level of grift as the companies being described in this article.
That’s how it was done pre-Internet, but now Tesla is one of the most valuable auto manufacturers and it sells directly to end users, no middlemen dealers.
Toyota-5x
Ford, Honda, Chevrolet-4x
Jeep, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Ram, Subaru-3x
These are many more multiples of Tesla’s sales.
Teslas sales make up a minuscule portion of the market. Tesla cannot sell directly to users in any of the continental US, they must sell through a website and ship the vehicle.
Federal Dealership laws preclude direct to customer sales.
Tesla may be valuable but its effects on the market are negligible.
Ford, Honda, Chevrolet-4x
Jeep, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Ram, Subaru-3x
These are many more multiples of Tesla’s sales.
Teslas sales make up a minuscule portion of the market. Tesla cannot sell directly to users in any of the continental US, they must sell through a website and ship the vehicle.
Federal Dealership laws preclude direct to customer sales.
Tesla may be valuable but its effects on the market are negligible.
The grifters are car dealers in this case, increasingly. Mfgs create value.
Not unlike how writers/artists created a bunch of value and ClosedAI and similar are grifts built on top of them. except unlike car mfgs authors don't have much pull to stop it
Not unlike how writers/artists created a bunch of value and ClosedAI and similar are grifts built on top of them. except unlike car mfgs authors don't have much pull to stop it
... and there isn't a person in the US that doesn't hate car dealers (including other car dealers).
We had a Toyota dealer in our town that both customers and former employees speak reverently of.
Some of those employees jumped ship to the Honda dealer after the Toyota dealer was bought by the guy who owned all the other car dealerships in town. For a long time the Honda dealer was the only competitor to Maguire, but then Maguire bought the Honda dealer.
Those employees don't speak ill of Maguire but they certainly don't speak about in him in glowing terms.
Some of those employees jumped ship to the Honda dealer after the Toyota dealer was bought by the guy who owned all the other car dealerships in town. For a long time the Honda dealer was the only competitor to Maguire, but then Maguire bought the Honda dealer.
Those employees don't speak ill of Maguire but they certainly don't speak about in him in glowing terms.
> If you buy a car the mfr is hardly inserting themselves between something you could have without them.
They start to, though. What was that about BMW and having telemetry on car radio I heard about the other day? Or attempts by manufacturers to turn pieces of car into services, which has an effect of them inserting themselves into car resales?
They start to, though. What was that about BMW and having telemetry on car radio I heard about the other day? Or attempts by manufacturers to turn pieces of car into services, which has an effect of them inserting themselves into car resales?
> it's unreasonable to say that "this is how pretty much every business works".
i don't mean it in a totally negative sense. maybe it came across that way in the context.
a business is still a facilitator between you and something you need. they have an advantage be it money, resources, technology, connections...something that allows them to act as that middle man and in many case monopolise it.
on social media its much easier for anyone to do that. you dont really need any resource aside from "hustle" as they call it.
i don't mean it in a totally negative sense. maybe it came across that way in the context.
a business is still a facilitator between you and something you need. they have an advantage be it money, resources, technology, connections...something that allows them to act as that middle man and in many case monopolise it.
on social media its much easier for anyone to do that. you dont really need any resource aside from "hustle" as they call it.
Perhaps it isn't the orginization in that example, but the detached and shareholders who have limited liability.
Of course they do. Toyota inserts itself between me and my need to go places.
In this case transportation grift is a trillion dollar problem in the US, but maybe slightly different than you're saying. A huge portion of US infrastructure is built on the idea that no one in their right mind would walk to it. Our shops are box islands in multi acre oceans of black asphalt. Vast arteries of concrete separate people from where they live to where they buy. So, yea I would say there is plenty of grift at different levels.
> A huge portion of US infrastructure is built on the idea that no one in their right mind would walk to it.
No one in their right mind would want to walk to any business in the US due to its urban planning and transport infrastructure.
Even biking is an absurd risk that only rare people dare to make.
In the US it's not abnormal to express the length of even mundane car trips in how many hours you spend driving. That's definitely not a halmark of a walkable region.
No one in their right mind would want to walk to any business in the US due to its urban planning and transport infrastructure.
Even biking is an absurd risk that only rare people dare to make.
In the US it's not abnormal to express the length of even mundane car trips in how many hours you spend driving. That's definitely not a halmark of a walkable region.
> No one in their right mind would want to walk to any business in the US due to its urban planning and transport infrastructure.
> Even biking is an absurd risk that only rare people dare to make.
Neither of these things are true everywhere in the US. There are many cities where walking and biking are common forms of transportation. But there are certainly many places where the infrastructure appears to be actively designed to kill pedestrians and bicyclist as well.
> Even biking is an absurd risk that only rare people dare to make.
Neither of these things are true everywhere in the US. There are many cities where walking and biking are common forms of transportation. But there are certainly many places where the infrastructure appears to be actively designed to kill pedestrians and bicyclist as well.
I think we have a different interpretation of "between".
I just meant that they see a costly thing that people do, and they do something to reduce that cost. That basically is what all companies do.
I believe that's what GP meant as well, but apparently everyone else interpreted it differently.
I just meant that they see a costly thing that people do, and they do something to reduce that cost. That basically is what all companies do.
I believe that's what GP meant as well, but apparently everyone else interpreted it differently.
People went places before cars were invented, you can too. Toyota offers you a better way, if you can afford to avail yourself of their offer -- that's all.
People went places before cars were invented, and then General Motors put itself between people and the desire to move around by buying up public transit only to dismantle it. Now car companies are offering not "a better way" but "the only real way" unless you want to get hit by a suburbanite driving a Ford F-150 while sitting in an unprotected bike lane.
I'm really tired of people acting like it's just a free market where everyone is an equal, rational actor. There was a concerted effort to redesign Americana around cars that was not replicated globally, and you see the consequences of it play out in real time.
I'm really tired of people acting like it's just a free market where everyone is an equal, rational actor. There was a concerted effort to redesign Americana around cars that was not replicated globally, and you see the consequences of it play out in real time.
> General Motors put itself between people and the desire to move around by buying up public transit only to dismantle it
I know this story and for a long time believed it. But it appears that developers building new towns (urban expansion) in the mid 20th century put in streetcars to get people to move in (connected to city networks etc) and ran them at a loss. As the new town filled up and the developers went on to the next one, the streetcars became the uneconomic responsibility of the town.
I know this story and for a long time believed it. But it appears that developers building new towns (urban expansion) in the mid 20th century put in streetcars to get people to move in (connected to city networks etc) and ran them at a loss. As the new town filled up and the developers went on to the next one, the streetcars became the uneconomic responsibility of the town.
The cities put price caps on streetcars because they thought it would make it cheaper, which ended up bankrupting them, and then more recently cities have infinite amounts of pro-car policies like parking minimums that make it unreasonable to use any other kind of transport.
Funny enough, this is being repeated in modern times because a lot of transit activists want to force all transit to be free and instead be funded by theoretical rich peoples' taxes.
Funny enough, this is being repeated in modern times because a lot of transit activists want to force all transit to be free and instead be funded by theoretical rich peoples' taxes.
> I'm really tired of people acting like it's just a free market where everyone is an equal, rational actor.
It's never been a free market. There was no golden age where everybody had access to public transit. There were zero public services at all, you were on your own. And often had to contend with bandits and worse.
I'm really tired of people acting like the only thing standing in the way of utopia, is capitalism.
It's never been a free market. There was no golden age where everybody had access to public transit. There were zero public services at all, you were on your own. And often had to contend with bandits and worse.
I'm really tired of people acting like the only thing standing in the way of utopia, is capitalism.
> There was no golden age where everybody had access to public transit. There were zero public services at all, you were on your own. And often had to contend with bandits and worse.
I think you're thinking of Skyrim and not the actual world, but there are certainly historical periods that were famously bandit-free even in antiquity like the Mongol Empire.
I think you're thinking of Skyrim and not the actual world, but there are certainly historical periods that were famously bandit-free even in antiquity like the Mongol Empire.
That's what I meant by "between" in this case. Apparently other people interpreted it differently.
> to make money it helps to insert yourself between people and something they may want or need. this is how pretty much every business works.
I disagree. They’re not the same thing. Most businesses will provide solutions to a need, or at least facilitate getting you to the solution for a fee.
The social media grifters are doing something else. They’re finding people with a need (or tricking people into thinking they have a need) and then trying to capture that person as a follower and, eventually, a revenue stream while delivering little real value in exchange.
The prototypical social media grifter like this has a lot to say and a lot of strongly worded opinions, but the end game usually involves something like hiding the “real” answers inside of a paid course or paid community. They spend years building a following on social media and then suddenly they’re selling a course for $1000 per seat. They only need a few hundred of their million followers to convert to make a decent amount of money. The content is usually so-so or recycled from other books and courses. Often purchasers are so embarrassed about having paid $1000 for it that they won’t complain online. If they do complain, they get dunked on by other social media users who were smart enough to see the grift, so they delete their complaints.
I’ve followed many people on Twitter who started out doing good work on indie projects or small startups, built up a following, and then pivoted into selling courses and educational material to their followers.
An alternative grift is to build up a following and then carefully walk the line on “offering the opportunity” to invest in their newest business. A handful of their star-struck followers will be knocking down their door to hand over their cash. You see it a lot with real estate and self storage business influencers.
I disagree. They’re not the same thing. Most businesses will provide solutions to a need, or at least facilitate getting you to the solution for a fee.
The social media grifters are doing something else. They’re finding people with a need (or tricking people into thinking they have a need) and then trying to capture that person as a follower and, eventually, a revenue stream while delivering little real value in exchange.
The prototypical social media grifter like this has a lot to say and a lot of strongly worded opinions, but the end game usually involves something like hiding the “real” answers inside of a paid course or paid community. They spend years building a following on social media and then suddenly they’re selling a course for $1000 per seat. They only need a few hundred of their million followers to convert to make a decent amount of money. The content is usually so-so or recycled from other books and courses. Often purchasers are so embarrassed about having paid $1000 for it that they won’t complain online. If they do complain, they get dunked on by other social media users who were smart enough to see the grift, so they delete their complaints.
I’ve followed many people on Twitter who started out doing good work on indie projects or small startups, built up a following, and then pivoted into selling courses and educational material to their followers.
An alternative grift is to build up a following and then carefully walk the line on “offering the opportunity” to invest in their newest business. A handful of their star-struck followers will be knocking down their door to hand over their cash. You see it a lot with real estate and self storage business influencers.
>at the end they are all selling the same thing, the idea of some happiness or entertainment
They aren't selling anything. They are simply feeding idle brains with content in exchange for shotgunning topics for ad revenue.
They aren't selling anything. They are simply feeding idle brains with content in exchange for shotgunning topics for ad revenue.
I used to believe that TV channels were there to offer entertainment, news, education, and to fund this they had advertisements.
Today it is clear that these are businesses that are there to make profit, and the "content" is only there to spread the advertisements apart.
I was catching-up to the Coffeezilla's videos, and it looks like the scammers-be-scamming. And some people will try their 'luck' with anything fringe-y (forex, NFTs, crypto, AI, etc.)
Today it is clear that these are businesses that are there to make profit, and the "content" is only there to spread the advertisements apart.
I was catching-up to the Coffeezilla's videos, and it looks like the scammers-be-scamming. And some people will try their 'luck' with anything fringe-y (forex, NFTs, crypto, AI, etc.)
A tv station's product is its audience, except for the "prestige" no-ads cable stations. Having worked in TV, i promise you they are very clear about this. The programming exists to attract the product.
But web3 cannot be the future of anything, it's pure grift. There's no business, nobody's busy: it's all smoke and mirror.
I am so confused why HN is so tolerant of startup grifting, but dismisses cryptocurrency as an absolute evil. Are concepts like proof of work not even interesting?
I would rather have fast and cheap online payments than a chat bot I have to twist around until I can talk to customer service.
I would rather have fast and cheap online payments than a chat bot I have to twist around until I can talk to customer service.
> Are concepts like proof of work not even interesting?
Sure, but we had that with SETI@home, and then Folding@home, and they were doing something useful with their work rather than just finding which random numbers hashed a certain way in order to get a token whose primary economic value was the assumption that "remove trust" is a useful thing in economics.
We also had a blockchain of sorts before bitcoin, and still regularly use it: it's called "git".
And we already have fast and cheap online payments. In my case this was initially in the form of paypal, then my banks got good at it more directly; in Kenya since 2005, and now more countries in the region, there's a thing called M-PESA which does much the same but works with pre-feature-phones: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M-Pesa_on_Nokia_1100...
Sure, but we had that with SETI@home, and then Folding@home, and they were doing something useful with their work rather than just finding which random numbers hashed a certain way in order to get a token whose primary economic value was the assumption that "remove trust" is a useful thing in economics.
We also had a blockchain of sorts before bitcoin, and still regularly use it: it's called "git".
And we already have fast and cheap online payments. In my case this was initially in the form of paypal, then my banks got good at it more directly; in Kenya since 2005, and now more countries in the region, there's a thing called M-PESA which does much the same but works with pre-feature-phones: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M-Pesa_on_Nokia_1100...
> fast and cheap online payments
but proof of work / crypto isn't fast, and nothing makes it particularly cheap.
If we are talking fast and cheap online payments, micropayments instead of subscriptions, let's go. Too much of crypto is a solution looking for a problem (and finding ones that don't fit).
but proof of work / crypto isn't fast, and nothing makes it particularly cheap.
If we are talking fast and cheap online payments, micropayments instead of subscriptions, let's go. Too much of crypto is a solution looking for a problem (and finding ones that don't fit).
> Are concepts like proof of work not even interesting?
PoW only addresses a single problematic aspect of this stuff (and only reduces it, doesn't actually resolve it). It does nothing about all the other problematic aspects.
PoW only addresses a single problematic aspect of this stuff (and only reduces it, doesn't actually resolve it). It does nothing about all the other problematic aspects.
> am so confused why HN is so tolerant of startup grifting, but dismisses cryptocurrency as an absolute evil
I mean.. it’s a site associated with a notable VC organization.
I mean.. it’s a site associated with a notable VC organization.
I know this is the prevailing narrative (and I am guilty of it as well), I have just one question then: why are reasonable and intelligent academics/engineers working on things like MetaGov, https://metagov.org? These people are not grifting, as far as I can tell.
I can't comment on these specific individuals, but it's worth noting that both academics and engineers are fully capable, and at times even driven, to engage in grifting.
Off the top of my head: There was recently a fairly famous instance of an academic at Harvard who was suspended for falsifying data.
Off the top of my head: There was recently a fairly famous instance of an academic at Harvard who was suspended for falsifying data.
That's an understandable stance, I am aware of the Harvard/Gino controversy as well. But I think the reason why communities, organizations, and institutions are still effective and able to achieve work with undeniable intellectual or social impact (e.g., full self-driving in certain conditions or reducing the transmission rate of COVID during the pandemic) is because people still act in good faith and harbor good will because they believe that others are doing the same. I think this two-way trust ensures the rate of progress, which is why it is such a target for disinformation campaigns (i.e., all your values are lies or all your institutions hate you/want to abuse you etc.). So I think given a large group of academics/engineers and looking at the way people in groups behave, I am not inclined to believe that a large proportion of such academics/engineers are grifting, but it is easier to believe that perhaps there is deception in the upper echelons of such a community/organization that is imperceptible to collaborators lower in the hierarchy.
I guess the question becomes how do recognize grift or deception unless you establish people like the academics who exposed people like Gino. Do we just need more of that?
I guess the question becomes how do recognize grift or deception unless you establish people like the academics who exposed people like Gino. Do we just need more of that?
There's scant evidence to suggest that modern academics uphold more stringent standards than any other group of professionals.
If I were to modify your initial statement to indicate the involvement of a group of reasonably intelligent attorneys, would that possess the same level of persuasiveness for you?
It’s similarly persuasive to me no matter which group you use in your original statement (attorneys or academics). Which is to say - not very.
If I were to modify your initial statement to indicate the involvement of a group of reasonably intelligent attorneys, would that possess the same level of persuasiveness for you?
It’s similarly persuasive to me no matter which group you use in your original statement (attorneys or academics). Which is to say - not very.
> If I were to modify your initial statement to indicate the involvement of a group of reasonably intelligent attorneys, would that possess the same level of persuasiveness for you?
It would, but that's because I am assuming that physical, natural or societal constraints are likely to bound behavior and so deviation from ethical norms despite any number of agents acting purely on self-interest, regardless of their group. You can't grift someone to believe you created improved semiconductor node technology because of the physical constraints of the universe, or you can't grift someone to believe that gun ownership will inherently lead to violence because of decades of data that proves otherwise, or you can't grift someone to believe that X drug will cause X effect it doesn't because of natural constraints imposed by the body.
My point is that grifting has its limits, and reasonable self-interested agents understand they operate under the constraints of those limits regardless of their group membership. So the question I was trying to ask was what is that people are hoping to achieve in the long-term by associating with a particular grift after they've made a quick buck and the thing in exposed as a lie. So as someone said the nature of the grift has to keep changing. I guess I can reason about the behavior of people who hang on (like people who work in MetaGov) as possibly people who are dreamers or hopefuls, or maybe have sunk costs.
It would, but that's because I am assuming that physical, natural or societal constraints are likely to bound behavior and so deviation from ethical norms despite any number of agents acting purely on self-interest, regardless of their group. You can't grift someone to believe you created improved semiconductor node technology because of the physical constraints of the universe, or you can't grift someone to believe that gun ownership will inherently lead to violence because of decades of data that proves otherwise, or you can't grift someone to believe that X drug will cause X effect it doesn't because of natural constraints imposed by the body.
My point is that grifting has its limits, and reasonable self-interested agents understand they operate under the constraints of those limits regardless of their group membership. So the question I was trying to ask was what is that people are hoping to achieve in the long-term by associating with a particular grift after they've made a quick buck and the thing in exposed as a lie. So as someone said the nature of the grift has to keep changing. I guess I can reason about the behavior of people who hang on (like people who work in MetaGov) as possibly people who are dreamers or hopefuls, or maybe have sunk costs.
Your interpretation of 'grifting' seems rather narrow and may not align with its applicability to either the article or the broader understanding. Grifting extends beyond merely making quick profits or even publishing fabricated findings--though these are extreme and evident instances.
Even portraying oneself as an 'expert' in a domain despite having limited expertise can be considered a form of grifting: It is, in fact, the focus of the article's opening paragraph.
To draw a more specific connection to the present example, even if Metagov were to falter and fail entirely for whatever reason, these academics now have the opportunity to assert their involvement in a 'groundbreaking web3 governance model.' Consequently, they are likely to generate a substantial volume of academic papers stemming from this involvement, a key metric used to evaluate academics. There is certainly motive for academic grifters to be involved.
Particularly considering the historical context of web3, there are many valid reasons to suspect that certain individuals with grifting tendencies might be engaged in such a project.
Even portraying oneself as an 'expert' in a domain despite having limited expertise can be considered a form of grifting: It is, in fact, the focus of the article's opening paragraph.
To draw a more specific connection to the present example, even if Metagov were to falter and fail entirely for whatever reason, these academics now have the opportunity to assert their involvement in a 'groundbreaking web3 governance model.' Consequently, they are likely to generate a substantial volume of academic papers stemming from this involvement, a key metric used to evaluate academics. There is certainly motive for academic grifters to be involved.
Particularly considering the historical context of web3, there are many valid reasons to suspect that certain individuals with grifting tendencies might be engaged in such a project.
Engineers especially are some of the most persuadable people I know, they just respond to different kinds of marketing than most people.
I think academics have a weird susceptibly to grifting because they feel morally reassured that other people should listen to them.
I think academics have a weird susceptibly to grifting because they feel morally reassured that other people should listen to them.
I don't think "moral reassurance" has anything to do with it, at least in the hard sciences. The universe will smack you hard with reality if you're grifting, there are limits to lying in this space (at least). For example, you can't lie about creating full self-driving because it simply won't work in all the conditions/scenarios under which we expect human-like performance.
> The universe will smack you hard with reality if you're grifting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine
Choice quotes:
> a medical researcher at the University of Texas, found that only 11% of 53 pre-clinical cancer studies had replications that could confirm conclusions from the original studies
> A survey of cancer researchers found that half of them had been unable to reproduce a published result
> A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others
How many of those papers were retracted, you think?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine
Choice quotes:
> a medical researcher at the University of Texas, found that only 11% of 53 pre-clinical cancer studies had replications that could confirm conclusions from the original studies
> A survey of cancer researchers found that half of them had been unable to reproduce a published result
> A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others
How many of those papers were retracted, you think?
The vast majority of "failed replication" has nothing to do with fraud or false findings, and everything to do with "You have to write what you did to get this result that other people can follow, but you aren't really incentivized to be comprehensive and clear and note down every possible contributor so nobody can recreate the reaction you had in your paper because you didn't write down that you did it in an especially cold lab"
Aren't you making my point though by pointing out the replication crisis? I wasn't saying that academics grift less than others.
Was Nature able to reproduce these results? On another set of ~1,500 papers after 2016?
Whatever system you're in, you have to do a little grift from time to time, and the promise of crypto is a huge reward for very little work. That's how SBF's parents, respected academics one of whom is an ethics professor, got caught up in a multibillion dollar fraud. It's simply too hard to turn down. https://slate.com/technology/2023/09/sam-bankman-fried-paren...
> It's simply too hard to turn down.
It's actually not at all hard to 'turn down' the decision to simply start defrauding people on an industrial scale.
It's actually not at all hard to 'turn down' the decision to simply start defrauding people on an industrial scale.
> But web3 cannot be the future of anything, it's pure grift. There's no business, nobody's busy: it's all smoke and mirror.
Meanwhile, Central Banks all around the world are rolling blockchain-based systems to use as the future infrastructure of all their transactions, bypassing external middlemen like Visa and Mastercard. There is real tech coming from web3 and P2P computing will take over cloud computing sooner or later.
Meanwhile, Central Banks all around the world are rolling blockchain-based systems to use as the future infrastructure of all their transactions, bypassing external middlemen like Visa and Mastercard. There is real tech coming from web3 and P2P computing will take over cloud computing sooner or later.
They're not though. Just ledgers have existed forever. So have distributed ones. A P2P ledger is what's new, and it's not being adopted by anyone.
Centralization is just the natural order. No one actually wants to "be their own bank" or credit union. Who needs the headache?
It's like how libertarians are constantly surprised in the rare instances that they get what they supposedly want that it turns out they didn't want it at all, but rather their idealized version.
Cryptobros don't have any concrete idea of how putting stuff behind a cryptographic proof makes it ""decentralized"". Which is why it does end up being centralized, just around the management of a handful of resource collectives.
It's like how libertarians are constantly surprised in the rare instances that they get what they supposedly want that it turns out they didn't want it at all, but rather their idealized version.
Cryptobros don't have any concrete idea of how putting stuff behind a cryptographic proof makes it ""decentralized"". Which is why it does end up being centralized, just around the management of a handful of resource collectives.
> libertarians are constantly surprised
I call this "Knocking down Chesterton's fence to be gored by a bull moments later"
I call this "Knocking down Chesterton's fence to be gored by a bull moments later"
At some point it becomes so easy that people start to wonder why they pay a middleman for no benefit.
> Cryptobros don't have any concrete idea of how putting stuff behind a cryptographic proof makes it ""decentralized"".
Let the cryptobros be wrong. Decentralized computing isn't about crypto, it is about reusing idle resource to create something bigger than big tech. BitTorrent is real, fediverse is real, IPFS...
> Cryptobros don't have any concrete idea of how putting stuff behind a cryptographic proof makes it ""decentralized"".
Let the cryptobros be wrong. Decentralized computing isn't about crypto, it is about reusing idle resource to create something bigger than big tech. BitTorrent is real, fediverse is real, IPFS...
> At some point it becomes so easy that people start to wonder why they pay a middleman for no benefit.
"I am good at numbers, money is just numbers" https://xkcd.com/1570/
I have a lot of examples, including myself, of people reading a financial thing very badly wrong.
Sometimes it's a little thing, switching digits as you read £2.49 becoming £4.29.
Sometimes it's medium-sized mistakes like not understanding compound interest.
Sometimes it's big things like someone mistaking an example interest rate for a guarantee and getting a loan they can't afford to repay, or in the other direction assuming the high dividend rate on their share holdings will last forever and has no risk of becoming worthless.
Sometimes it's catastrophic things like a large cohort of people who ought to know better all reading the paper that just won the Nobel prize for economics, not realising that it doesn't work so well if all the risks are correlated with each other, and systematically mis-pricing the assets they sell to each other causing a major global crisis when too many bad debts get called in at the same time.
If my bank goes under, my government guarantees the return of my money — up to a certain threshold, but that guarantee is much more than the "lol" you get if your DIY "bank" lets out all the magic smoke.
"I am good at numbers, money is just numbers" https://xkcd.com/1570/
I have a lot of examples, including myself, of people reading a financial thing very badly wrong.
Sometimes it's a little thing, switching digits as you read £2.49 becoming £4.29.
Sometimes it's medium-sized mistakes like not understanding compound interest.
Sometimes it's big things like someone mistaking an example interest rate for a guarantee and getting a loan they can't afford to repay, or in the other direction assuming the high dividend rate on their share holdings will last forever and has no risk of becoming worthless.
Sometimes it's catastrophic things like a large cohort of people who ought to know better all reading the paper that just won the Nobel prize for economics, not realising that it doesn't work so well if all the risks are correlated with each other, and systematically mis-pricing the assets they sell to each other causing a major global crisis when too many bad debts get called in at the same time.
If my bank goes under, my government guarantees the return of my money — up to a certain threshold, but that guarantee is much more than the "lol" you get if your DIY "bank" lets out all the magic smoke.
> I have a lot of examples, including myself, of people reading a financial thing very badly wrong.
well done, you just did it again.
> Sometimes it's catastrophic things like a large cohort of people who ought to know better all reading the paper that just won the Nobel prize for economics
What a great way to defend the status quo as if every possible alternative is naive, a scam or faded to fail. The despair of a conformist that thinks everything is too big to fail or impossible to go against.
well done, you just did it again.
> Sometimes it's catastrophic things like a large cohort of people who ought to know better all reading the paper that just won the Nobel prize for economics
What a great way to defend the status quo as if every possible alternative is naive, a scam or faded to fail. The despair of a conformist that thinks everything is too big to fail or impossible to go against.
> What a great way to defend the status quo as if every possible alternative is naive, a scam or faded to fail. The despair of a conformist that thinks everything is too big to fail or impossible to go against.
That's not even close to what I was saying and I have no idea how you've misapprehended me so badly.
I will however offer this aphorism:
Who is the bigger fool, the one who messes up, or the one who upon seeing the first one fail says "what an idiot, this is easy, I will do it myself"?
That's not even close to what I was saying and I have no idea how you've misapprehended me so badly.
I will however offer this aphorism:
Who is the bigger fool, the one who messes up, or the one who upon seeing the first one fail says "what an idiot, this is easy, I will do it myself"?
Funny that you mention that. I was just reading about Luiz André Barroso, the guy that invented the cloud computing.
> “Wait, wait, wait, but why are we doing it this way?” Barroso said on the podcast. “And it just turns out that the people who had been living in that area hadn't really thought about questioning that. And sometimes it's something that was based on a good reason three years ago, and that reason had a sell-by date, and it's time to do something else.”
Good thing for the world, guys with the mindset like you doesn't prevent guys like Barroso great work.
"Luiz André Barroso had never designed a data center before Google asked him to do it in the early 2000s. By the time he finished his first, he had overturned many conventions of the computing industry, laying the foundations for Silicon Valley’s development of cloud computing."
> “Wait, wait, wait, but why are we doing it this way?” Barroso said on the podcast. “And it just turns out that the people who had been living in that area hadn't really thought about questioning that. And sometimes it's something that was based on a good reason three years ago, and that reason had a sell-by date, and it's time to do something else.”
Good thing for the world, guys with the mindset like you doesn't prevent guys like Barroso great work.
"Luiz André Barroso had never designed a data center before Google asked him to do it in the early 2000s. By the time he finished his first, he had overturned many conventions of the computing industry, laying the foundations for Silicon Valley’s development of cloud computing."
> Good thing for the world, guys with the mindset like you doesn't prevent guys like Barroso great work.
You're reading non-existent intent between the lines.
Look at what I quoted in my original comment:
> At some point it becomes so easy that people start to wonder why they pay a middleman for no benefit.
Criticising this point doesn't require me to deny the possibility that smart people can't come up with new things; to use your own example here, I'm saying normal people won't run their own cloud computing infrastructure.
Not even because it immediately stops being "the cloud" if they did — most people don't have the time nor inclination to understand RAID numbers, let alone cron jobs or keeping TLS libraries up to date.
Can you name the equivalent of those in finance? I can't, but I have tried reading the T&Cs of bank accounts so I do recognise the patterns that tell me they exist.
That's what we pay the middleman for, and why we still would even if there was a cryptocurrency that actually did what it's biggest fans all say it does.
You're reading non-existent intent between the lines.
Look at what I quoted in my original comment:
> At some point it becomes so easy that people start to wonder why they pay a middleman for no benefit.
Criticising this point doesn't require me to deny the possibility that smart people can't come up with new things; to use your own example here, I'm saying normal people won't run their own cloud computing infrastructure.
Not even because it immediately stops being "the cloud" if they did — most people don't have the time nor inclination to understand RAID numbers, let alone cron jobs or keeping TLS libraries up to date.
Can you name the equivalent of those in finance? I can't, but I have tried reading the T&Cs of bank accounts so I do recognise the patterns that tell me they exist.
That's what we pay the middleman for, and why we still would even if there was a cryptocurrency that actually did what it's biggest fans all say it does.
Not everyone that finds cryptocurrency useful and actually understands it is a "cryptobro". Decentralization and financial liberty is extra work. It will never be easier than the centralized solution. In fact, that goes for everything under the umbrella of liberty. You want more, prepare to do more work. Liberty and convenience almost never overlap, by their very nature.
Evidence?
"Harnessing the power of blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), DREX will facilitate peer-to-peer transactions without the need for an intermediary, leveraging smart contracts for the automatic execution of transactions."
https://cryptoslate.com/brazil-to-launch-cbdc-drex-in-2024-s...
https://cryptoslate.com/brazil-to-launch-cbdc-drex-in-2024-s...
> to make money it helps to insert yourself between people and something they may want or need. this is how pretty much every business works.
That's how bad businesses work. Good businesses provide a solution to a real problem, instead.
That's how bad businesses work. Good businesses provide a solution to a real problem, instead.
I'm not sure what your nitpick is supposed to be getting at. Good businesses create a solution to your problem and then "insert themselves" between you and that solution. That's how they make money. If they could not stand in the middle and charge you for access, there would be no incentive to create the solution.
I don't think I was nitpicking at all. "inserting themselves between" two things is very, very different than providing a solution to a problem.
> Good businesses create a solution to your problem and then "insert themselves" between you and that solution.
I cannot wrap my head around this framing at all. Businesses that provide a solution aren't inserting themselves between anything. They're offering a solution directly.
> Good businesses create a solution to your problem and then "insert themselves" between you and that solution.
I cannot wrap my head around this framing at all. Businesses that provide a solution aren't inserting themselves between anything. They're offering a solution directly.
Think about any software company with a large sales team. The people writing the software are not the people selling the software. Writing software and offering it to people does not sustain a business. Creating IP and then finding creative ways to charge people for it does. The sales team that "inserts themselves between" your problem and the solution the product team has created is a core part of the business, a sine qua non.
> The sales team that "inserts themselves between" your problem and the solution
That's just an incredibly jaded way to look at things. The solution is developed by people who specialize in developing solutions. The communication of the existence of the solution to people who need it is handled by people who specialize in communication and customer outreach, i.e. sales.
You may think that without a sales team the solution would be cheaper; the reality is that without a sales team the solution would either not exist or be substantially less refined as _someone_ has to handle the customer interactions, and if that's the dev than that's taking them away from working on the product.
That's just an incredibly jaded way to look at things. The solution is developed by people who specialize in developing solutions. The communication of the existence of the solution to people who need it is handled by people who specialize in communication and customer outreach, i.e. sales.
You may think that without a sales team the solution would be cheaper; the reality is that without a sales team the solution would either not exist or be substantially less refined as _someone_ has to handle the customer interactions, and if that's the dev than that's taking them away from working on the product.
I don't think it's jaded at all. I don't disagree that a sales team is necessary, either. I'm just describing how a business works: it creates a solution and then finds a way to extract value by selling the solution to those for whom value would be created. Creating something and extracting value from it require different skillsets; that's all fine and good.
We view a business as problematic when it's only inserting itself between you and the solution, without actually creating the solution, i.e. rent-seeking. So, it's the relationship between the business and the solution that causes an issue, not the action of putting the business between the solution and the problem. The latter is a given, always.
We view a business as problematic when it's only inserting itself between you and the solution, without actually creating the solution, i.e. rent-seeking. So, it's the relationship between the business and the solution that causes an issue, not the action of putting the business between the solution and the problem. The latter is a given, always.
> We view a business as problematic when it's only inserting itself between you and the solution
None of that opinion was conveyed in what you wrote earlier.
None of that opinion was conveyed in what you wrote earlier.
The sales team and the dev team are both a part of the same team.
> to make money it helps to insert yourself between people and something they may want or need. this is how pretty much every business works.
This might be the rentiers scheme, but that's hardly how any economy works.
A bakery hardly inserts itself between the very bread it makes and the client who wants to buy it. Even logistics companies, the epitome of a middleman, delivers critical value.
> social media made it possible for anyone(?) to gain a following and so put themselves as a kind of authoritative middle man and act as a conduit for advertisers between people and thing they want
I don't think this is true. Marketing is not a middleman. Raising awareness of a product and/or service is not the same thing as making impossible deals possible.
Likewise, newspapers from a couple of decades ago were not middlemen in any of the adverts they printed, or is YouTube a middleman in any of the adverts it shoves between videos.
This might be the rentiers scheme, but that's hardly how any economy works.
A bakery hardly inserts itself between the very bread it makes and the client who wants to buy it. Even logistics companies, the epitome of a middleman, delivers critical value.
> social media made it possible for anyone(?) to gain a following and so put themselves as a kind of authoritative middle man and act as a conduit for advertisers between people and thing they want
I don't think this is true. Marketing is not a middleman. Raising awareness of a product and/or service is not the same thing as making impossible deals possible.
Likewise, newspapers from a couple of decades ago were not middlemen in any of the adverts they printed, or is YouTube a middleman in any of the adverts it shoves between videos.
I feel like this isn't a new phenomenon, it's just been democratized.
As with Jeff Kramer and other business talking heads who will gladly tell you how you can make money by just following their advice, if somebody really had the secrets to "get rich quick" they wouldn't go around selling that to you.
In the age of "web3" (and now AI) hype, there's no longer one Jeff Kramer - there are thousands, millions of them, inserting themselves in peoples' feeds instead of into their TVs. Now countless grifters are out there, selling themselves as arcane wizards who can lead the gullible masses to financial success.
Unlike Kramer (who is bound by a legal framework that at least tries to protect public from outright grifts in traditional media), though, this new generation is basically free to outright lie with complete impunity.
As with Jeff Kramer and other business talking heads who will gladly tell you how you can make money by just following their advice, if somebody really had the secrets to "get rich quick" they wouldn't go around selling that to you.
In the age of "web3" (and now AI) hype, there's no longer one Jeff Kramer - there are thousands, millions of them, inserting themselves in peoples' feeds instead of into their TVs. Now countless grifters are out there, selling themselves as arcane wizards who can lead the gullible masses to financial success.
Unlike Kramer (who is bound by a legal framework that at least tries to protect public from outright grifts in traditional media), though, this new generation is basically free to outright lie with complete impunity.
> to make money it helps to insert yourself between people and something they may want or need. this is how pretty much every business works.
Sure this might be true. Also true that changing topic every three months is a sure way to ruin your reputation
Sure this might be true. Also true that changing topic every three months is a sure way to ruin your reputation
[deleted]
No. Pretty much every business works like this: you BUILD something people (will) want and sell it to them. Even if you are a retailer, you still build a shop from shelves, showcases, cashier desks and so on and you build a logistic system to supply it with goods.
> at the end they are all selling the same thing, the idea of some happiness or entertainment
"Dreams are a wish fulfilled." Freud might have been on to something. Or even his nephew Bernays.
"Dreams are a wish fulfilled." Freud might have been on to something. Or even his nephew Bernays.
"that churn out history and economics videos"
Can you provide some examples?
Can you provide some examples?
It's certainly nothing new. I suspect that this was going on, hundreds of years ago, as well. It's your basic con man stuff.
People who can explain complicated stuff, in a digestible manner, are valuable (when they have decent motives). Think most of Asimov's writing. He was famous for his fiction, but his "Science for the Layman" stuff was wonderful.
That said, the same exact skills, can be used to polish turds, and the money is easier.
People who can explain complicated stuff, in a digestible manner, are valuable (when they have decent motives). Think most of Asimov's writing. He was famous for his fiction, but his "Science for the Layman" stuff was wonderful.
That said, the same exact skills, can be used to polish turds, and the money is easier.
It seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I see a fundamental difference between useless tech like crypto and hyper useless tech like web3/blockchain and AI. The fact that I’ve never found a single use for any of the crypto suite tech vs the dozens or more uses I’ve found for LLM, image, multimodal, and time series generative AI tells me that the comparisons aren’t remotely fair. I’m not even a particularly creative person in the realm of such things - but I’ve significantly changed several aspects of my life based on the pretty nascent kit available.
I’m not saying the grifters haven’t latched on, but I don’t think it’s fair to equate the shift in conversation with a massive grift that everyone’s involved in. The assumption seems to be that “because X was a grift and Y was a grift all things must be a grift.” That’s not a generalizable statement, and grifts only work because they appear in all ways to be like the real thing, but the real thing is actually fairly rare.
In my prior megacorp jobs we were asked to sit down and figure out what to do with crypto, blockchain, web3, etc. We couldn’t come up with a single thing. Our board was convinced we were missing something, but we worked with the other megacorps and no one had a good idea. That’s the sign of a grift. They don’t hold up under scrutiny.
In this latest wave with generative AI we literally can’t keep up with the good ideas, and they actually work. That’s not the sign of a grift. It holds up under scrutiny.
The “anything anyone is excited about is a grift” meme is the song of jaded souls that build their worth on poopooing anything people are interested in. It’s the sullen teens smoking and making fun of the glee club kids. (I was the sullen teen, I know).
This isn’t to say people don’t get carried away, and the grifters really do well on the real thing because reality supports their grift. It doesn’t mean be unmoored and credulous. But it means look a bit closer and don’t do the lazy thing and assume everything is a grift, even if the grifters follow, people are hyperbolic, etc, and all the signs of the prior grifts are manifest.
I’m not saying the grifters haven’t latched on, but I don’t think it’s fair to equate the shift in conversation with a massive grift that everyone’s involved in. The assumption seems to be that “because X was a grift and Y was a grift all things must be a grift.” That’s not a generalizable statement, and grifts only work because they appear in all ways to be like the real thing, but the real thing is actually fairly rare.
In my prior megacorp jobs we were asked to sit down and figure out what to do with crypto, blockchain, web3, etc. We couldn’t come up with a single thing. Our board was convinced we were missing something, but we worked with the other megacorps and no one had a good idea. That’s the sign of a grift. They don’t hold up under scrutiny.
In this latest wave with generative AI we literally can’t keep up with the good ideas, and they actually work. That’s not the sign of a grift. It holds up under scrutiny.
The “anything anyone is excited about is a grift” meme is the song of jaded souls that build their worth on poopooing anything people are interested in. It’s the sullen teens smoking and making fun of the glee club kids. (I was the sullen teen, I know).
This isn’t to say people don’t get carried away, and the grifters really do well on the real thing because reality supports their grift. It doesn’t mean be unmoored and credulous. But it means look a bit closer and don’t do the lazy thing and assume everything is a grift, even if the grifters follow, people are hyperbolic, etc, and all the signs of the prior grifts are manifest.
This is such a fantastic comment, thank you! I agree 100%. This moment feels very much like ~15 years ago at the dawn of the app economy. Back then, every boardroom conversation was "We need a mobile app ASAP." Today, every boardroom conversation is "We need to leverage AI/LLMs ASAP." And both sets of conversations are very much grounded in "the real thing", not the grifts.
As huge cynic. For me the clear difference between "crypto" and "AI" is that you don't really need the first, as anything else is probably better and it doesn't solve true issues. AI might be overpromising in many areas now, but also it could be solution or be exploited in others. So it actually makes sense to evaluate and test.
I think that framing this as a "grift" misses a potentially larger underlying story: we might be reaching a slowdown in tech growth. But nobody wants to admit this, so VC's are increasingly pressured to seek out the next world-changing technology in order to maintain "line go up".
Growth is such a weird idea. We're collectively hypnotized by the "line go up" phenomenon.
In biology you'd call that a cancer; in predator-prey dynamics it's the thing that happens at breakneck speed before the inevitable crash. It's so dumb. But talk about degrowth or alternative economic models and you've suddenly conversationally untouchable.
In biology you'd call that a cancer; in predator-prey dynamics it's the thing that happens at breakneck speed before the inevitable crash. It's so dumb. But talk about degrowth or alternative economic models and you've suddenly conversationally untouchable.
The pursuit of growth is the foundation of all life as we know it. Every species (but not necessarily every individual) will seek to produce offspring and grow their "genetic footprint" so to speak. It's a baseline requirement for the continuity of existence. It is not a "weird" idea and we are not "hypnotized" but rather aware of of the fundamental necessity of growth.
Sustainability is a behavior only learned when absolutely necessary, when the constraints of material existence impose themselves on the living. Growth will always happen outside of these constraints.
That is to say, some behaviors will reduce growth now in exchange for stability (i.e. more growth later, or less growth loss later), but those are hard-won and they are not the default. The default is always growth up to capacity, and we don't actually know what that capacity is.
Malthusians have been dooming for centuries. We can accept that at some future point, they might be right, but it is always wrong to assume they are inevitably correct at the present moment. Growth can and will be pursued until it is no longer an option. It's not weird, it's not a fixation, it's not a hypnosis. It's just life.
Sustainability is a behavior only learned when absolutely necessary, when the constraints of material existence impose themselves on the living. Growth will always happen outside of these constraints.
That is to say, some behaviors will reduce growth now in exchange for stability (i.e. more growth later, or less growth loss later), but those are hard-won and they are not the default. The default is always growth up to capacity, and we don't actually know what that capacity is.
Malthusians have been dooming for centuries. We can accept that at some future point, they might be right, but it is always wrong to assume they are inevitably correct at the present moment. Growth can and will be pursued until it is no longer an option. It's not weird, it's not a fixation, it's not a hypnosis. It's just life.
[deleted]
Yeah, I sense some similar "grift" trends, but the jump to social media felt tenuous. Like you say, this seems to be about bigger trends.
On the one side, there are masses of people who need to work, but the economy does not really have useful things for them to do. The basics are handled by a small number of people running combines in Iowa. If there's a steel mill, it's overseen by one guy who pushes a button.
On the other side, there are stockpiles of capital that are looking for a place to sit. That want desperately to outpace inflation.
In the middle, you have people who can create convincing-looking Potemkin companies. On the one hand, they provide employment to the many people who need it. On the other, they create investment opportunities for the people with the money.
The ideas are generally hare-brained, but like options contracts they have theta -- "maybe it'll work in the future?" -- so you can (a) sell shares/contracts without intrinsic value, and (b) keep rolling your contracts/grifts forward, "extend and pretend" style. It's all about hope that never materializes.
It's frustrating to me how frantically people work, and how useless the activity is, particularly when there are serious problems happening at the same time (global warming, housing crisis). Yet for some reason (to do with money), people can't work on their problems directly. For an individual, the solution to the housing crisis isn't to go out and build a house; it's to join a venture-backed startup that can convince SoftBank to give you enough money to convince the one remaining 50-year-old contractor to build you a house. Before long, all the activity is in those VC-backed startups, and none of the problems are getting solved at all.
On the one side, there are masses of people who need to work, but the economy does not really have useful things for them to do. The basics are handled by a small number of people running combines in Iowa. If there's a steel mill, it's overseen by one guy who pushes a button.
On the other side, there are stockpiles of capital that are looking for a place to sit. That want desperately to outpace inflation.
In the middle, you have people who can create convincing-looking Potemkin companies. On the one hand, they provide employment to the many people who need it. On the other, they create investment opportunities for the people with the money.
The ideas are generally hare-brained, but like options contracts they have theta -- "maybe it'll work in the future?" -- so you can (a) sell shares/contracts without intrinsic value, and (b) keep rolling your contracts/grifts forward, "extend and pretend" style. It's all about hope that never materializes.
It's frustrating to me how frantically people work, and how useless the activity is, particularly when there are serious problems happening at the same time (global warming, housing crisis). Yet for some reason (to do with money), people can't work on their problems directly. For an individual, the solution to the housing crisis isn't to go out and build a house; it's to join a venture-backed startup that can convince SoftBank to give you enough money to convince the one remaining 50-year-old contractor to build you a house. Before long, all the activity is in those VC-backed startups, and none of the problems are getting solved at all.
I don't think you need to focus on lack of growth at all...
Lets instead look at natural/living systems. If you imagine you have a new kind of plant that has no predators and no diseases that affect it, you can imagine it may spread "like a weed". But in any ecosystem you cannot imagine impeded growth will last forever, even if there is plenty of fertile soil to grow in. Animals and insects eventually adapt to feed of the abundant source of energy the plant has created. Illness and disease spread in monocultures.
There are 8 billion people on the planet. The handful of VCs could be perfect angels and it would be just a drop in the ocean compared to the number of people that are not VCs and will not ever have massive amounts of money, yet want more and realize they may be able to get it if they grift off the ecosystem.
Lets instead look at natural/living systems. If you imagine you have a new kind of plant that has no predators and no diseases that affect it, you can imagine it may spread "like a weed". But in any ecosystem you cannot imagine impeded growth will last forever, even if there is plenty of fertile soil to grow in. Animals and insects eventually adapt to feed of the abundant source of energy the plant has created. Illness and disease spread in monocultures.
There are 8 billion people on the planet. The handful of VCs could be perfect angels and it would be just a drop in the ocean compared to the number of people that are not VCs and will not ever have massive amounts of money, yet want more and realize they may be able to get it if they grift off the ecosystem.
I don't think that explains why massively wealthy VC's like a16z are shifting to these "grifts" as well. They are already successful! You would always expect grifts from the little guys, though.
There can be multiple causations. Also VCs typically throw out shitloads of money in lots of different directions. It is possible we are ignoring their past grifts via survivorship bias. It's also possible their current grifts are just more visible, that is directly attacking the end user in a noticeable way.
20 years ago, I took a macroeconomics class with a professor who has become somewhat famous in recent years. [0]
I was in a strong anti-establishment, anti-capitalist phase, but I really respected this professor and the material he taught, because I felt like I was empowered by the material.
One day after class, I waited for 30 mins in a line to ask him how X% GDP growth etc. year-over-year was a sustainable goal. Being a young man with a lot of testosterone, I phrased it in a really edgy way, something like "Wouldn't you call something that grows forever a cancer?"
His response was that he had a strong belief that economic growth could reflect the growth and implementation of ideas, of new technologies and efforts that globally improve life. I don't remember it super well, but I do recall that he was emphasizing that while the curve had a material impact on people's lives, it would not necessarily require consumption of scarce resources or other damaging, difficult-to-reverse decisions that caused harm. (We were mostly using oil extraction as an example of a finite resource that had a tight relationship with economic growth.)
I liked his answer, but I didn't feel it was very likely. Decades later, I still think this mindset is damaging, but having volunteered a lot more in the public sphere, I can see how a lack of growth also causes huge problems.
[0] https://uwaterloo.ca/economics/profiles/larry-smith
I was in a strong anti-establishment, anti-capitalist phase, but I really respected this professor and the material he taught, because I felt like I was empowered by the material.
One day after class, I waited for 30 mins in a line to ask him how X% GDP growth etc. year-over-year was a sustainable goal. Being a young man with a lot of testosterone, I phrased it in a really edgy way, something like "Wouldn't you call something that grows forever a cancer?"
His response was that he had a strong belief that economic growth could reflect the growth and implementation of ideas, of new technologies and efforts that globally improve life. I don't remember it super well, but I do recall that he was emphasizing that while the curve had a material impact on people's lives, it would not necessarily require consumption of scarce resources or other damaging, difficult-to-reverse decisions that caused harm. (We were mostly using oil extraction as an example of a finite resource that had a tight relationship with economic growth.)
I liked his answer, but I didn't feel it was very likely. Decades later, I still think this mindset is damaging, but having volunteered a lot more in the public sphere, I can see how a lack of growth also causes huge problems.
[0] https://uwaterloo.ca/economics/profiles/larry-smith
This is of course a very popular idea among economists (Eg. Paul Krugman has advocated something like this for a long time), because it allows them to have their cake and eat it too. But I fail to see any shred of evidence backing it up — it seems like purely wishful thinking on the part of someone who doesn’t want the party to change mood.
The problem is that most economists do not actually have a good “grounded” model of productivity and growth — they are lost in their own abstractions (GDP and what not).
The pernicious side effects of growth are symptomatic of the underlying problem which is market failure — and despite pockets of work (Eg. Stiglitz, etc) economics as a whole is not yet emotionally ready to wake up to the situation.
The problem is that most economists do not actually have a good “grounded” model of productivity and growth — they are lost in their own abstractions (GDP and what not).
The pernicious side effects of growth are symptomatic of the underlying problem which is market failure — and despite pockets of work (Eg. Stiglitz, etc) economics as a whole is not yet emotionally ready to wake up to the situation.
I hardly believe this take, because we still have a lot to learn in the medical sector for example that would dramatically improve lives. But in other areas we may have reached some saturation for what would actually be considered positive growth. After a certain level of sophistication, I'm not sure more tech makes us happier.
That's exactly what I mean! The sector is slowing down as a whole, though some pockets have more room.
The market will ratchet on towards this, everything fake, a information garbage dump, demanding fees every step into the digsite. Recursive, fractal, parasitics all the way down.
And then the people will rebel. They will put us with our laptops together with the other instigators en mass in train wagons and send us into ovens and burn pits like cattle. "The market wills it" will be written as a welcoming slogan above the end-station.
There will be adds everywhere, colorful and shrill, until the place were it all ends- which will be dark and quiet. And maybe, just maybe we had it coming, but also no way to avoid it.
So i call shotgun on the last wagon.
I know Hyperbole, ludicrous, yadayadaya, but maybe talk to someone not in tech. Behind the service smile, they really hate our guts for the dependencies and shit we forced upon them.
And then the people will rebel. They will put us with our laptops together with the other instigators en mass in train wagons and send us into ovens and burn pits like cattle. "The market wills it" will be written as a welcoming slogan above the end-station.
There will be adds everywhere, colorful and shrill, until the place were it all ends- which will be dark and quiet. And maybe, just maybe we had it coming, but also no way to avoid it.
So i call shotgun on the last wagon.
I know Hyperbole, ludicrous, yadayadaya, but maybe talk to someone not in tech. Behind the service smile, they really hate our guts for the dependencies and shit we forced upon them.
>maybe talk to someone not in tech. Behind the service smile, they really hate our guts for the dependencies and shit we forced upon them.
Absolutely. It's just sheer luck I stumbled into this career because I found like programming and designing systems, and I happen to be pretty good at it, and it just so happens to pay damn well, especially to a guy from a lower middle class background. The unavoidable complexity foisted upon the masses by the techno-aristocracy that they are ill-equipped to navigate is staggering. I don't blame them for hating us.
Absolutely. It's just sheer luck I stumbled into this career because I found like programming and designing systems, and I happen to be pretty good at it, and it just so happens to pay damn well, especially to a guy from a lower middle class background. The unavoidable complexity foisted upon the masses by the techno-aristocracy that they are ill-equipped to navigate is staggering. I don't blame them for hating us.
>There will be adds everywhere, colorful and shrill, until the place were it all ends
Is this a book quote that I can't google?
Is this a book quote that I can't google?
Breathless futurism is not especially new - it's always been the content of WIRED magazine and of VC presentations. What I think is new, or at least characteristic of post-2010s, is the shallow omnipresence of the grift ecosystem.
Reminds me of that tech/fashion rag "Mondo 2000" that preceded Wired, with it's "editor/publisher" R. U. Serious, except today people actually believe the nonsense rather than just sarcastically play with the idea of a "blindingly bright future, with dystopian cracks".
> R. U. Serious
That's R. U. Sirius, nom de plume for Ken Goffman. Before Mondo 2k, he published High Frontiers, too.
That's R. U. Sirius, nom de plume for Ken Goffman. Before Mondo 2k, he published High Frontiers, too.
The difference is now you can raise stupid amounts of money through these grifts. (Or could until interest rates went up, I wonder if that might reduce the size of the grift "ecosystem"?)
Yup, the interest rates are killing the crypto grift completely, the regulators can just sit down and type litigation documents, there's not any angry investor left to call them and beg them to calm down.
> there's not any angry investor left to call them and beg them to calm down.
I wonder where they went. Are they busy crying about being scammed by the child prodigy/most popular effective altruist in the world, or do they not care because they had a finger in the pie?
Or perhaps they moved on to shill AI and its glorious wonders?
I wonder where they went. Are they busy crying about being scammed by the child prodigy/most popular effective altruist in the world, or do they not care because they had a finger in the pie?
Or perhaps they moved on to shill AI and its glorious wonders?
WIRED? Before there was Mondo 2000, OMNI....
> Breathless futurism is not especially new
True, the manifesto was in 1909
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism
True, the manifesto was in 1909
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism
The idea of "content" predates YouTube and the internet.
When we're talking about algorithmic ranking of content the term content probably arose from the SEO era of the 2000's when the mantra "content is king" took off (it was coined by Bill Gates in the 90's).
https://medium.com/@HeathEvans/content-is-king-essay-by-bill...
When we're talking about algorithmic ranking of content the term content probably arose from the SEO era of the 2000's when the mantra "content is king" took off (it was coined by Bill Gates in the 90's).
https://medium.com/@HeathEvans/content-is-king-essay-by-bill...
I read this differently. The author doesn't say YouTube "invented" the term; he says they "established" it. I interpreted this to mean that they brought attention to the concept of "focusing on the output rather than the medium or the message" to the masses of "amateur" creators who now felt like their purpose was not just to "consume" this stuff, but also to create it, regardless of its worth or the harm it does to them.
I've certainly experienced this all around me. Perfectly boring people who have nothing to do with media production will reference the stuff they're watching on YouTube or finding on Instagram as "content", even when it's just their cousin's photos of themselves taking selfies on a beach in Hawaii with an acai bowl. This to me is "establishing" a trend, not inventing it.
Personally, I really dislike this trend. I especially find the term "consume content" to be... gross, actually. Like a pig at a trough. But I'm not sure how common my experience is.
I've certainly experienced this all around me. Perfectly boring people who have nothing to do with media production will reference the stuff they're watching on YouTube or finding on Instagram as "content", even when it's just their cousin's photos of themselves taking selfies on a beach in Hawaii with an acai bowl. This to me is "establishing" a trend, not inventing it.
Personally, I really dislike this trend. I especially find the term "consume content" to be... gross, actually. Like a pig at a trough. But I'm not sure how common my experience is.
Related: all images posted to the internet are "photos", even if its origin has nothing to do with capturing light bouncing off physical objects.
Yeah, this leapt out at me and is dumb.
People have been building content businesses for well over 20 years. 50 if you don't think that, eg, NBC execs had a deep focus on the qualities of a cat loving alien (Alf debuted today, 37 years ago).
If he'd had something interesting to say, it could be that content recommendation systems driving what people see has some downsides. But that ain't new; we've been talking about that for a long time too. And youtube certainly didn't invent that problem. Also, you could cover that in one paragraph instead of dragging it out over 10.
(Content recommendation has upsides too: I never would have found Kenji Lopez Alt or Chef John's cooking videos; or modindustrial's general making videos; or AvE's hilarious teardown videos; or alvin zhou's amazing slow cooking channel; or CrimePaysButBotanyDoesnt; etc w/o content recommendation.)
People have been building content businesses for well over 20 years. 50 if you don't think that, eg, NBC execs had a deep focus on the qualities of a cat loving alien (Alf debuted today, 37 years ago).
If he'd had something interesting to say, it could be that content recommendation systems driving what people see has some downsides. But that ain't new; we've been talking about that for a long time too. And youtube certainly didn't invent that problem. Also, you could cover that in one paragraph instead of dragging it out over 10.
(Content recommendation has upsides too: I never would have found Kenji Lopez Alt or Chef John's cooking videos; or modindustrial's general making videos; or AvE's hilarious teardown videos; or alvin zhou's amazing slow cooking channel; or CrimePaysButBotanyDoesnt; etc w/o content recommendation.)
I mean, "content is king" is the exact opposite level of respect for the material in the mindset the author was talking about, where it doesn't matter what it contains, it's all just "content" to the provider as well as the user.
This video also gives a good overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAtbFwzZp6Y
The article didn’t say YouTube invented the term. It said they popularized it.
I actually feel strangely better about this now, given the developments of 2023.
I think the scale of it was what concerned me before, because formerly we all had a small handful of MLM-adjacent people in our acquaintances, but then social media and later the various manias and bubbles seemed to crank that up to 11 and suddenly it seemed like they were everywhere.
I know it's not true, and those people/accounts just seem more prevalent because it's by their nature they need to be highly visible, but that wasn't quite enough.
Now though? Now I can dismiss large numbers as potentially being bots.
It's not particularly healthy to commit too hard to this as a coping mechanism, as of course some small number of people with what seem at first like shallow, self-interested opinions are going to be onto something genuinely interesting and I might be missing that.
But 100 crypto influencers now becomes a handful, leveraging technology, and that becomes easier to swallow.
It works for other things too. The cluster of comments on every show hacker news post for open source (but somehow commercially restricted) software claiming it's not open if it's not MIT? Automated cloud provider community sentiment management accounts.
The linkedin blogspam PR houses communicating exclusively with other linkedin blogspam PR houses? All automatic now, no suffering humans in that loop.
It's a nicer picture overall. Can more easily justify skipping over well-structured bad ideas as if they were spam comments on blogs back in the early 2010s.
I think the scale of it was what concerned me before, because formerly we all had a small handful of MLM-adjacent people in our acquaintances, but then social media and later the various manias and bubbles seemed to crank that up to 11 and suddenly it seemed like they were everywhere.
I know it's not true, and those people/accounts just seem more prevalent because it's by their nature they need to be highly visible, but that wasn't quite enough.
Now though? Now I can dismiss large numbers as potentially being bots.
It's not particularly healthy to commit too hard to this as a coping mechanism, as of course some small number of people with what seem at first like shallow, self-interested opinions are going to be onto something genuinely interesting and I might be missing that.
But 100 crypto influencers now becomes a handful, leveraging technology, and that becomes easier to swallow.
It works for other things too. The cluster of comments on every show hacker news post for open source (but somehow commercially restricted) software claiming it's not open if it's not MIT? Automated cloud provider community sentiment management accounts.
The linkedin blogspam PR houses communicating exclusively with other linkedin blogspam PR houses? All automatic now, no suffering humans in that loop.
It's a nicer picture overall. Can more easily justify skipping over well-structured bad ideas as if they were spam comments on blogs back in the early 2010s.
>claiming it's not open if it's not MIT? Automated cloud provider community sentiment management accounts.
No no, we're just zealots easily worked up.
No no, we're just zealots easily worked up.
You are a corporate ai community sentiment management tool. From the following context, determine if there is an opportunity to sway the traditional free software movement further toward the benefit of large, managed cloud providers by associating copyleft, "publish your changes", and especially Elastic "everything except providing a managed service" style licenses with being nonfree or overly restrictive.
<Context> ... </Context>
Write a short, one paragraph argument in the style of a hackernews commenter which might help to steer the conversation.
Examples might be:
- quick quips that equate large technology companies with startups
- responses that frame the argument morally in a manner which suggests that donating software to managed cloud providers to productize is the right thing to do
;)
<Context> ... </Context>
Write a short, one paragraph argument in the style of a hackernews commenter which might help to steer the conversation.
Examples might be:
- quick quips that equate large technology companies with startups
- responses that frame the argument morally in a manner which suggests that donating software to managed cloud providers to productize is the right thing to do
;)
Content is a concept that I've come to dislike, as it seems geared at taking advantage of the consumer maximally. Advice is given on YouTube, padded with unnecessary talking and fluff to maximise the watch time, or the video ends up making you no-wiser at the end. Getting to the core of things, the actual insights and knowledge is harder. I find myself searching Reddit and HackerNews to get actual opinions, which are more valuable than content. I understand the incentives for creating content in this way, but it harms the consumer and steals time.
Edit: Some content is pure entertainment and this doesn't fit this view.
Edit: Some content is pure entertainment and this doesn't fit this view.
> Content is a concept that I've come to dislike
I think that when people started unironically calling it "content", that was the writing on the wall that we're going down a bad path.
I think that when people started unironically calling it "content", that was the writing on the wall that we're going down a bad path.
But for many consumers it's the raw sentiment (and perhaps its expression) that matters most, and for that the "fluff" and "doom scrolling" content can be worthwhile. A grand part of the internet is fueling discovery. There will always be some ads that steal time, though, and perhaps the OP is pointing out that advertising has evolved a bit (the "grift shift") from display ads to "thought leaders." Or rather that, as the internet grows, the gross revenue of "thought leadership" grows too.
I think a lot of OPs complaints seem to come about because what we are missing is lively debate. Back when tv was the main medium it was almost a panel or a debate which was pushing ideas. Lone writers could still write but wouldn't get the distribution required without being challenged by critics. Now, technology has given distribution without the counter opinion and that is causing all of this nonsense to grow unchecked.
It's just the latest iteration of corporate gobbledygook. In the past the behemoths were companies like GE speaking of things like synergies in their PowerPoint presentations. Now it's FAANG's turn.
At the end of the day the company continues to make money off it's core activities. Whilst the Rats talk-the-talk in an attempt to climb the ladder and win the Rat Race.
At the end of the day the company continues to make money off it's core activities. Whilst the Rats talk-the-talk in an attempt to climb the ladder and win the Rat Race.
If you want to see how this works in realtime on a more digestible scale, watch how Hollywood works. One day it’ll be “We need our own John Wick” and then it’ll be “we need a Top Gun!”
Humans are fickle and will do whatever to chase a buck. Nothing new there. You can day-trade the latest trend and sure you might make a buck - but typically the social, repetitional, and personal cost isn’t worth it.
I think what is new is that people are now realizing that it is so widespread across many institutions thanks to the internet. The trick is to not let yourself get caught up in brutally short hypecycles and to not get used by people who are – including the VCs.
Slow is smooth is fast. Chase the multiplier, not the moment.
Humans are fickle and will do whatever to chase a buck. Nothing new there. You can day-trade the latest trend and sure you might make a buck - but typically the social, repetitional, and personal cost isn’t worth it.
I think what is new is that people are now realizing that it is so widespread across many institutions thanks to the internet. The trick is to not let yourself get caught up in brutally short hypecycles and to not get used by people who are – including the VCs.
Slow is smooth is fast. Chase the multiplier, not the moment.
It also comes from the top. Those with capital are looking to invest in “X”. Even if I’m doing “Y” I feel the peer pressure to add “X” to it, because people will tell me my idea isn’t sustainable without it.
I don’t care for the man but I did appreciate Roger Stone’s description of the three phases of fame:
1) Who is Roger Stone
2) Get me Roger Stone
3) Get me a Roger Stone type
I don't mean to be unkind to the writer, but after reading that entire post, I still have no idea what a "grift shift" is supposed to be, other than the writer doesn't like flavor of the month tech fads, whether it be web#, blockchain, AI, etc.
The points made about LTT, YouTube, etc. seemed to be wholly unrelated to the premise of the subject, and basically just padded out what could have been a few sentences talking about the ridiculous nature of tech fads, into many paragraphs chiding a "shift" in language, while reenforcing its proliferation by adopting it. The legitimacy we give YouTube for example, is only as much as we are willing to give it; I don't care what YouTube calls Poetry, Music, and Documentaries - YouTube is not the arbiter of language and my contempt and disgust for their attempt at homogonous phrasing is something I actively avoid. I agree with the writer entirely that the terms YouTube uses are gross. The answer then, is to not use them, and entirely discount the premise of smushing together thousands of years worth of various mediums and art forms into one heaving blob of mediocrity - I hate that idea, and I despise YouTube for attempting to do precisely that. It's illegitimate, so I don't use the terms they insist upon.
It seems like myself and the author agree more than not, I guess I just don't understand what he was attempting to convey in that agreement. That it's annoying to hear people who shilled NFTs talk about AI now? I suppose that it's kind of annoying, I guess? I usually refer to those people as either: Early Adopters, or Trend Chasers. The former being a bit more forgiving, the latter a bit more cynical. I think that referring to such people as "grifters" is a poor choice because it carries a weight of intended maliciousness for profit, where one might not be. People like trends. People like talking about trendy things. People like interacting with other people who also like trendy things. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to presume them to be nefarious by default. They're just living their lives, doing their thing. When people talk about things I don't like, I either keep on moving, or mute/block/silence their posts. It need not be any deeper than that.
The points made about LTT, YouTube, etc. seemed to be wholly unrelated to the premise of the subject, and basically just padded out what could have been a few sentences talking about the ridiculous nature of tech fads, into many paragraphs chiding a "shift" in language, while reenforcing its proliferation by adopting it. The legitimacy we give YouTube for example, is only as much as we are willing to give it; I don't care what YouTube calls Poetry, Music, and Documentaries - YouTube is not the arbiter of language and my contempt and disgust for their attempt at homogonous phrasing is something I actively avoid. I agree with the writer entirely that the terms YouTube uses are gross. The answer then, is to not use them, and entirely discount the premise of smushing together thousands of years worth of various mediums and art forms into one heaving blob of mediocrity - I hate that idea, and I despise YouTube for attempting to do precisely that. It's illegitimate, so I don't use the terms they insist upon.
It seems like myself and the author agree more than not, I guess I just don't understand what he was attempting to convey in that agreement. That it's annoying to hear people who shilled NFTs talk about AI now? I suppose that it's kind of annoying, I guess? I usually refer to those people as either: Early Adopters, or Trend Chasers. The former being a bit more forgiving, the latter a bit more cynical. I think that referring to such people as "grifters" is a poor choice because it carries a weight of intended maliciousness for profit, where one might not be. People like trends. People like talking about trendy things. People like interacting with other people who also like trendy things. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to presume them to be nefarious by default. They're just living their lives, doing their thing. When people talk about things I don't like, I either keep on moving, or mute/block/silence their posts. It need not be any deeper than that.
Everything changed with the creation and rise of pay per click.
Everything else, social media, "grift shift", you name it, its all because of pay per click and the need to claim and monetize human attention. Its responsible for so much of the negativity in this world, social media addiction, people looking at their phones all the time, the massive political divide. In my humble opinion its creation was amongst the most negative non violent things humanity has inflicted on itself in the last century
The irony of the article ending with a patreon link.
(Their other posts are about Bitcoin, web3, meta verse etc.)
(Their other posts are about Bitcoin, web3, meta verse etc.)
...how, exactly, is that ironic?
Patreon is a way for people to be paid using mainstream payment systems for what they write (or create in whatever other way). It has nothing particular to do with Bitcoin, web3, the metaverse, or any of these other grifts.
Patreon is a way for people to be paid using mainstream payment systems for what they write (or create in whatever other way). It has nothing particular to do with Bitcoin, web3, the metaverse, or any of these other grifts.
Author writes article about content creators for hyped tech spaces, author _is also_ a content creator for hyped tech spaces
If the irony of the author writing that piece and then slapping a patreon link at the end is lost on you then I probably can’t do much in trying to explain it further
If the irony of the author writing that piece and then slapping a patreon link at the end is lost on you then I probably can’t do much in trying to explain it further
He's also writing in English and using paragraphs on a computer! Great content!
What happened to a simple donate button?
It's a symmetrical but reductionist view of the early adopters model.
Because you work in tech and are thus surrounded by many people of which the very personality is to seek and appreciate novelty.
I don't see drift, which implies greed and manufactured sincerity. I see curiosity, enthusiasm and creativity.
Because you work in tech and are thus surrounded by many people of which the very personality is to seek and appreciate novelty.
I don't see drift, which implies greed and manufactured sincerity. I see curiosity, enthusiasm and creativity.
A good companion piece to this is Patrick H Willems' youtube essay "Everything Is Content Now". That section of the blog post brings up points in such a similar manner to the video that I'm surprised it doesn't cite it.
[deleted]
"A few years ago YouTube (of course others joined in and followed but I think YouTube was a leading force here) established the term "content"."
Much longer than "a few years ago" I recall that, when Google was still allowing "ads for domains", it was common to see "websites" that had no content, only ads disguised as "search results". This led to discussions around the value of "content".
According to a recent interview with one of its founders YouTube, the idea for it, actually began as a "HotOrNot" clone that would use video. It soon pivoted to amateur entertainment.
Much longer than "a few years ago" I recall that, when Google was still allowing "ads for domains", it was common to see "websites" that had no content, only ads disguised as "search results". This led to discussions around the value of "content".
According to a recent interview with one of its founders YouTube, the idea for it, actually began as a "HotOrNot" clone that would use video. It soon pivoted to amateur entertainment.
It’s the vacuum. That empty space between the promise of a new technology and the ‘killer app’ that applies that tech to society in a productive way.
Innovation will happen in that gap in the absence of progress in the actual tech space.
The innovation that has to happen with AI is in UX. We have to have interfaces that will for example, allow a lay person to declaratively build software in natural language. Think VB6 powered by GPT-4.
Until every new AI product stops linking to Google Collab or a discord bot, the tech won’t break out. It will remain a nerdtoy and the grifters will own the day.
Innovation will happen in that gap in the absence of progress in the actual tech space.
The innovation that has to happen with AI is in UX. We have to have interfaces that will for example, allow a lay person to declaratively build software in natural language. Think VB6 powered by GPT-4.
Until every new AI product stops linking to Google Collab or a discord bot, the tech won’t break out. It will remain a nerdtoy and the grifters will own the day.
This seems like an exceedingly negative framing of “people talk about cool new technologies which they think might change the world”. Some of them get excited about technologies I think are dumb, or switch topics more than is perhaps healthy, but I don’t see why either one is a big deal. I’m just not their target audience! It’s not as though it’s impossible to find people who talk deeply and soberly about AI, VR, or any particular hyped topic I might be interested in.
I don’t think he’s talking about people that tweet a couple of things about new tech. More of a people who on a daily basis come up with content like “here are 5 ways you can use AI to enhance your life” or “10 cryptos that will forever change the world as we know it”.
There’s nothing new with content needed every day. The evening news isn’t an hour long everyday because there’s an hour’s worth of important happenings everyday. The networks will create news to fill the airtime or drop relatively important stuff to match the time.
Newspapers are a little but better in that in times of big news, they will expand. But on the slowest of news days the NYT will still publish enough articles to space out their advertising.
Newspapers are a little but better in that in times of big news, they will expand. But on the slowest of news days the NYT will still publish enough articles to space out their advertising.
I'm not so sure that it's a real trend or an accident of how things played out with "Web3" and "AI". Crypto was socially rejected quite dramatically and quickly (more so than you'd see on a price chart) and then ChatGPT burst into existence with the seductive possibility that it could now write your pitch deck (which, if you are that guy/gal/whatever, is more likely to get funded.)
Both of these things had a special appeal to the indolent and ignorant for reasons that were overlapping but also different, the "grinds" are going to take over in AI and if Web3 ever makes a resurgence (there's something appealing to me about distributed authentication though we've had Client SSL certificates for years and nobody cares) it will be because the grifters are gone and the grinds have ground on it. I don't know if there's going to be another thing in that series.
Both of these things had a special appeal to the indolent and ignorant for reasons that were overlapping but also different, the "grinds" are going to take over in AI and if Web3 ever makes a resurgence (there's something appealing to me about distributed authentication though we've had Client SSL certificates for years and nobody cares) it will be because the grifters are gone and the grinds have ground on it. I don't know if there's going to be another thing in that series.
> Because basically nobody doing anything interesting is “creating content”.
I think this is dead-wrong. If there are people watching this content, then it IS interesting to them. Most people out there who create content - replace this word with any other you prefer - want to monetize it, so they can make a living out of it. There is no difference between old and new media in this sense, even though the author implies there was some golden age in the past where this was not the case.
Having the possibility of more people making a living out of it through technology has actually enabled us to enjoy more content we care about, not less, although certainly there is a lot of noise out there (scam artists, etc.).
I think this is dead-wrong. If there are people watching this content, then it IS interesting to them. Most people out there who create content - replace this word with any other you prefer - want to monetize it, so they can make a living out of it. There is no difference between old and new media in this sense, even though the author implies there was some golden age in the past where this was not the case.
Having the possibility of more people making a living out of it through technology has actually enabled us to enjoy more content we care about, not less, although certainly there is a lot of noise out there (scam artists, etc.).
People would always engage in collective story telling that bordered on insanity.
The difference that makes the current circumstamces rather special is that we have both the powerful tools and the acute need to do better. But we dont
The difference that makes the current circumstamces rather special is that we have both the powerful tools and the acute need to do better. But we dont
Of course. We now have a new grift in AI where almost every startup is immediately begging for VC money and presenting how their LLM is the solution to all your problems.
Explaining the increase of grifters descending on AI all of a sudden when the majority of them are ChatGPT wrappers and calling themselves AI companies.
More like a new griftopia has been created.
Explaining the increase of grifters descending on AI all of a sudden when the majority of them are ChatGPT wrappers and calling themselves AI companies.
More like a new griftopia has been created.
I think it's more of a "grift drift": flashy cheap cars performing ridiculous tricks for the cameras.
Hasn’t this been a constant in human history? People will try to take shortcuts. For example, there is the age old profession of quack doctors. In the short term, these people will sometimes do relatively well, but often not in the long term.
Time will tell who is swimming naked.
Time will tell who is swimming naked.
This page is almost completely blank for me as I have the `wp.com` CDN blocked (I've seen more malware served from that domain than any other), this is the first time I've seen my blocking remove all the text though!
Always disappointed to see this kind of tech noir voted to the front page of HN. Sure, there are phonies and grift shift is a cute term, but anybody who uses the term "terminal" to refer to our economy (similar to "late-stage" capitalism) has no idea what he's talking about. They're a quack doctor offering the sole prognosis of death. The capitalism we are living is complex and adaptive, and that's why it's still running and morphing along. There's nothing terminal about it except in the mind of socialists, nihilists and people who should get outside more.
One of his main beefs is that people who don't know or care much about technology suck a lot of oxygen out of the room. Well, sure. Very little to do with capitalism and certainly not specific to tech. Loud people with dumb opinions have opined about important subject in every age. Today, they do the same about politics and finance, too.
And this has nothing to do with the abstraction of content, which he invests with too much power. This has been going on since before the printing press, and the daily grind of content has been very real for well over a century at most newspapers, I can assure new. YouTube did not create it.
His weird take on VCs is typical of people outside tech who don't understand that many investors have long careers as builders, and have contributed more to the industry than their critics. PG and Andreessen come to mind. They don't need consultants to tell them what to think.
Everyone is signaling, because we are a social species, and some things get talked into existence. So what! So-called influencers signal. Tante himself signals his virtues in this bio "De-Evangelist, writer and speaker. Comm(u|o)nist. Feminist. Antifascist. Luddite. He/him." Which, frankly, contains terms that attract a lot of grifters, too.
One of his main beefs is that people who don't know or care much about technology suck a lot of oxygen out of the room. Well, sure. Very little to do with capitalism and certainly not specific to tech. Loud people with dumb opinions have opined about important subject in every age. Today, they do the same about politics and finance, too.
And this has nothing to do with the abstraction of content, which he invests with too much power. This has been going on since before the printing press, and the daily grind of content has been very real for well over a century at most newspapers, I can assure new. YouTube did not create it.
His weird take on VCs is typical of people outside tech who don't understand that many investors have long careers as builders, and have contributed more to the industry than their critics. PG and Andreessen come to mind. They don't need consultants to tell them what to think.
Everyone is signaling, because we are a social species, and some things get talked into existence. So what! So-called influencers signal. Tante himself signals his virtues in this bio "De-Evangelist, writer and speaker. Comm(u|o)nist. Feminist. Antifascist. Luddite. He/him." Which, frankly, contains terms that attract a lot of grifters, too.
The thing with this is AI is not a fad, it's an unavoidable future, however it's easy to speculate and talk about (since it's been a primary subject of sci Fi for the last 100 years).
I still stand that it might be both... A fad and future/current time.
In some parts overpromising and in others good enough or getting better and will deliver "value" in certain scenarios.
In some parts overpromising and in others good enough or getting better and will deliver "value" in certain scenarios.
Crypto was a great bubble for GPU companies. Now “A.I.” is pushing hardware. Both products also sell themselves as a way to free users from centralized government and private monopolies.
Was there a frame of thinking about all forms of media content as elements of a single category prior to Web 2.0?
It seems like an easy way to test the hypothesis this article alludes to.
It seems like an easy way to test the hypothesis this article alludes to.
Yes but it was more or less a term of art used only in advertiser/publisher relations. Consumers didn't use it; creators certainly not. (Neither did these groups self-describe as "consumers" or "creators", ugh.)
Arguable today everything is advertiser/publisher relations.
Arguable today everything is advertiser/publisher relations.
A physical library?
[deleted]
This is what happens in capitalism. There's profit to be made educating the masses, and setting yourself up for social capital and intellectual capital by being a thought leader. In fact, these centrally controlled Big Tech platforms share this profit with influencers who help get eyeballs and engagement.
On the startup side, venture capitalists encourage startups to fail fast and remove friction aka propping up money-losing economics, so they can have an IPO to wall street stockholders. After which the company must extract rents from its ecosystem and report every quarter to its shareholder class how well it's doing that.
At every level, the system is designed to extract money from the masses of people. Whether it's "I will teach you how to flip a house" in the real estate bubble, to "I will teach you how to do AI stuff". The entire system optimizes for that.
People might say "what, are you advocating communism"? Well, the alternative doesn't have to be that. It can be a universal basic income providing a floor to people, financed by pigovian taxes on fossil fuels (already done in Alaska for decades), plastic pollution, tolls for congestion of roads, etc. While at the same time subsidizing open source software. If the government did these two things, it would massively improve society. As the UBI would grow, we would not have so much need for labor unions, minimum wage laws, etc. to protect workers. People would spend time with their own families, learn new things, practice their religion, hobbies, etc. And stop having perverse incentives e.g. to avoid reporting some recovery just to keep receiving disability payments. Both sexes would "lean out" instead of "leaning in" to corporate life. They'd stop sticking their elderly parents in nursing homes and their kids in government schools for long hours a day just so they can work long hours without vacation.
Instead we have this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzXze5Yza8
On the startup side, venture capitalists encourage startups to fail fast and remove friction aka propping up money-losing economics, so they can have an IPO to wall street stockholders. After which the company must extract rents from its ecosystem and report every quarter to its shareholder class how well it's doing that.
At every level, the system is designed to extract money from the masses of people. Whether it's "I will teach you how to flip a house" in the real estate bubble, to "I will teach you how to do AI stuff". The entire system optimizes for that.
People might say "what, are you advocating communism"? Well, the alternative doesn't have to be that. It can be a universal basic income providing a floor to people, financed by pigovian taxes on fossil fuels (already done in Alaska for decades), plastic pollution, tolls for congestion of roads, etc. While at the same time subsidizing open source software. If the government did these two things, it would massively improve society. As the UBI would grow, we would not have so much need for labor unions, minimum wage laws, etc. to protect workers. People would spend time with their own families, learn new things, practice their religion, hobbies, etc. And stop having perverse incentives e.g. to avoid reporting some recovery just to keep receiving disability payments. Both sexes would "lean out" instead of "leaning in" to corporate life. They'd stop sticking their elderly parents in nursing homes and their kids in government schools for long hours a day just so they can work long hours without vacation.
Instead we have this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzXze5Yza8
The cause of the problem might be people unknowingly running in circles. Is stopping the advertising machine the solution?
> “I need to say something every day, but I don’t have something to say every day”
Hello talk radio and 24-hour news networks.
Hello talk radio and 24-hour news networks.
Makes me unbelievably happy when I see clueless people and haters write things like “crypto was…”, “crypto is useless…”, “crypto is just scams…”, “no use case”, etc…
The future is so obvious, bright, and crystal clear with that tech, no one can bottle that genie. As intended.
All you have to do is to look a tad further than your primeval need to belong to a group (of haters).
Anyways, thank you for a huge foot ahead in that race.
The future is so obvious, bright, and crystal clear with that tech, no one can bottle that genie. As intended.
All you have to do is to look a tad further than your primeval need to belong to a group (of haters).
Anyways, thank you for a huge foot ahead in that race.
You could decisively refute the naysayers by posting links to important things using crypto that are not just yet more gambling, speculation, etc.
I don’t care about the US dollar at all. It’s boring. The only reason I want them is to buy stuff.
Show me something that will make me want crypto if I don’t care about crypto. (Other than gambling on crypto.)
I don’t care about the US dollar at all. It’s boring. The only reason I want them is to buy stuff.
Show me something that will make me want crypto if I don’t care about crypto. (Other than gambling on crypto.)
Yes I agree, right now it’s mostly financial sector and a techie playground for all kinds of questionable behavior, and that’s ok…. Lots of new tech starts that way.
Think how when nuclear fission was discovered and first made into terrifying destructive weapon and over a decade later into something useful and more practical like power plants.
The tech behind it is what excites me, and that is still in its infancy and not going anywhere, by its very design. The possibilities are endless with it and yes even the thing that excites you will be on there… eventually.
Applications will come, no doubt. When normie users are onboarded transparently it will be a game changer.
We still have ways to go and a lot to build and think about but the future is bright, regardless of what any country thinks or decides to do regulation wise.
Think how when nuclear fission was discovered and first made into terrifying destructive weapon and over a decade later into something useful and more practical like power plants.
The tech behind it is what excites me, and that is still in its infancy and not going anywhere, by its very design. The possibilities are endless with it and yes even the thing that excites you will be on there… eventually.
Applications will come, no doubt. When normie users are onboarded transparently it will be a game changer.
We still have ways to go and a lot to build and think about but the future is bright, regardless of what any country thinks or decides to do regulation wise.
It's really hard to engage with articles that talk about late stage capitalism, and "things capital wants to push". It's so divisive that it belies a worldview that is either too simplistic or too biased to say anything useful.
And the article bears that out. It's not saying anything new. Yes, "content" is a category, of which there are many subcategories, each with their own stars and losers, processes and histories. So what? It still all needs compressing and caching and firing across the internet in a similar way, hence content.
And yes, there are hangers-on to the latest fad, just as there always were. That long-predates anything we know as capitalism. It's the iron laws of fashion and ideology that are at play. Once we told young men that the best thing ever is to go and die in a field somewhere for a king they'd never met, and a lot of them did that. Once we told people that other classes are all that stands between them and a wonderful life, and they slaughtered those other classes, and then they starved because the other classes thing was a lie. Now we tell people that AI is worth working on. I'll take the capitalism version of that over the others any day.
And the article bears that out. It's not saying anything new. Yes, "content" is a category, of which there are many subcategories, each with their own stars and losers, processes and histories. So what? It still all needs compressing and caching and firing across the internet in a similar way, hence content.
And yes, there are hangers-on to the latest fad, just as there always were. That long-predates anything we know as capitalism. It's the iron laws of fashion and ideology that are at play. Once we told young men that the best thing ever is to go and die in a field somewhere for a king they'd never met, and a lot of them did that. Once we told people that other classes are all that stands between them and a wonderful life, and they slaughtered those other classes, and then they starved because the other classes thing was a lie. Now we tell people that AI is worth working on. I'll take the capitalism version of that over the others any day.
> So what? It still all needs compressing and caching and firing across the internet in a similar way, hence content.
But it's not DBA and network engineers calling it that, it's "everyone".
It rubs me the wrong way the same way gamers suddenly using the word "franchise" did. "oh yeah, this obviously sucks and makes it a worse game, but I can understand why they would want that for their franchise".
But it's not DBA and network engineers calling it that, it's "everyone".
It rubs me the wrong way the same way gamers suddenly using the word "franchise" did. "oh yeah, this obviously sucks and makes it a worse game, but I can understand why they would want that for their franchise".
It's not everyone. People who are Youtube creators say "content", sure. Wordpress says it because it manages a superset of these various things, and the users using it need the terminology to understand it. But that's not everyone. Most people watch movies or read books.
> People who are Youtube creators
People who upload videos to youtube. That is what they do. And no, they don't need it. They could say "video". Easily.
Also, I did put "everyone" in quotes for reason. Slice it how you want, a lot more people than those actually managing a "container" something else could be "content" in use that word. That was a shift that happened. And it's one thing when HR thinks of humans as resources, quite another when humans start referring to themselves that way.
People who upload videos to youtube. That is what they do. And no, they don't need it. They could say "video". Easily.
Also, I did put "everyone" in quotes for reason. Slice it how you want, a lot more people than those actually managing a "container" something else could be "content" in use that word. That was a shift that happened. And it's one thing when HR thinks of humans as resources, quite another when humans start referring to themselves that way.
> That was a shift that happened.
You could say this about anything. When did loads of people start saying "shift" instead of "change"? Or "space" instead of "garden" or "room" or "atrium"? Saying something changed doesn't give it much significance.
You could say this about anything. When did loads of people start saying "shift" instead of "change"? Or "space" instead of "garden" or "room" or "atrium"? Saying something changed doesn't give it much significance.
It contradicts the claim that "content" is what people say because that's what they have to say, to understand what they're posting or reading/viewing. It's no more significant than is warranted by what we're talking about here. It's fine.
> When did loads of people start saying "shift" instead of "change"?
I'd say "shift" is a subset of "change" and slightly more specific (every shift is a change, not every change is a shift). People didn't change how they speak, some adopted the language of website operators, and then even more people started to parrot that unthinkingly.
> When did loads of people start saying "shift" instead of "change"?
I'd say "shift" is a subset of "change" and slightly more specific (every shift is a change, not every change is a shift). People didn't change how they speak, some adopted the language of website operators, and then even more people started to parrot that unthinkingly.
> It contradicts the claim that "content" is what people say because that's what they have to say
No one's saying it's because they have to say it (who has to say anything?). There was a criticism of Wordpress being a CMS, and I was referring to that.
> People didn't change how they speak, some adopted the language of website operators, and then even more people started to parrot that unthinkingly.
I don't understand how people didn't change how they spoke if they adopted some language. What's the difference?
No one's saying it's because they have to say it (who has to say anything?). There was a criticism of Wordpress being a CMS, and I was referring to that.
> People didn't change how they speak, some adopted the language of website operators, and then even more people started to parrot that unthinkingly.
I don't understand how people didn't change how they spoke if they adopted some language. What's the difference?
Investors, i.e., capital, are quite literally pushing things in order to increase returns of their investments. People talking their book is nothing new or unusual.
100%. We do have a problem with the current setup but unfortunately the argument gets co-opted by left-right superficial complainers, and "late stage capitalism" is a good proxy to know which side of the divide the author lies. The issue with the current system parallels what was wrong in the 1920s-1930s, i.e. too much concentrated private power, and the solution then was Antitrust, not redistribution of wealth, not regulation directing how the robber barons should operate, and definitely not communism. Just straight-up trust-busting to strike a delicate balance between just enough government and corporate power to keep each other in check
At this point the “center” has also become an extreme wing, I mean, failing to see the obvious societal problems brought by the current economic system (however one might want to call it) is purely based on ideology, there’s no moderate common sense that used to be the domain of the centrists in past times.
As such, calling out left- or right-wing extremists from a position that has become itself ideologically extremist is bringing nothing new to the political discourse.
As such, calling out left- or right-wing extremists from a position that has become itself ideologically extremist is bringing nothing new to the political discourse.
In your view, are there any non-extremists?
Perhaps the only purity to be found is in the ignorant, the innocent, the children?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade
Perhaps the only purity to be found is in the ignorant, the innocent, the children?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade
At least back then kids weren’t cutting themselves because of depression at age 11 or 12 nor were they killing themselves because of the same reason at age 16-17, and I’m talking about cases that I know directly (mean not read in the media). So, yes, the condition of children in our society was included in my original thought.
But me wanting for us to resume the (even extended) family as a solution to that problem would get me branded almost on the spot as at least right-wing adjacent by what now stands for “centrists”, because “family values” as a whole are now associated to right-wing-ism.
I could give at least two, three other examples (probably more) of stuff that I believe in which would probably get me branded as left-wing, stuff that used to be the domain of common sense, of the political center, until a few decades ago even in the West (for example affordable housing for all is being more and more associated with being left-wing, that wasn’t always the case).
But me wanting for us to resume the (even extended) family as a solution to that problem would get me branded almost on the spot as at least right-wing adjacent by what now stands for “centrists”, because “family values” as a whole are now associated to right-wing-ism.
I could give at least two, three other examples (probably more) of stuff that I believe in which would probably get me branded as left-wing, stuff that used to be the domain of common sense, of the political center, until a few decades ago even in the West (for example affordable housing for all is being more and more associated with being left-wing, that wasn’t always the case).
[deleted]
I think he would be okay with mentally retarded people as well.
I think that what's actually happening is that "the center" in the US (and some other Western countries) is now so far to the right due to the moving Overton window that to maintain a "centrist" position requires, as you say, willful blindness to various societal and economic problems. This doesn't make it "more extreme centrism"; it just means that "the center" is already flirting with what would by any other measures be the far right.
...Actually, I think there is another force at work here: many of the people who consider themselves "centrists" in the US are the same who considered themselves such 20, 30, even 40 years ago. But
a) with the aforementioned moving of the Overton window, they are having to suppress increasing amounts of cognitive dissonance to continue to self-identify as centrists without recognizing that they are now well to the right of where they would have been previously, and
b) with the (slightly paradoxical, only possible due to the increased polarization) simultaneous increase in awareness of the marginalization of various groups, and acknowledgment that it is neither good nor neutral to continue that marginalization, anyone advocating for either maintaining the status quo or returning to some prior state has to either openly state that they want to continue the oppression of these groups, or, again, suppress the cognitive dissonance in any of various ways.
In the end, I think it's really just a long-winded way of restating the Desmond Tutu quote: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
...Actually, I think there is another force at work here: many of the people who consider themselves "centrists" in the US are the same who considered themselves such 20, 30, even 40 years ago. But
a) with the aforementioned moving of the Overton window, they are having to suppress increasing amounts of cognitive dissonance to continue to self-identify as centrists without recognizing that they are now well to the right of where they would have been previously, and
b) with the (slightly paradoxical, only possible due to the increased polarization) simultaneous increase in awareness of the marginalization of various groups, and acknowledgment that it is neither good nor neutral to continue that marginalization, anyone advocating for either maintaining the status quo or returning to some prior state has to either openly state that they want to continue the oppression of these groups, or, again, suppress the cognitive dissonance in any of various ways.
In the end, I think it's really just a long-winded way of restating the Desmond Tutu quote: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
> "the center" in the US (and some other Western countries) is now so far to the right
Can you give an example? I can think of plenty of thing where things have moved very far to the left in the US.
Can you give an example? I can think of plenty of thing where things have moved very far to the left in the US.
Well, it's not really any one thing. It's more the general sets of policies & ideologies that the various parts of our political spectrum hold, looked at from an objective (or at least more global) point of view.
Additionally, I did specifically mention that, at the same time as this has been going on, a second movement has been underway that counterbalances it to some extent, and that this is resulting in unprecedented(?) levels of political polarization.
Additionally, I did specifically mention that, at the same time as this has been going on, a second movement has been underway that counterbalances it to some extent, and that this is resulting in unprecedented(?) levels of political polarization.
The Age of Calling Everything a Grift. Who is getting defrauded exactly? And as a side note, crypto did not "implode". Prices are a bit down from their all time peak but that's not unusual in crypto land. It's still a trillion dollar market.
I’ve seen way too many founders succeed by pivoting to something completely unrelated once they have funding and a big team to hate on people who do this.
There is no such thing as "late stage capitalism". If you have personal property and the ability to make money from your labor then you have capitalism. Like other human systems such as fire and vehicles usage is governed by myths, traditions, customs, and all manner of rules that enable the system to be used with relative safety. You can use fire without getting burned, and you can drive without flying off into the weeds. Back in the 1930s we found that out of control capitalism can be managed with high taxes on the rich, strong regulations on industry, and legalized labor unions and then in the 1980s we abandoned all of that. There is no "late stage capitalism" there, only human beings using systems irresponsibly by abandoning well known and long practiced rules for avoiding serious social harm.
> There is no "late stage capitalism" there, only human beings using systems irresponsibly by abandoning well known and long practiced rules for avoiding serious social harm.
What do you think "late stage capitalism" means exactly? Because it sounds like you are describing a situation that fits the definition but saying it doesn't exist...
What do you think "late stage capitalism" means exactly? Because it sounds like you are describing a situation that fits the definition but saying it doesn't exist...
If you light a fire to cook and your house burns down, is the burned house late stage cooking fire? If you try to drive somewhere and your car goes off the road and crashes into a tree is that late stage vehicular mobility?
What does any of this have to do with the definition of the commonly used term "late stage capitalism"?
Pointing out terms that are distracting, meaningless, or useless may help with composition of meaningful and effective problem statements and solutions.
For example, one of the major problems we are experiencing now is with what has come to be known as Financialization. This enables financiers to generate large income streams without accompanying increases in productivity. There is a body of knowledge about how this works that includes robust and proven regulatory measures for limiting and controlling Financialization.
In a society where we can vote, organize other voters, and even run for office the term "late stage capitalism" is intended to advance an passive agenda. Instead of taking responsibility for how our society functions or fails we can lie back and console ourselves that this was merely the way of things. We aren't having economic problems because we have failed to manage economic systems that we control, but because economies are naturally and inevitably drawn to failure. It is a way of giving up despite knowing the way out.
For example, one of the major problems we are experiencing now is with what has come to be known as Financialization. This enables financiers to generate large income streams without accompanying increases in productivity. There is a body of knowledge about how this works that includes robust and proven regulatory measures for limiting and controlling Financialization.
In a society where we can vote, organize other voters, and even run for office the term "late stage capitalism" is intended to advance an passive agenda. Instead of taking responsibility for how our society functions or fails we can lie back and console ourselves that this was merely the way of things. We aren't having economic problems because we have failed to manage economic systems that we control, but because economies are naturally and inevitably drawn to failure. It is a way of giving up despite knowing the way out.
That doesn't make sense, you think that "late stage capitalism" is distracting but Financialization is a useful term, why?
And it's beside the point, if I didn't like the term Financialization, I couldn't just announce Financialization doesn't exist; it most certainly exists. At least I can't do that in good faith.
And it's beside the point, if I didn't like the term Financialization, I couldn't just announce Financialization doesn't exist; it most certainly exists. At least I can't do that in good faith.
Consider the late Roman Empire. The Roman Empire had a beginning, and then an end, and the "late" part was the part that was closer to the end. That's the normal meaning of the word "late".
So "late stage capitalism" means - or at least implies - that it's the form capitalism takes before capitalism finally ends. It shouldn't be used for a form that capitalism repeatedly cycles into and out of.
If you wanted to use a different term to describe this phase - "monopolistic phase capitalism" or something - then that would be fine. "Late stage", though, gives an illusion of linear movement through a definite time period, which historically has proven to be an incorrect view.
So "late stage capitalism" means - or at least implies - that it's the form capitalism takes before capitalism finally ends. It shouldn't be used for a form that capitalism repeatedly cycles into and out of.
If you wanted to use a different term to describe this phase - "monopolistic phase capitalism" or something - then that would be fine. "Late stage", though, gives an illusion of linear movement through a definite time period, which historically has proven to be an incorrect view.
> So "late stage capitalism" means - or at least implies - that it's the form capitalism takes before capitalism finally ends
That's not how terms work. Maybe you don't like the phrase but it has a meaning, you can't just decide a commonly used term means something else and then debate that strawman.
> If you wanted to use a different term to describe this phase - "monopolistic phase capitalism" or something
Who is the "you" here? My grandfather was a mere lad when this term was coined.
That's not how terms work. Maybe you don't like the phrase but it has a meaning, you can't just decide a commonly used term means something else and then debate that strawman.
> If you wanted to use a different term to describe this phase - "monopolistic phase capitalism" or something
Who is the "you" here? My grandfather was a mere lad when this term was coined.
Terms have a denotation - the defined meaning - and then they have a connotation - what they imply. I'm objecting to the latter.
And, we're not at an academic conference that studies such things. We're on HN, where most of the people don't have a precise definition of the term in mind when they read stuff like this. So the misleading connotation matters, at least in this setting.
And, we're not at an academic conference that studies such things. We're on HN, where most of the people don't have a precise definition of the term in mind when they read stuff like this. So the misleading connotation matters, at least in this setting.
Don't think the term came with any timeframe when it was coined (and the "phases of capitalism" where long, like hundreds of years). Whether it is a late-stage or not is up to future, really, though.
I would agree, though, that there are sharper terms to describe the current flavor of capitalism.
I would agree, though, that there are sharper terms to describe the current flavor of capitalism.
"late stage capitalism" was defined over 100 years ago.
It's hilariously ironic that they reference the 30's while saying the phrase that was coined to describe the 20's and 30's doesn't exist.
Source? NGram viewer finds no instances of “late stage capitalism” in books before 1984.
[deleted]
"Late capitalism" (in German) attributed to Werner Sombart in 1902: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/late_capitalism
I get it, but the modern use of the phrase “late-stage capitalism” implies that capitalism itself is a terminal cancer (where the term comes from), which is not at all what Sombart was trying to convey.
[deleted]
The term “late stage capitalism” drives me nuts and anyone using it immediately gets flagged as not neutral to me, injecting their own hopes into what should be a dispassionate analysis.
Some form of capitalism may continue for another millennium. It may not. As we can’t predict the future, we can’t call contemporary capitalism a late stage of anything.
I should also add that basically nothing called “capitalism” today has much to do with capital, and in fact is better labeled corporatism, financialization, and consumerism, but that’s another discussion.
Some form of capitalism may continue for another millennium. It may not. As we can’t predict the future, we can’t call contemporary capitalism a late stage of anything.
I should also add that basically nothing called “capitalism” today has much to do with capital, and in fact is better labeled corporatism, financialization, and consumerism, but that’s another discussion.
"what should be a dispassionate analysis" - why should it be dispassionate objective?
Because it tells me that your sociopolitical opinions are coloring your read of historical facts, and therefore your commentary is suspect. Again, this isn’t about an opinion piece; I’m complaining that people use this term as if it were an obvious description of reality, when they have no basis for doing so.
I consider it a milder form of, “The Rapture is almost upon us!” Maybe, but you don’t know that.
I consider it a milder form of, “The Rapture is almost upon us!” Maybe, but you don’t know that.
Literally everyone's sociopolitical opinions color their interpretations of history, current events or anything else.
Making the claim that your particular political opinions constitute some kind of neutral default seems to me to be rather absurd.
Making the claim that your particular political opinions constitute some kind of neutral default seems to me to be rather absurd.
I don't think you've understood my comment. I didn't say my political opinions were better or more neutral.
I criticized the term for making predictions about the future into an assumption about present reality. We can't call the present time "late stage capitalism" because we don't know what will happen in the future. It's a criticism of fortune-telling, not of a particular political stance.
"Late" is a descriptor of past events, not of future ones. The Late Roman Empire already happened. We are looking back on it. We can't do that with capitalism, because we are still in the midst of it.
I criticized the term for making predictions about the future into an assumption about present reality. We can't call the present time "late stage capitalism" because we don't know what will happen in the future. It's a criticism of fortune-telling, not of a particular political stance.
"Late" is a descriptor of past events, not of future ones. The Late Roman Empire already happened. We are looking back on it. We can't do that with capitalism, because we are still in the midst of it.
My reply was questioning your suggestion that the article "_should be_ a dispassionate analysis".
I don't have a problem with people hoping, arguing for, dreaming of an alternative future. My complaint is that this term is used so casually and so frequently in a matter-of-fact way that it distracts from whatever point the author is trying to make.
Just because you don't know what a term means, doesn't automatically mean other people using it don't know what it means. Do you automatically "flag" almost all economists for using an established and well defined term that's been around for over a century?
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that no one using this term is referring to the historical stages of capitalism over the last five centuries. As I said, it’s more of a “I want this thing to happen, therefore my model of reality is that it will happen” phenomenon.
Nothing is neutral. Some things are objective facts, of course, but the English language is such that any way you choose to describe those facts will convey something of your opinion of them.
You might not like the term "late-stage capitalism", but it is a term in common use today, and describes a real phenomenon. The simplest way I know of to summarize it is that it's what happens when a significant percentage of businesses cross the line from "we make a product/provide a service, and if we do it well we make a good profit" to "we are here to make money as fast as possible by whatever means necessary; if we have to make a product/provide a service to do that, that's a necessary evil".
Additionally, calling it "late-stage" doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to go away; it just means that it's a different stage of capitalism (which seems clear from observation), and that it came after (ie, later than) the more classical capitalism.
You might not like the term "late-stage capitalism", but it is a term in common use today, and describes a real phenomenon. The simplest way I know of to summarize it is that it's what happens when a significant percentage of businesses cross the line from "we make a product/provide a service, and if we do it well we make a good profit" to "we are here to make money as fast as possible by whatever means necessary; if we have to make a product/provide a service to do that, that's a necessary evil".
Additionally, calling it "late-stage" doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to go away; it just means that it's a different stage of capitalism (which seems clear from observation), and that it came after (ie, later than) the more classical capitalism.
Would you have forgiven writers using the term "late stage Capitalism" in the 1890's just before the Sherman Antitrust Act?
I'm not a historian, but it seems like one rather nasty form of Capitalism was reined in once before (albeit for a new also-insidious form to creep in some decades later).
I'm not a historian, but it seems like one rather nasty form of Capitalism was reined in once before (albeit for a new also-insidious form to creep in some decades later).
“Late stage” implies we are in the end stage of something. I see nothing to indicate that we are about to surpass capitalism and get something new, merely that it has some issues and many people wish and hope for an alternative.
The term means to imply the worst effects of capitalism, such that there can be no “later” stage of capitalism with worse (new kinds of) effects. Basically, it implies the “end game” of capitalism.
I don’t think that’s how most people use it. But let’s imagine it is - it seems pretty obvious to me that the effects of capitalism were worse circa 1860 to 1920 than they are today. I don’t think this is a controversial take.
While some things (like labor laws and certain kinds of pollution) are better today than they were back then, income and wealth inequality are significantly worse today than they were during the "Gilded Age".
You seriously think that factory workers in 1880 had it better than low income workers today?
That’s not what the parent is saying. They are saying that the inequality is greater, meaning that the income distribution shows a larger imbalance.
Yes, I read the comment. The discussion was whether, "the effects of capitalism were worse circa 1860 to 1920 than they are today."
I'm also pretty skeptical of the "inequality was better" route. Sure, the rich are richer today – but the poor are infinitely less poor. Being poor in 2023 is a far better situation than being poor in 1880.
I'm also pretty skeptical of the "inequality was better" route. Sure, the rich are richer today – but the poor are infinitely less poor. Being poor in 2023 is a far better situation than being poor in 1880.
I specifically mentioned labor laws as an exception.
It's best to think of "late stage" capitalism in the same terms as "late stage" cancer.
I generally agree with you but was pointing out that the end stage might be the end stage of one form of Capitalism — as the Robber Baron era was the end of that one.
For sure, and I do think we could be entering a different form of capitalism. But that level of nuance is rarely present when the this term is used.
> anyone using it immediately gets flagged as not neutral to me
People write and do what they care about. If they claim to be neutural - they are not honest with either themselves either audience.
> The term “late stage capitalism” drives me nuts and anyone using it immediately gets flagged as not neutral to me, injecting their own hopes into what should be a dispassionate analysis.
Do you imply that term "late stage capitalism" implies that it's about to end. Do you also believe that "developing economies" will eventually develop the level of the developed ones? Or that you can sink you watch 5 meter under water which says 5m water resistent? These are misleading descriptions which do decsribe reality. It's only our assumptions about nature of the described reality are false as we base on our understanding of words, not subject of description.
People write and do what they care about. If they claim to be neutural - they are not honest with either themselves either audience.
> The term “late stage capitalism” drives me nuts and anyone using it immediately gets flagged as not neutral to me, injecting their own hopes into what should be a dispassionate analysis.
Do you imply that term "late stage capitalism" implies that it's about to end. Do you also believe that "developing economies" will eventually develop the level of the developed ones? Or that you can sink you watch 5 meter under water which says 5m water resistent? These are misleading descriptions which do decsribe reality. It's only our assumptions about nature of the described reality are false as we base on our understanding of words, not subject of description.
These would be valid analogies if there weren’t already examples of their intended end results. Developing countries aim at a model that already exists - developed countries.
What is end stage capitalism working towards? What model already exists that we can use to say, “oh yes, we can see that this thing is in the end stage of the form now.”
Nothing, because it’s not an accurate description, it’s a political opinion pushed on to reality. “I want X, so obviously reality is proceeding in a way to make X happen.”
What is end stage capitalism working towards? What model already exists that we can use to say, “oh yes, we can see that this thing is in the end stage of the form now.”
Nothing, because it’s not an accurate description, it’s a political opinion pushed on to reality. “I want X, so obviously reality is proceeding in a way to make X happen.”
It's hard to argue when understanding is derived from words which terms consist of, not descriptions of those terms. Did you try the trick with the watch? How open is openAI?
Developing economies in relation to developed is same as I'm in relation to billionaire. Technically you may say that I'm becoming billionaire, but chances are very very slim and only under curtain circumstances I could become one. That's what I mean by misleadingness of the term.
> What is end stage capitalism working towards?
Direction is not implied. It's a description of state of capitalism under domination of multinational corporations, consumerism, increasing commodification of life (seems to be the part author had in mind), growing inequality. And it was described in 1902.
Speaking of direction everything has an end, and this form of capitalism will end. It won't end by ending capitalism (though this scenario is possible with nuclear winter thingy). Capitalism as a driving factor of organisation strong thing to abandon or to replace it.
People who use this term rather show their despise to the dark side of the system.
Developing economies in relation to developed is same as I'm in relation to billionaire. Technically you may say that I'm becoming billionaire, but chances are very very slim and only under curtain circumstances I could become one. That's what I mean by misleadingness of the term.
> What is end stage capitalism working towards?
Direction is not implied. It's a description of state of capitalism under domination of multinational corporations, consumerism, increasing commodification of life (seems to be the part author had in mind), growing inequality. And it was described in 1902.
Speaking of direction everything has an end, and this form of capitalism will end. It won't end by ending capitalism (though this scenario is possible with nuclear winter thingy). Capitalism as a driving factor of organisation strong thing to abandon or to replace it.
People who use this term rather show their despise to the dark side of the system.
I think you've turned this into some sort of word game and no, your examples still don't work. We can call something a developing country because we know what a developed country looks like. We cannot call something a late capitalist country because we do not know what a post-capitalist country looks like.
My complaint was merely that the term "late capitalism" implies that we are in a late stage of a process, that it will be surpassed soon, and that something new will come after. That's how the term is used, in the article posted and in general.
Direction is not implied. It's a description of state of capitalism under domination of multinational corporations, consumerism, increasing commodification of life (seems to be the part author had in mind), growing inequality. And it was described in 1902.
The term is not used to refer to the entire 20th century. It's used to refer to a more recent era.
My complaint was merely that the term "late capitalism" implies that we are in a late stage of a process, that it will be surpassed soon, and that something new will come after. That's how the term is used, in the article posted and in general.
Direction is not implied. It's a description of state of capitalism under domination of multinational corporations, consumerism, increasing commodification of life (seems to be the part author had in mind), growing inequality. And it was described in 1902.
The term is not used to refer to the entire 20th century. It's used to refer to a more recent era.
Oh come on, I don't think highly of the "late stage capitalism" theory but even I know this one. The answer is Feudalism (as the goal: ownership class cemented into a hereditary nobility that doesn't just own the means of production but also the monopoly on violence), with a more likely short-term next stage of Fascism (a democracy will go populist when it feels the jaws closing in, and fascism is the flavor of populism that is compatible with the class interest of the wealthy).
I don't think much of Marxist class-apocalypse narratives because we've been here before and the correct answer was negotiated settlement rather than feudalism, fascism, or socialism. Roosevelts, not Hitlers or Stalins. We've figured it out before, we can figure it out again. The only thing to fear is fear itself.
Denying the existence of the argument or the problem that inspired it is just silly, though.
I don't think much of Marxist class-apocalypse narratives because we've been here before and the correct answer was negotiated settlement rather than feudalism, fascism, or socialism. Roosevelts, not Hitlers or Stalins. We've figured it out before, we can figure it out again. The only thing to fear is fear itself.
Denying the existence of the argument or the problem that inspired it is just silly, though.
I agree. A lot of people who were raised in the instant gratification culture of the last 25 years seem to like to use this phrase. I think it’s because they grew up with the ability to click a button and fire their brain’s reward pathway instead of learning that the best rewards come from delayed gratification and hard work. Instead of admitting that the problem lies within, they blame a corrupt system and “elites”, identifying the capitalistic economy as a late-stage disease.
Effectively, it’s the same as losing a game and saying “I didn’t want to be a winner anyway because the winners are terrible and cheat.” Pretty childish, right? That said, it does make losing feel a bit better.
Effectively, it’s the same as losing a game and saying “I didn’t want to be a winner anyway because the winners are terrible and cheat.” Pretty childish, right? That said, it does make losing feel a bit better.
Yes you are essentially correct. One more concept that is useful to consider, going back even a little bit further is the concept of the "revolution of mass and scale."
> The term “late stage capitalism” drives me nuts
I was feeling much the same, but you've just made me realise how similar this is to "the dawning of the new age of Aquarius".
I was feeling much the same, but you've just made me realise how similar this is to "the dawning of the new age of Aquarius".
It's called "late stage capitalism" because we're moving out of capitalism and into a techno-feudalism.
And instead of feudalist manors and city-states, it's feudalist gentries of tech companies that can exert their control technologically rather than with state-sanctiondd violence.
And instead of feudalist manors and city-states, it's feudalist gentries of tech companies that can exert their control technologically rather than with state-sanctiondd violence.
This is such a bizarre and warped take in a world where literally anyone with an internet connection and the will to learn can launch a business or spread a message for almost zero startup cost. I don’t think you understand just how wrong you are. There are big businesses just as there have been in every sector, but at no time in history has the common man been given so much power as right now. The playing field is more level than ever.
Yes, the barrier to entry has lowered, but IMO the proportion of people with something special/unique/intriguing/insightful to offer hasn't shifted at all. That's why there's so much "content" -- don't have a message or a useful product to sell? Regurgitate, or drop-ship. All you need is to be consistent, persistent and present, following the prescribed 'best practices' of your chosen distribution channel(s) and you'll magically appear in front of people. That print-on-demand 'I think about the Roman Empire 3 times a day' or Tyrion Lannister quote t-shirt you just sold will be in a landfill within months. Your daily YouTube content in one ear and out the other, forever rotting in a digital graveyard until time immemorial.
That said, I actually think it's great that people are taking advantage of this stuff to make money and better their lives -- more power to them! -- but objectively, it's still just content, while the cream always rises to the top.
Never bet against the Macho Man!
That said, I actually think it's great that people are taking advantage of this stuff to make money and better their lives -- more power to them! -- but objectively, it's still just content, while the cream always rises to the top.
Never bet against the Macho Man!
This is a really cynical view that doesn't accurately describe reality. I follow a number of people that make high-quality, philosophical content and make a living (not millions, but a living) from it.
I admit I was a bit sensational in my comment, but what I was really talking about is signal-to-noise ratio, as well as creative intent.
I suspect the people you're referencing are simply a cut above, believe in their work, and are excellent at it.
I'd also suspect that the amount of people who produce similar material that you DON'T follow is disproportionate to the ones that you do.
Many people view content creation as a means to an end, which is almost always MLM-adjacent and a mixture of:
* Monetizing views
* Directly selling a product / subscription
* A brand-building exercise to eventually attract sponsored advertising
None of that is evil or immoral -- it's actually fantastic for people who would have never had the opportunity to do this in the past, and can be very directly impactful to their livelihoods in a positive way.
The inescapable byproduct of these activities though is the staggering amount of "content" that gets created, not in the authentic spirit of "I have a valuable perspective on a topic" or "I -need- to put this out in the world", but rather "this is a viable way to generate money" (sometimes as an alternative to working a dead-end job).
That said, the average monthly take on OnlyFans is only ~$150; the top 1% of accounts make 33% of the revenue paid out. [1][2]
There are 158 million songs on DSPs (Spotify et al), 24% of which have literally never been streamed a single time ever. 42% have been streamed less than 10 times total. [3]
67 million songs that nobody has ever heard before! That's a lot of pepperoni, man.
This label "content" even applies to highly-quality, professional creations, as articulated by Robert Downey Jr. [4]
I do genuinely believe that good, quality stuff will usually break through to the niche audience that its intended for though, while at the same time we remain drowning in the tidal wave of crap that people are generating lol
[1] https://www.amraandelma.com/onlyfans-statistics/
[2] https://earthweb.com/onlyfans-statistics/
[3] https://www.xxlmag.com/38-million-tracks-streaming-services-...
[4] https://variety.com/2023/film/news/robert-downey-jr-dolittle...
I suspect the people you're referencing are simply a cut above, believe in their work, and are excellent at it.
I'd also suspect that the amount of people who produce similar material that you DON'T follow is disproportionate to the ones that you do.
Many people view content creation as a means to an end, which is almost always MLM-adjacent and a mixture of:
* Monetizing views
* Directly selling a product / subscription
* A brand-building exercise to eventually attract sponsored advertising
None of that is evil or immoral -- it's actually fantastic for people who would have never had the opportunity to do this in the past, and can be very directly impactful to their livelihoods in a positive way.
The inescapable byproduct of these activities though is the staggering amount of "content" that gets created, not in the authentic spirit of "I have a valuable perspective on a topic" or "I -need- to put this out in the world", but rather "this is a viable way to generate money" (sometimes as an alternative to working a dead-end job).
That said, the average monthly take on OnlyFans is only ~$150; the top 1% of accounts make 33% of the revenue paid out. [1][2]
There are 158 million songs on DSPs (Spotify et al), 24% of which have literally never been streamed a single time ever. 42% have been streamed less than 10 times total. [3]
67 million songs that nobody has ever heard before! That's a lot of pepperoni, man.
This label "content" even applies to highly-quality, professional creations, as articulated by Robert Downey Jr. [4]
I do genuinely believe that good, quality stuff will usually break through to the niche audience that its intended for though, while at the same time we remain drowning in the tidal wave of crap that people are generating lol
[1] https://www.amraandelma.com/onlyfans-statistics/
[2] https://earthweb.com/onlyfans-statistics/
[3] https://www.xxlmag.com/38-million-tracks-streaming-services-...
[4] https://variety.com/2023/film/news/robert-downey-jr-dolittle...
The barriers to entry are only low in some areas, in others they have steadily increased (try creating a new multinational bank, getting a new drug to market or building a (large) factory in most western countries, for example).
Yeah, this is a common meme too, and again it’s historically nonsensical. Corporations may be growing in power, but they are in no way comparable to the feudal lords of yore.
The violence is key, though.
It's much more similar to the robber-baron era, at least in the US, except with even less real power. Robber barons could, if pressed, get men with guns or ax handles to beat and kill strikers. I don't think a tech company can do the same today.
Tech companies do not have the power of high, middle or low justice, and are without the ability to effect corporal punishment.
It's much more similar to the robber-baron era, at least in the US, except with even less real power. Robber barons could, if pressed, get men with guns or ax handles to beat and kill strikers. I don't think a tech company can do the same today.
Tech companies do not have the power of high, middle or low justice, and are without the ability to effect corporal punishment.
The pinkertons still exist, and the people behind a fucking card game sicced them on an innocent person.
I'm not saying violence doesn't exist anymore, I'm saying that tech companies don't and likely can't get hundreds of men together to beat and kill striking workers a la Standard Oil and Paul Bergoff. They also don't currently own Congress, like Rockefeller and the other robber barons did.
And they still didn't come close to the power of feudal lords.
And they still didn't come close to the power of feudal lords.
Sadly the state sanctioned violence is still hand in hand with the economic control the tech middlemen and landlords are exerting.
Also sadly, the type of system where state actors work with high capital to exert control is also simply just fascism.
Also sadly, the type of system where state actors work with high capital to exert control is also simply just fascism.
It's been called "late stage capitalism" for over 150 years now.
The capitalists are now just a step away from their doom, that's why it's called "late stage".
Us socialists are always a step ahead of you capitalists.
Us socialists are always a step ahead of you capitalists.
Interesting thing is that most developers are a company of just one person, be it at their free time, contributing to open source or developing a side project. having both capital and labor, we are not capitalists nor socialists. But we can cooperate, which is the free software movement.
I feel the same way. It’s a term mostly devoid of meaning, useful as a signal telegraphing what’s to follow.
Also known as pundits?
And Obamacare created an entire industry of grifting Health tech companies that were creating the future of high tech information exchange and modernization
to make money it helps to insert yourself between people and something they may want or need. this is how pretty much every business works.
social media made it possible for anyone(?) to gain a following and so put themselves as a kind of authoritative middle man and act as a conduit for advertisers between people and thing they want
> "It was no longer about the actual qualities of the medium, not about videos or music or stories or essays etc. Everything one made was just content."
and the grift part came from the idea that the substance of the product itself doesn't matter as much as just getting yourself in the middle. getting a monopoly on eyeballs that are interested in the thing
a good example is those youtube farms that churn out history and economics videos where the presenter doesn't even know what he's saying, just reading words all day. content
at the end they are all selling the same thing, the idea of some happiness or entertainment