Online communities win because of network effects, members get tied to their addresses and it becomes very difficult to migrate, new members always join the network because that is where everyone is already. Democracies don't necessary depend on network effects, members of political parties can relatively easily migrate to different parties, network effects is not what keeps members part of a political party. And crucially, being part of a political party doesn't mean you'll vote for the party when you cast your ballot.
Some will say that the solution to network effects on the Web is decentralization
but decentralization doesn't scale. Because of spam, bots and
the fact that not everyone will follow the protocol there is always a need for moderators which is just another word for government and Google's main business model.
Even Capitalism is largely decentralized but it can't function without government. I believe true decentralization (anarchism) is only possible
on a small scale where everyone knows each other, very small communities. It's not possible on the global level like in Capitalism or even the Web.
Ironic that both Shannon and Turing layed the foundation for both cryptography and AI. I think it boils down to information which is related to language and text.
When the government actively decides the price of goods and services, it becomes more and more like communism. The government should instead uphold the free market and proactively prevent collusion and monopolies that threaten the free market, this is harder to do in the US because of lobbying though.
This is like responding to symptoms and not addressing the root cause. This is something that should be fixed by supply and demand, buyers should have a choice where to buy and sellers should have a choice how to price their products.
These problems arise when dealing with a monopoly, that undermines
the free market and that's a far worse systemic problem and the root cause of these issues. AI has nothing to do with it.
That's not what I mean, even I can invent my own language that only I use, but if that language is not widely deployed and used by other people or LLM models, it's just a toy language.
> I think the cutoff date is closing in on our current now. If models cannot easily become bigger, they will likely advertise using "up-to-date-ness". Maybe they will be merely a few days behind. Or bigger models will make use of smaller but more up-to-date models
But they will still rely on assembly, C, Rust, Linux, HTML, TCP/IP... Doesn't matter how up to date they are, they rely on existing code they have been trained on, they can't just create new languages without the training data.
But you already knew how to code before LLM coding agents, juniors will jump straight into using agents without learning to code by hand, hence the premise of the article.
Yes. Just like globalization created companies like TSMC, AI will do the same. Software engineers who don't rely on LLM code generators will have a moat because they can do it cheaply and sustainably.
Another reason is that LLMs train on the existing code we already know, don't expect new programming languages or frameworks this means that the software engineering skills that exist today will be relevant for a long time.
If you agree that there is no absolute truth in complex problems, and that different parties can have different perspectives which are all true/correct from their point of view than this type of systems can be far more inefficient to make decisions compared to a single entity. It's like having multiple CEOs in a company, or design by commity.
> It's too bad these services live forever as cash cows to subsidize crazy ideas and schemes. They should graduate to public utilities once the product stabilizes.
In essence if you take capitalism to it's max you will eventually meet Marx.
> If all the airlines (or whatever business) are doing something like this
Then that would be the main issue and far worse then the algorithms, that's a monopoly or cartel and not a free market. Because in a competitive market prices will be competitive with very little arbitrage.
I don't buy this. Doesn't supply and demand fix this unless of course you are dealing with a monopoly and have no choice. Don't customers find the most affordable goods in the market place and aren't goods priced competitively? What am I missing?
"AI slop is rapidly destroying the WWW, most of the content is becoming more and more low-quality and difficult to tell if its true or hallucinated. Pre-AI web content is now more like the golden-standard in terms of correctness, browsing the Internet Archive is much better. This will only cause content to go behind pay-walls, allot of open-source projects will be closed source not only because of the increased work maintainers have to do to not only review but also audit patches for potential AI hallucinations but also because their work is being used to train LLMs and re-licensed to proprietary."
It doesn't make any sense. Humans are non-fungible AI is not, they are just arbitrarily imposing such limitations, which can impact the workflows of businesses.