AnthonyMouse
When you have a small business, or even a large business that has a single owner, that person has to care about things like their own reputation and might sometimes have preferences for things other than maximizing returns. There is a significant difference in behavior between a profitable company that makes money by providing something people want and a company that makes slightly more money by turning the screws at every opportunity.
And typical funds only care about number go up. Even the ones that nominally exclude "bad" companies/industries have their rules, but then hold shares in Comcast rather than Exxon and still expect Comcast to turn the screws. Whereas to do the real thing, you would need funds with missions to do things like specifically fund companies who are new entrants to concentrated markets to increase the amount of competition. Which to most funds is a conflict of interest, because if the fund has that industry as a target then it already owns shares in the companies the new entrant would be competing with. Conversely, mergers they're all for, because they own shares in all three companies in that industry, so causing three to become two is higher margins for everybody.
So it produces market concentration and drives obsession with quarterly profits, harming customers and employees. The consequently larger companies then buy off the government to get subsidies and insist they're too big to fail whenever they screw up, use the nature of multinational conglomerates to arbitrage tax rates and shift tax incidence to purely domestic companies and workers, etc. All of which the funds like because they make number go up.
It's basically a paperclip optimizer which is trying to accumulate money rather than paperclips.
But now normal users can have some AI thing write single-use code for them, and for relatively simple code like "show me all my pictures between these two dates that are in landscape rather than portrait" they'll usually get it right.
But now who wants a phone where you can't do anything like that?
If you're going to make a point of it then don't leave out the part about how it happened.
What they were doing was, they'd take a block of subprime mortgages and split them up into tiers. Basically they'd agree to wait to see who defaulted and then the top tiers would get all the mortgages people actually paid back and the bottom tiers got the ones they didn't. If 10% of the mortgages defaulted then anyone who bought at the 10th percentile tier gets all the defaults and everybody else gets paid. If 20% of them defaulted then the ones who bought the 20th percentile tier lose too, but the 30th percentile tier still gets paid.
And then the highest tiers were rated AAA, because for them to lose you'd have to have insanely high default rates.
Then we started looking at insanely high default rates.
There are two obvious ways to handle this.
The first is to charge for human support. If you want to pay $100 each time you make a human spend 15 minutes responding to your AI agent's query, it's your money.
And the second is that you put a chatbot out front that has memorized the FAQ and thereby successfully answers 97% of queries, but cause them to get better at identifying when they're being useless and route that small percentage of issues to human support.
And that you couldn't subsequently do antitrust against OpenAI.
The actual problem wasn't really regulatory, it was that they made a change to a complex system and nobody noticed what the implications were until it was already a Problem.
What happened was, mortgages were always considered safe loans, because if the borrower defaults then you repossess the house and sell it to recover the principal. Meanwhile banks would only make loans to people with good credit, because even if you can repossess the house, doesn't mean you want the trouble. So if you looked at the past, holding mortgages was a good investment.
Then they started allowing the banks to sell the mortgages to investors. Which is fine if the investors are doing their homework and buying loans that are going to be paid back, but mortgages were considered safe, so they were basically not paying attention. There was a thing where they had some bundles of mortgages rated as AAA when they shouldn't have been, but that was more of a scapegoat for the institutional investors who should have known better to blame somebody else after things started going south.
The actual cause was this: Once the banks started selling mortgages to investors, they no longer cared if the borrower would pay it back, because now that's the investor's problem -- and the investors weren't paying attention. Meanwhile as soon as the bank sells the mortgage, they have the principal back from the investor and can go loan it out again. And while this is happening the government is encouraging it because look at all of these new home owners. So now you have the banks giving mortgages to everybody regardless of creditworthiness, and that's what really caused it.
Because doing that creates a housing bubble, as all the people who can't actually afford a house can now bid up the prices by taking out a loan they can't afford. And the housing bubble in turn invalidates the assumption that if the borrower defaults you can recover the principal by repossessing the house, because now when the bubble pops, people end up underwater on their mortgages. The value of the house crashes and is now less than the loan principal. So when those borrowers start to default, the investors holding those mortgages and the insurers insuring them were lined up to get smashed. Oops.
This is how the two party system evolved to sustain the status quo. When people are mad about something, divide the people into two parties and have them each demand a different solution while demonizing the solution of the other party, so that their votes cancel out and then nothing changes.
Extra points if you can get them to demand something unnecessarily polarizing, disproportionate or simplistic when there are better solutions available, because then you can get them to fight against the moderates too.
Notice also that when you point this out to a partisan, they have a tendency to violently agree and then immediately mischaracterize the problem as being that the other party is bad and wrong and the solution is to have everybody do their party's thing.
I know that's not how it works, I'm explaining why they do it that way because of what would happen if they did it the other way.
It's supply constrained in terms of global hardware production capacity, but that's not how it works for any given company. If Anthropic wanted more GPUs for customers paying them enough money to outbid the next guy in the market for the finite number of GPUs then they would do that and get a higher percentage of the finite number of GPUs.
So the cost of using more internally is still their own cost, i.e. the price of being the high bidder on more compute resources, not the retail price they charge to customers.
Suppose a company could transfer an asset to an employee and have its value set as the employer's cost. A company could make a bunch of volatile investments and see which ones pay off. Then the ones that go south get sold back into the market as a tax loss and the ones that do well get transferred as compensation to employees at the purchase price instead of the current value, reducing the tax liability of both the employer (no taxable gain) and the employee (less taxable income). What would happen if any employer could do that with any employee and any asset?
Conversely, there is a separate carve out for "employee discounts", which is essentially the employer offering its employees its own products for something in the neighborhood of its own cost. Why? It's not in any way a principled accounting distinction, it's because it's harder to use for tax avoidance at scale, because then a soap company can give its employees a discount on soap, but people only need a finite amount of soap and then the soap company can't use it for cars and real estate and stocks.
"Googlebot" is their search indexer. That's generally not the thing anyone wants to block anyway because it would mean their pages don't show up in search results, but let's suppose you were actually willing to do that. You block anything with "Googlebot" in the user agent string.
Then Google is doing its AI training -- thing you actually wanted to prevent -- in some other business unit, and they have their own indexing operation, so they might use their own user agent and call it GeminiBot or whatever. This is in theory what you want, then you could distinguish between them, except that then your original rule to block "Googlebot" is having no effect and they've sucked up a copy of your entire site before you notice there is a new one.
Meanwhile it's still an arbitrary string and they can still have as many as they want or change them at any time. Google doesn't even need to index your site themselves, a third party could do it and provide them with the data, and if people were blocking "Googlebot" but not unknown user agents then that's what would happen. None of the third parties are "Googlebot" nor is there anything stopping new ones you've never seen from being created at any time. Blacklists don't work.
> Anyone pretending to be a common browser when they're not is in violation.
Then the common browsers are in violation because they're pretending to be each other. And what do you expect the uncommon browsers to do?
You can't get out of the consequences of your proposal. If you expect blacklists then scrapers will constantly appear with new user agents. There is nothing in that text that requires Google to always use "Googlebot" and even that wouldn't do any good when anyone else could create one called anything else. But if you expect whitelists while prohibiting anyone from using the same string as the incumbents then you're proposing something outrageous because you're saying that any innocent new entrant de facto gets blocked by default and there is nothing they can do about it.
Also notice that the educational system getting dumbed down operates on a generational timescale. If you screw it up for the 10 year olds, it'll still be decades before they're the ones in charge.
It's more like, people have squishy "fairness" wetware.
Suppose there is a button where if you press it, it causes your neighbor to get $50,000 in value and doesn't cost you anything whatsoever. You'd have to be a real bastard not to press the button, right?
Now suppose there is a button where if you press it, it causes your neighbor to get $50,000 and causes you to get $10,000. This one is even more obvious, but it's also the sort of thing where you wouldn't be surprised to discover people starting a campaign to say that the button is unfair and we need to ban anyone from doing that.
And it's basically because humans evolved under conditions of inherent scarcity. If you getting 20% of what someone else does means that you still get a house and a car and free time for your family/projects etc., and they get a mansion and a Ferrari and can pay someone to do things for them so they have even more free time, is that actually a problem? Whereas if you getting 20% of what someone else does means that you can't even feed your family while they're getting fat, you're going to go to war over that.
In a high scarcity environment, things look like the second one, and that's where the human fairness wetware got its intuitions. But modern stuff mostly looks like the first one, and to the extent it looks like the second one it's usually artificial scarcity. It's not that we lack the resources to produce enough housing, it's that building more of it in a particular place is prohibited by law. And then it's not that they get a bigger house than you, it's that you don't get one at all, and the objection goes back to being reasonable. But the better way to solve that is to build more housing -- eliminate artificial scarcity -- rather than trying to fight over a limited quantity of something that doesn't actually have to be so limited.
This is a misunderstanding of how "tax cuts" work under the US income tax. Federal receipts as a percent of GDP:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Notice the lack of "tax cuts". GDP goes up, taxes go up by exactly the same amount. The number from the most recent year is basically the same as the number from 50 years prior in 1975. Ratio hasn't changed meaningfully since the end of WWII. But Congress somehow keeps passing "tax cuts", so how does that work?
It's because the tax cuts are fake. They set the tax brackets in dollars rather than percentiles, but the tax rates are in percentages, so that's not a stable ratio. In 1995 the median household income was $34,080, now it's $87,460. If they left the tax brackets the same, it would shove the middle class into the tax brackets meant for the rich. De facto tax middle class tax hike whenever they do nothing.
Naturally Congress loves this, because every few years they get to pass a "tax cut" which is really only preventing a tax increase, and so they get to claim credit for doing nothing. Which is their absolute favorite thing, and why they never fix it by setting the tax brackets in percentiles.
From the article, the labor share of output is down from ~66% in 1947 to ~53% now. Over the same period, real GDP per capita is up ~370%:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/a939rx0q048sbea
We can easily multiply these together. The labor share of real GDP per capita is up by ~300%. Notice that this is less than the ~370% real GDP per capita is up overall, which is the one side's objection, but still significantly more than 0% and definitely not a negative number, which is the other side's retort.
The real question is, how do you reduce the amount of rent seeking? Because that's the thing that makes the first number go down instead of up, and you want them both to go up.
This is a common trope, but it ignores that at the time the tax code had loopholes that could smuggle a freight train full of gold bars. Instead of lower marginal rates, people were taking their real estate and personal vehicles and everything else as tax deductions, and then weren't paying the high marginal rates to begin with. The lowering of marginal rates came with the closing of most of those loopholes, which is why the change had no real effect on federal receipts as a percent of GDP, which has been in the same range since the end of WWII (and was much lower before it):
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
The thing that actually changed is that markets have consolidated a lot more than they were in the mid 20th century, and we have significantly more regulatory capture where e.g. corporations lobby to make their services required by law or to impede or prohibit new entrants to the market. Then consumers/workers have to pay more for those things while receiving nothing of value in return. Corporations take more money and it comes from labor.
Increasing the tax rate doesn't fix that because you'd still have workers paying the high prices to corporations even if the government subsequently took more of the money.
What happens if you have to buy a product from a monopolist so they currently take your last $100, and then the government comes and says they have to pay 80% of it in tax? Best case the government gives the money directly to you, but then there is still a monopoly, so they just raise the price by the amount it takes to extract all of your money again. Worst case, the money doesn't go to you, it goes to some cronies who will now be using it to lobby to increase the amount you pay, and have just demonstrated that they're more politically connected than the original corporations.
To actually fix it you have to get back to competitive markets, efficiency and low barriers to entry.
Sure you did:
> The problem is convincing comfortable, ambitious middle-high earners to put a cap on their and their bosses' prospects in exchange for the stability (and subsequent ground preparation for innovation) of a higher floor.
The thing about a UBI is that it works regardless of what the amount is, up to any reasonable threshold. If it's small it doesn't do as much but it still does better than the same amount in some other benefits. You can only mess it up by making it excessively large, e.g. you can't do a $100k/year UBI because you'd need to collect ~$34 trillion in tax revenue from a ~$32 trillion GDP. Everything other than that is a trade off which is basically asking the question of how redistributive you want to be.
The amount of redistributive we are right now isn't zero, so converting that existing budget to be a UBI instead is "free" -- it's a net positive to essentially everyone -- no reduction in prospects or bonuses required.
But we can't even manage to do that.
And we could even get a "real" UBI without having oppressive tax rates -- $15,000 for every US citizen comes from a <16% universal tax rate, i.e. a flat tax of <16% of GDP. That's the number with no other government programs, but it's also something that replaces most of them.
> You say "unintended consequences" when you I think you mean "undesirable consequences", but the funny thing is that they're both intended and desirable.
I mean unintended as in you won't like them.
There are a lot of things that it's hard to tax because they're hard to value. How much is it worth to have a job that lets you play with the company's toys, or choose who they hire, or who gets their contracts? How much is a piece of "intellectual property" worth? How about a contract with an unspecified probability of having a large payout in the future? Things like that can all be used to transfer value at a reduced amount of tax, but they bring inefficiency and corruption. Misallocation of resources, nepotism and cronyism, bureaucratic empire building, reduced liquidity, etc. The higher the tax rate you use, the more incentive there is to do these things in order to avoid it.
If you subject people to very different tax rates then they can be arbitraged. Instead of Bob in the highest tax bracket making $X, a dozen family members in lower tax brackets get "hired" to be paid $X/12 so the family gets the same money without paying the higher rate, and now we're incentivizing nepotism and cronyism again.
More than 90% of new businesses fail. That means the remaining <10% need to have significantly better returns for the founders than what you get by working a corporate job or nobody would do it, and if nobody starts new companies then markets consolidate as existing companies fail or buy each other, and the more markets consolidate the more they screw consumers/workers and the more influence they have over the government.
Tax rates have a strong effect on where companies build things. If you invest a million dollars in something that will produce a 15% annual return and there is a 20% tax rate, that's a 12% return after tax. If you make the tax rate 80%, it's a 3% return after tax. Meanwhile if you build it in some other country you get a 10% return after tax, and they're going to do the thing that has the highest after-tax return, so you raise the tax rate and the factory is gone, along with the jobs.
> Let's go back to an exec's lifestyle being tied to his job because he can't extract a huge paycheck without being taxed heavily.
Wait, what? That's basically setting it up so that your boss owns you, and how to set up the economy so that it runs even more on cronyism and favors because there is no tax on the implicit value of a back room deal.
That's not how you get to high trust, since it requires the opposite -- you'd have to ID everyone and ban VPNs and restrict access to general purpose computers lest any fall under the control of a dastardly foreigner etc.
You can't build a high trust society inside of a police state because a high trust society is one where people do the right thing when no one is holding a gun to their head and a police state is holding a gun to your head.
Its terms are so broad and ambiguous that they're already doing it and the thing you're actually relying on is that they wouldn't be prosecuted, which is an entirely different thing.
> It is entirely industry professionals who will be affected and they have legal departments who will figure out where the line is to the millimeter.
"The courts will sort it out eventually" is the worst excuse for drafting it poorly to begin with, and doesn't do anything for you during the decades it takes for that to actually happen.
> Even the horribly contrived borderline examples boil down to "but I should have the right to actively deceive and circumvent security measures designed specifically to keep me out" which is a pretty tough sell.
This seems like the thing where corporations co-opt the term "security" to mean "anyone doing anything we don't like" as if they had any right to that to begin with.
Journalists should be able to investigate misconduct. Customers and customer agents should have bulk access to pricing data. Real people shouldn't have to view the speech of other real people through the proprietary interface of a corporate intermediary that people only use because it has a network effect.
Which is precisely why trying to legislate them is folly. Obviously the reason Android calls itself "Mobile Safari" is so that servers send it the mobile version of the site instead of the desktop one etc.
Which makes "accurate" an unreasonable requirement, since there is already a preexisting non-waivable requirement for inaccurate. When someone is making their "turn a web page into a PDF so you can view it later on the plane" software or whatever, it has to use a user agent string that will cause the site to send the version you need turned into the PDF.
> That being said, if you include GOOGLEBOT in your 1k long query string, alongside a very long page describing your crawlers, how to identify them, how to block them and how to set limits, no judge will find you guilty of concealing your purpose.
First, you're assuming that the person being prosecuted is the entities who are the nominal targets of the bill, when the real problem is when they're not. Because you're proposing a law that says anybody with an inaccurate user agent string is in violation, meanwhile everybody has an inaccurate user agent string.
Moreover, consider what you expect the outcome of legislating something like this is going to be. Sites could then try to either blacklist or whitelist user agents.
If they do the first one, that doesn't work, because the scraping service can change it whenever they want.
If they do the second one, that doesn't work, because now every third party has to start pretending to be a common browser even when they're doing something totally innocent or they get blocked by default for being something else. Which makes the user agent string even less useful than it is now, and subjects innocent parties to arbitrarily liability for doing something they have to do or their client is broken.
> As for why the law is written as is instead of banning more specific functionality, it's so assholes don't get any ideas on how to bypass it.
You're describing an autocracy. The way you make it so that you always prosecute someone is to make it so that you can always prosecute anyone, which is very bad.
So then why isn't it trying to prohibit making multiple requests from different IP addresses in a residential proxy network, rather than the thing it actually does?
> The proposed text of the bill is rather straightforward. It turns more on the "stealth" bit than "bot".
Not really, look at the definition of "STEALTH BOT" -- the only thing that nominally distinguishes it from a browser is the word "bot" which isn't itself defined, because the phrase "without prior disclosure of its identity and purpose" is something that a normal web browser doesn't do either.
It can't even get it out of it via "a valid and accurate user-agent string", both because that clause says or and it still fails the second one, and because "a valid and accurate user-agent string" is a nonsense phrase. The Safari user agent strings start with "Mozilla" even though it's not. The Android ones do the same and then include "AppleWebKit" and "Mobile Safari" too. A browser extension uses the user agent string of the browser regardless of what the extension does. When Debian packages their version of Firefox, its user agent string says Firefox and not Debian.
User agent strings don't have a registry. "Valid" has no meaning and "accurate" is contrary to the default behavior of common browsers.
So leaving your webmail open is banned because it will still be checking for new messages three months after you opened the tab without any further human interaction. Likewise RSS readers or really any client which is intended to fetch new posts/messages when they appear.
> It's probably relative to current norms of computer use and what we do or don't automate casually (and thus describe as "by hand").
Which is kind of exactly the problem. A new law would presumably still be on the books in ten or twenty years. Do we expect user agents by then to do only the things they do now, or will they get more capable? Banning them from becoming more capable is the problem.
It's trivial to block IP addresses listed as being somewhere else. That doesn't block people in other jurisdictions from using a US IP address, either by renting or compromising one in the US or having administrative control over one somewhere else and then setting its metadata to whatever they want.
No, people just like to claim that it does. Meanwhile legal departments are risk averse, so if nobody can articulate where the line is, you're banning all of the things you claim you're not banning. Even if a judge might ultimately come to a reasonable decision, do you want to be the one who pays the legal fees to "win" that case?
> The flesh doesn't know the difference between manslaughter and murder but we humans can figure it out well enough.
The reason things like this aren't a practical problem is that normal people can avoid needing to care about the distinction by endeavoring to not kill anyone to begin with. On top of that, the law actually does have some pretty specific rules about the distinction between manslaughter and murder.
Whereas the trouble here is that we need to distinguish between things that we specifically don't want to deter and something else which is proposed to be prohibited. The type of law that handles that kind of distinction most frequently is the tax code. The consequence is that it has to be made very specific or the result is a train wreck.
They're for-profit operations. They have money, and it doesn't cost that much. Proof of work is significantly more expensive (but then you put delays on even the users in your own region).
> banning country and AS numbers for cloud companies is pretty effective in my experience
It's the sort of thing that works when the first person initially rolls it out because the crawlers only bother to do something about it once a threshold percentage of people are doing it, at which point they use the workaround.
And then you have people insisting that it works even though it only used to work, and meanwhile you're still blocking actual humans.
That doesn't mean anything. All of the code in a browser is "automation" -- normal users aren't hand-crafting the hundreds of HTTP requests the browser makes to render a single web page. Meanwhile there is a human somewhere telling the scrapers what to scrape.
> You are entitled to your own emails, posts, etc
Is that somewhere in the proposed text?
> but you are not entitled to crawl the internet for your own purposes without stating what they are and allowing websites an opt out.
"Stating what they are" buys you nothing when you have no way of verifying it, and you're still not providing any way to distinguish this from investigative journalism or e.g. a new competing search engine.
How is geofencing supposed to help? The crawler operated by technical staff in $foreign_country just switches to compromised smart TVs in your own country and you ultimately end up blocking primarily real humans who don't all know how to change their apparent geolocation.
> A journalist anonymously using a crawler is indistinguishable from a bad actor trying to collect data for its own purposes, some of which may actually be against the interests of the company in question.
There is a major way to distinguish them. If you pass a law requiring them to do something, journalists from major publications have legal departments who then order them to follow the law (and then can't do their journalism), whereas the bad actor is either not interested in following laws or is not in your jurisdiction to be subject to them to begin with.
So is a web browser a bot? What about an ad blocker? RECAP? NewPipe? The default browser opening a link at the behest of some other program? A browser extension that downloads all your emails from your webmail provider?
Their intention is presumably not to ban those things, or equivalently, legally require them to declare themselves to be something that would cause them to be blocked. Or if it is then they're proposing something hostile and malicious. But if that isn't their intention then where is their method of distinguishing that from whatever it is they're actually trying to do?