intended
Markets also range from under regulated to over regulated, and are usually in a transition from one end to another (while contending with other forces).
I am not saying he writes all code by hand, of course. Just that he is furthest in figuring out some sort of mid point between full comprehension and cognitive surrender.
I have missed the more recent content, so perhaps I have missed something, but this was my read last I watched.
We are no longer on a web that assumed humans first.
LLMs can shitpost like the best of us. I’ve had to point out content was AI generated so many times that its futility is apparent.
Consumers have more to consume.
A new category of producers can provide.
If the content produced is close enough to the real thing, is cheaper, then that’s enough to change consumption patterns.
You would need to identify some attribute of content that cannot be replicated at scale, for the old system to persist.
Currently the average output of an LLM matches the average output of an online conversation. It’s only when it’s pushed or put in front of an expert in a domain that its weaknesses are apparent.
Unless everyone becomes an expert, I’ll output is a good enough substitute.
Utilizing terms like surveillance capitalism, doesn’t serve as a useful deterrent, because the underlying system has changed.
Previously Bots were piloted to be marginally effective at appearing to be normal users. With LLMs, that’s basically out of the window.
At this point your false positive detection rate is going to start hitting human users.
Users are also going to accept AI content. Simply because their feeds are going to provide it to them.
It’s cheap, and it achieves the same dopamine hits that human interaction will achieve.
Unless you are knowledgeable in a field, you wouldn’t be able to make out if something is off.
The most likely positive outcome is we see bots that take on bridging roles in conversations.
The question I would ask is why would and who would, pay to verify a user is human ?
The unspoken assumptions that underpinned the web included the idea that it was made by humans and that content generation couldn’t be mechanized.
There are already YouTube ads for services that Humanize AI output.
The best analogy is that we are at the start of the Dark Forest era of the net.
I assume people will adapt, based on the things that don’t change. If you cannot make out authenticity of participants, then you index on correctness of argument. If the output is useful to you, then you got what you needed and can move on. A more transactional and less community oriented web.
I find something odd about this, because it seems to contradict some of what I understand of the arguments for bitcoin.
However, there is merit to your point, and if something is working as intended, then nothing was attacked in the first place.
Perhaps I am missing your argument.
It is an evolutionary process, with incentives are high enough for both sides to keep finding solutions.
It seems housing has become a global asset class, and that squeezes out local purchasers.
The usual argument is that more housing would solve this problem, which is like saying less carbon would solve global warming.
You went to college because it was the only way to get a job that paid well.
When other vocations stopped having the ability to ensure people could enjoy social mobility, people focused on the only pathways left.
I mean, If what I said affected your world view to the point that you have to respond the way you did, I am not sure what can be said to make it better for you.
This is the field of my work, so I know with certainty the point I am making.
My response to the situation was to learn and understand it so that it can be made better for normal people. So that they have an actual fair chance.
I assume you have the ability to acknowledge the difference between a single individual’s choice at one moment, and the choices of that individual at different times of the day.
Firms don’t bet on a single human making a reasonable choice. The bet that given enough humans, enough will be in the right circumstances to make the choices that benefit the firm.
Even individual agency shifts at different times, which is why food ads play at specific time slots.
No one is an island.
Using CATO as a neutral source though, is sketch no matter what.
Personally responsibility, when averaged out to billions of people, being given choices based on the work of scientists, engineers and researchers, with no barrier to leverage your neurology and data?
I have never perfectly understood how we reconcile what happens at scale, where its trillions of choices every minute, over the user base the size of several countries with individual responsibility.
The best answer I have is that it should be a fair fight / Fair choice. There should be a reasonable expectation of what the average outcome in a given situation is, and the players should have equal ability to engage in that transaction.
Your experience being humanizing is one experience, the average experience being dehumanizing is still entirely possible.
Understanding is a combination of consumption and reflection. There is simply not enough time to do so. This is driving a push towards content that is so simple to consume that it takes no effort.
When you consider that this conversation assumes we are talking about the US and not the rest of the world? It is sobering.
The AI bet hinges entirely on the new types of work that arise from it.
I will disagree by stating that China's private sector isn't the same as a western or typical market economy private firm. The degree of state ownership is and central control are hard enough to make comps easy. State support in other ways other than ownership is another topic as well.
I will also say that the Chinese government is receptive to its constituents. Not to the degree that we can expect in a democracy, but its not oblivious either.
You would be right technically.
Practically? a firm that isn't competitive, will have lower multiples, will trade at lower stock prices, and that will make it an attractive takeover target.
Just buy the firm, drop the practices that don't improve stock price, and then pocket the difference.
It doesn't happen all the time, and some firms may have enough of a war chest to avoid this fate.
However, the pressure does exist, and it does drive conformity in behaviour.
(I am aware that this is a facetious statement, and the main point you are aiming to make is that there are other factors that matter.)
If I am not mistaken, government gives tax breaks or subsidies to induce private firms to enter the market and build capacity.
The only reason investors are building capacity today, is because the demand for data centers is projected to go up.
What happened at the start of electricity, is different from what happened when it was to scale. The nature of the good decides what the most efficient form of production is advisable.
Altruism, as you pointed out, is conditional. If population grows, the new constraints change the conditions that determine societal behaviors.
We need to develop tools to maintain a social contract once we grow past a degree of complexity.
We may be recreating the things we value from the small group stage, however our ability to achieve that in the recent past was an achievement.
It took a lot to get there, and tons of ideas and counter arguments were attempted and their failures learnt from.
Even the past moment had huge flaws.
This is provably false, as in this is not how speech online functions.
The whole system of suppression today, is built around the idea of flooding the channels with more content than can be assessed and analyzed. A room full of people shouting and no one having the time to understand.
We have tried autocracies over and over again, and they have the same failure state. Eventually you get to a leadership that is not capable of adapting to the situation and has no pressure to change, and all the ability to suppress life saving change.
Most people haven’t spent any time moderating online communities, so they don’t have to test their beliefs against reality. This is fine, frankly you saved yourself being stuck in a fractal hell scape.
However holding to this idea that the “opposition” was deplatformed, is superstition.
I’ve seen communities start with 0 moderation, and become wastelands filled with hate speech, misogyny and harassment. Which then forces moderation to be introduced.
This happens so often, that this happened to the hate groups who were kicked off of Reddit.
Communities have celebrated the introduction of moderation, and celebrated the imposition of rules that mean you can’t be harassed, attacked and targeted.
From the death of local newspapers, the end of classifieds and the pressures on ad revenues, journalism had no real options but to shrink and consolidate.
The more content we create, the more the market focuses on creating content that could garner attention.
People are going to vote based on the information they have. If they are part of a captive market, then they are going to pick between the choices they are presented or decline to participate.
It’s some sort of irony, that as a society we developed ways to neutralize free speech and expression by flooding the zone with more content, not by controlling content.
This helped. It’s pretty much the only thing you can do.
The system is looking for growth, not for sustainability, which is someone else’s problem.
Not to mention, this is all going to assume resources in America and issues from an American perspective. Not to ding America, just that the conversation will cluster around the topics that matter to funders.