Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

blog.johnluttig.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 256 posts

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#241

Post by throwaway328 »

lukas099 wrote: post #169

I think it's unfortunate that the term "capitalism" has been captured by the left to mean the bad kind of capitalism, where regulation is only used as a moat for the established players. Capitalism as a whole is the least bad economic system for prosperity, but the least bad version of capitalism is something like the Nordic model, with good taxation and redistribution policies and consumer protections. But the term…

> Capitalism as a whole is the least bad economic system for prosperity, but the least bad version of capitalism is something like the Nordic model, with good taxation and redistribution policies and consumer protections.

Shouldn't we refer to the system by what it leads to in a majority of cases? Like Stafford Beer and the cybernetician's useful heuristic:

POSIWID - the Purpose Of a System Is What It Does.

I mean, the Nordic model is not predominant by any means, right? So why would we use the term capitalism to refer to that, or think capitalism generally leads to that?

The thing we have in most places certainly seems to be dominated by monopoly players, with laws and regulation tending in most cases to protect that entrenched power and leaving the rest of the people mollycoddled and/or mistreated.

Aside from that, I think your line of reasoning is factually backwards. The rights and protections that people won over the last few hundred years were ripped from the hands of the powerful forces of capital every time, and never given gladly. History shows clearly that these advances were won in spite of capitalism, not because of it - ironically, by the same "left" you seem to be deriding.

This famous "capitalism as least bad system" argument, more broadly, of course, presumes we by definition can't do better in any possible future. This is taken for sophisticated wisdom nowadays, but is arguably just the standard modern cynical excuse not to even begin to think.

"The Dawn of Everything" by Davids Graeber and Wengrow does an amazing job of showing this notion that humans are stuck in their economic systems to be a tired modern fantasy at best, driven by our lack of imagination and political sophistication when compared to our forebears.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#242

Post by Traster »

There's so much here, and not necessarily in a good way. The way this guy talks sounds a lot like those old effective alturist arguments that went along the lines of "Well if there's a 1% chance we can save a billion lives a thousand years in the future, that's actually better than saving 100 lives today". Ignoring the fact that "1%" wasn't an estimate that you could have any confidence in.

Sure, if Deepmind could save a few percentage points on their data centres that would be huge! Becuase you've taken a small number you have no basis for (a few percentage points) and timesed it by the largest number you can find! Hey Presto! Big number! But then surely the guys at Google are morons right - because they only bought 1 Deepmind, they should've been throwing hundreds of millions around willy nilly! At these savings they can't afford not to!

Secondly, it might be true that it's difficult for you to compete with these companies that are hiring in teams of researchers for hundreds of millions, but what you're also doing is handing employees hundreds of millions of dollars. What are they going to do with that money other than throw it into angel investing? You're literally sowing the most fertile ground for startups in history.

I think we should actually be viewing this blow up in compensation in the context of the hangover of ZIRP and COVID. ZIRP basically made money in silicon valley free, tech companies could hire anyone they wanted at almost any comp and as long as there was growth there were no discount factors so they could effectively make infinite time horizon bets. Then covid happened and helicopter money came in to keep the economy going and Tech hired like crazy massively bloating lots of companies. But as things returned to normal, it became obvious that hiring had just been spending, and the returns weren't there for it. I think it's going to become clear over the long term that the same is happening here, Tech has tonnes of money so they're going to spend it, but 3 years down the line someone is going to do the accounting and I would bet you we end up back in the same spot that we did with Tech hiring in Covid - a long and painful unwind as companies have to return to reality.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#243

Post by Weryj »

steve1977 wrote: post #129
Weryj wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI will change the balance of power removing a vital counter balance against the negatives of capitalism. It will take the power away from the workers, such that there will be no power left for people to make demands. We can hope it’ll be positive, but we aren’t even involved in its creation and the incentives are there to ensure it isn’t.

I guess the good thing is that many workers are also consumers. If they don't have money to consume anymore, who will buy all the shiny things that AI will produce so efficiently?

Most influence would be through B2B channels, I'd guess.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#244

Post by walterbell »

aspenmayer wrote: post #237
walterbell wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neo-monks at cognitive gyms.

> Neo-monks at cognitive gyms, https://barsoom.substack.com/p/the-class-of-2026 What in the white supremacy? Not on my HN. Flagged, emailed to mods, named and shamed on my bio.

I encountered that blog for the first time yesterday, via one article, and was struck by the historical anecdote about monasteries, which was new to me. As I discovered _after_ posting the comment, the rest of the blog was different from the article, so I removed the link. Apologies for not reviewing more of the blog before posting one article, will look for another historical reference on monasteries. Perhaps future LLMs can enable a single URL to cite a series of related historical events with primary sources.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#245

Post by joshmarlow »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #227
joshmarlow wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree AI can change the balance of power but I think it's more nuanced. When expertise is commoditized, it becomes cheap; that reduces payroll and operational costs - which reduces the value of VC investment and thus the power of pre-existing wealth. If AI means I can compete with fewer resources, then that's an equalizing dynamic isn't it?

That assumes you (the human element) are still required to a significant degree. Right now those with assets are compelled to transfer them to those without because they have a need for the labor. If that need evaporates then why should they give you anything?

> Right now those with assets are compelled to transfer them to those without because they have a need for the labor.

Yes - and those without are compelled to trade their labor for assets.

My point is that the assets themselves mean less when the average person can use AI to design anything - that makes the costs of production go down.

In a world where production is cheap, the money required to produce has relative less value.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#246

Post by dragonwriter »

joshmarlow wrote: post #245
fc417fc802 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes you (the human element) are still required to a significant degree. Right now those with assets are compelled to transfer them to those without because they have a need for the labor. If that need evaporates then why should they give you anything?

> Right now those with assets are compelled to transfer them to those without because they have a need for the labor. Yes - and those without are compelled to trade their labor for assets. My point is that the assets themselves mean less when the average person can use AI to design anything - that makes the costs of production go down. In a world where production is cheap, the money required to produce has relative l…

> My point is that the assets themselves mean less when the average person can use AI to design anything

I’m not sure which assets you think that devalues; it certainly increases the value of the assets needed to run AI, and also of the assets needed to realize the things that people can design with AI.

> In a world where production is cheap, the money required to produce has relative less value.

In a world where your labor isn't required for production, the assets that are required for production have a much greater value relative to your labor than they do in one in which your labor is required to produce something.

“Cheap” is only a thing relative to some other thing.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#247

Post by joshmarlow »

dragonwriter wrote: post #246
joshmarlow wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right now those with assets are compelled to transfer them to those without because they have a need for the labor. Yes - and those without are compelled to trade their labor for assets. My point is that the assets themselves mean less when the average person can use AI to design anything - that makes the costs of production go down. In a world where production is cheap, the money required to produce has relative l…

> My point is that the assets themselves mean less when the average person can use AI to design anything I’m not sure which assets you think that devalues; it certainly increases the value of the assets needed to run AI, and also of the assets needed to realize the things that people can design with AI. > In a world where production is cheap, the money required to produce has relative less value. In a world where you…

To clarify, I'm focusing on the costs of ramping up a startup.

Currently VC has a great deal of power because up-front investment is required to hire staff and other expenses until the startup can become cash-flow positive. When a lone individual can start a venture using AI then the payroll costs go down. The investment requirements go down.

Yes, automation means that people with assets don't have to pay other people for their labor.

But it also means that people starting new ventures have less need of significant up-front capital.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#248

Post by aspenmayer »

walterbell wrote: post #244
aspenmayer wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neo-monks at cognitive gyms, https://barsoom.substack.com/p/the-class-of-2026 What in the white supremacy? Not on my HN. Flagged, emailed to mods, named and shamed on my bio.

I encountered that blog for the first time yesterday, via one article, and was struck by the historical anecdote about monasteries, which was new to me. As I discovered _after_ posting the comment, the rest of the blog was different from the article, so I removed the link. Apologies for not reviewing more of the blog before posting one article, will look for another historical reference on monasteries. Perhaps future…

[dead]

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#249

Post by MichaelZuo »

amelius wrote: post #173
MichaelZuo wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know it’s not applicable elsewhere? e.g. Plenty of countries have huge bills that no one fully reads and huge numbers of regulations.

There will always be something to complain. People are also sick and tired of rules in the AppStore. Or the fact that when their Apple/Google/whatever account is unilaterally blocked they have no recourse. At least with a government there are some checks and balances. Yes, some governments are more trustworthy than others. Doesn't mean the concept is bad.

Can you write down the actual argument?

Repeating your opinion isn’t going to lead to any productive discussion.

Re: Hypercapitalism and the AI talent wars

#250

Post by goopypoop »

ehnto wrote: post #14
goopypoop wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

procedurally generated content is the most onanistic form of art

It is no coincidence that the most popular procedurally generated games feature highly systemic gameplay. These are systems sandboxes, places for players to explore a world and build their own stories. There are not many examples of popular games where the story is heavily procedural, and I think the reason is obvious. Players notice the pattern very quickly and get bored. Stories are entertainment and are meant to e…

What's worth active engagement that isn't worth active design?

If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing, right?

Proc gen makes a dose of art go further by diluting it. Good or bad, it means less of the artist in each bite. Where proc gen is strictly necessary i.e. infinite variation, the focus of the artist will be almost absent on average. If gameplay encourages endless passive consumption, the gamer's focus will dwindle as they're entranced, then time is being spent on an endeavour with a total forebrain excitement value of A tragic waste when one could be examining one's navel or shouting at traffic.

Post reply on HN