481–490 of 668 posts
The big question is what "society" he is talking about? Is it the "society" that includes all people, or the "society" that includes only rich people?
It will benefit all people but it will disproportionally benefit more rich people.
The rich already have a diminishing returns situation with money. Everyone else has much more upswing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the late 90s to 2001? Many people were still using modems at that time. Cable or DSL wasn't even an option for a considerable percentage of the population.
Not still using, flat out modemless. Lots of guys got their hand on a mouse for the first time only after Windows XP launched. Which was after the collapse.
It had the Microsoft network or whatever it was called.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theoretically possible? Maybe (but still an extremely slim chance). Practically possible? No. People (and countries) own land. Raw materials for robots comes from land. Energy for robots consumes land. Farming food requires massive inputs beyond just the land and energy (but also needs those). I don’t imagine we’ll get to a world where my great-great-great^20-grandkids can hold out their hand and have a plate of stea…
'Not ever' is a broad statement. Would you rule out off-planet mining and manufacturing? Or the scaling of artificial meat production?
The overwhelmingly most likely "end of money for humans" comes from the extinction of humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest problem is the infrastructure left behind from the Dotcom boom that laid the path for the current world (the high speed fiber) doesn't translate to computer chips. Are you still using intel chips from 1998? And the chips are such a huge cost, and being backed by debt but they depreciate in value exponentially. It's not the same because so much of the current debt fueled spending is on an asset that has ve…
And a lot of the gains from the Dotcom boom are being paid back in negative value for the average person at this point. We have automated systems that waste our time when we need support, product features that should have a one-time-cost being turned into subscriptions, a complete usurping of the ability to distribute software or build compatible replacements, etc.. The Dotcom boom was probably good for everyone in s…
You are describing platform capture. Be it Google Search, YouTube, TikTok, Meta, X, App Store, Play Store, Amazon, Uber - they have all made themselves intermediaries between public and services, extracting a huge fee. I see it like rent going up in a region until it reaches maximum bearable level, making it almost not worth it to live and work there. They extract value both directions, up and down, like ISPs without net-neutrality.
But AI has a different dynamic, it is not easy to centrally control ranking, filtering and UI with AI agents. You can download a LLM, can't download a Google or Meta. Now it is AI agents that got the "ear" of the user base.
It's not like before it was good - we had a generation of people writing slop to grab attention on web and social networks, from the lowest porn site to CNN. We all got prompted by the Algorithm. Now that Algorithms is replaced by many AI agents that serve users more directly than before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take it for finance people being totally clueless, right? Have you talked to these people about AI?
My experience has gone the other way than OOP: Anecdotally, I have had VCs ask me to review AI companies to tell them what they do so they can invest. The VC said VCs don't really understand what they're investing in and just want to get in on anything AI due to FOMO. The company I reviewed didn't seem like a great investment, but I don't even think that matters right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As FB IPO’d at 100bn, and marched to over 1T, when would you have considered it a bubble? You can ask the LLM if you need to … catch my drift?
I'm not sure I see the point. The march to $1T took 10 years with available financial statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have anything to support this hypothesis?
Simple hypothesis. Top 5percent of US wealth now belongs to top 50 richest American. Even if you ignore corruption, lobbying and any ill intent you can definitely conclude that this top 50 individuals have better way of getting return from money than rest of the population. Even if if their delta of return is 5% we can assume that withing next 50 years there is a high probability that these guys will own 30-50% of we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Not ever' is a broad statement. Would you rule out off-planet mining and manufacturing? Or the scaling of artificial meat production?
I don't. If you do, maybe you could hypothesize a practically possible path from now to then and enlighten us Luddites? The overwhelmingly most likely "end of money for humans" comes from the extinction of humans.
A practically possible path to both: Starship is perfected and mining companies begin operations in space. Vast data centers training spatial ai using virtual simulations perfect it well enough for general robotics to become practicable. Automation is then as follows: robotics manufacturing and maintenance is handled by robots. Mining is performed by robots. General manufacturing performed by robots. Potential manufacturing scales increase by orders of magnitudes. Where are the costs in this scenario that would prevent prices falling to zero? And if prices for all goods and virtually all services* fall to zero, what possible role can money have at that point, other than sitting on a shelf as a memento of a vanished system?
*excluding sex workers.
The big question is what "society" he is talking about? Is it the "society" that includes all people, or the "society" that includes only rich people?
Society with a capital S are the beneficiaries of the bubble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they don't want that, because it could lead to an uprising against them. They want us provided with the essentials in exchange for being dutiful workers, so we have something to lose. Everyone should live in pods stacked together, eat insects, not drive our own automobiles around or fly places, we should be able to get our entertainment and everything to keep ourselves happy from their subscription entertainment s…
How will they steal added value and get richer if masses consume as little as possible?