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

AI Market Clarity

blog.eladgil.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: AI Market Clarity

#91

Post by Der_Einzige »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #36
OtherShrezzing wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is a dire indictment of the state of capitalism from start to end.

Is it just me or has the tide of opinion on HN really shifted against capitalism in the past year?

Can't happen fast enough

It's not that any alternative is better, rather, it's that we have all been far too cherry and positive about capitalism up to this point.

You should be sad/unhappy to participate in the market. It is evil, the problem is that everything else is more evil.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#92

Post by Der_Einzige »

chancemehmu wrote: post #2

I think the companion market is probably the most overlooked market in AI. Character AI is the most used AI app after ChatGPT worldwide, and generally what all the teens associate AI with. I am seeing companies like Dippy AI (character ai competitor for gen-z) scale from 0->10M+ users rapidly without many people noticing.

Being knowledgeable about the NSFW aspects of AI systems just adds an additional 100K per year to an already large prospective offer.

Civit.ai, the primary competitor to huggingface (i.e. github for AI) for diffusion models, might as well be a brothel with how horny it is. Over half of all "low rank adapters/Loras" every created are most likely NSFW in nature.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#93

Post by throwawayoldie »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #90
throwawayoldie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average HN reader is growing older, and wiser.

More likely just a reddit refugee problem. The "stupid capitalism" narrative is from reddit and is very /r/im14andthisisdeep

Mmm, no, pretty sure it's my answer.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#94

Post by grafmax »

9rx wrote: post #86
grafmax wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a bit of a mirage to appeal to capitalism against IP laws. Markets exacerbate wealth inequality (a well-established phenomenon). And consolidated wealth is consolidated power. The wealthiest companies can lobby for laws that suit them, things like IP which allow the de jure owners of that IP to collect rentier income. Far from being antithetical to capitalism, government in a capitalist society is an apparatus o…

> Markets exacerbate wealth inequality IP laws puts things into overdrive. It makes it impossible to compete. If you had a normally functioning environment, any time someone tried to capture excessive wealth, someone would just straight up copy them and that would be the end of it. But since the law prevents copying others, contrary to the idea of capitalism, certain people are able to build moats. That's how you get…

My point is that there is no motivation for balance since you have the people with the wealth and power determining the laws. You allude to a “normal functioning” capitalist environment but as counterintuitive as it might seem, that’s what we have.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#95

Post by 9rx »

grafmax wrote: post #94
9rx wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Markets exacerbate wealth inequality IP laws puts things into overdrive. It makes it impossible to compete. If you had a normally functioning environment, any time someone tried to capture excessive wealth, someone would just straight up copy them and that would be the end of it. But since the law prevents copying others, contrary to the idea of capitalism, certain people are able to build moats. That's how you get…

My point is that there is no motivation for balance since you have the people with the wealth and power determining the laws. You allude to a “normal functioning” capitalist environment but as counterintuitive as it might seem, that’s what we have.

> My point is that there is no motivation for balance

There is motivation, though! The wealthy don't want another wealthy guy to have it — they want it for themselves. That's why we have property tax, so that the owner actually has to find a good use for it, else be compelled to give it up to other other wealthy guy who wants it even more.

> since you have the people with the wealth and power determining the laws.

The problem is the opposite, really. The average Joe makes the laws, and Average Joe doesn't want to risk their job that depends on intellectual property. Musk wouldn't bat an eye at squashing Gates like a little bug if he could, but Joe working at Microsoft is deathly afraid of what happens to him if Gates is challenged.

> You allude to a “normal functioning” capitalist environment but as counterintuitive as it might seem, that’s what we have.

You're right that it is basic human nature. But capitalism emerged to try and work around the limitations of human nature. That's its whole purpose. However, it largely predates the concept of intellectual property, so it doesn't really have that idea woven into its fabric. Hence why IP is bolted onto the side, with all kinds of bizarre effects because of it.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#96

Post by GolfPopper »

9rx wrote: post #51
AlecSchueler wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it just me or has the tide of opinion on HN really shifted against capitalism in the past year?

Nah. "Capitalism" is simply losing its original meaning amid more lower quality comments. If you look closely, the earlier comment is really about the apparent failing of intellectual property laws (which are antithetical to capitalism!), not capitalism. In the olden days HN users would have taken care to make it clear that they were talking about IP laws, but now "capitalism" has come to be used as some kind of catc…

Not just government, "abusive practices in pursuit of profit by very large businesses" is how I would translate what most people mean when they're cursing out "capitalism". It feels as though English-language skills among the general public are becoming weaker, less capable of dealing with nuance and complexity.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#97

Post by 9rx »

mindslight wrote: post #89
9rx wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as they are creating a new form capital out of whole cloth. Not really. Capitalism was born from the need to manage real scarcity. Artificial scarcity does not fit into that model whatsoever. Trying to treat it as capital is how you get all these bizarre (and, to many, horrible) outcomes.

> Trying to treat it as capital is how you get all these bizarre (and, to many, horrible) outcomes. Yes, it seems like you're trying to deny that this is exactly what capitalism has become. It started off as a descriptive model for real scarcity. Then once that stopped being exciting, capital owners and their intellectual supplicants came up with rationalizations to create new forms of capital to be owned and control…

> it seems like you're trying to deny that this is exactly what capitalism has become.

How so? Yes, that's what capitalism has become. That idea serves as the entire basis of the discussion. If it were denied as you now suggest, what on earth are we talking about?

> The only sensible thing to do is regroup at a different metric/term besides capitalism.

Right. As before, this is what HN in the olden days would have done. Instead of redefining a word (and without even offering a new word to reference back to previous connotations), it would have created or found a non-conflicting word to fit the different scenario (to the point of pedantry). ...But that doesn't tug at the heartstrings in the new era of low value, appealing to emotion, slop. As was said at the onset, the changing definition of capitalism is what has brought on the apparent change in sentiment towards capitalism.

You must have forgotten to read the thread before replying (or were blinded by your own irrational emotional connection to the word capitalism)?

Re: AI Market Clarity

#98

Post by BrenBarn »

GolfPopper wrote: post #96
9rx wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. "Capitalism" is simply losing its original meaning amid more lower quality comments. If you look closely, the earlier comment is really about the apparent failing of intellectual property laws (which are antithetical to capitalism!), not capitalism. In the olden days HN users would have taken care to make it clear that they were talking about IP laws, but now "capitalism" has come to be used as some kind of catc…

Not just government, "abusive practices in pursuit of profit by very large businesses" is how I would translate what most people mean when they're cursing out "capitalism". It feels as though English-language skills among the general public are becoming weaker, less capable of dealing with nuance and complexity.

It's natural for people to use the word "capitalism" to mean "how capitalism appears to an average person in the world today". I think many people who complain about "capitalism" would acknowledge that there are things that are "technically" capitalism that are okay and even exist, it's just that they think what capitalism is by and large is the form of bad capitalism you mention. Just like nowadays what someone means by "a phone" is different from what people meant by that 20 or 50 or 100 years ago.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#99

Post by myaccountonhn »

bmau5 wrote: post #3

Customer Service keeps being touted as a success story of LLMs, but as a business owner and user I'd be very curious to see if it actually improves any UX CS metrics (NPS, CSAT) - as my experiences with AI chatbots are almost always negative. It can certainly frustrate visitors into using email or abandoning their efforts altogether, but at least for my business we've found current platforms aren't able to navigate t…

My experience using the stripe chatbot was just awful. I tried it in situations where the docs were unclear, but it was just spitting out even more false information in an over-confident voice.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#100

Post by grafmax »

9rx wrote: post #95
grafmax wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that there is no motivation for balance since you have the people with the wealth and power determining the laws. You allude to a “normal functioning” capitalist environment but as counterintuitive as it might seem, that’s what we have.

> My point is that there is no motivation for balance There is motivation, though! The wealthy don't want another wealthy guy to have it — they want it for themselves. That's why we have property tax, so that the owner actually has to find a good use for it, else be compelled to give it up to other other wealthy guy who wants it even more. > since you have the people with the wealth and power determining the laws. Th…

The average Joe doesn’t make the laws. The wealthy class do. Consider for a moment whether Elon Musk and his millions financing elections or Rupert Murdoch and his media empire have the same influence over the political process and you or I. The power imbalance seems obvious to me.

You mention that wealthy people support property tax because it harms their competitors even though it harms themselves. I haven’t heard that one before. Why wouldn’t elites just write laws that benefit themselves and hurt others instead? This explanation for property tax seems incomplete to me.

Post reply on HN