- > But the capabilities of LLMs is clearly exponential and perhaps super exponential
By what metric?
- "This is actually textbook monopoly stuff" is a direct quote...
I'm not gonna argue on New Years Eve. Hope you have a great 2026 <3
- Because there is a wide range of what people consider good. If you look at that the people on X consider to be good, it's not very surprising.
- Pretty neat how this exponential progress hasn't resulted in exponential productivity. Perhaps you could explain your perspective on that?
- > This is actually textbook monopoly stuff
?
> monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
???
A monopoly in an economic sense is clearly defined. It is not "significant market share". The person who started this discussion claimed it was "textbook monopoly stuff".
- ....what?
- Something can be both flawed and hated, yet still useful, and still good enough.
There is also a cost to switching products, and that has nothing to do with monopolies. Unfortunately the M word is thrown around to describe basically any company with a significant market share and it totally dilutes the meaning of the term.
- > But why do we blame the government? It's completely a problem we create.
Yes but if the government is ineffective at solving the issue with the vast amounts of money we give them, we now have two problems.
Your point basically boils down to "regulators are ineffective, but that's okay because the original problem isn't their fault". Sorry, but I actually care about throwing my hard earned money into the void because it's "ok" that the regulators suck.
- What do you consider an "efficient market" to look like? Do you just mean one that tends towards outcomes you personally deem important?
- > One of the riches companies in the world with some very smart people and its ruined by toxic leadership.
Leadership can certainly be blamed, but I think it comes down to their hiring practices. When you prioritise leetcode-isk wrote memorisation and deprioritise intrinsics (like ethics, shocker), you end up with a company full of people who are willing to do anything to achieve their singular goal of making TC go up. Morality or product quality be damned.
- Those brands are not immune at all. Everybody I know (who isn't in tech) has a negative opinion of these brands.
- I think it's more likely that the newer gens swear it off than the older ones, who have become thoroughly brain rotted by it. It's like they have no immunity. At least gen-z is more aware of the damage it does.
We're at the "hmm, I think smoking is probably bad for us" stage. Next up, serious attempts at quitting.
- It's definitionally not a monopoly. Just because a company can provide a flawed product and maintain customers doesn't mean they are abusing monopolies. Jfc, it's like people throw darts at a grid to ascribe causes to problems and every square these days is either "capitalism" or "monopolies"
- > I like that this relies on generating SQL rather than just being a black-box chat bot.
When people say AI is a bubble but will still be transformational, I think of stuff like this. The amount of use cases for natural language interpretation and translation is enormous even without all the BS vibe coding nonsense. I reckon once the bubble pops most investment will go into tools that operate something like this.
- You're being far too literal here. "Threat to democracy" can be directly translated to "Threat to our hegemony".
- It's such a normalised sentiment that they feel completely comfortable expressing it publicly for everyone to hear.
I'm glad though, it lets me know who to avoid at all costs.
- Same - but I've also wasted so much time there I reckon it comes out as a wash (or worse).
- Are they? I don't see FaceTime, WhatsApp, Apple Messages etc being affected. The idiot politicians might in the future and will need to be fought, but I'm at the point where I want to see Facebook, Youtube, and X die.
- I was going to write a comment about how stupid and harmful these bans are for multiple reasons (including being entirely ineffective at their stated goals anyways), but honestly, who cares at this point. It's clear to me that the internet is dying and will either look dramatically different in the next decade or cease to exist as it's overtaken by bots and AI. And I'm starting to think that's a good thing for humans and society. Perhaps we will return to the real world.
(We will still need the internet for communication, but hopefully far less for entertainment etc).
When Fernando Alonso (best rookie btw) goes from 0-60 in 2.4 seconds in his Aston Martin, is it reasonable to assume he will near the speed of light in 20 seconds?