How exactly is Amazon preventing the customer from meeting the merchant? What is the precise mechanism?

Sponsored products do not dampen my consumer experience of Amazon. Paying 2$ more for the exact same good at Target or some other online store does dampen my experience.

If I as a consumer am paying a tax for sponsored products, then when I go to Target why isn’t the price cheaper? Let me give you a hint: you wouldn’t even get a shelf at target. Let’s stop pretending that Amazon is the only evil storefront that market manipulates for profit at the expense of consumers. Which store doesn’t? Which marketplace doesn’t?

Amazon gives you the option to sort and their sorts are actually useful. Ever use sort by best rating? It actually shows the best rated products. Sort by lowest price and prime? You can find good stuff down there.

Call a spade a spade, Amazon delivers on its price, availability and service. Just because the market is crowded and you need to spend money to get your stuff in front of people doesn’t mean you can make up ideological drivel.

Probably the most egregious human written article I’ve read in the ai era.

True in that frontier models do have the capability to outperform all other models, but silly because AGI self improvement is itself an iterative process that takes a lot of compute.

So you can imagine a world where all the frontier labs achieve AGI but in order to keep their AGI ahead of other AGIs they have to use more and more compute until all the compute is going to self improvement and there is nothing left for other tasks.

That is just a silly scenario so I think when AGI is around we will still have bottlenecks that force it to grow at a moderate rate instead of asymptomatically.

AGI first mover advantage implies that there is no such bottlenecks.

I wonder if there is something with their TPU cycles that makes them want to postpone training a new model. My guess is that they have been on the same base model for 6 months and they may have waited for the next gen TPUs to train Gemini 4, which greatly limits how much intelligence they can increase and forces them to do cost efficiency increases.

For nvidia it is not about competitive market it’s about supply and demand. A different subset of microeconomics.

Basic microeconomics is still the easiest way to understand token economies. How is it not a competitive market (where profits go to zero?).

Anything A or O does to keep more margin, any competitor can copy or choose to undercut, and undercutting has the benefit of collecting training data. So what is going to stop gross profit of tokens going to zero except for collusion/price fixing?

Pensions did not create this business structure, it has existed forever.

The second definition is the subset of PE that is systemically buying businesses and extracting wealth from consumer and worker to asset and shareholder.

The article is not talking about the first definition and neither am I.

To regulate private businesses equity is not what I’m going for either, it’s regulating the large PE firms doing this specific business model en masse.

Lots of things are profitable but immoral. People will do crazy immoral and illegal stuff for money, but we outlaw and slander the more abusive stuff, like monopolies and such.

If it wasn't pensions that were funding PE, I'm sure PEs would get a lot more criticism and would not be allowed to do what they do.

But… if you were to say hey we need to pay our old people and we desperately need some way we can deploy massive amounts of money at higher rates of return, people will say… hmm well it’s broken but the alternative is worse so we’ll ignore it.

But now imagine you have a way to deploy large amounts of money and get large returns off that money. Every large amount of money (endowments basically) will jump on it because why not? That’s literally an endowment dream scenario.

So pension funds are the moral reason these other huge chunks of money to get large returns. PE firms have become a streamlined business model because they continue to improve what they are good at doing, and it’s insane that we haven’t passed laws against it yet. Except of course we can’t mess with it because it touches government workers.

So yeah even if we wanted to policy it out of our society it’s practically impossible from a social point of view.

Pensions fund a significant part of PE and they do so because they need around a 7% return in order to look solvent. If they do not have the higher PE returns, they basically go out if cash in 10 years and everyone would scream bloody murder. But with the higher returns from PE they have 40-50 year runways and people can pretend everything is fine.

So PE firms exist to extract value from basically all high quality goods and services to show a high ROI to prop up pensions. They extract wealth by buying up companies and gutting the “extra” things in them - for luxury goods, it’s quality, customer service and warranties (like my venta humidifier or reformation dresses), for services it’s stripping the underlying excess risk management and quality control. One can argue that PEs make the business more efficient but in my opinion they just turn worker or consumer related benefits into profits (stakeholder and business benefits). It’s a transfer of value from worker and consumer to business and asset holders at a massive scale.

But sadly it’s not some evil dudes at the top doing this transfer, the market force behind it is because we promised old people way too aggressive paychecks when they retired. Pensions need to invest massive amounts of money into higher rates of return and PEs just happened to be the medium that is the most successful. Sure the people running the PE firm extract a ton of value drying up all luxury quality and robust services from the daily lives of working families, but their take home is a tiny fraction of the wealth they extract (but yes they take home a massive amount of wealth for an individual). Instead the wealth extracted shows up on a 1400$/m for some old person probably living in a retirement home somewhere.

So if you wanna fix or ban PE, solve pensions.

You have free local models for most tasks, $20 subscriptions for near-frontier intelligence, and API per token costs for frontier intelligence.

Flash seems to be targeting the near-frontier category.

And the argument is that research funding is coming back but just not to MIT. So I think it is a serious long term issue that they have to consider going forward, and not something that they can just hope goes away.

But yes, the tax goes against "keeping sacred systems sacred" principles and is an opinionated policy against rich entities that the current administration dislikes.

And 500 grad students at what 50k per year for funding is what 25 million?

They really couldn’t hedge the risk with their own money if talent was truly that important?

Anyone remember Google's social media platform??? Google Plus?

This is a good era to be in! Its the era of product experimentation.

As long as you realize that 90% of the products will not be supported long term if it doesn't contribute to bottom line revenue, then just appreciate it for what it is, a bunch of smart people trying to create useful products.

Just don't be surprised if Anthropic goes the Google route, which is shutting down the majority of the products that are too small / not successful enough to impact their revenue.

Maybe they are giving Sonnet, or maybe a distilled Opus, or maybe Opus but with lower context, not quite sure but intelligence costs compute so less intelligence means cheaper compute.