It’s that the scalable design & implementation of LLMs & agentic systems has made it plausible to automatically annotate, index, and ultimately extract “value” from keeping that recording around indefinitely.

That’s the necessary cornerstone to make it worth collecting in the first place.

And at a time when most of the computing technology required still seemed like sci-fi. I remember kind of chuckling at the idea that the machine intelligence had made and saved a recording of a random conversation Aaron Paul’s character had with his mother in a diner a decade prior.

I have never been a privacy zealot, but it seems inevitable barring major political action that the panopticon will emerge comprehensive, actionable, and cheap.

It does seem like the structural characteristics we’ve observed so far suggest there is a kind of flywheel from short-term to long-term advantage due to the capital requirements at various levels.

If you’re Nvidia, making the best GPUs today, the expanding wavefront of demand is consuming them with volume and margins to give you a huge edge in building out the best next generation of GPUs. Similar to how the mobile wave gave TSMC sustained advantage for about a decade now.

I’m guessing this is also what we’re seeing as Anthropic and OpenAI swap spots in the token-vendor market.

I have a hard time getting worked up about this. This is a team where the median engineer is probably approaching 7-figures total comp, working on a strategic project comparable to the iPhone—or at least Google sure thinks so.

They all have plenty of other options (albeit probably not as prestigious or high paying) if they want to level down their expectations.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48339627

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Online advertising is a competitive business, so that means more bang for the buck for Facebook’s advertisers. Now those advertisers have more money to invest in making more / better of whatever they make.

70 years to restore income levels across any strata is still not plausible: Even godawful economic growth would compound way too much. Maybe relative share of income for some decile? But now we’re back to asking why we should care about that if absolute real incomes are rising.

I guess I have to go find the research.

If the premise is that AI won’t improve productivity in industries like healthcare, education, and housing construction, then why are we worried about “the dead economy”?

The hypothesis of Baumol’s Cost Disease is that these industries are exactly where we should expect prices to rise because they’re still dependent on low-productivity-growth human labor.

I can’t imagine what claim this sentence is intending to describe.

Obviously individual workers can’t “recover” their wages: 70 years later they’re no longer working.

It also can’t make sense as a recovery of labor in displaced industries, since those are largely gone once they’re supplanted by labor-saving technology.

Take Phoenix, for example, once air conditioning became cheap and pervasive.