CityOfThrowaway

You can imagine:

1. I have a bunch of data or research that I've gathered with a unique hypothesis

2. Having gotten my arms around that pile of information, I believe I have a compelling thesis to put forth

3. I design the narrative arc and of the thesis. The important parts, the necessary but not sufficient scaffolding.

4. An AI helps fill in the story from there. Fact checks each claim, connects the dots, makes it comprehensible.

Who is this for? Well, quite possibly the human who asked for it. It's pretty informative to read back a research brief in full that you helped do the scaffolding.

Also of very clear use is other AI's who did not have the same unique hypothesis and did not gather the supporting evidence. It's an interesting angle for others to build on.

And of course, other humans! Most human written content gets almost zero readers today as it is. And I suppose LLM content probably pulls the asymptote closer to zero, but some pieces of content may be genuinely interesting or useful.

Europe loves to regulate, which absolutely reduces your ability to adopt

This particular company is literally bootstrapped and makes hundreds of millions of dollars profitably

Then the offers are fair and your assessment of your labor value is disproven by the market rate.

Using your own logic, if we need investors to make the whole thing work, then an investor playing their role has obviously earned their take. If they didn't exist, many things would simply never have been created.

So what? He owned the stock, he gets to share in the gains.

If we believed that the only people who should be morally allowed to benefit from asset appreciation are the people who actively work for that company, the entire economy would collapse.

For example, every pension fund, endowment, retirement fund, etc. are all invested in financial assets that they had NO role in. All they do is own something that become more valuable as other people labor and innovate! Shall we cast them as evil capitalists?

This is usually founder-led not investor led

I've raised venture from a lot of the big firms (and a lot of small firms) and have never had any of them attempt to force me to use anything.

It's a term of art that straightforwardly means people who embrace AI-assisted programming. As opposed to the very large number of engineers who actively don't like it, or have enough change aversion to have avoided it.

Sure, but we're talking about Coinbase, which is a relatively young company not staffed with a bunch of old people in the first place.

It's totally random to accuse them of using "AI-native" to fire old people.

No, it's obviously not. There is nothing about being old that prevents you from being AI-native.

In some sense, the fun pockets still exist of course.

On the other hand, the algorithmic schelling points starve weird-ish corners of scale. The network effects + psychological draw of the single stream feeds is a powerful force.

The algorithmic spaces still have lots of weird. Maybe more weird than ever. But they also feel more bled of community (or even iterated contact with the same people).

It's a strange combination of facts. Maybe OPs post is not true in the literal sense, but it feels correct in the spiritual sense.

OTOH, if you're willing to accept human-level error rates... why would you not do so at a burst-scalable task per minute and 1/1000th the cost?

I've built large human data entry operations. Variable throughput, monotony, hiring and perf management and firing, management, quality management. All of these things are large investments of human effort and money.

If I can achieve the same quality level (or in some use cases, even slightly degraded output) with software scaling characteristics and costs... I see zero reasons outside regulatory compliance reasons to have people do it.

I think this is a bit dramatic of a comment. Credit card numbers relayed over the phone are not deterministic...

"four three uh let's see sorry my vision is bad six eight..."

Easy versions of problems are easy. But reality is messy.

And no, neither I nor anybody else is expecting a 50B parameter model to find every instance. But finding 90% or 95% or 99% is pretty good, and sufficiently good for many use cases.