gwbrooks

No monetization, no marketing -- just pro-AI posters for folks who think things might turn out OK.

Debt is a tool, not a convenience.

It's a lot harder to shoot yourself in the foot with that attitude.

Marginal tax rates are meaningless because, even in the 1950s, the system was complex and can be gamed.

If you want to judge the net effect of tax policy over time, look at the percentage of GDP captured by federal receipts (the vast majority of which are taxes). In the U.S., it's averaged ~16.5%-~17.5% with occasional spikes and dips. Currently, it's very close to what it was in those 90%-marginal-rates 1950s.

I disagree with some of the framing, but that's what good discussion is about -- figuring out where we agree and disagree.

But consumer uptake strikes me as the worst way to judge whether the big AI shops will make it. That's not where most of the leveraged user return or deployable capital is.

Not sure pricing to recoup costs is artificial.

<<and if you are calling yourself a philosopher CEO you are a blowhard.>>

Yep. Wholly apart from the value or lack of it in his points, I'm not taking that personal brand seriously.

Rubbish. Artists/creators/tortured souls with berets and clove cigarettes don't get to define what art is or isn't.

Art is that which moves us, and "us" isn't a committee of gatekeepers; it's fractal down to the individual (or even the individual-circumstance) level.

Lived in California for 30 years -- it's an amazing place. But it's hubris to assume your definition of quality of life is objective or universal.

California has seen negative net domestic migration for over 20 years. So multiple things can be true:

* It's a desirable place to live and work, for some. * For others, the net quality of life is higher elsewhere.

Triumphalism ("They know they could never make it here...") isn't a good look whether you live in Silicon Valley or Dallas.

I can't think of a single time in history that humanity responded to a threat in a fully coordinated manner. Maybe this is the first time, but the incentive stack from the individual voter all the way up to geopolitical grand strategy argues against it.

Trying to tell poor nations to remain poor -- or telling rich nations to consume less -- is a losing game. There's evidence that as societies get richer, their populations demand cleaner air, water, etc. And, as another commenter mentioned, a realistic hope is that the whole green-tech stack matures to the point where it can compete on price.

We'll either make lower-carbon/lower-warming solutions work at near-market rates, in a way that allows personal and national economies to grow, or it'll just be talk for the next 50 years as well.

The biggest impact of something like this -- thoughtful, nuanced and multidisciplinary -- is that it makes you remember just how bad the ocean of hot AI takes really is.

It's voluntary. There are jobs with less flexibility and lower pay. There are competitors in the market if you really have your heart set on a career in ridesharing.

None of that sounds exploitive.

It was more than interesting 100+ years ago -- it was the subject of wildly inconsistent, often fear-based (or incumbent-industry-based) regulation.

A vetoed 1896 Pennsylvania law would have required drivers who encountered livestock to "disassemble the automobile" and "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes until [the] equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified". The Locomotive on Highways Act of 1865 required early motorized vehicles to be preceded by a person on foot waving a red flag or carrying a red lantern and blowing a horn.

It might not quite look like that today, but wild-eyed, fear-based regulation as AI use grows is a real possibility. And at least some of it will likely seem just as silly in hindsight.