itsalotoffun

This is correct. It will require non-market forces to regulate soft-landings for humans. We may see a wave of "job-preserving" legislation in the coming years but these will eventually be washed away in favor of taxing the AI economy.

I'm genuinely curious, is it: a) the writing style you can't stand, b) the fact that this piece tripped your "this is written by AI" and it's AI-written stuff you can't stand? And what the % split between the two is.

(I find there's a growing push-back against being fed AI-anything, so when this is suspected it seems like it generates outsized reactions)

Also, regarding your agents (primary and sub):

- Did you build your own or are you farming out to say Opencode? - If you built your own, did you roll from scratch or use a framework? Any comments either way on this? - How "agentic" (or constrained as the case may be) are your agents in terms of the tools you've provided them?

> The future may reduce the economic prosperity and push humanity to switch to some different economic system (maybe a better system). Markets don’t want to accept that. [Emphasis added]

What a silly premise. Markets don't care. All markets do is express the collective opinion; in the short term as a voting machine, in the long term as a weighing machine.

Seeing a real uptick of socio-policital prognostication from extremely smart, soaked-in-AI, tech people (like you Salvatore!), casting heavy doom-laden gestures towards the future. You're not even wrong! But this "I see something you all clearly don't" narrative, wafer thin on real analysis, packed with "the feels", coated with what-ifs.. it's sloppy thinking and I hold you to a higher standard antirez.

While I'm certain you'll find plenty of people who believe in the principle of model welfare (or aliens, or the tooth fairy), it'd be surprising to me if the brain-trust behind Anthropic truly _believed_ in model "welfare" (the concept alone is ludicrous). It makes for great cover though to do things that would be difficult to explain otherwise, per OP's comments.

Super practical, no-bullshit write up clearly coming from the trenches. Worth the read.

Lots of chat about this:

> Inference APIs aren’t subsidised

This is hard to pin down. There are plenty of metal companies providing hosted inference at market rates (i.e. assumed profitably if heading towards some commodity price floor). The premise that every single one of these companies is operating at a loss is unlikely. The open question is about the "off-book" training costs for the models running on these servers: are your unit economics positive when factoring training costs. And if those training costs are truly off-book, it's not a meritless argument to say the model providers are "subsidizing" the inference industry. But it's not a clear cut argument either.

Anthropic and OpenAI are their own beasts. Are their unit economics negative? Depends on the time frame you're considering. In the mid-longer run, they're staking everything on "most decidedly not negative". But what are the rest of us paying on the day OpenAI posts 50% operating margins?

This way to the hard take-off.

> It works in small ... chunks

Yup.

> I ... review each one

Yup.

These two practices are core to your success. GenAI hangs reliably hangs itself given longer rope.

No-one expects Susan. No wait, the Spanish Inquisition.

I mean.. there's simply no repercussions for these companies, and only rivers of money on the other side. The law is laughably inept at keeping them in check. The titans of Surveillance Capitalism don't need to obey laws. CFOs line-item-ing provisional legal settlement fees as (minor) COGS. And us digital serfs, we simply have no rights. Dumb f*cks, indeed.

Fair enough (and edited). I get angry at Chicken Littles spraying their anxieties all over other people because they can. It's not okay.

Daniel's freaking out about an ongoing correction still playing out from '21, and finding struts to support his argument like the "30-50% of the work" is being "done by AI" nonsense lines spouted by talking suits. This is hogwash. It's standard corporate brain fart miss the actual point. Yes, 50%+ of code written might be done by AI, but pretending this is "AI doing the work" reveals the tumor that is management misapprehension of what's going on.

There's a correction coming, but not the one Daniel's fearmongering about.

+1 for vibetunnel