kjshsh123

Everything that has happened is 100% aligned with ECON 101.

Demand has increased for high-bandwidth memory. That increases prices and quantity.

The increase in quantity has happened. Quantity sold has increased. Fabs have increased production and shifted away from other products including consumer products.

Prices increase when there is an increase in price of a substitute in production.

New fabs are planned, consistent with profit-maximizing behavior increasing production in response to increased prices, but they take time.

There are already open weight models that are quite capable and can use any provider.

I feel like you're implying that the mere act of consumption is good for an economy. It is not and the idea was critiqued 200 years ago by Bastiat in his parable of the broken window.

It's perfectly good for the economy if wealthy people save/invest in production instead of consume themselves.

Pointing out that poorer people have higher MPC simply doesn't mean that redistributive policies would increase production or consumption. It's entirely possible that such policies would decrease overall savings rate which you seem to think would be good, but would reduce total production and consumption.

No, that's not what "the experts" declared, some that have still put asterisks, and some people simply aren't experts.

Not sure what started this wave of CPI skepticism but it's so banal.

Content shouldn't target 10 to 14 year olds, sure. But, in practice and mathematically/statistically, I'm not sure what that means. Even if algorithms ignored age completely, there would be statistical correlates.

We should probably ban algorithms suggesting content and ads for dark things for everyone i.e. cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, misleading health content. It is honestly bad for everyone and that's actually the only way to prevent kids from seeing it.

It's not just about ban evasion. It's also about kids seeing this content everywhere.

Wealth and consumption follow a power law. That's not broken.

That's pretty near to as intended. Inflation doesn't mean an economy is broken.

We need to stop calling gambling gaming. And stop calling internet gambling/betting igaming.

I can go ask AI to help me learn something about coding. If it can be used as tool, it is a tool. That doesn't mean all uses of it are as a tool.

A project could be used for learning. Anyone could always cheat and have someone write it for them. They could also go to a professors office hours and get advice instead.

Now anyone can have AI write for them. They can also limit AI purely to advice if they choose.

The AI is random argument never made sense to me considering it can trivially be made deterministic.

The argument rests on defining a tool as a tool only if it's a tool for a specific task.

For example, if the task is hammering, then a hammer is a tool. A clamp is not a tool because it's not a tool for hammering. But clearly they're both tools for joining two things.

Sure, AI isn't a tool for reading the way a Kindle is. Sure, AI writing code isn't a tool for coding.

But you can use AI like a dictionary to aid normal reading. You can use AI like Stack Exchange to aid coding by hand.

AI is a very multi-purpose tool.

If you're using it to code for you, then sure it's not being used as a coding tool. But it definitely can be.

And if a game designer can now make games with it without contracting programmers, then it's a game-making tool.

Consumer demand can still be distorted.

I said this in another comment:

Imagine if we subsidized things that were an orange colour. Market prices of orange things would go down and consumption of orange things would go up. It wouldn't make sense to say "this is helping the many people that consume orange things therefore it is good".

It might be more economical for cargo to be moved by other means or for many people to live closer together than they do.

Imagine if we subsidized things that were an orange colour. Market prices of orange things would go down and consumption of orange things would go up. It wouldn't make sense to say "this is helping the many people that consume orange things therefore it is good".

Nope. If it was most profitable to quit the market or stop maintenance before LVT, it would be most profitable after.

A conversation with an LLM where you paste this exchange into the context is likely to clear up the reasons for your misconception.