sebastianz

Using your mind to "untangle" is the whole point and pleasure of reading. Using llms to expand your understanding of it makes sense, but "Outsourcing" the reading not so much.

> problem that had already been solved thousands of years ago

If by this you refer to "Aristotle" in the parent post - it's not that Aristotle. This is "Aristotle AI" - the name of their product.

It's the third link on that page, in the first sentence.

People want to sync their data, work on and see the same thing on their phone, their laptop and their desktop. This certainly did not "just work" when "we used to have offline everything".

> It just reads like thinly veiled racism.

Thinly veiled? What veil - it's completely naked, one can clearly see all the constituent parts, including the repugnant bits.

Your browser can translate the page automatically.

> But once AIs become your lifetime companion that know everything there is to know about you and the lock-in is maximized

Why? It's just a bunch of text. They are forced by law to allow you to export your data - so you just take your life's "novel" and copy paste it into their competition's robot.

> data modeling, to algos, backend integrations, frontend architecture, UI widgets, etc. All in TypeScript, which is perfectly suited to LLMs because we can fit the types and repo map into context without loading all code.

Which frameworks & libraries have you found work well in this (agentic) context? I feel much of the js lib. landscape does not do enough to enforce an easily-understood project structure that would "constrain" the architecture and force modularity. (I might have this bias from my many years of work with Rails that is highly opinionated in this regard).

Highwaymen still have those fast horses, up on the lawless mountain passes... ;)

Why would it be difficult to say what it would look like? Humans and markets exist for many thousands of years. Advertising in its current form for a couple of hundred. Just look back in time, there were markets then too :)

> A market without advertising isn't a level playing field, but a near-unbreakable oligopoly.

Why would it be an oligopoly any more than it is now? You go to a shop (in your city, or online), trust their curation, and buy something. If it's garbage, next time you will pick another shop or curator, or discuss with your friends / colleagues. Repeat until you find a place with satisfactory curation.

Why would this dynamic be bad? Why would I as a customer be better served by banners shoved in my face by the producers with the highest pockets?

> If the people aren't there, wages will rise until they show up. [...] There is not, and never will be, a shortage of cleaners, for example, because anyone can do it, so as long as there are unemployed people and the wages are good enough, someone will do the work.

While this might be in a theoretical and pedantic way true, sometimes you do not have the economic context to provide those larger wages, so there will technically be no "shortage" - but just because the jobs themselves will disappear.

If you look at poor countries or regions, there is garbage, dirt and dilapidation everywhere. Clearly there is - in a practical way - a need for cleaners, but by your definition there is no "shortage" - because they cannot afford to pay anything for those jobs.

> doesn't usually come around twice.

There is a _2_ in WW2 :)

Sadly looking at history these "opportunities" come around quite regularly.

Many countries in the former soviet block would very much contradict this take.

Entire economies were indeed planned and designed, and their shape was controlled and changed at will. Individuals and groups had control, and did do major changes, including but not limited to forced resettlement and labor camps.

You can of course argue that this ended almost universally in failures, but people did try, and the amount of control over economies is very much a spectrum.

> I don't feel like the average person born back then had a better life than me.

This is true for (almost) anywhere in the world. Everybody has a better life _on average_ than 100 years ago.

> It even was an empire, with an emperor and all!

But the fact that your country was the capital of an empire a century ago is a large reason for why it is richer now, and generational wealth was indeed passed on.

This perhaps is visible if you look at countries that used to be subservient to yours, in empire times. Are they not - relatively - still poorer than the former empire capital?