In my area owning a trailer park home requires being in like the top 1% internationally. Owning 1 home in Oakland may be worse than owning 4 in Detroit, in terms of being an under-hated under-taxed elite.

I think he was being metaphorical.

The bubble won’t pop on anything that’s correlated with scammers. Exhibit A: bitcoin. The problem is not one of public knowledge or will of the people, it’s congress being irresponsible because it’s captured by the 2 parties. You can’t politicize scamming in a way that benefits either party so nothing happens. And the scammers themselves may be big donors (eg SBF’s ties to the dem party, certain ai players purchase of Trump’s favor with respect to their business interests, etc). Scammers all the way down.

Good point. I suppose that if grifters can get in positions of power, then the bubble can just keep growing.

Though cryptocurrencies are slightly different because of how they work. They're inherently decentralized, so even though there have been many smaller bubble pops along the way (Mt. Gox, FTX, NFTs, every shitcoin rug pull, etc.), inevitably more will appear with different promises, attracting others interested in potential riches.

I don't think the technology as a whole will ever burst, particularly because I do think there are valid and useful applications of it. Bitcoin in particular is here to stay. It will just keep attracting grifters and victims, just like any other mainstream technology.

“Bitcoin in particular is here to stay.”

It’s here to stay not because it solves a legitimate problem or makes people’s lives better, but because like cancer, there is no cure. Bitcoin and other crypto are for crime, mostly. It’s not useable as actual money given volatility and other properties.

Grandmothers having their life savings stolen by scammers to the tune of 10s of billions annually, that is the primary use case for bitcoin. That and churning out a handful of SBF style gamer turned politically connected billionaires. Nakamoto was smart enough to remain anonymous, lest history remember his name as the person responsible.

I think cognitive dissonance explains much of it. Assuming Altman isn’t a sociopath (not unheard of in CEOs) he must feel awful about himself on some level. He may be many things, but he is certainly not naive about the impact ai will have on labor and need for ubi. The mind flips from the uncomfortable feeling of “I’m getting rich by destroying society as we know it” to “I am going to save the world with my super important ai innovations!”

Cognitive dissonance drives a lot “save the world” energy. People have undeserved wealth they might feel bad about, given prevailing moral traditions, if they weren’t so busy fighting for justice or saving the planet or something that allows them to feel more like a super hero than just another sinful human.

But if it gets built one town over wouldn’t that be a double whammy: higher energy prices and no tax revenue to offset that increase? Seems like prisoners’ dilemma.

You can only control what you can control. Default to action. The tax revenue and jobs are immaterial, based on the evidence.

You don't have to apply pressure forever, just until we're past the worst of the hype cycle.

It's always 1000* jobs.

* that's 1000 during construction, it's actually lights-out facility

Ironically, those may have been the staff with the most institutional knowledge. Seeing people argue, here of all places, that loc or commit frequency == institutional knowledge is … unexpected. New hires committing “whitespace cleanup” != institutional knowledge.

Someone had to actually write all that code and it inevitably shows up in the stats. People who work on the code most tend to know it the most. Although people in non-coding roles sometimes prefer to deny it.

Sure there had so be some frequent but low impact committers. But implying that people with lowest amount of code contribution must have more impact is ridiculous.

I mean, a staff engineer who stopped committing couple years ago? Yeah could be burnout, or could be some major contribution that's not in the stats. OTOH an IC on their second year in position who hadn't pushed a single line? Nah the institutional knowledge is safe without.

“Your choice of language is irrelevant if your goal is to maintain software.”

It may not be the most important choice, but it’s not irrelevant. And whether the staff he fired had useful institutional knowledge is an open question. Didn’t he fire a lot of non-technical, recent hires and people likely to leave eventually due to his muskism? I’m not convinced that his initial firings are the wpest move he made. Sadly, being overconfident, he assumed the same model could be applied to government, a mistake that will take a long time to fix if it is even fixable given America’s overall trajectory and the fate of the dollar.