That is a strange (dumb) framing. It does read business as usual when people either get overloaded or get the opportunity to be lazy with things they don’t want to do in the first place but have to in order to earn a wage.
I'll guess we'll se a lot of analogies and have to get used to it, although most will be off.
AI can be an exoskeleton. It can be a co-worker and it can also replace you and your whole team.
The "Office Space"-question is what are you particularly within an organization and concretely when you'll become the bottleneck, preventing your "exoskeleton" for efficiently doing its job independently.
There's no other question that's relevant for any practical purposes for your employer and your well being as a person that presumably needs to earn a living based on their utility.
> It can be a co-worker and it can also replace you and your whole team.
You drank the koolaide m8. It fundamentally cannot replace a single SWE and never will without fundamental changes to the model construction. If there is displacement, it’ll be short lived when the hype doesn’t match reality.
Go take a gander at openclaws codebase and feel at-ease with your job security.
I have seen zero evidence that the frontier model companies are innovating. All I see is full steam ahead on scaling what exists, but correct me if I’m wrong.
The trajectory hasn’t changed: they scaled generating code, a great feat, but someone has to apply higher level abstract thinking to make the tool useful. Running agents in a cron or having non SWEs use it will not last longer than a prototype. That will not change with scaling pattern matching algorithms.
This is true. AI won't replace software developers completely, but it will reduce the need for software developers in the long-run, making it harder to find a job.
A few seniors+AI will be able to do the job of a much larger team. This is already starting to look like reality now. I can't imagine what we will see within 5 years.
A moat is around something that exists, meant to protect it. You're describing something else, not a moat with your example. OP used moat correctly, creative effort around existing earned skill, brand, etc.
To answer your question. Yes to a player already in a market with lack of funding, a billion dolars could be the necessary moat to win.
Money was, is and likely will be a moat for a while. But as a proxy, it may not be enough as a moat. Scarce resources may require more than money— e.g. IP classes or, if you're China, ASML machines.
I think the point is that capital alone is a pretty poor economic moat. If it works, it's probably only because the market opportunity actually isn't that great once you take everything into account. If the opportunity is good enough, the money is out there and your competitive advantage will disappear quickly.
I think META like many other "service providers" don't yet realize, that it's becoming trivial to roll your own and all we need is a protocol. And arguably there are many. You can then use your existing social graph (anyone remembers this term? lol) to chat.
Your mom and granddad won't roll their own, but publishing an open service that uses FB openID and API while delegating to the open protocol is really not that hard. Browser local storage may not be ideal, but it's a good placeholder until something better can be implemented.
It's not the technology design that's that important. It's the network effect, and peoples' default trust in megacorps over volunteer projects. Both of which cannot be solved with just a protocol.
part of the network effects is building the graph. If you reuse the social graph that's already in your FB account you're merely replacing the messaging layer. This lays over on the presumed assumption that there's a problem to begin with
the other problem with the network effects is a business problem. There's is no business problem here though. If you maximize compatibility without caring to own anything several problems disappear.
I think the natural and equivalent role of the USPS would be an ISP, rather than a "messaging platform" itself.
When the US Constitution was drafted in 1787, authorizing the new Federal government to run a postal service, carrying letters and packages via horse rider/wagons was the state-of-the-art.
It was always relatively trivial to roll your own messaging service. And open protocols exist (and predate messenger)! The thing you can't (easily) replicate are the network effects.
arguably the history of humanity was about automating humanity.
- teeth and nails with knives (in various shapes from bones to steel)
- feet with carriages and bicycles and cars
- hands with mills and factories on steam engines to industrial robots
Literaly every automation was meant to help humans somehow so, this naturally entailed an automation of some human function.
This automation is an automation of the human brain.
While the "definition" of what's human doesn't end here (feelings, etc.) , the utility does.
With loss of utility comes loss of benefits.
Mainly your ability to differentiate as a function of effort (physical or intellectual) gets diminished to 0. This poses some concerns wrt to ability to achieve goals and apsirations - like buying that house at some point or ensuring your childrens future, potentially vanish for large swaths of the population — the "unfortunates" - which are these it's hard to tell, but arguably the level of current resources (assets) becomes a better indicator of the future for generations to come, with work becoming less to none.
By freezing utility based on own effort you arguably freeze the structure of society in time. So yes, every instance sucked for the displaced party, but this one seems to be particularly broader (i.e. wider splash damage)
The term you're looking for is externalisation not automation. Check out "the fault of epimetheus"; & on the alienation of the machine by automation ca. 19late7s one of its intellectual predecessors: gilbert simondon
Thanks, both! Glad to get the explicit names for the things I'm "gesticulating" at. I haven't done any explicit reading on the topic, except for adjacent stuff like Analogia (Dyson), The coming wave (Suleyman) and saw talk by Terry Winograd that I thought was on point https://www.youtube.com/live/LcvYYXdXF8E.
I have and do want to read Superintelligence and will check out both Stiegler and Simondon.
Plus “different” website (website has a screen recordings taken by phone) plus a link to the “technical white paper” and a demo - only the publicly sale date of the token is missing
reply