Readit NewsLoading parent story...
Loading comment...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
There are no examples of what you tried to do.
When LLMs first appeared this was what I thought they were going to be useful for. We have open source software that's given away freely with no strings attached, but actually discovering and using it is hard. LLMs can help with that and I think that's pretty great. Leftpad wouldn't exist in an LLM world. (Or at least problems more complicated than leftpad, but still simple enough that an LLM could help wouldn't.)
1. Microsoft research saw that people spend less time on a website (less time to see an ad) in the modern day compared to a decade prior
2. knowledge workers now spend less time before they look away from a screen when composing an email
From this somehow we've concluded that kids have shorter attention spans today. And the obvious 'culprit' is social media.
Evidence is optional. It's all about vibes. It feels right to ban social media, so we're gonna do it. If the "researchers" get it wrong it doesn't matter, because there will be no consequences for them.
This is explicitly not a benefit to the people using the services.
But more to your point: you might not have run into languages that didn't have proper translations available, but billions of other people did. In the past I read a machine translated book before. It was almost like a derivative work because it would randomly differ by a huge amount from the source material.
The negative: people are about to lose their jobs.
The positive: AI billionaires become trillionaires.
Why focus on the negative indeed!
People talk about business as though only the owners of the business benefit. Everybody else pays the price. But aren't the main beneficiaries all the people using these services?
In a different world where there are higher wages, more people would have more spending power. Then companies wouldn't have to spend as many dollars on advertising, which they could split between higher wages, higher margins and lower prices.
Alas, the short-term single-firm directional incentive for company decision makers in that world leads to marginal prioritization of higher margins. The loss of wages leads to loss of consumer spending power but it's spread across the economy. But every firm has the same incentive so they all do the same thing, and the good thing gets ruined.
This line of thinking leads to a Georgist-ish conclusion: The class conflict shouldn't be between workers and employers. They should be allies; the real cause of nobody being able to afford anything is rent extractors. (Writing in the 1800's, George [1] was most concerned about land rents; but the advertising monopoly of Google / Meta may be another form of extractive rent with similar characteristics.)
Maybe Henry Ford was on to something when he shocked the world by paying his employees enough to afford the product they were making (more than doubling many workers' wages)...
[1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-progress-a...
I don't think that's true, not for random goods. Rent scales with disposable income. If most people make more money, then rent becomes more expensive. Rent essentially vacuums up all the excess money people have available. (Rent = housing in this case)
Why would people want to live in these more expensive places rather than somewhere cheaper? It's because that's where all the (well-paying) jobs are.
When you see Americans complaining about how poor they are you might reasonably ask: okay, but how do people on $poorCountry get by when their income is 5-10x less? It's not like food, clothing, electronics, and other goods are 5-10x cheaper there. But what is much cheaper is housing. (You'll even find cheap housing in rich countries, it'll just be in areas with no jobs.)