A bit of unsolicited advice: there's a reason we use the pyramid structure in essay writing: begin with your point and expand upon it. If someone (like me) is coming to this with no idea of who you are, who Spooner is in this context, or what the actual point of the piece is, it's a big ask to get them to read a lot of extremely dense prose to figure out what the hell you're actually discussing here. I mean, yeah, bonus points for using "negentropic" in a sentence without actually being a Charlie Stross character taking the piss, but tell us where you're going so we can follow you, you dig?

That might be why people assume this is AI writing and frankly the same thing occurred to me about eight paragraphs in.

And your stated experience of working at FAANG and starting a multi-billion dollar company is so widespread you might actually be able to fill an entire boutique hotel with people who share it. As stego-tech says, you might wanna investigate the labor experience of people who, I dunno, have country or folk songs written about their jobs.

I mean, you're obviously a bright cat, but unfortunately merely being bright isn't the key to good communications. It's wanting other people to care about what you're saying and learning how to make them care.

Just like the first critique of mine above, the how of communication is just as important as the vocabulary used. Consider your description above with this reworked (organic, AI-free) example:

"Core contributor to mid-size successful startup"

Based on the limited information you gave me in your line, I rewrote it to give off a different tone and vibe. Now, instead of standing atop trophies ("FAANG") and leaderboards ("multi-billion dollar", "1,500 people"), the same description sounds more grounded in reality - a contributor as part of a larger whole, someone who seeks to do the same through their blog as opposed to someone commanding attention based on past glories alone.

This is what I mean when I say you may have chosen your words with specificity, but the way you string them together can have a more outsized impact than the words themselves. It's the same myth that a meal is just the sum of its ingredients, rather than the steps taken, the chaos managed, and the personal touches from experience or wisdom added into it that the recipe didn't cover.

I am new to Amdahl's law, but wouldn't a rearchitecture make it less relevant. For example if instead of growing an LLM that has more to do in parallel, seperate it into agents (maybe a bit like areas of the brain?). Is Amdahls law just a limit for the classic LLM architecture?

GPTs' historically aren't great at identifying their own work; if they could, AI-based cheating wouldn't be the problem it is at present.

Assuming you're the OP, and this is your blog, let me give you some feedback:

* Choosing your words carefully and communicating your ideas clearly are separate skills. You may have chosen the most precise language, but your ability to communicate ideas to as wide an audience as HN is lacking (judging by the comments)

* If you're going to invoke half a dozen rules, principles, laws, and/or proofs in the span of two pages, then you'd better link the associated Wikipedia articles for folks to follow along, at least until you've established a readership baseline. People read blogs for learning or entertainment, and if you're trying to teach a perspective, then you need to include copious links to this material; otherwise, your readership is going to turn into an echo chamber of similar academics (or people cosplaying as such, which is dangerous)

* Your narrative structure leaves a lot to be desired. Are you sharing an opinion piece about a potential AI-energized future? Or are you mocking AI detractors? Or are you digging up old memes? Maybe you're getting into the philosophy angle of capitalism and entrepreneurship? Or perhaps making a judgement about the perceived lack of "startup spirit" of modern workers? I honestly can't tell, because at times it feels like this single piece is touching upon all of them, but not going into anything more than surface-depth about any of them

* As far as reads go, it's a strugglebus. Your blog gives no insight into the author as a person, but the piece reads as if we should already know you and respect your authority on the topic because of credentials. Its sentences meander far too long before stopping, as if you're trying to consolidate complex thoughts that demand a paragraph of context into a single, lengthy, concise sentence - and leaving readers to figure it out on their own time, like a University Professor with tenure.

* Personal nitpick here, but your application of the Pareto Principle to human labor within corporations betrays your inexperience (at best) or your absence of empathy (at worst). More than likely, it displays a profound level of distance from work "in the trenches", and the associated lack of understanding of why corporations are formed, grow, function, struggle, wither, collapse, and die. Talk to more workers, and not just ones at your present company/title/rank/experience level/demographic brackets. Humans are messy creatures, not machines, and assuming they will behave as machines inside other machine-like structures is ignoring the inherent chaos of existence.

Fascinating read, very unique writing style. I’m not sure I agree that it will make people more entrepreneurial. People desire the stability a wage provides; it is incredibly difficult to set out on your own. Most people don’t have financial security to start one company so just because they can trial 20 in the same time now doesn’t change that. I do think it enables rapid prototyping via fast access to experts or code generation. But if you’re starting a biotech you probably still need a lab which is expensive or tied to an institution so AI can only provide so much there.

I’m not sure I understand your argument for early stage venture going away? There’s more proven before funding with AI so the round has to be bigger since it’s inherently later stage by the time it reaches VC?

If that is true, you should state it at the top. Website vibe code, words written by a human.

I have doubt that it's true though, it really sounds like AI writing.

I don't, because such a model presumes every human has similar entrepreneurial capabilities and spirit. Neurodivergent humans may lack the social skills necessary for success in entrepreneurship, some humans may place a higher valuation on relationships than they could effectively trade upon via entrepreneurship, and others still may be of a persecuted group for whom entrepreneurship brings more risk than would be offset through income gains.

Even if we did restructure society around everyone being their own business owner (and man, are the powers that be trying to do so for a whole slew of awful, worker-screwing reasons), the level of competition OP tries to describe (of sole proprietors competing 1:1 against corporate behemoths, as if corporations somehow wouldn't also benefit from such AI-amplification of output) is highly unlikely. The driver of massive AI investment at present is to lessen the impact of workers in an attempt to drive down wages and consolidate power within the hands of the few, prime corporate players; such a future filled with self-starting entrepreneurs would still be limited to those who can afford the tokens or subscription plans to the largest AI models (or have the hardware and expertise at home to roll their own), and so you'd just have a global gig economy for workers with three or four companies hoovering up most of the excess for themselves through AI costs.

Look, I'd love nothing more than to run my own little IT Services firm with a sociable partner to handle the social networking aspect, while I get to tinker, build, and make people smile all day long at how cool technology can be. AI, however, ain't it. If anything, it threatens the survival of corporate knowledge workers and entrepreneurs both, by grossly devaluing their labor at a time of massive wealth inequality and severe employment precarity.

We can do better than that.

It directly and implicitly describes a fantasy as if it’s reality multiple times.

Y'know, you (the general 'you', not you specifically, coldbrewed) feel bad about your writing or blog because of the odd spelling error, or grammar issue, or repeated language, or maybe your points aren't clear enough, or maybe you're talking in the wrong tone...

...and then you read something like this, and realize, "Yeah, no, I have room for improvement, sure, but thank f*** I'm not like this."

The entire post reads like someone high on their own supply. Just when I think they're getting to a point, they pull out every fifty-dollar word and concept they possibly can (explaining none of it, nor linking to any Wikipedia articles to help readers understand) to ostensibly sound smarter-than-you and therefore entitled to authority.

I'm sure there's a law/rule/principle for this concept somewhere, but if you can't explain your point simply, you don't understand the topic you're trying to communicate. This one-off, vibe-coded (RETCH), slop-slinger is a prime example of such.

Pay no attention to the charlatan cosplaying as tenured academia.