Readit NewsDeleted Comment
The Legislative branch (Congress) not the Executive branch (White House) can preempt states.
Curious to know why you think this cutthroat approach is 'traditional'. Is there another historical background to it? Every account that I've seen, including the origin story of free software (at MIT) and even the rest of your own explanation, seem to suggest that such institutionalized confiscation and hoarding of knowledge is a recent phenomenon - since about the 70s. Am I missing something?
The open sharing approach is traditional for research and academia, while the information restricting approach is traditional for business-oriented thinking.
So, a young field will typically start out fairly open and then get increasingly closed down. The long-term trajectory differs by field, and the modern open-source landscape shows that there can be a fair bit of oscillation.
We're seeing the same basic shape of story play out in generative AI.
The fact that one account can have such a noticeable effect on token usage is kind of insane. And also raises the question of how much token usage is coming from just one or five or ten sizeable accounts.
According to their charts they're at a throughput of something like 7T tok/week total now. At 1$/Mtok, that's 7M$ per week. Less than half a billion per year. How much is that compared to the total inference market? And yet again, their throughput went like 20x in one year, who knows what's to come...
1. This author's writing is extremely, uncommonly good. Good enough to write a book and have it sell. "Competing with the past of the economy," "residual behaviour of a world that treated labour as sacred," "immigration without immigrants" -- there are many elegant turns of phrase here. This is a very skilled writer.
2. His resume is designed poorly. Have a look. I'm not surprised his job search has been unsuccessful when his resume looks like an essay. OP, you gotta cut that text down by like 70% and put more highlights. This is the world of tiktok and instagram reels.
You could perhaps make an argument that among the flood of AI-related submissions, this one doesn't particularly move the needle on intellectual curiosity. Although satire is generally a good way to allow for some reflection on a serious topic, and I don't recall seeing AI-related satire here in a while.
Deleted Comment
A system that allows this kind of extreme wealth accumulation is quite fundamentally at odds with democracy because extreme wealth can be and is in practice used to influence politics in a way that undermines democracy.
Some people might not care about that, but if your goal is improving the outcomes of the largest number of people, then pretty much everything else is secondary to having a functioning democracy.
Some people will interpret it one way, some a subtly different way, but is there a reason that people's interpretation changes over time in a way that is more rapid and more significant than the underlying question of how good their life is broadly? Probably not.
There may be cultural differences that make it tricky to do comparisons between cultures / countries, but it should give something useful when looking at the same culture / country over time.