Modernism is the act of using cheaper resources and more standardized/cheaper methods of production. The aesthetic is more of a side-effect of those limits. Ugliness has become a cultural norm in order to suit the modern economy. It may come as a surprise but it required years of cultural development and education for most people to accept the work of Dieter Rams as some aesthetic pinnacle rather than soulless mass production. It's only recently, (with designs like the Ferrari EV for instance) that people are starting to see how limited our aesthetic language has become. Modernism is too cheap to replace so the "beauty" of soulless minimalism will likely endure in the zeitgeist, but it's not a very interesting environment to be in.
AI is just code for the actual economic reasons that companies are struggling with but it sounds better if you blame innovation instead ( Think AI = Actually Inflation, Actually Interest Rates, Actually Iran as the causes). The premise of this article is true because the companies who didn't shed jobs probably have a healthier balance sheet.
New model releases are now like new iPhones--mostly imperceivable improvements with a higher price tag. That's one of the major benefits to open source: you can "freeze" what model you're using. Often it's the model that you know that wins over the one that is different enough that you have to start from scratch with every major update. Most businesses require cost control and predictability over a cutting edge with limited evidence of profitable output outside of tech.
This take is always bizarre to me. You're not talking about the internet, you're talking about the websites you choose to use. There are alternatives for every single website/service that you don't like. They're often exactly like the Internet of yore in that they're not as streamlined, niche and have less people using it (these are aspects of the "fun" internet that people forget). The internet is a bunch of networked servers, not the handful of sites you feel like you're stuck using for some reason.
All those other markets are vastly bigger in scale and trade in trillions on a daily basis so it's an irrelevant comparison. Also the expectation is that the majority of that 25% are insiders. So you're comparing catching fish in a barrel where 25% of the participants hooked the fish prior to you getting a turn vs fishing in the open ocean (so 5% is pretty good with additional voting rights/tax benefits).
The reason is because one scenario just requires your imagination to facilitate a reality that currently doesn't exist (Doctor AI) vs actual experience which is messier and has more details than a story about the future.
People are starting to catch on to the AI scare mongering, let the quantum computer scare mongering begin. We should probably start giving these companies lots of money lest other countries beat us to it.
I'm sorry that happened to you, but that's a <1% event. I don't know why I'm getting push back for suggesting a simple credit card refute request. It's almost as if the people responding are suggesting not doing anything is the way to go or you'll get banned--which of course, regardless of how many one off stories people may have--is a ridiculous assumption.
No that's not how that works. This stuff is a non-event. You refute the balance, they have a period where they can defend their claim (8/10 times they don't), you get your money. This is a very basic transaction that happens every single day to every major company. "Banning" you costs more than your refund and has additional legal risks.
I know being helpless against tech companies is a major trope in these comments but this is basic everyday transaction stuff. Plan on being on hold with your credit card company but not being a central target for a trillion dollar AI startup because you asked for a $100 refund.
I don't think you even need to go that far. Just refute the charges with your credit card. Very high likelihood of a successful refund since they already acknowledged their error in writing.
I think the big secret is that AI is just software. In the same way that a financial firm doesn't all of sudden make a bunch of money because Microsoft shipped an update to Excel, AI is inert without intention. If there's any major successes in AI output it's because a person got it to do that. Claude Code is great, but it will also wipe out a database even though it's instructed not to (I can confirm from experience). The idea that there's some secret innovation that will come out any minute doesn't change the fact that it's software that requires human interaction to work.
Yes I guess there's also no such thing as stealing in torrents since the computer "learns" the data and returns it in a transcoded fashion so it's technically not a reproduction. Yes LLMs can reproduce passages from copyrighted works verbatim but that's only because it "learned" it and it's just telling you what it "knows".
The mental calisthenics required to justify this stuff must be exhausting.
AI is destroying the economic premise that has drawn so much investment into Silicon Valley. It's going from a capital light business model with network driven moats that allow market domination, to a capital heavy, high burn-rate model with the potential to not only offer ZERO moat protection but destroy the ones that already exist. Cloud infrastructure + vibe coding now make it possible to quickly replace existing apps with custom fit alternatives. Open source+cheap Chinese LLMs may not be as good as Opus but maybe good enough turns out to be good enough ( Sun Microsystems Vs. Linux is a good example). Currently AI has just as much potential destroying Silicon Valley as it does building it up.
This is some aggressive consultant fluff. Few companies have such distinctive "profit" measures. If "the financial logic is rarely examined carefully" than maybe there's a reason, since analysis like this is mostly fantastical and brittle. This is the sort of argument that is both rational and implausible. A manager might use this logic to rationalize firing an engineering team (which is mostly why guys like this get hired) but they won't use it to manage an engineering team.
When you use your highly restricted/infosec encrusted enterprise Windows laptop and still see the Xbox App, you know Microsoft have lost all respect for their customers. Consumer laptops are just a pure sales distribution channel on top of an OS that can now barely handle spying on you, selling you things AND actually doing the thing you bought it for. The most eye-opening moment when you switch to Linux is that it takes as fast as you typing your password in to start using it. You realize just how much Microsoft has fundamentally compromised software and people are too used to it to assume computers aren't just slow by default.
Pretty much any claim by any company that they've somehow "figured out AI" and that's why they're cutting jobs has been proven as unsubstantiated by various financial firms. Most of these companies can no longer grow and are starting the dying process. AI is eating all their investment money so they're trying to pretend they're an "AI first" company while simultaneously gutting themselves.
I think people overestimate the general population's ability and interest in vibe coding. Open source tools are still a small niche. Vibe code customized apps are an even bigger niche.
He has control over city agencies, budgets, personnel. Has little or no power as it relates to laws or infrastructure (like the MTA)--that's all state level.
So if they were 100% self-sufficient and understood everything they'd be smart enough to interpret a child being hit at 6 mph as progress? Fun how "general public" is always a "they" vs "you".
So the TechCrunch headline should be "Waymo hits child better than a human driver would"? Not sure if the details reflect how the general public actually interprets this story (see the actual TC headline for exhibit A).
I think this is part of their circular financing "magic". The "customers" are likely OpenAI and Anthropic, who Microsoft is paying to use their infrastructure (so the "customer" who is paying for the AI capacity is Microsoft).
P/E isn't a future projection. There is literally no analysis that asserts Amazon will achieve the same growth rate in the future that it achieved in the past. It will retain stock value by eating itself for a while (could be a long time), then die.
It's interesting that the AI is taking job story is so prevalent in these sorts of posts even though there's zero indication of it in any financial analysis. Amazon and big tech companies like it are using AI as the smoke screen to cover up the obvious, which is these companies have lost their ability to grow exponentially. Since their stock price and debt demands this impossible growth, they are now starting the dying process. It will probably take years and maybe even decades, but they will continue to cut costs until they become the next Sears.
Relative to their competitors who also have comparable models, Anthropic's design choices in effectively managing context with a very well thought out and coherent design, makes them stand out.
Honestly this got me to subscribe. The back catalog is pretty stellar with pretty much every major writer of the twentieth century making a contribution. Zooming in on PDFs just wasn't how you wanted to read them.