It is deeply funny to me that my asking a rhetorical question and using a little italics triggered you while "So, you can scream fake news all you want, but..." earned not a single complaint.
Perhaps I just struck a nerve.
429 karma · joined May 25, 2026
Perhaps I just struck a nerve.
Sure, build an orange peeling machine and it'll do great. But that's not what we're talking about here.
As for those demos videos we often see, those are very highly choreographed demonstrations. Show me a real life humanoid robot operating free form on a factor floor and doing those things and I'll be impressed.
And to be clear, this is not meant to understate what's been accomplished. I'm just saying the path for advancement is a lot harder and based in physical rather than computational limitations, which are much harder to overcome and go much slower. We simply cannot look at the growth curve of LLMs and expect robotics to advance at the same rate.
The difference is they already exist while the datacenters don't. And its a lot easier, in a democracy, to stop a thing from being built in the first place than to tear it down after the fact, what with pesky laws about private property and so forth.
Or are you really saying that if we can't solve all water usage problems then we shouldn't solve or prevent any? Is that what you're suggesting?
The problem is sensors.
There are simply no technologies today that can replicate the density, precision, and versatility of human touch sensors. Until then, there is simply no way to create generally capable robots that can operate at the level of a human.
And unlike LLMs, advancement is held back by physical limitations like materials science, so progress has been and will continue to be much slower.
Sarbanes-Oxley passed in 2002 and the number if IPOs climbed between then, in the wake of the dot-com crash, and the GFC six year later, while the median age didn't change much:
https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/files/IPOs-Age-of-Com...
If your claim was true you'd either expect a decline in IPOs or the age of those companies going up and neither is true during that period.
Now to be clear I'm not saying changes in regulation had no impact. Rather my claim is that regulations plus monetary policy and other macro effects fundamentally changed the structure of the market itself, thereby deincentivizing going public, rather than somehow acting as a break or barrier to IPOs.
If you consider that part of a "culture war", then it seems that term has lost all meaning. Might as well just accuse me of being "woke" and get it over with.
The entire damn deal we make when a company goes public is that the company can raise money from a much broader, potentially less sophisticated investor base that don't have to be accredited, etc, and in exchange there are more stringent requirements around reporting and so forth.
So sure, we could just throw away that regulatory and social contract, but at that point the public market serves no purpose.
Care to be more specific? "Regulations bad" is a pretty common platitude around here but you've stated your main thesis, here, without a hint of support to back it.
My observation is that the glut of available private credit has meant for at least 15 years you could just raise funds from those markets, and that's the ultimate reason IPOs have become less common.
This hasn't made it "impossible" for companies to go public. It just eliminated the need. If you can raise billions of dollars in a G round why go to the public markets at all?
Because if this a case of "well you use a computer so you're part of the system, man" then I probably won't waste my time. Cynical fatalism usually involves moving goalposts IME.
Making things previously impossible possible? That's the business I joined.
Destroying people's livelihoods without care for the consequences while pursuing monopolies, capturing the value as rent seekers, and ultimately enshittifying entire industries?
Yeah, no, I know I didn't sign up for that, thanks.
And if you're thinking "wait that's not AI". Yes. That's precisely what these companies are trying to do.
That said, in the entrepreneurial space it's less clear to me this is true. In a team setting? Sure. But the C-suite of a business isn't necessarily a team sport and a lot of wildly successful CEOs are notoriously pieces of shit including Gates, Bezos, Zuck, Musk, and many others.
That is, it appears to tacitly agree with, and chide IBM for failing to defended, closed, walled-garden ecosystems.
That's certainly not what it seems they meant. It's just how one might initially read it and downvote.
A more appropriate analogy for what you just described might be writing vs ghost writing.
But it's certainly not handwriting vs typewriter.
Note: there's no implied value judgement here.
My point is that the analogy that LLMs are equivalent to typewriters is fundamentally broken. Using an LLM to create text, and writing using writing tools, are simply completely different activities that just happen to lead to (at least superficially) the same outcomes.
Similarly, downloading a vase and 3D printing it isn't the same as making pottery. Programming a knitting machine to make socks for you isn't knitting. Putting text on paper using a printer isn't calligraphy.
And I'd argue we're going to collectively conclude that assembling software systems using AI isn't coding.
Again: no value judgement. But life isn't always just about outcomes. Process does, in fact, matter, and I think it's important we maintain these distinctions.
It's genuinely amazing and baffling to me that a non-trivial number of people around here don't seem to grok that.
This is something someone only familiar with writing code for general purpose devices or higher level languages can't imagine. But when you're building for one very specific hardware platform you can tailor your code to that platform in ways that simply aren't possible when building for portability.
Bafflement? Certainly.
Maybe a little sadness at the lack of understanding of, or appreciation for, the creative process? Sure.
Outrage? Nah.
Think about the act of writing with a pen.
Now think about what a typewriter does in that context.
Now think about what an LLM does in that context.
Can you reason about how those are vastly different tools within the context of writing or communication, so much so that the comparison doesn't actually make any sense?
Hint: it has nothing to do with determinism. It has to do with the nature of the work itself and the role of the person doing it.
As an aside, this whole exchange really is just a perfect encapsulation of the outcome-focused versus process-focused individual.
The outcome-focused person sees words in a document and whether an LLM produced them or a human typed them is a distinction without a difference.
The process-focused person is utterly baffled that anyone could think those are in any way equivalent.
This is also partly a preservation activity so (as best we can create it) identical code generating identical output is a big part of the point.
The problem is if you can't get the home cooled off, then heat that does build up can't escape.
In western Canada until recently we got away with very good insulation coupled with opening windows at night as daytime-vs-nighttime temperatures could swing as much as 15C.
But as both daytime and nighttime temperatures increase, or in more humid climates where the temperature doesn't drop enough, that's no longer effective.
The net result is the home just gets hot and stays hot.
The reality is most work people do doesn't need the very cutting edge and these open weight chinese models more than cut it most of the time.
Chess is a perfect information game with objective, easily measurable outcomes.
Show me a software business that looks like that and I'll agree with your hypothesis.
Otherwise I don't believe your metaphor proves much of anything.
Perfect example of begging the question.
Vibe coding works great as long as vibe coding works great.
Personally, I'd love to see how you enforce security and long-term maintainability without looking at the code cuz we need to add that to our build pipelines ASAP.
My bet is the assumption was one company would ultimately monopolize the space and then they could jack up rates. Alas, the opposite seems to be happening.