The winner would then be the AIs, not us. That is not to say that the China issue is not real, hence the export controls and attempted international agreement.
But based on what we can see at Stripe, the hunger and the intensity with which other companies are either getting started, taking advantage of these new capabilities, or existing companies are retooling, I don't worry about the centralization in the same way. Uh I think there I think there are going to be many thousands of winners.
For the first time, I ran all potential winners through Pangram, which is an AI-writing detector.1 So according to the machine (and to my ear), all of the winners are 100% human-written.
But the coding models have gotten good enough that he can pair the kind of the technical knowledge he does have with his really spiky product sense and sense for writing and sense for users.
Nvidia would be the top of that list not to make it. You know, this is long before you, but Nvidia's graphics architecture was precisely wrong. It's not a little bit wrong. We created an architecture that was precisely wrong.
Uh but whenever we do a systematic study, um any given problem, an AI tool has a success rate of maybe 1 or 2%. Uh it's just that it's just that they can apply at scale and and you just pick the winners, it looks great.
We need to accept that at best, we will just barely avoid some of the worst case scenarios (e.g., an AI-enabled biological weapon that kills billions, a rogue AI takeover, or stable global totalitarianism enabled by AI), given the current pace of AI capabilities relative to the pace of governance.
Net net, we're going to need more sales and go to market professionals than ever because the winners are growing so quickly that even if they're more efficient, they will need more human beings than ever.
But again, the people who love to solve problems are the ones who are just so enabled right now and I think everyone starts there. No one is falls in love with solutions at the beginning of their careers.
many of the breakthroughs that we've had that have enabled us to to deliver such quality and cost savings and more have come through novel agent architectures and and really going down a click or two in in the stack to innovate at at lower levels of the technology stack.
I’ve grown to like Space Bar - it provides desktop workspaces akin to those in Sway/Hyprland which enabled me to use the muscle memory I’d developed over years.
This is getting easier in the lastest versions of Fedora and Ubuntu (e.g., Ubuntu 24.04 LTS) which are shipping system libraries with frame pointers by default.
When a team of 10 AI-enabled super-designers can do the work that used to require a UX department of 100, the need for higher management levels shrivels. I call this the “pancaking” of the design profession.
To summarize the above, my basic prediction is that AI-enabled biology and medicine will allow us to compress the progress that human biologists would have achieved over the next 50-100 years into 5-10 years.
So abstract. Maybe the most abstract book you’ll ever read. Compares “finite” games with rules and winners, versus “infinite” games without winners where we can play with the game itself. Is it about a job versus a calling? Religion versus spirituality? A story versus story-telling? Who knows. Thought-provoking if you can apply the metaphor to whatever concerns you.
Tyler Cowen will often praise a book by saying it is interesting on every page. Together with Daniel Gross, he has written a book that very much matches this description.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.