It is absolutely the the role of government to regulate commerce and establish competitive markets (note the lack of the word free here).
I also have zero faith in tech leadership as they have been the major driver of mass misery across humanity. Not only should they be stripped of their positions in their companies, but leadership should be directly given to the workers.
It's the only way to right to the wrong. If it's good enough for executives (voting for other executives, pay packages, and company direction), it's also good enough for workers.
This looks like a way to force a few key players to gobble up all the federal dollars by forcing many executive controlled agencies to be force fed these LLM solutions because these same key players cannot sell their wares to the public so they need to steal public money, once again.
The difficulty for any party to want to govern after this is... there is no government. It is all oligarch captured, the candidates are oligarch sponsored, and don't count on the media to sound the siren because, well, you know why.
This is a plane that is never gonna fly again. The only way is to build a new plane, as impossible as that might sound.
What metrics, that aren't controlled by industry, show AI getting better? Generally curious because those "ranking sites" to me seem to be infested with venture capital, so hardly fair or unbiased. The only reports I hear from academia are those being overly negative on AI.
Interesting, never really thought of it outside of this comment chain but I'm guessing approaches like this hurt the typical automated testing devs would do but seeing how this is MSFT (who already stopped having dedicated testing roles for a good while now, rip SDET roles) I can only imagine the quality culture is even worse for "AI" teams.
I felt this the other day. I wouldn't even consider my example exotic, p2p systems using electron? It just couldn't figure out how to work with YJS correctly.
These things aren't hard if you're familiar with the documentation and have made them before, but what there is is an extreme dearth of information about it compared to web dev tutorials.
People need to realize that these companies only exist because of work that the public openly shared with society at no cost (transistors and the internet). All they want to do is extract as much wealth as possible before dying.
There should be regulations that tax big tech enough to pay out billions to support a public jobs programs toward open source development.
They're destroying the most precious thing in the known universe, our planet, to chase a fictional good.
I think it’s a weak form of a mutual cooperative - which unfortunately doesn’t have the ability to defeat a state-billionaire backed corporation in the market.
I guess I don't know what you prefer, I'm guessing anarchy in the academic sense?
But I want to add, that workplace democracy would be turning the billionaire owned companies into democracies themselves. That is the goal of economic democracy at least, changing the fiefdoms into democracies can't be a worse system.
At the most basic biological level the human species can’t organize action larger than a few hundred people in any kind of coherent way.
There are no coherent organizations that are larger than a few hundred people.
It is a biological impossibility for the human species to maintain long lasting (thousands of years) groups that can have social structures that last long enough to encode genetic fitness changes at the rate of environmental change.,
We do not have the ability to comfortably maintain coherent heirarchies, and subordinated structures, around a coherent epistemological grounding.
Humans are not eusocial.
I just fundamentally don’t see any future for the species level organization whatsoever
I have always been in favor of changing the definition if incorporation to ensure that over time ownership transfers slowly but increasingly to the employees of the corporate entity. How that would work, though, would require detailed thought by experts more knowledgeable than i :)
Keep fighting the good fight. Asking for evidence should be the bar in conversations and too many people are willing to bend the truth to push their narratives (that the rich elites deserve everything, you were born a serf).
David Graeber wrote a great book called "Dawn of Everything" that really explains how newer techniques in anthropology have upended what we believe about modern humans.
There were 10,000+ people settlements found 30,000 years ago. The idea that humans have only developed "civilization" the last 5,000 years goes against what it means to be human. I mean we still have the same brains we did 200,000 years ago. People have always been smart, and more importantly, the book argues that humans have resisted nobility + kings since creation.
There should already be a single priority for a company...
Why is the bar so low for the billionaire magnate fuck ups? Might as well implement workplace democracy and be done with it, it can't be any worse for the company and at least the workers understand what needs to be done.
2. Some people have become very tied to the memory ChatGPT has of them.
3. Inertia is powerful. They just have to stay close enough to competitors to retain people, even if they aren’t “winning” at a given point in time.
4. The harness for their models is also incredibly important. A big reason I continue to use Claude Code is that the tooling is so much better than Codex. Similarly, nothing comes close to ChatGPT when it comes to search (maybe other deep research offerings might, but they’re much slower).
These are all pretty powerful ways that ChatGPT gets new users and retains them beyond just having the best models.
This company would have probably flourished if it had workplace democracy but instead it was a centrally planned dictatorship and failed.
Maybe that is the real lesson here.
reply