2. Digital media allows a single authored work to consume the attention of an unbounded number of people with near zero marginal cost. Further, once a work has been authored, it is available to be consumed forever.
3. Computers, software, the web, and now AI have drastically lowered the cost to produce a work of digital media.
You can't have fixed demand and have the supply increase 10x every year without something going off the rails eventually.
Now, granted, a unit of digital media is not a commodity good. People have preferences and not all works are created equal. But people are also demonstrably not that discriminating at what they spend their attention on now matter how unsatisfying the experience was, once it's spent it's gone.
Our economic systems around making and consuming media were not set up to handle this level of imbalance between creator and audience and something will have to change if we want to still have a functioning world where people make good art and others are enriched by it.
Not at all. Seems output in this brave new AI era is more or less the exact same as it was in the dark ages. The only output that has gone up, logarithmically at that, is spam and other low effort fodder.
I also want to push back on the idea that content is "solved." Consider the fact that you could be born in 1810 or 1910 or 2010 and in each of those eras, have more content available for you to read than you could ever read in your lifetime. People tend to enjoy contemporary stuff vs exclusively reading classics, and therefore there is constant demand for new stuff of quality in principle.
I think writers who are trying to become truly gifted writers aren't going to be out of demand in the future. I mean after all, technology has come up with dozens of new ways to commodity just about every medium of art there is for mass production, and yet, for every medium of art there is there are still sought after and celebrated artists.
Provenance has value. That is something that technologists often forget coming from engineering backgrounds, where everything they interact with is commodified and provenance doesn't matter at all, only the binary of if the spec is met.
I have a huge Steam backlog and a Plex server stocked with (ymmv) many of the finest movies available in the form. There’s so much media there that there’s no realistic path to experiencing it all in my lifetime. That certainly has an impact on my inclination to purchase new games or movies.
I concede that that’s always been the case for durable written works thanks to the local library. But the scale of convenient supply now is staggering.
Steam is releasing 50-70ish games every single day now from what I understand. That's a crazy number.
Compared to 2016 which saw 10-15 per day
And in 2023 (pre AI?) it was 30-40ish
Not even in the slightest is that happening. Why not? Nobody gives a shit. Their attention time is finite. And the masses don't want to produce anything when they're not at work. Production is work. High-quality production is hard work. The latest human TikTok continues to be at least 10x more interesting to the masses than most any form of AI media. Why? It's about pleasurable passive consumption. AI video isn't there yet (3-5 years before it really matters in the realm of big media).
There's no risk on the horizon of a supply issue. The 99% do not care to spend their home time manufacturing.
How long can we continue making 10x more features just because we can, until somebody realizes that users do not have the attention to spend on them? There might be a shift, but currently, we are too focused on pleasing shareholders.
With agents you can just throw them at every JIRA ticket and get them (badly) implemented. There's no rhyme or reason if it's needed or even wanted, and spending time to think about it is 'wasted'. So the numbers on the burn down chart go up, but actual productivity is stagnant or becomes negative as unnecessary bloat sneaks into your app or game.
I've refunded more games than I've kept on Steam over the past decade. While there's now a much wider pool of games, there's not necessarily a much deeper pool of games. Since trash sells and since marketing a game has been absurdly difficult recently, I can imagine that there's plenty of people who would have made a good game, but who instead (quite rationally) decided against it.
On the flip side, the firehose of trash has pushed me to mess around and make little demos, so who knows?
People will assume that means that you can copy and distribute for free and profit without work. You already can.
The business model will have to shift to collecting money BEFORE making something rather than trying to collect it AFTER making. You want a new Christoper Nolan film on his new idea, invest in it. That investment is a risk. Once made the money is made people can copy and distribute however they like. In a cinema, on a DVD, on a streaming site etc.
You've pointed it out yourself, we have these old notions of economics that we apply to a new world where it simply doesn't make sense.
Also, people only invest in things if there is an expectation of profit. Your model for raising capital does not make sense.
This doesn't mean our current system of patents and copyrights doesn't favor them either especially as they shred it to train their AI models but it's not a system you can fix by simply tearing it all down.
Herbert A. Simon
Simon is a fantastic author that everyone alive today would to well to read. He gets misrepresented by Karp in his manifesto:
"He envisioned that by the 1980s humans would be essentially relegated to kinetic tasks, confined for the most part to labor that required movement in the physical world."
Hm, doesn't sound like Simon. Let's see Karp's notes on that source:
"He envisioned that: See Simon, New Science of Management Decision, 38 (arguing that “men will retain their greatest comparative advantage in jobs that require flexible manipulation of those parts of the environment that are relatively rough—some forms of manual work, control of some kinds of machinery”)."
Ok. Seems to support Karp's interpretation. But let's follow Karp's recommendation than and see the source:
"I have done some armchair analysis of what this proposition means for predictions of the occupational profile twenty years hence. I do not have time to report this analysis in detail here, but I can summarize my conclusions briefly. Technologically, as I have argued earlier, machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work that a man can do. Economically, men will retain their greatest comparative advantage in jobs that require flexible manipulation of those parts of the environment that are relatively rough—some forms of manual work, control of some kinds of machinery (e.g., operating earth-moving equipment), some kinds of non programmed problem solving, and some kinds of service activities where face-to-face human interaction is of the essence. Man will be somewhat less involved in performing the day-to-day work of the organization, and somewhat more involved in maintaining the system that performs the work."
A much more nuanced and qualified take. Published in 1977, I would say that in may ways work and organizations in developed economies largely evolved like he foresaw given how the service sector came to dominate the economy and so much human effort now goes into software development, configuration and supervision instead of pushing paper with their hands into and from drawers as it was done in the 1970s.
Indeed, so there is no limit on how much of supply can simply be ignored, so 100x every year doesn't need to push anything off the rails.
And in reality there is no 0 cost, the marginal cost isn't about pushing bits in the wires
Unfortunately this is completely opposed to the goals of the companies creating AI. An org like Google for example couldn't care less if people are viewing quality art and having their lives enriched by it, but they love it when people spend endless hours viewing slop on youtube.
If we as a society want more of the former it won't happen with the help of leading AI companies, it will only in direct conflict with them since the two goals are in direct opposition.
The typical TikTok user is not seeing a 10x or 100x increase in published tiktoks from the people they follow. The same goes for YouTube. Absolutely nothing of consequence has shifted, at all.
The typical Spotify user is not seeing a flood of quality music that they have to sift through. There is no actual curation problem. The AI garbage is overwhelmingly and easily being ignored by the masses. They're just shrugging and going back to listening to their favorite music, or back to listening to their favorite podcasts, and so on.
The premise of supply to infinity is nothing more than an empty (and now aged) talking point that has turned out to be false.
It'll be trivial to find the next Hendrix, easier than ever in fact. AI sucks at making interesting music (short'ish term problem), and it can't play an instrument live to save its life (substantial problem). Fans want to see Taylor Swift live more than they want to listen to her mp3s or discs by a radical margin. They want to watch Swift perform on YouTube videos, or at the Grammy's, they want to watch her in interviews. They're fans. AI can't stand on stage and do jack squat, it has zero charisma, zero stage presence. Nobody cares about AI.
I worked at a (very) well known media company in Hollywood during the Netflix disruption. This really doesn't sound all that different from a Hollywood exec mocking internet media in the early 2000s. People are trying to understand it and leverage it. Quality is bad. Then one day you wake up and it's taken over, because it kept improving. Setting aside the debate on AI use in the creative process, even if models never get better there are years of optimizations to be done on the tools/business side.
As a gamer, I'm actually excited for it. I want more diversity in games beyond what the current indie scene provides. If we can give smaller teams the horsepower to make what was considered AAA 5-10 years ago I will be quite happy as a consumer.
Are we just reverting to the mean after years of zero interest rate policy? Would love for folks with experience working in tech in the 90s and 00s especially to chime in.
> While videogames are as profitable as ever on paper
And the linked article is about revenue going up YoY, not profit. And then it says:
> It's remarkably dissonant with, say, the current 'Xbox reset' which has Microsoft cancelling games and looking to ax studios left and right
Xbox in their own earnings report said their revenues dropped by 7% YoY.
Yeah OK, I guess games journalist are as bad as they've ever been.
[0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/investor/earnings/FY-2026-Q1...
[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/fy-2025-Q4...
edit: Tarn Adams is also an indie game developer, not a game journalist. Dwarf Fortress is highly influential in the indie game scene.
https://www.matthewball.co/all/presentation-the-state-of-vid...
Contrast this with "open" source where some Gen-Xers who are too tired to program need the AI wheelchair and simultaneously build power in their corporations for selling out everyone else.
I fell that also gamers are still able to articulate themselves rather than just spewing corporate talking points all day long.
It seemed more like the understandable frustration of someone whose profession is being automated. Schumpeter creative destruction, but not shambles.
If AIs get just a few times better than they are now, the CEO probably actually will be able to press a button that makes a good quality game. The problem for the CEO is that every other CEO will be able to do the same thing, so what will be the distinguishing factor?
The buying without a job part isn't necessarily a devastating problem for now. Blue collar workers and service industry workers aren't in immediate danger of being replaced by AI, so there is a cushion period in which there is still a large number of people who have jobs.
>Since the advent of modern capitalism (and likely a long while before that), those in charge have often misunderstood, underestimated, or dismissed the hard work that goes into labour they don't understand.
I'm no big capitalism fan, but this sentence is funny. The author just had to put in a dig against capitalism, mildly qualified with the "and likely a long while before that". What do you mean "likely"? Lol. It's absolutely obvious that this has been true for a long while before modern capitalism.
Either way, I'd be much more willing to bet that if Toady had Opus/Sol/whatever we wouldn't have Dwarf Fortress, we'd just have Rimworld: perhaps a technically better game, but not !FUN! in the same way Dwarf Fortress is fun.
> Had Adams been able to use Opus or Sol when he started with DF, that game would be a broad cultural milestone today, and not just a nerd affectation.
Well, that is an assumption. You have to demonstrate this claim. Right now I do not believe that claim.
"in shambles because of AI" no. It's the same as it always was.
I am personally no longer interested in the same shitty nostalgia rehash of previously garbage marvelslop and the same 15-20 actors on my screen and that has started to change because I have way more choice.
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.
Some of the most meaningful and engrossing gaming experiences of my life have come from 1-3 person teams, especially over the past few years. Meanwhile, the vast majority of AAA titles just feel like time-filling entertainment chow to me: fun-shaped but ultimately pointless. I would strongly argue that artistry and auterism is nearly impossible to preserve beyond a certain game size; the experience can't be focused by definition.
In any case, many of the most talented indie game devs are rejecting this technology outright.
I assume a similar analysis exists somewhere for the big names in gaming that financial engineers have similarly destroyed other formerly-great companies; ZA/UM comes to mind as one example.
Blizzard
If you mean the games industry, it was always poorly run. I worked in games in the 90s and 00s it was a cottage industry of nerds, many of whom had success with an 8bit game in the 80s (where they did everything: a one person team), to then have to run large teams of devs/artists/designers/etc without any leadership experience and more complex hardware.
Happy days :D
I was just recently reading about the history of the Ultima series and you’re describing Richard Garriott. As games were pressured to be bigger and prettier and use 3D graphics, suddenly the lack of managerial experience (partly) caused the later games to spin out of control and they were forced to release a series of bad titles that brought the whole franchise down.
It’s busy really interesting how fast that industry changed, and the massive scale involved compared to just 10-15 years prior, depending on where you measure from.
We don't have leaders, or people that can make hard decisions, or think for themselves. They all follow the same book of the day business trends. If you do think outside the box you aren't a team player and are rocking the boat.
One startup didn't go too far (folded after 3 years), one grew to ~20 people, lasted for maybe 20 years total, I left after 2 years during the dot com crash.
Both of the medium companies are bigger now (I'm still working for one), and have generally positive outlook. I mean, you can't consistently be #1 in your industry when there are 2 companies with combined > 50 or 60% market share and roughly equal - some quarters, your competitor's 2-3 year plan will finish and deliver better for that quarter than your previous (now "old") product that is in the middle of a 2-3 plan, etc..
So they are out there, but it's RARELY in the "high profile" (FAANG/whatever) "move fast, break things" companies that you hear about a lot or that everyone wants to work for.
A friend said <ride sharing company> was like Game of Thrones come to life in a corporate setting, for example. Yet, some people got rich off it, I'm sure.
The thing to realize about the SV executive class is that they have constructed a closed ecosystem around them where they only talk amongst themselves and a small number of supporting actors who say what the execs need to hear. A CEO will talk to other CEOs he will not talk to his skip reports. Alternative viewpoints or dissent are not part of this social circle, and despite their 'conterarian' self-image, there's an immense amount of social pressure to conform.
You can can see hints of this outside - for example this site used to see YC folks as regular commenters, but no more. Twitter was changed so that only views favoured by Musk show up prominently in replies. These people certainly do not encounter normal people in their day-to-day lives.
In this information environment you see extremely rapid horizontal spread of weird, stupid and esoteric ideas - one CEO does a layoff, all of them will do layoffs. One turns MAGA, they all turn MAGA, etc. One guy starts yapping about some snake oil, they all yap about snake oil. There no negative feedback loop there.
This doesn't happen anymore, it's actually relatively good at sorting bad comments to the bottom now. The current problem is it's full of wannabe LinkedIn influencers with "Building for AI agents in business in public" in their profile using LLMs to reply to everything.
As for the layoffs, that one was to be expected, a correction after the insane hiring sprees during the ZIRP phase.
As for MAGA... well, Trump made it clear. Either you walk the line with him, or you get screwed.
What happens next (eventually...) is the bubble popping, which for AI will mostly look like established companies pulling back on AI hiring and especially cutting AI SaaS solutions unless they are clearly providing value and improving the bottom line.
What we think of as quality will come in the next phase, once the infrastructure woes get sorted out. Web 1.0 was pre-cloud and websites crashed all the time, no one could handle traffic spikes, etc. After a crash, stability becomes a market advantage, i.e. why Facebook won and Friendster died.
So, the game development industry really hasn’t changed that much. But the way we talk about things certainly has changed.
Generation X had a lot of bad things written about us, but we could write and we could think. We were also significantly tougher than the modern generation.
Things weren’t easy and running companies had always been hard. We didn’t think in terms of ‘employees just collapse’ because we were tough enough that that would have been silly. A few may collapse and that sucked for them, but for the most part we did our shit and lived our lives. We didn’t expect lives of leisure or for companies to speak to our personal missions. We had jobs and we had lives.
There were massive layoffs back in the day too. They sucked. But employees didn’t collapse, the world kept spinning and honestly, having been through those years it’s very very hard to relate to the young now. Younger generations do not have a monopoly on struggling or on shitty bosses, but you sure talk about them too much.
And it comes from the top: the CEOs are not caring anymore, so their lieutenants are not interested in doing any work either. So the companies get turned into fiefdoms without any central guiding direction.
They've never been well-ran, but the laws of physics and economics put hard limits on the amount of stupid bullshit that they could produce.
Now that those limits have been largely removed, an exec at the head of a company in the post-AI age is a chimp with a machinegun.
Anything they ask for can and will be built.
Companies will do what Wall Street wants (Wall Street likes layoffs), and at a certain level, they don't want unemployment to get too low, lest their workers gain too much leverage.
There is an insatiable appetite for increasing profits. Eventually that means raising prices and/or cutting costs and the most significant cost is labor.
Game studios can only sruvive and keep excelling as long as they can maintain their culture and key talent and avoid getting finance people and accountants in charge. This is one reason why acquisitions usually mark the beginning of the end.
We're coming up on the much-ancitipcated release of GTA6. People might say that Rockstar has thus far avoided this rot but I kinda disagree. What made GTA magic for me was the social commentary and satire. I personally thought GTA5 lost its soul. Every previous GTA game I'd replay just to have fun, even if it's to do dumb stuff like causing mass pileups and explosions on the freeway in GTA:SA. I can honestly say that I never once played GTA5 again after finishing the main story and I also almost quit before I did. I have zero interest in the online crap but it's a huge cash cow for Rockstar.
So I imagine GTA6 is going to be visually stunning and I'm sure many will enjoy the new era of online gameply but I am fearful it will be even more soulless.
So, back to your point, I think the real problem is that the game devs need to own the studio. That's the only sustainable model. One could even call that the workers owning the means of production.
So I think decision-makers are seeing layoffs as win/win.
There has been a growing trend over the past couple of decades to outsource more and more game development to cheaper parts of the world, trending towards keeping only a small core team in the home country, supported by for-hire remote developers in Eastern Europe and Asia.
The other big advantage to work for hire is not needing to keep a large team of specialists employed throughout development, when they may not be required for all of that time. Keeping everyone fully utilised has always been one of the big challenges for game studios.
Ironically, AI may actually reduce the amount of outsourcing that a core team needs to do (though a lot of it is content and AI is still pretty bad at generating content).
The current use of AI for LLMs is a lot closer to the original intent that the "AI" in games ever was. It wasn't hijacked. It was retaken.
There is probably some limited utility for using ML in games, lifelike multiplayer bots trained on behaviour of different types of players.
I think in most scenarios good gameplay comes from iteration which comes from tweak-ability, you see players get stuck in area x so you do a minor or major adjustment to area layout, enemy composition, or give the players more tools. If something is controlled by an LLM it becomes unpredictable and hard to reason about for both player and designer, and consequently also hard to adjust.
I think it is possible there is some role for LLM's in games, like how Left 4 Dead had an AI (this is classic AI not ML) director who would decide how to structure enemy waves and for example send a boss after a player who strays too far from the rest. But even there rules based AI is probably easier to adjust for the designer.
Using machine learning to make enemies smarter has been thought about and talked about for decades, but I don't see it being used either for similar reasons. Training a ML algorithm takes resources which are in short supply and time which could take longer than for the player to finish the game (if you want smarter enemies play against real human players). There's also the fact that the game has to run on the minimum specification computer, which means different players will have differently skilled enemies and their experience of the game will suffer.
There have been some games in the past which used some form of machine learning as a core gameplay feature, but they have been pet breeding simulators.
[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/2240920/Vaudeville/ [2] https://art-from-the-machine.github.io/Mantella/
There have been a number of games that have tried AI conversations, but you're basically trying to sell a Chat GPT prompt, and many players are aware they don't have to pay you to get a similar result on their own.
Any why always call critics "frustrated" in order to depict them as weak and spiteful? Isn't the Dwarf Fortress guy independent anyway?
An eternal curse on the houses of anyone involved with these AIs.
This is part of the reason why we see endless games as a service despite 90% of them failing. Teams have to do the bidding of the rich, but the rich don't know what's 'fun'.
Its all tied together. The current system cannot function if unemployment goes double digits.
I wouldn't be so sure about this; robotics is advancing rapidly. I do think there'll be a substantial market for "human-made" products and services as luxuries, though, so at least some humans will retain these jobs.
There will just be a lot more workers competing for those blue collar and service industry jobs in the future which will drive down their wages.
No, the problem is, no one will need the CEO. They'll press the button on their own.
Back when everyone was a farmer, yeah sure everyone understood the job
Given that people are already accustomed to paying for the promise of future things existing in the form of crowdfunding, Patreon or most subscription services in general, I don't think it would as drastic of a difference as you imagine, as long as the infrastructure is there to facilitate effortless 'investing' into many small things.
We call the former “states” and the latter “gangs”. The difference is subtle.
The result was not regulated gambling but extermination of cash out options (well, and sometimes very obvious illegal gambling houses).
The day AI goes good enough to work in place of a principal engineer, and 10.000 people get fired, is the day when 10.000 new 1-person companies will appear that will make you whatever software you want at a fraction of the cost the big companies want to rent it to you.
Software is becoming a true commodity. Data, Hardware, specialised knowledge, good taste and engineering practices, and connectivity. Those might be key points that might keep people on a certain infrastructure, not just the software.
BYD will dominate, not GM.
The others are all well-known acquisitions or acquirers, but I’m not seeing a clear link to my point. Certainly they’re stellar examples of ‘greed minmaxers’ but not so much of ‘profitable incompetence through financial engineer takeover’ like happened to, say, Toys R Us or Wizards of the Coast. Perhaps you could explain in more detail?
It's not all the studio head's fault in some of these situations. It was larger studios/publishers like Microsoft Studios coming in and buying them out. The consolidation of these studios is what burned them.
We've been through this rodeo before you know. Private ownership of markets, with the obvious result monopoly abuses. Hell we've had private money and that was a total disaster too. And now we have VISA as opposed to government controlled payments.
But then people stopped caring about that. With abuse upon abuse the result. Because it's not like this result, that only by buying a prominent position on a marketplace you can have success as a seller is only the case online. This is very much true in meatspace as well.
And now almost everything you can buy is effectively through a privately owned (semi-)monopoly rather than a marketplace. From supermarkets to app stores.
Addendum: and then governments must NOT let anyone, not even other governments, force "whoever pays most" rules (like the EU is forcing through in Europe)
100% not. To equate fun to play to people buying the game is 100% not how you should say making more money is more people buying the game. Money is money. If the game is mediocre but it is fun enough, it can get more money than a game that is more fun but doesn't have as many opportunities to spend.
This is why things like dark patterns exist that try to get you to spend money through FOMO and other mechanisms like loot boxes.
You can argue that all of these things are people having "fun," but I wouldn't define that as fun to play.
Finally, none of these necessitate people buying the game, but rather spending money in the game. Usually, it's free games where people buy a secondary currency to spend on virtual items. Mobile apps, for example, are huge with this.
So the real answer to your question on multiple grounds is no.
Edit: Now, I will give you that people do have to make a choice, but that's like saying that gambling addiction is not real and it's a choice, or drug addiction is real and it's a choice. The reason for alcoholism and Alcoholics Anonymous is bogus because it's just a choice, but it would be dangerous to classify it as just a choice.
For games, forget steam as a whole but consider maybe a single studio. It isn't like EA is moving to monthly vs yearly releases of their regular titles even though output is 10-12ish-x more in theory. It isn't like they are covering 10x as many sports in terms of games as they did previously now that they can do 10x more output with this new tooling, in theory of course. Output in terms of actual deliverables seems to be the same as it ever was.
Fair enough, but the increase does make it a lot harder to separate signal from noise
> Output in terms of actual deliverables seems to be the same as it ever was.
Any efficiency that the technology is revealing seems to be getting gobbled by bureaucracy to me.
I suspect that what we're seeing instead of "more deliverables" we're seeing "same deliverables with less effort"
This is true but depends where you get your information. Social media like Reddit, yeah, it's becoming just bots and bot comments and many of the humans don't even trust themselves to write longer than six words without prompting an llm. Real news sources where people put their government name to the article, less so, especially the more credible the source is.
>I suspect that what we're seeing instead of "more deliverables" we're seeing "same deliverables with less effort"
Even this I wonder to be true. What is less effort? I agree that ultimately the slow point is not the code generation. It is the bureacracy, interactions with stakeholders and collaborators, everything else that isn't getting faster of course.
Now how about the engineer. Is anyone actually working less? Like having less to do and just not working for 9/10ths the day? I don't think that is the case. The nature of software is actually that its productivity is a bit removed from business. You could be in charge of some product and there is literally endless work to be done either in features to potentially add and bugs that appear. Some more or less critical but that is the job really: infinite work. You can literally tinker forever. If anything this enables more tinkering and doing and getting caught up mucking around in the endless work slog. And of course none of this increased effort is going to move the needle on ultimately the sales job that pays the real bills of the software org, not engineering. The product can be junk if it can be spun to sell to enough people and make a very successful company, and plenty of excellent products do not sell and wither on the vine. And there is only so much market out there, only so many fish able to bite so many lines even if there is some product market fit.
Yeah, and by the time you get to many of those games they will feel clunky and outdated. It's not just the graphics that ages, but also the game mechanics, UI and UX, and the general presentation of the game. I would rather play Path of Exile than Diablo 2.
>I concede that that’s always been the case for durable written works thanks to the local library. But the scale of convenient supply now is staggerin.
I think even these written works go through "improvements". It's difficult to point out what is better about the more recently written stories, but somehow they are more appealing (in some aspects). Picking up an old book is harder than a new one if you're very familiar with a genre.
EDIT: Since people are getting specific about that last line and missing the point, how about instead it's "I bet you watch a lot more movies from the $yourFavoriteDecade than the timemachine(start = $yourFavoriteDecade, direction = "reverse", years = 40)"
The purpose of AI in games isn't making something thats impossible to beat, its making something that is ALWAYS possible to beat while remaining fun and engaging.
You could tune this to handicap the LLM such that the player wins 80% of the time or so and it should be more fun (except for the competitive aspect).
And it's extremely vulnerable to bad ideas that get amplified by wealth and power, like Ford's antisemitic paper that inspired the Nazis. Putting one person in charge of everything is never good. The best outcomes come from distributing power as widely as possible to people who are affected the most, aka worker ownership.
Is there any evidence of this claim being true?
Just because you don't have monopoly on your stupid ideas, you don't get to hire Pinkerton's to beat others.
If IP law is the only thing preventing society from descending into anarchy, then maybe we deserve anarchy.
My point is that its hard to ignore just how in-tune and well-coordinated all these people are, and I don't think it's a coincidence. If CEOs were responding to actual political, economic and company developments, you'd see far more diversity of opinion. Some you see their companies are growing and profitable and wouldn't jump on the layoff bandwagon. Others may ask "Don't we need rule of law? What happens when the other party gets in power?" and fight the administration in courts etc.
The overhire during ZIRP was insane though - in total it was a good nine years of zero interest rates, and between the first period (2008-2015) and the second period (2020-2022) interest rates weren't that high either. Companies battled each other hard even for people who just went through a few weeks worth of bootcamp, just to make sure the competition didn't have access to them, even if there was not much productive work that could be assigned.
And that group is where the layoffs really hit hard: people with basic training, relatively little investment both of the company into the workers and from the workers to the company and, most importantly, a skillset / allocation that just lends itself heavily to being replaced or at the very least heavily augmented by AI.
On top of that... "good financial performance" doesn't mean the balance sheets can't look even better. With C-level boni being tied to stock performance or "efficiency gains" KPIs, it's no surprise that many just look at their paycheck first, the long-term health of the company second.
> You see this in what people say about AI as well - one year everybody will be jobless in 5 years, next year "actually jobs are gonna be ok".
I don't have much hope left for anything in the field of "knowledge work" and for most of "creative work" either. Let's be real, the wide masses don't care they're being force fed with AI slop, as long as they have some brainrot to doomscroll in the evening. The only jobs relatively secure for now IMHO are the trades and wiping the arses of dying boomers in care homes. For the former, robots lack the required dexterity and force feedback, and for the latter, maybe the Japanese are willing to accept arse-wiping robots, but I heavily doubt this will be the case in Western countries any time soon.
> Some you see their companies are growing and profitable and wouldn't jump on the layoff bandwagon.
There are companies left that are actively growing and not making shovels for the AI gold diggers? Huh?
> Others may ask "Don't we need rule of law? What happens when the other party gets in power?" and fight the administration in courts etc.
A rare few, yes. But most have given up and went for appeasement instead after the first ones got mergers disrupted or otherwise punished.
Intellectual property rights rewards the first-comers, not the innovators. For example, you give a drug researcher a patent on their discovery, that discourages innovation on making that new drug cheap and readily available. The same can be said about AI models: the heavy investments by OpenAI and Anthropic to make these frontier models forces them to charge pretty expensive prices, but if we only had them, we would not have much innovation in making fast tiny models that are more cost and energy efficient. That drive comes from China because they are resource constrained and price-conscious.
"Plenty of societies have functioned adequately without our current form of property rights"
Adequately? name one lol
"many musicians make their pay by performing live" ticketmaster
"innovation on making that new drug cheap and readily available" that's not what innovation is.
"China because they are resource constrained and price-conscious" you need to go outside
Previous to that, the effort of copying a book was seen as so high, that one deserved reward simply for doing that. In fact, there were times that copying books was seen as social charity, that needed to be encouraged.
I guess some of the major value in those closed softwares is enterprise support and that could still be feasible, but still, the question stands - if what is currently software piracy becomes legal, how do the people who commit a portion of their lives to improving whatever it is they're working on get compensated?
I regularly contribute to FOSS, but I am in quite a privileged position to do so, because I have time to do so after putting food on the table.
I hope this comes off in good faith, I'm genuinely curious
Mostly, the signal to noise ratio goes to hell.
It’s hard to have “invest” in a sentence without a capitalist structure unless GP somehow meant invest their personal time or barter or something.
The pharmaceutical industry is also very highly regulated and so without some protection of profit you actually are likely to end up in a situation in which innovation doesn’t occur because it costs a lot of money to build new pharmaceutical products and if you build them and someone can just reverse engineer it and sell it cheaply you’ve switched your competition model from rewarding the development, however imperfect, of new drugs to rewarding a race to the bottom on cost and increasingly thin supply chains propped up by cost-cutting measures. With more regulations you probably need stronger IP protections as well.
> Property rights are not the only way to create profit. That's a very capitalistic mindset. Plenty of societies have functioned adequately without our current form of property rights, either physical or intellectual.
Well it’s good to have a capitalistic mindset since so far that has been without a doubt the best economic model that has worked for humankind, even including the negative repercussions, but you shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to IP. It’s a bit like “free” trade - if the US was, for example, completely open with IP and China isn’t they simply take your IP, build cheaper products, and then funnel profits into IP protected drugs. It’s a lose-lose. Don’t let communists and other such authoritarians confuse you about how the world actually works.
We can also reform some IP for certain industries. When it comes to trade secrets maybe we protect those. Internet content? Who cares? It’s almost universally useless and not economically valuable so there isn’t any need to solve the problem of capturing monetary value. One of the best potential effects of AI would be that it could wipe out all of these useless content creators and pundits leaving only the good stuff left (established institutions like the NYT and truly great content creators - Khan Academy for ex).
Which is why there is famously no market or money to be made on generic medicine.
Oh wait. I’ve heard this one before. Just send in the national guard. A couple of well placed free speech donations with some winks and nods should be able to break that sort of terrorist organization.
Given your green account I’m sure you’re just trolling.
There would likely still be some demand for the experience, but the tickets would need to be more expensive to recoup the costs of making the film. At that point: it does seem like people pooling together their funds to fund the movie itself isn't insane. The point is that the "investors" wouldn't be investing in the hopes of a financial return, they'd be paying for the creation of the film.