Wouldn't this increase US exposure to foreign intervention in the future? Although China is the worst offender, since a while now they are getting their stuff together. They suffered and later fixed some gross air pollutions in their cities.
The rest of the world is also pretty much on board with this clean air and climate change stuff as it turns out people generally like clean air, so if this sticks at some point the only logical next step would be to compel US to stop polluting the world.
If I understand correctly, this also removes EPA ability to regulate car emissions, arguing that it will allow for cheaper cars. Why would US public really wants newly made clunkers on their cities? Polluting cars are horrible city life quality downgrade that even the rich can't escape.
Also, will this allow to put the banned due to the dieselgate VW vehicles back on the roads?
I don’t know by what means foreign countries would intervene in the US. They’d just ignore whatever is requested of them.
But it will increase US dependency on foreign countries in the long term. EVs are the future and if US manufacturers aren’t working on them then they’ll continue to lose market share to foreign companies.
That ship sailed with the destruction of the global world order. The polluting industries probably don't have to be polluting when you take care of the pollutants.
The rest of the world is not on board. Western Europe, United States, and Australia take “breathing considered harmful“ seriously. No other country does, and nobody else is deliberately suppressing their growth. There are plenty of countries taking western money to pretend that they do.
Believe it or not, most of the people on earth don't worship growth. No one cares about growth just as no one cares about climate change, people want improvement on their lives and a future that can be good. Some policies like paper straws downgrade it and other policies like clean air upgrade it.
When you start thinking in more abstract terms, growth v.s. climate change associated risks is a false dichotomy.
Of course people at first all they care is to get out of a bad situation like poverty but once they are out of poverty they start caring for other things like the future of their children. Apart of fossil energy producing countries like USA/Russia/Australia, people don't pretend that pollution is no biggie.
Generally these things follow a Kuznets Curve where you get rich from polluting and then are eventually rich enough to care about poisoning your children.
China's bad air around the time of their Olympics is pointed to as being a turning point that could have toppled the government if not dealt with.
Slightly uniquely they seem to have discovered a way to become even richer by cleaning up their pollution, the timing for EV and renewables working out well, and presumably many other nations will try to follow that pattern going forward.
Even just buying these things from China will make both sides of the trade richer compared with dirtier alternatives.
> The rest of the world is also pretty much on board with this clean air and climate change stuff as it turns out people generally like clean air
Are you sure about that? Or you mistaking the world's opinion for that of the out-of-touch elites living in their lofty ivory towers? Because in the world, outside the media controlled by these elites, I see the exact opposite: it turns out THE WORLD generally like electricity at 2 cents per kwh (not 50 cents how elites like it), no matter how much carbon dioxide it emits.
Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though? All those giants have their own business that are established and profitable.
It’s the new kids in the block that will make the difference.
You know those lists on twitter about how many companies US has in top 10 and are presented as a win? Those are actually lists of capital concentrations blocking innovation. It looks like US is winning but for some reason life is better in EU and innovation is faster in China.
It’s companies like OpenAI Anthropic that will move US ahead. Even if some core innovation or and capital comes from the establishment.
> Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though?
The GP was talking about Google specifically, and their outcomes on AI are nothing to scoff at. They had a rocky late start, but they seem to have gotten over that. Their models are now very much competitive with the startups. And it's not just that have more money to spend. They probably have more training data than anyone in the world, and they also have more infrastructure, more manpower, more of a global footprint than the startups.
The Innovator's Dilemma is an anecdotal, maybe a statistical relationship at best, but not a fundamental law of nature. When an established company has everything it should take to become a leader in a new industry in theory, and in practice their products are already on par with the industry leaders, you know at some point it becomes rational to think that maybe they might become a leader.
Google didn’t have a late start, they invented the tech, had bespoke hardware in place that supported it and have money to spend.
I don’t have any idea what comes next but Google and Microsoft look bad right now because they can’t execute a product strategy.
My personal bias is that either ms or Google or both will land just fine after it all shakes out but they started with a lead and are now playing catch up.
they did have a late start in terms of productionizing the models. It's definitely improved but there was a time where Gemini and the associated tools werent as good as claude/oai
Sometimes I worry about the incentives for innovation in the US.
Step 1, find something to innovate on, sell the promise of it to investors.
Step 2, build a prototype or worst case, build it for real and start generating income from your truly innovate and unique product.
Step 3, get acquired by a large company and then shut down because your product competed with theirs.
End result, general public possibly benefited from your innovation, but in the long run, it was temporary.
Maybe the incentives would be better if it were harder for large companies to acquire small ones? If the path to riches where driven primarily by delivering value to customers. Would love to hear other's opinions on this.
This is what I struggled with after grad school. You have so many decent ideas. So many people you know in the domain also with their own good ideas. Everyone looking for their next gig. It could all be so easy to get a couple people together and start building. But, alas, money, that must come from people who expect more money back before long, which severely limits the scope of ideas that will get investor funding. No moonshots, no sci fi future, just same old looking for low hanging arbitrage or rent seeking opportunities. Kinda sad when you realize that is pretty much all private tech investment because funding is driven by investors ultimately, and not scientists like what you see on grant review panels for basic research. Money must make more money, which again limits severely what money can do.
The EU is no way share or form in a good economic position right now. That's why euro leaders have been kowtowing to Trump despite him being a deranged lunatic.
Delete all American software, American defense, American energy, and Chinese hardware from the EU tomorrow. That's the deep-seated unease that keeps EU leaders up at night. Europe needs to be doing 3-4% GDP growth annually and have a globally competitive top to bottom tech an defense industry, and it needs that years ago.
The problem is that the EU needs to become more like the US to do this, and for people who grew up under the protective overhang of the soviet collapse, this is mostly unthinkable. Just like the US not bankrolling half of Ukraine's defense would be unthinkable...
Their data is not perfect as they rely on public sources, and some governments are more transparent than others, but the reality is that US funding all but vanished in 2025.
Back to the topic, there is also a pattern of promising European startups being bought by wealthy USA incumbent companies. This is also happening to established compagnies: see ARM, Alstom Power, etc.
As Europe de-couples from the USA in the current context, I suspect (and hope) that such acquisitions will come under more regulatory scrutiny.
> "Get bankrolled by the state at the state's discretion until they get what they want, even if they need to burn $1B to get $1M of value"
If that's how it worked, they wouldn't lead in anything, they'd be bankrupt already. They burn state money like VCs burn cash. DeepSeek, Alibaba, Tencent, Xiaomi, Huawei, etc., disprove your point.
Look into how their 5 year plans have lead to capital investment with almost zero feedback. A heavily bureaucratic system of bureaucrats incentivized to spend massively to boost their own appearance, and cover up losses/inefficiencies.
Ghost cities, empty high speed rail lines, solar cells being mass produced at a loss.
All these things also produced end products the state wanted, no doubt. But the capital allocation strategy is basically a "throw all the money the leader gives in that direction until the leader says stop".
Is there a lot of wasted capital? Sure but a lot of it still produces outcomes.
> A heavily bureaucratic system of bureaucrats incentivized to spend massively to boost their own appearance, and cover up losses/inefficiencies.
In China, if you want to move up politically, you generally need to show results, meaning the province or area you govern is expected to deliver measurable performance (even if politics and connections still matter too). In that sense, you could argue it's more performance driven in some respects than the US.
EVs and solar were clear priorities, and China has been very successful at scaling both and driving costs down. Domestic competition has been so intense (especially in EVs) that margins have gotten extremely thin, and officials have recently signaled they want to curb "irrational" price wars.
> Ghost cities
Sure, some exist, but many of the developments that were circulated online years ago have filled in over time. That said, there's no question a lot of projects stalled or collapsed during the property downturn, especially after China Evergrande and other developers ran into trouble.
> empty high speed rail lines,
I can't speak to every route, but overall the high speed rail network is heavily used. When I traveled in China, it was excellent and extremely extensive. Some lines and stations likely see weaker demand than others, but the idea that it's broadly "empty" doesn't match reality.
> solar cells being mass produced at a loss
With overcapacity and price wars, many firms have faced serious margin pressure and losses though that doesn't mean every producer is losing money on every panel.
In the end, the real question is whether the capital allocation is efficient enough for citizens to benefit and for the country to remain competitive. Empirically, the answer looks closer to yes in industry and infrastructure, while real estate has been a major exception, with real costs and inefficiencies.
> Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though? All those giants have their own business that are established and profitable.
Ah! Well, if we put aside "The Innovator's Dilemma" and pick up Reis and Trout's "marketing Warfare," we get the answer. Apple does have an existing business, but investing in AI does not cannibalize it. They can throw money at it, try to find a way to make it work really, really well for consumers on very specific custom hardware in their devices...
Likewise, someone like Google has all the money in the world to throw at it, but they aren't investing in a new market, they're defending their search business against everyone just asking a generative AI Chatbot questions. I\But it's possible for them to screw this up internally over turf wards, just ask the engineers who tried to make search better but were kneecapped by Prabhakar Raghavan who demanded that search be poor enough to drive people to click sponsored results.
In the "Marketing Warfare" model, Apple is attempting a flanking attack: An outsider trying to disrupt the AI giants with an approach that they can't imitate without undermining their value proposition. On-device AI flanks the big giants that areservcie-centric.
And in that model, Google is playing defence, which is what every leader is supposed to do. Their job is to "cover every move," which they are doing in textbook fashion. If AI goes away, Google dry their tears and continue to mine ad revenue.
> On-device AI flanks the big giants that areservcie-centric.
Wouldn't on-device AI also support Google's position? If search is to be protected, on-device AI (small models) would be capable of basic usage, but inept at answering knowledge questions specifically, necessitating a search service be preserved. They have already launched local models in Chrome and Android. Meanwhile none of the big AI competition can profit off of local models, so this is a unique opportunity for big-G.
That said, I disagree with the premise you propose. It's 2026, and about 40% of their revenue over the last few years comes from non-search products (depending on quarter). Oh and Apple doesn't seem to be investing enough in AI products, because it's just making them look bad, not providing a "flanking attack".
Google is pulling in tons of AI revenue - from subscriptions, personal and enterprise, and Google Cloud (APIs etc). Cloud is seeing a ton of growth lately, and I'm sure that's largely from AI services that are uniquely available there. As long as they can serve models with a better cost structure (thanks TPUs) they can squeeze out better margins than their competitions.
I'm very curious if they're going to ditch Google by providing on-device search. A monthly Open Crawl is under 100 terabytes, and if you clean that down to raw text and deduplicate and maybe pick out what you don't care about, the dataset might already fit onto my iPhone. They could do a lot without making a network call and reach out to a server for anything the device doesn't have, but a lot of user queries might never need to leave the phone. In another couple years, storage will be even higher.
I was hopeful for on-device AI too but any AI processing so far sucks up the battery, heats up the phone and most importantly isn't even nearly good enough. Without a breakthrough in battery, chips or the models and algorithms the way forward is thin clients that connect to some servers close to a solar farm or nuclear energy plant.
Kind of funny you say it is capital concentration that blocks innovation then praise anthropic, when we are in a thread about them concentrating capital. And not only have these companies concentrated capital, and mindshare in the mass media, they have concentrated talent.
You have to wonder how often they hire talent just to keep them out of the market for other upstart companies to potentially use, like with no actual objective just to keep them off market. With half trillion valuation there's plenty of money for that, and given how few people actually know the really deep stuff competently, it would be so stupid of them not to be doing that right now.
No need to be pedantic about it, obviously you need capital concentration to do stuff. The difference is what this stuff is, in Apple and Google's case its even more from the same but for Anthropic its this new thing.
The gist is, world beating(in profit and market cap terms) tech giants who made their money with innovation are now just the roadblocks to innovation. If succeeds, Anthropic will eventually be like that but until then Anthropic is the innovator. The contemporary US is able to concentrate wealth but not able to turn it into innovation or life quality improvements as efficiently as EU or China, since they are getting better outcomes with less. So it is a systematic issue.
>The contemporary US is able to concentrate wealth but not able to turn it into innovation or life quality improvements as efficiently as EU or China, since they are getting better outcomes with less.
This is a really interesting thought. I wonder why this is, fundamentally? You'd think people are people and the elite here would be much like the elite in europe or china. Maybe in china there is some sense of pride or competition among the elite for uplifting the populace these days? Kind of like when vanderbilt, carnegie, and rockefeller felt compelled to invest into things like colleges and other civic institutions to build up their personal clout. Seems here the main drive is to squeeze our population for what little it has left in its pocket vs actually improve standards of living or anything like that. Standard of living when you remove the internet (which arguably doesn't even contribute to standard of living as it is used for mindless leisure by most), is basically the same as it has been in the US since about the 70s or even a little earlier. Arguably worse considering the bog standard two kid, two car, four bed nuclear home setup is increasingly unaffordable in more places across the country.
My guess is that US KPI's are about concentrating even more wealth when in China and EU they aim to improve other measures on societal level.
Obviously a US individual with control over large wealth concentration can choose to do something else with it, i.e. Elon Musk choose to fight trans people or Peter Thiel choose to fight nations states. In China and EU, wealth is more communal therefore those who have control over it can buy a yacht and a mansion but can't choose to dismantle nation states to start new forms of government therefore the regime change is separate thing from use of the resources therefore resources are used to in a more communal mindset which itself can be slow on innovation when no obvious pressing needs or can be inefficient when the communities can't agree on a vision.
In Europe you do the regime change through political means and violence, check out how many regime changes occurred in Europe in the last 100 years and how many politicians were toppled/imprisoned or killed.
It just that life flows differently, not necessarily one is superior to another IMHO. They all have strong sides and weaknesses and US is currently facing its weaknesses after a long period of strength and this is happening because some people won the game and its very hard to restart the game in the American system since the winners can be colossal and as a result immovable.
It's telling that the measure of quality of life you use in this comment is entirely materialistic in nature. I also challenge the idea that US provides 'access to better medical care', as it is pretty well documented that Americans spend more for lower quality care compared to similar developed countries.
I believe this cultural divide is a big reason America won't make it back to the top - insatiable desire for wealth and a lack of values-based principals. Ironically US companies are the first to tout their 'values' in the workplace.
> I believe this cultural divide is a big reason America won't make it back to the top
What top are you referring to?
We're in a thread about a US company announcing its new $30B fundraise from a group of elite US growth investment funds arguing about whether this company will be able to overthrow the $4T US tech behemoth and suggesting that all the other US tech behemoths are actually stifling progress.
I gotta say, I found this one especially funny as I currently don't have a car and that's actually my biggest luxury: being able to go around without one and no spending time in commute.
Yeah, so I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but as a European who visited the US, your food is definitely not something I would use as an example of your QoL.
You went to the wrong parts and ate the wrong things.
I used to live in Paris for a spell and the food here in San Francisco is better. California has some of the freshest and best local produce in the world. If you eat at real restaurants (not McD), and intentionally buy fresh food (which is available at normal grocery stores too) then you're getting great quality food. I think there is much better access to a variety of foods, of suitably high quality, and the variety of cuisines at restaurants is laughably incomparable. The prices are definitely higher, but the median income in SF is significantly higher, so I think it may still be a smaller % of salary for most people.
For some reason people associate fast food and junk as "American" and then extrapolate that as what typical American diet is. Maybe there are parts of the US that are much poorer and with worse access to food distribution, but I'd assume that rural and impoverished Europe is the same.
In the current age everyone can eat everything everywhere, apparently there are even people who fly their bread everyday from France to New York. So when we talk about food in some place, its usually about the general practices and not the possibilities.
For example the food in London is shitty even if you can find some of the best restaurants there. The problem with London is that you can't fit those restaurants into your daily routine, the default is a sad meal deal from Tesco or something.
I have a friend who needs a medication that costs more than 30,000$ a year. Here in Canada it is 100% covered by our government health insurance regime. In the USA he would be bankrupt (or dead).
Here in Canada if I have an accident i do not have to worry about being bankrupt if the ambulance brings me to the wrong hospital.
I am really not enthusiastic about the so-called superior quality of life some US-ians like to boast about.
Why? I live in the US. I have the best healthcare coverage in the world. I pay absolutely nothing for it, ever. No matter the cost. And I have access tot he best doctors, innovations, and technology in the world.
Tell me again why your friend would be dead? It sounds like you really have a poor understanding of American health care.
>As measured by prosperity life in the US is better; the poorest US state has a higher GDP per capita than most western European countries.
GDP per capita/prosperity is a poor proxy for quality of life. The US is lagging most of the developed world in most quality of life metrics, even as reported by US news outlets, which don't rank the US in even the top 20: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-...
>Americans have bigger houses, more food, bigger cars,
The size of one's house or car is at best weakly-correlated with quality of life. I would rather not own a car at all and be able to walk everywhere, rather than spend hours of my life commuting in a gigantic SUV.
>bigger salaries, and access to better medical care and schools if they've got an okay job.
The US ranks the lowest in the developed world for life expectancy, and among the highest in obesity globally (obesity being a major determinant of health). The US remains the only developed country where an unlucky dice roll (e.g. genetic-linked cancer) will bankrupt you and destroy the livelihoods of your children.
Keep in mind there are two Americas, a wealthy one and a not wealthy one; someone posting on HN is likely in the former bucket, and not juggling a retail job and doing Uber on the side while being unable to afford healthcare.
I'm not sure even wealthy America is better off. They might have their $3M mansion in a nice town but it will still have no sidewalks, be 2 miles from school, and an hour from major city center.
I don't know where you've gotten the idea that wealthy Americans spending $3M on their homes can't have sidewalks or live near major city centers. It's a big country, so there's lots of places that don't have sidewalks or aren't near a city. But any wealthy American who wants those things can easily get them without making compromises.
(The school thing I'll grant you, although in a car-centric country a school 2 miles away often takes like 5 minutes to get to.)
> One bright spot was last month, when hiring increased by 130,000 roles. This was significantly more than the 55,000 additions that had been expected by economists.
But that's 2026 hiring, and the article's about the 2025 revisions. (And the January number, as they all do, may get revised in a few months.)
It would be quite hard in the long run to make faked BLS numbers line up with other independent data points, like ADP's payroll reports and the IRS's revenues.
Historically both directions are common, but in 2025 every month was revised down from the preliminary report except October. (They were revised down a lot in 2023 and 2024 as well fwiw.)
Just like with FB’s purchase of Instagram. I remember people making fun of Zuckerberg for paying $1B for a “filter app than can be made in few hours”.
I think the magic wasn’t in those apps or websites but the traction they got and how that was preserved. Both FB and Google were very careful to preserve the origins when evolving.
I remember Google videos, it was very bad. If this wasn’t Google but Microsoft, they may have tried to integrate Youtube into their Video platform and destroy everything.
Yeah, he was buying market share. Google was buying advertising potential and market share. The largest video streaming platform on the planet, still not a silly buy.
At the time YouTube was acquired their infrastructure costs were quite high. Not as crazy as today's AI companies, but in the same way a lot of people were questioning if they could ever make money because of it.
Ah I see, I think I was still in my teens when that purchase happened, so I had no idea about the concerns or anything. I just was shocked at the amount of money because it's a lot of money.
The Youtube acquisition and growth strategy was interesting (I left another comment about this). IG was also quite interesting.
Many here will be familiar with how the founders of these tech companies basically keep control over their companies while holding minority stakes through different classes of shares. Zuckerberg was the only one to hold these shares I believe and could basically authorize the IG purchase by himself. And that's what he did. He told the board after the fact. At least that's the story I read.
IG was growing fast but it blossomed under FB's stewardship in a way that I'm not sure it would've had it stayed independent or someone else had bought it. For many years, IG was allowed to operate semi-autonomously within FB (kinda similar to Youtube under Google actually). They continue to have their own tech stack, which has caused its fair share of problems, and essentially operated seprately from a product perspective.
But scaling requires a whole bunch of infrastructure that isn't all technical. Things like site safety, taking down problematic content, creating an ads ecosystem and so on. FB had a lot of expertise and existing infrastructure for all of this because of, well, Facebook. And whatever fauts FB has, this is something they did very well.
I totally think Google would've screwed it up, for example.
I guess my point is that they didn't exactly buy a $100B+ business for $1B. They turned it into a $100B+ business. Just like Youtube.
That being said, I think IG has actually faltered from a product perspective over the last 5+ years. Reels (like Youtube Shorts) are a kneejerk reaction to Tiktok, who is eating both of them alive in short-form video. And Tiktok's recommendation algorithms are a step above of anything I've seen on FB, IG or Youtube.
I was never a big IG user but from what I hear from people who are or were and what I read online, it feels like IG has kinda lost its way and nobody really knows what it's for anymore. It's certainly not for sharing among your friends (which is how FB started too). Photo-sharing seems to be falling away to video. So who exactly is it for?
> Tiktok's recommendation algorithms are a step above of anything I've seen on FB, IG or Youtube.
That's because their main UI isn't anything like Tik Tok. You start out with a normal feed on IG, on YouTube you might see recommended videos, but its not BAM HERES SHORT FORM. Tik Tok was by design this UI and recommendation scheme. I think its a UX issue not an algorithm issue necessarily. If I open YouTube shorts I get a lot of the content I keep going back on YouTube to watch, on IG probably not since I dont use FB or IG much if at all. If these UIs were more prominent, I could see them matching or competing with Tik Tok on these fronts.
What's funny to me is Tik Tok users quitting Tik Tok because they think the US has poisoned it, and then running to YouTube or reddit. Look on r/tiktok sometime, I have been checking on it anytime Tik Tok has 'drama' and it never disappoints.
I agree that the UX on Tiktok is cleaner and, like you say, in part part that's due to it being only short-form. It's worth noting that "short form" here means up to ~10 minutes long at this point, includes live videos and also includes photo galleries.
But it's more than that.
When I started using Tiktok, Charli D'Amelio was the biggest creator I believe and not once did I ever see one of her videos. I'm just not in that demographic. I've had repeated experiences on Tiktok where I'd see a new creator and see they have like 17M followers and I'd think "how have I never heard of them before?"
The way I describe this is that Tiktok's content is effectively segmented and isn't "global". By "global" I mean if someone is a top creator on IG or FB or Twitter, you'll see them. The platform will push them out to you and Tiktok is just more sophisticated than that.
The second big difference is the responsiveness. It takes other platforms longer to learn. Maybe they've gotten better now but, from what I know, historically other platforms had daily jobs that updated user recommendation preferences based on your activity. So if I started watching a lot of gaming videos, this wouldn't be reflected in my feed until the next day. Tiktok I think was the first to have a truly real-time updating feed.
Now this isn't a straight real-time vs overnight situation. It is/was more hybrid than that. So in FB's case, recommendations were more real-time but updating your preferences wasn't.
Insta was tapping out of how much content (and therefore ads) they could show a user. They could either find new content to show or add more ads per unit of content. There are only so many friends, who only take so many photos. Social media stopped being “social” because it just wasn’t as good of a business as generic media. There are endless influencers and videos is way more engaging. Influencer content is semi-professional content and is way better made and way more engaging than your family who posts only at big events. Meta is very data driven, and they understand exactly how reels is increasing duration of app sessions - which means more ads.
YouTube is close to losing that preservation. It's so slow and clunky to load in the desktop browser that I'm finding myself using it a lot less. It's absurd how heavy it is now.
UX is getting worse too, e.g. the save to list dialog closing after adding to a single list instead of allowing multiple to be selected. It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't take forever to open.
A few things I can’t stand about Youtube’s desktop website:
1) Spacebar sometimes skips to the next video when playing a playlist. Just why?
2) You never know if the small buttons like play next on the thumbnails will work or just play that video right away.
2) when on the homepage, you open a few videos in new tabs and close the homepage only to find out that you just open bunch of “this video contains paid promotion” disclaimer pages. Re-open the homepage to actually open the videos and they are all gone, the page shows a grid of different videos.
so yes, I agree that the web interface went downhill.
I am using it less because I can't find any videos as the search is completely broken (no, I won't enable history tracking). Many days when I am in the mood to watch videos, I just give up. It doesn't help now that most searches return AI-generated video (that has millions of views). Who watches these things?
glad it’s not just me. we used to have multi-playlist saves with a modal that showed more than three pixels of your library. now it’s slow, cramped, and forces you to hit SAVE over and over even though the backend supports it. feels like a regression dressed up as bad UX.
Computer languages were the lathe for shaping the machines to make them do whatever we want, AI is a CNC. Another abstraction layer for making machines do whatever we want them to do.
I don't disagree with the concept of AI being another abstraction layer (maybe) but I feel that's an insult to a CNC machine which is a very precise and accurate tool.
LLMs are quite accurate for programming, these days they almost always create a code that will compile without errors and errors are almost always fixable by feeding the error into the LLM. I would say this is extremely precise text generation, much better than most humans.
Just like with CNC though, you need to feed it with the correct instructions. It's still on you for the machined output to do the expected thing. CNC's are also not perfect and their operators need to know the intricacies of machining.
> LLMs are quite accurate for programming, these days they almost always create a code that will compile without errors and errors are almost always fixable by feeding the error into the LLM.
What domains do you work in? This description does not match my experience whatsoever.
I'm primarily into mobiles apps these days but using the LLMs I'm able to write software in languages that I don't know with tech that I don't understand well(like bluetooth).
I feel that the popularization of bloated UI "frameworks", like React and Electron, coupled with the inefficiency tolerated in the "JS ecosystem" have been precursors to this dynamic.
It seems perfectly fitting to me that Anthropic is using a wildly overcomplicated React renderer in their TUI.
React devs are the perfect use case for "AI" dev tools. It is perfectly tolerated for them to write highly inefficient code, and these frameworks are both:
A) Arcane and inconsistently documented
B) Heavily overrepresented in open-source
Meaning there are meaningful gains to be had from querying these "AI" tools for framework development.
In my opinion, the shared problem is the acceptance of egregious inefficiency.
It is kind of obvious that once someone reaches such a power they should be monitored all the time.
Criminality among the rich and the politically connected is off the charts. It’s way beyond any group of immigrants for example that these same people are trying to demonize.
Chat control? Every single politician should have that on their phone.
I think politicians should be the least privileged people in a society except those in prison.
Any protections or exceptions for them alone are unconstitutional.
An idea I like to bounce around is that everyone at the highest offices of power (not going to define that here) should be forced to live in monastic conditions during the term in which they hold power.
You are fed, clothed, and housed by the state. You have no luxurious amenities, no exercise of personal wealth, no contact with anyone other than for official business.
If you honorably discharge your duties to the completion of your term of office, you will be compensated for life to such a degree that you will never have to work again.
There's a lot of nuance that I'm glossing over, but the gist is that holding powerful positions ought to require severe personal sacrifice, but you will be handsomely rewarded after-the-fact if you bear that burden with dignity.
The other more important effect is that it neuters any kind of quid pro quo type of corruption, if paired with a big enough stick. It's hard to bribe someone if they will get to live in luxury for the rest of their life anyway, and where discovery of the deal would land them in prison for life.
What you are suggesting is vertical integration. If Europe goes crazy, can do that. From start to finish this chip thingy can become "magic crystals from Europe" as they already have control over the tooling. How many billions it will take to build the fabs with these tools and hire the talent from all over the planet and put all that in special economical zones? I don't know but I bet its less than those who don't have and end up buying the tools.
Europe is already a great place to build your life and despite the narrative about "EU killing businesses with over regulations", Europe is an exporter, that is EU makes physical things in large quantities(that's why USA is able to blackmail EU with tariffs). EU produces and exports so much, more than it consumes. Its closer to China than USA in this regard, you can check out the recent stats here: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w...
The infrastructure is in place and there are both many nuclear reactors that were decommissioned early or not yet commissioned but canceled/put on hold as well as regions with plenty of sunshine or hydro power opportunities and also has all the expertise to re-work those quickly.
It's really a political decision to push for something like that or not. Geopolitics may eventually make it happen, who knows? At this time it makes more economical sense to make the tools and send them close to the larger supply chain of electronic products production.
> Europe is already a great place to build your life
Agreed. Its countries' long-standing equivalents of America First policies mean that they spend far more on their own citizens, import far fewer people, and leave most of the charitable, defence, and research spending to the US taxpayer. Good for them.
I kind of agree that "America First" policies tend to be Europeanization type policies and as a result quite un-American and that's also why USA will end up like Europe if it keeps course.
Europe is great in many ways but lacks the dynamism exactly because of its highly controlled immigration policies instead of free market ones. Bureaucrats actually are terrible at picking who should come. A major example are the Turkish immigrants to Germany, where they imported huge numbers of Turkish immigrants for their booming car industry in the 60s and instead of just treating them like normal people they did this "guest worker" thing and as a result those Turks failed to integrate and remained in the low socioeconomic status with exception for some high profile cases like the inventors of the mRNA vaccine or the Crysis founders. In other places like UK or USA, Turkish immigrants tend to have much higher socioeconomic status.
If EU end up doing its chip and energy industry push, better be following the pre-Trump era immigration policies because that's how USA got is all the workforce that make USA leap ahead in many industries. Some French or Swedish immigration officer would not be picking people better than industrialists or startup founders. Immigration and its integration are not Europe's strong traits.
I think that's a good point, but with the caveats that:
Immigration and benefits are in opposition - the more immigration you allow (unless it's careful, skills-based) then there's a strong risk of costs of living rises (e.g. housing becomes more expensive with immigration) and benefits systems requiring higher taxes to pay for them. European countries can sometimes be very strong on immigration (e.g. Denmark) likely because of this reason.
Entrepreneurialism and benefits are in opposition - the more benefits you offer, the higher the taxes need to be, and so the less worth it it is to take risks with money or with time. It's just a tradeoff between risk and safety, and Europe in general (or Western Europe, at least) is more tuned for safety. And why not, if the US is willing to take the risks?
What makes you believe that software engineers are against the stuff happening? This new movement is defined by male loneliness and other sad traits that are quite common among people whom life passes in front of a computer. Curtis Yarvin, one of the masterminds of this new age is a software developer himself.
I would argue that whatever is happening now is part of the revenge of the nerds once the nerds remain unsatisfied despite the material possessions they acquired as software ate the world.
People deeply disconnected from the real world, seeing numbers and thinking with numbers without understanding the underlying realities of those numbers is a trait of any low touch system that developers and other IT professionals operate within.
Just yesterday apparently when asked Trump said "it's just two people" that were executed by ICE and steered the conversation when he was pushed to elaborate.
Probably from tech perspective ICE is incredibly well working, in tech world you can take away the livelihood of thousands of people by a single line of a code that changes an algorithm that bans someone or re-sorts the search results. Someone loses their Youtube account they built for years due to algorithm misfiring, someone loses their developer account on an App Store and can't even get a reason for it.
The tech world is very used to operate in a fascist high efficiency environment that enshittifies everything that touches but keeps improving on some selected KPI. Maybe they wish it doesn't happen but they are not going to sacrifice higher numbers for the lives of a few people. Welcome to the highly efficient(according to selected KPI) new world order.
I know you don't like to hear that as this is a place for IT people but the governance of online platforms is quite fascist across the board. People are banned, shadow banned or rate limited when don't behave or don't say the right stuff. Preserving order and increasing engagement is above everything, even those who claim that they came to make "speech free again" quickly turned into just changing what speech to be allowed.
Anything controversial that is attracting negativity is hidden away unless it is feeding the narrative of the platform, then it is actively promoted.
Therefore, I don't think that IT workers have any remorse or any problem with this new reality. Its the reality they built and most are loving it.
The medium is the message but the medium was built bit by bit by IT professionals in a span of 20 years.
Yeah, no. In centrist governments you don’t have a a secret police type law enforcement that go around and “enforce laws”(in quotes because only the laws they like, i.e. laws that say you can't be here without permission but not the laws that say you have certain rights rights) without trials etc by intimidation and executions, that is a fascist thing. In centrist governments the order isn't preserved at all costs, it is preserved within the framework with well defined procedures and that's why its often imperfect and slow and when it becomes too inefficient(i.e. too expensive and too slow to prosecuted a perceived criminal activity) the population may demand fascism as a solution.
Gaining power is at all cost as a fascist trait is a good point, Tech companies do that all the time too so techies are often accustomed with that.
IMHO the previous race ended because there wasn't that much to be achieved with the technology at hand at that time. They just pivoted to space stations, a space(!) with low hanging fruit.
So if US ends up beating China on this, it will all depend if there's something feasible to do next. I'm under impression that everything done in this new space age so far is just a re-do with the cheaper and better technology. SpaceX reaping that but I am not sure if there's any drastically better capabilities. Can't wait for humans on Mars however I don't expect this to be anything more than vanity project.
I’m looking forward for gigantic civilian space stations in Earth and Moon orbit. I think that’s feasible, we aren’t getting interplanetary anytime soon but we can expand to the orbit and our Moon.
When you undress a child with AI, especially publicly on Twitter or privately through DM, that child is abused using the material the AI generated. Therefore CSAM.
The rest of the world is also pretty much on board with this clean air and climate change stuff as it turns out people generally like clean air, so if this sticks at some point the only logical next step would be to compel US to stop polluting the world.
If I understand correctly, this also removes EPA ability to regulate car emissions, arguing that it will allow for cheaper cars. Why would US public really wants newly made clunkers on their cities? Polluting cars are horrible city life quality downgrade that even the rich can't escape.
Also, will this allow to put the banned due to the dieselgate VW vehicles back on the roads?
reply