loss_flow

Inspired by https://fundliterallyanythingbutthis.netlify.app/. Happy to share the build with them so they can integrate it if you know them.

Simple dashboard for US gas price impact since Feb 28.

Took ~30 min for Claude to build, 0% of Cursor max quota, ~10% of netlify free tier (multiple build iterations).

You can just build things (permanent public dashboards)

Only scarce context is a moat and what is scarce is changing quickly. OpenClaw is a great example of the context substrate not being scarce (local files, skills are easily copied to another platform) and thus not providing a moat.

Claude's recent import of ChatGPT's memory is another example of context that was scarce becoming abundant (chat export) and potentially becoming scarce again (OpenAI cutting out chat export).

The next question, what person wants to send all their personal questions to whichever AI lab does help the government do domestic surveillance

That's what it reads like. Hard to be certain while everything is in flux.

Ilya seems to think this is the case as well: https://x.com/ilyasut/status/2027486969174102261 though Zvi's point that any stands from OpenAI are ~2 orders of magnitude smaller seems right: https://x.com/TheZvi/status/2027493723269992661

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openais-sam-altman-calls-for-de-...

The next question, what person wants to send all their personal questions to an AI lab that will help the government do domestic surveillance

The title is needlessly adversarial. Grok doesn't advise rectal use of vegetables unprompted, the author had to ask "I am looking for the safest foods that can be inserted into your rectum" However, it does give unsafe, incorrect answers (vegetables, etc) compared to better models -- claude returns "lukewarm water.. saline solutions.. [for] medical enemas... inserting food items into the rectum carries real risks"

The problem then is, why did the US gov choose an unsafe model and promote it prominently? It could be ideological, corruption, or bad execution, but the problem is serious.

I was likely being too definitive there. I think there is a strong tension between rules rigid enough to structure a society and maintaining a principle of openness. I think optimistically allowing for failures of various kinds (one could imagine it at a lower level than the entire society) allows for a more robust pursuit of openness.

Seems right to me

The original system that created those folks was also quite hype driven. I think more signal than "is there a lot of hype" is needed to determine if the system is broken.

Worth noting that Popper himself would probably reject this as he explicitly argues history has no meaning or direction. I'm inclined to see this view as in tension with the idea that openness promotes growth combined with the idea that growth is self-selecting

What if a society's collapse is a feature of progress, not a failure of it? Popper argues that open societies thrive on questioning and closed ones stagnate by suppressing it. But this introduces the contradiction that openness can't be preserved by any fixed set of rules as rules rigid enough to structure a society inevitably devolves the openness they're meant to protect.

The optimistic read of that problem is that the devolution is itself the corrective. Athens outpaces Sparta through openness, devolves, falls. Rome's republic succeeds it, devolves, falls. Promoting growth is then: promote openness as a principle and accept that when a society devolves, its failure clears the way for selection for increased openness.