majormajor

What? It famously didn't on the streaming side. It had everything on DVD. For years I kept both parts of Netflix because a lot of popular shows—newer ones especially—weren't on it. So I could get DVDs of past seasons. Or go to Hulu for newer episodes.

Hulu was created at the same time, and launched in the same year as Netflix's streaming service, specifically to compete with less-convenient pirated streams of current-run TV with a free-the-next-day-with-ads alternative. And that stuff was never on Netflix at the same time.

High-profile not-on-Netflix-streaming-for-first-run things from the 2007-2014 time frame: The Office, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, and honestly basically everything else broadcast and cable made during "Peak TV." It was big news and considered a big bet when Netflix debuted their own high-budget first-run content with House of Cards, because of how weird it was to see Netflix competing in the brand-new show space.

Everyone uses "intelligence" to mean something slightly different, so for this to be a useful claim to make or refute we need to come up with new, intentionally-pedantic, terms (or new domain-specific definitions for vague existing ones).

At that point what's the value add of the PM (and maybe even the consulting company entirely), if the PM is just doing doing custom stuff? How many of those can the customer solve themselves with Fable? OR the support agent at the vendor without needing to take it to a PM?

PM in this sort of company—where there's no grand unifying vision vs just responding to customer requests—is the sort of almost-entirely-paperwork role that starts looking less necessary when you can have LLMs summarize all those comms and "analysis."

You can have the most everyday-setting movie or TV show imaginable and still have it VFX'd to hell and back compared to something shot on film 30 years ago. Not even just like Ted Lasso faking the stadiums/fields they were on, but just retouching every single little thing.

It's not a particularly novel claim since at least Terminator (and even moreso Terminator 2) made it EXTREMELY mainstream.

It was a topic in less-mainstream sci-fi well before that. And some more mainstream stuff like Star Trek TOS.

Frankly it seems more common than not in the last 40 years. I don't really remember a big wave of claims "Terminator is silly, no sort of AI could ever be malevolent!"

Calvinism is a variant of Christianity with the following tenets ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Points_of_Calvinism ):

- everyone is damned and depraved

- god chose some people to save, at his own whim, for no reasons related to their actions

- jesus' death was a sacrifice to atone for those people, not for everyone

- the chosen can't opt-out (I'm merging two into one here)

I don't really see the connection to effective altruism at all. The way I grew up understanding it is actually more the opposite?

I generally don't agree with the original commenter here. I think many of the complaints about model regressions are the result of increased usage and increased scrutiny revealing gaps there were there all the time. I've been more critical than most of the output quality since my initial "wow" moment was pretty early - GPT 3.5 API - and the results then were extremely obviously not production ready. But, keeping that level of scrutiny through my usage, I haven't seen the falloff that people who don't look at the output every time claim to see.

But that's also let me use "agent" stuff longer, I guess? The better you were at knowing what you wanted and how to ask for it, the less of an inflection point that you got from Opus 4.5 or GPT 5.

Some of the highest-time-saved-for-max-ROI agentic problems I've solved to date were in September and October of last year with Claude or Cursor.

It's nobody gets fired for buying IBM all over again.

I think that's the historical analogue. How is IBM doing compared to pre-personal-computer disruption? Initially-limited home OSes like DOS were good enough to eventually dominate business too. The AI labs, with their massive funding and spending, are speedrunning the whole thing in a way that just might make that disruption faster and more fatal vs the lingering zombie relying on the IBM name. (The more massive amounts of capital you raise on future speculation of enormouse TAMs before, say, becoming profitable, the more dependent you are on the future speculations of outside interests. Double-edged sword.)

And I don't think being suspicious of the future of OpenAI margins is the same as saying open source DIY will dominate at all.

People don't wanna install their own OS or deal with changes in their office suite or rack their own servers, but a low-cost AI provider is gonna be more like a Wikipedia-vs-Encarta situation in terms of accessibility and similarity-of-interface.

For a long time nobody knew how to monetize OSS outside of a few Linux vendors.

There's a crapload of new repos and Github and similar things. And a lot of it is "hobby utility" stuff like you'd find everywhere pre-mobile/pre-app-store but kinda dried up a bit with the browserfication+phone-ificiation of everything. Everything had to turn into an app + an online service.

Now, like OSS, freeware, and even most shareware in the 90s, most of these new projects have no path to VC-level interest.

The whole "basic business or business-process BUT ON THE INTERNET with a dash of social/web-2.0/personalization/crypto/fad-of-the-year" that recent VC firms have been pushing for the last 15+ years may be numbered.

But it's also unlikely that growing companies with big ambitions will want to base their business on vibe-coded free software for too long. It opens up too many unknowns/risks ("oh no, the disgruntled employee leveraged a misconfiguration in our in-house accounts payable system!") There will be a new middle ground model to be found.

It also created a cargo cult though.

"What can we get rid of for MVP" as a design strategy vs a way to iterate fast, for instance. Cutting things isn't a way to product cohesion, especially if you never go back to do the full-featured version.

Sometimes I wonder how many features or products flopped because the MVP dropped the things that would've actually taken off, and the business "smartly" pivoted away.

There's still a limit to how many new features you could shove in front of your users per month. But what if they were all much more baked out of the gate?

(See also: "data driven" product management as an excuse to not have your own vision for the product. If three competitors build a lot more in the span of six months, but have to depend more on their own skills and instincts vs A/Bing every little detail, maybe more of them will ship more bold and interesting new things.)

Have any of these adult children successfully moved out after saving up money while living with their parents?

Even if they do, it still means they failed to save up that money without having to live with their parents.

This is just the WSJ-reading "haves" justifying the increasing stratification of society by reframing a clear regression[0] as a "responsible individual choice" which that crowd LOVES.

(EDIT: it's also cope for the parents of those kids for the not-quite-THAT-elite WSJ reader crowd who doesn't want to believe either their kids are failing or their economy is faltering.)

[0] Even if you see the everyone-moves-out vs multigenerational-housing trend as a negative overall, the broadening loss of the ability to make that choice is a clear symptom of overall economic weakening.

Yeah the trust was gone pre-internet, pre-networked-cameras. People would've thrown doorbell cams on their front door at the same time as the deadbolt if they'd had the option.

Many of the high-trust smaller societies before those locks were actually pretty low privacy.

What happens when the low-hanging fruit is gone? Of course the first sets of people to build something aren't buying it off the shelf... but the reward for the millionth person to be able to do the same thing from scratch is also gone.

How useful is it to know how to spend 5 times as much time and money to make your own piece of equipment that is now a commodity and readily-available?

For instance: 3d printers and automated metal and woodworking tools. Yeah, they exist. Yeah, it's never been more accessible to make your own tools and gadgets and toys with them. But no, they aren't tools that let you have even a 1-in-ten-thousand chance of being the next Tesla or Edison.

I've re-soldered shit in Xbox controllers, I've fixed stuck mechanisms in motorized Christmas decorations, I've saved thousands on labor for car repairs, I've built my own furniture, I've re-wired speakers and installed conduit at home.

But knowing how to do those things in the 2000s is not the same as inventing how to do those things or even knowing how to do those things as a well-compensated career before things were so completely consumerized and commoditized.

I'm still limited by the state of the world I'm playing in. It's worth learning those things if they strike your fancy, if you want to be able to do it for the love of the game, if you value knowledge generally (and I think you should!). But. It's also a something of a luxury hobby at this point.

I can't fab a new high-performance CPU. I can't even realistically learn enough to even compete design-wise with the teams upon teams of people already standing on the shoulders of giants in that industry, or in any other highly-technical highly-advanced one.

Wonder how many metrics are out there that we could use to compare "unions trample human rights" vs "unchecked corporations trample human rights"?

Like which one more frequently monitors your time in the bathroom?

Are you claiming that privacy can never be a prerequisite for freedom and/or justice?

It's trivially easy to see cases where freedom+justice+innovation can conflict with each other (it's even trivially easy to see where they can conflict with each other specifically for innovations involving the reduction of privacy, ye olde panopticon.)

So it's also trivially simple to understand that at some point you're gonna have to pick one over another. And note that freedom is the first word in that list.

Seems like, if anything, the right action for regulators would be to enforce car manufacturers to not refuse to support existing consumer connectivity protocols... or at least not unless they can come up with something at least as good. And definitely something that isn't "pay us a data subscription so we can track you too while you use a crappier re-implementation of what your phone can already do."

Or "we're gonna cut off our older models to force people towards new cars instead of older ones." That's a bad pattern to let people selling $30,000+ devices get access to.

For some visions of "AI", almost by definition there is nothing left in that list.

(Except some things, of course, where people want to interact with a human).

And, of course, the things that the person holding the vision thinks they personally will still be doing. ;)

To be fair, that sort of haughty sentiment is very common among developers just before the job market demonstrates how special they’re not.

What examples are you thinking of?

Mainly what I remember is multiple waves of previous apocalypses not materializing. Off the top of my head:

- programming will contract because of higher level languages, you won't need nearly as many people

- outsourcing will kill programming job wages because one person can write the spec and ship it off to a team that will send back the working code for 1/10th the wage

- better modeling methods will kill programming job wages because one person can write the spec and the machine will generate the code based no it

Obviously that doesn't guarantee that this time will be the same. But you seem to be making a much stronger claim about what history tells us in the opposite direction...

Take all the countries in the world and split them by "the ruling class enables people to do whatever small things they want" vs "the ruling class puts its own interest above everyone else's and uses technology for their own advantage and to strengthen their control."

Which count of countries comes out higher?

Few of those seem like human jobs vs AI jobs in any scenario where AI is good enough to need to find massive amounts of new human jobs? Some of them explicitly aren't jobs, even in your description, like "send your AI agent/robot to visit a place."

(7) is basically "a mechanic/service technician" which is literally a job that already exists all over the place. Is is, at least, the only one that doesn't seem like one of these "agents" could do itself today, but in the world where the agents get that good, that level of robotic ability - the ability to manipulate a screwdriver with human dexterity - doesn't seem very far off at all and is being actively invested in by many many people.

I’m not sure if this really is different or not. I also think there’s an enormous amount of white collar work that isn’t actually “intelligent” work. Especially in software development.

There's a lot more outside of software development.

It's mystifying to me why software - where bugs or weird behaviors are often obvious to users - is considered easier to replace with these tools than, say, product management (is this accurate research about what features would drive what revenue? who knows even today! is this summary of customer feedback accurate? nobody's gonna know if it's not!), marketing, middle management, or any number of line-of-business "inspect stuff and pass it along to the next person on the chain" roles.

So much of those roles are basically "how can we turn people into process-following machines for consistency and predictability" and intentionally de-valuing intentional reasoning. Adding natural language processing of the inputs/outputs + deterministic rule systems on what to do is basically the entirety of replacing them.

“what do we do when we’ve successfully vanquished work itself?”

How does automating white-collar paper-pushing get us over the hump here? I think that would require a combination of human-level reasoning + extremely good robotics and automation, at the self-servicing level.

Which could be coming.

But until it happens, I think the real question around the "future of work" are more around what the future of exchange is. It doesn't necessarily have to look like 40 hour work weeks, which is a pattern that arose from pushback against industrialists trying to get ever-more hours out of people to watch the automation machinery and run the factories etc.

I think the interesting, non-apocalypse options fall into two categories:

1) what if you don't need white-collar knowledge factories anymore but smaller groups of individuals can establish markets between themselves with much-more-personalized services and solutions. Can you reverse the traditional economies of scale? Running SaaS as a megacorp requires a certain amount of hard-to-iterate-in-a-try-until-the-tests-pass decisions and expertise since you're trying to be everything to everyone 24x7. If you can provide a more customized version of the same service to a smaller group of people with much less operational overhead for even just 1/10000'th of a giant SaaS vendor's current revenue, you might have something (1/10000 of Salesforce's 40B revenue, for instance, is quite non-trivial).

2) what will people want when everything they spend heavily on today is commoditized? This is the historical path, and why we've never vanquished work in the past. Either ways to get an edge over a competitor by doing more for less, instead of the same for less; or improvements in essential goods and services (you don't need million dollar cancer treatments before they exist, but once they do you don't want to opt out); or in new novelties, keeping up with the Joneses. Showing off. Etc.

The pattern I observe is: "write code, write test, make things green"

This is different in two ways from the classic TDD red-green-refactor suggestion:

1) they don't start with the test first, so the tests that get implemented are after writing the code, and run the risk of the model attention being now more influenced by the just-written code than the original spec

2) they finish when everything is green and don't followup with the "refactor" step unless manually prompted (either directly or indirectly by your own scaffolding/rules/whatever). this results in frequent hyper-local non-ideal-longterm fixes for things that went wrong in the first shot at writing the code pre-test-writing.

(As always, the only person who can ensure the code landing in your repo is good is you.)

The cost of shoring up behavior with tests ahead of a restructure has gone down because of AI.

Yes.

But the ease of not doing that and instead just getting a brittle set of three-quarters-baked tests is extremely high! And many people seem happy to go from "a few human-written mediocre brittle tests" to "a bunch of AI-written mediocre brittle tests" because it is an objective improvement and the people who weren't avoiding speculative structure and looking for the write boundaries before are happy to also not do so no.

So completely agree with the "take advantage of the tools this way" but I also wouldn't claim it's a reason to no longer worry about if you're building the wrong castles in the sky too early, because perfect refactor-proof testing contracts are still usually pretty hard to design.

I'm flabbergasted that you look at the Chinese property crisis and say "only the West does irresponsible loans." No, 60% of China's economy is state-run companies and the remaining 40% need political officers. China is just as capable of making shortsighted decisions as the US, and they have already made several devastating ones.

While these are hardly shy claims, I don't see anything in them to say "only the West does irresponsible loans"?

The West is in a state of psychosis with Debt and Monopolies under the illusion of free market.

The Chinese markets are more free than West, you can just look at the Auto and AI industry.

or the prior post

Usury and debt based economy creates a dynamic where being competitive in production is secondary to financialistion.

In short, instead of market being driven by demand and productivity, it is driven by financier curving out monopolies.

Peak Examples are Uber and AirBnB.

You can throw a rock these days and find a category where the products coming out of China are miles ahead of those coming out of the rest of the world, from a bunch of companies nobody had heard of a few years earlier. And the list is growing pretty steadily.

I would assume plenty of shortsighted decisions are also being made. But I would have a hard time characterizing the state of competition in the west as healthier or more productive when looking at the number of players and the quality of goods being produced in China.

Most white-collar/knowledge-service-industry work is a weird type of work.

It's fundamentally about enabling things and largely middleman-type stuff. I have a hard time imaging what "At some point the top end may be too valuable to even sell access to." would even look like? What are you doing with that AI power, and who is paying for the output and why?

Elon probably isn't gonna spend that much on a model that can generate him ever-better fake porn but does nothing that he can use to sell stuff to other people. Especially in a world where open models are "good enough" for many things like "tell me how to fix the plants in my garden that are dying" and the like. What remains in the narrow knowledge-work space of: can't be done by an individual or small group themselves, but is valuable enough that it would make sense for people to hoard access to these extreme frontier models? Try to recreate Hollywood-as-a-monopoly by becoming the single content producer for everyone's individualized feed and so owning all the advertising budget in the world? Seems hard, we've already seen how easy it is for cheap-and-crappy-but-addictive-or-funny content to disrupt traditional media.

(There's also pure scientific research, but historically that's not very directly connected to "massive profit" and has a habit of leaking out and getting productized most effectively by other people or just being really easy to copy once someone shows how it's done.)

Robotics could be a different story, as physical labor can be more inherently productive, but "reasoning" advantages are unlikely to be a big long-term differentiator there. At some point the brick laying robot is satisfactorily building the structure, and you're good.

A huge amount of the value of "the economy" and the power of a currency is driven by circulation of money, and one thing that all the "bullshit jobs" white-collar/service-industry work does is keep the money moving and ensure that a lot of people have some good-or-services of value to exchange. If you take away the ability to offer services worth exchange from huge chunks of the economy in these super-frontier-models-replace-everything scenarios... you're gonna have a bad time?

What makes this view more correct than say, "economies with marketing creates a dynamic where being competitive in production is secondary to marketing" and concluding that nothings a free market until we ban all advertising? After all, you can make a vaguely plausible argument about how marketing isn't really about the merits of the product, and therefore allowing it is antithetical to the free market or whatever

Wait, so your pitch in favor of a debt-fueled market economy is that advertising is awesome and that we wouldn't want to "lose" being smothered in ads all the time?

Cause... sign me up for the non-financialized, non-mass-media-advertising-driven economy please and thank you. I'd even be ok with just nuking billboards and mass-media forms of ads and still allowing more direct forms of marketing, if we must compromise! Likely we could find some compromises around just how much of the debt world we regulate too (this should be obvious?).

(I thought the disconnect between the efficiency of competition and the market as realized in modern economies was pretty well understood and taken for granted, but I guess we all find ways to justify the system we're profiting from... even if that means we have to claim we love the ad breaks)

The new gen of AI-boom-construction datacenters seem to be substantially different than the ones I used to go when working at companies whose software ran inside them. Those were running air-cooled rack servers, which is a whole different world from these things. The couple of the new gen I've seen have been much larger and much more turbine-happy.

I don’t think a lot of us employees will be happy to admit that AI is turning out to be a legitimate productivity aid that is allowing individuals to accomplish more work per person.

Growth companies respond to efficiency by asking "what can we do now that we can get more done."

Stagnant companies say "how can we cut costs."

The math is pretty simple. If you expect that doing more will have positive ROI, you do more; if you think your position is about as strong as it can ever be, and don't have ideas for growing the space or your spot in it, you assume that more spend on new things would be negative ROI.

And if you're stagnant and there are prevailing narratives giving you an excuse to cut costs without scaring investors into thinking you've lost optimism, you jump on it even if you haven't even verified if the productivity gains are real for your employees.

Historically a good Windows computer cost $1000 and it was all it took to start programming.

Gotta remember inflation here.

$1K in 1995 was roughly equivalent to $2K now and wouldn't have been a particularly "good" machine then.

In 1982 the Commodore 64 started at about $600 bucks, also roughly around $2K today.

If you outgrew that, beefier machines back then were A LOT. It was easy to find $2k+ towers and (especially) laptops even into the 2000s, and a lot of those would be $5K+ equivalent today.

What do you think distinguishes the post-9/11 craziness from the Cold War/Red Scare craziness?

My reason for asking is because I believe that "that's unconstitutional!" has been a failed protest message for more like 100 years than 25 years (and there's threads of state violence at the local and state levels that go back far longer). And IMO that is even stronger evidence that words on an ~240-year-old-doc—and the way some interpret the second amendment in relation to those words—is a completely powerless measure against state violence. The United States is not exceptional in that regard. We'll only have a better country if we constantly, actively, choose to vote it that way.