HN user
Not US-centric, top dog-centric. The US is just the current top dog.
The US is a barrier to a number of key Chinese goals, like reunification with Taiwan. So of course most of what they do will take the US into consideration.
The precedent for this is terrible.
MAGA is bad enough. Imagine if the current batch of US progressives, who have 0 idea how any of this works, wins the presidency and gets to decide who gets to use it.
Creator monetization, which is great.
In general though I feel like the less new features it adds, the better.
The pyramids took 20k+ people to build, which inevitably requires division of labor/specialization. Some chunk of that population had to mine the copper, which was probably an absolutely terrible job with ancient technology.
Serfs were essentially slaves who had effectively 0 ownership over their output, so I'd strongly disagree with that sentiment.
I think the best argument for a time when there was almost 0 alienation of labor was when we were all hunter gatherers. Where every activity was closely connected to something necessary for survival.
As soon as we built larger societies, greater division of labor became necessary to efficiently support the society. And thus alienation of labor became much more pronounced.
Marx was half right about it.
What he got wrong was that this alienation results from capitalism.
It actually results from civilization. The people who built the pyramids across every continent, for example, performed assembly line-like work. Any large-scale project requires it. And large-scale projects are fundamentally necessary for most societies.
Capitalism was invented in the late 1700s.
Every biological being works to survive. Being good at survival is what builds self esteem.
The "problem" with many modern jobs is that they're divorced from the fundamental goal, which is one of: 1) Kill/acquire food, 2) Build shelter, or 3) Kill enemies/competitors/predators
The benefit of modern jobs is that they are much more peaceful ways for society to operate, freeing up time for humans to pursue art and other forms of expression.
This is a bit reductionist.
AI is also:
- Boosting existing small businesses and enabling the creation of new small businesses by making previously expensive resources like market research, accounting/legal advice, etc. available for $20/month.
- Helping the world progress towards cheaper healthcare: https://www.vox.com/health/487425/open-ai-chatgpt-diagnosis-...
- Allowing lower income communities to access legal advice that would previously have been prohibitively expensive: https://www.probonoinst.org/2026/02/06/ai-and-technology-hel...
If Anthropic can allow millions of people from all around the world to access these benefits, why shouldn't it be worth a trillion dollars?
Wealth in the modern world is not a zero sum game. Wealth is created, not allocated. The fact that Anthropic is worth a trillion does not prevent you from making money.
Goats > glyphosate
1. We stopped allowing housing to be built, skyrocketing the cost of existing housing.
2. Our healthcare system remains a Frankenstein of a half-government sanctioned oligopoly, half-capitalist nightmare. Driving up the cost of healthcare.
3. Our governments are at best incompetent, at worst corrupt. SF spends $100k/person per year on homelessness. NY spends $80k. Where is all that money going?? Would be better to give that money directly to the homeless.
Not sarcastic. Anything that helps keep markets optimally competitive is good for capitalism.
A win for Adam Smith capitalism.
Power structures still exist for sure. But objectively, there are tens of thousands currently making a living from YouTube who would've never been able to become entertainers if Hollywood was the only game in town.
The barriers to entry for entertainers have never been so low.
It's undeniable that technology over the past decades has increased democratization in something every step of the way.
YouTube destroyed Hollywood's monopolization of entertainment. Anyone with a smartphone now has a shot at becoming a full-time creator. Prior to this, it was gate kept by Hollywood execs.
Smartphones destroyed Microsoft's monopolization of apps.
Not a leap to believe this will happen to some extent with AI (and it's already happening to some degree).
Ah ok sorry missed that you were talking globally instead of just US.
In the US, our problems stem from a lack of "capitalism," or healthy markets, or whatever anyone wants to label it. Bottom line, it's very much a supply side problem.
In housing, for example, NIMBY laws have for decades restricted all kinds of new housing being built. In capitalism, developers would be allowed to build. So we've very much had the opposite of capitalism.
Cities that are waking up to this and allowing new houses to be built are seeing rents fall across the board.
Respectfully disagree. Food, clothing, fuel, electricity are too expensive, but they are comparatively much less of an issue compared to rent and healthcare costs.
Rent and healthcare are the 1A and 1B issues of our time.
As far as healthcare goes, the entire system is a mess. We already tried the Affordable Care Act to get more people covered, which only skyrocketed costs. The only way out is to increase the competition in the market, AKA supply side. Bernie Sanders is only familiar with demand-side solutions, which do not work. Sanders himself seems completely oblivious to the housing crisis in his own state of Vermont, which is being mitigated everywhere else through supply-side solutions.
The cost of living crisis is almost singularly caused by poor governance, not feudal tech lords.
NIMBYism prevents new houses from being built, driving up the cost of housing.
Healthcare is for-profit, yet not allowed to operate like a true competitive market, with heavy regulations restricting providers to a few that the government favors. Thus it's essentially an oligopoly, driving costs sky high.
Note that this is CNBC and they're writing from a stock market line-go-up POV.
For everyone else, this is good news.
From the article:
"Huang was validating what the rest of the market has been witnessing. An independent developer, rather than a giant, richly valued lab like OpenAI or Anthropic, came up with the next big thing in AI and, in doing so, exposed a potential major flaw in the investment thesis behind the large language models: They may be getting commoditized."
Read the article, it actually raises some fascinating points that are agnostic to the possibility that he may be financially well off.
Eh, buying and holding the S&P 500 (the Vanguard Bogleheads strategy) has allowed a lot of people to retire early.
Definitionally the 1% is people making ~$800k+ a year.
Upper-middle class is people making ~$200k/year.
A lot of people have moved from middle class to upper middle class over the last decade. Both those categories are outside the 1%.
Wealth inequality is increasing, but the wealth isn't all flowing into the 1%'s pockets.
Lots of middle class people have graduated into upper-middle class: https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-middle-clas...
Wealth inequality is still a problem. But it's not just the people at the very top benefitting.
The study doesn't say it went into the 1%'s pockets. It says it went to 2 places:
1) The salaries of corporate employees 2) Shareholders and capital owners
Regarding number 2: "Shareholders" would include anyone who owns any stock at all, including a lot of middle class people with a simple S&P 500 ETF in their portfolio.
And the increase in productivity allowed more people to become capital owners, AKA entrepreneurs. The explosion in software entrepreneurs, for example.
Example of what it looks like from their Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIwURyqRsm-/?utm_source=ig_we...
What specifically about his impact on the world?
From this angle, what's the difference between Meta and a junk food company?
Both sell things that are bad for you, but that the consumer has complete control over whether or not to consume.
And not all of what Meta is selling is bad. There's a lot of information exchanged on Facebook, Instagram, etc. that are good for society. Like health/nutrition advice, etc.
Best case scenario is that AI makes it so everyone can be a 1-man CEO. Competition goes up across the board, which then brings prices down.
"Abundance" is really just supply and demand 101. Which has proven to work over and over and over and over again throughout human history.
Shop around and see what others are offering. I believe your anecdote, and I've also seen several other anecdotes about how rents have dropped - someone said as much as $1k.
I'm sure it's a big mix right now.
Supply and demand 101 continues to work.
Originally written in 2013. Still hyper relevant.