Only half of the rail capacity that existed during the railroad boom times was still in use by the 1970s. Lots of it was never really used at all after various railroads went bankrupt. But your point still stands.
That said, I'm pretty sure in a compute-hungry AI world you aren't going to retire GPUs every 6 years anymore. Even if compute capacity jumps such that current H100s only represent 10% of total compute available in 6 years, you're still running those H100s until they turn to dust.
I just think it's hard to compare localized railroad infrastructure to globalized AI capacity and say one was more rational than the other on a % of GDP basis until the history actually plays out.
If you compare global investment in nuclear weapons it would dwarf the manhattan project and AI thus far, and yet, 99.99999% of nuclear weapons investment is just "wasted" capacity in that it has never been "used." But the value it has created in other ways (MAD-enabled peace) has surely been profitable on net. Nobody would have predicted this at the time.
Playing armchair internet pessimist about the "new thing" always makes you feel smart but is usually not a good idea since you always mis-price what you don't know about the future (which is almost everything).
Interesting take and I pretty much agree (also, I find it funny that now the only interesting comments on HN are all found at the bottom).
However, there is of course a raw mechanical side to design that comes more into play on practical applications like a software UI vs. pure play memes/vibes like branding or a landing page.
Think hierarchy, leading, kerning, scale, contrast, balance, etc. These things remain constant throughout trend cycles and can absolutely get you half way there. Then aesthetic memes can be sprinkled on top by a human to make people believe "this feels cool."
I disagree with most of the takes here. The reason this will fail has nothing to do with design, designers, or taste.
This will fail because it's already a forgotten side project within anthropic, and anthropic also has pretty bad product DNA as a company. Their headcount is already too large and the culture is already set. They grew revenue so fast they speedran the stage at which you could build software product chops into the company culture (think Google circa 2008 vs. Google circa 2018).
They should focus on what they're good at: the actual AI models and B2B sales. Let OpenAI play early Google and churn through 100 different consumer product experiences to see what sticks, they're better positioned for it anyways.
Maybe they realised its actually a dead-end? Why else would you not double-down and concentrate resources? This would be an amateur error if it turned out to be true.
Probably, and I don’t care and kinda wish they boldly said so too. It’s their product to do with what they want, they built it.
One of the ugliest parts of open source is people believing they’re entitled to you working for free forever. And instead of being thankful you gave years of your labor for free, people get angry at you for not continuing to do so forever. And try to shame you as if you’re somehow greedy if that changes.
Do you work exclusively pro-bono on open source projects? Or do you work a job where you only go in if you get paid?
Yep, and no a subdomain does not suddenly insulate your sender reputation.
This BS is pedaled by the email tools who want you to have less friction setting up DNS when onboarding to their tool (less conflicts on a new subdomain).
If you just check the latest version of Google Postmaster Tools, you can see sends from your root domain and subdomain cross-polluting your reputation in Gmail. They aren't dumb.
No it wouldn't be. If you were uninsured, the price would magically drop to $50,000. And if you couldn't pay it you'd simply file for bankruptcy and it would be socialized onto the rest of us that way. Worst case scenario, post-bankruptcy you'd have to rent a home for 7 years instead of getting a mortgage until your credit resets. But even people who have gone through bankruptcies can still get mortgages.
Yes, the US healthcare system is insane/dumb. But the stupidity of it can just be stated matter-of-factly without inventing falsehoods like "life ending $1,000,000 debt for the uninsured."
> "Political Violence is Never The Answer". But our country (and a lot of them) were literally founded on political violence. How do people square those 2 ideas?
The is just survivorship bias. Violence sits at the root of ALL human societies. The vast majority throughout history have failed or are currently failing.
If you're on HN you're probably sitting in one of the lucky, relatively prosperous ones. Violence didn't create the prosperity, otherwise Sudan and Liberia should be the richest countries in the world.
Your relative prosperity came from your ancestors being smart enough to build frameworks to allow a society to mediate scarcity without the need for violence (common law, markets and trade, property rights, etc all enforced via a government monopoly on violence). In fact, any rich country is the result of systems of decentralized scarcity mediation without decentralized violence.
It's the lack of violence which built the relative prosperity you enjoy today. Not the other way around.
> The is just survivorship bias. Violence sits at the root of ALL human societies. The vast majority throughout history have failed or are currently failing.
That only strengthens the argument that violence is sometimes the answer. It doesn't matter that it's not always the right answer, the fact is sometimes it has been, and no society has ever managed to survive without choosing it at some point or another.
Indeed, there is the argument to be made that the capability to choose violence is critical even if you never actually need to choose it. This is the basis of deterrence theory which has arguably been the cornerstone of international peace for decades and the theory of the social contract which has been the source of most people's freedoms and political power. A people who will never stand up for themselves and their friends, no matter what injustice is done upon them, invites that injustice. By simply acknowledging there exists a point beyond which you would retaliate, you discourage others from risking going past that point.
Sure, you can't monopolize violence under the state (and enforce laws) without the state demonstrating its willingness to use said violence (ie. forcibly put people who violate in prison or use actual violence against them if they resist).
But OP was referring to political violence...which...how do I put this delicately...let's just say political polarization has led certain very-online members of the US populist-left, some of who hang out here for example, to try to expand the Overton Window into bolshevism. See also: Luigi fans.
My point is that the most likely outcome of violent political overthrow is not utopia. The most likely outcome is a failed state and another violent overthrow. Political violence doesn't create anything, it only destroys. And creating is the hard part.
It's like saying; "at the birth of all successful people was a person who shit their pants. So why not try shitting your pants as an adult?"
Yes, one always precedes the other. But it has no correlation to whether the person becomes successful or not.
The dichotomy of "political" and "apolitical" violence is a false one, and one of the worst thought-terminating clichees of the 21st century. It's telling that "political violence" always seems to refer to violence that isn't the result of the processes of democratic politics.
Nobody's calling out cops shooting protestors with "less lethal" rounds or ICE officers riddling cars with bullets "political violence", for some reason.
I don't disagree with the idea that violence is fundamentally morally questionable. But humans haven't evolved to the point where we can function collaboratively without the threat of it from somewhere. We're animals.
The problem with believing all violence is illegitimate (even that which has been democratically granted to the state to enforce laws), is that society breaks down and loses its legitimacy if you remove this enforcement aspect.
The alternative to a monopoly on violence centralized in a democratic government is not zero violence. The alternative is decentralized violence (anarchy). I think everyone on both sides would find this far less desirable.
I see you've addressed none of my points and instead were triggered by my suggestion your team may have some bad people on it.
Yes, in recent times in the US right wing violence has been more prevalent. But HN is not a right wing place, it's a left filter bubble like reddit and leftist violence is a growing phenomenon in US politics. Arguing against the right wing here would be like clapping along with a giant crowd, providing zero interesting discussion. The bolshevik revival in the world's wealthiest country is far more interesting to discuss.
Also historically, we have to remember that the left's utopian socialist vision (communism) is responsible for the absolute highest body counts, including 30 million starved to death and thousands of incidents of cannibalism in just Mao's great leap forward alone.
I'm not going to go to bat for Mao(1), but I think you're underplaying the body count that capitalist countries have had - this is kind of easy to do because a lot of the damage that we do is obfuscated behind proxies. Besides the obvious and direct war crimes like Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, and now I guess Iran again, there's the second order stuff like Israel's Bad Neighbor Syndrome (which we have enabled financially for basically the duration), Pinochet who we put in charge, heck - pick any country south of the border and we've done some damage there at least once. Then there's the spiderweb of damage that flows out to the global south continuously through NAFTA and similar foreign policy. I suppose the principal difference is that we externalize a lot of our violence (and somehow are shocked when it comes back to bite us that we trained Osama Bin Laden).
Nobody's asking for Maoist China, I think mostly we're clamoring for something closer to Norway. I'm sure plenty of people would be happy to settle for UK-style socialized services but even those folks get lambasted for being "too far left" too so whaddyagonnado.
1 - I think he and 'bolshevism' are a bit of a strawman here anyway, as I've not heard a ton of pro-Mao people but a TON of people who identify as leftists - they are not the same thing
> I think mostly we're clamoring for something closer to Norway. I'm sure plenty of people would be happy to settle for UK-style socialized services
Norway is a Saudi Arabia-style petrostate just with white people aesthetics (Saudi Arabia is also socialist). A better analogue might be Sweden/Finland, also tiny socialist Lutheran countries but with no massive oil reserves.
I write this while currently living in Finland. Your understanding of European socialism is stuck in the early 2000s. Things are going terribly here (and also in the UK). The welfare states throughout Europe are all in various states of slow collapse due to the public sector eating the private sector and climbing government spending as percentage of GDP not seen since the USSR (we're well over 50-60%, communist China is only at 35%). Deficits are ballooning.
Our unemployment rate is 3X that of the US and still climbing. We have no growth in the economy, no population growth, and no productivity growth. Pensions/benefits have been overpromised and will require decades of pain to resolve. Things are bleak and similar throughout the rest of Europe. I would update my priors if I were you.
Furthermore, the only reason socialism ever appeared to work here was due to us being ethnically homogenous and tiny. Government's lack of competitive pressure can be somewhat overcome by social pressure from the government official being your neighbor Pekka. It's harder to grift when everybody knows who you are and can see your new Mercedes. The US is not tiny and not ethnically homogenous.
Our system isn't even working here anymore, and it absolutely would not work in a massive, diverse, low-trust society like the US. You would do much better to lean into your strengths than to chase early 2000s European socialism, which was in fact a mirage brought about by a one-time economic boom due to the fall of iron curtain and EU integration.
all fair points - but what strengths? We've proven ourselves incapable of the most basic social goods for decades now. All the metrics that you might point to as "hey the US is doing fine" (GDP, deficit, sector growth) are concerned specifically with how the state is doing and desperately unconcerned with it's citizens, which I think is a principal issue here.
I think I'm arguing from a position of the quantitative numbers and you're arguing from qualitative vibes, hence why there's a disconnect.
But here's why its important to look at the quantitative reality of the numbers going forward--they are going to absolutely change the qualitative populist vibes.
In 30 years, even if the AI bubble pops and US growth rates normalize to something low like 2%, the US will have a GDP per capita of $130k in 2050. Meanwhile with 0.8% growth (very optimistic for Germany, may be much worse) the average German will earn roughly $75K with far worse demographics ballooning their deficits even further unless they dramatically cut social benefits or cause massive inflation to inflate away social debts.
I can guarantee your vibes of the situation will change over the next 30 years as European nations continue falling behind the US in economic power. The US will have massive optionality to improve its healthcare/education system with this extra wealth. Europe will have the opposite problem, deciding which benefits/services to cut next with a growing welfare burden combined with a not-growing private sector to fund it.
As far as strengths? I think having the next economic revolution be centered in your country (AI) is pretty valuable no? If it raises productivity and GDP growth by even 0.5%, I can guarantee the US will also capture that better than Germany/Europe will given its technophobic culture.
I think I see where we're coming at this from different angles.
If you're going by the numbers and the 'strength of the state' - then yeah, we're doing great. However, neither I nor anyone I know happens to be a part of the class that's holding the baton with all that stuff.
My concern is specifically about how well the citizens are doing, in aggregate, taking into account whether they have democratic control over the reins of governance, whether they are afforded the opportunity to be meaningful contributors to the greater good, education, freedom, enfranchisement.
GDP / capita is meaningless if most of the 'capita' never sees a dime. TBH the structures and institutions that make up a country are just a bunch of bureaucratic role playing from where I stand - they're meaningless without the 'we' of 'we the people'.
Email and the internet don't have "downtime." Certain key infra providers do of course. ISPs can go down. DNS providers can go down. But the internet and email itself can't go down absent a global electricity outage.
You haven't built a decentralized network until you reach that standard imo. Otherwise its just "distributed protocol" cosplay. Nice costume. Kind of like how everybody has been amnesia'd into thinking Obsidian is open source when it really isn't.
That said, I'm pretty sure in a compute-hungry AI world you aren't going to retire GPUs every 6 years anymore. Even if compute capacity jumps such that current H100s only represent 10% of total compute available in 6 years, you're still running those H100s until they turn to dust.
I just think it's hard to compare localized railroad infrastructure to globalized AI capacity and say one was more rational than the other on a % of GDP basis until the history actually plays out.
If you compare global investment in nuclear weapons it would dwarf the manhattan project and AI thus far, and yet, 99.99999% of nuclear weapons investment is just "wasted" capacity in that it has never been "used." But the value it has created in other ways (MAD-enabled peace) has surely been profitable on net. Nobody would have predicted this at the time.
Playing armchair internet pessimist about the "new thing" always makes you feel smart but is usually not a good idea since you always mis-price what you don't know about the future (which is almost everything).
reply