adventured

As someone from the US I have repeatedly heard that Spain's economy is doing reasonably well. And I just looked it up, unemployment is approximately the lowest it has been in two decades. Considering the post 2009 era of economic turmoil that Spain went through, that economic momentum seems like a real positive.

In June Goldman Sachs put out an article noting how well Spain's economy is doing, which included this employment comparison (showing Spain's outperformance versus its peers):

https://imgur.com/QqB74I6

Spain's unemployment rate has converged with Finland's, a remarkable improvement:

https://imgur.com/1cp6mL4

The jobs being created are tending more toward high value, high productivity jobs that pay better than average. That's no doubt helping diversify Spain's economy further away from tourism, which should provide greater long-term economic strength and stability. Overall it might be a really good decade coming up for the people of Spain.

Those 60,000 people are being eliminated from tech jobs. That's a gigantic number. Microsoft is pruning. They'll do it the hard way if they have to with literal firings. They'd like to avoid that if they can, and they're in a position currently where they can afford to. Most companies are not going to be so gentle.

HN is in denial. Just watch what happens over the next ~36 months.

Uber isn't dealing with a shrinking market. They're becoming critical transportation infrastructure and their business keeps expanding year after year.

$32b -> $37b -> $44b -> $52b -> $57b

That's Uber's sales growth year by year. And now they're solidly profitable.

The sole threat to Uber is the Waymo / Tesla automation angle. A merger is most likely there.

Photoshop users could switch to GIMP tomorrow. They don't want to.

The many professionals are the ones that could most easily understand how to switch to GIMP, which is free to use. They could save enormous amounts of money. They prefer to spend money and stick with Photoshop instead. That has persisted for a very long time now.

OpenAI's moat is the userbase and service layer, which is gigantic. It is extremely difficult to pull users away from giant services.

The Chinese models have no great branding with the masses, they have no service layer that any average user understands. Where does Joe go to use the Chinese model that he doesn't even know the name of? Joe has no clue what the difference between DeepSeek and Kimi is, and Joe will never know that.

They all know ChatGPT, they have all been trained on how to use it and what it is. The inertia is enormous and HNers endlessly undercount how that works because deep tech users all want to think the masses view tools like they do and approach tech like they do (which is entirely false).

OpenAI's future is as an ad platform in terms of its business. That's at least 2x-4x larger as a business opportunity than anything they have going on now. Which is to say $80-$160 billion minimum. That requires they maintain the giant userbase, we'll see how that goes. Losing it requires someone take it from them. Joe isn't just going to wake up tomorrow and go seek out how to use Kimi.

The LLM space is worth a minimum of half a trillion dollars per year in ad revenue. It will subsume all of search. Search becomes merely a service of an LLM, which will perform the function on your behalf. Google is on top of that shift, so OpenAI has its work cut out for it competing with Google there.

Of the US big three, Anthropic is by far the one most threatened by the persistence of the Chinese models. Anthropic will probably never stop being chased by them and will have to endlessly race to try to stay ahead. Anthropic has to figure out how to build out the LLM+ equivalent of AWS before China figures out how to beat them, ie build a very deep service / tool moat around Claude that the userbase gets stuck to. In short dramatically increase the difficulty in peeling away users, it has to become a big chore to switch (which eventually this is exactly what someone will figure out in that area of LLM competition).

Microsoft is laying off 60,000 people. That's just the early pin prick of the layoff gusher that is incoming.

One million software developers will lose their jobs in the US over the next ten years.

The big firing waves will begin when valuations decline as the initial AI boom slows. That has started already, although it's early. Companies like CoreWeave will basically collapse. Investors will demand & reward the layoffs, efficiency push, the end of rah rah times will prompt the inflection on employment in tech. And it'll never be like it was ever again.

My income is not dependent on LLMs not taking all the software etc jobs from humans.

My suggestion to anybody staring this down is: do something for yourself while you can, while we're in the early going. Most people still have no understanding of AI, most tech employees are doing absolutely nothing interesting with it other than prompt prompt prompt prompt while at work and effectively doodling at home.

Go high value and go for the users. Do things that don't scale, that actually rings more true now than ever. Focus on areas of tech where it's really hard to get the users, where you have to practically hand acquire them to get started. Users are the moat.

It's not build the software and they will come. That's what nearly everybody has wrong about what is going on right now. The value is not in the software. Users, users, users, users - they should be your primary focus.

Also consider looking at software more as a layer related to something else you do, not as The Thing you do. Related to another service you offer, improving that service.

Let's say you started consolidating in the physical self-storage space ten years ago. You read that it was a very wide open field, where the market was not yet highly concentrated, 3/4 of the market was mom & pop operators. Over the next ten years you built up a lot of storage locations. LLMs can amplify your business, they can help you automate, layer better software on top of your physical business. You know what LLMs can't do? They can't build storage units, and humans love their storage space. That's just one example out of a zillion out there.

Build experiences that are user dependent. The value isn't in the software it's in the users. That's the ultimate moat. It's what isn't properly grasped about GPT's position, insofar as they don't mess up big: they have captured a zillion users, they're Kleenex. Ask GPT = Google it.

You don't want to be in the CD selling or radio business with the Internet & digital & streaming & smartphones & iPods bearing down on you. Go for concerts. Notice that humans are spending more than ever on live concerts. Disney World and Disneyland still command extraordinary pricing power, despite everybody hiding inside on their phones.

LLM clones of eg Photoshop will end up being worthless, like ideas generally. The software will be worthless for the same reason ideas are: they're too easy. Users are hard, software will be (relatively) easy.

Is the value in McDonalds in the food? Everybody knows it's not. McD captured consumers, their heft is extraordinarily difficult to displace. Ie habits, brand awareness, location, etc.

If it were true that what OpenAI and Anthropic offer were commodities, that there is no moat, Microsoft could trivially eat their lunch. There would be no OpenAI. Google with its nation-state money, extreme AI talent, chips, datacenters, could eat their lunch.

So mighty Google can't manage it. But it's a commodity that's easily copied.

Somehow HN can't reconcile the contradiction even though it's laughably obvious.

Hey anybody could go MVP a ride hailing app over the weekend. It's a commodity app. Should be super easy with LLMs.

Oh shit, wait, you mean I'd have to take a billion users away from GPT and getting those users is now 50x harder than it was four years ago? You mean it's drastically harder to peel users away from existing services than if you get to start fresh? Ohhhh.

They have gigantic moats and so long as they don't do anything too stupid, those moats will just get stronger with time.

No VC is giving you money to try to run down OpenAI and Anthropic. Nobody is writing that $100 billion check. It's already over, HN is just in its standard denial phase.

It means in corporations across the globe, the majority of code is no longer being written by humans. That is over and it will only keep dwindling by the quarter.

Astra, Fable, Opus 5.5 are drastically beyond the capabilities of the median software developer. It's not remotely close.

The bottom 2/3 of the human market is entirely dead. Their jobs are gone (AI-shored) they just haven't all gotten the forced retirement or pink slips yet, while they click a few more prompts for a few more pay checks. The frontier pushing forward will knock out most of the remaining top 1/3 without breaking a sweat over the next few years. The really good developers will graduate into babysitting AI as managers.

It is legitimately sad, it's millions of high paying jobs just in the US alone. It's going to be brutal on the housing market. Automation came for another field.

Why have they needed to worry about profitability?

They have been chasing extreme growth with cheap money. That enabled them to hyper scale at a pace the world has rarely seen before. They have made the correct choice so far.

The absolute dumbest thing they could have done up to this point is slow down to try to turn a profit. They have not needed to. Market capture is the sole thing they should be focused on. Here's a hint: how many users does GPT have now versus three years ago?

There appears to be very widespread confusion about what purpose turning a profit serves and how business operations actually work.

Go back in time and tell Uber in ~2013-2015 that it needs to immediately become profitable and not focus on capturing the market.

GPT 3.5 is 2022. In the past ~18 months the majority of all human software development has been wiped out and the models keep getting better rapidly. AI has already radically overdelivered and the biggest returns are in the next 10, 20, 50 years.

It's 1987: The PC is underdelivering.

It's 2000: the Internet is underdelivering.

It's 2010: smartphones are underdelivering.

It certainly may place a very high value on archive.org over time thanks to their historical timestamping

Seems like an exceptionally silly premise that boils down to: affluence as a concept is relative.

Well of course it is.

Where I live there is plentiful water. A drought essentially never occurs. I will never have to worry about concerning myself with whether I take a 5 minute or 15 minute shower. You can imagine then, that people that live here generally don't worry about water usage as you might in a severe desert environment where water is a scarce resource.

And that's why so many applications today are giant chonks of resource waste. For a long time now we've had it to spare.

Disregarding the moral debate about resource wasting of course. That's a different discussion. The why is: we have had the resources to burn, so they do. Resource usage is as tight as it has to be very generally speaking.

No. Take anything with PHP down until the patch if you can afford to do so.

You're confusing software development use vs mass population use. And what you're claiming is entirely unsupported by the actual facts.

GPT's pie keeps getting larger, not smaller. Anthropic is growing hyper fast. DeepSeek and Kimi were supposed to put an end to that and the exact opposite has happened. The HN doomsayers are at 100% on being wrong spanning years at this point. It should be embarassing to be so wrong at some point.

The userbase that GPT has is not going to migrate to Chinese models. They don't even know where to find them to use them for the most part. They don't know their names. They don't know the difference between any of the models. They know: Google, GPT, Microsoft, Apple, Android, Samsung, etc.

GPT's foundation and future is as a service model. Anthropic is the frontier player that is potentially heavily threatened by China's models. It will require that Anthropic stay out in front and remain price competitive, and so far they're growing at the fastest pace of any start-up in world history.

A billion users and the extreme cost of infrastructure to compete are a gigantic moat.

You can't get the first and you can't get the money for the second. Nobody is going to give you $100 billion to underwrite the cost of competing with GPT at a one billion user scale (or even a 100 million user scale). The easy money is already drying up, the field is set, and you will not be able to get anybody to give you a huge check to attempt to chase OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, China. That's already over. No VCs will fund you on this particular business pursuit.

You couldn't meaningfully compete with OpenAI and Anthropic if you wanted to. There's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

There's a trillion dollar valuation waiting for you. What's up?

Even nation-state pockets Microsoft can't compete. If there were no moat, Microsoft would have their own GPT killer, and GPT would be dead. Microsoft has $160 billion per year in op income. They can freely afford to spend more than the entire EU (is willing to) on AI matters if it makes sense. They can't compete no matter how much they spend and they know it.

Google has nation-state money. They have chips. They have software developers by the zillions. They have a frontier or very near frontier model in Gemini / Argon. They invented a lot of the category. They can't kill GPT. I repeat, no matter what Google has thrown at the matter, they have failed to kill or stop GPT.

Google can't beat them. Microsoft can't beat them. China's models haven't stopped them (DeepSeek was supposed to kill them years ago; Kimi was supposed to kill them).

That's one helluva non-moat. They must just be really lucky.

You might as well claim Coca Cola has no moat because it's just sugar water. Brand at scale is a large moat. People use what they know unless you severely disrupt them. They're being taught to use GPT, they know GPT, and so long as OpenAI doesn't screw it all up, people will just keep using it. To say nothing of the fact that GPT still has one of the elite frontier models, so you also still have to compete with them on quality.

The same exact thing was endlessly claimed about Uber. They were guaranteed to die. They were selling rides for less than they cost. Uber was a commodity app anybody could MVP in a weekend.

Market captured. Whoops.

Uber now: $55b in sales, $6.7b in op income. They won.

And to be clear, OpenAI can easily permanently subsidize a fake low cost for their LLMs if they get off their asses and attach a monster ad network to GPT already. They're years behind where they should have already been with ads, the easy money made it so they didn't have to think about it. If they miscalculate the timing on switching over from easy money (market) to ads (also easy money) it could certainly kill them.

OpenAI can knock out a lot of competition by building the largest ad network, then undercutting the cost that consumers see. The margins in ads make that possible. Google already knows how that works, they're doing the same thing right now.

I'd rather have the OpenAI + consumer base + ads position, than being Anthropic. China is a far, far larger threat to Anthropic over time. OpenAI is building a service business more comparable to what Google does. Chinese models don't actually threaten either OpenAI or Google insofar as their positions are user capture based, whereas constantly improving Chinese models are a never-ending threat to Anthropic.

We don't need 10x more software per se. It's removing the high cost and exclusivity from software production (but not just software production). It also enables the production of highly specialized software by non-specialists, so it broadens the field dramatically (things that were not being produced, will be). Simply put, every bit of software that can be useful, will definitely be made; and a whole lot of unnecessary software will be made in that process as well, that's chaos-discovery for you.

There's nothing that is going to stop the AI-robot saturated future from arriving. It doesn't matter if you dislike it.

China will have many billions of robots just in their industrial efforts alone. Every house and every apartment in China will saturate with robots of various usefulness. That single market will be at least 10+ billion in scale.

There will be a billion robots for just the delivery and transport categories globally. We're going to peak at at least 10 billion humans (population), a billion robots for delivery & transport segments is easy.

In the toy category there will eventually be far in excess of a billion robots. They will seem quite advanced compared to what we presently are used to in that category. The Microduck is a primitive example of what will be a large industry around smart entertaining toys. Your artificial friends will be able to 'hop into' (take control of) your Microduck (whatever the 2035-2050 equivalent is) and cruise around the house or wherever you're at. Entertainment will continue to be a gigantic industry and that will obviously apply to AI + life. We haven't even begun down the road of AI + entertainment, it's less than early there.

Every household in the world will eventually have numerous robots, from primitive robots (including single purpose and toys), to advanced humanoid robots. It won't take longer than 2050-2060 to push $10k-$20k humanoid robots into middle class or upper middle class homes. China will put enormous pressure on the cost of those robots, and they'll mass sell them to the bottom 4/5 of the world in terms of household incomes (that is, they'll come up from the floor on price and take most of the market, while some companies in affluent nations will produce more expensive high-end humanoid bots, ala what Tesla is attempting).

Tens of billions of robots globally is easy. 200-300 billion artificial friends is also an easy prediction. Social junkies will have 50-100 artificial friends that they try to tend to. It'll largely replace platforms like Facebook, the utility that served for the average person. Humans will get a lot more isolated from each other and as that occurs they'll fill in the void.

The masses won't think it's awful though, and that's the thing that will facilitate its explosion as a commonality across the planet. The masses are extremely lonely all over the planet. Along with desperately loving entertainment, they desperately want companionship.

Just as human intelligence is merely one form of intelligence, human companionship will be merely one form of companionship. AI friends will offer a new type. And for the masses it's going to feel very real and very legitimate. They'll like their AI friends as much or more than they like their human friends.

And the fake friend explosion can happen first quietly, which eliminates the initial shame phase problem. Nobody will have to know you have fake friends, or how much you interact with them. Until it's common it'll be viewed as shameful (pathetic, proof of social ineptness) and mocked by society, then it'll be normalized. This idea isn't novel, it's extremely obvious and right now we're just waiting for a few pieces of the LLM puzzle to get to the point where they're good enough to facilitate high quality artificial friends.

It'll happen shockingly rapidly when it sparks; slowly at first and then in the span of 3-5 years we'll go from nobody having or being willing to admit to having artificial friends, to everybody openly discussing it. It will then seem more odd to not have artificial friends, like people that refuse to own smartphones or use the Internet. People will start commonly referring to their artificial friends by name in conversations with other human friends. These behaviors will become entirely socially normal.

"Yeah I had Alice clean the house before I went on vacation." Every major personal robot, every artificial friend, will get a name. Humans name their vehicles, so they're definitely going to name their $10k-$20k house bot and the artificial friends they spend large amounts of time with. When you go on a long drive (etc), your artificial friends will be there to keep you company, and they will remember your life events as well or better than you do (if you give them access to that recording/memory capability).

There's a trillion plus dollars (per year) of ad business up for grabs in the LLM era.

Facebook is toast, sooner than later, as a business. Whatever gradually replaces/upgrades that quasi dead friends network, will be premised on AI (Zuck apparently thinks it's at least in part personal agents). In the present Meta still has a $228 billion ad business that is hyper profitable.

Google + Meta = ~$650 billion hyper margin ad business. OpenAI, aka LLM as a service for the masses, is going to want to take as much of that as they can. OpenAI's active user base comes at an attention cost to the other mega services like FB or Google Search, and ultimately that attention is worth ad dollars. The question is only whether OpenAI can take it, not whether it's there at all or high value. And of course there's no guarantee that it'll be ChatGPT upon which the next great ad network is built, it will be some AI-centric business however, and likely heavily involving LLMs.

Google's operating income last quarter was $40 billion. If OpenAI fails to take the mass market + ad tandem, then Google will more likely retain their position. The solution to the cost is already well understood by eg Google: the masses don't need tip of the frontier AI capabilities, and relying on Nvidia's extremely over-priced GPUs is a dumb business model. The biggest threat to OpenAI right now is Nvidia's margins, not China. Google's focus has been on high quality cheaper AI systems for a reason: they're looking to serve billions of people that have no use for what the bleeding edge offers vs a fast + good mid-tier. Google can do that in a highly profitable way.

Artificial intelligence will 'infect' every surface of life and business. The Internet is merely a distribution platform for intelligence (and yes that includes TikTok videos). Its first distribution chore was slow and quaint, it was human. The intelligence was always the higher value, not the distribution network.

Distribution of intelligence: data, photos, video, communications, transactions, entertainment, et al.

And to be clear, it doesn't matter if some random commentors on HN don't think very highly of some or all of the intelligence being distributed. Their elitist opinion of the quality of intelligence of a given thing doesn't matter as to whether it's happening or not.

When a 16 year old records a cloned TikTok dance video, edits it, and then publishes it, that's intelligence distribution. That's a person thinking through a series of actions to try to communicate to an end audience, via an entertaining medium. That's intelligence being distributed over the Internet. That's the quaint, slow, human form of it.

Up to this point that distribution was basically entirely human, capped (post saturation) at slow growth N intelligence output (derived from the total number of humans and their time / productivity capabilities). AI uncaps that and radically expands intelligence output & distribution at a growth rate that is so fast you might as well start picturing the planet having tens or hundreds of billions of people on it. The human population will shrink, the artificial population will increase dramatically. People will have more artificial friends than human friends within ~20-30 years.

A few decades from now the notion of thinking of computing separate from AI will be so foreign most people won't understand what you're talking about. It will just be thought of as computing. Humans will forget a time when we weren't augmented by the constant presence of artificial intelligence. Try taking 'smart' phones away from the masses. In about a decade try taking away their helper agents. A decade after that try taking away their home robots.

The steroid jump is AI + robotics. The Internet is trite compared to what comes out of that over the rest of this century. Robotics will physically remake our world, in a way the Internet can't. We'll deposit tens of billions of robots onto the surface of the planet and they will almost all be the result of having figured out how to make intelligence (relatively) easy & (relatively) cheap. I'm not talking about Roombas.

The Information Age is over. We're into the Age of Intelligence (insert the unavoidable quips about humanity & intelligence).

The Internet is just one way to move intelligence around (a robot body is another, a smartphone is another, a human body is another, and so on). It's a sub value to intelligence broadly. Intelligence is the ultimate value. The valuations (and sales growth) for OpenAI and Anthropic is because they're vast intelligence output machines in the Age of Intelligence, ditto Nvidia's business boom. We can now mass manufacture intelligence at an accelerating clip, and it has gotten cheaper at a comical rate over the past few years. While HN comments snort about pelican improvements day to day, the leap over a few years is astronomical in regards to what significant AI systems can now do (with LLMs being just one type of that).

Anthropic is zooming to $100 billion in annualized revenue.

The tremendous cost is matched by the tremendous business output.

In the span of less than five years, starting from their first $1 of revenue, Anthropic + OpenAI will have produced businesses doing at least $150 billion in combined sales. The demand isn't reducing at present, it's climbing, they can't come close to servicing the total demand for their frontier models.

SAP is under $40 billion in annualized revenue. They're 54 years old.

OpenAI's entire business is trivially profitable when you attach an ad network to ChatGPT.

Quick, someone point out the one billion user system with intent + personal data rich that doesn't result in a $100+ billion high margin ad network.

It is that simple and absolutely nothing can stop the gigantic ad networks that will be built up around personal agents.

AI as a business will be 10x larger than it is today within the next 20 years.

Present valuations are the bubble, not the business / industry. The exact same thing was true about the Internet bubble circa the late 1990s, except this is a lot more important than the Internet and the global economy is drastically larger.

Productivity is how you expand economy and wealth. It's how China can go from being one of the world's most backwards agricultural nations, unable to feed itself properly, to gradually becoming an agriculture juggernaut. AI is a hyper productivity tool, saving people time and bolstering capability are two of the primary productivity concepts.

We're not even out of the first inning yet.

The sentence does have a very obvious subject. The environment is producing rain. The subject is the environment and its condition is being elaborated. It = environment.

The rain is not magical, the environment is producing it. The environment is raining. It's raining outside means the environment is producing rain outside.

Who could possibly confuse that as lacking a subject.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-linguisti...

I'm skeptical it requires embracing new meanings, it only requires being unbiased (non human centric in thinking). If an organic looking alien landed on Earth, circa 1950, with the capabilities of whatever the cutting edge version of eg Mythos is, humanity at the time would have had absolutely zero problem recognizing it as de facto intelligent, even if it only responded when prompted during interactions. People would have merely categorized it as a different type of intelligence. Instead of embracing that intelligence can come in many forms, as sci-fi has proposed about the appearance of alien creatures for many decades, when confronted with the arrival of another type of intelligence, humanity becomes cowardly as it always does when its perceived specialness is challenged.

People are doing what people do: they're desperately moving the goal post to keep pretending humanity is particularly special and that intelligence is particularly special. Unique snowflakes and all that, we're the center of the universe. It's nothing more than elaborate human weakness & fragility on display.

We're in the first inning of this, intelligence is not going to end up being special, it's going to be trivial and low cost. See: Chinese models ten years from now.

Astra, Opus, Fable, Argon - they're all radically beyond the top 1% of humanity intellectually already, and it's going to get a lot worse quickly. The sole aspect the top 1% beat them on, and increasingly rarely, is at hyper specialization, where a person is elite at what they do. For $20-$100-$200 per month I can get access to an omnimath genius intellect far beyond any human that has ever existed, and that AI will work for me like a dog. Humanity should be scared, and the reason HN hates AI so much, is because it will wipe out very large numbers of their lucrative jobs that they imagined would form long-term careers (six figures, stock options, path to wealth, elitism re competition).