z3c0

> Artificial intelligence, by expanding firms' computational capabilities, is pushing markets from the competitive regime toward the collusive regime, explaining the empirical emergence of algorithmic collusion without explicit coordination.

Wow... this is quite fascinating. It has been theorized for a little while that widespread AI could form accidental trusts due to optimization around one-another. This seems to be taking it a step further and arguing that if P!=NP, then markets are certain to trend towards collusive.

I miss "predictive analytics". Too boring and honest for marketers though.

Growing up rural, the grift has been obvious my whole ĺife

> I hope they can expose the ridiculousness of software copyrights but I won't be holding my breath.

I think it has already, but it's a hard pill for many to swallow. While I haven't actually counted, the conversations around the effectiveness of copyright/IP seem to be regular conversations now, both here and IRL.

The goal is the product, but what is being exchanged is production, ie labor for a certificate of your own past production, aka money.

> Heaven help me, though, should I misuse a corporation's copyrighted works, even purely personally.

This imbalance is the issue. The photographer attempted to use a fraudulent system designed for the wealthy. Hopefully the loss disillusions those among us hoping for scraps. As an amateur photographer, post all you want, and expect nothing in return. If you shoot digital, keep your raw files to harvest lower-fidelty, online-ready formats. If you shoot film, you have both the scans and the negatives.

So "Play Protect" is doing all the damage to the third-party ecosystem that it'd seemed designed for.

I've slowly but surely been moving away from any service provider of any type who does not allow me to use their service without their often Play Services-dependent app. Changing vehicles would be a lot harder though.

It's a retrospective analysis of an assertion made by NYTimes. The original headline wasn't clickbait, just presumptive, and even so, it's a pretty significant publication that spends a lot of time on the HN front page (alongside you, I'll add). I think it's perfectly fair, and nowhere close to a strawman, to deconstruct that claim a year later.

They are a self-described 10x coder who moves AI slop, so almost certainly the latter.

I think we might be facing a cultural reckoning on what being "productive" actually means. Creating more products doesn't mean more production.

That might be an even more naive take.

Can you show me one space, historically, in any industry, where a company climbed to the top of a market solely on altruistic intentions?

I mean this earnestly: is this copy?

I mean, I agree with your general point that copyright might need to be reconsidered, but this doesn't seem like an attempt to reconsider it. It's rather transparently enabling further cronyism.

Never gotten any emails from lawyers, I see.

Copyright laws are heavily enforced, only selectively.

I believe that machines could potentially be conscious, and don't buy for a second that chess algorithms or LLMs could be themselves.

You're correct, and I've long been aware. I just... won't.

Principles haven't done much good so far, but my sleep is bad enough as is.

Interestingly (and anecdotally), as a 10-year+ experienced college dropout, I still see challenges getting hired for jobs that list degrees as a requirement. The only time I get a call back on "front door" applications is with the fateful addendum of "OR relevant work experience". (I wonder if agents and their lack of human discretion is amplifying this.) The article's assertion that a college degree still offers an edge beyond entry level still seems very much true.

Have you worked for corporations long?

> their product is struggling to do your daily job functions for you

So what's the value prop?

And highlighting a disconnect in the developer community. Some of us are okay with unnecessary overhead for quick results. I always felt gross dealing with Electron apps, but they're popular for a reason.

Raising the floor is an equality of outcome. It is arguably equality of oppprtunity too, but only when ignoring intergenerational wealth as a factor. Your kids affordíng school is your outcome, their oppprtúnity.

Who is included on the mailing list. Florida is asking to be included.

You seem to deeply misunderstand how juries work. It's an assortment of peoples for a reason.

Yes, actually, a bunch of people of the same religion (cult, really), university, and now, organized theft, are indeed guilty by association. I'm glad you see it too.

The conundrum of "equality of outcome" vs "equality of opportunity" hinges on that core question. It's weird, and possible contradictory, to see a policy claiming to attempt both.

Most would define a "fair" opportunity as everyone getting the same chances to succeed, but a "fair" outcome would segment on merit. If angling towards fair outcomes, there's usually less uproar over lifting the floor (e.g financial aid), versus lowering the ceiling (e.g. limitations on admissions based on ethnic or financial background).

Not even getting into the semantics of what one could mean by "productive", that sounds like a bleak existence.

We told them to find probable cause, so they found a way to mine it.

Nazi Germany wasn't chaos, just a lot of people following "cut-and-dry" protocol.

It's an abstraction for you, not the rest of that developer's team, who have to reproduce the same solution even after said developer has "won the lottery", so-to-speak.

inb4: "Don't worry, just use GPT to make the docs"

Given how many people attempted to date their computer after ChatGPT launched, I don't even want to imagine what this technology has in store.

It did, verifiably here. Based on their own marketing, I thought it an alternative to Codex, not Codium.

Knowledge of this setting has shifted my perspective considerably.

edit: not enough to ditch Sublime, however.