Meta's mission is to build the future of human connection -- this totally makes sense if you assume they believe that the future of human connection is with an AI friend.
That https://character.ai is so enormously popular with people who are under the age of 25 suggests that this is the future. And Meta is certainly looking at https://character.ai with great interest, but also with concern. https://character.ai represents a threat to Meta.
Years ago, when Meta felt that Instagram was a threat, they bought Instagram.
If they don't think they can buy https://character.ai then they need to develop their own version of it.
Character.ai over raised, the leadership team left, and there's no appreciable revenue AFAIK and have heard. Kids under 25 role playing with cartoons are hard to monetize.
Then there's also the reputational harm if Meta acquires them and the journalists write about the bad things that happen on that platform.
I don't think this is a great article, as I think it focuses too much on the Washington Post, but there are some issues that will have to be addressed in American democracy.
National democracy is built on top of local democracy, in the sense of local self-rule -- if local democracy is dying then national democracy will tend to die, but if local democracy is thriving, national democracy is largely guaranteed.
About local democracy:
1. Local city government is now less accountable because of the death of local newspapers. The public must have some idea what politicians are doing, but without local newspapers there is no one to report what is happening at the local level.
2. This is related to people (since the 1960s) losing interest in local government. When I was a child my parents both served in the local government, I remember being 7 years old and getting taken to meetings where the room was packed. But when I was 42 I drove my mom to a town meeting and I was shocked to see that the room was empty, literally, there was not a single citizen who had come out for the meeting that evening. The only people in the room were the politicians (all of whom were volunteers, as it was an unpaid position -- they were civically minded citizens).
3. Local democracy worked best when families stayed in one town for generations, and so had a long-term commitment to the health of the town. But the modern life-style, even for the middle class who are the most likely to serve in government, involves buying a starter home in one town, then a bigger home for a family (in another town), then a retirement home, possibly in another state. Most families now assume they will only be in a given town for 10 or 20 years, so their focus tends to be on minimal taxes, rather than long-term investments in the town.
4. For local government, possible solutions include abolishing local democracy and making the positions appointed (most roles are already appointed, of course) from the state level, or making the towns much larger (a large percentage of a given state) or limiting voting to those who pass some test, or who demonstrate citizenship by volunteering some time, or by having frequent elections to a staggered city council (as frequent voting tends to reward the few citizens who are highly active).
Anyone who thinks these moves are anti-democratic should remember that local government elections tend to only get 15% to 20% participation rates, so most of the public has already voluntarily disenfranchised itself.
Any democracy will automatically be the democracy of those who show up. There is no democracy for the truly apathetic. But local and regional self-rule can remain strong so long as citizens who are active in civic affairs can continue to exercise rule at the local level, without being blocked those who are non-active.
There remains a controversy whether "democracy" means "the right to vote" or "a population engaged in self-government." That is, does "democracy" refer to "self expression via voting" or does it refer to actual government arising from the local population? Those who feel that "democracy" means "self expression" tend to think of themselves as consumers rather than citizens, they see themselves as buying government services (with taxes) rather than the producers of government. But local self-rule does not survive for long in areas where people see themselves mostly as consumers of government services. Local self-rule survives thanks to the civically minded citizens who are willing to volunteer their time to creating governance.
They went from $559.36 to $132 a month on Hetzner, and they seem happy about the performance. This matches my own experience as well, I have been stunned regarding Hetzner and how cheap it can be.
Why do volunteer firefighters rush into a burning building to try to save children from some family they have never met before? Every day we afforded examples of people sacrificing their personal interests for the benefit of others.
But also, biologists usually use a definition of "altruism" that does not include close kin. Richard Dawkins was explicit about this in his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene." Helping someone you are directly related to is not considered altruism.
In late 2021, Ed Zitron wrote (on Twitter) that the future of all work was "work from home" and that no one would ever work in an office again. I responded:
"In the past, most companies have had processes geared towards office work. Covid-19 has forced these companies to re-gear their processes to handle external workers. Now that the companies have invested in these changed processes, they are finding it easier to outsource work to Brazil or India. Here in New York City, I am seeing an uptick in outsourcing. The work that remains in the USA will likely continue to be office-based because the work that can be done 100% remotely will likely go over seas."
He was wryly communicating, "your argument was so stupid I don't even need to engage with it".
In my experience he has a horrible response to criticism. He's right on the AI stuff, but he responds to both legitimate and illegitimate feedback without much thoughtfulness, usually non-sequitur redirect or ad hominem.
In his defense though, I expect 97% of feedback he gets is Sam Altman glazers, and he must be tired.
He's right on the AI stuff? How do you figure that? As far as I can tell, OpenAI is still operating. It sounds like you agree with him on the AI stuff, but he could be wrong, just like how he was wrong about remote work.
I'm actually more inclined to believe he's wrong if he gets so defensive about criticism. That tells me he's more focused on protecting his ego than actually uncovering the truth.
Wether or not OpenAI is sustainable or not is only a question that can be answered in hindsight. If OpenAI is still around in 10 years, in the same sort of capacity, does OP become retroactively wrong?
My point is, you can agree that OpenAI is unsustainable, but it's not clear to me that is a decided fact, rather than an open conjecture. And if someone is making that decision from a place of ego, I have greater reason to believe that they didn't reason themselves into that position.
The fact they are not currently even close to profitable with ever increasing costs and the sobering scaling realities there is something you could consider, and if you do believe they are sustainable, then you would have to believe (in my opinion, unlikely scenarios) they will somehow become sustainable, which is also a conjecture.
Seems a little unreasonable to point out “they are still around” as a refutation of the claim they aren’t sustainable when, in fact, the moment the investment money faucet keeping them alive is turned off they collapse and very quickly.
No, it's a question answerable now. If you're losing twice as much money as you're making, the end of your company is an inescapable fact unless you turn that trend around.
What Zitron points out, correctly, is that there currently exists no narrative beyond wishful thinking which explains how that reversal will manifest.
I don't think he's right about everything. He is particularly weak at understanding underlying technology, as others have pointed out. But, perhaps by luck, he is right most of the time.
For example, he was the lone voice saying that despite all the posturing and media manipulation by Altman, that OpenAI's for-profit transformation would not work out, and certainly not by EOY2025. He was also the lone voice saying that "productivity gains from AI" were not clearly attributable to such, and are likely make-believe. He was right on both.
Perhaps you have forgotten these claims, or the claims about OpenAI's revenue from "agents" this year, or that they were going to raise ChatGPT's price to $44 per month. Altman and the world have seemingly memory-holed these claims and moved on to even more fantastical ones.
I am hypothesizing that for OpenAI to survive for longer than two years, it will have to (in no particular order):
- Successfully navigate a convoluted and onerous relationship with Microsoft, one that exists both as a lifeline and a direct source of competition.
- Raise more money than any startup has ever raised in history, and continue to do so at a pace totally unseen in the history of financing.
- Have a significant technological breakthrough such that it reduces the costs of building and operating GPT — or whatever model that succeeds it — by a factor of thousands of percent.
- Have such a significant technological breakthrough that GPT is able to take on entirely unseen new use cases, ones that are not currently possible or hypothesized as possible by any artificial intelligence researchers.
- Have these use cases be ones that are capable of both creating new jobs and entirely automating existing ones in such a way that it will validate the massive capital expenditures and infrastructural investment necessary to continue.
I ultimately believe that OpenAI in its current form is untenable. There is no path to profitability, the burn rate is too high, and generative AI as a technology requires too much energy for the power grid to sustain it, and training these models is equally untenable, both as a result of ongoing legal issues (as a result of theft) and the amount of training data necessary to develop them.
He is right about this too. They are doing #2 on this list.
Is he right on the AI stuff? Like, on the OpenAI company stuff he could be? I don't know? But on the technology? He really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
I generally don't agree with him on much; it's just nobody really talks about how much money those companies burn, and are expected to burn, in bigger perspective.
For me 10 billion, 100 billion and 1 trillion are all very abstract numbers - until you show much unreal 1 trillion is.
Attach your name to this publicly, and you're a clown. I don't know why the world started listening to clowns and taking them seriously, when their personas are crafted to be non-serious on purpose.
It's not invisible, because some people can see it. It is illegible because the leadership of a large company won't know how to interpret it. This particular usage of "illegible" has been around for awhile, but is probably best known from the book, "Seeing Like A State":
"Ordinary people—who watched their rent, groceries, and gas bills skyrocket—saw a profession more invested in protecting Democratic policy narratives than in telling the truth. The result is a self-inflicted torching of trust."
This post is ridiculously partisan. The head of the Fed was Republican, the majority of the Fed has always been Republican, the money-printing response to the Covid-19 pandemic began in 2020 when the President was a Republican, the majority of all economists are Republican, but somehow this writer blames this on Democrats? The result is a self-inflicted torching of trust.
citation for that please? quick Gemini work gives me the opposite so could you please back that up?
Federal Reserve Economists: A 2022 analysis of voter registration data found the ratio of Democrat to Republican economists at the Federal Reserve System to be 10.4 to 1.
American Economic Association (AEA) Members: Studies have found the D:R ratio among AEA members to be around 4:1 or 3.8:1.
Economics Faculty: One study reported that Democrats outnumber Republicans 4.5:1 among economics faculty at 40 leading universities.
General Survey of Economists: A 2003 survey of American Economic Association members found the voting ratio of Democrat to Republican to be 2.5:1.
Yep, I did one of my two majors in Econ, and from that my politics moved left. Single payer is more about better results for less money than "giving something away". The income multiplier, the additional circulation to money for the 12 months after it was received. For the bottom 60 % the money gets spent quickly and locally. Give extra to a multimillionaire they will be in much less of a hurry to spend it, and they often just buy and sell ecpensive things amongst their own class.
Isn't single payer just a cop-out? A way to allow government (and every economist hopes: they personally) to simple force outcomes on both medical providers and consumers?
Because that will destroy medical care rather than save it. Just look what's happening in Europe (the waiting lists, and the game of attempting to force neighboring countries to carry the costs of training medical personnel)
Medical care will always be limited in the real world, no matter the system. There's a bunch of possibilities:
Limiting what you can be treated for (EU)
Oh and this is horrible too. When the government is forced to implement limits such as this, they always carve out their own care as a special case (yes, Parlementarians and government officials have different, better, health care, especially when it comes to long-term care, coverage outside of your own country and emergencies. The UN has it's own system as well, for example), and they impose limits.
In Belgium there's a joke. There's 2 treatments in Belgium that are not like everything else when it comes to national health insurance: anorexia for teenagers and a certain congenital disease. They are covered despite it being a BIG negative in terms of money for the insurance/state. This is strange, it doesn't match what they "usually" do at all. Now one might go and check if what the daughter of the prime minister is in treatment for (she's a teenager). One might check what the daughter of 2 prime ministers back, French side, is in treatment for (she's much older, which is strange, given that given the particular congenital disease life expectation ... without gene treatment which is normally a no-no for the national insurance. Just look up "Baby Pia" to see how much they fight it normally). I resent identifying the patients involved to this degree, but obviously their family relation to currently in power politicians matters a whole lot in this case.
From everyone else "reasonableness" is required: for example moral limits. E.g. political decisions about organ replacement: no organ replacements allowed if you've been treated for drug addiction at any point in your life. No gene treatments, no matter how life-saving they will be. Strict (and quickly changing) limits to psychological care, as politically convenient at the time. Using changes in coverage to guarantee jobs. Etc.
Limiting how much is covered (US)
Basically you paid in X, you get < X back. Either it covers or it doesn't. Use whatever care you want. The US profit-driven system.
Which do you want?
In practice, of course, to some extent both systems are limited in both ways. You cannot get treatment for absolutely anything in the US, and you cannot really exceed what you pay in for coverage in the EU (you can, however, in both system get insurance to cover you not working for a decade). But the emphasis of the different systems is very different. Mostly the above classification is true.
What was pretty popular when it was available was medical care, limited to cheaper care. Making sure you get expertise when dealing with a broken leg or pregnancy or ... but for example explicitly excluding psychiatric problems (which are really expensive). However, this means the government has to provide a place to live for people who cannot live by themselves and so the government always insists this is included in private insurance. The problem, of course, is that it's both necessary for some people and easy to abuse to get long-term care without a job. Since the government doesn't want to pay for this largely but not entirely abuse of the system, they force it into the insurance.
Such a joke right? It's hard to find a good time to schedule most things if you are scheduled properly. My mom had some surgery were they said we aren't sure the day of your surgery but just in case be prepared. We'll let you know the night before, hope you are ready.
Also care speed isn't that bad in Europe, I went to a few clinics while I was there with short notice and didn't have any issues. Same as America honestly, the price difference though was way better though.
I did a couple economics degrees at a decent school in Canada in a conservative province and even there 80% of the people were left wing wackadoos so I call bs.
Worth noting this might be more indicative of the state of modern US politics than any bias within the profession. Science professions as a whole overwhelmingly skew Democrat, it's not hard to imagine why.
The problem is not with economists, running modern economy is kind of like managing a state-owned corporation that can't just drop the none-performative ones, there are going to be unsolvable ills, cycling between imperfect plausible solutions, and a necessary change of path or thinking is going to make a lot of people uncomfortable, everytime.
He should add “Economists confidently making wishful-thinking based proclamations without a shred of evidence or even a plausible logical path.“ to the list!
Chris Brunet is part of the Canadian turned American Alt-Right movement having been a worked at the Daily Caller and "The American Conservative" [0]. Sort of like a Canadian and less sharp Oren Cass, and basically the same ideological pipeline that created "Rebel News".
He attempted a pre-doc at UChicago but didn't stand out, and had similar issues at his other conservative employers along with his personality.
One of my buddies was his peer in the program at the time, and from down the grapevine, he was dismissed for some, let's say "academic issues". The reason he failed in his Econ career was for similar reasons a large number of Econ majors can't hack it - they lacked the mathematical and computational sophistication needed in modern Econ.
He was right to call out Christine Gay for academic fraud, but it's a bit of a "pot meet kettle" kind of situation given his academic background.
The stereotype of what Econ is in common parlance is what has become "Political Science" in 2025. To succeed in a modern top tier Econ or PoliSci program, you will need data science and mathematical chops comparable to a bachelors in Applied Math or CS (excluding the systems programming portion). Heck, Government students gunning for grad school back at Harvard tend to take mathematical Game Theory classes with proofs comparable to those taken by CS and Applied Math majors.
This wouldn't have been bad in the policy world (plenty of non-technical "economists" on both sides) but his personality has made the actual Alt-Right and the traditional conservative right both detest him based on my friend and alumni group. One of the other comments on this thread about applied versus think tank and journalist background does resonate to my personal experience to a certain extent.
> the majority of all economists are Republican
I'd disagree with that. The majority of economists ik who ended up in academia or industry are largely split evenly ideologically, but in action don't really care one way or the other. They tend to have a "show me the data" mentality.
On top of that, while UChicago is nowhere near as conservative as it was when Friedman roamed the earth, it's Econ and PoliSci departments are very open to heterodox thought and various conservative leaning Econ and PoliSci grads have come out of the program.
Why do you believe the alt-right was Canadian in origin? I was under the impression that it originated in the US.
Tangentially, none of them call themselves “alt-right” anymore; this label was imposed upon three disparate movements (techno-commercialists, ethno-nationalists, and theonomists), rather than one that emerged organically. It was never a particularly popular label on /pol/ or Frog Twitter, for example.
The money people are generally unconcerned with what they label themselves as. If anything, you are articulating the chameleon’s nature. That creature will masquerade as necessary.
Sound souls don’t go into certain professions. One doesn’t just go into porn, and one doesn’t just find themselves at the Federal Reserve. Your soul is already blasted before you head down these paths.
We never got soulful outputs from these professions because they are a void, no return.
Hilariously wrong to anyone who has spent any portion of their career working with actual economists. Every working economist is at the very least classic liberal/neo-liberal. It is the basis of the profession. Political economists don’t really exist now, even if they did they’d be liberal or anarcho/liberal. They worship in the church of free trade and unrestrained immigration. The most famous and influential media economists for those who are not familiar with economics or haven’t interacted with economists are people like Krugman and Robert Reich, or Larry Summers for the better educated. All deep blue democrats. Some economists may lean right and many tend to side against democrats but that’s because they all rightly fear government debt and socialism. They fear it less than tarrifs or tightened border security if you poll them. The most famous economist of all time is Marx!
Economists always do this shit. They talk about the unimpeded free market being some sort of saintly state of being, convince governments to implode themselves, everything goes to shit and… guess what? Apparently the economists had nothing to do with any of it?
Also, just calling the majority of economists 'Republican' doesn't explain it completely. The truth is that the Austrian School of Economics (Mises, Friedman, Hoppe) IS economics, and every single successful economist believes 100% in their gospel.
Friedman was not an Austrian. You are ignorant of basic facts. Austrians are fringe and have almost no influence within mainstream econ, and beyond that Austrians are closer to Chomsky than Burke.
If they have no influence, then why are they found in every single right-wing government as the architects of the new economic model?
Is Javier Milei not influential? Who or what is influential, then?
> Friedman was not an Austrian
Yeah, ok, he was from the Chicago school. Same shit to me. Whatever mental masturbation they dedicated themselves to is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is which policies they championed, influenced and implemented.
And they seem pretty indistinguishable from each other. At the end of the day, they all loved the holy and sanctimonious free market like a harsh but fair deity who would grind all the undeserving and the rabble into dust.
Stimulus was required at beginning to avoid a recession. Biden came in when economy was well recovering and overheated the economy, especially with his 2nd stimulus bill resulting in very high inflation
Trump's last stimulus package was on Dec 27th 2020 and Biden's inauguration was on January 20th 2021. The economy went from needing a stimulus package to "well recovering" in less than 30 days?
I have read that before the Industrial Revolution, most people faced famine for about 10% of their lives. And while, historically, that would have probably been concentrated into a few bad years during their lifetime (months of starvation, during a few bad years), if we were to generalize that and make it a rule, it would work out to 3 days a month.
There is some evidence that there are health benefits that are specific to the fasting mode. This has mostly been studied in the context of chemotherapy, where fasting can protect against some of the side-effects of chemotherapy:
Most of this has only been studied in animals, not humans, but in animals the results were clear:
"Fasting before chemotherapy (CT) was shown to protect healthy cells from treatment toxicity by reducing the expression of some oncogenes, such as RAS and the AKT signaling pathway [2]. This reduction is mediated by the decrease of circulating insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and glucose. In addition, starvation and calorie restriction activate other oncogenes in cancer cells, induce autophagy, and decrease cellular growth rates while increasing sensitivity to antimitotic drugs [2]."
If we assume that we have been shaped by millions of years of frequent famine, then our evolution has been shaped by famine. It is possible that our immune system simply makes the assumption that we will soon face famine, and therefore some important tasks, such as extreme autophagy, are normally postponed till the famine arrives. However, in the modern era the famine never arrives, and so we may have to induce it by artificial means.
I have experimented with very long fasts. My longest fast ever was in September of 2015 when I managed to go 12 straight days on nothing but water.
Obviously, any health benefits from that incident might have been psychosomatic, since I was expecting health benefits. But all the same, I did find some of the health benefits to be shocking and completely unexpected. Since at least 1995, and possibly 1990, I had a mole on my skin on my left arm. I wasn't worried about it, so I simply ignored it. I had it on my arm at least 20 years, maybe 25 years. I recall one morning in November of 2015 when I was in my kitchen, making breakfast, and I reached over to pour myself some coffee, and of course my arm was in my field of vision, and after a moment of thinking something was different, it occurred to me that the mole was gone. It had been there at least 20 years, and then it disappeared, at some point during the weeks after I had done the 12 day fast. I don't know when it disappeared, it just slowly faded away at some point between September and November. There was no remaining sign of it on my arm.
Again, that might have been purely psychosomatic, but it was interesting.
Admittedly a minor point of interest, but the last famine in England happened in 1623 and was local to an area called Westmorland [0]. That was 150 years before the Industrial Revolution, so the 10% figure might not be very reliable.
England was the first nation to escape from famine. A national market began to take shape shortly after the civil war, and the national market transformed traditional famine into a question of high prices. Jethro Tull began his experiments in 1701, and Charles Townsend began taking notes about fertilizer shortly afterwards, and when the public became aware of their work, the Agricultural Revolution began, and then, shortly afterwards, the Industrial Revolution. But obviously, most of the world continued to experience famine into the 1900s.
Braudel is the most famous of the historians from this school. His book “The Structures Of Everyday Life” established historiography on the basis of what ordinary people did in their ordinary lives: what they ate, what they wore, how they worked. And Braudel was building upon ideas already established by the founders of the Annales school. But this enormously influential group of historians were a constant source of inspiration to Christopher Hill, and I think shaped the way he wrote The World Turned Upside Down.
I recommend both Hill and Braudel, both pillars of my intellectual life.
Sadly, these tweaks don't address any of the more obvious oddities that people have with proportional representation in the legislature. While such a system won't necessarily end up with Dutch levels of weirdness, it is still possible:
If your source for "Dutch levels of weirdness" is just that article, then keep in mind that the VVD being "in power" meant that they were one of the parties in the government coalition. They have had to compromise with other parties through all of that time, and so it was not the case that those governments were only representative of a very small party of the electorate, as that article makes it sound.
(In my opinion, the Dutch system is one of the best implemented in practice, precisely because of its proportionality.)
this analysis of (mostly European) democracies is not based on some metric of how well the population is faring, oecd has some of those, but based on handpicked anecdata and peak examples.
the most massive political injustices, poor housing, health care, education, elderly care, affordable transportation, queer human rights, all of them despite high GDP, just to name a few quantifiable properties of a state... the worst digressions happen in FPTP systems currently.
also the article throws both hands in the air as if no mechanisms exist to further improve democracies. it doesn't mention popular vote, or some mechanisms for balance of freedom of speech vs freedom to slander and distort and lie ("hate speech", the word polemics has 'polemos', war, as root), or press codex, or application thereof on all media, including "social" media, ad engines made of letters to the editor largely left alone and unmoderated... nor does it mention panachage and cumulating of votes on lists, the right to adjust the party list proposals in the voting booth.
the article does mention the brazen influence of financial power as a problem though.
but really, proportional representation is part of the solution.
That didn't really make sense. On the one hand, the author complains that proportional elections favor a limited number of parties, which don't always give voters good options to choose from. And on the other hand, the winner usually doesn't get the majority of seats, forcing them to negotiate with other parties instead of governing unilaterally.
Then there the focus on the left vs. the right, which is no longer as relevant as it used to be during the cold war. If you choose a single faction (such as the left, conservatives, or environmentalists), that specific faction is almost always smaller than everyone else combined. When there are multiple major issues instead of a single overarching question, political divisions become more nuanced than simple X vs. not-X.
That https://character.ai is so enormously popular with people who are under the age of 25 suggests that this is the future. And Meta is certainly looking at https://character.ai with great interest, but also with concern. https://character.ai represents a threat to Meta.
Years ago, when Meta felt that Instagram was a threat, they bought Instagram.
If they don't think they can buy https://character.ai then they need to develop their own version of it.