this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
449 points (99.8% liked)
Technology
59152 readers
2212 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
American capitalism no longer innovates. It now only stifles competition through patent abuse, regulations that make market entry difficult to impossible and domination of market resources. If all of that fails then they buy the competition and increase prices before repeating the whole cycle all over again.
This is why my digital art pipeline is FOSS at every turn. I dropped like $300 for Substance Designer / Painter's indie license. I was so excited to learn it.
...and then it got "rolled into the AdObE FaMiLy" and is subscription-only (right after they promised angry users they would do no such thing and we didn't believe it for a second) and now it's mega bloated "iNdUsTrY StAnDaRd" lock-in-ware like the rest.
So I basically just learned my lesson about commercial software rug-pulls.
As a counter example there are fields like machine learning where there is a lot of “capitalist” innovation
How is that a counter example? The same 3 - 5 corporations are still in control.
They can and they do innovate regardless of how much you might dislike them.
A barely useful autocomplete bot that runs on crowd sourced data that doesnt learn but gets filtered to be slightly more useful ks such a lame idea of innovation. It might be slightly useful over time but its definitely being overblown to separate morons from their hoarded wealth
if it's so useless why have you not created a similar sham to get billions in funding? is word2vec and similar breakthroughs also non-innovative or shams in your views?
Cause even if i came up with the scam i dont have the people to invest in it to make it worth billions? You need the gamblers with money already to be willing to hand it over.
Scientology didnt come out of nowhere. The creator was already a best selling author. You need the rubes before you can have the successful scam. Also because i dont have the drive and just want to live my life not dealing with that many people and wearing a mask forever.
And wait is word2vec just basically doing basic word association inside of thw already hugely associated word base to find common replacements inside word context? Dude.... You could just have a lookup table of synonyms. Its just extra processing power for the sake of extra processing power. Its like people forgot to do things smartly and just show off how they can brute force laziness
ok, I don't see why you could not create something "useless" if that's all you need to get funding... openAI didn't have microsoft. startups that have "useless" ideas don't "have people" either. they have innnovations (or useless ideas according to you) . Most people with an opinion on the topic should be able to understand the value of word2vec and form an opinion on the vailidty of your perspective.
Sam Altman was a college dropout who got $30 million in startup funds for his first app that failed and only went on to sell it for more than he raised for it. OpenAI wasnt founded in a vacuum he was already a former ceo 3 times over by the time he was handed the position for working at the investment group that had the money funding OpenAI. Of course they want it to sound revolutionary because they want to make their money back on the investment.
You are ignoring the whole, Rich people with networked contacts, part of the argument that i literally said last comment. Start-ups absolutely have people. That's how they succeed is people with networking.
And then you conclude without stating your own opinion but that of the conglomerate of indoctrination. You are sold on the church of AI. And the idea is oversold.
ClosedAI didn’t invent word2vec. There are so many examples of innovation being driven or enabled by capitalism that it’s really strange that people assert capitalism cannot innovate and when given examples they reject then. Are mrna vaccines also useless?
Holy crap you keep changing the subject. You said GPT was the innovation then word2vec now mRNA. I'm simply calling out that the "AI" you held up as innovative is just a fancy auto complete that relies on cheap labor to actually make it work behind the curtain. I didnt say word2vec was made by anyone just not that useful.
And also science is not driven by capitalist needs of a hot subject like AI but on actual real world usefulness. Those advanced vaccination processes have been worked on by any and every government ever to help keep their populace healthy as long as they have the means. It isnt capitalism to want to save lives but it is to try and pretend your search engine is better now and help your partners sell bigger computer equipment.
You are so transparent, and just as substantial as mist. You have no base other than what you need to win an argument. You waver on your points and dont hold any value to your own words. Talking to you is like talking to an AI bot. Pointless. You only get basic thought that can only regurgitate what it already has been told. You lack context and comprehension.
you keep changing the subject. the claim is that "capitalism cannot innovate" I give clear obvious examples and you keep rejecting them on the basis of your lack of understanding on the topic. i.e. you say word2vec is useless or somehow related to openAI. the vaccines might be more in your domain knowledge since you didn't call them useless and try to confuse the topic. I'm not here to educate you so if you use ignorance as an argument I'm just going to point it out and move on.
to claim that you can't have innovation with capitalism anymore is not even related to claiming that you need capitalism to innovate. are you really that extremist in your reasoning? it's either completely useless or absolutely required?
I guess i should not waste my time with you and you can keep your loser/doomer mentality.
I mean, yeah. A broken clock is right twice a day.
Which I know doesn't exactly equate to the current situation, but do remember that the point of capitalism isn't innovation: it's earning the most amount of money.
Innovation is just a happy little coincidence thanks to competition in a fair market.
When AMD was down in the gutter, Intel was just fine making token "innovation" in the CPU market while mostly taking it easy on the RnD while raking it in. Something they, eventually, got gotten for by AMD and more recently Apple silicon. But now, let's say, Intel was allowed to buy AMD... Maybe Apple still would've switched to their own designs eventually, but PC's undoubtedly would still be stuck on 4, maybe 6 cores.
Monopolies are the anthesis of innovation, and monopolies are what corporations will move towards without adequate regulation.
I was responding to the claim that “capitalism cannot innovate “ i am aware that innovation generally is not the goal but that is not the point i am contesting.
the claim is that American capitalism no longer innovates
innovation is not going bankrupt and clearing the way for another company. control and innovation are not even remotely close.
Lol that lasted long..
Did someone manage to uninvent LLMs and the innovations that came shortly before like transformers? EDIT: ah i see that people are gatekeeping the innovations. so are attention networks also "barely useful"? if so why aren't you guys improving upon it or creating another sham if it's so meaningless and just smoke you should be able to get a billion in investments.