I think my topline summary of all of this is that "follow the money" remains the only reliable directive toward understanding how things got to where they are and where they're probably going. Berners-Lee is sort of sidelined because what he's doing doesn't stand to make any dude (or any small group of dudes) a metric ton of money. Dystopian narratives about the future dominate because they center the path of least resistance with respect to how things will go if/when making a small group of dudes a metric ton of money is the core driver. And the conversation around generative AI is sort of frustrating/scary/disorienting because while AI will likely make some things more convenient and maybe even, in some cases, more creative, we can be confident that all of that will be around the margins of use cases and a regulatory/policy environment that enables... a few dudes to make a metric ton of money.
This was a very interesting read! I think there's even an interesting parallel to be made with the rise of VCs/sidelining of technical people, and the reduced ideology and influence of communities like those around WIRED like you pointed out at the end.
When you say the old WIRED community, from the WELL-era, is gone, that reads as part of the same phenomenon -- the sidelining and reduction of technical people (around a media outlet) who were doing a lot of public agenda-setting and were far from perfect, but at least less sinister than the VC community that came after (paraphrasing your point a bit).
I wonder if there might be a modern analogue to such communities or media outlets? Or maybe with the fragmentation of online culture and dwindling trust, media outlets are just too irrelevant now and having an ideology/community around them is just not possible?
He didn't get into a ton of detailed use-cases, but I'd offer two broad areas that aren't media or mass-facing:
-Any processes that *already* rely heavily on machine learning. (I'll be writing a full essay about this in a few weeks, actually. Seems to me this has been the one under-the-radar area where LLMs have lived up to their potential in the past year.)
-Material science+drug discovery. I'm not sure if this will pan out. But it certainly might. And that's the type of low-probability/high-reward bet that VC is actually *supposed* to be good for.
I think my topline summary of all of this is that "follow the money" remains the only reliable directive toward understanding how things got to where they are and where they're probably going. Berners-Lee is sort of sidelined because what he's doing doesn't stand to make any dude (or any small group of dudes) a metric ton of money. Dystopian narratives about the future dominate because they center the path of least resistance with respect to how things will go if/when making a small group of dudes a metric ton of money is the core driver. And the conversation around generative AI is sort of frustrating/scary/disorienting because while AI will likely make some things more convenient and maybe even, in some cases, more creative, we can be confident that all of that will be around the margins of use cases and a regulatory/policy environment that enables... a few dudes to make a metric ton of money.
100%.
This was a very interesting read! I think there's even an interesting parallel to be made with the rise of VCs/sidelining of technical people, and the reduced ideology and influence of communities like those around WIRED like you pointed out at the end.
When you say the old WIRED community, from the WELL-era, is gone, that reads as part of the same phenomenon -- the sidelining and reduction of technical people (around a media outlet) who were doing a lot of public agenda-setting and were far from perfect, but at least less sinister than the VC community that came after (paraphrasing your point a bit).
I wonder if there might be a modern analogue to such communities or media outlets? Or maybe with the fragmentation of online culture and dwindling trust, media outlets are just too irrelevant now and having an ideology/community around them is just not possible?
"three ponzi schemes in a trenchcoat" made my day.
Thanks. This is good to read. I'm looking forward to the deeper dive you referred to.
Question: Was the discussion involving Masnick and the lawyers about the Fairness Doctrine or the Fair Use doctrine? The latter is about copyright.
FML. That's so embarrassing. Yes, I meant Fair Use. My wife is a media lawyer. It'll be awhile before I live this one down.
Came here to say that!
VC's are still chasing payment start-ups around the globe and spreading their money between these small bets and big B to B banking solutions.
There's so many directions of investments happening with AI really coming from biggest and selective players...
He didn't get into a ton of detailed use-cases, but I'd offer two broad areas that aren't media or mass-facing:
-Any processes that *already* rely heavily on machine learning. (I'll be writing a full essay about this in a few weeks, actually. Seems to me this has been the one under-the-radar area where LLMs have lived up to their potential in the past year.)
-Material science+drug discovery. I'm not sure if this will pan out. But it certainly might. And that's the type of low-probability/high-reward bet that VC is actually *supposed* to be good for.