6 ms·

I can't help but think Andreesen's gone off the deep end a bit, especially after he started gushing over Adam Neumann's second run at a real estate company (“We

I can't help but think Andreesen's gone off the deep end a bit, especially after he started gushing over Adam Neumann's second run at a real estate company (“We think it is natural that for his first venture since WeWork, Adam returns to the theme of connecting people through transforming their physical spaces and building communities where people spend the most time: their homes.”). > AI is simply already illegal across most of the economy, soon to be virtually all of the economy. This just isn't true - AI won't necessarily be a product in the sectors he's talking about, but it'll absolutely improve them. Hospital services? AI is clearly going to be involved, at least in things like radiology. College tuition? I suppose that depends on how much the value of higher education remains in scarce brand names vs. education, but clearly AI is going to open up educational opportunities in a way that brings the costs way down. And then AI will eventually (and to be clear, it might be a while) get us to general-purpose robots. He says "Those industries are monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels, with extensive formal government regulation as well as regulatory capture, price fixing, Soviet style price setting, occupational licensing, and every other barrier to improvement and change you can possibly imagine." but in an industry like construction, if you accept what he's saying, all of that control is in the hands of the rich folks at the top. What he's suggesting is that they'll protect the jobs of construction workers when they can replace them with cheaper, more efficient robots who are exempt from safety standards.

phillipcarter 4y ago
Yeah, his whole post is thinly veiled anti-regulations blather. I suppose it’s a nice break from his web3 nonsense and his deranged anti-“woke” posting.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- James_Henry 4y ago
  I missed the veil.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- whitemary 4y ago
  The best part of capitalism is “the cream floats to the top.”
- john_the_writer 4y ago
  Got to admit, the break from web3 was nice.
BWStearns 4y ago
Something snapped in him when crypto shit the bed. His new obsession with AI is him working some stuff out.
- outside1234 4y ago
  These guys will pitch whatever sells to the gullible.
  - James_Henry 4y ago
    Just whatever sells. Sometimes they pitch something we all want.
- James_Henry 4y ago
  It's because he stopped drinking recently. https://pmarca.substack.com/p/on-pausing-alcohol https://pmarca.substack.com/p/on-pausing-alcohol (In all seriousness, I'm very happy it's becoming more fashionable to not drink)
  - EFreethought 4y ago
    It is not fashionable to not drink. What is fashionable: to drink a lot for many years, then stop drinking and blather on about how much better life is.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - TechnicolorByte 4y ago
      This rings so true. It seems socially acceptable to either be a regular social drinker or a renounced drinker.
    - harvey9 4y ago
      I'm bored by the blatherers too, but there is survey data to indicate younger people drinking less than earlier generations. Might just be drink being less affordable, or other drugs being more affordable rather than a fashion decision
twelve40 4y ago
I have no special love for this guy as he said some stuff that pissed me off in the past, but what is your specific argument against this post right here? > Hospital services? AI is clearly going to be involved, at least in things like radiology This is very far from the main point: accuracy of the claim that AI will wipe out (in this case health-related) jobs (and/or make health-related services cheaper). "involved" here is so vague as to be meaningless. > clearly AI is going to open up educational opportunities in a way that brings the costs way down It may be crystal clear to you that AI will bring the cost of popular education down, but it is not clear to me at all, and adding "clearly" and "obviously" to some future claim does not make it any more convincing. He's trying to work with existing trends and data, you are saying "clearly the trend will reverse just because". I realize the original post was written by somebody who has a reputation for saying one thing and doing something completely different, etc. etc.
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  > This is very far from the main point: accuracy of the claim that AI will wipe out (in this case health-related) jobs (and/or make health-related services cheaper). "involved" here is so vague as to be meaningless. Let me rephrase: AI is better at human beings at the sort of pattern-matching work that radiology entails, so the majority of radiologists will be unemployed (I'll say in 20 years, if you want to check back down the line a bit and see how I did). This will both improve patient outcomes (fewer mistakes) and lower costs. Some radiologists will remain in supervisory/research/needing to have a human to rubber stamp type roles. > It may be crystal clear to you that AI will bring the cost of popular education down, but it is not clear to me at all, and adding "clearly" and "obviously" to some future claim does not make it any more convincing. He's trying to work with existing trends and data, you are saying "clearly the trend will reverse just because". I'm not saying anything "just because." I'm saying that technological changes in the form of AI will cause the trend to change, as technological changes have caused numerous economic upheavals. Nonetheless, I will be more specific - AI will give everyone a completely knowledgeable, fully personalized tutor. It will be able to very specifically identify places where a student is having difficulty and create custom exercises that are tailored to not only the subject, but also the student's optimal methods of learning. It will be able to custom tailor curriculum to fit a student's specific knowledge and career goals. The relative inefficiency of the large-scale lecture model of higher education will be so significant that the value it'll retain will just lie in the brand cache of the institute of higher learning (effectively, you passed the Stanford admissions AI's muster, so you're smart).
elevenoh 4y ago
[dead]
jillesvangurp 4y ago
You are not wrong. This is what I would call a severe imagination deficit. Which is of course not a great trait for a venture capitalist. Andreesen is framing things in a very US centric context. Which of course represents the status quo there and the way things are; mostly for historic reasons. That's going to change for two simple reasons. Number 1 would be that it is sub optimal to say the least. It's simply not sustainable. And number 2 is that this is not the way things are elsewhere and the US is in competition with those places. Andreesen is making a closed world assumption and navel gazing. Failing to adapt basically means a slide towards being less relevant, less competitive, etc. Which is of course another way of saying that change is inevitably coming. Whether people like it or not and whether they are ready for it or not. Eventually the economy would collapse and people would adapt. But probably some time before that people will get a clue and start fixing things. Either way, things change. So predicting that things won't, shouldn't or can't change is a foolish prediction to make. If you want a concrete example of a few places that aren't going to be held back by regulation and bureaucracy: China, India, most of Africa. They have bureaucracies of course but they are also booming economies and very much making the difference via technology. People are going to push boundaries with what is possible technically and some places are going to be more comfortable doing that than others. Ultimately, the willingness to push boundaries is what will lead to breakthrough results. If the US is not willing, too complacent, or too scared, that just means it happens elsewhere. All this is true regardless of AI. But of course given that we have that, people are going to use that in anger for all sorts of things. Some misguided, some foolish, and some very productive and practical. Andreesen is arguing that flat panels are cheap and education is expensive. Flat panels are cheap because they are not made in the US and the production of those is not bogged down by how inefficient things have become in the US. For the same reason, you are better off getting your education outside of the US. Education is more or less free in other parts of the world. It's only this expensive in the US. Probably silicon valley is the worst place in the world to get one in terms of economics. Which is why a lot of the people working there are coming from abroad. Which is where they get most of their education. Probably education is at the forefront of what AI can do short term btw. I've played a bit with chat gpt and it's an obviously awesome educational tool. It's like this patient tutor that is willing to explore any subject and answer any question. It might be a bit off with the facts and all the bat shit crazy hallucination. But that sounds like it should be a fixable problem. Once that is fixed, there will be no shortage of teachers any more. Anyone willing to learn will be able to learn and receive an education that is completely tailored to them. Anything, anyone, anywhere. Kids are using chat gpt already to fool their teachers. The next logical step is replacing them entirely. That's not going to take a lot of time. And it won't cost anywhere near a million dollars.
unmole 4y ago
> I can't help but think Andreesen's gone off the deep end a bit The first time I heard of him was in 2016: https://www.fastcompany.com/3056581/marc-andreessen-riles-up-twitter-after-defending-colonialism-in-india https://www.fastcompany.com/3056581/marc-andreessen-riles-up... As far as I'm concerned, he's always been kooky.
- kragen 4y ago
  he led the mosaic project at ncsa, creating the first web browser most people today would recognize as a browser, with things like images mixed in with text then he went off and founded netscape, creating the dot-com boom since then he's mostly been running a successful vc firm so yeah he's always been 'kooky'
  - afunctionof 4y ago
    Copying comment from earlier thread because I sent it two days after thread: You should add your Matrix to your contact page. Edit: Also, is there going to be another der* release this year? They and therefore you have taught me more than I'd learned in the last five years otherwise.
    - kragen 4y ago
      wow, that's astonishing and wonderful to hear, thank you i hope the things you learned from them were mostly true i was planning to do one in december but i felt like i didn't have much material because i had a pretty unproductive year in 02022, and i'm increasingly dissatisfied with the medium you're right about matrix
  - unmole 4y ago
    Is there some definition of kooky that precludes someone from being brilliant?
    - kragen 4y ago
      i don't think you can be brilliant without being kooky; if all you know is consensus reality you can never reach any conclusions before consensus reality does
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
> but in an industry like construction, if you accept what he's saying, all of that control is in the hands of the rich folks at the top. What he's suggesting is that they'll protect the jobs of construction workers when they can replace them with cheaper, more efficient robots who are exempt from safety standards. That doesn't follow, particularly in construction. There are many regulations that require something which is nominally better but is a trade off against cost, making the lower cost alternative unavailable. Much of that increase goes to the construction contractors as labor costs or markups on more expensive materials, so it's their unions and trade organizations lobbying in favor of the cost increase. The regulatory capture is by the construction workers. They're also aligned with anyone who wants housing costs to stay high, including realtors and real estate investors. So yes, the rich folks at the top will protect the jobs of the construction workers when the high construction costs help them keep rents high.

phillipcarter 4y ago

Yeah, his whole post is thinly veiled anti-regulations blather. I suppose it’s a nice break from his web3 nonsense and his deranged anti-“woke” posting.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
James_Henry 4y ago
I missed the veil.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
whitemary 4y ago
The best part of capitalism is “the cream floats to the top.”
john_the_writer 4y ago
Got to admit, the break from web3 was nice.

BWStearns 4y ago

Something snapped in him when crypto shit the bed. His new obsession with AI is him working some stuff out.

outside1234 4y ago
These guys will pitch whatever sells to the gullible.
- James_Henry 4y ago
  Just whatever sells. Sometimes they pitch something we all want.
James_Henry 4y ago
It's because he stopped drinking recently. https://pmarca.substack.com/p/on-pausing-alcohol https://pmarca.substack.com/p/on-pausing-alcohol (In all seriousness, I'm very happy it's becoming more fashionable to not drink)
- EFreethought 4y ago
  It is not fashionable to not drink. What is fashionable: to drink a lot for many years, then stop drinking and blather on about how much better life is.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TechnicolorByte 4y ago
    This rings so true. It seems socially acceptable to either be a regular social drinker or a renounced drinker.
  - harvey9 4y ago
    I'm bored by the blatherers too, but there is survey data to indicate younger people drinking less than earlier generations. Might just be drink being less affordable, or other drugs being more affordable rather than a fashion decision

twelve40 4y ago

I have no special love for this guy as he said some stuff that pissed me off in the past, but what is your specific argument against this post right here? > Hospital services? AI is clearly going to be involved, at least in things like radiology This is very far from the main point: accuracy of the claim that AI will wipe out (in this case health-related) jobs (and/or make health-related services cheaper). "involved" here is so vague as to be meaningless. > clearly AI is going to open up educational opportunities in a way that brings the costs way down It may be crystal clear to you that AI will bring the cost of popular education down, but it is not clear to me at all, and adding "clearly" and "obviously" to some future claim does not make it any more convincing. He's trying to work with existing trends and data, you are saying "clearly the trend will reverse just because". I realize the original post was written by somebody who has a reputation for saying one thing and doing something completely different, etc. etc.

idopmstuff 4y ago
> This is very far from the main point: accuracy of the claim that AI will wipe out (in this case health-related) jobs (and/or make health-related services cheaper). "involved" here is so vague as to be meaningless. Let me rephrase: AI is better at human beings at the sort of pattern-matching work that radiology entails, so the majority of radiologists will be unemployed (I'll say in 20 years, if you want to check back down the line a bit and see how I did). This will both improve patient outcomes (fewer mistakes) and lower costs. Some radiologists will remain in supervisory/research/needing to have a human to rubber stamp type roles. > It may be crystal clear to you that AI will bring the cost of popular education down, but it is not clear to me at all, and adding "clearly" and "obviously" to some future claim does not make it any more convincing. He's trying to work with existing trends and data, you are saying "clearly the trend will reverse just because". I'm not saying anything "just because." I'm saying that technological changes in the form of AI will cause the trend to change, as technological changes have caused numerous economic upheavals. Nonetheless, I will be more specific - AI will give everyone a completely knowledgeable, fully personalized tutor. It will be able to very specifically identify places where a student is having difficulty and create custom exercises that are tailored to not only the subject, but also the student's optimal methods of learning. It will be able to custom tailor curriculum to fit a student's specific knowledge and career goals. The relative inefficiency of the large-scale lecture model of higher education will be so significant that the value it'll retain will just lie in the brand cache of the institute of higher learning (effectively, you passed the Stanford admissions AI's muster, so you're smart).

elevenoh 4y ago

[dead]

jillesvangurp 4y ago

You are not wrong. This is what I would call a severe imagination deficit. Which is of course not a great trait for a venture capitalist. Andreesen is framing things in a very US centric context. Which of course represents the status quo there and the way things are; mostly for historic reasons. That's going to change for two simple reasons. Number 1 would be that it is sub optimal to say the least. It's simply not sustainable. And number 2 is that this is not the way things are elsewhere and the US is in competition with those places. Andreesen is making a closed world assumption and navel gazing. Failing to adapt basically means a slide towards being less relevant, less competitive, etc. Which is of course another way of saying that change is inevitably coming. Whether people like it or not and whether they are ready for it or not. Eventually the economy would collapse and people would adapt. But probably some time before that people will get a clue and start fixing things. Either way, things change. So predicting that things won't, shouldn't or can't change is a foolish prediction to make. If you want a concrete example of a few places that aren't going to be held back by regulation and bureaucracy: China, India, most of Africa. They have bureaucracies of course but they are also booming economies and very much making the difference via technology. People are going to push boundaries with what is possible technically and some places are going to be more comfortable doing that than others. Ultimately, the willingness to push boundaries is what will lead to breakthrough results. If the US is not willing, too complacent, or too scared, that just means it happens elsewhere. All this is true regardless of AI. But of course given that we have that, people are going to use that in anger for all sorts of things. Some misguided, some foolish, and some very productive and practical. Andreesen is arguing that flat panels are cheap and education is expensive. Flat panels are cheap because they are not made in the US and the production of those is not bogged down by how inefficient things have become in the US. For the same reason, you are better off getting your education outside of the US. Education is more or less free in other parts of the world. It's only this expensive in the US. Probably silicon valley is the worst place in the world to get one in terms of economics. Which is why a lot of the people working there are coming from abroad. Which is where they get most of their education. Probably education is at the forefront of what AI can do short term btw. I've played a bit with chat gpt and it's an obviously awesome educational tool. It's like this patient tutor that is willing to explore any subject and answer any question. It might be a bit off with the facts and all the bat shit crazy hallucination. But that sounds like it should be a fixable problem. Once that is fixed, there will be no shortage of teachers any more. Anyone willing to learn will be able to learn and receive an education that is completely tailored to them. Anything, anyone, anywhere. Kids are using chat gpt already to fool their teachers. The next logical step is replacing them entirely. That's not going to take a lot of time. And it won't cost anywhere near a million dollars.

unmole 4y ago

> I can't help but think Andreesen's gone off the deep end a bit The first time I heard of him was in 2016: https://www.fastcompany.com/3056581/marc-andreessen-riles-up-twitter-after-defending-colonialism-in-india https://www.fastcompany.com/3056581/marc-andreessen-riles-up... As far as I'm concerned, he's always been kooky.

kragen 4y ago
he led the mosaic project at ncsa, creating the first web browser most people today would recognize as a browser, with things like images mixed in with text then he went off and founded netscape, creating the dot-com boom since then he's mostly been running a successful vc firm so yeah he's always been 'kooky'
- afunctionof 4y ago
  Copying comment from earlier thread because I sent it two days after thread: You should add your Matrix to your contact page. Edit: Also, is there going to be another der* release this year? They and therefore you have taught me more than I'd learned in the last five years otherwise.
  - kragen 4y ago
    wow, that's astonishing and wonderful to hear, thank you i hope the things you learned from them were mostly true i was planning to do one in december but i felt like i didn't have much material because i had a pretty unproductive year in 02022, and i'm increasingly dissatisfied with the medium you're right about matrix
- unmole 4y ago
  Is there some definition of kooky that precludes someone from being brilliant?
  - kragen 4y ago
    i don't think you can be brilliant without being kooky; if all you know is consensus reality you can never reach any conclusions before consensus reality does

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

> but in an industry like construction, if you accept what he's saying, all of that control is in the hands of the rich folks at the top. What he's suggesting is that they'll protect the jobs of construction workers when they can replace them with cheaper, more efficient robots who are exempt from safety standards. That doesn't follow, particularly in construction. There are many regulations that require something which is nominally better but is a trade off against cost, making the lower cost alternative unavailable. Much of that increase goes to the construction contractors as labor costs or markups on more expensive materials, so it's their unions and trade organizations lobbying in favor of the cost increase. The regulatory capture is by the construction workers. They're also aligned with anyone who wants housing costs to stay high, including realtors and real estate investors. So yes, the rich folks at the top will protect the jobs of the construction workers when the high construction costs help them keep rents high.