10 ms·

> Also OpenAI in no way has a monopoly of the kind that Visa/MC has. I think this is misreading how literal the comparison is meant to be; Sherwood's running a

> Also OpenAI in no way has a monopoly of the kind that Visa/MC has. I think this is misreading how literal the comparison is meant to be; Sherwood's running a bunch of "OpenAI is X" articles today. This is not about the massive duopoly which has been catastrophic for US payments, but about the way companies entrench themselves. > Doesn't explain what regulations Visa pushed for and got which helped it maintain its monopoly. Those details are in the linked WSJ article; https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/visa-wanted-a-vast-empire-first-it-had-to-beat-back-its-foes-3b3067f3 https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/visa-wanted-a-vast-empir... > but doesn't really present any evidence to support it. The main points of concern are mentioned; OpenAI is pushing for "AI regulation" that focusses on the nebulous "doomsday"/skynet scenarios, rather than any of the material harms of AI. The subtext of that is a straightforward "you should ban anyone else building AI because only we can do it safely". Similarly, OpenAI demanding it's investors not fund competitors is pretty ridiculous and explicitly trying to establish a monopoly.

naniwaduni 2y ago
> I think this is misreading how literal the comparison is meant to be; Sherwood's running a bunch of "OpenAI is X" articles today. This is ... a useful piece of information with which to update our credulity of the narrative these articles are trying to present.
- mining 2y ago
  https://sherwood.news/tech/what-companys-past-reveals-the-future-of-openai/ https://sherwood.news/tech/what-companys-past-reveals-the-fu... provides more context as to what the articles are trying to achieve.
  - Gravityloss 2y ago
    That's actually a nice way to write. Nobody knows for real what is going to happen. It's so frustrating to see a writer chase down one narrow narrative and cherry pick anecdotes etc. Understanding what just happened is often more complex. And the future is even more open.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> Those details are in the linked WSJ article; https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/visa-wanted-a-vast-empir https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/visa-wanted-a-vast-empir... if you're trying to make a point in an article, summarize your evidence rather than link to a paywalled article that your readers may not be able to access
jncfhnb 2y ago
The duopoly isn’t really as problematic as the concept itself. Credit cards, where customers are bribed to insert a middleman into all transactions and suppliers are largely powerless to refuse it; are a plague. The switching costs of a consumer to a different credit card are small. The switching cost of a business saying they no longer allow certain payment types is potentially very painful.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Credit cards are probably the most consumer friendly innovation ever — a product of the time they were developed. It was an era when the federal government functioned and the credit card operations were so problematic a heavy hand was required. Every supposedly better alternative adds margin for the supplier, increases the risk of fraud, and leaves the user with poor recourse due to the lack govnerment regulation. Adding a 3% overhead is cheap for the value. Let the suppliers be squeezed - it’s tiny for big merchants and the little ones are bitching because they’d rather lose sales than pay taxes.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    If they provide that much value to consumers intrinsically, then why are banks paying the same consumers to use them? I completely agree that credit (and just as much, if not more, debit) cards are an incredibly useful invention and great accelerator for online commerce. I don't know of any other way of paying a merchant I know next to nothing of that will allow me to get my money back if they do not deliver on their side of the contract. But at the same time, the price discovery mechanisms for what exact value they provide (and who, i.e. the networks or the issuing banks, and to whom!) are next to nonexistent. In an efficient market, credit card cashback would not be a thing, for example. You could argue that that doesn't matter, that the status quo is good enough, but that's what people used to say about incumbent phone companies as well. The EU just demonstrated that an alternative is very possible (at least on the interchange side, which is the bulk of what merchants pay).
    - dangus 2y ago
      I think you're missing the point here a little bit. To break this down more simply: Credit cards: Merchants pay 3% and pass the cost on to the customer, IRS gets the vast majority of business taxes paid (no way to under-report taxable income), average person gets all the benefits of a fully funded government plus 1-2% of their purchase back in credit card rewards. Average person also gets a revolving credit line with okay-ish interest rates considering how no collateral is needed and approval is instant. Cash: Merchants broadly and easily commit tax fraud and under-report earnings, average person then has to pay a higher tax rate to overcome the tax fraud rates and get the same government services in return, merchant still pays something similar to or higher than 3% in transaction costs to handle cash (shrinkage (employees stealing, miscounting, lost cash), physical storage, movement, and processing, armored truck service, etc) and passes those costs on to the customer. Customers have no access to revolving credit which is totally fine but before credit cards people would resort to much more poorly regulated/higher interest/illegal sources of short term loans. I would also point out that debit card swipe fees are already regulated to under 1% and have many of the same benefits as credit cards.
hdbbd 2y ago
Well Companies are told to show either profit or growth every 3 months. That sets up where the story goes. So we have everyone from Starbucks to McD to AT&T to Comcast to Walmart to Amazon to Netflix to Disney etc etc all trying to pull that off even as Incomes dont grow globally other than in small pockets of the world which are over targeted and over fished. Its very hard to correct these kind of runaway processes cuz "everyone is doing it" and everyone doesnt know hpw to do anything else.
robertlagrant 2y ago
> I think this is misreading how literal the comparison is meant to be Agreed. When articles do this they want you to directly emotionally associate the two things, without having to provide intellectual evidence. I don't think that's very defensible.
- EnnEmmEss 2y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42518753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42518753 gives more context and is relevant I feel
mnky9800n 2y ago
Think if Walmart told its shareholders that they were banned from owning Costco stock.

naniwaduni 2y ago

> I think this is misreading how literal the comparison is meant to be; Sherwood's running a bunch of "OpenAI is X" articles today. This is ... a useful piece of information with which to update our credulity of the narrative these articles are trying to present.

mining 2y ago
https://sherwood.news/tech/what-companys-past-reveals-the-future-of-openai/ https://sherwood.news/tech/what-companys-past-reveals-the-fu... provides more context as to what the articles are trying to achieve.
- Gravityloss 2y ago
  That's actually a nice way to write. Nobody knows for real what is going to happen. It's so frustrating to see a writer chase down one narrow narrative and cherry pick anecdotes etc. Understanding what just happened is often more complex. And the future is even more open.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> Those details are in the linked WSJ article; https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/visa-wanted-a-vast-empir https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/visa-wanted-a-vast-empir... if you're trying to make a point in an article, summarize your evidence rather than link to a paywalled article that your readers may not be able to access

jncfhnb 2y ago

The duopoly isn’t really as problematic as the concept itself. Credit cards, where customers are bribed to insert a middleman into all transactions and suppliers are largely powerless to refuse it; are a plague. The switching costs of a consumer to a different credit card are small. The switching cost of a business saying they no longer allow certain payment types is potentially very painful.

Spooky23 2y ago
Credit cards are probably the most consumer friendly innovation ever — a product of the time they were developed. It was an era when the federal government functioned and the credit card operations were so problematic a heavy hand was required. Every supposedly better alternative adds margin for the supplier, increases the risk of fraud, and leaves the user with poor recourse due to the lack govnerment regulation. Adding a 3% overhead is cheap for the value. Let the suppliers be squeezed - it’s tiny for big merchants and the little ones are bitching because they’d rather lose sales than pay taxes.
- lxgr 2y ago
  If they provide that much value to consumers intrinsically, then why are banks paying the same consumers to use them? I completely agree that credit (and just as much, if not more, debit) cards are an incredibly useful invention and great accelerator for online commerce. I don't know of any other way of paying a merchant I know next to nothing of that will allow me to get my money back if they do not deliver on their side of the contract. But at the same time, the price discovery mechanisms for what exact value they provide (and who, i.e. the networks or the issuing banks, and to whom!) are next to nonexistent. In an efficient market, credit card cashback would not be a thing, for example. You could argue that that doesn't matter, that the status quo is good enough, but that's what people used to say about incumbent phone companies as well. The EU just demonstrated that an alternative is very possible (at least on the interchange side, which is the bulk of what merchants pay).
  - dangus 2y ago
    I think you're missing the point here a little bit. To break this down more simply: Credit cards: Merchants pay 3% and pass the cost on to the customer, IRS gets the vast majority of business taxes paid (no way to under-report taxable income), average person gets all the benefits of a fully funded government plus 1-2% of their purchase back in credit card rewards. Average person also gets a revolving credit line with okay-ish interest rates considering how no collateral is needed and approval is instant. Cash: Merchants broadly and easily commit tax fraud and under-report earnings, average person then has to pay a higher tax rate to overcome the tax fraud rates and get the same government services in return, merchant still pays something similar to or higher than 3% in transaction costs to handle cash (shrinkage (employees stealing, miscounting, lost cash), physical storage, movement, and processing, armored truck service, etc) and passes those costs on to the customer. Customers have no access to revolving credit which is totally fine but before credit cards people would resort to much more poorly regulated/higher interest/illegal sources of short term loans. I would also point out that debit card swipe fees are already regulated to under 1% and have many of the same benefits as credit cards.

hdbbd 2y ago

Well Companies are told to show either profit or growth every 3 months. That sets up where the story goes. So we have everyone from Starbucks to McD to AT&T to Comcast to Walmart to Amazon to Netflix to Disney etc etc all trying to pull that off even as Incomes dont grow globally other than in small pockets of the world which are over targeted and over fished. Its very hard to correct these kind of runaway processes cuz "everyone is doing it" and everyone doesnt know hpw to do anything else.

robertlagrant 2y ago

> I think this is misreading how literal the comparison is meant to be Agreed. When articles do this they want you to directly emotionally associate the two things, without having to provide intellectual evidence. I don't think that's very defensible.

EnnEmmEss 2y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42518753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42518753 gives more context and is relevant I feel

mnky9800n 2y ago

Think if Walmart told its shareholders that they were banned from owning Costco stock.