4 ms·

I now consider this a mafia that aims to milk us for more money. This includes all AI companies but also manufacturers who happily benefit from this. It is a de

I now consider this a mafia that aims to milk us for more money. This includes all AI companies but also manufacturers who happily benefit from this. It is a de-facto monopoly. Governments need to stop allowing this milking scheme to happen.

throwaway94275 10mo ago
"Monopoly" means one seller, so you can't say multiple X makes a monopoly and make sense. You probably mean collusion. If demand exceeds supply, either prices rise or supply falls, causing shortages. Directly controlling sellers (prices) or buyers (rationing) results in black markets unless enforcement has enough strength and integrity. The required strength and integrity seems to scale exponentially with the value of the good, so it's typically effectively impossible to prevent out-of-spec behavior for anything not cheap. If everyone wants chips, semiconductor manufacturing supply should be increased. Governments should subsidize domestic semiconductor industries and the conditions for them to thrive (education, etc.) to meet both goals of domestic and economic security, and do it in a way that works. The alternative is decreasing demand. Governments could hold bounty and incentive programs for building electronics that last a long time or are repairable or recyclable, but it's entirely possible the market will eventually do that.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- rileymat2 10mo ago
  > If everyone wants chips, semiconductor manufacturing supply should be increased. Governments should subsidize domestic semiconductor industries and the conditions for them to thrive (education, etc.) to meet both goals of domestic and economic security, and do it in a way that works. If there is already demand at this inflated price, shouldn’t we ask why more capacity is not coming online naturally first?
  - kaoD 9mo ago
    > If there is already demand at this inflated price, shouldn’t we ask why more capacity is not coming online naturally first? ...and why it has been consistently the case for a long while.
    - rileymat2 9mo ago
      Yes, one of the most valuable companies in the world has been supply strained for years. Unless incredibly well focused investments are made, cash is not the problem. Subsidies are madness.
yupyupyups 10mo ago
Why would government officials and politicians want to stop making money?
DamnInteresting 10mo ago
When it's more than one company working together in a monopoly-like fashion, the term is "oligopoly". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligopoly https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligopoly
- vee-kay 10mo ago
  There is another word for it: cartel. e.g., the Phoebus cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
yowlingcat 10mo ago
Technically it's a lot closer to monopsony (Sam Altman/OAI cornering 40% of the market on DRAM in a clever way for his interests that harms the rest of the world that would want to use it). I keep hoping that somehow necessity will spur China to become the mother of invention here and supply product to serve the now lopsided constrained supply given increasing demand but I just don't know how practical it will be.
ekianjo 10mo ago
There is no monopoly in AI. I can name at least 10 big actors worldwide.
- ggm 10mo ago
  If they collude on pricing and restrict new entrants, that's what the Sherman anti trust laws are about.
  - bdangubic 10mo ago
    the fines that would be levied via potential sherman law violations would negligible so that is for sure not a deterrent
    - ggm 9mo ago
      It would be understood that any action under the sherman act is unlikely and as you say, the financial penalties are tokenistic. The non financial parts, which include mandated restructuring and penalties to directors including incarceration however, are not tokenistic. They'd be appealed and delayed, but at some point the shareholders would seek redress from the board. Ignoring judicial mandated instructions isn't really a good idea, current WH behaviour aside. If the defence here is "courts don't matter any more" that's very unhelpful, if true. At some point, a country which cannot enforce judicial outcomes has stopped being civil society. My personal hope the EU tears holes in the FAANG aside, the collusive pricing of chips has been a problem for some time. The cost/price disjunction here is strong.
  - ekianjo 9mo ago
    I'd be very surprised if Alibaba colludes with OpenAI for pricing
klooney 10mo ago
I mean, if you were the Micron CEO, would you bet the company on demand sustaining from AI? It seems like it could all go belly up very fast.

throwaway94275 10mo ago

"Monopoly" means one seller, so you can't say multiple X makes a monopoly and make sense. You probably mean collusion. If demand exceeds supply, either prices rise or supply falls, causing shortages. Directly controlling sellers (prices) or buyers (rationing) results in black markets unless enforcement has enough strength and integrity. The required strength and integrity seems to scale exponentially with the value of the good, so it's typically effectively impossible to prevent out-of-spec behavior for anything not cheap. If everyone wants chips, semiconductor manufacturing supply should be increased. Governments should subsidize domestic semiconductor industries and the conditions for them to thrive (education, etc.) to meet both goals of domestic and economic security, and do it in a way that works. The alternative is decreasing demand. Governments could hold bounty and incentive programs for building electronics that last a long time or are repairable or recyclable, but it's entirely possible the market will eventually do that.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
rileymat2 10mo ago
> If everyone wants chips, semiconductor manufacturing supply should be increased. Governments should subsidize domestic semiconductor industries and the conditions for them to thrive (education, etc.) to meet both goals of domestic and economic security, and do it in a way that works. If there is already demand at this inflated price, shouldn’t we ask why more capacity is not coming online naturally first?
- kaoD 9mo ago
  > If there is already demand at this inflated price, shouldn’t we ask why more capacity is not coming online naturally first? ...and why it has been consistently the case for a long while.
  - rileymat2 9mo ago
    Yes, one of the most valuable companies in the world has been supply strained for years. Unless incredibly well focused investments are made, cash is not the problem. Subsidies are madness.

yupyupyups 10mo ago

Why would government officials and politicians want to stop making money?

DamnInteresting 10mo ago

When it's more than one company working together in a monopoly-like fashion, the term is "oligopoly". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligopoly https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligopoly

vee-kay 10mo ago
There is another word for it: cartel. e.g., the Phoebus cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

yowlingcat 10mo ago

Technically it's a lot closer to monopsony (Sam Altman/OAI cornering 40% of the market on DRAM in a clever way for his interests that harms the rest of the world that would want to use it). I keep hoping that somehow necessity will spur China to become the mother of invention here and supply product to serve the now lopsided constrained supply given increasing demand but I just don't know how practical it will be.

ekianjo 10mo ago

There is no monopoly in AI. I can name at least 10 big actors worldwide.

ggm 10mo ago
If they collude on pricing and restrict new entrants, that's what the Sherman anti trust laws are about.
- bdangubic 10mo ago
  the fines that would be levied via potential sherman law violations would negligible so that is for sure not a deterrent
  - ggm 9mo ago
    It would be understood that any action under the sherman act is unlikely and as you say, the financial penalties are tokenistic. The non financial parts, which include mandated restructuring and penalties to directors including incarceration however, are not tokenistic. They'd be appealed and delayed, but at some point the shareholders would seek redress from the board. Ignoring judicial mandated instructions isn't really a good idea, current WH behaviour aside. If the defence here is "courts don't matter any more" that's very unhelpful, if true. At some point, a country which cannot enforce judicial outcomes has stopped being civil society. My personal hope the EU tears holes in the FAANG aside, the collusive pricing of chips has been a problem for some time. The cost/price disjunction here is strong.
- ekianjo 9mo ago
  I'd be very surprised if Alibaba colludes with OpenAI for pricing

klooney 10mo ago

I mean, if you were the Micron CEO, would you bet the company on demand sustaining from AI? It seems like it could all go belly up very fast.