3 ms·

The implication is that companies in a private market can't possibly be hugely inefficient for irrational reasons that can ultimately be self-harming. An inter

• weatherlite 8mo ago
  I used the term "private market" when I actually meant the private sector. I just mean all labor that isn't government owned - public companies, private companies etc. So yes - in a reasonably functioning capitalist market (which the U.S still is in my eyes) I expect gross inefficiencies to not be prevalent.
  • generic92034 8mo ago
    > So yes - in a reasonably functioning capitalist market (which the U.S still is in my eyes) I expect gross inefficiencies to not be prevalent. I am not sure that is true, though. Assume for a moment that Google would waste 50% of their profits. Truly, a huge inefficiency. However, would that make it likely some other corp could take their search/ad market share from them? I doubt it, given the abyss of a moat.
    • AnimalMuppet 8mo ago
      True. Therefore, what? One could say: True, therefore search is not a reasonably functioning capitalist market. Yeah, I know, this can turn into "no true capitalist market". Still, it seems reasonable to say that many markets work in a certain kind of way (with lots of competition), and search is not one of those markets.
      • generic92034 8mo ago
        The parent was referring to the whole US as "market". In that sense the numerous exceptions and non-functioning markets invalidate the statement, IMHO.
• watwut 8mo ago
  They can be irrational and ineffective. Nevertheless, if LLM are useful, they would still earn more then before. Regardless of their effectivity, it means LLMs are not useful for them.