3 ms·
This article is inane. The law seems...truthy, though I find it a little too underspecified to assess. The conclusion is true, and I'll even overlook it being
by hyperpape 4mo ago
This article is inane.
The law seems...truthy, though I find it a little too underspecified to assess.
The conclusion is true, and I'll even overlook it being a slight strawman. Your "long genius"[0] CEO cannot talk to AI and get a full business overnight. That's true.
But how does that follow from the "law"? The article admits that you can shift complexity to a complex algorithm or information processing system that the consumer doesn't touch.
You know what's a incredibly complex information processing system? GenAI.
So we have a reasonable conclusion, an ok "law", and no real connection between them. It was an inane non-sequitur.
[0] Not actually a genius.
- bee_rider 4mo agoLaws are, of course, some of the least well supported scientific objects generally (just sort of ad-hoc observations that never got upgraded to a hypothesis or theory). It is a shame that “law” sounds so authoritative. But these businesses laws seem to be even worse. We need a new name, Tesler’s Quip maybe.