> problem that had already been solved thousands of years ago

If by this you refer to "Aristotle" in the parent post - it's not that Aristotle. This is "Aristotle AI" - the name of their product.

It's the third link on that page, in the first sentence.

People want to sync their data, work on and see the same thing on their phone, their laptop and their desktop. This certainly did not "just work" when "we used to have offline everything".

> It just reads like thinly veiled racism.

Thinly veiled? What veil - it's completely naked, one can clearly see all the constituent parts, including the repugnant bits.

Your browser can translate the page automatically.

> But once AIs become your lifetime companion that know everything there is to know about you and the lock-in is maximized

Why? It's just a bunch of text. They are forced by law to allow you to export your data - so you just take your life's "novel" and copy paste it into their competition's robot.

It's never quite that straightforward, or perceived as that straightforward. That's why most people just renew their insurance as it's easier than messing about changing and worrying if it will be any better. And how easy is it to transfer emails to another provider?

> data modeling, to algos, backend integrations, frontend architecture, UI widgets, etc. All in TypeScript, which is perfectly suited to LLMs because we can fit the types and repo map into context without loading all code.

Which frameworks & libraries have you found work well in this (agentic) context? I feel much of the js lib. landscape does not do enough to enforce an easily-understood project structure that would "constrain" the architecture and force modularity. (I might have this bias from my many years of work with Rails that is highly opinionated in this regard).

Highwaymen still have those fast horses, up on the lawless mountain passes... ;)

Why would it be difficult to say what it would look like? Humans and markets exist for many thousands of years. Advertising in its current form for a couple of hundred. Just look back in time, there were markets then too :)

> A market without advertising isn't a level playing field, but a near-unbreakable oligopoly.

Why would it be an oligopoly any more than it is now? You go to a shop (in your city, or online), trust their curation, and buy something. If it's garbage, next time you will pick another shop or curator, or discuss with your friends / colleagues. Repeat until you find a place with satisfactory curation.

Why would this dynamic be bad? Why would I as a customer be better served by banners shoved in my face by the producers with the highest pockets?