Attitudes like this are why the wealth gap keeps growing.
Maybe it’s an age gap thing, but I’ve come to realize this attitude is one many boomers have because they’re all doing ok. The rest of us need to course correct the mess they’ve left. The america they were born into might as well be a foreign country at this point.
True, but they also have a combined interest in growing their wealth that comes at the cost of leaving less pie for the rest of us.
I can’t think of many (Massie maybe?) rich (no black and white definition) that are using their wealth to better their fellow citizens to their own detriment. Most of them see it as another tax to prevent keep their heads attached.
A combined goal (growing wealth) is much different than a combined interest because the ways they go about it are very different and in many times conflicting. Taking pie from other rich people is many times a much superior strategy to taking it from the poor. e.g. OpenAI just launched a competitor to Chrome. And talking about "growing wealth" is much too general here because that applies to everyone, not just rich or poor.
They have a shared interest in using their wealth to enrich themselves (or their true home nations) instead of their countrymen.
Taking pie from other rich people is only lucrative because the wealth gap is so massive and consistently increasing. My point is rich people should be utilizing their wealth to enrich their fellow Americans (or whatever country they live in), but all the existing ones do not have this as a primary goal. They throw some pittances - just enough to keep people from revolting.
The majority of us are growing wealth so we don’t die on the streets. The rich have already cleared this goal post, and instead of making it their primary goal to give back they continue to take. Those in power could use their power to prevent this but don’t. That is their shared interest. It’s why every politician in America becomes more wealthy after entering office. It’s why corruption is rampant. It’s why we have no borders and let corporations abuse workers. The system is setup (this is the shared interest) to empower a few at the top.
You’d think with all OpenAIs money, talent, and 10x devs due to AI they could make a new browser and capture that same feeling chrome did back in the day when it first came out.
That they did not is very telling about how the future is going to play out. This is a cash grab before the bubble pops.
I don't think it's really possible to do that now just by throwing eng at it. Chrome being a monopoly hasn't actually stopped Google from improving it massively since it came out 17 years ago, so the bar is much higher. Browsers are a mature market now and I doubt that releasing something dramatically better than Chrome is possible just by engineering a better version of the same concept like Chrome was when it released. It would require a fundamentally novel breakthrough in UX design that renders Chrome obsolete, and that's much more likely to come out of a small startup than somewhere like OpenAI.
Google has pushed enough anti consumer (pro big tech) policies and features that simply putting out a pro consumer product would be a defining feature.
What does a pro-consumer Chrome actually look like? There are, AFAIK, 4 business models for browsers:
1. You pay for it in cash
2. It's "free" but you pay for it with your data which is harvested and used to target ads at you
3. The weird Brave crypto model which basically does what 2 does, but you get some token for it
4. The Firefox sell your search traffic to Google model
Number 1 gets completely blown out by 2 when they compete in the market to the point it doesn't exist anymore, so that's not really viable. 3 seems scammy and nobody really wants it anyway. 4 is what I use, but let's face it, it's just 2 light with better ad blocking. It's also probably on its last legs since the courts have ruled that Google can't buy default search (which ironically will probably enhance its monopoly position).
> It's also probably on its last legs since the courts have ruled that Google can't buy default search (which ironically will probably enhance its monopoly position).
"Under the court's ruling, Google will still be permitted to pay for search placement --- those multi-billion-dollar arrangements with Apple and Mozilla can continue."
I am proposing a new model, yes. I’d like to see a pro American billionaire doing what’s good for the people instead of what’s maximally profitable. They could leverage profit in other areas to finance an unprofitable (but morally correct) business.
Long term a regime change is needed because you will lose to immoral competitors, but it’s the only fight worth fighting.
I also realize Sam Altman is a sociopath who would never do this.
Maybe it’s an age gap thing, but I’ve come to realize this attitude is one many boomers have because they’re all doing ok. The rest of us need to course correct the mess they’ve left. The america they were born into might as well be a foreign country at this point.