> I suspect this is how we wound up with NFTs, the metaverse, and the clunky VR/AR headsets.
VR/AR is because new tech allows us to do something... that we haven't figured out yet. It's not driven by visions of the future but by hardware advances.
The metaverse was an old idea that Zuckerberg hyped because Facebook became un-cool. It was meant to keep the company relevant and let it change the name away from Facebook.
NFTs was an attempt to copy moneys move to the digital world like bitcoin. Whether idealistic or crass opportunism is debatable, but broken tech ideas are nothing new.
NFTs had no valid reasons to exist, other than to provide money laundering opportunities and to con rubes out of their cash. There's plenty to not like about crypto and at the top of that list is NFTs.
Some artists right at the beginning liked the idea that an NFT contract could let them keep some fraction of the rights. That way, if the work later sold for a large sum, they could earn some money off of it.
But they were quickly disillusioned. The space instantly filled with crap art sold by scammers. Developers, of course, knew that would happen, but artists don't always have that same instinct for the way the worst possible use of a technology will overwhelm all others.
So... you agree? Because last time I checked we punish and sentence people for using guns to kill and not the guns themselves. Same applies to any other non human "thing", unless you are maybe Amish or part of some other type of dogmatic religious group.
I was previously a long term dev contractor for a stock photography company. NFTs have function in the ownership of digital assets, though I do not personally advocate for them (the company or the use of NFTs).
Per a cursory question on the Goog I got: 95% of collections are now considered worthless.
I worked at a blockchain startup back in the day and despite the PTSD of working with insane people, I appreciate the concept of the blockchain. I've yet to see any mainstream value in it. Sure bitcoin is worth a lot but it's not because of the inherent value of blockchain finance, it's because there's too much money out there and everybody loves a fat bubble asset.
I never got what would blockchain do better except maybe distribution. And even there raise questions of efficiency of having data copied in a lot of places.
Correcting data is also always fun question. Your keys are stolen, now your house is not yours anymore as record is immutable. Oh it is not actually immutable if someone says it is not (replace it with new record )? What was the point again...
People in Silicon Valley have more money than they have time. So solutions that are framed as "time savers" or "productivity enhancers" really resonate with them.
However, the bulk of people I'd say actually have more time than they do money. So there was a bit of an effort to turn LLMs and generative AI into attention economy, it's not cost effective yet and there's a big push against it from content creators who are more than willing to make content for free so long as they are given a space to host it.
I like that the LLMs make it easier for me to do programming, but I also felt like what I was doing before was... fine. I kind of get a feeling that people in the tech space think there's always going to be new innovative software that's sort of "not yet discovered" and so this productivity gain that LLMs bring is going to bring an era of unbridled creativity. And I definitely think we're going to be seeing more and better video-games and more and better software. But also, I'm afraid that the utility we as people get from software might be reaching a plateau and instead we are just trying to re-invent the wheel over and over with marginal improvements.
Ultimately, what does an AGI world would even look like? For me, I would like to spend more time with my friends whom I feel I've lost to the productivity machine.
To be honest, the most fun people I interact with on a daily basis are laid-back people, a lot of them in temporary unemployment or in whatever jobs gets them by, and that's kind of the promise of AGI but at the same time... it might not be that hard to achieve such a world with the kind of productivity we can already muster and have chosen not to. So I'm a little bit skeptical in the promise of time that AGI supposedly will bring.
Great comment. I'd add that millionaire tech executives are largely the ones dreaming up these LLM products, and their level of interaction with "ordinary people" is probably nil. They have personal assistants doing all that stuff. Do you think Zucc shops for his own groceries or Musk buys his own Khakis? No way, their entire interaction with the real world is through assistants, so it's no wonder that their product vision is limited to "something just like my assistant: obedient, energetic, positive intern who agrees with and executes my every word".
its not just in tech. There are lots of products and services designed for the "cash rich time poor" because that is what the people in charge understand.
> Within recent memory, people who made software and hardware understood their job was to serve their customer. It was to identify a need, and then fill it. But at some point following the financial crisis, would-be entrepreneurs got it into their heads that their job was to invent the future, and consumers’ job was to go along with that invented future.
I love this quote. It really resonates. I can't think of a major technology product invented in the last, say 5 years, that actually served to fulfill a need that I had. I haven't really been excited about a computer or phone or Cloud-Thinggy for at least a decade. It's just been years of "Look! Slightly better camera and emojis!" and "Slower applications that do less but look so minimal!" and of course "Now with AI!" Plus a dozens of new web sites and streaming services that I'll just never use because I don't understand why I would. Silicon Valley is just "Here's some social media and a bunch of thin laptops. Get used to it."
> Like do you look at the latest laptop from today and be like "pfft laptops were a thing since the 80s whatever". Thats asinine
No, but I don't say something like "I don't know about that, MBP M3 launched in 22 and its pretty cool" in response to "I can't think of a major technology product invented in the last, say 5 years, that actually served to fulfill a need that I had."
This stuff is iterative, which is fine--even good! But the valuations and hype are "we invented a new thing", and that's grift bullshit.
I'm not sure that Silicon Valley cares even a little what normal people want even if they ever understood it. It gets in the way of their business plans.
I've become so tired of AI and hearing about it that I've started using ublock origin custom filters to nuke it on sites I frequent (including HN).
I don't know if it'll live up to the hype but if it does I'll hear about it other ways til then they are solving a problem I don't have or care about and doing it my destroying things I do care about so I'm just going to ignore them.
>Some people say, "Give the customers what they want." But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, "If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!'" People don't know what they want until you show it to them.
I think we’re all just trying to come up with cool things and show it to people to see if they want it.
LLMs are something nobody wants but still ChatGPT is used by 10% of the world's population as active users? How can both the sentences be true at the same time?
Advertising is all about making you want something you don't need (e.g. for fear of being left behind). Would the want exist without silicon valley shoving it down people's throats by telling them to adapt or get left behind? I think the article uses "want" kind of loosely, because people do want to use AI and do, but I would guess that among AI users, subjective life satisfaction is is not always higher - especially if one feels compelled to do it.
I don't understand? Yeah advertising can be manipulative but you surely arent saying Silicon Valley is forcing 800 million people actively to use ChatGPT? Even if thats the case, why are we seeing so many competitors that are also seeing massive numbers of active users?
I think its much more complex to model a world where all these active users are being manipulated etc. A much simpler explanation is that the author is pandering to a certain section of the public and basing the entire world's view through that lens.
This is why its important to always be skeptical when journalists start speaking for "everyone" even in the face of data showing they are wrong.
I think it’s less like that and more like a bunch of people blindly chasing big line go up in a big venture capital vortex while the rest of the economy slowly rots. In other words, no thought, no leadership, mostly just hype, bubbles, and trend chasing.
I'm finding it really hard to escape the impression that the author just thinks Silicon Valley is full of nerds and wants to stuff them in lockers. I'm far from an Elon Musk fanboy these days, but how can you be so incurious that you watch a video of him explaining the practical obstacles to robotic hands, and retort that this is "101-level stuff" because other people in other fields also know hands are complex?
There's real points scattered throughout the article, to be sure. It's a problem that AI slop is polluting the commons. But, like, this:
> How is it that all these wunderkinds trying to build the next product to take over the world haven’t thought about this? I think the answer is simple. They do not have much in common with normal people, and haven’t thought much about what normal people’s lives are like, or what normal people value. What they have been doing instead is getting high on their own supply — listening to VC podcasts, freaking themselves out about whether they’ll be able to keep up with AI agents, and otherwise getting increasingly more detached from reality.
is not a paragraph written by someone who feels that techies or their interests are worthy of respect.
From your opening sentence, I really expected you to go in a different direction...
I think the funny thing is how many supposed "tech" people are nothing but business/investment people with a high risk/high reward mindsets. They are not the nerds. The tech is just a contemporary set piece for their visions of revenue and capital gains.
In another era, they'd be dreaming about selling movie tickets, or controlling shipping routes. Not because they care about film making, or transport, but simply because they salivate over the captive market.
Because of the gestalt merger of tech, consumerism, media, and advertising, I think there is a VC mindset that know thinks they can just define the Next Thing and inform the public of their next craving.
I just don't think any of this is correct. Why would a business/investment person who doesn't care about tech focus on strange-sounding things that most people don't want? If they didn't care which market they capture, they'd pick one of the many normal-sounding things that people do want, or perhaps go become a quant and farm their money directly from Wall Street.
Bear with me while I go in reverse order. These types could not become quants. That is a different person who has the visions of money but is also a nerd capable of the technical work. I'm talking about the VC people who hire programmers, engineers, or quants.
These people think they have Big Ideas and to them it isn't really different whether they hire creatives to make art, manufacturing nerds to make semiconductors, software nerds to make SaaS, or biochemists to make pharmaceuticals. It's all inscrutable mundane details to them and their magical thinking. After a career observing such things, I've come to see abstraction as something that can cross from virtue into malignancy.
I think the AI dream is driving some of this type towards madness. As someone in another sub-thread observed, It resonates strongly with the way they engage with the world, with delegation of things you don't really understand. But it also promises a kind of pure capitalist scaling where their revenue dreams can be untethered from labor constraints. The current scramble is the attempt to pivot every business dream into one that uses this new set piece.
I don't necessarily agree with the thesis but the venture capital model is a bit weird in ways that explain why a business/investment person would do that.
From my understanding 'Strange things most people don't care about' may fail (and indeed, probably will fail) but they have also been major lottery tickets in the past. When you have enough money to throw around 'buying every lotto ticket' has a record of paying off better as a strategy than taking a 'rational' approach of only investing in those which you have strong fundamentals in. It takes a stupid amount of money to diversify in such fields so it isn't for everyone of course. Tech just has the best record for it so far with highly scaleable businesses.
They just care about the returns. If instead of what we know as 'tech' the big field was, say, genetic engineering or for the sake of absurdity - literal magic. If it somehow scaled better they would throw their money at that.
I'm sure she thinks she's not talking about all tech people, but she began the article with an anecdote about an acquaintance of hers, describing how it was "mortifying" to listen to him talk about his ideas and directly contrasting him with a "regular human" (who of course would be familiar with Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure).
I don't want to overindex on the one anecdote, because I recognize this is a pretty hostile interpretation, and I could just as easily read it as playful ribbing if the rest of the article were consistent with that perspective. It's kinda not, though.
> the author just thinks Silicon Valley is full of nerds
That hasn’t been the stereotype for Silicon Valley in a long time. There was a whole HBO comedy show about a small group of nerds in a town where every other character is a variation of “made a bunch of money overnight and then declared themselves God”
> I suspect this is how we wound up with NFTs, the metaverse, and the clunky VR/AR headsets.
VR/AR is because new tech allows us to do something... that we haven't figured out yet. It's not driven by visions of the future but by hardware advances.
The metaverse was an old idea that Zuckerberg hyped because Facebook became un-cool. It was meant to keep the company relevant and let it change the name away from Facebook.
NFTs was an attempt to copy moneys move to the digital world like bitcoin. Whether idealistic or crass opportunism is debatable, but broken tech ideas are nothing new.
NFTs had no valid reasons to exist, other than to provide money laundering opportunities and to con rubes out of their cash. There's plenty to not like about crypto and at the top of that list is NFTs.
Some artists right at the beginning liked the idea that an NFT contract could let them keep some fraction of the rights. That way, if the work later sold for a large sum, they could earn some money off of it.
But they were quickly disillusioned. The space instantly filled with crap art sold by scammers. Developers, of course, knew that would happen, but artists don't always have that same instinct for the way the worst possible use of a technology will overwhelm all others.
> Some artists right at the beginning liked the idea that an NFT contract could let them keep some fraction of the rights.
NFTs never provided a single thing that a normal paper contract couldn't.
They provided neither enhanced practical protections vs copying nor any enhanced intellectual property legal protections.
Any artists who thought NFTs accomplished anything at all other than a brief wave of hype were misinformed.
Non-fungible Tokens by themselves did nothing wrong
But they also did very little that was useful.
For most items, we aren't struggling to track ownership - We're struggling to enforce it.
Same vibes as "guns don't kill people"
So... you agree? Because last time I checked we punish and sentence people for using guns to kill and not the guns themselves. Same applies to any other non human "thing", unless you are maybe Amish or part of some other type of dogmatic religious group.
I was previously a long term dev contractor for a stock photography company. NFTs have function in the ownership of digital assets, though I do not personally advocate for them (the company or the use of NFTs).
Per a cursory question on the Goog I got: 95% of collections are now considered worthless.
I worked at a blockchain startup back in the day and despite the PTSD of working with insane people, I appreciate the concept of the blockchain. I've yet to see any mainstream value in it. Sure bitcoin is worth a lot but it's not because of the inherent value of blockchain finance, it's because there's too much money out there and everybody loves a fat bubble asset.
I never got what would blockchain do better except maybe distribution. And even there raise questions of efficiency of having data copied in a lot of places.
Correcting data is also always fun question. Your keys are stolen, now your house is not yours anymore as record is immutable. Oh it is not actually immutable if someone says it is not (replace it with new record )? What was the point again...
[dead]
People in Silicon Valley have more money than they have time. So solutions that are framed as "time savers" or "productivity enhancers" really resonate with them.
However, the bulk of people I'd say actually have more time than they do money. So there was a bit of an effort to turn LLMs and generative AI into attention economy, it's not cost effective yet and there's a big push against it from content creators who are more than willing to make content for free so long as they are given a space to host it.
I like that the LLMs make it easier for me to do programming, but I also felt like what I was doing before was... fine. I kind of get a feeling that people in the tech space think there's always going to be new innovative software that's sort of "not yet discovered" and so this productivity gain that LLMs bring is going to bring an era of unbridled creativity. And I definitely think we're going to be seeing more and better video-games and more and better software. But also, I'm afraid that the utility we as people get from software might be reaching a plateau and instead we are just trying to re-invent the wheel over and over with marginal improvements.
Ultimately, what does an AGI world would even look like? For me, I would like to spend more time with my friends whom I feel I've lost to the productivity machine.
To be honest, the most fun people I interact with on a daily basis are laid-back people, a lot of them in temporary unemployment or in whatever jobs gets them by, and that's kind of the promise of AGI but at the same time... it might not be that hard to achieve such a world with the kind of productivity we can already muster and have chosen not to. So I'm a little bit skeptical in the promise of time that AGI supposedly will bring.
Great comment. I'd add that millionaire tech executives are largely the ones dreaming up these LLM products, and their level of interaction with "ordinary people" is probably nil. They have personal assistants doing all that stuff. Do you think Zucc shops for his own groceries or Musk buys his own Khakis? No way, their entire interaction with the real world is through assistants, so it's no wonder that their product vision is limited to "something just like my assistant: obedient, energetic, positive intern who agrees with and executes my every word".
its not just in tech. There are lots of products and services designed for the "cash rich time poor" because that is what the people in charge understand.
> Within recent memory, people who made software and hardware understood their job was to serve their customer. It was to identify a need, and then fill it. But at some point following the financial crisis, would-be entrepreneurs got it into their heads that their job was to invent the future, and consumers’ job was to go along with that invented future.
I love this quote. It really resonates. I can't think of a major technology product invented in the last, say 5 years, that actually served to fulfill a need that I had. I haven't really been excited about a computer or phone or Cloud-Thinggy for at least a decade. It's just been years of "Look! Slightly better camera and emojis!" and "Slower applications that do less but look so minimal!" and of course "Now with AI!" Plus a dozens of new web sites and streaming services that I'll just never use because I don't understand why I would. Silicon Valley is just "Here's some social media and a bunch of thin laptops. Get used to it."
I don't know about that, Steam deck launched in 22 and its pretty cool
Gaming handhelds are decades old.
Yeah, but how many played your entire PC game library?
This is like saying that the iPhone wasn't a big deal because we already had palm pilots and blackberries.
Steam decks aren't the iPhone of gaming handhelds. They are another in a long line of them, i.e. another Palm Pilot.
With which Id agree.
Yeah the category has existed for quite a while but Steam Deck was an exceptional product and had a lot of innovations.
You cant expect new product categories to be created every year, they take decades to manufacture.
Like do you look at the latest laptop from today and be like "pfft laptops were a thing since the 80s whatever". Thats asinine
> Like do you look at the latest laptop from today and be like "pfft laptops were a thing since the 80s whatever". Thats asinine
No, but I don't say something like "I don't know about that, MBP M3 launched in 22 and its pretty cool" in response to "I can't think of a major technology product invented in the last, say 5 years, that actually served to fulfill a need that I had."
This stuff is iterative, which is fine--even good! But the valuations and hype are "we invented a new thing", and that's grift bullshit.
I'm not sure that Silicon Valley cares even a little what normal people want even if they ever understood it. It gets in the way of their business plans.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260427024735/https://www.theve...
That's a really well written article.
I've become so tired of AI and hearing about it that I've started using ublock origin custom filters to nuke it on sites I frequent (including HN).
I don't know if it'll live up to the hype but if it does I'll hear about it other ways til then they are solving a problem I don't have or care about and doing it my destroying things I do care about so I'm just going to ignore them.
How are you using UBO to do that?
The crudest way possible (via custom filters) - when that stops working I'll likely just do a browser plugin.
It makes HN more like what I appreciated about HN in the first place by removing (what to me) is noise and increasing the signal.>Some people say, "Give the customers what they want." But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, "If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!'" People don't know what they want until you show it to them.
I think we’re all just trying to come up with cool things and show it to people to see if they want it.
LLMs are something nobody wants but still ChatGPT is used by 10% of the world's population as active users? How can both the sentences be true at the same time?
I don't find it hard to believe that both can be true.
I don't want to have to commute to work by driving, but I do anyway, because there's no public transit to my work.
I don't want to have to use Gmail for my work email, but that's what work wants me to use, so I use it.
Some number of people are using ChatGPT just because somebody said, "You need to know how to use AI to stay competitive."
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the sentiment, but I firmly believe both sentences can be true at the same time.
Oh so they're being forced to use AI and actually hate it instead of being genuine users of the product.
But even in this case, it does mean people do "want" it to a level where they are doing this to 800 million people everyday?
So even in that case (if we accept it and even take it to the extreme), nobody wants AI is still factually wrong.
Advertising is all about making you want something you don't need (e.g. for fear of being left behind). Would the want exist without silicon valley shoving it down people's throats by telling them to adapt or get left behind? I think the article uses "want" kind of loosely, because people do want to use AI and do, but I would guess that among AI users, subjective life satisfaction is is not always higher - especially if one feels compelled to do it.
I don't understand? Yeah advertising can be manipulative but you surely arent saying Silicon Valley is forcing 800 million people actively to use ChatGPT? Even if thats the case, why are we seeing so many competitors that are also seeing massive numbers of active users?
I think its much more complex to model a world where all these active users are being manipulated etc. A much simpler explanation is that the author is pandering to a certain section of the public and basing the entire world's view through that lens.
This is why its important to always be skeptical when journalists start speaking for "everyone" even in the face of data showing they are wrong.
I think it’s less like that and more like a bunch of people blindly chasing big line go up in a big venture capital vortex while the rest of the economy slowly rots. In other words, no thought, no leadership, mostly just hype, bubbles, and trend chasing.
I'm finding it really hard to escape the impression that the author just thinks Silicon Valley is full of nerds and wants to stuff them in lockers. I'm far from an Elon Musk fanboy these days, but how can you be so incurious that you watch a video of him explaining the practical obstacles to robotic hands, and retort that this is "101-level stuff" because other people in other fields also know hands are complex?
There's real points scattered throughout the article, to be sure. It's a problem that AI slop is polluting the commons. But, like, this:
> How is it that all these wunderkinds trying to build the next product to take over the world haven’t thought about this? I think the answer is simple. They do not have much in common with normal people, and haven’t thought much about what normal people’s lives are like, or what normal people value. What they have been doing instead is getting high on their own supply — listening to VC podcasts, freaking themselves out about whether they’ll be able to keep up with AI agents, and otherwise getting increasingly more detached from reality.
is not a paragraph written by someone who feels that techies or their interests are worthy of respect.
From your opening sentence, I really expected you to go in a different direction...
I think the funny thing is how many supposed "tech" people are nothing but business/investment people with a high risk/high reward mindsets. They are not the nerds. The tech is just a contemporary set piece for their visions of revenue and capital gains.
In another era, they'd be dreaming about selling movie tickets, or controlling shipping routes. Not because they care about film making, or transport, but simply because they salivate over the captive market.
Because of the gestalt merger of tech, consumerism, media, and advertising, I think there is a VC mindset that know thinks they can just define the Next Thing and inform the public of their next craving.
I just don't think any of this is correct. Why would a business/investment person who doesn't care about tech focus on strange-sounding things that most people don't want? If they didn't care which market they capture, they'd pick one of the many normal-sounding things that people do want, or perhaps go become a quant and farm their money directly from Wall Street.
Bear with me while I go in reverse order. These types could not become quants. That is a different person who has the visions of money but is also a nerd capable of the technical work. I'm talking about the VC people who hire programmers, engineers, or quants.
These people think they have Big Ideas and to them it isn't really different whether they hire creatives to make art, manufacturing nerds to make semiconductors, software nerds to make SaaS, or biochemists to make pharmaceuticals. It's all inscrutable mundane details to them and their magical thinking. After a career observing such things, I've come to see abstraction as something that can cross from virtue into malignancy.
I think the AI dream is driving some of this type towards madness. As someone in another sub-thread observed, It resonates strongly with the way they engage with the world, with delegation of things you don't really understand. But it also promises a kind of pure capitalist scaling where their revenue dreams can be untethered from labor constraints. The current scramble is the attempt to pivot every business dream into one that uses this new set piece.
I don't necessarily agree with the thesis but the venture capital model is a bit weird in ways that explain why a business/investment person would do that.
From my understanding 'Strange things most people don't care about' may fail (and indeed, probably will fail) but they have also been major lottery tickets in the past. When you have enough money to throw around 'buying every lotto ticket' has a record of paying off better as a strategy than taking a 'rational' approach of only investing in those which you have strong fundamentals in. It takes a stupid amount of money to diversify in such fields so it isn't for everyone of course. Tech just has the best record for it so far with highly scaleable businesses.
They just care about the returns. If instead of what we know as 'tech' the big field was, say, genetic engineering or for the sake of absurdity - literal magic. If it somehow scaled better they would throw their money at that.
He's not talking about all tech people here. He's talking about a narrow subset:
> a certain kind of tech enthusiast, particularly the ones who are most interested in startups and entrepreneurship.
I'm sure she thinks she's not talking about all tech people, but she began the article with an anecdote about an acquaintance of hers, describing how it was "mortifying" to listen to him talk about his ideas and directly contrasting him with a "regular human" (who of course would be familiar with Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure).
I don't want to overindex on the one anecdote, because I recognize this is a pretty hostile interpretation, and I could just as easily read it as playful ribbing if the rest of the article were consistent with that perspective. It's kinda not, though.
I assume that acquaintance was in the narrow subset of techies that she's talking about.
> the author just thinks Silicon Valley is full of nerds
That hasn’t been the stereotype for Silicon Valley in a long time. There was a whole HBO comedy show about a small group of nerds in a town where every other character is a variation of “made a bunch of money overnight and then declared themselves God”