> The other inventions would have quite the adoption rate if they were similarly subsidized as current AI offerings.

No, they wouldn't. The '80s saw obscene investment in AI (then "expert systems") and yet nobody's mom was using it.

> It's hard to compare a business attempting to be financially stable and a business attempting hyper-growth through freebies.

It's especially hard to compare since it's often those financially stable businesses doing said investments (Microsoft, Google, etc).

---

Aside: you know "the customer is always right [in matters of taste]"? It's been weirdly difficult getting bosses to understand the brackets part, and HN folks the first part.

> Aside: you know "the customer is always right [in matters of taste]"? It's been weirdly difficult getting bosses to understand the brackets part, and HN folks the first part.

Something I struggle to internalise, even though I know it in theory.

Customers can't be told they're wrong, and the parenthetical I've internalised, but for non-taste matters they can often be so very wrong, so often… I know I need to hold my tongue even then owing to having merely nerd-level charisma, but I struggle to… also owing to having merely nerd-level charisma.

(And that's one of three reasons why I'm not doing contract work right now).

I don't think you understand the relative amounts of capital invested in LLMs compared to expert systems in the 80s.

And those systems were never "commodified" - your average mom is forcefully exposed to LLMs with every google search, can interact with LLMs for free instantly anywhere in the world - and we're comparing to a luxury product for nerds basically?

Not to forget that those massive companies are also very heavy in advertising - I don't think your average mom in the 80s heard of those systems multiple times a day, from multiple aquaintances AND social media and news outlets.