minmax2020 3 hours ago

Can anyone explain the rent seeker paragraph? Which companies are playing 0 sum game and which are not? Are all big players not rent seekers?

▲

borski 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unlike profit-seeking, which creates value, rent-seeking redistributes existing resources, often through lobbying for subsidies, tariffs, or favorable regulations, causing economic inefficiency and higher prices.

So geohot's argument is that Anthropic, for example, who want to regulate AI (presumably favorably for themselves) are such an example. I don't actually think I agree, but I agree that the behavior looks similar on the surface.

▲

franciscop 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you think e.g. the AI/LLM boom is all rent seeking? Do you think there's no positive value for the world on the recently announced e.g. MacBook Neo and that it's purely a monopolistic activity? Those are 2 clear recent examples of big players making massive benefits for the world, and I'm okay if they get X% of that value as company valuation.

▲

georgehotz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not at all. OpenAI / Anthropic are producing tons of surplus value right now! Not to mention how great the Chinese open source LLMs are. And Apple's hardware division has always been fine.

Apple's 30% tax for payments in apps is the ultimate rent seeking example though. Want to install your own apps, lol you can't. And if big AI companies follow in the steps of Google/Facebook it's bad for everyone. Let's recognize it and prevent it from happening this time.

	▲	zelphirkalt an hour ago \| parent [-]
		How should we prevent it, considering the huge financial incentives they have to go exactly that?

▲

customname 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wait what's a new laptop doing to push the needle exactly? Genuinely curious

	▲	SyneRyder 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's an 8GB RAM 256GB SSD laptop with a lower spec'd 6-core chip for $599 USD. Seems overhyped to me, PCs have done that for a while, just not as elegantly. Admittedly it probably has far better battery life than a PC, so that's a genuine advantage.
	▲	sfink 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		In general, it's kind of the difference between having a sharp axe vs a dull axe. Though in the particular case of the MacBook Neo, I'm not sure whether we're talking about sharper or duller. Depends on the metric you're using, I guess.
	▲	rvrs 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The Neo is supposed to be the budget version. I think MacOS is a decent computing platform for some engineering and creative endeavors -- if one more college kid gets access to it for cheaper I say it's a positive

▲

chirau 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Macbook Neo is just another laptop. There is nothing "massive benefits for the world" in the context you are trying to put it. And doesn't Apple take close to a third in 'rent' for anything on their platform?

	▲	georgehotz 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The bar isn't massive benefits for the world, the MacBook Neo is great! If there was a new company that builds MacBook Neos, that's a great company. They build something real and sell it for more than it costs to make, no strings attached. The problem with Apple comes down to the App Store, the forced 30%, and all the apps that just don't get built cause of Apple. This is rent seeking, and this is evil. Here's a good system for evaluating technologies: https://www.ranprieur.com/tech.html If you don't want a MacBook Neo, don't buy one and it doesn't affect your life. But the App Store affects your life whether you own an iPhone or not. It affects the direction of the world. And that's where the rent seeking problem is.

▲

georgehotz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Building tools and services to reduce hassle and friction for others is great. However, what often happens is that you end up creating and building a moat around that hassle. Think about how companies like TurboTax lobby the government to not build electronic tax filing stuff.

Cory Doctorow explains the dynamics well in Enshittification. First they turn against their users, then their business partners, then their employees. The layoffs you are seeing are just stage 3 enshittification. If you work at a company like this, my advice is to quit ASAP. At least then you leave on your own terms.

▲

borski 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

TurboTax is a prototypical example of rent-seeking.

▲

simianwords 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

i'm fairly certain Cory Doctorow does not understand the economics of Enshittification.

companies subsidise their products so that exploration of these products is more feasible due to lower initial costs for the end consumers. the initial consumers don't pay the full price but they are borne by the later consumers once the exploration is done and they have knowledge about that market and business.

Cory Doctorow also probably confuses democratisation and enshittifaction - its usually the case that products get cheaper by also marginally reducing the quality. we get cheap goods from China but that's not enshittification - that's just efficiency. as a consumer I'm happy I have the option of paying low prices for products.

i wouldn't take this person too seriously because it looks like they don't understand the larger picture

	▲	pestaa 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What are you talking about. Cory literally coined the term to describe this phenomena. He is not confused by the idea of cheaper products with wider appeal. He takes issue with vendor lock-in that is weaponized first against the end-user, then against paying customers, and finally against investors themselves. This is first and foremost a criticism of online products and platforms, not mass-produced gadgets from China.

▲

rvz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Which companies are playing 0 sum game and which are not?

Most of the US ones are. Anthropic is the worst offender.

The Chinese AI model providers like DeepSeek are not.