They can’t even deliver their own flagship products without bugs, and terrible UX. So I’m doubtful of their abilities.

These are also the same companies allowing their AI to make decisions in war, have no qualms about the mental issues they’re causing in people, and have abused workers in 3rd world countries for years.

But you think they’re holding out on “destroying the software industry” out of the goodness of their hearts? Come on

▲

fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent [-]

I think his reasoning was pretty clearly presented as not the goodness of their heart but rather the medium to long term predicted outcome on their bottom line. Ultimately failing or getting tangled up with regulators any more than necessary is to be avoided. If you move too early and it chases people away from your platform which undermines your ability to keep innovating then a competitor who held back will ultimately eat your lunch.

▲

mrbungie an hour ago | parent [-]

But then there is no safe way for them to "mortally wound" the software industry. The full argument is moot.

I would add there are more reasons why this wouldn't work: costs due to OOM more usage, adoption/AI backlash, adversarial environment, players with big head starts (Google).

	▲	fc417fc802 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I believe the original commenter made that exact point. You don't need to personally win in order to mortally wound someone. It can be informative to speculate about whether or not something is possible regardless of it being strategically advisable in the current context.