[alecco]

Indeed. Why do people follow these clowns? They seem to read high level takes and spew out their nonsense theories.

They fail to mention Google's edge: Inter-Chip Interconnect and the allegedly 1/3 of price. Then they talk about software moat and it sounds like they never even compiled a hello world in either architecture. smh

And this comes out days after many in-depth posts like:

https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/tpuv7-google-takes-a-s...

A crude Google search AI summary of those would be better than this dumb blogpost.

[ebiester]

Why? It turns out that I try to read people who have a different perspective than I do. Why am I trying to read everything that just confirms my current biases?

(Unless those writings are looking to dehumanize or strip people of rights or inflame hate - I'm not talking about propaganda or hate speech here.)

[Teever]

Personally when I go to the grocery store I pick fruits and vegetables that are ripe or are soon to be ripe, and I stay away from meat that is close to expiration or has an off putting appearance or odour to it.

With that said there's no accounting for taste.

[raw_anon_1111]

You realize this “dumb blogspot” is written by the most successful writer in the industry as far as revenue from a paid newsletter? He has had every major tech CEO on his podcast and he is credited for being the inspiration for Substack.

The Substack founders unofficially marketed it early on as “Stratechery for independent authors”.

Your analysis concerning the technology instead of focusing on the business is about like Rob Malda not understanding the success of the “no wireless, less space than the Nomad lame”.

Even if you just read this article, he never argued that Google didn’t have the best technology, he was saying just the opposite. Nvidia is in good shape precisely because everyone who is not Google is now going to have to spend more on Nvidia to keep up.

He has said that AI may turn out to be a “sustaining innovation” first coined by Clay Christenson and that the big winners may be Google, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon because they can leverage their pre-existing businesses and infrastructure.

Even Apple might be better off since they are reportedly going to just throw a billion at Google for its model.

[specialist]

A lucky few can make good money telling rich people what they want to hear.

eg Yuval Noah Harari, Bari Weiss, Matthew Yglesias

[tsunamifury]

As someone who has built actual multi billion dollar ad platforms his take is so laughable juvenile it’s not worth the bits it’s written with.

I can’t emphasize enough how bad Ben’s take is here. He needs to stop writing and starting doing something.

[lmm]

> You realize this “dumb blogspot” is written by the most successful writer in the industry as far as revenue from a paid newsletter?

The belief that adding ads makes things better would be an extremely convenient belief for a writer to have, and I can easily see how that could result in them getting more revenue than other writers. That doesn't make it any less dumb.

[raw_anon_1111]

At at least $5 million in paid subscriptions annually and living between Wisconsin and Taiwan, as an independent writer do you really think he needs to juice his subscriptions by advocating other people do ads on an LLM?

Any use of LLMs by other people reduces his value.

[tsunamifury]

None of this proves anything other than he writes what audiences want to hear.

Which as we know has nothing to do with reality.

[raw_anon_1111]

I can guarantee you that most of his audience stands on the other side of “yes advertising is a good thing” than he does.

He has said as much.

[vikinghckr]

Who do you think his 30-40K paying subscriber audience are?

[specialist]

> spew out their nonsense theories

Discussing "innovator's dilemma" unironically is a fullstop for me.

[oblio]

Why? The book describes a common real life business situation and explains it really well.

[specialist]

The thesis has no predictive power, no explanatory power. Merely descriptive.

That "change is inevitable and we all better adapt or die" is somewhere between axiomatic and cliché.

What is "innovation"? How do you define it? (Am honestly asking.) How do we get more of it? (I know this is an area of active research.)

I forced myself to reread and revisit Christensen a year or two back. I may not have looked hard enough, but I didn't find any evidence that he'd updated or expanded his thesis, corpus. IIRC, no mention of Everett's diffusion of innovation, of thesis from Design Rules: the Power of Modularity (an adjacent topic), no engagement with ongoing innovation research.

FWIW, my still poorly formed hunch is that "innovation" is where policy meets the cost learning curve meets financial accounting. With maybe a dash of rentier capitalism.

But I'm noob. Not an academic, not an economist. Deep down on my to do list is to learn how DARPA (and others) places their bets, their emerging formalisms (like technology readiness levels), how emerging tech makes the jump from govt funded to private finance (VC).

Enough of my babble. In closing, I'd like to read some case studies for the two most "disruptive technologies" of our times: solar and batteries.