> Display ads are meaningless to agents. And agentic commerce is a huge threat to Amazon’s profitability.
Would agents be susceptible to advertising? If humans have issues differentiating ads from real results, and are swayed by TV ads and stuff (they are), then why wouldn't an AI agent.
I kind of assume they would, given how ChatGPT brings up garbage websites sometimes for my questions.
It does say something about our culture, doesn't it? That something as mundane and non-violent as computer programming gets compared with violent combat.
I suppose it comes down to how hyper-competitive some people are, particularly the "greats", that working on software is in the same category as fisticuffs.
TLDR: Making a decision based on only qualitative data, and therefore ignoring qualitative information and observations, can lead to bad outcomes. Not everything that is important can be easily measured.
May 'annual profit' continue to be the only measure that has mattered, does matter, or will ever matter to those that bask in the radiance of perpetual earning growth!
You may have no memory of it, but there was a time when many American corporations had different, broader values. The structure of the present is not necessary or inevitable.
Did they really have broader values or did they just not have the technical sophistication to optimize their operation to this level? Where "values" just a substitute for more limited information?
I think computers have made the structure of the present inevitable.
The founders [1] of mcdonalds probably did care about say cheaply providing people with enjoyable food. But I would bet soon after they sold [2] the company the actual values changed and definitely a bunch of CEOs down the road the guy put in charge is there for shareholder return.
I personally don't think it's computers. It's unfettered corperatization. Stop giving companies corporate charters to "do all business activities allowed by X state" and instead give them more narrow charters.
Richard and Maurice McDonald had a small business that almost certainly wouldn't even be around today if they didn't sell to Ray Kroc. The McDonald's we know is a corporation. Corporatization is the process of turning government agencies, public services, or non-business organization into corporations. A more broad interpretation would be applying corporate philosophy to non-corporate things.
McDonald's is already a corporation -- corporatization doesn't apply.
If you don't want corporations to be corporate; I don't what to tell you!
>If you don't want corporations to be corporate; I don't what to tell you!
You don't need to tell me anything. Nor vic2 versa. You don't fight a corporation with reasoned debate, you need more broad tools. Customer demand. Regulations. Competition.
The big mistake here is trying to desensitize the people into thinking they have no power.
Incorporation was a special privilege the government granted, not a right, so anyone who wanted to form a corporation had to convince the government to pass a law just for them allowing them to do it. Saying "I want to make as much money as possible, to hell with everyone and everything that stands in my way" wasn't going to cut it. Basically every corporation was doing some kind of public service. Maybe they didn't have any values beyond stuffing their pockets with cash, but they had to at least convincingly portray themselves as having broader goals and keep up that act well enough that the government didn't take their charter from them.
Many early corporations were ordinary profit-seeking businesses. Manufacturing, in particular, were increasingly incorporated simply to conduct private enterprise, and states began passing general incorporation statutes for manufacturers quite early in the 19th century.
The special-charter system wasn't some golden age of corporations being held accountable to society. One of the reasons states abandoned special chartering was because it became associated with favouritism, lobbying, monopoly privileges and corruption. Legislators had something valuable to hand out, so connected businesses could seek preferential charters. General incorporation laws were partly an anti-corruption reform.
Thank goodness it's no longer at the whim of the ruler of the moment. Trump can only threaten FCC licenses of broadcast companies, not corporate charters of every industry.
Arguably, there were different values in effect in the past.
There was more emphasis on values like: God-as-god. Country. Family. Courage. Integrity.
The newer values are more like: Money-as-god. Survival. Cats. Dopamine maxxing.
I may get downvoted for mentioning religion in the context of a question about values. But to bring data into it, it's reportedly a fact that "None" [0] as a dominant religious self-identity is indeed a newer/increased phenomenon. It would be hard to argue thats that's not a clear measure of shift in values.
Its called social shaming and its still a thing in other countries. Even for a CEO. This very much is a cultural issue and not an unhalting inevitability of capitalism.
Yes. The people that make up that corporation should care about their fellow man (family, friends) and should take pride in making good things (personal fulfillment).
Their workers, customers, and probably some local governments. They might even say it themselves at times.
> How does this compare to what you do for a living?
I make video games. There's always some sausage but I like to think I'm helping to bring joy and spark creativity, not simply make a billionaire richer.
Given my lack of full time work, I'm at least sure these last few years I'm not doing the latter directly.
Really think about it for a second; $8.5 billion in profit. That's an insane amount of money. How many companies with that kind of profit are actively dodging taxes from aggressive accounting, getting deals with local governments, or any other way? Not that the government would spend the extra tax revenue wisely. Instead, what if they took $1 billion of that to increase the pay of the lowest earning employees significantly while not increase the highest earners at all, or paying 100% of health care (medical, dental, vision, and mental), or any of the other things to help improve employee relationships. Then, start focusing on the external things that could be directly improved by taking less profit to improve things for those so much is taken. That's still $7.5 billion in profit.
> How many companies with that kind of profit are actively dodging taxes from aggressive accounting, getting deals with local governments, or any other way?
I don't think it's fair to imply that McDonald's is doing anything shady. They have over 2 million workers (although not directly, it's a franchise model). They make a lot of profit but, proportional to the total workforce, it's about average. Hardly something to be outraged about.
If you spread $1 billion evenly among two million workers, that's about $500 per employee per year. That is roughly 25 cents an hour for a full-time worker. Paying 100% health care would be several billion dollars.
The underlying implication here is whether companies should make any profit at all. If the amount of profit allowed is non-zero, what is the correct number? And if there is a correct number, what do you propose to do about it?
I’m sorry, was your problem with the implementation of a theoretical lowering of profits for McDonald’s that would result in $500 per employee or your original argument I responded to implying that $500 per employee was immaterial?
I want to make sure I’m kicking my field goal at the right goal post before you move them.
I never stated I had a problem. The original poster seemed almost offended that McDonald's made a "large" profit. So my question is, what is the correct amount of profit that company should make? And, conversely, what happens if a company has losses?
As for whether employees should make more money, I'm definitely not against that. Seems to me, raising the minimum wage and tying it to inflation would be a good start.
I replied to this paragraph that was a subset from your original post
> If you spread $1 billion evenly among two million workers, that's about $500 per employee per year. That is roughly 25 cents an hour for a full-time worker. Paying 100% health care would be several billion dollars.
I responded by saying this, which was the entirety of my post
> The average American, which McDonald’s workers are on the low end side, can’t handle a 500 dollar emergency.
500 dollars a year to every worker would make a material difference in most of their lives.
You responded with this entire post
> Ok. Lets do it. Tell me how?
Was I misunderstanding something? I am fully guilty of responding to a misconceived strawman, or mistaking one poster for another on this site so I have no problem if that’s what occurred.
If what I laid out as the state of responses is however the state of reality than I want to know what specifically you are asking so we can stick to one argument and not weave past each other.
I'm not offended. I'm just thinking of how large $8.5 billion is and what could be done with some of that profit while still keeping a shit ton of profit. It's not like I suggested spending $8.25 billion, I just suggested a measly $1 billion, maybe $2b
Call your representative and push for such legislatio. join a labor coalition in your area, Be it a union, a special interests group, etc. If they can get a local bill to petition, help get signature gathered and donations raised.
Do this for some 3-10 years and there will start to be national movements and pressure for federal bills addressing this. Assuming we don't just kowtow to fascism as we are now in my country.
I probably do not live in your region, so you'll need to look up your relevant organizations. Which would include existing bills and proposal that can already save a lot of legwork.
My main thesis here is that this isn't something you have to (nor can) do alone. And there are others who probably already have the ball rolling. Joining a larger cause can create a better effect than creating a narrative in your head that corporations are all powerful and paid off your representatives.
This is meaningless because it's entirely hypothetical. If McDonald's is only looking at quantitative data the "bad outcome" hasn't come for them. It seems quite successful in fact (especially in these tough economic times). Maybe if leads to a massive failure we can come back and revisit this but for now, based on facts, it's working just fine for them.
People like to believe that enshitifying everything will eventually lead to failure because sucks for us. It does suck for us. But I'm not convinced that karma is coming for them.
So if I make $0.10 of profit, all my decisions are validated?
What if we knew that Maccas could have made $20 billion, but ignoring qualitative data reduced their profits to $8.563 billion. Do those decisions still look smart?
Still doesn't look like it is hurting them, but to put it in perspective that's a 4% increase in profit, while 2025 inflation was around 2.5%. Closer to a 1.5% gain in real terms.
There’s a reason services like GitHub Classroom Replit’s education offerings shut down. Serving educators can be very hands-on. Education can have lots of different requirements (every teacher needs this one little feature), often legal issues (student privacy), and dealing with universities and governments is awful and bureaucratic. Most companies will find it easier to make money elsewhere.
The dirty little secret of EdTech is that there is no money in improving learning because there is no way to capture the value. For all but a handful of highly specialized and insular professions, there is no scalable infrastructure for objectively assessing skill mastery. Most learners don’t want to learn for its own sake, they want a credential that proves their value to potential employers. All of the value in learning accrues to the credential, and everyone in the educational establishment is quite happy reserving that privilege for the accredited universities because they can just bundle more and more products and services into the tuition sticker price without ever having to justify it. Oh, and the student loan racket ensures that enough students are price-insensitive that they’ll never look for alternatives.
They're just outside of K-12 and Academia, who don't necessarily keep the gap close to the real world and it's needs post-graduation
The value in learning is what you do with it, the credential can be a part of the journey but not always. People were definitely about the brand, and it's value, of the stamp of a piece of paper, however given the experience of recent graduates the past 5 years, it's revealing itself to not be an aberration that's going to give way to the 500-1000 years preceeding it.
I’m a computational chemist who has been working on this kind of stuff for a while, and I will say it’s just a weird field. The overall issue is that it’s still very academic and very very fragmented. People have tried to make businesses out of this stuff but it has rarely worked, and there isn’t enough money/funding to sustain the level of work needed to really advance the field in that way. Especially now that government funding is drying up and business are reluctant to spend on fundamental research like this.
> People have tried to make businesses out of this stuff but it has rarely worked
The only two startups I'm aware of who have managed to make compchem-as-a-service a viable business are Mat3ra and Materials Square. Both are a little rough in their own ways (to be expected from startups), but it's still interesting to see some of this move beyond university clusters.
My big question is where is that money going to go?
On the surface, I don't mind the program. However, the implementation is likely to be terrible as we have seen so far. The various agencies tasked with implementing this have already been gutted and are dysfunctional. There is widespread belief that the Genesis mission is just a grift to get government money away from academia and into already-wealthy businesses, and that the call for proposals was a way to mine for ideas that could be stolen.
I was one of the thousands of proposals submitted to the program, which we didn't hear anything about after submission. If the rumors are true, there will only be a pittance of awards this round. So yeah, I'm skeptical that this money will actually end up in the hands of actual scientists.
(Long story short, the administration is slashing the budgets of various NSF divisions to make room X-Labs, despite the Congressional budget stating that is not allowed)
> but is anyone actually willing to do anything about it?
They did. They elected Trump.
> no major populist uprising against the dismantling of the institution of the presidency
Some people view the president as the only directly-elected person powerful enough to fight for them in dismantling the rest of a government that isn't working (or even actively working against them). So they implicitly want a strong president.
This only goes as far as the president agrees with them of course.
I would say that speaks more to apathy than activism.
> Some people view the president as the only directly-elected person powerful enough to fight for them in dismantling the rest of a government that isn't working
I think consciously verbalizing a position even that nuanced and esoteric is niche, but there is certainly something to be said for peoples' susceptibility to a type of "strong" cult leader.
>I would say that speaks more to apathy than activism.
Whatever else you'd want to say about Trump supporters, I wouldn't call them apathetic. Maybe I'm reading your comment wrong, but I can't see how anyone could characterize Trump's base as "apathetic."
I tried to be clever and succinct and it backfired.
I was more referring to "everyone else" as apathetic. Generally, I don't think voting is itself considered an act of activism. Somebody will always win the election regardless of overall levels of activism and apathy. January 6 could be considered activism, however (the bad kind that's closer to a riot). "Get out the vote" grassroots efforts are activism.
I think there is currently a general lack of enthusiasm for the political system and process in the US, and a lack of faith in the government. Trump has tapped into that, and riled people up. Tapping into fear and aggression and anger does not inspire what I would consider to be traditional political and civic activism which IMO is more rooted in "let's work together to make things better for our people."
As opposed to, "let's say MAGA but actually start foreign and domestic conflicts and squander resources on pointless personal ego projects." It is disturbing to me that people continue to support that but I'm still calling it more apathetic than activist.
Thanks for the clarification. The interesting thing about the 2024 election was that Trump's turnout was higher than 2016, and in addition, according to the polling and analysis I saw, this was one of the first times in a long time where if _more_ people had voted, he would have had _more_ votes. This is in pretty stark contrast to presidential voting trends for the last 30-40 years. So although I think you could paint 2016 as an "apathy" election (I would still argue that 2016 was more about two deeply unpopular candidates than anything else) I'm not sure that same analysis really applies to 2024. I'm basing a lot of this on this very interesting interview here -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx0J7dIlL7c -- so to the extent that I'm wrong or you disagree, this at least gives some context to my claims.
I did look that up and took out a line about voter turnout because of it. He definitely has rallied people. He does tap into an energy that the DNC has been blind to. But if you look at the tenor of it, it really does seem to be about anger and dissatisfaction and combativeness -- destructive rather than constructive. MAGA talking points and initiatives aren't about building up communities, schools, infrastructure...they're about all the bogeymans.
I do see the failure of either party to produce a truly constructively inspiring candidate as something seriously wrong with the system. Thanks for the link, it does seem interesting.
> I would say that speaks more to apathy than activism
And I would say that speaks more to your disconnect with most of US society. Very few folks actually trust activists for good reason.
Trump is like the most mild form of what is to come. The fact he got elected when he did is remarkable to me.
It only gets worse from here if things don’t change. At some point someone like him who is actually serious will be elected and then it’s basically game over.
Trump 2016 was a warning shot most folks in the chosen classes chose to ignore. Trump 2024 is something you ignore at your own peril at this point. I would be thanking the gods at the relative apathy so far if I believed that narrative.
If Trump was remotely competent we would be having entirely different conversations. There would be no option of “weathering the storm” to wait him out if so.
We're already there. Project 2025/federalist society is using Trump as they have some goals in common, but they are the real drive behind ICE, DOGE, foreign policy like Venezuela, and general destruction of the federal government.
> And I would say that speaks more to your disconnect with most of US society. Very few folks actually trust activists for good reason.
I don't follow. What I said is in alignment with the idea that activism is out of vogue. The comment I replied to implied that electing Trump was an act of activism (or "doing something about it").
Anyway, we already had Hitler. Sadly too often, these guys pop up at the right time and wreak havoc but I would say they're outliers (and in general the world is globalizing and trending away from them).
A long time ago a very wise man told me that they way economy works is like a magnifying glass. Things are detected, the glass moves, and what's underneath is blessed with the political/economic grease to get the thing that is wanted going.
The question was always who moves the glass. It sounds like last calls for ladders being rolled up on the nouveau-riche.
I remember having a computer and reading about how the CPU (486) could address up to 4 GB of memory. I thought that was maybe a mistake, since even my hard drive was maybe 100 MB, and I had 16 MB of memory IIRC.
I figured maybe they meant hard drive space (which I could kind of imagine being that large).
Would agents be susceptible to advertising? If humans have issues differentiating ads from real results, and are swayed by TV ads and stuff (they are), then why wouldn't an AI agent.
I kind of assume they would, given how ChatGPT brings up garbage websites sometimes for my questions.
reply