The way to tell if a business has a moat that I once learned was, "If someone gave you a billion dollars, could you go compete with that business and have a reasonable chance of winning." If the answer is yes, then the business has no moat. The numbers are bigger now, but I think the principle remains the same: money cannot be a moat.
A moat is around something that exists, meant to protect it. You're describing something else, not a moat with your example. OP used moat correctly, creative effort around existing earned skill, brand, etc.
To answer your question. Yes to a player already in a market with lack of funding, a billion dolars could be the necessary moat to win.
Money was, is and likely will be a moat for a while. But as a proxy, it may not be enough as a moat. Scarce resources may require more than money— e.g. IP classes or, if you're China, ASML machines.
I think the point is that capital alone is a pretty poor economic moat. If it works, it's probably only because the market opportunity actually isn't that great once you take everything into account. If the opportunity is good enough, the money is out there and your competitive advantage will disappear quickly.
If you gave someone the exact same budgets and resources as the major AI companies, yes I'm sure most humans on this Earth would come up with comparable (and probably even better) plans. Why are we acting as if business magnates have some special quantity in them? Sam Altman isn't an engineer, he's never worked a real job in his life. There's nothing special about him outside of the ability to lie.
If you can hire top talent, why wouldn't you be able to compete on a software level?
You could maybe create a better product with a billion dollars, I'll give you that. But that's nowhere near enough to win. It's downright laughable to think that you could beat Slack or Google Workspace with only a billion dollars.
Why do you think Slack sold for $27 billion? Why not just spend a billion and beat them? OpenAI or Anthropic have collectively raised more than $100 billion. What on earth makes you think you could replicate that AND beat them at their own game with only a billion?
Also, while the author complains that there is not a lot of high quality data around [0], you do not need a lot of data to train small models. Depending on the problem you are trying to solve, you can do a lot with single-digit gigabytes of audio data. See, e.g., https://jmvalin.ca/demo/rnnoise/
[0] Which I do agree with, particularly if you need it to be higher quality or labeled in a particular way: the Fisher database mentioned is narrowband and 8-bit mu-law quantized, and while there are timestamps, they are not accurate enough for millisecond-level active speech determination. It is also less than 6000 conversations totaling less than 1000 hours (x2 speakers, but each is silent over half the time, a fact that can also throw a wrench in some standard algorithms, like volume normalization). It is also English-only.
Wrt data, it's not like there is a shortage of transcribed audio in the form of music sheets, lyrics and subtitles.
If one asks ~~nice~~ expensive enough they can even get isolated multitracks or teleprompter feeds together with the audiovisual tracks. Heck, if they wanted they could set up dedicated transcription teams for the plethora of podcasts with the costs somewhere in the rounding error range. But you can't siphon that off of torrents and paying for training material goes against the core ethics of the big players.
Too bad you can't really scrape tiktok/instagram reels with subtitles... Oh no, oh no, oh no no no no
I began contributing to Xiph shortly after Ralph did. He was always thoughtful, always curious, always kind, and his example helped me to become a better version of myself. I wish he was still here to review my patches and untangle the nastier bits of arcana needed to deploy our libraries across a broad ecosystem. I wish he was still here to get tacos with us, and plan world domination. He gave so much to those around him that it does not feel right to complain that he is not around to give us more. I miss him.
In particular, the central bank, charged with controlling inflation, cannot use taxation to reduce the money supply, because banks do not get to set tax policy. That leaves raising interest rates as its only policy tool.
As the political arm of the government chooses to run deficits in excess of growth plus inflation, then (a) that causes more inflation, and (b) the central bank raises rates, increasing the cost of government borrowing, causing bigger deficits.
This escalates as a result of the central bank trying to control the effects of high government spending by applying a mis-matched policy tool (interest rates) in place of the politicians who have abdicated their responsibility to use a matched policy tool (taxation). Either it spirals out of control, or more and more of the government budget is devoted to interest expense (direct government transfers of wealth paid exclusively to the debt holders) and less of it is spent on providing actual government services (that benefit all taxpayers).
If the central bank does not raise rates, of course, things go even more badly.
> I've seen many discussions stating patent hoarding has gone too far...
Vibe coding does not solve this problem. If anything, it makes it worse, since you no longer have any idea if an implementation might read on someone else's patent, since you did not write it.
If your agent could go read all of the patents and then avoid them in its implementations and/or tell you where you might be infringing them (without hallucinating), that would be valuable. It still would not solve the inherent problems of vagueness in the boundaries of the property rights that patents confer (which may require expensive litigation to clarify definitively) or people playing games with continuations to rewrite claim language and explicitly move those boundaries years later, among other dubious but routine practices, but it would be something.
> If your agent could go read all of the patents and then avoid them in its implementations and/or tell you where you might be infringing them (without hallucinating), that would be valuable.
That would lead the whole society to a halt, because it feels impossible to do anything now without violating someone's patent. Patents quite often put small players at a disadvantage, because the whole process of issuing patents is slow, expensive and unpredictable. Also, I once heard a lawyer say that, in high-stake lawsuits the it is the pile (of patents) that matters.
This is the standard advice from the World Bank, the IMF, etc., and it does developing countries a huge disservice. South Korea banned the import of foreign cars from 1968 to 1988 while it developed its own automobile industry (Japanese imports were banned until 1998). Now Huyndai Motor Group sells more cars than GM [0]. That firm absolutely could not have survived if exposed to the ravages of the free market during the two decades it took them to learn how to produce cars to a globally competitive level. There are many other examples of protectionism in the developmental success that is South Korea. The idea ("infant industry protection") comes from Alexander Hamilton. The US relied on it heavily, too, in its early history.
If South Korea had followed the standard developmental economists' advice they would still be sewing garments and growing soybeans instead of manufacturing semiconductors, consumer electronics, and appliances (among many other things).
China still have capital control and state-led economy, even if they're smart about it. The state create a market, remove barriers to entry in exchange for oversight , then pick and choose who consolidate and who doesn't once the market leaders emerge. If that's free market to you, everything post-mercantilism is, and the term loose some of it's power.
China did not go full free market. But it went far enough to create a huge prosperity boom.
Note that there's a continuum between communism and free market. It is not all or nothing. Experience, however, shows the more free market it is, the more prosperous it is.
Worth mentioning that Park Chung-hee's "five-year economic development plans"[1] were the centerpiece of Korea's economic development during the 1960-70s, and we can draw direct parallels between that and Stalin's five-year economic plans [2].
It is baffling to me, as well. You know how you get a remote-code-execution vulnerability? You give a bunch of software permission to fetch code remotely and execute it.
At least JS code in a browser is sandboxed. A Notepad++ update is just rawdogging an executable on your bare metal, perhaps with admin privs even, and hoping for the best.
First, it wasn't even the developer who compromised people, here; second, scripts in most cases are orders of magnitude less dangerous than a windows executable.
And, in many cases you can get some protection from a developer going rogue (or not writing perfect code), it's not an all or nothing.
> The stock market is mostly just an inverse of currency health and tends to be inline or slightly above inflation on average...
This is demonstrably false? Long-term average US inflation since 1913 is 3.1% [0]. Long-term nominal average US stock returns since 1928 are 9.94% [1]. A nearly 7% advantage compounded every year for roughly a century is not "slightly above", it is absolutely enormous. Over 60,000% enormous.
Furthermore, when inflation is high, interest rates go up, and interest rates act like gravity on stock prices. See any number of Warren Buffett shareholder letters. See also: the year 2022. Stock market returns are mildly negatively correlated with inflation (with a coefficient of -0.229 [2]).
For rate rises that are enacted to slow inflation (which slows stock market growth as you said) i think you have the cause and effect reversed.
The best way to see how inflation and stocks are linked is to look at economies where inflation is not intentionally slowed by rate rises. The stocks go up more or less with inflation (and some small % of gains they may have on top as you say). When you have rate rises that slow inflation you do indeed slow stock growth. But this is also inline with the link between inflation and stock price.
Not sure what your point is when we're talking about cars, where fixed physical controls are demonstrably more usable and safer for drivers that need to keep their eyes on the road. Multiple manufacturers have pulled back from excessive touch controls (not just touchscreens, but capacitive buttons and sliders) and reinstated more traditional buttons and dials.
Physical controls and smart cars are not mutually exclusive. That’s why they’ve been fixing that.
I agree that was an idiotic trend.
But if someone wants a car without connectivity, it’s too late. The market is not strong enough to get rid of that. Most people either like it or don’t care enough to avoid it.
Just like most people liked or didn’t care enough to avoid smart TVs.
I declined the master data agreement when Toyota updated it, and my car hasn’t connected to the Internet since. They also wanted to charge me like $20 a month for stuff like bothering me with notifications that my wife has failed to lock the car when I’m halfway across the city after the first year of ownership.
I suppose they could still remote kill the car though, and have no idea what would happen if I hit the emergency button.
This will continue to happen as long as it is effectively unpunished. Even retracting the paper would do little good, as odds are it would not have been written if the author could not have used an LLM, so they are no worse off for having tried. Scientific publications are mostly a numbers game at this point. It is just one more example of a situation where behaving badly is much cheaper than policing bad behavior, and until incentives are changed to account for that, it will only get worse.
reply