←back to thread

837 points turrini | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.229s | source
Show context
caseyy ◴[] No.43972418[source]
There is an argument to be made that the market buys bug-filled, inefficient software about as well as it buys pristine software. And one of them is the cheapest software you could make.

It's similar to the "Market for Lemons" story. In short, the market sells as if all goods were high-quality but underhandedly reduces the quality to reduce marginal costs. The buyer cannot differentiate between high and low-quality goods before buying, so the demand for high and low-quality goods is artificially even. The cause is asymmetric information.

This is already true and will become increasingly more true for AI. The user cannot differentiate between sophisticated machine learning applications and a washing machine spin cycle calling itself AI. The AI label itself commands a price premium. The user overpays significantly for a washing machine[0].

It's fundamentally the same thing when a buyer overpays for crap software, thinking it's designed and written by technologists and experts. But IC1-3s write 99% of software, and the 1 QA guy in 99% of tech companies is the sole measure to improve quality beyond "meets acceptance criteria". Occasionally, a flock of interns will perform an "LGTM" incantation in hopes of improving the software, but even that is rarely done.

[0] https://www.lg.com/uk/lg-experience/inspiration/lg-ai-wash-e...

replies(27): >>43972654 #>>43972713 #>>43972732 #>>43973044 #>>43973105 #>>43973120 #>>43973128 #>>43973198 #>>43973257 #>>43973418 #>>43973432 #>>43973703 #>>43973853 #>>43974031 #>>43974052 #>>43974503 #>>43975121 #>>43975380 #>>43976615 #>>43976692 #>>43979081 #>>43980549 #>>43982939 #>>43984708 #>>43986570 #>>43995397 #>>43998494 #
1. panick21_ ◴[] No.43998494[source]
The argument that a buyer can't verify quality is simply false. Specially if the cost of something is large. And for lots of things, such verification isn't that hard.

The Market for Lemons story is about a complex thing that most people don't understand and is to low value. But even that paper misses many real world solution people have found for this.

> The user cannot differentiate between sophisticated machine learning applications and a washing machine spin cycle calling itself AI.

Why then did people pay for ChatGPT when Google claimed it had something better? Because people quickly figured out that Google solution wasn't better.

Its easy to share results, its easy to look up benchmarks.

The claim that anything that claims its AI will automatically be able to demand some absurd prices is simply not true. At best people just slap AI on everything and its as if everybody stands up in a theater, nobody is better off.