I think developers will be paid to use AI to develop and part of that pay is to correct AI mistakes. When the AI doesn't make any mistakes is the time development takes another different turn.

This is a big when.

Supply and demand. Unfortunately there are way more people that would rather the lower price than the ad-free.

I'm not so sure this is really a free market equilibrium. There are two effects which explain the prevalence of ads even if consumers are willing to pay more for ad-free products:

- Imperfect information, aka Market for Lemons: It can be hard to find out how prevalent ads will be when buying a product. Consumers often make a purchasing decision without knowledge about ads.

- Changing terms after lock-in, aka Enshittification: Manufacturers (like Hisense here) can add advertising to products after consumers have already bought them. Initially, consumers have negotiation power since they can freely choose a product, but later they are locked in and cannot easily react to the manufacturer changing the product to their detriment.

At 100" the packaging, shipping from china, the delivery, etc. add have to be so much more than $1k.

I bought a 100" TV with setup and it was only $1600. I don't know how they make money on that with all the logistics required. Two people for delivery, two different people for the wall hanging, all the materials for the packaging, and that is just to get it to my house.

Shipping from China to a US coastal warehouse is probably modestly under $200, including packaging, assuming it's shipped in a 40" container. Possibly less if there's other cargo that can be used to fill the remaining space.

I suspect the domestic costs are really dependent on volume (like, can you ship a container of 45 TVs to a warehouse near NYC or do you have to ship each unit individually) and I don't feel confident estimating that side of it.

My favorite banned in CA is the "off roster" handguns that the police can buy and sell to the people of CA at a markup.

Public transport has an identity problem in the US. Trying to serve 100% of your market will result in a worse service for everyone. It needs to decide if it is for the handicap, the people that don't drive, the people that want to commute, etc.

Making fewer stops helps the commute people and those that are able bodied. It doesn't help serve the people that are handicap.

Cars also require a license.

Well yeah. Cars kill 40x the people.

Depending on how you use AI you can learn things a lot quicker than before. You can ask it questions, ask it to explain things, etc. Even if the AI is not ready for prime time yet, the vision of being able change how we learn is there.

The CEOs are concerned about their company. They are not worried about employing every consumer of their product.

That seems just as bad but the opposite direction.

I guess time will tell, but so far none of the AI-output we've seen is any good. We dont like to adopt technologies based on hype, so if it proves itself it will be adopted, but until then its a toy.

If AI is the answer, then there's no reason for a top-down mandate like this. People will just start using as they see fit because it helps them do their jobs better, instead of it being forced on them, which doesn't sound much like AI is the answer investors thought it was.

No, because as discussed AI also changes the nature of your job in a way that might be negative to a worker, even if it’s more productive. Ie, it may be more fun to ride a horse to your friends house, but it’s not faster than a car. Or as the previous example, it may be more enjoyable to make a shoe by hand, but it’s less productive than using an assembly line

You might be misreading negative sentiment towards poor leadership as negative sentiment towards AI.

I agree that a lot of the current push is driven by investor sentiment and a degree of FOMO. If capital markets start to believe AI is table stakes, companies don’t really have the option to ignore it anymore. That said, I’m not bearish on AI either. I think there’s a meaningful difference between chasing AI for signaling purposes and deliberately building an “AI muscle” inside the organization. Companies that start learning how to use, govern, and integrate AI thoughtfully are likely to outpace those that never engage at all. From that perspective, most of these memos feel fairly reasonable to me. They’re less about declaring AI as a silver bullet and more about acknowledging that standing still carries its own risk.