you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 6 months ago (16 children)

So is the issue that they dont project far enough into the future? Or do they never correctly predict the size and impact of the negativity?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    The issue is they only care about short term profits. They don't care about the negative impacts because it doesn't actually affect them. They also fully believe they have a captive market in that people are so conditioned to it that they won't go searching for alternatives so long as their service, regardless of how shit it is, remains the most convenient and habitual.

    And, if shit does hit the fan, they've already made off with a king's ransom and will just pivot their ventures after taking their golden parachute to leave some poor schmuck holding the bag.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    They don't care about the negative impacts because it doesn't actually affect them.

    How odd.

    Wealth has a tremendous capacity to insulate, but nothing is unlimited.

    Whose kids could be rich enough to live as safely or comfortably in a world that regresses/declines beyond various tipping points? (I also want their safety & comfort, we would all win)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    By the time the negatives hit, the CEO has their golden parachute and the investors have sold their stock at record highs. Off they go to ruin another company.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    It's even worse, the structure we have actively discourages them from doing so. Fiduciary responsibility is thrown up as a reason for a lot of things like this and knowingly picking an option that is less profitable on paper even if it's obviously better long term is inviting questions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    If risk adjusted profits are judged to be greater in the long term, it's fiduciary responsibility to go for it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Long-term gains from things like user satisfaction are hard to measure and predict.

    That's why you see these 'Were you happy with our service?' questions everywhere. Still, the people who answer these polls are in the minority and a specific subset of respondents, which is bad for statistics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    There might also be a situation of if they don't do that, some other company like openai will make an ai search and spend a ton into marketing and they will lose market, so they try to avoid this scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago*

    Yes, the way the system works is that short-term success is prioritized above everything else. Because if you don't prioritize the short term, and someone else will, you'll lose out to them.

    Sure, the one who prioritizes the short term will get fucked in the long term, but that doesn't matter, because they were the short term successful ones, and the one that went long term is now out of business or a much smaller player.

  • source
  • parent