> More people building things is straightforwardly good
I still don’t understand this perspective, how is it good when a growing portion of stuff that’s built is straight garbage?
> More people building things is straightforwardly good
I still don’t understand this perspective, how is it good when a growing portion of stuff that’s built is straight garbage?
People can choose not to consume things that are straight garbage.
Infinite monkeys with typewrites theory. Except typewriters are $20/$200 Claude code subscriptions.
Depends upon the filtering system.
Consider indie games. If there are 10 of them and 5 are great, you don't need any filter. You look through 5 great and 5 not so great games and end up with 5 great ones.
Now go to a world where indie games explode. But only 1 in every 100 are great. There are now 100,000 games, but most qualify as very low quality. There are now 1,000 great games (and a few of these might be the perfect game you dreamt of), but if you don't have a filter and are buried under 10s of thousands of horrible games, things feel worse.
With a filter, you now live in a world where you can easily find most of those great games with only a few lower quality ones showing up. So as long as the filters that exist, whatever they might be, can handle it, more is better even if quality drops.
Unless the quality extremely fast, say my previous example of 100,000 games but only 1 in a million was a great game. I think this level of quality drop is extremely unlikely. Instead, I suspect the real problem is if the filters can keep up, because they depend upon human effort, so it is possible to hit a point where they are overwhelmed and stop functioning properly. That's when things get worse. As long as the filters hold, more building leads to better outcomes even with a drop in quality.
> I think this level of quality drop is extremely unlikely.
Just open Steam, PSStore, Nintendo store.
Suppose the choice is between software that does what you want, but isn't very optimized, and the software not existing at all, rather than between shoddy and beautiful software that both do what you want, and maybe it will make more sense to you.
So apply a false dichotomy and it will all make sense? Still not buying it. Not everything needs to be solved with software, and brushing off negative externalities as “not very optimized” is irresponsible
It's not a false dichotomy at all. There wasn't a lot of junk clothing in the ancient world -- everything was made to last. The downside was it was very expensive and most people didn't have much. The episode with the guards casting lots to see who can have Jesus's robes in the gospels is rather difficult to understand for a modern audience.
> and maybe it will make more sense to you
Still doesn't.
Well, I can lead a horse to water but not make it drink.
Give it an LLM, maybe it can write a half-assed app that can help it drink.
I will pick the software not existing at all every time. Easily without a thought.
I think that's an absurd thing to believe, but if we've moved beyond "I don't understand" to "I don't agree" then my post served its purpose.
I'm not following what "I dont understand" would entail here. The choice is fairly binary.