I can see this being a HomeJoy style situation (coincidentally actually backed by YC…), where they claim to clean up all your sloppy code for $40, burn through some more VC (extra funny as it’d be spending one VC’s money to try to clean up another VC’s mistakes), give up on AI and evolve into the usual outsourced body shop, and finally fold when everybody involved realizes the business model is not solvent.
If you look at AMD's CPUs there's indications they do that. When Zen1/1+/2 came out they were priced below intel's products as they needed to rebuild mindshare with their promising new chips, from Zen3 onwards where they started building a performance lead in many categories as well as core count they jacked the prices up because they could demand it.
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is probably my second favorite FPS game after Doom 2. Nothing has ever really hit me since like the nuke scene did. The set-pieces in Modern Warfare and MW2 are some of the best single-player FPS gaming I’ve ever experienced.
Let's say it takes 10 units of work to build a house, and 200 units of resources to build a skyscraper; on average. Let's further assume, after a point, that skill tends to increase quality by a lot more than it decreases resource consumption, so this is "about the best you can do".
A very skilled craftsman/artist can build an amazing house with 10 units. A low quality bargain barrel contractor will build a skyscraper for 200, but it's not going to be pretty.
If new technology means you can now build a skyscrapers for 10, that means that many more exciting and experimental concepts can be tested by building a skyscraper right away, whereas previously they could only be built as a house.
- Some concepts are just better as a house. Even with infinite resources, people will still make houses to this concept; it's not like houses are devalued or less useful or less nice.
- Some concepts would be better as a skyscraper, but are very niche, so they were built as houses as a compromise. These can now be skyscrapers. This is no comment at all on the skill of the builder, only on the resources available to them (time, money, etc.)
I never said:
- houses are worse (or better)
- building houses is a skill issue
I merely said:
- the choice of what to build is not 100% based on artistic merit; resource constraints must also be taken into account
And hence concluded:
- if it becomes cheaper to build things, the choice of what to build depends more on artistic merit now
And speculated:
- since there are all kinds of things that are really cool but really expensive, meaning we often (due to resource reasons) need to substitute a cheaper thing (which can be just as good or even superior for other concepts, just not the particular concept in question), we will likely see a lot more of Really Cool Thing now that it's cheap.
In short, thinking photography will enable a new mass market of images whereas previously paintings were really expensive and difficult to make, while still respecting that:
- a master photographer can be just as skilled as a master painter
- a master painter's work is not necessarily devalued by the existence of photography
And yet noting that
- some paintings might be better as photographs, or would never be made at all because there simply wasn't enough money to paint them even if they in fact would be better as paintings
Think, for example, realistic war photography. Or realistic photography of non-privileged people and cultures. That's just... not painted very often.
Cheap is good for diversity of expression. It does not devalue what used to be expensive, except insamuch as the value was simply a shallow status signal about burning resources rather than real human expression.
