Great thought. Question is, can those who do the tolerating (in the interest of capital) even effectively prohibit/prevent access after a certain point, especially now that the cat is not just underway, but well out of the bag?
Assuming the current trajectory of a yearly factor of 10–100 in size/cost reduction [0] holds up, won’t the technology just become cheap enough to be functionally available to everyone?
Thinking about just the domain of the stock market only: getting a "win" on it means getting a leg up on everyone else participating. Best example I can think of of a pure zero sum intelligence contest. Programming UIs might have a point where you just can't get smarter at it, but in an intelligence contest like a stock market, I don't think there's a ceiling.
In "Accelerando" this was covered by the invention of "Economics 2.0." AI agents also got into a lot of lawfare in that book.
The most rigorous "private property advocates" don't recognize intellectual property as a legitimate form of property in the first place: private property is a natural phenomenon that emerges as a solution to the problem of physical things being inherently exclusive in possession and use, and IP is a creation of positive law meant to artificially apply the methods for solving that problem to another, unrelated question that isn't part of the same problem domain.
> I mean, the answer is obvious: the Luddites were right, these tools (not just LLMs but private property, copyright, and capitalist mechanisms) are only tolerated to exist so long as they serve the needs of Capital, but the hypocrisy still frustrates me.
Abstract concepts don't have "needs", and no one is currently in a position to tolerate or not tolerate anything -- no one in particular is actually in control over anyone else's activities. The cat's out of the bag, and no one has any capacity to put it back in.