For example it ignores the gazillion medium(-like) "articles" that are not much more than the output of a prompt. Here AI is not about style, is about content too. If you open such a post, maybe with the intent of learning anything, and you realize is AI slop, you might close it. Making it harder to recognize is poisoning the well in such cases.
I am on e/OS since 2021 with a FP3 and, for what is worth, I never had to reinstall, wipe or anything. My phone just had it's 5th birthday and it has been a single continuous set of updates.
I know the versions differ by model, so perhaps your model was not as well supported.
It was the gigaset gs190. I've used it quite some time with e/os, but one day the automatic updates stopped working and I discovered this reinstallation requirement.
My wife works for a competitor of the company mentioned. They are in EU. Still run everything on AWS. The data collected is usually even more than what stated, full video recording of the session with audio etc.
AWS EU region is not doing much, and I suspect most companies run on US providers. EU needs independent platform for this to matter.
To follow this up, one of my favorite channels on Youtube is Outdoor Boys. It's just a father who made videos once a week doing outdoor things like camping with his family. He has amassed billions of views on his channel. Literally a one-man operation. He does all the filming, editing himself. No marketing. His channel got so popular that he had to quit to protect his family from fame.
Many large production companies in the 2000s would have been extremely happy with that many views. They would have laughed you out of the building if you told them a single person could ever produce compelling enough video content and get at many viewers.
Serious question: but aren't there thousands of other guys doing almost the same thing and getting almost no views? Even if there are lots of new channels, there aren't going to be lots of winners
But there are many Youtubers making a decent living doing it as a one person shop or a small team. In the past, you needed to a large team with a large budget and buy in from TV/DVDs/VHS to get an audience.
There are no such detailed numbers as far as I know. No platform (twitch, YouTube etc.) generally provides this information. Thinking bad one could assume it's because most people would realize it's one in a million who makes it.
Channels that make money consistently also have teams behind. Sure, probably they are smaller then TV studios, but TV studios do also other jobs compared to youtubers.
Anyway, these are the only numbers available. If there are numbers that show that masses of individuals can make a living in a market with so many competitors like YouTube I am happy to look at them. Until then, I will observe what is known for almost everything: a small % takes the vast majority of resources.
YouTube is a platform, it's not a product. And in this case, created a new market. A market in which, by the way, still very few people (relative to those who try) are successful. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage would be much smaller than 10%.
Basically I would flip the question and ask: if you could produce videos now very simply with AI and so could other 10000 people, how many of the new channels do you think will be successful?
If anything, the YouTube example shows you exactly that it doesn't matter than 1000000 people now can produce content with low overhead, just a handful of them will be successful, because the market of companies available to spend money to sponsor through channels and the men hours of eyeballs on videos are both limited.
Talking about companies that just produce products, either you come up with something new (and create a new market), or you come up with something better (you take shares of an existing market). Having 10000 companies producing - say - digital editing software won't make suddenly increase by 10000x the number of people in need of digital editing software. Which means that among those 10000 there will be a few very good products which will eat all the market (like it is now), with the usual Paretian distribution.
The idea that many companies with smaller overhead can split the market evenly and survive might (and it's a big hopeful might) work on physical companies selling local and physical products (I.e., splitting the market geographically), but for software products I cannot even imagine it happening.
New markets are created all the time, and it's great if maybe smaller companies (or co-ops) could take over those markets rather than big corporations, but the way the market distribution happens I don't think will be affected. I don't see any reason why this should change with many more companies in the same market.
I also don't think that 10000 new companies will create 10000 new markets, because that depends on ideas (and luck, and context, and regulation, etc.), not necessarily on resources available,
Now count how many TV stations there were in the 90s and 2000s.
This is just Youtube alone. What about streamers on Twitch? Youtube? Tiktokers? IG influencers?
Plenty of people are making money creating video content online.
The internet, ease and advancements in video editing tools, and cheap portable cameras all came together to allow millions of content creators instead of 100 TV channels.
77.500 channels which make any money. Now plenty of those make a handful of dollars per month.
Also, 77k worldwide.
I am not going to deny that YouTube (and all social media) created new markets. But how is this not an argument that shows that when N people suddenly do some activity, only a tiny minority is successful and gains some market share?
If tomorrow a product that is made by 3 companies will see competitors by 10000 1-man operations, maybe you will have 30 different successful products, or 100. 9900 of those 10000 will still be out of luck.
I
YouTube is not an example of a market that being exposed to a flood of players gets shares somewhat equally between those players or that allows a significant number of the to survive with it. Nor is twitch or any of the other platforms.
Because:
1. One person companies are better at giving the wealth to the worker.
2. With thousands of companies the products can be more targeted and each product can serve fewer people and still be profitable
Then companies won't need to spam you to convince you that you need something you don't. Or that their product will help you in ways it can't.
Once person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team trying to inject ads into ever corner of your life.
> One person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team to inject ads into every corner of your life.
But they could have a thousand-agent swarm connected via MCP to everything within our field of vision to bury us with ads.
It's been a long time since I read "The Third Wave" and up until 2026, not much has reminded me about its "Small is beautiful", and "rise of the prosumer" themes besides the content creator economy which is arguably the worst thing to ever happen to humanity's information environment, and LLM agent discussions.
This is exactly one of the things I find maddening at the moment. "Everyone" (except my actual friends) on social media is trying to sell me something.
Eg: I like dogs. It's becoming increasingly hard to follow dog accounts without someone trying to sell me their sponsor's stuff.
And if it's so cheap and bespoke, why buying it and not making it in house?
What about access to people with know-how of that product? You use a product that only 4 other companies use, you can be sure you won't find any new hire that knows how to use it.
To me it seems the reality works in the opposite way. Among the many products built, some will be successful and will swallow the whole market, like now with basically any software or SaaS product.
> And if it's so cheap and bespoke, why buying it and not making it in house?
0. Sure, some products will be made in house. That said, being able to spec a product well is a skill that is not as common as some folks seem to think. It also assumes that an org is large enough to have a good internal dev team, which is both rare and relatively expensive.
1. It sloughs responsibility, which many folks want to do.
2. It allows for creation to be done not by committee and/or with less impact from internal politics.
3. It facilitates JIT product/tool development while minimizing costs.
That’s off the top of my head.
The realities of business often point to internal development not being ideal.
> No? I dont see any indication that this would be a good idea. Or even looked for.
Do you spec software for a variety of businesses?
I do.
It’s rare that one SaaS or software package does what the people paying want it to do. Either they have to customize internally (expensive and limited to larger orgs with a tech department) or Frankenstein a solution like Salesforce or WordPress with a lot of add ons. And even then, it’s not hitting all pain points.
Being able to spin up or modify an app cheaply and easily will be a massive boon for businesses.
Plus, a core part of what qualifies as a bullshit job is that the person doing it feels that it's a bullshit job. The book is a half-serious anthropological essay, not an economic treaty.
An odd tendency I’ve noticed about Graeber is that the more someone apparently dislikes his work, the more it will seem like they’re talking about totally different books from the ones I read.
Because he uses private framings of concepts that are well understood. So if your first encounter is through Graeber you’re going to have friction with every other understanding. If you’ve read much else you will say “hold on a minute, what’s about …”
Please read my comments here engaging with the ideas in the text and specifically your concern that bullshit jobs are just jobs that don’t feel important.
You have written bunch of comments regarding advertising, single comment criticizing Graeber for using concepts in uncommon way, and one reply to my comment that doesn't really connect with the content of that comment.
Yes, David graeber talks a lot about the idea of bullshit jobs but fails to identify them concretely. As we see in this thread, whenever someone puts up an example, there is actually value he misses because he is unfamiliar with the workplace and business.
The example used here was advertising. And then when we push on the example the fallback is to the subjective - feeling unfilled, definition.
So I am still look for concrete examples of bullshit jobs to justify the original comment that AI will find efficiencies by letting us throw these away.
Got any? You are an expert on the text so I’m hoping you can identify one.
> And that book sort of vaguely hints around at all these jobs that are surely bullshit but won’t identify them concretely.
See what I mean? We push on where these fake jobs are and you fallback to a subjective internal definition we can’t inspect.
And now let me remind you of the context. If the real definition of bullshit isn’t economic slack, but internal dissatisfaction then this comment would be false:
> What if LLMs are optimizing the average office worker's productivity but the work itself simply has no discernable economic value? This is argued at length in Grebber's Bullshit Jobs essay and book.
This assumes every decision-maker is a rational actor. Just today an executive was rambling about "quantum-empowered AI". These are the people who take decisions about firing workers. It is entirely possible that AI will replace many jobs while being useless (at achieving what those workers do). At least in the short-medium period.
We would live in a post-scarcity utopia if big economic decisions were taken based on long-term optimal effects.
I'm interested in how you can tell an industry-wide job displacement story about AI, where AI isn't actually doing the job, that isn't a just-so story.
If you wanted to tell such a story, you’d have to find examples of companies spending bazillions on new AI tooling, but failing to hit their top level OKRs. I suspect there will be at least a few of these by the end of 2026 - even a great technology can seem like an abacus in the hands of a disorganized and slow moving org.
The story only matters if it produces an industry-wide displacement in jobs. Failed billion-dollar IT projects are not a new thing, and don't disrupt the entire labor market.
To be clear: I'm not claiming that AI rollouts won't be billion-dollar failed IT projects! They very well could be. But if that's the case, they aren't going to disrupt the labor market.
Again: you have to pick a lane with the pessimism. Both lanes are valid. I buy neither of them. But recognize a coherent argument when I see one. This, however, isn't one.
There's a coherent story that straddles both lanes, by assuming that the human economy is in some weird place where the vast majority of humans don't create real economic value and mostly get employment through inertia and custom, and that AI, despite being worthless, provides an excuse for employers to break through taboos and traditions and eliminate all those jobs. Quite a stretch, but it's coherent at least.
I agree. There will be some companies that cannot effectively use AI to slash headcount and become more efficient. There will be those who cut too deep and are burned by it. There will be those who spend millions on AI consultants who don’t move the needle, custom LLM pet projects that get pursued, companies that crash and burn due to vibe coding, companies with 5 employees that are only possible because of vibe coding, etc.
Expecting there to be one result from a new technology is incredibly naïve. There are scores of still existing companies today who fumbled the internet, cloud computing, social media, smartphones, etc. even though all of those technologies have proven to be transformative in the aggregate.
Seems to be what is happening in a lot of the places it's encroaching.
AI journalism is strictly worse than having a human research and write the text, but it's also orders of magnitude much cheaper. You see prompt fragments and other blatant AI artifacts in news articles almost every day. So we get newspapers that have the same shape as they used to, but that don't fulfill their purpose. That's a development that was already going on before AI, but now it's even worse.
Walked past a billboard the other day with advertisement that was blatantly AI-generated. Had a logo with visible JPEG artifacts plastered on top of it. Real amateur hour stuff. It probably was as cheap as it looked.
You see the trend in software too. Microsoft's recent track record is a good example of this. They can barely ship a working notepad.exe anymore.
Supposedly some birds will eat cigarette butts thinking they're bugs, and then starve to death with a belly full of indigestible cigarette filters. Feels a lot like what is happening to a lot of industries lately.
The journalism one is really a great example I did not think about.
I understand there is an argument to be made about what is the "value" of things, but for me it's quite clear that journalism has the inherent value of providing information, similar to how many other activities have values beyond "generating money for their owners". AI allows to "mock" many activities resulting in the social value of that activity being lost, while possibly maintaining the economic value. A trajectory that is not new but also not good to accelerate on.
"In aggregate" means few individuals on the planet, unfortunately, not the whole collectivity. This makes your statement almost almost surreal in my eyes.
Yes, outsized gains are shifting to capital, but cheaper software development means more software & more competition which benefits people across the world.
I get the same issue on Mac, if it's any comfort. I had to close and reopen the app 7-8 times to have my microphone recognized, despite it worked reliably on every single tool I ever used, both on Linux and later on Mac. Teams couldn't do that either with the native client or with the web client.
Despite me not being particularly interested in the AI hype and not seeking out discussions etc., I can tell you have seen many instances of people (comments, headlines, articles etc.) actually saying exactly that: "in the future" doesn't matter if the code is good or if I can maintain it etc., it just needs to work once and then gets thrown away or AI will do additions for something else that is needed.
For example it ignores the gazillion medium(-like) "articles" that are not much more than the output of a prompt. Here AI is not about style, is about content too. If you open such a post, maybe with the intent of learning anything, and you realize is AI slop, you might close it. Making it harder to recognize is poisoning the well in such cases.