Not wanting to help the rich get richer means you'll be fighting an uphill battle. The rich typically have more money to spend. And as others have commented, not doing anything AI related in 2025-2026 is going to further limit the business. Good luck though.
Rejecting clients based on how you wish the world would be is a strategy that only works when you don’t care about the money or you have so many clients that you can pick and choose.
Running a services business has always been about being able to identify trends and adapt to market demand. Every small business I know has been adapting to trends or trying to stay ahead of them from the start, from retail to product to service businesses.
Rejecting clients when you have enough is a sound business decision. Some clients are too annoying to serve. Some clients don't want to pay. Sometimes you have more work than you can do... It is easy to think when things are bad that you must take any and all clients (and when things are bad enough you might be forced to), but that is not a good plan and to be avoided. You should be choosing your clients. It is very powerful when you can afford to tell someone I don't need your business.
Sure, but it seems here that they are rejecting everything related to AI, which is probably not a smart business move, as they also remark, since this year was much harder for them.
The fact is, a lot of new business is getting done in this field, with or without them. If they want to take the "high road", so be it, but they should be prepared to accepts the consequences of worse revenues.
Is it though? We don't know the future. Is this just a dip in a growing business, or sign of things to come? Even if AI does better than the most optimistic projections it could still be great for a few people to be anti-ai if they are in the right place selling to the right people.
This! A "silver lining" from the current adminstration is that we've become aware that we've left way to much to custom. It's time to put some laws in place to act as hard guard rails. Or, as another commentor mentions, incentivise congress to exert control as they are supposed to do.
> This! A "silver lining" from the current adminstration is that we've become aware that we've left way to much to custom. It's time to put some laws in place to act as hard guard rails.
The US federal government had such laws -- they were implemented around 1910.
We rolled them back in the 60-80s in the interest of executive efficiency.
So it wouldn't be creating a novel check and balance, but rather returning to a previous configuration where the executive's powers are more devolved into strong independent balancing bodies via Congress.
(And no, the Supreme Court hasn't removed this possibility, because Congress hasn't passed intentional and unambiguous laws like this in 100+ years)
Yes, we cannot take politicians willingly following past norms for granted.
We knew this already. Washington set the precedent of only serving two terms and it lasted all the way until FDR. Then after he got 4 terms they amended the constitution to prevent it.
I sincerely hope similar things happen after this administration, but, I am not optimistic. The Biden administration didn’t make any move in that direction (and he violated plenty of norms too) but perhaps the new level will scare them into action. Fingers crossed.
I think Biden was sort of the last gasp of trying to "turn the other cheek" and show by deeds and words what an inclusive, forward thinking administration looked like.
I think a lot of people are now done with that, and are looking to burn down some things, figuratively speaking.
My grandfather was a mechanic and told me how replacing a dashboard light in some models required removing large portions of the engine to access the socket.
I remember being in a Mercedes in France in the 80's and noticing it had manual crank windows. My dad in the US (even then!) hated added electronics in cars so he went to a Mercedes dealer and they explained that in the US we could only get fully loaded models.
They want to to shut down large portions of the government. For example, they want to completely eliminate all public education, not make it more efficient.
---innovate instead of litigate.
Agreed, but there has to be a balance. In some cases, it could also be looked at as favoring marketers over innovators.
On the copyright side, you could also argue about why ChatGPT should have to be slowed down by these copyright trolls (i.e. authors) who want to extract funds from them. Just let them innovate!
reply