

Well, yeah. If I was a betting man, and I sometimes am, I would speculate that Democrats are going to hold the presidency next and it’ll be just in time for the stock market to crash.
All it will take is one investigation, one major implosion (hopefully NVIDIA, OpenAI, or both) or something else for the underpinning to come loose.
Since Republicans are unlikely to launch any kind of criminal probe (or other kind of interfering action), they can most likely keep the bubble propped up for quite a while.
TBH, what I am more scared of is if the bubble doesn’t pop soon. With OpenAI dumping money into consulting services and investors openly declaring that the end goal is to achieve vendor lock-in, it sets a ton of companies up for failure if they were dumb enough to make all of their core services dependent on OpenAI.
Either companies keep paying OpenAI to keep their core offerings alive or they can’t, and go bankrupt if they can’t convert their infrastructure and services.
The sooner that all of these shit OpenAI sub-service vendors die, the better. Venture capital will start drying up and OpenAI will lose their “path to profitability”. (It’s almost sounding like how meme coins support BTC… I digress.)
Hell, I haven’t even touched on inflated company valuations and how AI LLM market growth is being fabricated, in part, by shoving AI integrations into every product imaginable.
I’ll shut up now, but my point is that I am just applying the same shit I saw back in 2008 where the magic product was sub-prime mortgages coupled with hyper-risky market bets. Obviously, there are differences, but the core failure modes are the same.
Let’s dig in! While I don’t agree with implementing any of those systems, I still upvoted this post for the relevancy it has to Lemmy… Let’s get back to that in a sec.
I think all the voting systems above are basically the same. You have incentive (dopamine rewards for upvoted posts and is a helluva motivator; a sense of responsibility with limited votes), a penalty (down votes) for shit posts and possibly a reward for better posts or behavior (not losing $10; “reddit gold”; high karma) [I could go on for hours about this, but I’ll spare you.]
All those three systems above do is fiddle with the same knobs and are effective in their own ways.
In the case of Slashdot, I would speculate they used a “vote economy” system to encourage quality and a sense of responsibility. Reddit just wants more dopamine and Something Awful just found a way to punish trolls and make money at the same time.
Quick past recap: What Reddit voting was rumored to do (and never really did), was elevate good posts and bury bad ones. This works when you have a collection of like-minded folks that share a the same goal of ensuring good quality information. You liking or hating a post shouldn’t have any relationship to how you vote on the post.
Mainly because of Facebook, we have a broken association to “liking” and “upvoting”. It is what it is, but it kinda makes a point that people generally vote with emotions, not a sense of responsibility.
I believe we need to find the holy grail: identity effective incentives for “proper” voting based on content, eliminate dopamine-based systems (in regards to vote quantities or bullshit gold/silver rewards) while still providing a reward for participation. That’s still “dopamine”, but a reward system may need to be decoupled from the number of votes a post gets. Most of all, there needs to be an aspect of fun as well and additional incentives to return the next day.
(If you think the above paragraph sounds contradictory, it’s because it is. You can’t eliminate brain chemistry or emotions as a factor in this topic, even though I clearly wish I could.)
The elimination of exploitive financial incentives for creating bots and bulk accounts (with the intent of selling high karma accounts) was mostly eliminated on Lemmy, and it’s awesome.
Do I personally believe that a “perfect” voting system can be created online? Nope. However, I would kindly ask for you to brainstorm about what could eliminate voting systems completely.
Edit: I am not a psychologist or some shit like that and the premise of vote systems already has been studied all to hell. There are likely much better ways to describe the psychological impacts of vote rewards, but I believe I have the basics down.