1. There is very little actually wanted SMS comms between users and businesses. 90%+ of it is probably 2FA codes anyway, and the rest is tied to some potential transaction.
For the latter, SMS costing even 100x more as normal is irrelevant - we're talking about spending extra $0.1 on confirmation and reminders on a $50+ service (hairdresser, tire change, vet appointment, doc appointment, whatever) - so it shouldn't be disturbing to actual voluntary business between two consenting parties.
2. There's a fuck ton of small businesses out there. I'm not going to call 15 local restaurants, 5 clinics, 12 PV solar peddlers, 20 MLM representatives and a sex shop, to tell them all to "knock it off".
Fortunately, I live in Europe; thanks to GDPR, they don't dare. Except for PV solar peddlers and Bitcoin scams, which have a special place in hell ready for them - and MLM people, which are already in hell, but don't realize it.
Nah. SMS in its terminal stage after losing battle with advertising cancer[0]. There's no point in even trying to save or resurrect it without first getting rid of the sickness - marketing communications.
> 2. There's a frak ton of small businesses out there. I'm not going to call 15 local restaurants, 5 clinics, 12 PV solar peddlers, 20 MLM representatives and a sex shop, to tell them all to "knock it off".
Good because none of them are bulk sending sms spam. Or likely sending any biz SMS thanks to TCR.
Meanwhile the actual bulk senders of SMS are happily firehosing it to millions of phones, thanks to the protections they purchase - also thanks to TCR.
> There is very little actually wanted SMS comms between users and businesses.
In total SMS sure. And those corps that send the 90% pay TCR so they can keep sending that unwanted SMS. TCR is a good fit for the biggest spammers.
Conversely, 100% of the SMS I send to my customers are wanted; they pay to support them and SMS is how they want that to happen.
My customers have their own customers - who also want to comm using SMS.
For us, TCR has mostly killed off our SMS access to ur customers. None of my MNVO lines carry SMS any longer, because of the onerous TCR compliance burdens.
Likewise my clients can no longer SMS their customers - even though it has long been an expected part of their relationship.
To recap:
1) TCR harms small biz who send wanted, necessary and consensual SMS.
2) TCR also protect bulk senders of unwanted SMS senders, because they have paid for that protection.
Vigorously throwing shade at 1 while voicing no meaningful objection to 2 seems like an unfortunate position.
Just because an SMS originates from a computer does not make it spam. I like to be notified that my drive up order is ready or for a link to check in at the doctor.
That's why making each message costly is the way to go - it's not discriminating on what or how sent the message, it just forces sending to scale no faster than actual service of the business. A text or two per delivery or a doctors' visit is still a rounding error compared to costs of the transaction itself, but casually spamming hundreds of thousands of people becomes a noticeable cost.
You're right. Just the other day I got this annoying spam message from my local pharmacy - "your prescription is ready for pick up". Why would I want that? And my hairdresser too? "Reminder: you have an appointment tomorrow at 10AM" wow they'll send anything to try to get my business.
If these were legit businesses, they would send it to my email so it can be listed with all the GeekSquad invoices I receive from Gmail addresses. Of course, because everyone is just like the average HN user, they know how to set up intricate filters to prioritize the GeekSquad invoices.
> You're right. Just the other day I got this annoying spam message from my local pharmacy
Right. That's who TCR doesn't stop.
But lets say you buy a DIY home upgrade from a local biz and the two of you are in a support session and are sending pics and messages back and forth over SMS.
Split brain experiments shows that human "introspection" is fundamentally unreliable. The brain is trivially coaxed into explaining how it made decisions it did not make.
We're doing the equivalent of LLM's and making up a plausible explanation for how we came to a conclusion, not reflecting reality.
As one neurologist put it, listening to people's explanations of how they think is entertaining, but not very informative. Virtually none of what people describe correlates in any way to what we actually know about how the brain is organized.
Yeah I don’t know why GP would think computability theory doesn’t apply to AI. Is there a single example of a problem that isn’t computable by a Turing machine that can be computed by AI?
It does apply to AI in terms of the computers we compute neural networks on may be equivalent to Turning machines but the ANN networks are not. If you did reduce the ANN down to a formal system, you will likely find that in terms of Godels theorem that it would be sufficiently powerful to prove a falsehood. Thus not meeting the consistency property we would like in a system used to prove things.
