[sach1]

I mean... You could always ChatGPT it yourself, could you not? Your ability to find information around this doesn't appear to be hampered by anything other than your imagination.

I would be curious as to what your prompt ends up being (and the reply obviously) if you choose to do so.

[faidit]

I think my prompt and the response I get would be likely to just reflect my own biases (leftist, anti-monopoly etc), which IMO wouldn't add any more to the discussion than did my own annoyance at being downvoted, lol. I think history is so full of examples of top-heavy economies succumbing to stagnation and collapse, it almost doesn't bear mentioning any. Likewise, I think that someone with opposite opinions could get an opposite answer from a sycophantic LLM, and both of us hiding behind LLMs merely obfuscates the debate.

That is to say, I was hoping to get an elaboration of the implicit critique in the comment I originally replied to, since that person seemed so upset that they must have had a profound disagreement with the premise in the article, rather than just being upset that the author didn't seem to have used AI. I suspect they don't want to reply because they know any examples of "strong economies" where the gains were monopolized by a few key players can be easily countered with the story of how those economies subsequently entered a terminal decline, and/or relied on state subsidies to survive. It would also be self-defeating for me to consult AI since I disdain that person's apparent sentiment that we should always default to LLMs instead of having human discussions, considering evidence on our own and reaching our own conclusions.