One of the most common forms of Whataboutism is of the form "You criticize X, but other people vaguely politically aligned with you failed to criticize Y." (assuming for argument that X and Y are different but similar wrongs)

 The problem with that is that the only possible sincere answers are necessarily unsatisfying, and it's hard to gauge their sincerity. Here's what I see as the basic possibilities.

• Y and X are equally bad, my allies are wrong about this [but what are you gonna do about it?]
• Y is bad but X is genuinely worse because of .... (can sound like a post hoc justification)
• Y and X are equally bad, but I still support my side because the badness of Y is outweighed by the goodness of A, B, etc.
• Y is actually not bad because of ....
• You are right, Y is terrible, I abandon my allies [and join ... what? If Y is disqualifying X surely is too...]

The PCC is a lot more valid when its actually the same person taking inconsistent positions on X and Y. Otherwise your actual interlocutor might not be inconsistent at all but has no plausible way of demonstrating that.

The problem with this argument is that it ignores a unique feature of AIs - their copiability. It takes ~20 years and O($300k) to spin up a new human worker. It takes ~20 minutes to spin up a new AI worker. 

So in the long run, for a human to economically do a task, they have to not just have some comparative advantage but have a comparative advantage that's large enough to cover the massive cost differential in "producing" a new one.

This actually analogizes more to engines. I would argue that a big factor in the near-total replacement of horses by engines is not so much that engines are exactly 100x better than horses at everything, but that engines can be mass-produced. In fact I think the claim that engines are exactly equally better than horses at every horse-task is obviously false if you think about it for two minutes. But any time there's a niche where engines are even slightly better than horses, we can just increase production of engines more quickly and cheaply than we can increase production of horses.

These economic concepts such as comparative advantage tend to assume, for ease of analysis, a fixed quantity of workers. When you are talking about human workers in the short term, that is a reasonable simplifying assumption. But it leads you astray when you try to use these concepts to think about AIs (or engines).

This idea kind of rhymes with gain-of-function research in a way that makes me uncomfortable. "Let's intentionally create harmful things, but its OK because we are creating harmful things for the purpose of preventing the harm that would be caused by those things."

I'm not sure if I can formalize this into a logically-tight case against doing it, but it seems conceptually similar to X, and X is bad.

Just to make the math easy, let's suppose the gouging tax is 50%. 

The air purifiers problem seems like not a big problem? If they are normally "worth" $150 and you value having them at $300, you could post them up for sale at $450. Then, if someone really needs them, you get your $300, they get their air purifier, and $150 goes to disaster relief. This tax only prevents the trade if the buyers would buy them for $300 but not for $450, which limits the amount of deadweight loss here to a maximum of $149, rather than potentially unbounded deadweight loss under current policy.

Sorry

Many states have already passed something like this, which only takes effect once enough states sign on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

However, I think it's unlikely that this will get over the 270 hump anytime soon, because right now GOP-run states (correctly) perceive that the EC has a pro-GOP tilt (for now at least); and the swing states benefit a lot from swing status.

Those kinds of VC-run business can also often have other problems. For example, Aspen Dental was sued for deceptive marketing.

It's not true that you can't pay negative taxes on your betting market losses, at least if you are someone who uses prediction markets routinely. You are allowed to deduct your gross gambling losses from your gambling gains, and you only pay tax on the net gain. See https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/at-02-53.pdf.

Just to push back a little - I feel like these people do a valuable service for capitalism. If people in the reviews or in the press are criticizing a business for these things, that's an important channel of information for me as a consumer and it's hard to know how else I could apply that to my buying decisions without incurring the time and hassle cost of showing up and then leaving without buying anything.

I treat chatGPT as a vibes-ologist; it's good for answering questions about like which X is most popular or what do most people think about X. I agree it's less good for "X is true"