51–60 of 155 posts
It's 1999 again.
1999 was triggered by fraud, there was far more demand on paper for high bandwidth applications than was justified for all the fiber layout and over-investment in Internet technologies. The difference today is that every piece of capitalism immediately 100% utilized once it is plugged in.
What arrogant and cynical way of looking at business operations. You don't know how anything interesting turns out in the future. You make educated guesses and those cost money. When you run a business, everything costs money. But that is not "lighting money on fire", that is how all learning happens. If anyone thinks they have figured it all out, stop blabbering around. Short the market.
Lots of people lost their shirts shorting the housing market prior to the 2008 crash. (_The Big Short_ highlights those who were successful, but plenty of people weren't.) But it was undoubtedly a bubble and there was a world-wide recession when it popped.
There is no real source for this data other than "executives" that only think in numbers and of course those are the types that collude with their CFOs to come up with great ways to get giant tax write-offs. I would imagine they are not "burning billions" they are coming up with new ways to describe how they ALREADY burned billions.
It's possible the study is flawed, or is more limited than the claims being made. But some evidence is necessary to get there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And, the .com bomb killed some companies and slowed down spending for a bit. It did not kill the internet, and now companies like Amazon(.com) are absolutely enormous. Some people think the GenAI bomb is going to kill GenAI, I think it's just going to weed out those with too high of expenses and no way to evolve the compute to be cheaper over time.
"Some people think the GenAI bomb is going to kill GenAI," Sure, a very very small percentage of people who know hardly anything about GenAI might think this.
There is no real source for this data other than "executives" that only think in numbers and of course those are the types that collude with their CFOs to come up with great ways to get giant tax write-offs. I would imagine they are not "burning billions" they are coming up with new ways to describe how they ALREADY burned billions.
I can just speak for myself, but my F500 has been setting money on fire chasing AI. Truly terrible ideas are being pursued just for the sake of movement. Were “AI” not part of the pitch, it would have been immediately tossed in the bin as a waste of time. Ideas which are not terrible, instead have awful ROIs. Nobody has a use case beyond generating text, so lots of ideas about automating some text generation in certa…
The funniest thing is that management has no idea how AI works so they're pretty much just Copilot Agents with a couple docs and a prompt. It's the most laughable shit I've ever seen. Management is so proud while we're all just shaking our heads hoping this trend passes.
Don't get me wrong, AI definitely has its use cases, but tossing a doc about company benefits into a bot is about the most worthless thing you could do with this tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My monkey jpegs are surely going back up! Just have to keep hodling.
I've lost track of my memes. Should I be locking up the green crayons or my daughters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bubble if the tech or audience wasn't there and capabilities weren't improving weekly. There's definitely people who don't understand the tech talking about applying it increasing the failure rate of software projects.
> It's a bubble if the tech or audience wasn't there and capabilities weren't improving weekly. But...is it and are they? Gen AI boosters tend to make assertions like this as if they're unassailable facts, but never seem interested in backing them up. I guess it's easier than thinking.
Article doesn't understand that cutting "between five and 20 percent of support and admin processing" is really valuable, instead it seems to want to dismiss that as a dull failure. Business process outsourcing companies are valued at $300bn according to the BPO Wikipedia page. So 5%-20% of that is 15-60bn. So even if we're valuing all the other GenAI impact at zero the impact on admin and support alone could plausib…
I suppose my question that I’m too tired to napkin math on is if those benefits justify the sometimes astronomical cost of the tooling or integration
There is a lot of organizational inertia to overcome, but it is happening. The first big wave of savings we are seeing in my org (which deals in physical goods, not software) is replacing very expensive enterprise software with in-house developed replacements.