131–140 of 752 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they already have that confirmation. When we bailed the banks out in 08 we basically said "If you're big enough that we'd be screwed without you then take whatever risks you like with impunity". That's a reduction of complexity, of course, but the core of the lesson is there. We have actually kept on with all the practices that led to the housing crash (MBS, predatory lending, Mixing investment and traditiona…
> If you're big enough that we'd be screwed without you then take whatever risks you like with impunity". I know financially it will be bad because number not go up and number need go up. But do we actually depend on generative/agentic AI at all in meaningful ways? I’m pretty sure all LLMs could be Thanos snapped away and there would be near zero material impact. If the studies are at all reliable all the programmers…
Not so much for the work I do for my company, but having these agents has been a fairly huge boon in some specific ways personally:
- search replacement (beats google almost all of the time)
- having code-capable agents means my pet projects are getting along a lot more than they used to. I check in with them in moments of free time and give them large projects to tackle that will take a while (I've found that having them do these in Rust works best, because it has the most guardrails)
- it's been infinitely useful to be able to ask questions when I don't know enough to know what terms to search for. I have a number of meatspace projects that I didn't know enough about to ask the right questions, and having LLMs has unblocked those 100% of the time.
Economic value? I won't make an assessment. Value to me (and I'm sure others)? Definitely would miss them if they disappeared tomorrow. I should note that given the state of things (large AI companies with the same shareholder problems as MAANG) I do worry that those use cases will disappear as advertising and other monetizing influences make their way in.
Slop is indeed a huge problem. Perhaps you're right that it's a net negative overall, but I don't think it's accurate to say there's not any value to be had.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sub is the most important question in the thread. Where do you put your money to hedge against an AI market crash?
Do you live in a home you own with no mortgage? Do you have a fully electrified home, only EVs, and enough solar to run those things? You can make real concrete capital investments instead of abstract financial ones to reduce your required living/"operating" expenses, insulating you somewhat from the state of financial markets.
Interestingly I think if the AI succeed at the level that a lot of these CEOs hope we're not much better off either. And the sentiment that goes around is more: reduce the amount of people needed to do the same amount of work: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/09/mckinsey_ai_monetizat... > McKinsey says, while quoting an HR executive at a Fortune 100 company griping: "All of these copilots are supposed to make work…
Maybe I can make things more efficient by getting rid of you and replacing you with AI, but how long until my boss has the same idea?
> He told the BBC that the company owns what he called a “full stack” of technologies, from chips to YouTube data to models and frontier science research. This integrated approach, he suggested, would help the company weather any market turbulence better than competitors. I guess but is it better for an investor to own 2 shares of Google or 1 share of OpenAI and 1 share of TSMC? Like I have no doubt that being vertic…
Nvidia earnings tomorrow will be the litmus test if things are going to topple over.
Interestingly I think if the AI succeed at the level that a lot of these CEOs hope we're not much better off either. And the sentiment that goes around is more: reduce the amount of people needed to do the same amount of work: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/09/mckinsey_ai_monetizat... > McKinsey says, while quoting an HR executive at a Fortune 100 company griping: "All of these copilots are supposed to make work…
The same people who are buying products and services right now. Just 10% of the US population is responsible for nearly 50% of consumption.
We are just going to bifurcate even more into the haves and have-nots. Maybe that 10% now becomes responsible for 70+% of consumption and everyone else is fighting for scraps.
It won't be sustainable and we need UBI. A bunch of unemployed, hungry citizens with nothing left to lose is a combo that equals violent revolution.
Interestingly I think if the AI succeed at the level that a lot of these CEOs hope we're not much better off either. And the sentiment that goes around is more: reduce the amount of people needed to do the same amount of work: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/09/mckinsey_ai_monetizat... > McKinsey says, while quoting an HR executive at a Fortune 100 company griping: "All of these copilots are supposed to make work…
The middle class have financially benefited very little from the past 20+ years of productivity gains.
Social media is driving society apart, making people selfish, jealous, and angry.
Do people really think more technology is going to be the path to a better society? Because to me it looks like the opposite. It will just be used to stomp on ordinary people and create even more inequality.
I'm curious what HN is doing with their portfolios right about now. I'd be dumping NVDA and reallocating to more bonds for the time being.
It reminds me of the time that everyone said the economy was going to tank and somehow everyone had it wrong a couple years ago.
It feels implausible that it isn't overbuilt but it also feels really strange for everyone to be pushing this narrative that its a bubble - and people taking very public short bets. It feels like the contrarian bet is that its going to keep running hot. Nvidia earnings tommorrow big litmus test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they already have that confirmation. When we bailed the banks out in 08 we basically said "If you're big enough that we'd be screwed without you then take whatever risks you like with impunity". That's a reduction of complexity, of course, but the core of the lesson is there. We have actually kept on with all the practices that led to the housing crash (MBS, predatory lending, Mixing investment and traditiona…
If Meta or Google disappared overnight, it would be, at worst, a minor annoyance for most of the world. Despite the fact that both companies are advertising behemoths, marketing departments everywhere would celebrate their end.
Hard disagree
Silicon Valley! Unprofitable debt and marketing all the way up until you get bailed out by the taxpayers, apparently.
I'm not seeing that happening. Unlike banking and housing there's not much systemic or political risk in letting these companies crash. It's mostly going to hit a very small number of high net worth people who don't have a lot of clout and are oddly disconnected from the rest of the economy.
Even Vanguard's Total World Index, VT, is roughly 15% MAG 7.
That's not even getting into who's financing whom for what and to whom that debt may be sold to.