101–110 of 296 posts
I completely agree. If AI can't do 100% of a job then you can't remove the job. And most jobs that can be automated already has been automated using traditional software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI companies don’t have 20 years, they have max 5 years where they have to turn to profit. They don’t have time to wait for all the companies to pick up use of AI tooling in their own pace. So they lie and try to manufacture demand. Well demand is there but they have to manufacture FOMO so that demand materializes now and not in 20 or 10 years.
This outlook is as short-sighted as the 2000 fiber optic bust. Critics then thought overcapacity meant the end, yet that infrastructure eventually created the modern internet. Capital does not walk away from a fundamental shift just because of one market correction. While specific companies may fail, the long-term value of the technology ensures that investment will continue far beyond a five-year window.
It took 20 years for computers to "add" to the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox
I guess this is trend now because it's a contrarian / attention grabbing headline. See: - "Thousands of CEOs just admitted AI had no impact on employment or productivity..." https://fortune.com/2026/02/17/ai-productivity-paradox-ceo-s... - “Over 80% of companies report no productivity gains from AI…” https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell... But fundamentally, large shifts like this are like ste…
I keep seeing the "Productivity Paradox" highlighted over an over again. I think one thing people are missing with this specific technology is that unlike many of the comparisons (computers, internet, broadband, etc), AI in particular doesn't have a high requirement at the consumer side. Everyone already has everything they need to use it. There will be a period like we are in now where dramatic capability gain (like…
That isn’t actually true though, right now everyone has a hard dependency on a cloud service. That is currently sold to them at deep discount by companies that are losing billions.
When the market eventually corrects it’ll be interesting to see how much AI ends up costing. At the very least it will be comparable to the broadband internet connection you mentioned. Possibly a whole lot more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can replace it with a much lower paid employee though.
That's not growth. Growth is having the existing employee do more.
> If AI can't do 100% of a job then you can't remove the job.
I guess this is trend now because it's a contrarian / attention grabbing headline. See: - "Thousands of CEOs just admitted AI had no impact on employment or productivity..." https://fortune.com/2026/02/17/ai-productivity-paradox-ceo-s... - “Over 80% of companies report no productivity gains from AI…” https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell... But fundamentally, large shifts like this are like ste…
"The Productivity Paradox" is what they called it when people were skeptical that computer would end up finding a place in the office. There are articles from the 90s complaining about how much people are spending on buying computers for no real impact on productivity https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/163298.163309
I guess this is trend now because it's a contrarian / attention grabbing headline. See: - "Thousands of CEOs just admitted AI had no impact on employment or productivity..." https://fortune.com/2026/02/17/ai-productivity-paradox-ceo-s... - “Over 80% of companies report no productivity gains from AI…” https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell... But fundamentally, large shifts like this are like ste…
Once confronted with reality we have a "productivity paradox"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd maybe think twice about assuming Meta knows what they're doing after they just pissed $75 billion up the wall on a Metaverse dream that went nowhere.
if it was just Meta perhaps I’d think twice but it is not just Meta, it is all of them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI companies don’t have 20 years, they have max 5 years where they have to turn to profit. They don’t have time to wait for all the companies to pick up use of AI tooling in their own pace. So they lie and try to manufacture demand. Well demand is there but they have to manufacture FOMO so that demand materializes now and not in 20 or 10 years.
This outlook is as short-sighted as the 2000 fiber optic bust. Critics then thought overcapacity meant the end, yet that infrastructure eventually created the modern internet. Capital does not walk away from a fundamental shift just because of one market correction. While specific companies may fail, the long-term value of the technology ensures that investment will continue far beyond a five-year window.