Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After the AI Crash

potsandpansbyccg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 244 posts

Re: After the AI Crash

#141

Post by LogicFailsMe »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #136
LogicFailsMe wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived it. I had a teacher in high school continually scold me for reading books on programming languages and banned me from writing essays on the future of computers. Apparently, I should have been outside getting my ass kicked by the jocks like any normal kid would be. Why the guy even called up my parents to express his concerns about me. Or there was the time my 2nd grade teacher contacted my parents because I w…

When ecommerce was getting big, I knew a number of people who thought it was absurd. You can't just send money over the Internet, hackers will steal it! You should use normal payment methods, like writing "fifteen dollars and 56/100------" on a special piece of paper the bank gave you.

Never thought I'd see the ycombinator peeps deny the existence of the Luddite mindset, but here we are.

Re: After the AI Crash

#142

Post by ofjcihen »

LogicFailsMe wrote: post #140
ofjcihen wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean Zeppelins were supposed to be the premier form of air travel despite the glaringly obvious issues. Invoking “heliocentrism” is the HN version of “Ive already drawn you as the virgin and me as the Chad.”

A modern equivalent of abandoning zeppelins because of the Hindenberg would be abandoning skyscrapers because of 9/11. But it's humorous that Sergey Brin has a company dedicated to bringing back zeppelins and that's a lot more fun than Zuck's doomsday bunker or Bezos's doomsday yacht.

Who said I was referencing the Hindenburg?

They had a ton of fundamental problems despite seeming like a good idea at first. It was only after we started using them did we realize they weren’t actually as good of an idea as they seemed.

Re: After the AI Crash

#143

Post by LogicFailsMe »

ofjcihen wrote: post #142
LogicFailsMe wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A modern equivalent of abandoning zeppelins because of the Hindenberg would be abandoning skyscrapers because of 9/11. But it's humorous that Sergey Brin has a company dedicated to bringing back zeppelins and that's a lot more fun than Zuck's doomsday bunker or Bezos's doomsday yacht.

Who said I was referencing the Hindenburg? They had a ton of fundamental problems despite seeming like a good idea at first. It was only after we started using them did we realize they weren’t actually as good of an idea as they seemed.

That was ~90 years ago. We're a few branches higher on the tech tree now. Their return has been promised for over 40 years. Only the future itself will answer whether they do.

Re: After the AI Crash

#144

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #30
_override wrote: post #8

When it comes to the AI crash honestly my biggest concern is what is going to happen to the job market during and the years following the crash. Not sure how things are in the rest of the world, but as someone in their early 30s working in the IT industry in Sweden I’ve never seen the market this competitive before, even for mid level and senior roles, and it worries me what the future of employment is going to look…

> what is going to happen to the job market during and the years following the crash Junior programmers will be in demand again. Someone will have to fix the mountains of vibe coded technical debt.

I've already seen an instance of a junior developer being completely unable to fix vibe coded technical debt, even with guidance, because AI analysis is fundamental to how they understand code and they're unable to comprehend what's happening when the AI analysis is not right.

Re: After the AI Crash

#145

Post by gruez »

tempfile wrote: post #84
gruez wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Uber et al raised like a J round. None of the rules around markets or investments are real Uber's a poor example because it did IPO in 2019 and its stocks are up around 75% since then.

Yeah. Uber's a successful company and they raised a J round. Therefore the rule (D means Death) is not real. I'm not sure what you're implying, or if you just misunderstood the original comment?

>or if you just misunderstood the original comment?

Did you? If you keep on reading, the parent comment further implies that both AI companies and uber are "vibes based". But that's hard to square with the fact that 7 years since IPO the share price is up 75%. Of course, you can argue we're still in the irrational exuberance stage, but that just creates a situation where you can never be called wrong.

Re: After the AI Crash

#146

Post by bsza »

LogicFailsMe wrote: post #135
bsza wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven’t even bothered to look up what actually got him executed, have you.

Apparently you haven't either and you're trying to weasel out for the church because it wasn't the only reason they executed him. It amazes me that it's okay to have an invisible friend based on 2,000 to 4000-year-old writings by goat herders high on psilocybin, but if you form a parasocial attachment to an AI, that's AI psychosis. ELI5 please?

I'm not your therapist, take this question to them. And I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. You asserted that, in the past, merely claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun was met with getting burned at the stake by a mob of priests foaming at the mouth. I corrected that, because it's a myth. Please stop sneering at centuries/millenia-old people compared to whom you live like a king, and find another group of people to feel superior to.

Re: After the AI Crash

#147

Post by jsnell »

> analysts have estimated that it will take $2 trillion a year in revenue to pay for the infrastructure that has already been built

I doubt any credible analyst has claimed that. What's the total AI capex that's already been spent? About $1T? It's a pretty absurd idea that those DCs need to make $2T/year for 5-7 years -> $10T-14T over their lifetime to break even.

(Yes, this is nitpicking in the sense that there are probably analysts talking about how projected and sustained capex at >1T/year will require 2T/year in revenue, so patching the article won't be a biggie. But this article is cosplaying as financial analysis and leads off with such an obviously incorrect argument. What does that say about the credibility of the rest of the article?)

> Diseconomies of Scale.

Another very basic mistake here. The author starts talking about efficiency in the context of past technologies. That's lower unit costs as scale increases.

But for AI, they seem to switch from talking about unit costs to total costs. Or at least I can't explain what they say about models getting more expensive over time in any other way, because that is not true about unit costs.

We've never seen economies of scale as large as for AI. For a given quality level, the cost has been dropping at >10x per year, not increasing.

Re: After the AI Crash

#148

Post by bgilroy26 »

LogicFailsMe wrote: post #141
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When ecommerce was getting big, I knew a number of people who thought it was absurd. You can't just send money over the Internet, hackers will steal it! You should use normal payment methods, like writing "fifteen dollars and 56/100------" on a special piece of paper the bank gave you.

Never thought I'd see the ycombinator peeps deny the existence of the Luddite mindset, but here we are.

It's more a post GamerGate understanding of a nerds vs the world narrative framing

Re: After the AI Crash

#149

Post by Schiendelman »

jsnell wrote: post #147

> analysts have estimated that it will take $2 trillion a year in revenue to pay for the infrastructure that has already been built I doubt any credible analyst has claimed that. What's the total AI capex that's already been spent? About $1T? It's a pretty absurd idea that those DCs need to make $2T/year for 5-7 years -> $10T-14T over their lifetime to break even. (Yes, this is nitpicking in the sense that there are…

I appreciate someone else here sees this math is way off.

With what seems to be their current revenue, the frontier companies are likely better off than Uber was pre-IPO. The "circular financing" we've seen probably lowers risk relative to external financing, since both parties get aligned incentives.

It's too bad Nvidia keeps getting hammered, they're selling the shovels in a gold rush that'll last for years, and I don't think that's priced in.

Re: After the AI Crash

#150

Post by AlexandrB »

joshstrange wrote: post #34

> Most new technologies have been welcomed by the public with open arms. I'm not going to predict how this is going to turn out in either direction but this statement gives me pause. I don't think that's ever been true. Yes, the siren song is strong but initially most new tech is met with skepticism. Are we so quick to forget "the internet/computers are just a fad"-type thinking?

What's new is the inversion of who holds these opinions. With the internet/computers, company leadership was often the skeptical voice while small pockets of individuals would push these technologies from the bottom. AI is the complete opposite with skepticism coming bottom-up and push to adopt coming top-down. The last time this (almost) happened was "The Metaverse" which seemed to be getting a lot of push from the C suite.

This doesn't mean LLMs will be as useless as the metaverse, but a lot of the biggest proponents of the technology within companies are those most clueless about it which feels like a red flag.

Post reply on HN