There's a very nonzero chance that the AI expenses are not a race to recoup investments as they are a bet (with other people's money) that AI will lead to longevity or immortality, a bet made by aging tech oligarchs. Notice that Ellison is betting his entire company on it, which due to his secured debt is the same as betting his personal fortune in the most extreme case.
So they've been sold snake oil. This, along with colonizing Mars and mining asteroids, is complete and total science fiction.
After the AI Crash
181–190 of 244 posts
Re: After the AI Crash
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would one position oneself as an individual investor if one believed this thesis?
Have a read of Jeremy Grantham’s book. Seeing bubbles is reasonably easy. Forecasting when they pop and when to get out is very hard. For example GMO as at the end of April were forecasting through the bubble that returns for large US equities would be negative over the next seven years. But since then the market has gone up by over 30%. It could pop any day, or could grow for two more years. Advice is to diversify y…
Amen, $SIBLING. Even an idiot like me could see it coming in 2007, triggered by a young coworker asking me about interest-only housing loans. But what do you do about it? I sure didn't know how to short the real estate market, and watch The Big Short to find out how hard it was for them to do it. That, and the ol' "market can stay absolutely fucking bonkers longer than..." chestnut. I would have lost my ass anyway.
But back to the topic at hand, indeed, the timing is very hard. Margin calls and watching the price of a borrowed stock go up and up, those mean that if you have to ask you shouldn't be doing it. Other sibling comments have already said that the answer is a diverse portfolio. As an investor for many decades, I've seen with my own eyes the wisdom of that. Sure, you'll take a loss like everyone else, but unlike everyone else your losses will be smaller. You'll miss out on the big gains that those with good timing will get. You'll also miss out on the absolutely huge losses of those that timed it wrong. Diversify, stay the course, it'll come back: that I've never seen fail after decades of investing. (But for $DEITY's sake, stay away from AI-specific companies if you can do it.)
Re: After the AI Crash
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 80-100% unemployed This would mean that there are no AI companies at all, because there is no one to buy their products. So, they have nowhere to get money for whatever they want to sell.
at human-level AGI there would be no need for people to 'buy' when the machines can just do
So, you have starwing hopeless population not buying your products. Which means you cant produce. Which means, you eventually become part of that starwing population (or they kill you in some outburst).
Re: After the AI Crash
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 80-100% unemployed This would mean that there are no AI companies at all, because there is no one to buy their products. So, they have nowhere to get money for whatever they want to sell.
its basically the end of capitalism... for better or worse...
But my point really was that it is economic nonsense.
Re: After the AI Crash
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can't 'learn' on its own. Models only get better with mountains of RnD for data, training, and lots of fine tuning. So the moment investment dries up, models stop improving. However, it's likely we'll get good 80/20 solutions where you get most of the performance of the then-unsustainable high end models for significantly less compute.
>It can't 'learn' on its own. Nearly there today. https://www.anthropic.com/institute/recursive-self-improveme...
Re: After the AI Crash
#186> 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?
Exactly, it's utter nonsense. The general public thought the first bicycles, automobiles, computers, mobile phones, smart watches, and AirPods were stupid. And now they are normal. Same with video games and dating apps.
But agree with you on all the other examples.
Re: After the AI Crash
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Firstly, AI is not going to take away all jobs Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs. > Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help There is a massive difference between 20-30% of people in a country being unemployed (historical sector-wide collapses), and 80-100% of peo…
> 80-100% unemployed This would mean that there are no AI companies at all, because there is no one to buy their products. So, they have nowhere to get money for whatever they want to sell.
Re: After the AI Crash
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't necessarily buy that API prices represent "real" prices of the models.
What do you think the real price is? Subscriptions are heavily subsidised, I don't know anyone who would deny that.
Re: After the AI Crash
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what the future of employment is going to look like As an already slightly outdated senior dev in the UK rapidly approaching 50 and not wanting to touch generative AI / agentic dev… … I'm increasingly looking forward to waiting tables, being a hospital porter, or anything else away from tech! I'm thinking that if I get out soon, I might beat most of the rush and be safely employed before many of the rest of you are…
It's interesting that you're looking to exit the industry as a SR dev - from my casual observations it seems like mostly it's the JR devs and younger folks that have been mostly rejecting agentic dev. Just out of curiosity, do you have a specific objections to using the technology? I totally understand the burnout however (I'm rapidly approaching 50 myself).
TBH I consider myself a senior in name only, or because I've been around a long time! I've done my best to avoid anything that looks like managing or leading people (or things!). When I was first given such a title I think people were somewhat offended that I wasn't overjoyed (“you can call me what you want”)! I want to do things, tinker with details, etc, not manage people/stuff.
> Just out of curiosity, do you have a specific objections to using the technology?
I want to do things, tinker with details, etc, not manage people/stuff.
I also don't like how the tech came to be, in part via rampant piracy, and how it continues to grow by sucking resources out of everything else, so in at least small part there are principles involved. I know some SRs who railed against generative AI when it was taking jobs of their designer friends, but now they can do the same work with less JRs it is all fine and dandy.
My biggest problem before the Great Displacement was upon us was that I'm one of those people who really don't get on with remote work. While it was a lovely convenience to use occasionally (for instance when I need to work from elsewhere while looking after ill relatives, or when people were getting on my tits and I needed to get away to concentrate) doing it the majority of the time does not work for my mental health. I actually go into the office still, but when the people I'm working most directly with don't I'm still effectively working remote (thought at least I have the work/home separation, I suppose). Teams/equiv doesn't work for me: people on there are just names and faces on a screen and don't register in my head the same as someone in the same room does unless I specifically concentrate on that, especially those I've never met and likely never will. Since the family got its first landline I've not liked talking on phones, I've always been an “in person or in writing” type, so this isn't a new sensation for me. If agentic development continues along its current path, I see a not-too-distant future where I'd just be sat with nothing but 'king Claude for company day-in-day-out, and I'll be buggered if I'm going to do anything to help that come to pass.
Re: After the AI Crash
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it is more than just fun , it gives purpose to our existence … pardon me but it is idiotic to look at bringing up a child so objectively.
Yes, but I think we should separate human economic value from the true purpose of our existence. If AI can replace us in economically valuable tasks, we will have no choice but to do so. The economic value part should be looked at objectively.