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

America's $1T AI Gamble

apricitas.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 88 posts

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#2

Post by xyst »

And this gamble is paid for by American taxpayers, increased cost of utilities, and multibillion dollar corporations receiving tax breaks/subsidies from the cities/counties they build in.

This country is so awful. Great if you are rich. Awful if you are not in this top 0.01-1%.

A massive $79T has been transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% since the 1970s. [1]

[1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#3

Post by francisofascii »

xyst wrote: post #2

And this gamble is paid for by American taxpayers, increased cost of utilities, and multibillion dollar corporations receiving tax breaks/subsidies from the cities/counties they build in. This country is so awful. Great if you are rich. Awful if you are not in this top 0.01-1%. A massive $79T has been transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% since the 1970s. [1] [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html

Not to mention all the land being gobbled up to build these data centers.

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#4

Post by jryan49 »

xyst wrote: post #2

And this gamble is paid for by American taxpayers, increased cost of utilities, and multibillion dollar corporations receiving tax breaks/subsidies from the cities/counties they build in. This country is so awful. Great if you are rich. Awful if you are not in this top 0.01-1%. A massive $79T has been transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% since the 1970s. [1] [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html

I love how they say with a straight face that when AI takes over they will finally share all the fruits of capital with us.

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#5

Post by coffeemug »

xyst wrote: post #2

And this gamble is paid for by American taxpayers, increased cost of utilities, and multibillion dollar corporations receiving tax breaks/subsidies from the cities/counties they build in. This country is so awful. Great if you are rich. Awful if you are not in this top 0.01-1%. A massive $79T has been transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% since the 1970s. [1] [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html

To be intellectually honest about it, you have to answer a bunch of questions:

1. Awful compared to what? 2. Was there an equivalent transfer outside America? 3. What is the cause? What ratio rent-seeking/shady activity vs a consequence of natural forces (e.g. technological change)

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#7

Post by BloondAndDoom »

xyst wrote: post #2

And this gamble is paid for by American taxpayers, increased cost of utilities, and multibillion dollar corporations receiving tax breaks/subsidies from the cities/counties they build in. This country is so awful. Great if you are rich. Awful if you are not in this top 0.01-1%. A massive $79T has been transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% since the 1970s. [1] [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html

If it’s any consolation, I’m rich yet the country is still shit. (Comparing to Europe as a previous immigrant of Western Europe.

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#9

Post by throwmeaway820 »

xyst wrote: post #2

And this gamble is paid for by American taxpayers, increased cost of utilities, and multibillion dollar corporations receiving tax breaks/subsidies from the cities/counties they build in. This country is so awful. Great if you are rich. Awful if you are not in this top 0.01-1%. A massive $79T has been transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% since the 1970s. [1] [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html

> A massive $79T has been transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% since the 1970s

This assertion is based on comparing reality with a counterfactual where income distributions remained static from 1975 to the present. Real median personal income roughly doubled over this time period.

The use of the word "transferred" seems a little intellectually dishonest here. The use of the counterfactual seems to suggest that income distribution has no relationship with growth in total income, and total income would have been exactly the same regardless of income distribution. I see no reason to assume that to be the case.

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#10

Post by co_king_3 »

WarmWash wrote: post #8

AI plans are not going to stay at $20/mo. People will go to alternative models, but it likely will be as popular as Linux.

I don't know about you, but I benefit so much from using Claude at work that I would gladly pay $1,500-$2,000 per month to keep using it.
Post reply on HN