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

The (real) dead economy theory

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#11

Post by lukol »

civilian wrote: post #3

> That's the logic of the whole market today. AI – the world's money-losingest technology – attracts investment at the expense of everything else. I expect Cory to have skepticism about technology that can be exploited for dystopian purposes, but calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch. If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment…

"money-losingest" -> AI already brings in billions and many AI companies could become profitable in little time if they'd stop R&D and simply keep selling what they already have.

yes, it's risky and investment-heavy but it's not a bottomless pit with no path to break even. there are many other recent technologies - NFTs? data centers in space? - that would be a better fit for this label.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#12

Post by [deleted] »

lionheart wrote: post #7

I just don't get it. How do you go from writing the kinds of future visions he has to staring at the singularity practically hitting you in the face and calling it "the world's money-losingest technology"? Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?

[deleted]

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#13

Post by rokob »

> something is valuable because some people think other people will pay more for it in the future, and not because it does useful things

This has been the definition of finance for hundreds of years. I don't know why it comes across here like this is a new phenomenon.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#14

Post by techbro92 »

lionheart wrote: post #7

I just don't get it. How do you go from writing the kinds of future visions he has to staring at the singularity practically hitting you in the face and calling it "the world's money-losingest technology"? Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?

I think you are confusing Charles Stross with Cory Doctorow

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#15

Post by lionheart »

techbro92 wrote: post #14
lionheart wrote: post #7

I just don't get it. How do you go from writing the kinds of future visions he has to staring at the singularity practically hitting you in the face and calling it "the world's money-losingest technology"? Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?

I think you are confusing Charles Stross with Cory Doctorow

I think you’re right. And yet still.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#16

Post by beebmam »

lionheart wrote: post #7

I just don't get it. How do you go from writing the kinds of future visions he has to staring at the singularity practically hitting you in the face and calling it "the world's money-losingest technology"? Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?

Ideological capture is an often socially enforced prison

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#17

Post by ggm »

ZionBoggan wrote: post #10
MaysonL wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is currently a massive money sink. Yes or No?

Obviously no...? The implications far outweigh the "money sink" notion...

Obviously yes. On evidence alone the path to profit doesn't exist for most of the massive capital sinks. A small number of players At best MAY return on investment, but in the cycle time capital needs a return, most are functionally incapable

AGI isn't happening. So, it's incremental improvements on LLM and Generative methods. Any advance which requires more tech inputs demands more capital. Any advance which requires less tech makes all the existing capex look stupid.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#18

Post by roxolotl »

rokob wrote: post #13

> something is valuable because some people think other people will pay more for it in the future, and not because it does useful things This has been the definition of finance for hundreds of years. I don't know why it comes across here like this is a new phenomenon.

Just because something is doesn’t mean it ought to be. We’ve settled on this system because it seems to be generally the most effective way of valuing things. In times of extreme changes in valuation it comes off as more egregious than normal.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#19

Post by debo_ »

Whenever I read Cory Doctorow, I feel like someone took the complement of Paul Graham's writing and posted it. I personally find both of them vapid and annoying.

Edit: the article that the author is commenting on is IMO much better than the linked commentary. There's not much to it

https://crookedtimber.org/2026/06/15/one-big-grift/

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#20

Post by pfraze »

civilian wrote: post #3

> That's the logic of the whole market today. AI – the world's money-losingest technology – attracts investment at the expense of everything else. I expect Cory to have skepticism about technology that can be exploited for dystopian purposes, but calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch. If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment…

“Losing” is a loaded word choice. If I buy something I’m really happy to have, I probably don’t describe it as losing the money.

Obviously the investment expense has been extremely high, which is what the replies are quibbling about.

Post reply on HN