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

AI is a bubble, just like dot-com

constraintlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: AI is a bubble, just like dot-com

#11

Post by CivBase »

bko wrote: post #9

Was dot com a bubble? If you could transport yourself to the late 90s, would you try to convince people that the internet's impact on the economy would be no greater than that of the fax machine by 2005. Or was it just some companies were overvalued?

> Or was it just some companies were overvalued?

That's what a bubble is.

Calling AI a "bubble" is not calling it useless or a fad. It's just pointing out that companies in the sector are overvalued. And it's important to recognize and correct bubbles quickly because the bigger the pop, the worse the overall economic damage to everyone.

Re: AI is a bubble, just like dot-com

#12

Post by bostonOU »

topheroo wrote: post #7

This might be interesting, but it reads so strongly like AI slop I had to stop.

Can I ask what makes it read like slop? Because lots of comments here on the style and little on the thinking behind it, which is where I spent my effort.

It seems like a lot of folks arguing about rather or not we need to still read code.

Re: AI is a bubble, just like dot-com

#13

Post by bostonOU »

q3k wrote: post #5
JacobAsmuth wrote: post #4

The irony of using Claude to write this is almost to much to "hold". (Claude loves to tell you to hold things in its writing). Here's another great Claudism: "The replies had a different read. One of them, in full: {embedded tweet}" lol. Who writes like that? "In full"? You're promising me you didn't fake the embedded tweet or something? Also this one: "So here’s my first hypothesis, stated so you can hold me to it."…

> My argument, Claude’s sentences. It won some of the arguments along the way. The mistakes are still mine. From the footer. lol. lmao, even.

how is that any different than claude generating code? honest question

Re: AI is a bubble, just like dot-com

#14

Post by keybored »

> Hold that exchange still for a second. Nobody in it is stupid. That’s what makes it worth understanding.

The room falls silent. Except there is no room. There is no scene to dramatize. So I have to instruct you.

Two things. Both of them true. Yet I’ve decided that your imbecile mind can’t imagine that. How can they both be true? One word. Nuance.

I would know. On one hand I haven’t written a line of code in a year. But that’s table stakes. Everyone does not write code any more. I also haven’t written even a four-minute blog post in a year. (Arthiritis? AI? Both. It’s both.) On the other hand I am critical of AI. I think fully autonomous coding and writing is not here. Yet. Nuance.

My pieces used to be about writing. Now? They are about understanding.

My pieces used to be about individual inquiry. Now? I string you along for a series of posts. That’s collective inquiry.

By the end you won’t need me to spell out a conclusion. Bubble. Revolution. Dark. Light. Contrasts. It’s not discrete. It’s analog.

Re: AI is a bubble, just like dot-com

#15

Post by bostonOU »

JacobAsmuth wrote: post #4

The irony of using Claude to write this is almost to much to "hold". (Claude loves to tell you to hold things in its writing). Here's another great Claudism: "The replies had a different read. One of them, in full: {embedded tweet}" lol. Who writes like that? "In full"? You're promising me you didn't fake the embedded tweet or something? Also this one: "So here’s my first hypothesis, stated so you can hold me to it."…

> Here's another great Claudism: "The replies had a different read. One of them, in full: {embedded tweet}" lol. Who writes like that? "In full"? You're promising me you didn't fake the embedded tweet or something?

I originally had the content of the tweet and when posting switched it to have the embedding. So ironically, the error you're pointing out was my manual fix

Re: AI is a bubble, just like dot-com

#16

Post by bubblegumcrisis »

wulfmann wrote: post #2

AI on AI

Bot farms, AI stories, AI comments on AI.

Waymo had a story on this site not long ago. All of the comments were mostly positive - but in real life, no real life human I know wants Waymo. None. And anyone who bikes is vigorously against it.

So- who is the audience for all of this? Reading this AI slop article - I just feel as if a moment of my life was wasted. And not wasted by poor writing, but by meaningless synth.

I hope we have the de-slop button soon. Ad-block -> Slop-block. I would rather read bad writing with meaning, than meaningless organized prose.

Re: AI is a bubble, just like dot-com

#17

Post by sublinear »

This blog post is so rambly that I don't think this discussion will go anywhere beyond the usual AI good/bad arguments. This is exactly the sort of thing that frustrates HN.

Since we're not banning these submissions outright, we should maybe move them to their own filter (like "new", but exclusively for "AI" rants)? Somewhere, anywhere, very very far away from the rest of HN.

Re: AI is a bubble, just like dot-com

#19

Post by MoonZ »

skhameneh wrote: post #10

No, AI isn’t like the dot-com bubble and it’s short sighted that people keep trying to compare it. The dot-com bubble had investment before mass adoption. AI has mass adoption, there are many industries where usage of AI is now expected. They have similarities, but claiming they are the same is so fucking stupid.

It doesn't make a difference, the profitability is way overvalued, potential customer companies are firing and closing all over the world, while AI debt is growing in billions (visualize curves going in opposite directions). They'll never be able to repay them on time. Plus, these investments are based on a promise they'll never uphold since the LLMs are a technological dead end for their ambitions.

Yes, there's a bubble and we've known for a while now, thank you.

Re: AI is a bubble, just like dot-com

#20

Post by bostonOU »

sublinear wrote: post #17

This blog post is so rambly that I don't think this discussion will go anywhere beyond the usual AI good/bad arguments. This is exactly the sort of thing that frustrates HN. Since we're not banning these submissions outright, we should maybe move them to their own filter (like "new", but exclusively for "AI" rants)? Somewhere, anywhere, very very far away from the rest of HN.

Is it frustrating that I used Claude to turn detailed outlines, notes, and discussions into a post?

> go anywhere beyond the usual AI good/bad arguments This is literally the point of the post. AI is not good or bad just like the internet was not all bubble or all value. The goal is to better understand how to use ai well. I'd rather try writing my thoughts than just dump a bunch of notes and diagrams on a blog

Post reply on HN