141–150 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent 13 years chronically on reddit before stumbling into a exit hatch of the bubble chamber. Those people (well really it's teens and college kids) live on reddit, they are so far from an accurate representation of reality its insane.
Worse when you find out there’s a couple dozen of the same moderators running nearly all the top 500 subreddits.
The smartest finance folks I know say that this “irrational exuberance” works until it doesn’t. Meaning nobody really thinks it’s sustainable, but companies and VCs chasing the AI hype bubble have backed themselves into a corner where the only way to stop the bubble from bursting is to keep inflating the bubble. The fate of the bubble will be decided by Wall Street not tech folks in the valley. Wall Street is already…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked at a startup during the telecom boom. Then, startups were getting acquired by the likes of Cisco before the startup had a deployed product. And, back then, IPOs were the only form of liquidity event and engineers were locked up for 6 months. The lucky ones had their startups go IPO or get acquired with enough time to spare to get out before the ensuing bust. After the bust, funding dried up and most startups…
Capitalism only works if there is lots of competition. Monopolies gum up the system, reward the institutional capital rather than innovation capital, and prevent new entrants from de-ossifying and being the renewing forest fire. We've been so lax on antitrust. Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon - they all need to be broken up. Our economy and our profession would be better for it. Innovation should be a treadmill. YC and a1…
I don't think so. I think they want their own monopolies. That is what Peter Thiel's book[1] recommends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did I really need to use the /s tag? But a four-year-old is occasionally correct. Are they not intelligent? My cat can't answer math problems, is it a mere automaton? If we can't define what "true" intelligence is, then perhaps a simulation that fools people into calling it "close enough" is actually that, close enough.
> There's also plenty of argument to be made that it's already here Given you start with that I would say yes the /s is needed. A 4 year old isn’t statistically predicting the next word to say; its intelligence is very different from an LLM. Calling an LLM “intelligent” seems more marketing than fact based.
And now after having to dissect my attempt at lightheartedness, like a frog or a postmodern book club reading, all the fun has gone out. There's a reason I usually stay out of these debates, but I guess I wouldn't have been pointed to that delightful pdf if I hadn't piped up.
Knowing history of past bubbles is only mildly informative. The dotcom bubble was different than the railroads bubble etc. The only thing to keep in mind is that all of this is about business and ROI. Given the colossal investments, even if the companies finances are healthy and not fraudulent, the economic returns have to be unprecedented or there will be a crash. They are all chasing a golden goose.
With Bezos openly stating the goal to build 10 GW+ data-centers in space, it almost feels in question whether this is about ROI, or simply building the Neuromancer future where the ultra-rich can finally be free of their need for the rest of us. Not needing labor at all would be the final return on investment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45465480 https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/jeff-bezos-claims..…
Why does "Not needing labor at all" need to be in space?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AGI is not near There's also plenty of argument to be made that it's already here. AI can hold forth on pretty much any topic, and it's occasionally even correct. Of course to many (not saying you), the only acceptable bar is perfect factual accuracy, a deep understanding of meanings, and probably even a soul. Which keeps breathing life into the old joke "AI is whatever computers still can't do".
It's still forgetting what it's talking about from minute to minute. I'm honestly getting tired of bullying them into following the directions I've already given them three times. I think the main problem with AGI as a goal (other than I don't think it's possible with current hardware, maybe it's possible with hypothetical optical transistors) is that I'm not sure AGI would be more useful. AGI would argue with you mo…
I think the fundamental issue is the uncertainty of achieving AGI with baked in fundamentals of reasoning. Almost 90% of topline investments appear to be geared around achieving that in the next 2-5 years. If that doesn’t come to pass soon enough, investors will loose interest. Interest has been maintained by continuous growth in benchmark results. Perhaps this pattern can continue for another 6-12 months before fati…
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. If you speak with AI researchers, they all seem reasonable in their expectations. ... but I work with non-technical business people across industries and their expectations are NOT reasonable. They expect ChatGPT to do their entire job for $20/month and hire, plan, budget accordingly. 12 months later, when things don't work out, their response to AI goes to the other end of the…
Fiber networks were using less than 0.002% of available capacity, with potential for 60,000x speed increases. It was just too early. I doubt we will see unused GPU capacity. As soon as we can prompt "Think about the codebase over night. Try different ways to refactor it. Tomorrow, show me your best solution." we will want as much GPU time at the current rate as possible. If a minute of GPU usage is currently $0.10, a…
> I doubt we will see unused GPU capacity I'd argue we very certainly will. Companies are gobbling up GPUs like there's no tomorrow, assuming demand will remain stable and continue growing indefinitely. Meanwhile LLM fatigue has started to set in, models are getting smaller and smaller and consumer hardware is getting better and better. There's no way this won't end up with a lot of idle GPUs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're implying only 4 years of regulation was enough to shift the balance of power between telecoms and smaller ISPs." If it's true that this regulation was what helped jumpstart the internet it's an interesting counterpoint to the apocalyptic predictions of people when these regulations are undone. (net neutrality comes to mind as well) I've never heard anyone claim before that just having these laws on the books f…
> 've never heard anyone claim before that just having these laws on the books for a small period of time is "enough". Why would it be enough? This legislation prevents monopolies from abusing position, therefore we will repeal it the moment it turns out to be useful? Yeah, it takes time to consolidate power again, that does not mean the legislation is not good.
It worked out just fine? Are you saying that post-2003 internet access should have had more regulation to allow open access?
I've never heard anyone complain about that before- is there a specific issue that could have been fixed?