161–170 of 668 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what are billions of people doing on Facebook if it's harmful? I don't know. This is extremely naive and akin to asking "why do people drink if it’s bad for you then??" Popular != healthy
Tbh, it's not clear that if we all stopped drinking the world would be better.
The big question is what "society" he is talking about? Is it the "society" that includes all people, or the "society" that includes only rich people?
The only thing you have to worry about are not non-rich people, but people without any motivation. The difference of course is that the framing you're using makes it easy to blame "The System", while a motivation-based framing at least leaves people somewhat responsible.
Wealth may get you a seat closer to the table, but everyone is already invited into the room.
I'm paying for 3 different AI services and our company and most of my team is also paying money for various AI stuff. Sounds like a real industry to me. There's just going to be VC losers as always, where usually "losing" is getting bought by a bigger company or aquihires instead of 100xing or going public.
Those companies are also likely still in the red. They're banking on the hope that one day they will be profitable. I'm sure one of them will be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, Sam Altman’s recent one saying that his LLMs would “cure cancer” if they built enough data centres was also a winner.
i have to say I'm a little disgusted by these statements. LLMs are useful for many problems, but is there really a conceivable path of them making progress into fighting the countless cancers tormenting humanity?
The big question is what "society" he is talking about? Is it the "society" that includes all people, or the "society" that includes only rich people?
It will benefit all people but it will disproportionally benefit more rich people.
Do I have this right that there have been no or at least very few pure AI IPO's during this cycle (I can't actually think of a single one)? So it's dissimilar to dotcom in that regard because during that time countless dotcoms went public with sky-high valuations and then failed. A bunch of reputable companies also went or were already public during that time and those saw huge valuation drops so that's more analogou…
IPOs aren't what they once were. The burden of being a public company has increased (SOX and related public company costs are $5-10M/year), so companies are far more likely to stay private. That has created a positive feedback cycle as the private funding ecosystem has become increasingly robust, which is why you see so many $100B+ private companies. Also keep in mind that the biggest companies during that bubble had…
Theres also plenty of money washing around in private markets so no need to go public. Staying private is an advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bezos is a 0.0001-percenter. Most of people on HN are probably in the top 1% to 5%. You're in the top 10% in the US if you make $170k/yr.
are most people on HN making 170? I feel a bit less privileged now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those companies are also likely still in the red. They're banking on the hope that one day they will be profitable. I'm sure one of them will be.
HN said the same thing about Uber forever.
That was literally what everybody said would happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I never tougth of Google as a dotcom era company. Most of those were landing pages with news and chat rooms. It was more of web 2.0 company.
It was founded 1998, very much dotcom era, and had no significant web 2.0 products for years after that.