Live data from Hacker News

Boom, bubble, bust, boom. Why should AI be different?

crazystupidtech.com

171–180 of 215 posts

Re: Boom, bubble, bust, boom. Why should AI be different?

#171

Pets.com→Chewy Webvan → Instacart, DoorDash, Amazon Fresh Kozmo.com → Postmates, Uber Eats, Gopuff Boo.com (fashion) → Farfetch, Net-a-Porter, ASOS Broadcast.com → YouTube, Netflix, Twitch The dot-com bubble didn’t prove the internet was a fad — it proved the internet was inevitable, but the valuations assumed adoption would happen in 2 years instead of 15–20. To me it feels like the AI inevitability will be much qui…

A lot of those early .com companies could have been profitable. They chose to go for rapid growth instead. Some people here probably remember discussion of users mattering more than revenue.

You see that same pattern with AI now. Products are being provided for free or nearly free, and plenty is being spent on marketing.

Re: Boom, bubble, bust, boom. Why should AI be different?

#172
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inevitability of what, chatbots that mark poisonous mushrooms as edible in every product?

How does this add to the discussion? Is the goal to make HN as toxic as everywhere else online? If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise this performative negativity and cynicism is boring honestly.

How is it toxic to back against the irrational infatuation with barely useful stochastic parrots?

Re: Boom, bubble, bust, boom. Why should AI be different?

#173

I have a noob question. How can developed economies where populations levels have plateaued continue to be expected to post positive GDPs (and therefore add net new goods and services) yoy? Homes as assets should pass on, higher cost services of today would be replaced by lower cost which only temporarily would increase units sold(but should eventually plateau because #units/person is not going to change). No compone…

GDP does not require that the goods or services were sold for money. GDP measures the market value adjusted to constant quality of all final goods and services produced. GDP can grow even with fewer workers, fewer hours, fewer buyers, and fewer units sold. So the way I understood it, productivity, efficiency and quality gains can increase GDP year over year. Say we are a country of 1 person. If that person can make a…

I have a theory (actually I wanted at some point to write more seriously about it) about how GDP also expands by consuming life itself. If you're burnt out, or don't have time to see friends and are depressed have to pay for therapy, GDP grows. If you don't have time to care for your children so you have to keep them busy with million classes, or paid for caretaking, GDP expands. If you don't have time or confidence to meet people IRL and have to pay for Tinder, GDP expands. If you don't have time to cook (even if you enjoy it) so UberEats all the time, GDP expands. When you replace public services by extractivist and more inefficient private ones (see healthcare, education) GDP often grows. The list goes on and on. The more every aspect of human existence is replace by a transaction in the market place, the more GDP grows. We replace a variety of motivations to do and to be based of human relationships and affection, by cold self-interested exchanges between strangers.

GDP is a fucked up way to look at life. It's go to way to look at whether a country is doing good, but it's consuming our environment and our own sanity in so many ways.

That's one of the reasons why I think that actually limiting the working hours (bringing it down to 30, and eventually to 20 hours a week) should be one of the main agenda points for this coming century. It's important for our environment, but also for our own sanity.

One could argue that given a sufficiently large GDP, one can make the individual choice to earn less and have more time. But that's sadly not how things work, since having more workforce available also devalues work relative to subsistence goods (e.g., you can't afford a roof without a full time job). Also, individualism is such a powerful ideology in a market driven economy. Maximizing individualism itself can help you get ahead in the marketplace, and spreads through society via marketing, private media. At some point, we even stop seeing how to behave differently than to maximize our own profit. We need democratic instruments outside of the marketplace to steer our society in a way that improves our lives, regardless of what that does to GDP.

Re: Boom, bubble, bust, boom. Why should AI be different?

#174
post #16
post #2

To say whether it's a bubble, we need to know the value of the technology. The value of modern AI seems very high. That nobody knows how high, that they still haven't figured out applications, and that the technology and its tools are still far from refined, is normal for any new technology. If you add the value of the potential political power gained by controlling AI, then the value to the owners and investors is a…

The value can be incredibly high... just like the value of the internet was incredibly high.. and it can still be a finanfial bubble. I feel like the people arguing against the bubble perspective are saying look the internet was actually valuable and so too will this.. and that's totally a valid perspective. The bubble is not about whether there's value but about whether or not the market will come down. All of the a…

I worry that it is not a valid perspective and that the bubble dynamics are being driven exactly by this sentiment.

We are pricing in the hollywood version of AI we don't have as if it is the internet.

I communicated with people exactly like what I am doing right now in this post on usenet in 1995. Message boards by 1997. The internet bubble wasn't based on some wild virtual reality version of the internet that hadn't been invented yet.

It is a categorically different process at work here. This bubble is far more insane and speculative since we don't have what we are pricing in. We don't even really know what we are pricing in besides some vague notation of an inevitable "AGI".

Re: Boom, bubble, bust, boom. Why should AI be different?

#175

Pets.com→Chewy Webvan → Instacart, DoorDash, Amazon Fresh Kozmo.com → Postmates, Uber Eats, Gopuff Boo.com (fashion) → Farfetch, Net-a-Porter, ASOS Broadcast.com → YouTube, Netflix, Twitch The dot-com bubble didn’t prove the internet was a fad — it proved the internet was inevitable, but the valuations assumed adoption would happen in 2 years instead of 15–20. To me it feels like the AI inevitability will be much qui…

> To me it feels like the AI inevitability will be much quicker. Based on what? We're only seeing linear improvements for increasing spending. There's no new algorithm ideas on the horizon, just more and more hardware, in the hopes that if we throw enough RAM and CPU at the problem, it will suddenly become "AGI." No one has their eye on power budgets or sustainability or durability of the system. The human brain has…

>no new algorithm ideas on the horizon

The LLM algorithms seem pretty clunky to me, like a hack designed for text translation that surprised everyone by getting quite smart. The reason the human brain is so much more energy efficient is quite likely better design/algorithms. I was watching some video comparing brain and LLM function and almost tempted to try building something myself (https://youtu.be/3SUqBUGlyh8). I'm sure there are many more competent people looking at similar things.

Re: Boom, bubble, bust, boom. Why should AI be different?

#176
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implied promise was that these things were going to “revolutionize the workplace” i.e. massively automate middle class office jobs A couple of years down the road, their useful applications still are summarizing text, transferring style to text, generating code under strict supervision, and generating images that need retouching. That’s a lot to get out of a tool, but it’s dubious that investors were pouring tril…

How many people graduate from a US software engineering degree each year? About 100k? If they (the 100k in the US) earn $100k each in the first year, before gaining the skills to earn more, that's $10 billion a year, every year. If you can capture that market for next 20 years, it's worth $200 billion. Except… can you capture it? A junior dev is… not exactly someone you want connecting to your business-critical datab…

That analysis only makes sense if companies value AI tools as much as equivalent human productivity. Hypothetically say you have a company with 100 junior developers. An AI service comes around that doubles the productivity of your junior developers, so you can keep only 50 of them. Would the company pay 5M dollars a year forever for that service?

In my experience, the answer is a resounding no. They’ll nickel and dime some kind of per-seat licensing on a monthly basis that costs less than 100 USD or whatever. So for every 100$ in salary you can automate away, you might get 2$ in subscription payments if you are lucky, at current rates.

Re: Boom, bubble, bust, boom. Why should AI be different?

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implied promise was that these things were going to “revolutionize the workplace” i.e. massively automate middle class office jobs A couple of years down the road, their useful applications still are summarizing text, transferring style to text, generating code under strict supervision, and generating images that need retouching. That’s a lot to get out of a tool, but it’s dubious that investors were pouring tril…

The value of LLM is reliable high quality translation between all languages. The economic value of this is at least trillions of dollars per year. The cultural and humanitarian value is equally gigantic, even if it can't be measured in dollars and cents.

I notice that angry hackers are going nuts with their down votes. Make an argument instead if you have something to say.

Tourism and travel is one of the worlds largest industries, and companies in that sector can improve their revenue with double digits if they can reach and communicate with more customers. That's real impact, which is worth something, while hacker votes are worth nothing.

Re: Boom, bubble, bust, boom. Why should AI be different?

#178
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your perspective might be severely limited. There exists millions of businesses outside of big IT enterprises.

I will freely admit this - but I have led a localization effort on a mobile game and worked on localization for a desktop application. I am also lucky enough to travel abroad quite a bit and am quite familiar with consumer offerings. So I would fairly limit my experience to consumer and medium-sized business uses - I have no experience with large corporate translation efforts (the largest would probably be Ubisoft or…

You're only taking about IT stuff, while tourism is one of the largest global industries.

Not to mention hundreds of other sectors which will benefit from better international communication.

Re: Boom, bubble, bust, boom. Why should AI be different?

#179

Pets.com→Chewy Webvan → Instacart, DoorDash, Amazon Fresh Kozmo.com → Postmates, Uber Eats, Gopuff Boo.com (fashion) → Farfetch, Net-a-Porter, ASOS Broadcast.com → YouTube, Netflix, Twitch The dot-com bubble didn’t prove the internet was a fad — it proved the internet was inevitable, but the valuations assumed adoption would happen in 2 years instead of 15–20. To me it feels like the AI inevitability will be much qui…

> To me it feels like the AI inevitability will be much quicker. Based on what? We're only seeing linear improvements for increasing spending. There's no new algorithm ideas on the horizon, just more and more hardware, in the hopes that if we throw enough RAM and CPU at the problem, it will suddenly become "AGI." No one has their eye on power budgets or sustainability or durability of the system. The human brain has…

The current LLM models are too fallible and inefficient for everyday use. Energy requirements have become a major concern, bucking the trend of banking exponential computing gains through the efficiency improvements. Until recently, year-on-year global energy demands of data-centers were increasing linearly despite the exponential increase in computing power.

This has changed since the cost of equipment and infrastructure has been close to "free" for the large corporations running a cycle of funny-money investment in a bubble. This has allowed them sell access to the computing and models for just above operational energy costs (to the extent of increasing global energy prices), whilst offering free accounts to harvest data. No small competitor could possibly compete with that model.

The calculation for profitability (useful output for humans in a cost-benefit analysis) of the current setup is broken, and trades on our dreams of the future. Scaling computing forever simply does not work. It will never be profitable without further leaps forward in the technology--either more efficient models or hardware. By this time, the extent to the excessive investment in new data-centers will be clear.

Re: Boom, bubble, bust, boom. Why should AI be different?

#180
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me it feels like the AI inevitability will be much quicker. Based on what? We're only seeing linear improvements for increasing spending. There's no new algorithm ideas on the horizon, just more and more hardware, in the hopes that if we throw enough RAM and CPU at the problem, it will suddenly become "AGI." No one has their eye on power budgets or sustainability or durability of the system. The human brain has…

>no new algorithm ideas on the horizon The LLM algorithms seem pretty clunky to me, like a hack designed for text translation that surprised everyone by getting quite smart. The reason the human brain is so much more energy efficient is quite likely better design/algorithms. I was watching some video comparing brain and LLM function and almost tempted to try building something myself ( https://youtu.be/3SUqBUGlyh8 ).…

[dead]
Post reply on HN