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

Money is pouring into AI. Skeptics say it’s a ‘grift shift’

institutionalinvestor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 234 posts

Re: Money is pouring into AI. Skeptics say it’s a ‘grift shift’

#191

Post by ryanwaggoner »

intended wrote: post #184
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is pretty funny in the context of a world where there are currently cars driving millions of miles without human intervention in a variety of conditions. I don't think anyone cares whether it meets your personal definition of "self driving". Reminds of the Chinese proverb: “Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it.”

Cmon, - you are the one misrepresenting the actual definition of self driving - aka Level 5. No vehicle is at level 5. Calling it “my definition” and then switching the actual definition is unfair.

Who decided that only level 5 qualifies as "self-driving"?

Re: Money is pouring into AI. Skeptics say it’s a ‘grift shift’

#192

Post by flangola7 »

borissk wrote: post #31
flangola7 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what your comment about Musk is referencing. I can't think of a less inspiring figure.

You can't think of a less inspiring figure, than the man who made EVs mainstream and built the most successful space company?

The man who takes credit for those things? Things which are the work of others? No, I do not find that inspiring.

Re: Money is pouring into AI. Skeptics say it’s a ‘grift shift’

#193

Post by harry8 »

apexalpha wrote: post #143
harry8 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Survivor bias is massive here, watch out for it. Osborne beat apple to personal computing. Facebook did not exist during the dotcom boom. So very many early car companies went broke. "But if you'd only got ford it would have been sweet as." But they weren't first. Panhard et Levassor in 1889, ford in 1901 sayeth wikipedia.[1] So now you're waiting and picking winners in the sector which is very much harder without th…

Of course this is survivor bias, and of course many companies went bust. But that's what investing is. Even in a mature sector of the economy companies can go bust. That doesn't mean it's always a bad idea to invest in new and upcoming technologies.

>Whether you believe AI is going to be massively transformative to the modern economy on a scale with cars or personal computing is actually not sufficient to start investing in the 'sector'

Note that "not sufficient" does not mean something else and particularly not "never do it." You've still got to pick winners if you want to succeed and that is likely a difficult task if history is any guide. Good luck.

Re: Money is pouring into AI. Skeptics say it’s a ‘grift shift’

#194

Post by boxed »

bombolo wrote: post #54
boxed wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the 0.1% don't seem to really understand this. If they did we would se massive investments in basic science and medicine from them. But we don't. Instead most of them seem to treat their wealth as internet points to compare to other super rich.

They want investments with short term returns… and basic science isn't that.

But that's exactly because they're being stupid. Only basic science or medicine has any chance of making any significant impact on their lives. And most of the potential basic science impact will do so via medicine. Being a billionaire won't protect you from cancer and multi resistant bacteria.

They are missing an opportunity to increase their life span and life quality and do the same for their children. Only very few billionaires understand this, Bill Gates being maybe the most obvious example.

Re: Money is pouring into AI. Skeptics say it’s a ‘grift shift’

#195

Post by Animats »

emptysongglass wrote: post #113
logifail wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The distance between "sort of works" and "works" for AI is considerable. Not infinite. > Today you can take a driverless cab in San Francisco [...] From the outside, it sure does look like driverless is still firmly at "sort of works": "After California regulators approved the expansion of driverless taxi services in San Francisco earlier this month, it took only a little more than 24 hours for a series of events t…

That's Cruise. Waymo has driven 1 million miles as of last January with only two incidents that have met the government's reporting criteria and no injuries. Those stats are impressive. https://waymo.com/blog/2023/02/first-million-rider-only-mile...

Cruise started as a "fake it til you make it" operation. The tradition continues.

Re: Money is pouring into AI. Skeptics say it’s a ‘grift shift’

#196

Post by intended »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #191
intended wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cmon, - you are the one misrepresenting the actual definition of self driving - aka Level 5. No vehicle is at level 5. Calling it “my definition” and then switching the actual definition is unfair.

Who decided that only level 5 qualifies as "self-driving"?

This comment is pretty funny in the context of someone starting out by claiming no cares “whether it meets your personal definition of "self driving".”

Re: Money is pouring into AI. Skeptics say it’s a ‘grift shift’

#197

Post by CapstanRoller »

trashtester wrote: post #161
CapstanRoller wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>income of >$100k This is barely "middle class" now, unless you live in the middle of nowhere or like a college student. $100k/yr stopped being impressive long ago. Even the FAANG rich boys are closer to the janitor than to the CEO.

$100k/yr probably still puts you in the top 1% by personal salary per year, globaly. And about 3x above the median in the US. I'm not arguing that it makes you rich, but you're definitely NOT "poor" if you have such an income. Anyway, comparing to the CEO on a linear scale is kind of absurd. Anyone making less than half of what the CEO does is closer to the janitor than the CEO. Still, if you make exactly half as muc…

>I'm not arguing that it makes you rich, but you're definitely NOT "poor" if you have such an income.

It depends on where you live. In the Bay Area, you can earn $100k/yr and qualify for food assistance. Housing is the biggest expense, and it's only getting worse.

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/100k-a-year-is-low-incom...

Re: Money is pouring into AI. Skeptics say it’s a ‘grift shift’

#198

Post by Animats »

arcticbull wrote: post #164
pjc50 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft Middle Manager 2.0 I think we've found the common thread between AI and crypto: the dumping of externalities and increase in energy usage. Do people really want to work for Microsoft Middle Manager? Have we not seen enough horror stories about metric-slavery in Amazon warehouses and the gig economy? It might be cheaper, but it's also worse, for a class of people who don't get any input in the decision. Si…

The other common thread is it’s all the same grifters. The same people who hyped up the worlds slowest coal powered linked list as the future of money are now hyping up AI. I do think AI is somewhat different as we will be left with more to show for it than “PayPal for Cambodian human traffickers running pig butchering scams.” My banal take is: notwithstanding above, all the risk premium is gone for investors and emp…

> The other common thread is it’s all the same grifters.

Yes, the same grifters are migrating to AI. But there's a real industry in AI, unlike blockchain, where it was almost all grifters.

The pure scam industries, day trading, binary options, cryptocurrency, contracts for difference, retail FOREX, etc. do have many of the same people. If you want to follow this, there's Offshore Alert.[1]

[1] https://www.offshorealert.com/

Re: Money is pouring into AI. Skeptics say it’s a ‘grift shift’

#199

Post by vGPU »

pjc50 wrote: post #141
Animats wrote: post #88

The distance between "sort of works" and "works" for AI is considerable. Not infinite. Look at self-driving cars. The first tries were in the late 1950s, with GM's Firebird 3, guided by wires in the road. By the 1980s, the first self-driving vehicles were moving around CMU, very slowly. By the early 1990s, experimental highway driving had been demoed. In the early 2000s, we had the DARPA Grand Challenge, which had of…

> Microsoft Middle Manager 2.0 I think we've found the common thread between AI and crypto: the dumping of externalities and increase in energy usage. Do people really want to work for Microsoft Middle Manager? Have we not seen enough horror stories about metric-slavery in Amazon warehouses and the gig economy? It might be cheaper, but it's also worse, for a class of people who don't get any input in the decision. Si…

Just you wait until it realizes that firing you would result in a net carbon usage savings for the company.

Re: Money is pouring into AI. Skeptics say it’s a ‘grift shift’

#200

Post by borissk »

mym1990 wrote: post #81
borissk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually compared to the economies of past societies, the modern economy in the West is amazing. If you work hard, have a little bit above the average intelligence and potentially a bit of luck you can make a lot of money. If not I guess you can make excuses. The simplest way to organize a group of people, animals, organisms is to make one of them leader and have the rest follow him. This is the way our ancestors beh…

The fact that you think our ancestors go back hundreds of millions of years…is wild.

How far do you think our ancestors go?
Post reply on HN