Live data from Hacker News

The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

bayramovanar.substack.com

201–210 of 230 posts

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they still going to need to reach out to the big players because of the regulatory environment? And for good reason, as it happens. We don't need hospitals handing over the public's health data to the cheapest person they can find to prompt it all into Claude.

You can be a small player and still deliver immense value in health care I work at a firm in a niche with about 30 employees. We follow all regulations and go above and beyond them in regards to security.

Just anecdotally, my experience was the total opposite. I didn't work in the health care industry long though and I think you're probably right in general. But you might also find there's a lot of variation between small companies too and a lot of failures for every success I suppose.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#202

IMO, this is a not-wrong but less insightful perspective on what Ed Zitron talks about in The Rot Economy. Cycles of overhiring and layoffs happen, but they're not the core mechanism. AI isn't the cause, but it's also not a scapegoat. It's just the current placeholder, like blockchain and the metaverse, that allow companies to have their valuation based on growth rather than profit. https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-ro…

Your linked article seems aligned with https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#203
post #14

From around 2010-2020 the stock market was rewarding growth more than profit. That means large tech employers hired like crazy to indicate growth. Then came COVID and the economy contracted. As a result the stock market changed to reward profitability. So, excess developers had to go. We are still feeling this. I do agree that AI is not to blame for this. In fact I will go further and claim that AI is a net negative…

Qualification is a very difficult problem, but I think everyone resents the characterization of "bad devs". Things like the Metaverse failure - apparently $70bn spent for no results - are primarily management failures. Like the Cybertruck, they succeeded 100% at building a product that the CEO wanted. The problem is that the CEO is basically the only person that wants that product. There's also the thought nobody wan…

Not only this. The marketplace got way less efficient. These companies are so large that they rival small states, with very little actual competition and command economies internally.

When management decides to build the metaverse, it should be a career-ending and company-ending move. What did the shareholders say? Nothing, they know that there's no competition. The leadership stayed. $70B!

Huge swathes of tech (and the economy at large) are like this. The stock market plays a huge part -- there are very few active participants, and individual pockets are bigger than ever (think e.g. Softbank); capital flows to whoever is largest. Even VC's talk about "what's your moat" -- they don't want you to out innovate, that's actually difficult; why do that, when you can find a regulatory loophole, or market power, and exploit that instead.

When one earns better return on his dollar from monopolization and market power, it's a very very bad sign for the economy at large. And we very clearly have not yet learned this lesson, even when signs of it (China out innovating us in a rapidly growing number of industries; political instability; state capture, etc). We are already a couple decades into this habit and it will not end well for us. I think this is an issue with USA industrial strategy at large. We say over and over again, we need to do the hard stuff, we need to invest in energy, batteries, 'hard tech' etc. But what did we do? $1T to Sam Altman sitting on stage in the Steve Jobs outfit, doing the App Store for ChatGPT.

Individual SWEs are doing what individual people did in the Soviet Union. Join the party, read the party book, and get a cushy mid-level bureaucrat position. It beats working the factory, that's for sure!

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#204
post #14

From around 2010-2020 the stock market was rewarding growth more than profit. That means large tech employers hired like crazy to indicate growth. Then came COVID and the economy contracted. As a result the stock market changed to reward profitability. So, excess developers had to go. We are still feeling this. I do agree that AI is not to blame for this. In fact I will go further and claim that AI is a net negative…

Qualification is a very difficult problem, but I think everyone resents the characterization of "bad devs". Things like the Metaverse failure - apparently $70bn spent for no results - are primarily management failures. Like the Cybertruck, they succeeded 100% at building a product that the CEO wanted. The problem is that the CEO is basically the only person that wants that product. There's also the thought nobody wan…

its insane that there wasnt any consequence for the metaverse at all. Oh yeah, we built a second life clone based totally around the idea that people want to spend rent money on fake digital real estate. Of course it tanked, no one was brave enough to point out ahead of time how bad an idea it was? And this doesnt hurt their standing, stock price, or marketability at all?

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#205
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qualification is a very difficult problem, but I think everyone resents the characterization of "bad devs". Things like the Metaverse failure - apparently $70bn spent for no results - are primarily management failures. Like the Cybertruck, they succeeded 100% at building a product that the CEO wanted. The problem is that the CEO is basically the only person that wants that product. There's also the thought nobody wan…

Yes and no. Excellent developers deliver excellent products, like with the Cybertruck example. I wouldn't buy one either, but it appears to be well crafted. Stellar developers are one step better. Yes, they too delivery excellent products, but they also produce things of value that nobody asked for. Business examples include Teflon, Postit Notes, antibiotics, linux, git, and much more. The US Army changed leadership…

i think the cybertruck is pretty well known to be crafted poorly, doesnt it always have problems with pieces falling off, or bursting into flames?

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole article rests on this false economic claim, that traditional industries don’t overhire based on expectations. They absolutely do, ALL THE TIME. Manufacturing, automotive, airlines, energy etc. all of them make demand bets and lay people off when those bets fail. Cheap money amplified this cycle, but this isn’t a tech specific "failure", it’s just how forecasting under uncertainty work. It’s incredible how s…

It's incredible how engineers of all stripes assume they know all sorts of things they don't actually understand

That's a property of human beings in general. It's also a nice example of how sometimes a conundrum goes away when you make it more general.

That is, it seems incredible (going back to the GP) that engineers assume they understand economics when they don't. It's somewhat less incredible (applying your formulation) that engineers assume they understand things they don't. While it may still be incredible that engineers are so assumey, at least we no longer need to marvel at their assuminess about economics.

If we go one more step and state it as everyone assuming they understand things they don't, it's no longer incredible at all. What would be incredible is if anyone didn't.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#207
post #15

>In traditional industries like manufacturing you don’t hire 500 factory workers unless you have a production line that needs them. You don’t over-hire based on a guess. Traditional factories do make wrong guesses about the future and overhire all the time. Example: https://www.google.com/search?q=Ford+f150+lightning+laid+off...

The whole article rests on this false economic claim, that traditional industries don’t overhire based on expectations. They absolutely do, ALL THE TIME. Manufacturing, automotive, airlines, energy etc. all of them make demand bets and lay people off when those bets fail. Cheap money amplified this cycle, but this isn’t a tech specific "failure", it’s just how forecasting under uncertainty work. It’s incredible how s…

The title could be re-stated:

The economy is screwed, tech is just the scapegoat.

People who already had plenty absorbed the cheap money, until there was basically not enough value left to go around for consumers to be able to carry on the way that was expected.

>this isn’t a tech specific "failure",

Nope, looks like every "market" has become more nonideal, and the more "financialized" they are could be what's making certain markets worse.

Not every job is actually on a "market", some are deep in and others not so much.

In the old days people held on to their jobs for so much longer that it's a really big difference when the actual "job market" in so many areas was virtually insignificant compared to 21st century rambling as the norm.

Regardless of pay, the more your job is part of a market, the more you would be subject to market forces beyond your control.

Markets are "always" irrational except for those times when they are neither in your favor nor against you. If a neutral situation holds for a period of time, that can be negotiated with a more "straightforward" approach than when volatility is the dominating factor. People might think with almost "engineering-style certainty". Once there are wild swings, it can be like a sine wave where half the curve is positive and the lower halves are negative. It still balances out to neutral but you may not know where you are at any one time. Every positive excursion will not last very long and be followed sooner rather than later by a negative equivalent in some way.

With a significant cycle occurring, then the only truly rational, neutral times are those brief zero-crossing events when the market reverses from favorable to unfavorable or back again.

If your only real opportunities occur when the market is in your favor, then you are dependent on the market being irrational which you need, but is about as uncertain as it gets. Opportunities like this can reverse more easily than the mainstream where they more often merely fade.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#208
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qualification is a very difficult problem, but I think everyone resents the characterization of "bad devs". Things like the Metaverse failure - apparently $70bn spent for no results - are primarily management failures. Like the Cybertruck, they succeeded 100% at building a product that the CEO wanted. The problem is that the CEO is basically the only person that wants that product. There's also the thought nobody wan…

its insane that there wasnt any consequence for the metaverse at all. Oh yeah, we built a second life clone based totally around the idea that people want to spend rent money on fake digital real estate. Of course it tanked, no one was brave enough to point out ahead of time how bad an idea it was? And this doesnt hurt their standing, stock price, or marketability at all?

What makes you say it hasn't affected their stock price? Seems likely the Meta stock would be much higher if they had an additional $15B profit on their books each year.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap venture capital is uniquely driven by the interest rate more than any other factor. Low interest rates drive money away from safer vehicles towards more risky vehicles because they still offer a return. This is good far people starting companies, but in the long run the decision makers on those investments almost always turn out to have mis-priced the risk factor and end up with negative returns. This then caus…

Excellent points. You've perfectly described the brutal, interest-rate-driven VC cycle -- capital floods in, risk gets mispriced, and the market eventually corrects with Darwinian force. That's the "blunt instrument" in action. Meanwhile in China, the approach is fundamentally different. Capital isn't just cheap; it's strategically directed by the state with goals beyond financial return. The aim is "new quality prod…

Another factor is that dictatorships don't suffer from the push-pull effect of election cycles, especially magnified in a two party state. Such polarization wastes a lot of energy and thus is an impediment to progress. But of course there is that small price to pay.

Re: The tech market is fundamentally fucked up and AI is just a scapegoat

#210
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd add that companies write off their equipment investment over a 3-5 year depreciation period. After that, when the laptops reach EOL, employees can often buy them through the company's EPP (employee purchase program) usually for just the fair market value, which might be a couple hundred € or sometimes even less. So, eventually they recoup the equipment costs, wouldn't get surprised if they even make a profit out…

Is that common? I've never worked at a corporation that had an EPP for EoL computer equipment. It always all went to a specialist recycling/refurbishing business.

Throughout my career I’ve run into this approach a couple of times. All in all, it’s a fairly unusual practice—I was surprised myself.
Post reply on HN