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

Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 752 posts

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#261

Post by janalsncm »

tharne wrote: post #256
OptionOfT wrote: post #114

Interestingly I think if the AI succeed at the level that a lot of these CEOs hope we're not much better off either. And the sentiment that goes around is more: reduce the amount of people needed to do the same amount of work: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/09/mckinsey_ai_monetizat... > McKinsey says, while quoting an HR executive at a Fortune 100 company griping: "All of these copilots are supposed to make work…

> The problem becomes that eventually all these people who are laid off are not going to find new roles. > Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one has money to throw around? I've wondered about this myself. People keep talking about the trades as a good path in the post-AI world, but I just don't see it. If huge swaths of office workers are suddenly and permanently unemployed, who's going to be…

UBI correctly identifies the problem (people can’t afford housing/clothing/food without money) but is an inefficient solution imo. If we want people to have those things, we should simply give them to them.

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#262

Post by palmotea »

jitix wrote: post #245
palmotea wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Except for free/subsidized healthcare, didn't the US already have those things during the post-war boom? > Yes, but education system is being dismantled piece by piece at all levels. So? That's not really relevant to the historical period you were referring to when you said: "It's a shame that US didn't invest all that prosperity into social capital that could have helped create high value jobs." At the time, Amer…

> How were they supposed to predict things would change and agitate for something different without the hindsight you enjoy? By comparing themselves to their counterparts in other countries. By 1955 there should have been alarm bells ringing as Europe re-industrialized. Same with 70s oil crisis but the best that US could do was to cripple Japan with Plaza Accords. Americans even now have a mindset that nothing exists…

> By comparing themselves to their counterparts in other countries. ... Americans even now have a mindset that nothing exists beyond their borders, one could assume it was worse back then.

That's not realistic, except in hindsight. Most people everywhere pay more attention to their immediate environment and living their lives. Not speculating about what is the global economy is going to look like in 50 years, and how would those changes affect them personally.

You're talking about stuff only some PhD at RAND would be doing (or would have the ability to do) in the 1960s.

Without the democratic pressure of common people either 1) having a need or 2) seeing things get worse, no changes like you describe would happen.

> Because only two industrialized countries were left standing after WW2 and those two countries enjoyed unnatural growth until others caught up - first the historical powers in Europe then Asia.

What's natural?

And more importantly: how do you think things should be for families.

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#263

Post by mr_toad »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #33

Obviously, at least in the US the AI bubble is the only thing keeping the economy afloat. If it wasn't for the bubble the US would be in a recession. Not sure how the situation is in Europe and Asia, but I would guess about the same.

Is there any significant AI investment outside the US?

(I know of a few companies, but they’re tiny tiny minnows compared to the big AI companies listed in the US).

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#264

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tharne wrote: post #256
OptionOfT wrote: post #114

Interestingly I think if the AI succeed at the level that a lot of these CEOs hope we're not much better off either. And the sentiment that goes around is more: reduce the amount of people needed to do the same amount of work: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/09/mckinsey_ai_monetizat... > McKinsey says, while quoting an HR executive at a Fortune 100 company griping: "All of these copilots are supposed to make work…

> The problem becomes that eventually all these people who are laid off are not going to find new roles. > Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one has money to throw around? I've wondered about this myself. People keep talking about the trades as a good path in the post-AI world, but I just don't see it. If huge swaths of office workers are suddenly and permanently unemployed, who's going to be…

> If huge swaths of office workers are suddenly and permanently unemployed, who's going to be hiring all these tradesmen?

"Professionals were 57.8 percent of the total workforce in 2023, with 93 million people working across a wide variety of occupations" [1]. A reasonable worst-case scenario leaves about half of the workforce intact as is. We'd have to assume AI creates zero new jobs or industries, and that none of these people can pivot into doing anything socially useful, to expect them to be rendered unemployable.

> if a significant chunk of the population is made permanently unemployed

They won't. They never have. We'd have years to debate this in the form of unemployment insurance extensions.

[1] https://www.dpeaflcio.org/factsheets/the-professional-and-te...

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#265

Post by tharne »

thewebguyd wrote: post #136
OptionOfT wrote: post #114

Interestingly I think if the AI succeed at the level that a lot of these CEOs hope we're not much better off either. And the sentiment that goes around is more: reduce the amount of people needed to do the same amount of work: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/09/mckinsey_ai_monetizat... > McKinsey says, while quoting an HR executive at a Fortune 100 company griping: "All of these copilots are supposed to make work…

> Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one has money to throw around? The same people who are buying products and services right now. Just 10% of the US population is responsible for nearly 50% of consumption. We are just going to bifurcate even more into the haves and have-nots. Maybe that 10% now becomes responsible for 70+% of consumption and everyone else is fighting for scraps. It won't be s…

> Maybe that 10% now becomes responsible for 70+% of consumption and everyone else is fighting for scraps.

Or everyone else starts fighting that 10% once they get tired of scraps.

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#266

Post by robocat »

nradov wrote: post #121
Irishsteve wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an insurance company so basically pensions.

Right, insurance companies are the new "financial dark matter". The next financial crisis will probably be triggered when a few large life and property insurers fail because they purchased debt assets which were highly rated but turn out to be junk. (Medical and auto insurers aren't exposed here because they operate on much shorter timeframes.)

It's more disturbing than you think:

America’s Retirement Savings in Bermuda entities that lose US protections while making opaque, complex bets: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-america-insurance-pa... https://archive.ph/lhZv9

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#267

Post by toomanyrichies »

jitix wrote: post #238
judahmeek wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because Europe is so innovative. The mother of invention is idiomatically necessity, not comfort. Ultimately, increased levels of competition should lead to higher levels of innovation. Btw, what is "the GCC era" a reference to?

Europe is quite innovative on per-capita basis. Not like US but the workers there have much happier lives and their societies don't have extreme inequality and resulting violence like the US. China is arguably more innovative than all and has terrible work life balance, but their society is stable and you won't go from millionaire to homeless just because you had to get cancer treatment. GCC = global consulting compa…

Is GCC an acronym you just now came up with, or is does it commonly mean “global consulting company” in your part of the world?

I ask because, when I do a Google search, the two most common meanings for that term are “Global Capacity Center” and “Gulf Cooperation Council”.

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#268

Post by somewhereoutth »

mtrovo wrote: post #167

Assuming this is irrational and must come back to reality at some point, I'm not convinced this is connected to the common man economy as other bubbles in the past were. This round of investment is mostly being funded by exuberant cash flow accumulated over the years that was otherwise used as stock buybacks by a small number of stocks and some private credit deals that are not that accessible to the general public.…

However 'normal people' buying into the stock market via 401ks or otherwise likely (and arguably sensibly) will be in index funds, that of course are exposed to the bubble via (grossly?) inflated tech stocks. Effectively their current pension/savings contributions are being clipped by whatever the delta is between now and post bubble. Time in the market and all that, but still it might be a hefty haircut.

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#269

Post by pfannkuchen »

jitix wrote: post #164
Demiurge wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the 60s it was possible for a man to work an ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or three children. Every kind of a man, or woman? > Do people really think more technology is going to be the path to a better society? Because to me it looks like the opposite. Well, this probably why statistics exist.

Thanks for pointing out this skewed view of economic history common in North America. The short period of boom in 50s/60s US and Canada was driven by WW2 devastation everywhere else. We can see the economic crisis' in the US first in the 70s/80s with Europe and Japan rebounding, then again in 90s/00s with China and East Asia growing, and now again with the rest of the world growing (esp Latin America, India, Indonesi…

Were there a lot of imports at that time in terms of materials or labor or food? If not, I don’t really see how money flowing in from abroad actually changes the economy in this area. If the wood is harvested in America and the workers are in America and the wood and workers are available, then any amount of money value generated by everyone else will be sufficient to pay them, unless there is a significant stream of imports that need to be paid for (which I’m not aware of in this time period).

What could have made a big difference is if foreign competition arose for American materials and land, which it did. But that is under our control, we collectively can choose whether to allow them to buy it or not, and whether to let people in at a rate that outpaces materials discovery and harvesting capabilities.

We also restricted materials harvesting quite a bit during this time period, for example I believe a lot of forestry protections were not in place yet.

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#270

Post by palmotea »

jitix wrote: post #251
palmotea wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An automotive engineer in Detroit in 1960 was a globally competitive worker because most of his counterparts in other countries were either dead, disabled or their companies bankrupt. > The equivalent in today's world would be aerospace engineers, AI researchers, quantum engineers, robotics engineers, etc who arguably have the same standard of living as the automotive engineer in 1960s Detroit. You know were not re…

I hope you understand the concept of relative prosperity - The current equivalent would be a factory worker at Boeing. In 60s cars were innovative in US, now Nigeria can outcompete China in cars. Times change, standards rise, competition increases. If America wants to remain competitive globally you need to work in the top 1% fields like you did back in 60s, not expecting $25 per hour for flipping burgers (which shou…

You need to be more explicit about how you think things should be for the common man.
Post reply on HN