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

271–280 of 752 posts

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

#271

Post by somewhereoutth »

burnte wrote: post #54
ghostpepper wrote: post #51

Does anyone really think it’s “if” and not “when” ?

Agreed, it's when. They're hoping to stave it off or maybe stretch out the pop into a correction by all hedging together with all these incestuous deals, but you can't hold back the tide. They debuted this tech way too early, promised way too much, and now the market is wary about buying AI products until more noise settles out of the system.

Yet another [1] AI winter [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter#The_setbacks_of_1974

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter#AI_winter_of_the_199...

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

#273

Post by TulliusCicero »

kazen44 wrote: post #246
mrguyorama wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without AI bubble the economy is already mostly in a recession.

which is kind of sad to think about. The US could have invested all that money to actually invest in its infrastructure, schools, hospitals and general wellbeing of its workforce to make the economy thrive.

It's not "the US" who's investing the money. This is the same problem people run into when they say, "we should just put money into more trains and buses rather than self driving cars".

Private actors are the ones who are investing into AI, and there's no real way for them to invest into public infrastructure, or to eventually profit from it, the way investors reasonably expect to do when they put up their money for something.

It's the government who can choose to invest into infrastructure, and it's us voters who can choose to vote for politicians who will make that choice. But we haven't done that. So many people want to complain endlessly about government and corporations -- not entirely without merit, of course -- but then are quick to let voters off the hook.

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

#274

Post by malcolmgreaves »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #231
jimbokun wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So "social capital" == "education"? The US has pushed a shit ton of money into education. I mean an unreasonable amount of it went to administrators. But the goal and the intent was certainly there.

> I mean an unreasonable amount of it went to administrators. But the goal and the intent was certainly there. This is wrong. The increase in administrator pay began well after the crises cited in OP. You could cite spending on the sciences (and thus Silicon Valley), but the spending by the US did not accrue to administrators; and further, federal money primarily goes to grants and loans, but GP is citing a time over…

For universities, yes. But not for primary education. Administrative bloat is the worst in K-12.

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

#275

Post by Terr_ »

cedws wrote: post #137
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…

I don't even know what the selling point of AI is for regular people. 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. That's completely out of the realm of reality for many young people now and the plummeting birth rates show it. The middle class have financially benefited very little from the past 20+ years of productivity gains. S…

> Do people really think more technology is going to be the path to a better society? Because to me it looks like the opposite. It will just be used to stomp on ordinary people and create even more inequality.

The problem isn't "more technology" (nor is the solution "less) but rather a change in who controls it and benefits. We shouldn't surrender-in-advance to the idea that the stompers will definitely own it.

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

#276

Post by SrslyJosh »

cedws wrote: post #137
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…

I don't even know what the selling point of AI is for regular people. 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. That's completely out of the realm of reality for many young people now and the plummeting birth rates show it. The middle class have financially benefited very little from the past 20+ years of productivity gains. S…

> The middle class have financially benefited very little from the past 20+ years of productivity gains.

More like the last 50 years.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-...

"For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades"

The TL;DR is that in 1964 the average hourly wage was $20.27. As of 2018, average hourly wage was $22.65.

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

#277

Post by tim333 »

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…

> problem ... laid off are not going to find new roles

Not necessarily. If AI improves productivity, which it hasn't very much yet, there is the option to make more stuff rather than the same output with less people.

The Luddites led on to Britain being the workshop of the world, not to everyone sitting around unemployed, at least not for a while.

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

#278

Post by Terr_ »

astura wrote: post #220
cedws wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know what the selling point of AI is for regular people. 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. That's completely out of the realm of reality for many young people now and the plummeting birth rates show it. The middle class have financially benefited very little from the past 20+ years of productivity gains. S…

According to the census bureau median family income in 1960 was $5,600, which is $58,946.59 in Jan 2024 dollars. It's $83,730 in 2024. For individual males, in 1960 it was $4,100 ($43,157.33 Jan 2024 dollars) and $71,090 in 2024. Sources: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1962/demo/p60-03... https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-28... https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl The thing is,…

I feel there is something unsound with that comparison, because you could also apply it to kings of history, simply by listing things that technologically unavailable or unaffordable.

Imagine transmigrating King Louis XVI (pre-revolution) into some working class professional with a refrigerator, a car, cable TV, etc. I don't think it's a given that he'd consider the package an upgrade.

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

#279

Post by leptons »

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…

>The short period of boom in 50s/60s US and Canada was driven by WW2 devastation everywhere else.

The US just renamed "Department of Defense" to "Department of War" and they seem willing to go to any extreme to "Make America Great Again". Threatening to take over Canada, Greenland, and Panama already in the first few months of the current administration. Using US military on US soil. There's no line they won't cross. WW3 isn't off the table at all, unfortunately.

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

#280

Post by DenisM »

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…

I heard Spain has 20% unemployment among the young and the violence problem did not happen. Didn’t check it though.
Post reply on HN