Automation is bad. Bring back hard manual labour.
Yes, we need more children working on factories like in good ol' 1800s
/s
You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them
31–40 of 50 posts
Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them
#32"...[the prediction that AI will continue to grow] will be proven wrong because everybody hates it."
I have no love for Zuckerberg or Lucky or Musk or any of those gadooshbags, but I don't hate generative AI. It's a useful tool and I've been using it consistently every day for well over a year. I'm part of "everybody", so that's at least one counterexample.
Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them
#33Everybody hates tech. Everybody hates tech billionaires. Nobody wants their bullshit. Yes… kind of. I am old and always have been, so naturally I don’t like things I believe children falsely claim they cannot live without. Social media comes to mind.
I wonder if she appreciates the irony of posting that on a website lol
Big Tech is not the same thing as all technology.
Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
She says something more structural than that: there's a pattern, sold by the same people, with the same contempt to social consequences and democratic rules: GenAI, multiverse, NFTs, cryptos; what else next? Incidentally, each "wave" justifies massive investment in the same technology: GPUs, for transformations that do not materialise _at scale_. That raises the questions: why? Who captures the value? Who bears the c…
Anti-tech critics love to cherry-pick overhyped tech from the past and then pretend like it was the only technology investments occurring. It's always the same story about crypto, NFTs, multiverse, then they draw a line to the new thing. Rewind the clock further and the contrarian play was to talk about how WebVan and Pets.com failed, proving that internet commerce was a fad that was going away. There were so many id…
That's kind of proving my point here.
E-commerce succeeded, but not in the form Pets and WebVan proposed, and not in the timeline their investors needed.
The question is not: is it useful, but (as any investor asks): does this bet, at this valuation, deliver what it promises, in time? That's the audit we need.
When the bet distorts global semiconductor supply chains, displaces workers, and rides on mass IP infringement... skepticism looks more like due diligence than contrarianism.
Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument is that Metaverse, as presented by its billionaire promoters as a paradigm shift, even though the public hated that vision , was a flop, therefore AI as presented by its billionaire promoters as a paradigm shift will be a flop, because the public hates that vision .
That’s fine but it’s about perception, argument and sentiment. It’s not about the actual technology, which has the final say.
Market has the final say, not tech. If no one uses/buys the tech, as investor or customer... it won't feed anyone.
Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anti-tech critics love to cherry-pick overhyped tech from the past and then pretend like it was the only technology investments occurring. It's always the same story about crypto, NFTs, multiverse, then they draw a line to the new thing. Rewind the clock further and the contrarian play was to talk about how WebVan and Pets.com failed, proving that internet commerce was a fad that was going away. There were so many id…
That's kind of proving my point here. E-commerce succeeded, but not in the form Pets and WebVan proposed, and not in the timeline their investors needed. The question is not: is it useful, but (as any investor asks): does this bet, at this valuation, deliver what it promises, in time? That's the audit we need. When the bet distorts global semiconductor supply chains, displaces workers, and rides on mass IP infringeme…
A few early companies failing to find product-market fit before the money runs out doesn't prove anything, other than that early stage startup investing is hard.
Webvan and Pets.com were held up as proof that e-commerce couldn't work at all because nobody wanted it. What really happened is that we now have e-commerce at a scale that WebVan and Pets.com couldn't even dream of.
Pets.com now goes to PetSmart.com which does basically what Pets.com was trying to do and has a successful business out of it.
If your point is "some early investors will lose their money" then I agree wholeheartedly. That's not a novel claim, though. It's also not what the blog post is arguing.
Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them
#37"...[the prediction that AI will continue to grow] will be proven wrong because everybody hates it." I have no love for Zuckerberg or Lucky or Musk or any of those gadooshbags, but I don't hate generative AI. It's a useful tool and I've been using it consistently every day for well over a year. I'm part of "everybody", so that's at least one counterexample.
This article also tells that:
> Everybody hates tech.
And although it's a bit ripped out of the context, which is as follows:
> It will be proven wrong because everybody hates it. A decade ago, people saw that photo of Zuckerberg, waltzing past the masked men at MWC and shuddered. "That's dystopian," almost everyone muttered. "That's dystopian," many of us are still saying, but now even more loudly, more fervently. A recent survey by NBC News found Americans rank the favorability of "AI" below every major politician in the country, below ICE.
> Everybody hates tech. Everybody hates tech billionaires. Nobody wants their bullshit.
I think that's either unluckily mistaken wording or simply a bad-faith overstatement. "Everybody hates tech" - if this is about "big tech giants", then although it's not true (because it's not really everybody who hates them, especially if you will ask usual people), but it's closer to the truth. But the original stance - "Everybody hates tech" - in my humble opinion, even regarding the context, reads rather like "Everybody hates technology as a whole" which is simply false.
And, to be honest, in me personally the whole article is provoking some kind of... uncanny feeling. I can't tell if it was generated by AI or something like that, but it just feels unnatural and... strange. Sorry, I don't even know how to express this clearly...
Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
She says something more structural than that: there's a pattern, sold by the same people, with the same contempt to social consequences and democratic rules: GenAI, multiverse, NFTs, cryptos; what else next? Incidentally, each "wave" justifies massive investment in the same technology: GPUs, for transformations that do not materialise _at scale_. That raises the questions: why? Who captures the value? Who bears the c…
Anti-tech critics love to cherry-pick overhyped tech from the past and then pretend like it was the only technology investments occurring. It's always the same story about crypto, NFTs, multiverse, then they draw a line to the new thing. Rewind the clock further and the contrarian play was to talk about how WebVan and Pets.com failed, proving that internet commerce was a fad that was going away. There were so many id…
Uber is a very bad argument. In many parts of the world, the only reason they're profitable is because they're breaking the law. There has been much debate about it here in France and quite a few scandals, including how Macron when he was ministry of economy (before he became president) counseled and favored Uber to break labor law [1].
The government and courts are currently arguing whether Uber is legally the employer of the drivers [2], but that's not very debatable to be honest given the very clear subordination of drivers to Uber (one of the many criteria for a contractor to be legally reclassified as an employee).
They have taken all the power and benefits, and discarded all of the responsibilities and risks associated with employment. That's a strategy that only pays off through political corruption, and not a clear example that their profits are somehow unavoidable and that investing in Uber 10 years ago was wise.
Otherwise, investing in the mafia's drug trades might also be a lucrative opportunity. Which does not make it moral, nor a safe bet.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62057321
[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/02/02/france-d...
Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anti-tech critics love to cherry-pick overhyped tech from the past and then pretend like it was the only technology investments occurring. It's always the same story about crypto, NFTs, multiverse, then they draw a line to the new thing. Rewind the clock further and the contrarian play was to talk about how WebVan and Pets.com failed, proving that internet commerce was a fad that was going away. There were so many id…
Uber is a very bad argument. In many parts of the world, the only reason they're profitable is because they're breaking the law. There has been much debate about it here in France and quite a few scandals, including how Macron when he was ministry of economy (before he became president) counseled and favored Uber to break labor law [1]. The government and courts are currently arguing whether Uber is legally the emplo…
While I agree with you I feel your comment is moving the goalpost. The question was whether an new "disrupting" tech solution was going to be a flop or not. I think the question of whether the new thing is or should be legally constrained is yet another (interesting!) question.
Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more charitable take is that Big Tech has a track record of branding the 'future' primarily to manufacture FOMO, only for the reality to fall significantly short of the hype.
The author could have made that argument, if she had wanted to, but the actual piece as written does not make it. There’s very little discussion of AI being overhyped in some concrete way, and quite a lot of discussion of various bad deeds committed by “tech” and “tech billionaires”.
Some articles are concern trolling. Otherwise would have touched on circular investments.