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

You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them

2ndbreakfast.audreywatters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them

#41

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

Aurornis wrote: post #36
Juliate wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Calling the catastrophic dotcom bust that imploded ~50% of internet companies and caused a ~90% drop in combined market valuation for the remainder and nearly wiped out market leaders like Sun Microsystems and Cisco merely as side effects "A few early companies failing to find product-market fit before the money runs out..." is a very peculiar take.

Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them

#42

Post by Juliate »

Aurornis wrote: post #36
Juliate wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Right, but PetSmart was an existing retailer that added e-commerce, not a startup burning VC money on an unproven model: the tech worked, the hype-driven bet didn't.

GenAI has its uses. That it will transform everything for everyone, and that this justifies to dump laws and people, that's the part that deserves hard-earned scrutiny.

Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them

#43

Post by wiseowise »

dryarzeg wrote: post #30
wiseowise wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dont understand how they will all be profitable when you can run a model on your own computer for free that will do 98% of what you need. For the same reason how movie companies are reaping record profits from streaming services - convenience and fearmongering. "You wouldn't download an AI, would you?!" or "Think of children and elderly!" or satanism, or billions of other tricks they already employ to keep you do…

> satanism I haven't seen this one in the wild (while seeing others) LOL. How does this even work? I mean, like... "if you download the film/LLM you will summon a demon"? I honestly can't understand : )

Church.

Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them

#44

Post by southerntofu »

cassepipe wrote: post #39
southerntofu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct! My whole point was that whether that's a flip or a flop also depends on the legal environment and whether the law is actually enforced. Which is also applicable to AI and its massive copyright/copyleft violations at scale (whether or not that's legitimate or useful is yet another interesting question).

Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them

#45

Post by [deleted] »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #13
butthecerntainy wrote: post #4

Earlier 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”.

[deleted]

Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them

#46

Post by Aurornis »

southerntofu wrote: post #38
Aurornis wrote: post #18

Earlier 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…

You could subtract out the French market and Uber would still be profitable.

Rebutting anti-tech arguments is hard because there's always another round of whataboutism to move the goalposts a little further.

My argument is that "tech is perfect and completely without fault". I was rebutting the arguments (more accurately, lack of a real argument) in this anti-tech blog post.

Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them

#47

Post by shermantanktop »

Juliate wrote: post #35
shermantanktop wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but the market is often bamboozled in the short term. Hence crypto stocks and Super Bowl ads about nfts. The “market” was 100% wrong about the long term value of the tech.

My point was that what a bunch of people say about tech is forgotten over time and the actual value of the tech emerges. You want to describe that in market valuation terms, fine.

Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them

#48

Post by [deleted] »

shermantanktop wrote: post #27
Mordisquitos wrote: post #20

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them

#49

Post by Aurornis »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #41
Aurornis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Calling the catastrophic dotcom bust that imploded ~50% of internet companies and caused a ~90% drop in combined market valuation for the remainder and nearly wiped out market leaders like Sun Microsystems and Cisco merely as side effects " A few early companies failing to find product-market fit before the money runs out... " is a very peculiar take.

Nothing peculiar about it. You’re making the same category error as the blog: Trying to equate the failure of a few companies with the failure of a technology.

You’re also trying to include companies which did not fail in your argument about the dot com bubble. Cisco is a very large and thriving company today and networking equipment is everywhere. Why would you use that as an example?

Re: You Do Not, in Fact, Have to Hand It to Them

#50

Post by southerntofu »

Aurornis wrote: post #46
southerntofu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You could subtract out the French market and Uber would still be profitable. Rebutting anti-tech arguments is hard because there's always another round of whataboutism to move the goalposts a little further. My argument is that "tech is perfect and completely without fault". I was rebutting the arguments (more accurately, lack of a real argument) in this anti-tech blog post.

That blog post was definitely not anti-tech. Maybe you're not familiar with this term. The post was critical of technology from a social/political perspective (with arguments), as were the luddites, but that's not anti-tech.

Anti-tech primitivists [1] exist, though a minority on the political spectrum. I don't agree with your argument, but it may be more convincing without making a strawman of the original blogpost.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

Post reply on HN