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

The AI bubble argument misunderstands both bubbles and AI

danielmiessler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: The AI bubble argument misunderstands both bubbles and AI

#51

Post by mergy »

ath3nd wrote: post #30
danielrm26 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I tried to address that in the video version. I think what pops is the false belief. .com -> going online will save you AI -> adding a chatbot will save you To me, those are what qualify as bubbles. And the other stuff is just overheating, disruption, and other effects.

That's great that you have your own definitions of a bubble. However, we are generally talking of a financial/economic bubble, which is pretty clearly defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble for quite some time. One just need to ask one question: "is there a big amount of companies in a specific sector that are valued far above their returns". If that answer is yes, that means we are in a speculative b…

There you go -

"is there a big amount of companies in a specific sector that are valued far above their returns". If that answer is yes, that means we are in a speculative bubble."

Pretty much.

Re: The AI bubble argument misunderstands both bubbles and AI

#52

Post by tim333 »

utyop22 wrote: post #46
tim333 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is not the same as LLMs. AI is pretty inevitable. LLMs will likely be superseded by some other algo.

I never mentioned AI once in my post. Comments such as "Ai is inevitable" okay... post something tangible dude. All this stuff is just total noise.

The comment you replied to was about AI. Something like:

Comment: AI isn't so bad

You: But LLMs are no good

I see that again and again with AI arguments. It's not a good argument really. Like saying aviation will fail because biplanes weren't very good.

Re: The AI bubble argument misunderstands both bubbles and AI

#53

Post by philipallstar »

utyop22 wrote: post #34
philipallstar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism has lifted a billion+ people out of poverty by efficiently allocating capital instead of mindlessly "employing" people.

The nature of poverty is relative and its definition within a territory is a moving target.

No, this is a huge problem. If you care more about envy than results, you get the Soviet Union and mass killing and starvation. Or Communist China with mass killing and starvation. The only important, world-changing metric is lifting people out of absolute poverty.

What you're saying would equally apply to a kid annoyed at his dad because his friends have a Ferrari but his family only has a Porsche. It's childish.

Re: The AI bubble argument misunderstands both bubbles and AI

#54

Post by utyop22 »

tim333 wrote: post #52
utyop22 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never mentioned AI once in my post. Comments such as "Ai is inevitable" okay... post something tangible dude. All this stuff is just total noise.

The comment you replied to was about AI. Something like: Comment: AI isn't so bad You: But LLMs are no good I see that again and again with AI arguments. It's not a good argument really. Like saying aviation will fail because biplanes weren't very good.

I still have no idea what you are replying to, in response to my comment

Re: The AI bubble argument misunderstands both bubbles and AI

#55

Post by uncircle »

harryf wrote: post #10

Better to talk about the Gartner Hype cycle and it's stages compare it to technologies that clearly followed that cycle such as; - Virtual Reality: big hype in the early 90s (arcades, movies like Lawnmower Man) through to use cases today like surgical training, aviation training - Mobile video calls: hyped in early 2000's with 3G and pre-iPhone devices. Actually took off with 4G and 5G plus iOS and Android phones - 3…

All technologies go through the hype cycle, but the magnitude of the cycle and its effects on the economy are very different.

Neither VR, mobile video calls or 3D printing were expected to radically change the entire work economy, if not bring about actual human-like intelligence. None of those three technologies were in the hands of a handful of ultra-valuable companies, that in turn pretty much all depend on a single American manufacturer of hardware. None were threatening to destroy the Internet as we know it, or the concept of truth and credibility our modern world rely upon.

VR going nowhere was a wet fart, AI going nowhere is gonna, in my opinion and hope, crash the entire tech economy that's been injecting high doses of the hopium in the long period of post-COVID stagnation and inflation.

Re: The AI bubble argument misunderstands both bubbles and AI

#56

Post by jv22222 »

another_twist wrote: post #43
Atlas667 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are a bunch of assumptions in your take. There are billions of us. We cannot all be capitalists and start our own businesses. Literally 100 years ago American socialists like Olive Johnson were already pointing out how the profit motive from large players has ruined mom and pop shops and made medium businesses almost completely beholden to production and finance monopolies. What do you think will happen…

No I agree with the Detroit example but not all of us have to be capitalists either just a few more. But we would beed more regulations to break down some of these monopolies so we can have more competition and job creation. Either way, its also about being able to add value to the chain. The artisans who make high end clothes still do fine, the thing is the weaver became obsolete with the advent of the spinning mach…

I was imaging at some point it might flip the other way with many business starting where there is a capability for many people to create artisanal setups with 3D printing and even run a specialist artisanal farm with robots.

Re: The AI bubble argument misunderstands both bubbles and AI

#57

Post by Atlas667 »

philipallstar wrote: post #53
utyop22 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nature of poverty is relative and its definition within a territory is a moving target.

No, this is a huge problem. If you care more about envy than results, you get the Soviet Union and mass killing and starvation. Or Communist China with mass killing and starvation. The only important, world-changing metric is lifting people out of absolute poverty. What you're saying would equally apply to a kid annoyed at his dad because his friends have a Ferrari but his family only has a Porsche. It's childish.

Thats not the world we live in though.

Most of the world, like 90%+, is verifiably poor and struggling.

Every year the world economic organizations (all of em) pump out metrics about people coming out of poverty, but these are political and subject to bias.

Above 10 dollars a week is not poverty? Are you sure? 521 dollars a year?

And of course not all of the world is poor in the same capacity. Where a person can only eat meat once a week is different to where a person cant pay their rent, but they are both equally damaging and poverty.

What you think has been happening is not what has been happening.

In the Soviet Union and China most people were serfs or indentured servants. That is, the majority of the population.

They were bound by debt to serve either the state or local landlords.

Their revolutions werent acts of jealousy like you want to believe, they were real, spontaneous movements that came from the people. The communists only directed the movement that was already there.

Do not be childish, please read history seriously.

Re: The AI bubble argument misunderstands both bubbles and AI

#58

Post by Atlas667 »

philipallstar wrote: post #33
Atlas667 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Looking back at 2025 we'll be saying "Remember when they said everyone would lose their jobs to AI..." Even if... one would think that a capitalist economy would do great with more and capable workers. One would think that more stuff would get done. Right? I think there is a good chance that it will, in fact, shift millions towards unemployment. I am pro technology, yet technology in the hands of profit seekers wil…

Capitalism has lifted a billion+ people out of poverty by efficiently allocating capital instead of mindlessly "employing" people.

Yes, capitalism has been great, and we can do better.

Capitalism has a flaw, it only does what is profitable.

What is profitable is not one and the same with what is socially necessary or even what is good. They're more like analogous.

Like I said before capitalism is the only economic system that cannot handle more workers. If you produce for profit you cannot produce for needs. In a sense profits vs needs are made of the same stuff but dont look the same. Especially at scale.

Employing as many people as possible wouldnt be a problem if you were working for needs because, simply, more needs would be covered.

Its literally that simple. And when there is a true surplus of workers it would mean less work/more leisure.

Re: The AI bubble argument misunderstands both bubbles and AI

#59

Post by Atlas667 »

another_twist wrote: post #43
Atlas667 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are a bunch of assumptions in your take. There are billions of us. We cannot all be capitalists and start our own businesses. Literally 100 years ago American socialists like Olive Johnson were already pointing out how the profit motive from large players has ruined mom and pop shops and made medium businesses almost completely beholden to production and finance monopolies. What do you think will happen…

No I agree with the Detroit example but not all of us have to be capitalists either just a few more. But we would beed more regulations to break down some of these monopolies so we can have more competition and job creation. Either way, its also about being able to add value to the chain. The artisans who make high end clothes still do fine, the thing is the weaver became obsolete with the advent of the spinning mach…

There's Detroit but theres also thousands and thousands of small towns everywhere where the main industry was coal/minerals or other resources that were outdated and left to poverty.

And the "regulation" argument is very popular but I feel it ignores the real problem for us: there is no democracy.

With the regulation argument you're basically hoping that one of the two parties full of billionaires, that we explicitely do not control, shoot themselves in the foot.

And as to adding value to the chain, that is what workers currently do, thats why they get paid. Which is what sparked this argument. The economy is not infinitely flexible, not all will be able to adapt, and according to the rules of capital the adaptation will be competitive and exclusive, so many people will be left out.

Post reply on HN