51–60 of 86 posts
I think the interesting thing to think about its that we _already_ fired people in the name of AI (because AI was supposed to be this huge efficiency gain). When the bubble pops, do you fire _even more_ people? What does that look like given the decimation in the job market already?
There is no AI bubble. The housing bubble was about artificially inflated housing assets. People have been calling Bitcoin a bubble since it was introduced. Has it popped? No. Has it reached the popularity and usability crypto shills said it would? Also no. AI on the other hand has the potential to put literally millions of individuals out of work. At a minimum, it is already augmenting the value of highly-skilled in…
I mean, to one degree or another, this is correct. somethings are not going back into the genie bottle.
There is no AI bubble. The housing bubble was about artificially inflated housing assets. People have been calling Bitcoin a bubble since it was introduced. Has it popped? No. Has it reached the popularity and usability crypto shills said it would? Also no. AI on the other hand has the potential to put literally millions of individuals out of work. At a minimum, it is already augmenting the value of highly-skilled in…
I'd argue the crypto bubble did pop. Bitcoin/crypto doesn't have earnings reports, but many crypto-adjacent companies have crashed down to earth. It would have been worse but regulation, or sometimes lack thereof, stopped them from going public so the bleeding was limited.
The Bitcoin bubble, if anything, deflated. But I'd still disagree with this characterisation because the market capitalisation of Bitcoin only seems to be going up.
Going by the logic of supply and demand, as more and more Bitcoin is mined, the price should drop because there's more availability. But what I've observed is the value has been climbing over the past few years, and remained relatively stable.
In any case, it's hard to argue that more people are using Bitcoin and crypto now compared to 5 years ago. Sure, NFTs ended up fizzling out, but, to be honest, they were a stupid idea from the beginning, anyway.
There is no AI bubble. The housing bubble was about artificially inflated housing assets. People have been calling Bitcoin a bubble since it was introduced. Has it popped? No. Has it reached the popularity and usability crypto shills said it would? Also no. AI on the other hand has the potential to put literally millions of individuals out of work. At a minimum, it is already augmenting the value of highly-skilled in…
There is an AI bubble just like there was a dotcom bubble; the fact that it is a real technology with real uses we with world changing long-term impacts does not mean that the recent investment hype will not soon be recognized as excessively exuberant given the actual payoffs to investors and the timelines on which they will be realized. (And putting masses of people out of work and and thereby radically destabilizin…
AI companies are releasing useful things right this second, even if they still require human oversight, they are also able to significantly accelerate many tasks.
There is no AI bubble. The housing bubble was about artificially inflated housing assets. People have been calling Bitcoin a bubble since it was introduced. Has it popped? No. Has it reached the popularity and usability crypto shills said it would? Also no. AI on the other hand has the potential to put literally millions of individuals out of work. At a minimum, it is already augmenting the value of highly-skilled in…
Being a bubble does not mean there is no value in the thing, only that investment is outpacing the intrinsic value of the thing which is inherently unsustainable and will cause a collapse at some point. This also does not imply that the collapse will lead to a future value of 0.
There's many questions about the overall economics of AI, its value, is it overvalued, is it not, etc. but this is a very poor article I suspect made by someone with little to no financial or accounting knowledge with a strong "uh big tech bad" bias. > When companies buy expensive stuff, for accounting purposes they pretend they haven’t spent the money; instead they “depreciate” it over a few years. There's no preten…
Actually the author has worked for Google, Amazon (VP-level), Sun, and DEC; and was a co-creator of XML.
I think the interesting thing to think about its that we _already_ fired people in the name of AI (because AI was supposed to be this huge efficiency gain). When the bubble pops, do you fire _even more_ people? What does that look like given the decimation in the job market already?
once again, it's not "fire", it's lay off. there is a difference.
Equivocating about what YOU comfortably would prefer to call it is wasted effort that I don't care to engage in.
I think the interesting thing to think about its that we _already_ fired people in the name of AI (because AI was supposed to be this huge efficiency gain). When the bubble pops, do you fire _even more_ people? What does that look like given the decimation in the job market already?
When the bubble pops, AI companies fire people (up to everyone). Non-AI companies hire people back, because it becomes clear that AI won't do their job for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an AI bubble just like there was a dotcom bubble; the fact that it is a real technology with real uses we with world changing long-term impacts does not mean that the recent investment hype will not soon be recognized as excessively exuberant given the actual payoffs to investors and the timelines on which they will be realized. (And putting masses of people out of work and and thereby radically destabilizin…
The dotcom bubble was a bunch of Silicon Valley types buying fancy domain names and getting showered in money before they even released anything remotely useful. AI companies are releasing useful things right this second, even if they still require human oversight, they are also able to significantly accelerate many tasks.
The AI bubble involves a lot of that, too.
> AI companies are releasing useful things right this second, even if they still require human oversight, they are also able to significantly accelerate many tasks.
So were the Googles and other leading firms in the dotcom bubble era, and if you said the dotcom bubble wasn’t a bubble because of that, you’d obviously have been wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
once again, it's not "fire", it's lay off. there is a difference.
People are being removed from their livelihood. Equivocating about what YOU comfortably would prefer to call it is wasted effort that I don't care to engage in.