Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once OpenAI/Anthropic IPO, until then it's not a perfect analogy.
I'm all for shitting on hyperscalers, but let's not compare LLMs to tulips/NFTs.
Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)
51–60 of 135 posts
Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)
#52Perhaps beanie babies is an example that we actually know about.
Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)
#53Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)
#54The brief mention that the fallout wasn't as disastrous as myth would have it greatly understates just how exaggerated the popular account of tulip mania is. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-...
So many of these articles get it completely wrong. Economically. People weren't going crazy for tulips just because, the government had incentivized investment in tulips. The government at the time basically told people that they could not lose money on investing tulips. It should be a story about governments misallocating resources. That's it, but people quit. Keep twisting it into a story of psychology and mania wh…
The fact that it's marketed as a story about psychology and mania rather than government policy gone awry is arguably itself a story about psychology and mania.
People have a need to feel like the forces that control them know what they're doing.
Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
So many of these articles get it completely wrong. Economically. People weren't going crazy for tulips just because, the government had incentivized investment in tulips. The government at the time basically told people that they could not lose money on investing tulips. It should be a story about governments misallocating resources. That's it, but people quit. Keep twisting it into a story of psychology and mania wh…
>It should be a story about governments misallocating resources. That's it, but people quit. Keep twisting it into a story of psychology and mania which it was not. The fact that it's marketed as a story about psychology and mania rather than government policy gone awry is arguably itself a story about psychology and mania. People have a need to feel like the forces that control them know what they're doing.
Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
So many of these articles get it completely wrong. Economically. People weren't going crazy for tulips just because, the government had incentivized investment in tulips. The government at the time basically told people that they could not lose money on investing tulips. It should be a story about governments misallocating resources. That's it, but people quit. Keep twisting it into a story of psychology and mania wh…
>It should be a story about governments misallocating resources. That's it, but people quit. Keep twisting it into a story of psychology and mania which it was not. The fact that it's marketed as a story about psychology and mania rather than government policy gone awry is arguably itself a story about psychology and mania. People have a need to feel like the forces that control them know what they're doing.
Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)
#57Maybe we should update our lexicon to "NFT mania" –– far more people lost money in that phenomenon.
At least in the tulip case, they actually had some minor value. You owned a pretty flower. You could also make the case for crypto money, I guess. Any person with common sense and basic technical understanding could tell you NFTs were an incredibly dumb and useless idea from the very start. All you “own” is an entry on some ledger, which doesn’t inherently give you ownership over anything else.
I own several NFTs that are important to me, and they're worth every penny I paid. I never had any illusions that I owned anything other than a historical footnote; I think that this sort of ownership is meaningful and important.
It's much more realistic to me than "buying a song" from one of the corporate music distributors. "Owning" a song seems to be much more of a misunderstanding of how data works in a digital world than owning an entry in a ledger.
Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)
#58Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)
#59Maybe we should update our lexicon to "NFT mania" –– far more people lost money in that phenomenon.
At least in the tulip case, they actually had some minor value. You owned a pretty flower. You could also make the case for crypto money, I guess. Any person with common sense and basic technical understanding could tell you NFTs were an incredibly dumb and useless idea from the very start. All you “own” is an entry on some ledger, which doesn’t inherently give you ownership over anything else.