Live data from Hacker News

Technical Deflation

benanderson.work

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: Technical Deflation

#61
post #29

The models themselves represent the biggest deflation cases I've ever seem. The charged cost of a frontier model is ~200x lower than 2 years ago, and the ones we are using now are much better - although measuring that and how much is challenging. Building a "better than GPT-4" model is also vastly cheaper than building GPT-4 was... perhaps 1/100th?

The is a great point that wasn't included in the original article. Thank you.

Re: Technical Deflation

#62
I disagreed with some points and agreed with others based on my experience and the data I have available, but the last few sentences really weakened the overall point.

> Giga AI, a company building AI customer support agents, claims to have sworn off the "forward deployed engineer" model of custom software favored by many other successful startups, in favor of software that customizes itself—only possible because of coding agents.

Giga AI is not a publicly traded company and they have zero legal liability or possible downside for lying, and massive upside for lying. They also don't have real customers and are not in positive revenue. The trend is that everyone who has said this was lying.

When there's tangible evidence of this, I think it will be an important part of the discussion. Until then, saying "claims" and "but I don't really know" but then paraphrasing their press release without analysis is about as sophisticated and as honest as tweeting "people are saying."

The author should take their own advice and wait six months when these claims will be easier to substantiate and support the analysis far more strongly.

Re: Technical Deflation

#63
post #7

Does anyone else agree with this the premise of this article? Is it sensible to put off building things now because it will get even cheaper and faster later? Maybe the time value of time is only increasing as we go.

Actually yes. I wanted to get into UI programming with GTK 2 and right now im waiting for GTK $n to stabilize so i can commit to it. Knowing that GTK $n-1 will soon be obsolete is enough reason to not put effort into learning it.

In general, we should focus more on what endures over what changes. Focus less on the times and more on the eternities. People very often drown in the noise of passing fads and fashions and ephemeral tech. Can you become really skilled at using some piece of tech? Sure. Is it worth becoming really skilled? It depends on the circumstances and the particular person, but in most cases, probably not. It usually is a waste of time (but given the kinds of SFVs that people publish or hobbies people have, people are generally quite good at frittering away their lives on stupid shit).

Incidentally, this is how you can distinguish between a good CS curriculum from a bad one. A good one focuses heavily on principles; the particular technical trappings are mostly just a medium, like Latin used to be in academia, now replaced by English. You pick up what you need to do to the job.

Re: Technical Deflation

#64
Imagine, people aren't spending already because they have no money, things keeps getting pricier and pricier, people buy less and less trying to put aside in case something happens like an accident. And "higher people" still thinks "lower price bad". I sure hope the wall hits so hard countries fall.

Re: Technical Deflation

#65
As someone building AI infrastructure, this deflation idea shows up very differently for us. Application founders can afford to say they will wait for the next model, but infrastructure founders cannot. The value we create is not in shipping features faster. It is in absorbing the volatility that sits underneath the entire AI stack.

Models keep getting cheaper and more capable every few months. However, the underlying compute economics do not deflate at the same rate. GPU provisioning, inference orchestration, bandwidth constraints, latency guarantees, regulatory requirements, and failure handling do not become magically simple because a new model improved its reasoning. In reality, each improvement on the model side increases pressure on the infrastructure side. Bigger context windows, heavier memory footprints, more parallel requests, and more complex agentic workflows all increase the operational burden.

For infrastructure teams, waiting does not help. The surface area of what needs to be built only grows. You cannot delay autoscaling, observability, scheduling, routing, or privacy guarantees. Applications will always demand more from the infrastructure, and they will expect it to feel like a commodity.

My view is that technical deflation applies much more to application startups than to infrastructure startups. App founders can benefit from waiting. Infra founders have to build now because every model improvement instantly becomes a new expectation that the infra must support. The baseline keeps rising.

The real moat in the next era is not the speed of feature development. It is the ability of your infrastructure to absorb the increasing chaos of more capable models while keeping the experience simple and predictable for the user

Re: Technical Deflation

#66
post #19

There’s a fun version of this in futurist space travel speculation. Let’s say you have the a fusion rocket and can hit 5% the speed of light. You want to migrate to the stars for some reason. So do you build a generational ship now, which is possible, or… do you wait? Because if you build it now someone with a much better drive may just fly right past you at 20% the speed of light. In this one the answer is to plot i…

Dang. I won't be able to sleep tonight

Re: Technical Deflation

#67

Does anyone really read any of this stuff anyway?

I take great pride in my role as a user of HN. This includes never reading the article and always positing very opinionated tasks without qualification.

Re: Technical Deflation

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And even if people could refinance, debt values going down causes further deflation.

Does it? Debt repayments are money deletion, so if debt is nominally written-off, less has to be paid back. That is, there will be less "anti-money" in the system but the "money" is still there. That increases the money supply, therefore inflationary.

Debt write-off is also money destruction. Money is debt.

Re: Technical Deflation

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And even if people could refinance, debt values going down causes further deflation.

Does it? Debt repayments are money deletion, so if debt is nominally written-off, less has to be paid back. That is, there will be less "anti-money" in the system but the "money" is still there. That increases the money supply, therefore inflationary.

You're forgetting what people do if deflation is expected to continue indefinitely, and can also expect for their notes to be written off: They stick that extra money under the mattress.

This is basically what a bunch of people did during and following the Great Depression. Deflation was continuing and the money they had lent to the banks was being written off in bank defaults. And so an entire generation learned to just stick it under the mattress (or stick it in T bills, which reliably didn't default).

Also, it's not just a literal increase of money that causes inflation, an increase in money velocity also increases inflation. Debt write-offs decrease velocity, while debt issuance increases velocity. IANAE.

Re: Technical Deflation

#70

One indicator that I'm watching for deflation is the concept that money is not accepted. Things like social media followers or likes are used as substitutes. People can't buy things like concert tickets or latest merchandise because all the bots have already bought them. Businesses will claim they can't provide a custom service. In tech, this would be spending a modest amount of money on online ads when in reality an…

Did you read the article past the first two paragraphs? Serious question.

Otherwise I think you make good and interesting points. Genuine economics has a host of measuring sticks, but we, the non-economists, really only talk about, hear about, or even basically understand a handful. I had an economist effectively point this out to me when asking a question about GDP versus the broken window fallacy.

Post reply on HN