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

Ed Zitron on CNBC: GenAI Doesn't Work, and Big Tech Is Out of Hypergrowth Ideas

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: Ed Zitron on CNBC: GenAI Doesn't Work, and Big Tech Is Out of Hypergrowth Ideas

#71

Post by ElProlactin »

Avicebron wrote: post #58
ElProlactin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're conflating the issue of income and wealth inequality with the fact that investments in "the internet" (and all the associated hardware and infrastructure) proved to be some of the best investments in history. And not because of monetary policy, financial engineering, and the like, but because the internet proved to be a civilization-changing technology.

I'm failing to understand how you are failing to understand. Can you try and explain that again?

> Can you try and explain that again?

Sure. How did the fact that the internet was a revolutionary, civilization-changing technology that produced some of the best investments in history cause housing to become unaffordable?

If you're worried about asset prices and the affordability of housing, you should be far more upset at central banks/monetary policy than you are at the internet, ecommerce, smart phones, etc. You could also be upset at zoning laws, and tax and immigration policy.

Re: Ed Zitron on CNBC: GenAI Doesn't Work, and Big Tech Is Out of Hypergrowth Ideas

#72

Post by cassianoleal »

ElProlactin wrote: post #70
cassianoleal wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speaking of rigid and binary thinking: do you think there's absolutely no value to LLMs and that every investment in them is malinvestment? No, I think there is tremendous potential value in some areas. > If it's so simple, why don't you explain how The Government is going to prevent private individuals and enterprises from investing in things that some people (who may or not be right) believe are worthless? Honest…

> No, I think there is tremendous potential value in some areas. So who is going to decide what has tremendous (real) value and what doesn't? And how are they going to force private individuals and enterprises to invest only in what has (in their estimation) value while at the same time ensuring that the level of investment permitted is sufficient to realize the value but not excessive so as to cause malinvestment?

At this point I honestly think you're not even trying to have a good faith discussion, but I'll bite this last one.

> who is going to decide what has tremendous (real) value and what doesn't?

No one has to.

> And how are they going to force private individuals and enterprises to invest only in what has (in their estimation) value while at the same time ensuring that the level of investment permitted is sufficient to realize the value but not excessive so as to cause malinvestment?

They don't have to do that either.

Government is (or at least should be) in the business of ensuring better outcomes for the population that constitutes it, whilst reducing harm to as many of those people as possible.

Look for symptoms of things that are threatening either of those, and figure out a way to find balance.

Your argument reads a lot like "who is going to decide what a monopoly is and isn't? And how are they going to force private enterprises to break up when they are past that threshold?"

Re: Ed Zitron on CNBC: GenAI Doesn't Work, and Big Tech Is Out of Hypergrowth Ideas

#73

Post by ElProlactin »

cassianoleal wrote: post #72
ElProlactin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, I think there is tremendous potential value in some areas. So who is going to decide what has tremendous (real) value and what doesn't? And how are they going to force private individuals and enterprises to invest only in what has (in their estimation) value while at the same time ensuring that the level of investment permitted is sufficient to realize the value but not excessive so as to cause malinvestment?

At this point I honestly think you're not even trying to have a good faith discussion, but I'll bite this last one. > who is going to decide what has tremendous (real) value and what doesn't? No one has to. > And how are they going to force private individuals and enterprises to invest only in what has (in their estimation) value while at the same time ensuring that the level of investment permitted is sufficient to…

> At this point I honestly think you're not even trying to have a good faith discussion, but I'll bite this last one.

Honestly, this sounds like a cop-out. I asked a legitimate question in response to your comment: who decides what is a good investment and what isn't, and how do they determine how much good investment is needed to prevent excess that becomes malinvestment?

You refuse to answer this question because, I suspect, you realize that this is an impossible task.

> Your argument reads a lot like "who is going to decide what a monopoly is and isn't? And how are they going to force private enterprises to break up when they are past that threshold?"

Except that there are criteria defining what constitutes a monopoly and they're applied to the current state of a company.

Adjudicating a monopoly case is therefore a completely different matter in which regulators and courts determine whether a business, based on its current state, meets the definition of a monopoly.

The only way to establish good investment from bad is in hindsight. Unless you have a direct line to God, you can't know whether $1 billion invested into Company A or Industry B will produce a return or wipe investors out, or whether the appropriate level of investment in Company A or Industry B is $1 billion versus $1.5 billion, and so on.

But your comment hints at the idea that there's a group of people who can predict the future and accurately determine what investments are good or bad, and precisely how much should be invested in anything up to threshold where good investment becomes bad. This just isn't reality.

Re: Ed Zitron on CNBC: GenAI Doesn't Work, and Big Tech Is Out of Hypergrowth Ideas

#74

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

tim333 wrote: post #65
jaredcwhite wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ed Zitron already completely defeated the comparison that this is just another dot com boom/bust with eventual payout. You're telling yourself a just-so story.

He completely defeated the comparison that it's got an eventual payout? How so? I don't think I've seen any solid argument there - just pointing out current stuff has limits which is no proof it won't improve.

Yeah, I think Ed's early stuff defeated the idea that the tech was worth big money at its state as of 2024, but it's clear in 2026 that this is something worth money to corporations. Just a question of how much + whether the Chinese open models (RIP Llama) can continue undercutting at a fast follow pace.

Re: Ed Zitron on CNBC: GenAI Doesn't Work, and Big Tech Is Out of Hypergrowth Ideas

#75

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

mirrormirroron wrote: post #62
trio8453 wrote: post #4

I don't understand the people who have the patience to listen to Zitron. It's all one-tone takes with no place for nuance, you kind of know what he's going to say and the fact the mixes genuine criticism with bad faith arguments doesn't help.

> It's all one-tone takes with no place for nuance, you kind of know what he's going to say and the fact the mixes genuine criticism with bad faith arguments doesn't help. This is hillariously self referential.

Throwaways are for anonymity, not for dodging the guidelines. Please don't pollute the community here.

Re: Ed Zitron on CNBC: GenAI Doesn't Work, and Big Tech Is Out of Hypergrowth Ideas

#76

Post by cassianoleal »

ElProlactin wrote: post #73
cassianoleal wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I honestly think you're not even trying to have a good faith discussion, but I'll bite this last one. > who is going to decide what has tremendous (real) value and what doesn't? No one has to. > And how are they going to force private individuals and enterprises to invest only in what has (in their estimation) value while at the same time ensuring that the level of investment permitted is sufficient to…

> At this point I honestly think you're not even trying to have a good faith discussion, but I'll bite this last one. Honestly, this sounds like a cop-out. I asked a legitimate question in response to your comment: who decides what is a good investment and what isn't, and how do they determine how much good investment is needed to prevent excess that becomes malinvestment? You refuse to answer this question because,…

> You refuse to answer this question

I didn't.

Everything else you said is dodging my main argument, and in fact pretty much everything else I've been saying in favour of your own very very narrow interpretation of the world in pure financial terms.

Re: Ed Zitron on CNBC: GenAI Doesn't Work, and Big Tech Is Out of Hypergrowth Ideas

#77

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #63
ElProlactin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand the people who have the patience to listen to Zitron. It's all one-tone takes with no place for nuance... But that's why some people give him the time of day. A lot of people prefer to see things in black and white because it's easier on the brain. Basically, Ed is doing the easy part (pointing out the malinvestment) and not addressing the harder part, which is to predict what comes next in reali…

"The malinvestment got sorted out and couple of decades on, immense wealth has been created." Only to be re-malinvested in the same garbage hype that created it Aside from Amazon, who shifted from selling books online to becoming a middleman for sales of others' products, and eventually to selling "cloud" services, is this wealth really derived from "buying and selling stuff online" as envisioned at the time of .com…

-1,0,1

Re: Ed Zitron on CNBC: GenAI Doesn't Work, and Big Tech Is Out of Hypergrowth Ideas

#78

Post by [deleted] »

ElProlactin wrote: post #41
cassianoleal wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> net-net it's probably better to live in economies where capital is abundant and malinvestment is possible, than to live economies where the opposite is true. This is a false dichotomy. Not everything needs to exist at the extremes. > boom and bust cycles have existed for a very long time. This isn't a new thing today, and it wasn't new then either. Murder and domestic violence have existed for a very long time. Rac…

> Things can be fixed, or at least improved to reduce the human cost associated with what's essentially a governance choice. So you think there's a way to outlaw possible malinvestment?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN