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

Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 752 posts

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#741

Post by FloorEgg »

gizajob wrote: post #224
FloorEgg wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me this all just looks like a big frothy chemical reaction playing out far beyond any one person's control. With that view, many things oscillate over time, including game theory patterns (average interaction intentions of win-win, win-lose, lose-lose), and integration / mitosis (unions, international treaties, civil wars),etc. So my optimistic view is that inevitably we will get more tech whether we want it or no…

The majority of people are already doing ”bullshit jobs” and many of them know it too. Using AI to automate the bullshit and capture the value leaves them with nothing. The AI evangelists generally overlook that one of the primary things that capitalism does is fill people’s lives with busywork, in part as an exercise in power and in another part because if given their time back, those people would genuinely have abs…

I find your stance kind of confusing.

What do you mean by bullshit jobs?

I've heard the term before I think even read a NYT or Atlantic article about it maybe a decade ago. My hazy recollection were jobs that added no actual value to society.

If this is true, then what value is there for AI to capture?

Also, do you really think that the majority of jobs don't add any value to society? I find that hard to believe in a free market.

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#742

Post by johnnyanmac »

Auracle wrote: post #433
johnnyanmac wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We'd have to assume AI creates zero new jobs or industries Zero American jobs, sure. It's clear that these american industries don't want to invest in America. >They won't. They never have. not permanent, but trends don't look good. It doesnt' remain permanent because mass unemployment becomes a huge political issue at some point. As is it now among Gen Z who's completely pivoted in the course of a year.

Increased production has always just lead to more stuff being made, not more people unemployed. When even our grandparents were kids a new shirt was something you’d take care of, as you don’t get a new one very often. Now we head on to Target and throw 5 into our cart on a whim. Were there less weavers with machines now doing the job (or whatever?). Sure. But it balances out. It’s just bumpy. The big change here is t…

>The big change here is that it’s hitting so many industries at once, but that already happened with the personal computer.

The PC was pre-NAFTA, and since then we've had at least 3 waves of tech trying to outsource tech jobs (let alone actually impacted jobs like manufacturing) to cut costs. We're now on the current wave.

More stuff can be made... just not in the US.

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#743

Post by LtWorf »

panick21_ wrote: post #734
LtWorf wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very same people that 40 years ago would have bought a home instead yes. Now they can no longer do that so might as well blow the money on stuff.

> might as well blow the money on stuff. Or you know, don't do that and buy a home when you are 40 instead of 25. People who do save an have good discipline, and don't have children to early still do pretty well. The culture of 'yolo just get a credit card with 18 and max it out for video game skins' is literally losing people 100000s over their lifetime. Yes buying a house is not as easy as before, but the doomerism…

> Or you know, don't do that and buy a home when you are 40 instead of 25.

* 400

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#744

Post by shalmanese »

frm88 wrote: post #727
NeutralCrane wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that what people say and what people do are not the same thing. It may sound self-explanatory that if people don’t trust AI, they will avoid AI products, but I’m interested in data proving this. Self-reported attitudes regarding AI are not the same as customers actively avoiding products using AI.

I agree with your observation re. what people say/do. However, you know just as well as I do, that there's never studies/data of people avoiding stuff. How would you even go about proving a negative? So, let's turn this around: can you show me data that confirms people are enthusiastic to buy AI enhanced things? Data that confirm people's widespread acceptance and/or even preference of AI enhanced commodities?

There is no need for us random civilians to know the truth of these matters. Employees inside the company can see analytics that show whether the features are working or not.

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#745

Post by rockemsockem »

jcgrillo wrote: post #665
saxenaabhi wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proof is in feature velocity of devs/teams that use it and in the layoffs due to efficiency gains. I think it's very hard to convince AI skeptics since for some reason they feel more threatened by it than rest. It's counterproductive and would hinder them professionally but then it's their choice.

Without rigorous, controlled study I'm not ready to accept claims of velocity, efficiency, etc. I'm a professional software engineer, I have tried various AI tools in the workplace both for code review and development. I found personally that they were more harmful than effective. But I don't think my personal experience is really important data here. Just like I don't think yours is. What matters is whether these to…

You say you've used AI tools for code review and deploys, but do you ever just use chat GPT as a faster version of Google for things like understanding a language you aren't familiar with, finding bugs in existing code, or generating boilerplate?

Really I only use chat GPT and sometimes Claude code, I haven't used these special-cased AI tools

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#746

Post by rockemsockem »

saxenaabhi wrote: post #576
jcgrillo wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If you're trying to make a causal link between some layoffs and AI tooling you need to bring the receipts. Show that the layoffs were caused by AI tooling, don't just assume it. I don't think you can, or that anyone has.

Most public companies aren't attributing it to AI yet due to fear of backlash, but it's obvious to most of us. And Startups and SMB's are more open to attributing it to efficiency gains due to AI. If you aren't seeing it then probably it's because you are in a niche vertical. Which is great for you, but not representative on the whole.

I am very much not an AI skeptic, I use AI every day for work, and it's quite clear to me that most of the layoffs of the past few years are correcting for the absurd over hiring from the Covid era. Every software company really convinced themselves that they needed like 2-3x the workforce they actually did because "the world changed". Then it became clear that the world in fact did not fundamentally change in the ways they thought.

Chat GPT just happened to come out around the same time so we get all this misattribution

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#747

Post by anthonypasq »

jennyholzer wrote: post #740
anthonypasq wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you described claude code to anyone from 5 years ago, they would tell its sci-fi magic dream land.

if you described claude code in 2025 to anyone from 1 year ago, they would tell you it's gotten worse.

claude code didnt exist last year dingbat

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#748

Post by partiallypro »

hylaride wrote: post #93
partiallypro wrote: post #87

I think AI is a bubble, but I don't think we're close to the peak yet.

Ever literally blow bubbles? You never really know how big each one will be. My biggest worry is that what will be left standing after all of this is the organizations that are quietly all the AI slop everywhere, be it the normal web or YouTube.

The biggest worry are companies taking on debt or issuing equity in order to build data centers. It's a massive gamble (they are very very expensive to build.) There is a backlog for now, but in 5 years? I don't know, you might end up just sitting on a pile of chips and buildings that no one can use or wants. That would massively reverberate through the economy, maybe not akin to housing but it would definitely blow up some companies. For now, I think the math works, but I can't see into the future and that's where the risk is.

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#749

Post by judahmeek »

jaredklewis wrote: post #310
cedws wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know what the selling point of AI is for regular people. In the 60s it was possible for a man to work an ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or three children. That's completely out of the realm of reality for many young people now and the plummeting birth rates show it. The middle class have financially benefited very little from the past 20+ years of productivity gains. S…

> That's completely out of the realm of reality for many young people now and the plummeting birth rates show it. I'm skeptical of this explanation for falling birthrates just because birthrates are falling across the world and there seems to be no correlation between fertility and financial security. America has low birthrates. Scandinavia (usually considered to have generous welfare states) has low birthrates. Hung…

The best explanation I've heard for the falling birth rates of developed countries is that the cause is a massive increase in social expectation on parents.

It used to be that whether your child made it through childhood was up to God due to the massive number of risk factors beyond the parents' control. Those risk factors are much more easily mitigated in developed countries, so now the responsibility rests solely on the parents, and that's why kids can no longer go outside.

Re: Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'

#750

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

uniq7 wrote: post #314
jaredklewis wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's completely out of the realm of reality for many young people now and the plummeting birth rates show it. I'm skeptical of this explanation for falling birthrates just because birthrates are falling across the world and there seems to be no correlation between fertility and financial security. America has low birthrates. Scandinavia (usually considered to have generous welfare states) has low birthrates. Hung…

In which of those countries is it possible for a man to work an ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or three children?

0
Post reply on HN