Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a structural problem with our economy, much larger than just Facebook. Due its large scale concentration, the allocation of capital in the economy as a whole has become far less efficient over the last 20 years.
But always remember, it's not technically a monopoly! Boy am I tired of that one. We desperately need more smaller companies and actual competition but nobody seems to even be trying
Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
901–910 of 936 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#902Earlier quoted context omitted.
RealPlayer in the late 90s turned into (working) Napster, Gnutella and then the iPod in 2001, Podcasts (without the name) immediately after, with the name in 2004, Pandora in 2005, Spotify in 2008. So a decade from crummy idea to the companies we’re familiar with today, but slowed down by tremendous need for new (distributed) broadband infrastructure and complicated by IP arrangements. I guess 10 years seems like a l…
While I get the point... to be pedantic though, Napster (first gen), Gnutella and iPod were mostly download and listen offline experiences and not necessarily live streaming. Another major difference, is we're near the limits to the approaches being taking for computing capability... most dialup connections, even on "56k" modems were still lucky to get 33.6kbps down and very common in the late 90's, where by the mid-…
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#903Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#904Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ponzu scheme of SPY is great until it stops. 10% of America’s payroll gets lumped into it each month and generational wisdom is you get a 10% ROI despite the economy growing 2%. At some point that will collapse, and it won’t be pretty.
> The ponzu scheme of SPY is great until it stops TINA (there is no alternative). Inflation will eat your cash. Bonds hardly generate (real) returns unless you want to take big risks with duration. Real estate is over inflated. Gold is speculative. Crypto is...not real. What's left?
The difference from public ownership to public gambling is huge in its impact to society, especially when the markets crashes.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#905Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The 'goal' of investing (e.g. regularly buying) means attempting to own as many shares as possible. That is achieved by buying low and selling high. Buyers benefit from lower prices, not higher. So many investors get this concept wrong. I suppose they get excited because what they bought went up in value and they have a sense of being enriched. But, that is backwards. That is what they want 20-40 years from now w…
> I am screaming: crash and burn baby! Crash and burn! Gimme those shares at 50% off yesterday's price. Sure, but once you reach the point where you have a lot of money in the market you probably won't enjoy watching 50% of it disappear, even if it means your next auto investment is for a nice bargain price. Also, when the stock market crashes usually bad things accompany it. Like a depressed economy and job losses.
It's our own fault for tying the stock market performance to our economy's performance. Why would I, a train worker, should have my pension affected by Sam a Altman's bad decision making or by Enron's lies and deception.
It's our own fault that the stock market is so volatile and that we tie so much of our economy to a financial gambling machine that's become increasingly divorced from reality in the last couple of decades. Like you are putting money on a stock that trades at 1000 on a company that is 10 years away from being profitable? You deserve your money to go poof.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#906Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of us in the antitrust/competition law community are trying. One issue, specific to digital markets, is that the field has very few people who are both legally and technically literate. If you're a technical person looking for a career shift, moving into legal policy/academia has the potential to be quite high impact for that reason.
Gods I would love to work more in a policy space, tho my background is entirely technical. A friend of mine has been trying to get into law school for a few years; she's technically competent and plenty intelligent, but it's been hard going for her to get in, plus multiple years of education to even attempt the bar. All of that sounds like far too much sunk-cost to me to dally in and figure out if it's a path I would…
Which brings me to the next point. Doing a law degree and passing the bar is perhaps the obvious path to doing policy things. It’s basically the only way that you can end up actively participating in courts, for example. But there are many other options! For myself, the plan is to stay in academia and not take any bar courses (then again, who knows what will happen!). Academics have lots of potential to shift policy, especially as neutral agents who aren’t paid by either side of particular debates. Our papers are read by policymakers and judges, who often don’t have the time or resources to think deeply about particularly gnarly topics. But there are lots of other options which could also work, and I guess finding a "niche" would depend on your specific circumstances, connections and skillset.
If you’re looking to spend more time thinking about policy issues, I’d start by simply sleuthing online. Bruce Schneier, for example, regularly writes excellent pieces at the intersection of technology and policy, which are very well hyperlinked to other high quality stuff. These kinds of blogs are a great way to get into the space, as well as to learn about opportunities which are coming up. Reading journal articles that sound interesting is a good option too (and US law journal articles are often quite accessible). There are also spaces offline, such as conferences which encourage both law and tech people (there’s one happening in Brussels soon [1]), or even institutions set up specifically to operate in this space and which have in-person events (Newspeak House comes to mind [2]).
[1] https://www.article19.org/digital-markets-act-enforcement/ [2] https://newspeak.house
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#907Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The ponzu scheme of SPY is great until it stops TINA (there is no alternative). Inflation will eat your cash. Bonds hardly generate (real) returns unless you want to take big risks with duration. Real estate is over inflated. Gold is speculative. Crypto is...not real. What's left?
Valuation of companies tied to their real current profits! If a company is unprofitable now, it doesn't make sense and is wholly wrong that its stock is trading 1000x more than other companies which actually turn a profit. The difference from public ownership to public gambling is huge in its impact to society, especially when the markets crashes.
This is a losing strategy for the large majority, and it's been demonstrated repeatedly that even professional investors can't beat the market especially after considering fees.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030916/buffe...
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#908Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am screaming: crash and burn baby! Crash and burn! Gimme those shares at 50% off yesterday's price. Sure, but once you reach the point where you have a lot of money in the market you probably won't enjoy watching 50% of it disappear, even if it means your next auto investment is for a nice bargain price. Also, when the stock market crashes usually bad things accompany it. Like a depressed economy and job losses.
> Also, when the stock market crashes usually bad things accompany it. Like a depressed economy and job losses. It's our own fault for tying the stock market performance to our economy's performance. Why would I, a train worker, should have my pension affected by Sam a Altman's bad decision making or by Enron's lies and deception. It's our own fault that the stock market is so volatile and that we tie so much of our…
Who is suggesting that?
NVDA trades at 57x earnings, MSFT 37, GOOG 22. The article is about META and they are 27x. These are the big companies that dominate the s&p that we're talking about.
I don't think anyone is suggesting to put their life savings into Anthropic. They can't anyway, it's not public.
The s&p PE is 30, which is high, but still lower than it was in 2020 before the AI "bubble" started.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#909Earlier quoted context omitted.
But always remember, it's not technically a monopoly! Boy am I tired of that one. We desperately need more smaller companies and actual competition but nobody seems to even be trying
World would benefit greatly if EU went ahead with tech tax. It's crazy how much IT companies get away with that would be the end of any other business.
Yes, mosedef, I'm all in.
Please post/share any news or tips you find. TIA.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#910These changes in direction (spending billions, freezing hiring) over just a few months show that these people are as clueless as to what's going to happen with AI, as everyone else. They just have the billions and therefore dictate where money goes, but that's it.
This is why I ignore anything that CEOs say about AI in the news. Examples, AGI in a few years, most jobs will be obsolete, etc.
Paraphrasing: Capital will use / is using AI to further bludgeon Labor.