3 ms·

Now replace “crypto” with “social media” and “AI” with “crypto”, then read your comment again and tell me how this is not what a crypto fanboy would write two y

Now replace “crypto” with “social media” and “AI” with “crypto”, then read your comment again and tell me how this is not what a crypto fanboy would write two years ago?

civilitty 3y ago
ChatGPT has helped more with my drug manufacturing empire in the last six months than crypto has in over a decade. It’s just useful.
- wittycardio 3y ago
  [dead]
casey2 3y ago
The difference is that social media as a sector is a dead end, while there will absolutely be multiple trillion+ dollar "crypto" companies at some point in the future. It may not happen anytime soon, and it may not be any of the companies in existence today, but the overall bet (and its associated hype) is a valid - even necessary - one. In that sense, the current state of crypto is less like social media and more like the dotcom bubble of the early 00s. No one really understands the underlying tech well enough, but everyone wants to be involved. There are companies surging in valuation just by adding "crypto" to their name. While all of this will correct itself, the underlying tech (the web in 2000, crypto today) will eventually prove to be world changing. It's important to note that this is a hypothetical scenario where we're replacing terms to compare different industries. The statements above are not a reflection of actual market conditions or predictions about the future success of specific sectors. No sed/shitcoin required.
reichstein 3y ago
The difference is that crypto (blockchain) didn't solve any problems that a majority, or even significant part, of people actually have. It allows tracking ownership of digital assets in a distributed way, but it does so in an overly complicated way, intermixed with minting new coins, which only makes sense for the actual Bitcoin-type currencies. Any company who creates digital assets, say games, wants to be in complete control. Being distributed isn't a benefit. Moving around money anonymously has been largely used for crime. Sure, there are other users, but not enough. And the speculation and manipulation of blockchain currency rates had made them so volatile that they are not really usable as currency. AI (or whatever will end up calling it, machine learning is better than AI) can actually solve problems, or ease everyday tasks, for everybody. It's not a matter of who'll use it, it's what it'll be used for the most.
- papichulo2023 3y ago
  Not to mention that the decentralisation didnt really work out. Most own them through centralised wallets

Now replace “crypto” with “social media” and “AI” with “crypto”, then read your comment again and tell me how this is not what a crypto fanboy would write two years ago?

civilitty 3y ago

ChatGPT has helped more with my drug manufacturing empire in the last six months than crypto has in over a decade. It’s just useful.

wittycardio 3y ago
[dead]

casey2 3y ago

The difference is that social media as a sector is a dead end, while there will absolutely be multiple trillion+ dollar "crypto" companies at some point in the future. It may not happen anytime soon, and it may not be any of the companies in existence today, but the overall bet (and its associated hype) is a valid - even necessary - one. In that sense, the current state of crypto is less like social media and more like the dotcom bubble of the early 00s. No one really understands the underlying tech well enough, but everyone wants to be involved. There are companies surging in valuation just by adding "crypto" to their name. While all of this will correct itself, the underlying tech (the web in 2000, crypto today) will eventually prove to be world changing. It's important to note that this is a hypothetical scenario where we're replacing terms to compare different industries. The statements above are not a reflection of actual market conditions or predictions about the future success of specific sectors. No sed/shitcoin required.

reichstein 3y ago

The difference is that crypto (blockchain) didn't solve any problems that a majority, or even significant part, of people actually have. It allows tracking ownership of digital assets in a distributed way, but it does so in an overly complicated way, intermixed with minting new coins, which only makes sense for the actual Bitcoin-type currencies. Any company who creates digital assets, say games, wants to be in complete control. Being distributed isn't a benefit. Moving around money anonymously has been largely used for crime. Sure, there are other users, but not enough. And the speculation and manipulation of blockchain currency rates had made them so volatile that they are not really usable as currency. AI (or whatever will end up calling it, machine learning is better than AI) can actually solve problems, or ease everyday tasks, for everybody. It's not a matter of who'll use it, it's what it'll be used for the most.

papichulo2023 3y ago
Not to mention that the decentralisation didnt really work out. Most own them through centralised wallets