2 ms·
AI companies do need to make billions in order to produce returns on the billions of investment they have taken. > People forget that there was a shit ton of i
by snowwrestler 2y ago
AI companies do need to make billions in order to produce returns on the billions of investment they have taken.
> People forget that there was a shit ton of investment in the early internet that also didn't pay off
Yes, those were called busts too. It’s not a value judgement, it’s just the term for that moment when lofty expectations don’t pan out.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago"lofty expectations don’t pan out" The point is, they did turn out, look at the internet today. Would anybody go back to the 80's and argue, it really isn't worth the investment? Amazon, don't bother, Cisco, forget about it.
- jprete 2y agoAmazon was founded in 1994.
- FrustratedMonky 2y agoThere was investment in the internet pre-90's that built the infrastructure that allowed Amazon to exist. There were winners and losers. Maybe there were losers in the 80's and Amazon was a winner the in the 90's. Because there were losers doesn't mean there should not have been any investment, which seems to be the argument against AI. That it costs a lot and not producing anything. When we can clearly see that the rush to invest is exactly to not be left behind and get to winning.
- snowwrestler 2y agoAmazon and Cisco are examples of companies that survived the busts. Some AI companies will survive too. There will definitely be busts, though.
- pintxo 2y agoSurvivorship bias? There’s tons of „Internet Investments“ that did not work out.
- FrustratedMonky 2y agoSure, but it seems like the anti-AI sentiment is that it is all completely worthless. The point is, there will be a lot of failures, but not some complete industry collapse where we enter another AI winter, so stop investing. There will be some winners.