5 ms·

I'm open to the idea they see something I don't. I'm not convinced, but I'm open to it.

by emseetech 2y ago

arcticbull 2y ago
They see dollar signs
- hyperadvanced 2y ago
  In theory the market will sort this out. Overly stingy firms will reap the rewards of lower quality and be outcompeted in their industries, overly generous ones will run out of money, the “just right” ones will exceed expectations and be rewarded. Where those lines are drawn probably varies by firms. I frankly don’t know how the company that invented monthly payments for shoes with a high interest rate will stay in business long term, so maybe they really don’t need to hire anyone anyway
  - arcticbull 2y ago
    Yeah the whole BNPL space is very strange from my perspective -- it's basically just small dollar loans for borrowers you don't underwrite, without collateral (you can't repossess my socks) in exchange for super high merchant interchange. I was confident they'd all get ruined in the first real recession as that would be the first debt to go unpaid. 2021 wasn't a real recession I guess, since it lasted all of 5 minutes. It's just re-inventing credit cards, but with significant structural disadvantages leading to higher costs.
    - rapsey 2y ago
      It is strange in that it is a terrible business. Which is why they are burning money.
  - belter 2y ago
    > In theory the market will sort this out. If that would be true Billionaires would not have to buy the last US elections....
- jstummbillig 2y ago
  I find it fascinating how the same people can be selfishly interested in their own finances, find bigger numbers (those that a CEO has to care about by mandate) dirty, and square that.
  - avidiax 2y ago
    I think you're suggesting there is some cognitive dissonance there. I think there's some truth to that, but it's also ignoring a true difference. Personal finances can be viewed (somewhat incorrectly) as not being zero-sum. Me making more for my work or investments seems like it doesn't take from anyone else. While a CEO deciding that AI should handle as much of the labor in a company as possible seems like a decision that benefits the company and it's shareholders directly at the expense of its workers. I think in actual fact both sides here are zero-sum, but when the worker makes more personally, there are only diffuse and marginally-affected losers (the company, its shareholders, consumers and customers experiencing higher prices, etc.). The company's actions would affect people that can be directly named and are terribly affected. It's unfortunately the difference between stealing 5¢ from 10,000,000 people or $100k from 5 people.
    - jstummbillig 2y ago
      I don't think I am. You put the facts pretty succinctly. I just evaluate them differently. Having thousands of smart humans optimizing for their personal goals in their individual ways, at the expense of company goals, is an issue that exists in every company, bankrupts companies and super frightening to deal with as a CEO. People are not obviously more noble, when working towards personal goals instead of company goals, and a lot of people working towards their personal goals instead of company goals, is a serious issue for any company. Not having a single entity and one big number to deal with makes it actually much more powerful and scary.
      - ForHackernews 2y ago
        Then you might think they'd be scared of handing over the keys to their company to an inscrutable AI working towards OpenAI's goals, but I guess the money is too good.
rapsey 2y ago
[flagged]
- itsdrewmiller 2y ago
  Even if rare, surely something like the rapid advancement of AI could be something that qualifies. At minimum I agree with GP to keep an open mind about it.
downrightmike 2y ago
It costs way more to run the AI than the equivalent human labor. No one is paying the actual costs.

I'm open to the idea they see something I don't. I'm not convinced, but I'm open to it.

arcticbull 2y ago

They see dollar signs

hyperadvanced 2y ago
In theory the market will sort this out. Overly stingy firms will reap the rewards of lower quality and be outcompeted in their industries, overly generous ones will run out of money, the “just right” ones will exceed expectations and be rewarded. Where those lines are drawn probably varies by firms. I frankly don’t know how the company that invented monthly payments for shoes with a high interest rate will stay in business long term, so maybe they really don’t need to hire anyone anyway
- arcticbull 2y ago
  Yeah the whole BNPL space is very strange from my perspective -- it's basically just small dollar loans for borrowers you don't underwrite, without collateral (you can't repossess my socks) in exchange for super high merchant interchange. I was confident they'd all get ruined in the first real recession as that would be the first debt to go unpaid. 2021 wasn't a real recession I guess, since it lasted all of 5 minutes. It's just re-inventing credit cards, but with significant structural disadvantages leading to higher costs.
  - rapsey 2y ago
    It is strange in that it is a terrible business. Which is why they are burning money.
- belter 2y ago
  > In theory the market will sort this out. If that would be true Billionaires would not have to buy the last US elections....
jstummbillig 2y ago
I find it fascinating how the same people can be selfishly interested in their own finances, find bigger numbers (those that a CEO has to care about by mandate) dirty, and square that.
- avidiax 2y ago
  I think you're suggesting there is some cognitive dissonance there. I think there's some truth to that, but it's also ignoring a true difference. Personal finances can be viewed (somewhat incorrectly) as not being zero-sum. Me making more for my work or investments seems like it doesn't take from anyone else. While a CEO deciding that AI should handle as much of the labor in a company as possible seems like a decision that benefits the company and it's shareholders directly at the expense of its workers. I think in actual fact both sides here are zero-sum, but when the worker makes more personally, there are only diffuse and marginally-affected losers (the company, its shareholders, consumers and customers experiencing higher prices, etc.). The company's actions would affect people that can be directly named and are terribly affected. It's unfortunately the difference between stealing 5¢ from 10,000,000 people or $100k from 5 people.
  - jstummbillig 2y ago
    I don't think I am. You put the facts pretty succinctly. I just evaluate them differently. Having thousands of smart humans optimizing for their personal goals in their individual ways, at the expense of company goals, is an issue that exists in every company, bankrupts companies and super frightening to deal with as a CEO. People are not obviously more noble, when working towards personal goals instead of company goals, and a lot of people working towards their personal goals instead of company goals, is a serious issue for any company. Not having a single entity and one big number to deal with makes it actually much more powerful and scary.
    - ForHackernews 2y ago
      Then you might think they'd be scared of handing over the keys to their company to an inscrutable AI working towards OpenAI's goals, but I guess the money is too good.

rapsey 2y ago

[flagged]

itsdrewmiller 2y ago
Even if rare, surely something like the rapid advancement of AI could be something that qualifies. At minimum I agree with GP to keep an open mind about it.

downrightmike 2y ago

It costs way more to run the AI than the equivalent human labor. No one is paying the actual costs.