5 ms·

This is the crux. A cool thing has been invented, with real usages. Unfortunately, it's cost hundreds of billions of dollars and it has absolutely zero hope of

This is the crux. A cool thing has been invented, with real usages. Unfortunately, it's cost hundreds of billions of dollars and it has absolutely zero hope of making the trillions needed to justify that. Now someone will respond about how it's just a stepping stone, and how the billions are justified by _something completely imaginary, and not invented yet, and maybe not ever_ e.g. agents.

trhway 2y ago
>it's cost hundreds of billions of dollars and it has absolutely zero hope of making the trillions needed to justify that. The BigTech companies have been flush with liquidity and poured those hundreds of billions into the promising tech, and as result we got a wonderful new technology. There is not much need for those trillions in return - just look at liquidity positions of those companies, they are just fine. If those trillions come in eventually - even better.
- automatic6131 2y ago
  >There is not much need for those trillions in return Whilst you are correct that big tech cos do not need the return to survive, that's not how public markets work at all, and thus not how the incentives for those in charge of the companies work, and so making you actually wrong.
  - trhway 2y ago
    If i were wrong, those companies would be distributing that cash to shareholders instead of chasing any promise of any big chance. If investment in AI don't pan out (i do think that it will pan out, and those trillions will come) then those companies would just pour even more billions into whatever big thing/promise would come next. Rinse and repeat. Because some of those things do generate tremendous returns, and thus not playing that game is what really constitute true loss of money.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Markets are funny things. US right now is run by someone whose explicit promises, if actually implemented, have an obvious immedidiate 13-14% reduction in GDP — literally, never mind side effects, I'm not counting any businesses losing confidence in the idea that America is a place to invest, this is just direct impact. DOGE + deportation by themselves do most of that percentage. The tariffs are a rounding error in comparison, but still bad on the kind of scale that gets normal politicians kicked out. And yet, the markets are up.
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        If you factor in the inflation and the worldwide trade crisis, trading dollars for shares that will lose 10% real value doesn't sound so bad.
      - leovingi 2y ago
        What timeframe are you working with, as in, when do you expect to see this reduction in GDP? I just want to know so that I can set a reminder and check back on your comment when the time arrives.
- krainboltgreene 2y ago
  Funny, I had been told we had to lay off all those workers because they weren’t flush with cash.
  - trhway 2y ago
    cash on hands GOOG - 100B, AMZN - 80B, FB - 70B, and their core businesses are basically printing money, so they pretty much do have to invest into new things. If somebody sees a multi-billion dollar sink better than AI right now ...
    - Hasu 2y ago
      > If somebody sees a multi-billion dollar sink better than AI right now ... I think if they could find a way to make their software good, instead of bad, like it increasingly is, that would be a good use of that money.
    - krainboltgreene 2y ago
      Workers, infrastructure, taxes…
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    They're convinced they no longer need them. Just as they were convinced after Covid that they needed to put hiring into overdrive. Tech management has the collective IQ of a flock of sheep.
    - Aeolun 2y ago
      Nobody has ever been punished for choosing IBM. It’s the same story here. Nobody is going to blame them for following the zeitgeist, but you bet they’d be punished if they didn’t and it doesn’t pan out. The whole thing is like bitcoin. There’s too many people that benefit from maintaining the collective illusion.
- SZJX 2y ago
  They’ll be fine and will survive regardless, but their current astronomical valuations probably won’t be.
hoseja 2y ago
I see it a little differently. What was the direct economic return of the Manhattan Project?
- jcgrillo 2y ago
  Wait, what? The Manhattan project produced something--multiple somethings in fact. What has this "project" produced?
- whatshisface 2y ago
  Ideally it was thought to have shortened a very expensive war, and may have prevented the USSR from taking over Europe by leveraging its unquestioned postwar conventional forces advantage.
  - hoseja 2y ago
    Well sure but how much cash did the MaPr corp. make selling their new and improved model implosion-type-u-235?
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      The profit was made by the private sector in supplying goods to the program. Today, private companies do a lot and earn a lot of money from stockpile maintenance.
    - godelski 2y ago
      I don't know how to tell you this, but the government isn't a business and has completely different objectives and operating conditions
      - mostlysimilar 2y ago
        If more people understood this we might have avoided the carnage happening in the US right now.
SubiculumCode 2y ago
To train. Inference is much cheaper...and getting cheaper by the day

trhway 2y ago

>it's cost hundreds of billions of dollars and it has absolutely zero hope of making the trillions needed to justify that. The BigTech companies have been flush with liquidity and poured those hundreds of billions into the promising tech, and as result we got a wonderful new technology. There is not much need for those trillions in return - just look at liquidity positions of those companies, they are just fine. If those trillions come in eventually - even better.

automatic6131 2y ago
>There is not much need for those trillions in return Whilst you are correct that big tech cos do not need the return to survive, that's not how public markets work at all, and thus not how the incentives for those in charge of the companies work, and so making you actually wrong.
- trhway 2y ago
  If i were wrong, those companies would be distributing that cash to shareholders instead of chasing any promise of any big chance. If investment in AI don't pan out (i do think that it will pan out, and those trillions will come) then those companies would just pour even more billions into whatever big thing/promise would come next. Rinse and repeat. Because some of those things do generate tremendous returns, and thus not playing that game is what really constitute true loss of money.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Markets are funny things. US right now is run by someone whose explicit promises, if actually implemented, have an obvious immedidiate 13-14% reduction in GDP — literally, never mind side effects, I'm not counting any businesses losing confidence in the idea that America is a place to invest, this is just direct impact. DOGE + deportation by themselves do most of that percentage. The tariffs are a rounding error in comparison, but still bad on the kind of scale that gets normal politicians kicked out. And yet, the markets are up.
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      If you factor in the inflation and the worldwide trade crisis, trading dollars for shares that will lose 10% real value doesn't sound so bad.
    - leovingi 2y ago
      What timeframe are you working with, as in, when do you expect to see this reduction in GDP? I just want to know so that I can set a reminder and check back on your comment when the time arrives.
krainboltgreene 2y ago
Funny, I had been told we had to lay off all those workers because they weren’t flush with cash.
- trhway 2y ago
  cash on hands GOOG - 100B, AMZN - 80B, FB - 70B, and their core businesses are basically printing money, so they pretty much do have to invest into new things. If somebody sees a multi-billion dollar sink better than AI right now ...
  - Hasu 2y ago
    > If somebody sees a multi-billion dollar sink better than AI right now ... I think if they could find a way to make their software good, instead of bad, like it increasingly is, that would be a good use of that money.
  - krainboltgreene 2y ago
    Workers, infrastructure, taxes…
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  They're convinced they no longer need them. Just as they were convinced after Covid that they needed to put hiring into overdrive. Tech management has the collective IQ of a flock of sheep.
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    Nobody has ever been punished for choosing IBM. It’s the same story here. Nobody is going to blame them for following the zeitgeist, but you bet they’d be punished if they didn’t and it doesn’t pan out. The whole thing is like bitcoin. There’s too many people that benefit from maintaining the collective illusion.
SZJX 2y ago
They’ll be fine and will survive regardless, but their current astronomical valuations probably won’t be.

hoseja 2y ago

I see it a little differently. What was the direct economic return of the Manhattan Project?

jcgrillo 2y ago
Wait, what? The Manhattan project produced something--multiple somethings in fact. What has this "project" produced?
whatshisface 2y ago
Ideally it was thought to have shortened a very expensive war, and may have prevented the USSR from taking over Europe by leveraging its unquestioned postwar conventional forces advantage.
- hoseja 2y ago
  Well sure but how much cash did the MaPr corp. make selling their new and improved model implosion-type-u-235?
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    The profit was made by the private sector in supplying goods to the program. Today, private companies do a lot and earn a lot of money from stockpile maintenance.
  - godelski 2y ago
    I don't know how to tell you this, but the government isn't a business and has completely different objectives and operating conditions
    - mostlysimilar 2y ago
      If more people understood this we might have avoided the carnage happening in the US right now.

SubiculumCode 2y ago

To train. Inference is much cheaper...and getting cheaper by the day