3 ms·
If the average person has still not ridden a self driving car, assembled by figure 02 style robots, though a drive thru with AI ordering, then we aren't even cl
by _ea1k 2y ago
If the average person has still not ridden a self driving car, assembled by figure 02 style robots, though a drive thru with AI ordering, then we aren't even close to seeing the real peak here.
>100x growth ahead for sure.
- rco8786 2y agoAuthor not claiming AI has peaked. Only claiming that the hype as peaked.
- _ea1k 2y agoI came close to adding a paragraph about that. Inevitably someone would argue that there's a difference between hype peaking and 100x future growth. Regardless of whether that distinction is useful, the author makes some fairly specific claims about inelasticity of demand, and seems only to lack confidence regarding the timing of Nvidia's fall not its inevitability. I disagree with all of that.
- vessenes 2y agoWhat’s crazy is we are very close to this right now. Esp if you count industrial robots - byd is almost totally autonomous production, I believe Tesla is close as well.
- _ea1k 2y agoIndeed. TBH, I also wasn't thinking about Boston Dynamics. Their Atlas robot looks really impressive. It is easy to imagine an almost 100% automated factory in the not-too-distant future.
- khrbrt 2y agoNone of those cases are "generative" AI.
- _ea1k 2y agoWe can debate the definition of generate, but it doesn't seem important. A key claim was that nvidia's stock price decline is inevitable, with the only question being timing. Meanwhile all of these other use cases will drive demand anyway. But honestly, even chat apps are nowhere near their peak. Hallucinations and fine tuning issues are holding that segment back. There's a lot of growth potential there too as confidence and training help to increase adoption.
- hylaride 2y agoMost people (in the world) hadn't been on the internet in 2000 when the dot-com crash happened. Barely half the US population was even online at that point. We're probably nowhere near the peak of AI ability or usage, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been a lot of mal-investment or that things can't commodify. Huge amounts internet growth still happened after the 2000 crash, but networking gear and fiber optic networking became a commodity play, meaning the ROI shifted. The companies that survived ended up piggybacking the over-investment on the cheap, including Amazon and Google. Even going way back, the real productive growth of the American railroads didn't happen until after the panic of 1873 after overbuilding was rationalized.
- _ea1k 2y agoAgreed, and good reminder that a lot of people here have probably only learned about the dot-com crash from comments and history. I remember when Cisco had a P/E in the hundreds during that era. People have forgotten just how stratospheric some of those valuations were back then. I hate to say "this time is different", but it really doesn't feel the same way, at least in public equities. nvidia has a high stock price, but they also have a P/E of ~36. Meanwhile, modern Cisco is ~27. There might be some parallels though. OpenAI as modern Netscape might not be that far off.
- freejazz 2y agoYeah... the public equities.
- rchaud 2y agoCisco makes network equipment (selling shovels in a gold rush), so a high valuation at the time wasn't out of the ordinary, considering Cisco was actually profitable during the dotcom boom, when many newly public companies were 'pre-revenue'. I think of it as similar to Nvidia, who also sells shovels.