9 ms·

Cursor burning cash to subsidize Anthropic's losses to subsidize Amazon's compute investments is their problem, not mine. The people writing all of these "AI i

Cursor burning cash to subsidize Anthropic's losses to subsidize Amazon's compute investments is their problem, not mine. The people writing all of these "AI is unprofitable" pieces are doing financial journalism similar to analyzing the dot-com bubble by looking at pets.com's burn rate. The infra overspend was real as well as the bankruptcies, but it existentially foolish for a business to ignore the behavioral shift that was taking place. I have to constant remind myself to stop arguing and evangelizing about AI. There is a growing crowd who insists that AI is a waste of money and that AI cannot do things I'm already doing on a daily basis. Every minute spent explaining to AI skeptics is a minute not spent actually capitalizing on the asymmetry. They don't want to hear it anyway and I have little incentive to convince anyone otherwise. The companies bleeding money to serve AI below cost prices won't last, but thats all more the reason use them now while they're cheap.

uludag 1y ago
I think the main fear is that these products will become so enshitified and engrained into everywhere that, looking back, we'll be wishing we didn't depend so much on the technology. For example, the Overton window around social media has shifted so much to the point that it's pretty normal to hear views that social media is a net negative to society and we'd be better off without it. Obviously the goal of these companies is to generate as much profit as possible as soon as possible. They will turn the tables eventually. The asymmetry will go in the opposite direction, maybe to the extend that one takes advantage of the current asymmetry.
- Jimmc414 1y ago
  I don't disagree with anything you've said.
watwut 1y ago
But back then, you was better off not depending on pet.com. If products of one of those vaporware companies became important in your process, your company went down along with. Those were companies that had multiple expensive IT restructurings one after another, each making them more innefective and then either run out of cash or barely made it. It worked well for companies that were choosing smart.

uludag 1y ago

I think the main fear is that these products will become so enshitified and engrained into everywhere that, looking back, we'll be wishing we didn't depend so much on the technology. For example, the Overton window around social media has shifted so much to the point that it's pretty normal to hear views that social media is a net negative to society and we'd be better off without it. Obviously the goal of these companies is to generate as much profit as possible as soon as possible. They will turn the tables eventually. The asymmetry will go in the opposite direction, maybe to the extend that one takes advantage of the current asymmetry.

Jimmc414 1y ago
I don't disagree with anything you've said.

watwut 1y ago

But back then, you was better off not depending on pet.com. If products of one of those vaporware companies became important in your process, your company went down along with. Those were companies that had multiple expensive IT restructurings one after another, each making them more innefective and then either run out of cash or barely made it. It worked well for companies that were choosing smart.