3 ms·

I largely agree. I don't think AI is ultimately useless, but I think it's about 10% as useful as the broader market seems to think it is. That said, every time

I largely agree. I don't think AI is ultimately useless, but I think it's about 10% as useful as the broader market seems to think it is. That said, every time I see another article like this, I think to myself "well it's not going to come crashing down any time soon". This is the nature of bubbles - they only collapse when nearly everyone is finally convinced they never will. Right now, stories about the AI bubble collapsing are everywhere, which means the time hasn't come yet. I have an idea that the market may actually start to react positively to bad job numbers, as that could be taken as a signal that companies are shedding people to replace them with AI (even if that's not the actual reason for the bad numbers). If job numbers started suddenly improving and the unemployment rate dropping, it could be taken to mean that AI is not going to replace everyone after all.

sahila 1y ago
> they only collapse when nearly everyone is finally convinced they never will I get that rationale in some bubbles as that means people are not parking their money as cash where they can buy the dip and support the market (tell me if I'm widely off). But I think this case is different because there's actually VAST sums of money being spent in AI by some very big players who will need an return.