3 ms·

His argument is not that AI is not useful, it's that it's not financially sustainable at the current prices being charged for it - and additionally AI start-ups

His argument is not that AI is not useful, it's that it's not financially sustainable at the current prices being charged for it - and additionally AI start-ups have 0 moat. Both of which likely are true.

edstarch 1y ago
Unfortunately, his argument very often happens to be that AI is not useful, that there are no customers for it, that AI coding agents do not work... I happen to agree with the overall sentiment (that AI buildout is overextending the tech sector and the financial markets), but he is utterly fixated on the evils of AI and unable to admit either the current usefulness or the future potential of the technology. This does not make him look like an honest broker. The rambling nature of his posts also makes it harder to properly argue against them as he keeps repeating the same points over and over; some of them are decent but there is certainly a gish gallop feeling to the whole thing.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago
  > Unfortunately, his argument very often happens to be that AI is not useful, that there are no customers for it, that AI coding agents do not work... He definitely changed his mind on AI coding agents based on reader feedback. Ultimately though, you need incredible productivity growth/massive layoffs to make the numbers work for the current spending and RN, I don't see large signs of this. > I happen to agree with the overall sentiment (that AI buildout is overextending the tech sector and the financial markets), but he is utterly fixated on the evils of AI and unable to admit either the current usefulness or the future potential of the technology. This does not make him look like an honest broker. I think this is probably because he feels like he's taking crazy pills when he hears what CEOs/leaders are saying about this. It's some kind of mind virus. Like, I was at a meetup a few months back where a senior data/code person was saying that nobody would write code in 5 years, which (if you've used the tools heavily) seems pretty absurd.

edstarch 1y ago

Unfortunately, his argument very often happens to be that AI is not useful, that there are no customers for it, that AI coding agents do not work... I happen to agree with the overall sentiment (that AI buildout is overextending the tech sector and the financial markets), but he is utterly fixated on the evils of AI and unable to admit either the current usefulness or the future potential of the technology. This does not make him look like an honest broker. The rambling nature of his posts also makes it harder to properly argue against them as he keeps repeating the same points over and over; some of them are decent but there is certainly a gish gallop feeling to the whole thing.

disgruntledphd2 1y ago
> Unfortunately, his argument very often happens to be that AI is not useful, that there are no customers for it, that AI coding agents do not work... He definitely changed his mind on AI coding agents based on reader feedback. Ultimately though, you need incredible productivity growth/massive layoffs to make the numbers work for the current spending and RN, I don't see large signs of this. > I happen to agree with the overall sentiment (that AI buildout is overextending the tech sector and the financial markets), but he is utterly fixated on the evils of AI and unable to admit either the current usefulness or the future potential of the technology. This does not make him look like an honest broker. I think this is probably because he feels like he's taking crazy pills when he hears what CEOs/leaders are saying about this. It's some kind of mind virus. Like, I was at a meetup a few months back where a senior data/code person was saying that nobody would write code in 5 years, which (if you've used the tools heavily) seems pretty absurd.