3 ms·

The value can be incredibly high... just like the value of the internet was incredibly high.. and it can still be a finanfial bubble. I feel like the people arg

by redwood 11mo ago

The value can be incredibly high... just like the value of the internet was incredibly high.. and it can still be a finanfial bubble. I feel like the people arguing against the bubble perspective are saying look the internet was actually valuable and so too will this.. and that's totally a valid perspective. The bubble is not about whether there's value but about whether or not the market will come down. All of the above can totally happen

worik 11mo ago
> The value of modern AI seems very hig Very useful, clearly. But valuable? In aggregate it seems clear that it is. But where does that value acrue? It seems to me the value will be thinly spread while the costs are concentrated. It does not seem possible that any conceivable business can pay for all the announced plans for developing data centres, nor energy available to power them. If AI systems can be developed to be trust worthy enough to act on their own, none so far (?), then I can see where the value could acrue, but as things stand?
- mmooss 11mo ago
  > It seems to me the value will be thinly spread while the costs are concentrated. Won't the value will be concentrated in the few with the scale to build competitive AIs? In a sense, costs are spread thinly across the content creators whose work has been stolen. (But of course, it is indeed incredibly concentrated in building datacenters.)
  - worik 11mo ago
    > content creators whose work has been stolen. The law is an ass. Current IP laws are too restrictive, but scraping public facing websites is not theft even under those crazy laws I have no moral objection to the use of Anna's Archive to train models. A good use, if illegal. But I do recogise and condemn the hypocrisy of Meta doing it. Not surprising, just disgusting The wasting of bandwidth is annoying, so silly. We should be better organized Calling it theft is buying into the mad bad and sad IP legal thinking that has become the dominant paradigm in the West
    - mmooss 11mo ago
      In a way, I agree with your last sentence. But there is a difference, and that is power. As a simplistic hypothesis: The already-powerful and super-wealthy taking all that IP from the small content creators is theft, IMHO. The small content creators who can't afford JSTOR finding some free source for a paper, etc. is democratic, empowering, and enriches our society.
  - worik 11mo ago
    > Won't the value will be concentrated in the few with the scale to build competitive AIs? No. Open AI and their ilk can sell tokens, but how much business is there in that? Trillions? If not, they're bankrupt. Dead man walking. Zombie The open and free models are very capable and getting better. If there is a breakthrough beyond transformers and neural nets that means trustworthy AI that can be agentic (does not exist, the "trustworthy" part) then it will be exponentially more valuable. But that was as likely in 2020 as in 2030. Meanwhile something like 10% of the USA electricity supply is being "committed" to datacenters and no practical plans to supply it Meanwhile the Chinese are leaping ahead and in a more community orientated open way. The cognitive dissonance is quite loud for that one!
pegasus 11mo ago
Yep. It seems somewhat inevitable to have a readjustment at some point. Both Web 2.0 (online retail) and AI are (rightfully, I believe) creating a lot of buzz and stimulating a lot of investment. It's all very new and exciting and there is bound to be a lot of hit and miss activity. Once the dust settles, the misguided bets will become more obvious and there will be a culling, just as we had during the dot com bubble.
mmooss 11mo ago
An essential point.
spectralista 11mo ago
I worry that it is not a valid perspective and that the bubble dynamics are being driven exactly by this sentiment. We are pricing in the hollywood version of AI we don't have as if it is the internet. I communicated with people exactly like what I am doing right now in this post on usenet in 1995. Message boards by 1997. The internet bubble wasn't based on some wild virtual reality version of the internet that hadn't been invented yet. It is a categorically different process at work here. This bubble is far more insane and speculative since we don't have what we are pricing in. We don't even really know what we are pricing in besides some vague notation of an inevitable "AGI".

by redwood 11mo ago

worik 11mo ago

> The value of modern AI seems very hig Very useful, clearly. But valuable? In aggregate it seems clear that it is. But where does that value acrue? It seems to me the value will be thinly spread while the costs are concentrated. It does not seem possible that any conceivable business can pay for all the announced plans for developing data centres, nor energy available to power them. If AI systems can be developed to be trust worthy enough to act on their own, none so far (?), then I can see where the value could acrue, but as things stand?

mmooss 11mo ago
> It seems to me the value will be thinly spread while the costs are concentrated. Won't the value will be concentrated in the few with the scale to build competitive AIs? In a sense, costs are spread thinly across the content creators whose work has been stolen. (But of course, it is indeed incredibly concentrated in building datacenters.)
- worik 11mo ago
  > content creators whose work has been stolen. The law is an ass. Current IP laws are too restrictive, but scraping public facing websites is not theft even under those crazy laws I have no moral objection to the use of Anna's Archive to train models. A good use, if illegal. But I do recogise and condemn the hypocrisy of Meta doing it. Not surprising, just disgusting The wasting of bandwidth is annoying, so silly. We should be better organized Calling it theft is buying into the mad bad and sad IP legal thinking that has become the dominant paradigm in the West
  - mmooss 11mo ago
    In a way, I agree with your last sentence. But there is a difference, and that is power. As a simplistic hypothesis: The already-powerful and super-wealthy taking all that IP from the small content creators is theft, IMHO. The small content creators who can't afford JSTOR finding some free source for a paper, etc. is democratic, empowering, and enriches our society.
- worik 11mo ago
  > Won't the value will be concentrated in the few with the scale to build competitive AIs? No. Open AI and their ilk can sell tokens, but how much business is there in that? Trillions? If not, they're bankrupt. Dead man walking. Zombie The open and free models are very capable and getting better. If there is a breakthrough beyond transformers and neural nets that means trustworthy AI that can be agentic (does not exist, the "trustworthy" part) then it will be exponentially more valuable. But that was as likely in 2020 as in 2030. Meanwhile something like 10% of the USA electricity supply is being "committed" to datacenters and no practical plans to supply it Meanwhile the Chinese are leaping ahead and in a more community orientated open way. The cognitive dissonance is quite loud for that one!

pegasus 11mo ago

Yep. It seems somewhat inevitable to have a readjustment at some point. Both Web 2.0 (online retail) and AI are (rightfully, I believe) creating a lot of buzz and stimulating a lot of investment. It's all very new and exciting and there is bound to be a lot of hit and miss activity. Once the dust settles, the misguided bets will become more obvious and there will be a culling, just as we had during the dot com bubble.

mmooss 11mo ago

An essential point.

spectralista 11mo ago

I worry that it is not a valid perspective and that the bubble dynamics are being driven exactly by this sentiment. We are pricing in the hollywood version of AI we don't have as if it is the internet. I communicated with people exactly like what I am doing right now in this post on usenet in 1995. Message boards by 1997. The internet bubble wasn't based on some wild virtual reality version of the internet that hadn't been invented yet. It is a categorically different process at work here. This bubble is far more insane and speculative since we don't have what we are pricing in. We don't even really know what we are pricing in besides some vague notation of an inevitable "AGI".