3 ms·

Big Tech's AI Push Is Costing More Than the Moon Landing

54 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7 9mo ago

ksec 9mo ago
One of the them is a one shot project and one of them is an infrastructure project being used by billions. It makes a nice headline but not a decent comparison. On another note I wish there is some break down of where all the spendings goes to. GPU, CPU, RAM, Network, Switch, Cables, Power, Datacenter. The AI ecosystem and business is larger than Smartphone revolution kick started by Apple, but unlike Smartphone or consumer products these Hyperscaler and AI spending right now it is very opaque.
- trescenzi 9mo ago
  The moon landing led to a huge amount of infrastructure and inventions which now power the modern world. The moon landing was the marketing moment. The buildout of space tech and creation of industry was the actual goal.
  - somewhereoutth 9mo ago
    specifically to keep up with the Soviet Union. Sputnik 'concentrated a lot of minds' as they say.
zug_zug 9mo ago
Well… maybe making thinking machines mass produced is actually a more amazing project than the moon landing Just need to make sure the wealth is spread equally
- JKCalhoun 9mo ago
  > Well… maybe making thinking machines mass produced… Now if we could only make thinking machines. ;-) (Kind of surprised at all the negging of moon landings in this thread. Maybe I'm just of an older generation. At least one other post here points out all the spinoffs in regard to integrated circuits, etc. that came from the previous apace race.)
  - zug_zug 9mo ago
    To be clear I’m not negging the moon landing. I just think it may only Be humanity’s second greatest achievement But thinking machines, even if they only have an IQ of 70 right now, even if they may end humanity, are still a technological marvel on the order of splitting the atom
    - JKCalhoun 9mo ago
      I see your point then. Somehow this doesn't feel like the same kind of achievement though. We had the whole of the country pulling for the moon landing. Instead we have a handful of CEO's schmoozing Wall Street, raping the power grid, making hardware unobtainium for the rest of us for this "moon shot". We chose to go to the moon because it was hard. We choose to build AI because it will make corporate America rich? (Somehow doesn't have the same ring to it in Peoria.) And as we have already seen, the downsides of AI are extensive—they may turn out to outweigh the benefits? Other than cost, it's hard to find a downside to the moon landing.
      - binary132 9mo ago
        I think these people are either bots or paid shills. No other sane explanation for thinking gloried chatbots are better than the space race. It’s not in good faith. Mods do nothing and get mad if you spend too much energy pointing it out.
        JKCalhoun 9mo ago
        I give at least this poster the benefit of the doubt that they're describing something akin to HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey (which we clearly don't yet have). But I suspect they think we're on the cusp of that breakthrough and it will overshadow Apollo in the long term.
        zug_zug 9mo ago
        No I'm not saying we're no the cusp of anything necessarily. I'm saying that the best current AI probably has an IQ of at least 60-70, and that is more impressive than getting a few people on the moon for a few hours. As far as I'm concerned we've made another thinking mind, it's not exactly creating life from nothing, but it's pretty close.
- dyauspitr 9mo ago
  Spoiler alert: The wealth will not be spread equally until there is violence to demand it and that’s not going to happen because the “overlords” will make sure people have just enough to get by. To be fair, I don’t think distributing wealth equally even makes sense but we should definitely aim for distributing wealth in a way that most people can get through life with all their basic needs comfortably met.
- ratatatatata 9mo ago
  [dead]
- mbgerring 9mo ago
  The wealth will not be spread equally. The way we’re building all of this infrastructure is designed to prevent that.
- bigstrat2003 9mo ago
  Considering that we are not making thinking machines, the AI push doesn't really compare favorably.
- estimator7292 9mo ago
  This may genuinely be one of the most deaf and naïve take I've ever seen on this website. Good job!
xhkkffbf 9mo ago
The moon landing was cool, but all we got were some neat imagery and some rocks. And we've even managed to lose some of the rocks because they were that special. At least with the AIs, we're getting something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_Moon_rocks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_Moon_rocks.
mock-possum 9mo ago
Okay but I can actually use AI, whereas I’ve only seen pictures someone else going to the moon. Also the US and the Soviet Union raced to get to the moon first, but the whole internet-connected world gets LLMs right now.
mbgerring 9mo ago
We could have spent this money and labor on decarbonization, and our failure to do so will have vast, multi-generational consequences. The effort to drive carbon emissions to 0 continues in earnest, but climate chaos is already here, and at this rate it’s going to get much worse before we finally take this problem seriously.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  We couldn't, because we don't have it. They have it. We gave it to them and let them keep it.
  - nine_zeros 9mo ago
    Yep. The money exists but in the hands of the people who don't want to improve the lives of the many.
- simianwords 9mo ago
  Not really. It won’t have much multi generational consequences. Isn’t it good people didnt think this way when the internet revolution happened? One could’ve rationalised not building out the internet because of supposed scare of climate change. But the gains we got from internet far surpassed any climate related problems.
fennecbutt 9mo ago
Yeah but wasn't the moon landing funded by hard cash? AI stuff (and tbh all silicon valley tech companies even outside AI) all seem to be funded by the theoretical valuation of various companies and barely any of it is hard cash. All stock deals and dog food.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
kajolshah_bt 9mo ago
The spending numbers are wild. More than the moon landing and we’re mostly using it to autocomplete emails and generate slide decks. That doesn’t mean it’s useless. It just means the infrastructure is way ahead of the everyday experience. What I keep noticing is that the big breakthroughs aren’t coming from bigger models. They’re coming from very specific product decisions. Things like: – Apps that understand context without you re-explaining everything – Interfaces that predict what you need before you type – Systems that remove 3–4 manual steps That’s where the real shift is happening. If all this spending just results in faster chatbots, the market will correct hard. But if it turns into software that genuinely reduces friction in daily work, then the long term value will be justified. I wrote about this recently: what features will mobile apps need in 2026 if they don’t want to loose users. Most of it has nothing to do with flashy demos and everything to do with removing invisible friction. Do others here think spending is ahead of product reality or if we’re underestimating what’s quietly being built?

54 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7 9mo ago

ksec 9mo ago

One of the them is a one shot project and one of them is an infrastructure project being used by billions. It makes a nice headline but not a decent comparison. On another note I wish there is some break down of where all the spendings goes to. GPU, CPU, RAM, Network, Switch, Cables, Power, Datacenter. The AI ecosystem and business is larger than Smartphone revolution kick started by Apple, but unlike Smartphone or consumer products these Hyperscaler and AI spending right now it is very opaque.

trescenzi 9mo ago
The moon landing led to a huge amount of infrastructure and inventions which now power the modern world. The moon landing was the marketing moment. The buildout of space tech and creation of industry was the actual goal.
- somewhereoutth 9mo ago
  specifically to keep up with the Soviet Union. Sputnik 'concentrated a lot of minds' as they say.

zug_zug 9mo ago

Well… maybe making thinking machines mass produced is actually a more amazing project than the moon landing Just need to make sure the wealth is spread equally

JKCalhoun 9mo ago
> Well… maybe making thinking machines mass produced… Now if we could only make thinking machines. ;-) (Kind of surprised at all the negging of moon landings in this thread. Maybe I'm just of an older generation. At least one other post here points out all the spinoffs in regard to integrated circuits, etc. that came from the previous apace race.)
- zug_zug 9mo ago
  To be clear I’m not negging the moon landing. I just think it may only Be humanity’s second greatest achievement But thinking machines, even if they only have an IQ of 70 right now, even if they may end humanity, are still a technological marvel on the order of splitting the atom
  - JKCalhoun 9mo ago
    I see your point then. Somehow this doesn't feel like the same kind of achievement though. We had the whole of the country pulling for the moon landing. Instead we have a handful of CEO's schmoozing Wall Street, raping the power grid, making hardware unobtainium for the rest of us for this "moon shot". We chose to go to the moon because it was hard. We choose to build AI because it will make corporate America rich? (Somehow doesn't have the same ring to it in Peoria.) And as we have already seen, the downsides of AI are extensive—they may turn out to outweigh the benefits? Other than cost, it's hard to find a downside to the moon landing.
    - binary132 9mo ago
      I think these people are either bots or paid shills. No other sane explanation for thinking gloried chatbots are better than the space race. It’s not in good faith. Mods do nothing and get mad if you spend too much energy pointing it out.
      - JKCalhoun 9mo ago
        I give at least this poster the benefit of the doubt that they're describing something akin to HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey (which we clearly don't yet have). But I suspect they think we're on the cusp of that breakthrough and it will overshadow Apollo in the long term.
        zug_zug 9mo ago
        No I'm not saying we're no the cusp of anything necessarily. I'm saying that the best current AI probably has an IQ of at least 60-70, and that is more impressive than getting a few people on the moon for a few hours. As far as I'm concerned we've made another thinking mind, it's not exactly creating life from nothing, but it's pretty close.
dyauspitr 9mo ago
Spoiler alert: The wealth will not be spread equally until there is violence to demand it and that’s not going to happen because the “overlords” will make sure people have just enough to get by. To be fair, I don’t think distributing wealth equally even makes sense but we should definitely aim for distributing wealth in a way that most people can get through life with all their basic needs comfortably met.
ratatatatata 9mo ago
[dead]
mbgerring 9mo ago
The wealth will not be spread equally. The way we’re building all of this infrastructure is designed to prevent that.
bigstrat2003 9mo ago
Considering that we are not making thinking machines, the AI push doesn't really compare favorably.
estimator7292 9mo ago
This may genuinely be one of the most deaf and naïve take I've ever seen on this website. Good job!

xhkkffbf 9mo ago

The moon landing was cool, but all we got were some neat imagery and some rocks. And we've even managed to lose some of the rocks because they were that special. At least with the AIs, we're getting something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_Moon_rocks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_Moon_rocks.

mock-possum 9mo ago

Okay but I can actually use AI, whereas I’ve only seen pictures someone else going to the moon. Also the US and the Soviet Union raced to get to the moon first, but the whole internet-connected world gets LLMs right now.

mbgerring 9mo ago

We could have spent this money and labor on decarbonization, and our failure to do so will have vast, multi-generational consequences. The effort to drive carbon emissions to 0 continues in earnest, but climate chaos is already here, and at this rate it’s going to get much worse before we finally take this problem seriously.

direwolf20 9mo ago
We couldn't, because we don't have it. They have it. We gave it to them and let them keep it.
- nine_zeros 9mo ago
  Yep. The money exists but in the hands of the people who don't want to improve the lives of the many.
simianwords 9mo ago
Not really. It won’t have much multi generational consequences. Isn’t it good people didnt think this way when the internet revolution happened? One could’ve rationalised not building out the internet because of supposed scare of climate change. But the gains we got from internet far surpassed any climate related problems.

fennecbutt 9mo ago

Yeah but wasn't the moon landing funded by hard cash? AI stuff (and tbh all silicon valley tech companies even outside AI) all seem to be funded by the theoretical valuation of various companies and barely any of it is hard cash. All stock deals and dog food.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

kajolshah_bt 9mo ago

The spending numbers are wild. More than the moon landing and we’re mostly using it to autocomplete emails and generate slide decks. That doesn’t mean it’s useless. It just means the infrastructure is way ahead of the everyday experience. What I keep noticing is that the big breakthroughs aren’t coming from bigger models. They’re coming from very specific product decisions. Things like: – Apps that understand context without you re-explaining everything – Interfaces that predict what you need before you type – Systems that remove 3–4 manual steps That’s where the real shift is happening. If all this spending just results in faster chatbots, the market will correct hard. But if it turns into software that genuinely reduces friction in daily work, then the long term value will be justified. I wrote about this recently: what features will mobile apps need in 2026 if they don’t want to loose users. Most of it has nothing to do with flashy demos and everything to do with removing invisible friction. Do others here think spending is ahead of product reality or if we’re underestimating what’s quietly being built?