4 ms·

The argument seems to be that Metaverse was a flop and FB did bad stuff, therefore AI will be a flop. That's certainly ... words.

butthecerntainy 7mo ago
The more charitable take is that Big Tech has a track record of branding the 'future' primarily to manufacture FOMO, only for the reality to fall significantly short of the hype.
- SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
  The author could have made that argument, if she had wanted to, but the actual piece as written does not make it. There’s very little discussion of AI being overhyped in some concrete way, and quite a lot of discussion of various bad deeds committed by “tech” and “tech billionaires”.
  - hirako2000 7mo ago
    Some articles are concern trolling. Otherwise would have touched on circular investments.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
Juliate 7mo ago
She says something more structural than that: there's a pattern, sold by the same people, with the same contempt to social consequences and democratic rules: GenAI, multiverse, NFTs, cryptos; what else next? Incidentally, each "wave" justifies massive investment in the same technology: GPUs, for transformations that do not materialise _at scale_. That raises the questions: why? Who captures the value? Who bears the cost? Why are we always skipping the audit? What happens when the "GPU bubble" bursts?
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- layer8 7mo ago
  I don’t think the “GPU bubble” will burst, because linear algebra is widely applicable. It’s no particular mystery that GPUs have found universal applications. I feel sympathetic towards your first paragraph, but there is no conspiracy behind the success of GPUs.
  - Juliate 7mo ago
    I don't mean burst like that (neither a conspiracy), rather a striking coincidence: there are huge applications for GPUs, true. But the inflation of expectations and investments in them because of GenAI, when this inflation bursts may impact everything and everyone.
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  Anti-tech critics love to cherry-pick overhyped tech from the past and then pretend like it was the only technology investments occurring. It's always the same story about crypto, NFTs, multiverse, then they draw a line to the new thing. Rewind the clock further and the contrarian play was to talk about how WebVan and Pets.com failed, proving that internet commerce was a fad that was going away. There were so many identical stories about how dumb investors were to be spending money on e-commerce after Pets.com and WebVan proved that nobody wanted to shop online and that delivery was unworkable. More recently I remember the endless stories about how ride sharing was going to fail and Uber and Lyft were going to disappear after the VC money ran out. There were blogs just like this one predicting that those dumb investors were going to lose all their money on such a stupid idea. This type of contrarian reporting always operates on a sliding window of recent failures, trying to convince you that the current thing they're on about is identical to past failures These articles get traction on HN, but when I read them there isn't a coherent argument inside. It's just a collection of different headlines and stories meant to imply that AI is bad across the board and nobody wants it, but there isn't an argument being formed. It's appealing to those who already have the conclusion in mind, but there is no convincing argument in this post
Mordisquitos 7mo ago
The argument is that Metaverse, as presented by its billionaire promoters as a paradigm shift, even though the public hated that vision, was a flop, therefore AI as presented by its billionaire promoters as a paradigm shift will be a flop, because the public hates that vision.
- shermantanktop 7mo ago
  That’s fine but it’s about perception, argument and sentiment. It’s not about the actual technology, which has the final say.
  - Juliate 7mo ago
    Market has the final say, not tech. If no one uses/buys the tech, as investor or customer... it won't feed anyone.
    - shermantanktop 7mo ago
      Sure, but the market is often bamboozled in the short term. Hence crypto stocks and Super Bowl ads about nfts. The “market” was 100% wrong about the long term value of the tech. My point was that what a bunch of people say about tech is forgotten over time and the actual value of the tech emerges. You want to describe that in market valuation terms, fine.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]

butthecerntainy 7mo ago

The more charitable take is that Big Tech has a track record of branding the 'future' primarily to manufacture FOMO, only for the reality to fall significantly short of the hype.

SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago
The author could have made that argument, if she had wanted to, but the actual piece as written does not make it. There’s very little discussion of AI being overhyped in some concrete way, and quite a lot of discussion of various bad deeds committed by “tech” and “tech billionaires”.
- hirako2000 7mo ago
  Some articles are concern trolling. Otherwise would have touched on circular investments.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]

Juliate 7mo ago

She says something more structural than that: there's a pattern, sold by the same people, with the same contempt to social consequences and democratic rules: GenAI, multiverse, NFTs, cryptos; what else next? Incidentally, each "wave" justifies massive investment in the same technology: GPUs, for transformations that do not materialise _at scale_. That raises the questions: why? Who captures the value? Who bears the cost? Why are we always skipping the audit? What happens when the "GPU bubble" bursts?

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
layer8 7mo ago
I don’t think the “GPU bubble” will burst, because linear algebra is widely applicable. It’s no particular mystery that GPUs have found universal applications. I feel sympathetic towards your first paragraph, but there is no conspiracy behind the success of GPUs.
- Juliate 7mo ago
  I don't mean burst like that (neither a conspiracy), rather a striking coincidence: there are huge applications for GPUs, true. But the inflation of expectations and investments in them because of GenAI, when this inflation bursts may impact everything and everyone.
Aurornis 7mo ago
Anti-tech critics love to cherry-pick overhyped tech from the past and then pretend like it was the only technology investments occurring. It's always the same story about crypto, NFTs, multiverse, then they draw a line to the new thing. Rewind the clock further and the contrarian play was to talk about how WebVan and Pets.com failed, proving that internet commerce was a fad that was going away. There were so many identical stories about how dumb investors were to be spending money on e-commerce after Pets.com and WebVan proved that nobody wanted to shop online and that delivery was unworkable. More recently I remember the endless stories about how ride sharing was going to fail and Uber and Lyft were going to disappear after the VC money ran out. There were blogs just like this one predicting that those dumb investors were going to lose all their money on such a stupid idea. This type of contrarian reporting always operates on a sliding window of recent failures, trying to convince you that the current thing they're on about is identical to past failures These articles get traction on HN, but when I read them there isn't a coherent argument inside. It's just a collection of different headlines and stories meant to imply that AI is bad across the board and nobody wants it, but there isn't an argument being formed. It's appealing to those who already have the conclusion in mind, but there is no convincing argument in this post

Mordisquitos 7mo ago

The argument is that Metaverse, as presented by its billionaire promoters as a paradigm shift, even though the public hated that vision, was a flop, therefore AI as presented by its billionaire promoters as a paradigm shift will be a flop, because the public hates that vision.

shermantanktop 7mo ago
That’s fine but it’s about perception, argument and sentiment. It’s not about the actual technology, which has the final say.
- Juliate 7mo ago
  Market has the final say, not tech. If no one uses/buys the tech, as investor or customer... it won't feed anyone.
  - shermantanktop 7mo ago
    Sure, but the market is often bamboozled in the short term. Hence crypto stocks and Super Bowl ads about nfts. The “market” was 100% wrong about the long term value of the tech. My point was that what a bunch of people say about tech is forgotten over time and the actual value of the tech emerges. You want to describe that in market valuation terms, fine.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]