3 ms·

> I'm worried that the seven companies that comprise 35% of the S&P 500 are headed for bankruptcy, as soon as someone makes them stop passing around the same $1

> I'm worried that the seven companies that comprise 35% of the S&P 500 are headed for bankruptcy, as soon as someone makes them stop passing around the same $100b IOU while pretending it's in all their bank accounts at once. What makes this author so convinced that these companies are headed for bankruptcy? Is it possible to bet on this claim? We can come back 2-3 years later to check if even one of them is bankrupt. This kind of doomerism is strange and I'm concerned for people who fall for such obviously nonsensical takes. Why do people take this person seriously again?

ceejayoz 6mo ago
What good is a bet you won't be able to collect on if it happens?
- simianwords 6mo ago
  Why can't I collect on it?
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    Betting on systemic collapse of society has a challenge at the winnings collection point. "Here's your trillion dollars. Go buy a slice of bread. Ooops… half slice. Well, quarter."
    - simianwords 6mo ago
      huh? he can just short the companies he's so concerned about
      - vrganj 6mo ago
        What good is that if the entire socioeconomic system collapses?
        simianwords 6mo ago
        by shorting he can make money and give it back?
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        Yeah, except the money you made is now worthless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_one_hundred_trillion_dollar_note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_one_hundred_trillio...
        simianwords 6mo ago
        That’s not what would happen if he shorts it. It would be like 2008 recession where people did make money. In fact shorting is the moral thing to do now because it nudges towards bankruptcy faster
        reverius42 6mo ago
        Unfortunately the market can stay irrational longer than you* can stay solvent. * For most definitions of "you"
sn0wr8ven 6mo ago
They are not convinced, simply worried. If you look at Nvidia, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, etc that is sort of passing around 100B usd without it actually resulting in anything being produced, it becomes worrying. I don't think the author is convinced, simply worried. Specifically, it is the act of "I will invest 100 Billion in you, you will use that money to buy 100 Billion worth of goods from me. Both our balances look good, none of us spent anything." As I understand it, this act isn't so uncommon in finances but never on this scale across this many companies.
- simianwords 6mo ago
  Do you actually think nothing is being produced?
  - vrganj 6mo ago
    If I give you an IOU for 10 bucks and you give me one in return, did we just produce 20 bucks?
    - simianwords 6mo ago
      That's not what is happening and frankly surprised that people believe this stuff
      - vrganj 6mo ago
        That is precisely what is happening. https://www.barrons.com/articles/nvidia-microsoft-openai-circular-financing-ai-bubble-5d9a4e7 https://www.barrons.com/articles/nvidia-microsoft-openai-cir...
        simianwords 6mo ago
        doesn't open
        deleted 6mo ago
LogicFailsMe 6mo ago
I think you really need to have boots on the ground in the AI cinematic universe to keep up and separate the wheat from the chatGPT. It's moving fast, warts and all, and I agree with Jensen Huang's take that we don't even need further advances in the technology to base a new industrial revolution on it. But it's pointless to argue with the extremists that either believe it's just a planet killing stochastic parrot or that it's on the verge of becoming Skynet. I mean if someone puts their nuclear arsenal under the control of openclaw, that's dark comedy although it will seem like tragedy at the time because comedy equals tragedy plus time according to Lenny Bruce. But the AI bubble is probably real w/r to shoe companies and grocery stores pivoting to AI and ludicrous w/r to the money that can be made by the already entrenched players just riding the wave of deployment and specialization. But wouldn't it be nice if the US spent more money addressing the shortage of compute rather than blowing $h!+ up for the lulz?
- simianwords 6mo ago
  > But wouldn't it be nice if the US spent more money addressing the shortage of compute rather than blowing $h!+ up for the lulz? No actually. The best way to ensure growth is in exactly these kind of industries that promote innovation. Sure some companies don't make it but that's the price to pay for risks. This is a classic case of optimising for the short term and forgetting the long term benefits
  - LogicFailsMe 6mo ago
    So you're saying starting opt-in wars and blowing shit up is sound economic policy for the long run? Gonna disagree. I think the long view is unbounded compute. But I also believe it doesn't take up all that much space, and that we already have the technology to power it if we weren't squandering our impulse cash on dumb shit like subsidizing coal and wars of peacocking.
    - simianwords 6mo ago
      Where did I suggest starting opt-in wars?

ceejayoz 6mo ago

What good is a bet you won't be able to collect on if it happens?

simianwords 6mo ago
Why can't I collect on it?
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  Betting on systemic collapse of society has a challenge at the winnings collection point. "Here's your trillion dollars. Go buy a slice of bread. Ooops… half slice. Well, quarter."
  - simianwords 6mo ago
    huh? he can just short the companies he's so concerned about
    - vrganj 6mo ago
      What good is that if the entire socioeconomic system collapses?
      - simianwords 6mo ago
        by shorting he can make money and give it back?
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
        Yeah, except the money you made is now worthless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_one_hundred_trillion_dollar_note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_one_hundred_trillio...
        simianwords 6mo ago
        That’s not what would happen if he shorts it. It would be like 2008 recession where people did make money. In fact shorting is the moral thing to do now because it nudges towards bankruptcy faster
        reverius42 6mo ago
        Unfortunately the market can stay irrational longer than you* can stay solvent. * For most definitions of "you"

sn0wr8ven 6mo ago

They are not convinced, simply worried. If you look at Nvidia, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, etc that is sort of passing around 100B usd without it actually resulting in anything being produced, it becomes worrying. I don't think the author is convinced, simply worried. Specifically, it is the act of "I will invest 100 Billion in you, you will use that money to buy 100 Billion worth of goods from me. Both our balances look good, none of us spent anything." As I understand it, this act isn't so uncommon in finances but never on this scale across this many companies.

simianwords 6mo ago
Do you actually think nothing is being produced?
- vrganj 6mo ago
  If I give you an IOU for 10 bucks and you give me one in return, did we just produce 20 bucks?
  - simianwords 6mo ago
    That's not what is happening and frankly surprised that people believe this stuff
    - vrganj 6mo ago
      That is precisely what is happening. https://www.barrons.com/articles/nvidia-microsoft-openai-circular-financing-ai-bubble-5d9a4e7 https://www.barrons.com/articles/nvidia-microsoft-openai-cir...
      - simianwords 6mo ago
        doesn't open
        deleted 6mo ago

LogicFailsMe 6mo ago

I think you really need to have boots on the ground in the AI cinematic universe to keep up and separate the wheat from the chatGPT. It's moving fast, warts and all, and I agree with Jensen Huang's take that we don't even need further advances in the technology to base a new industrial revolution on it. But it's pointless to argue with the extremists that either believe it's just a planet killing stochastic parrot or that it's on the verge of becoming Skynet. I mean if someone puts their nuclear arsenal under the control of openclaw, that's dark comedy although it will seem like tragedy at the time because comedy equals tragedy plus time according to Lenny Bruce. But the AI bubble is probably real w/r to shoe companies and grocery stores pivoting to AI and ludicrous w/r to the money that can be made by the already entrenched players just riding the wave of deployment and specialization. But wouldn't it be nice if the US spent more money addressing the shortage of compute rather than blowing $h!+ up for the lulz?

simianwords 6mo ago
> But wouldn't it be nice if the US spent more money addressing the shortage of compute rather than blowing $h!+ up for the lulz? No actually. The best way to ensure growth is in exactly these kind of industries that promote innovation. Sure some companies don't make it but that's the price to pay for risks. This is a classic case of optimising for the short term and forgetting the long term benefits
- LogicFailsMe 6mo ago
  So you're saying starting opt-in wars and blowing shit up is sound economic policy for the long run? Gonna disagree. I think the long view is unbounded compute. But I also believe it doesn't take up all that much space, and that we already have the technology to power it if we weren't squandering our impulse cash on dumb shit like subsidizing coal and wars of peacocking.
  - simianwords 6mo ago
    Where did I suggest starting opt-in wars?