4 ms·

> Framing it as "desperation" does have some dramatic effect but it says nothing about the potency of the counter-measures being deployed. I don't think it's a

by ericmay 5mo ago

> Framing it as "desperation" does have some dramatic effect but it says nothing about the potency of the counter-measures being deployed. I don't think it's any less potent than other claims that have been made. When you're behind you tend to release stuff for free (Meta comes to mind). > That's the kind of blind faith mixed with self-deception that led to the recent war. I'm not sure why you're bringing Iran into this because I'm not too sure it's relevant, but even so the Iran war was a good idea. You need to free yourself from the short-term political oriented thinking and instead think about this more long-term, strategic, and historical. Iran is firmly in the camp of China and Russia. What better time than now to knock them down severely so that if war comes with one or both China and Russia we have a less capable Iran causing chaos in the Middle East and further disrupting global oil supplies? > Depending on who you ask, "we" are completely dominating "them" but the vast majority of "US" aren't dominating anything, I don't know what this means but I guess it sounds cool. Broadly speaking I did say we were capable of dominating in this space, it's not a sure thing which I would be among the first to admit. > we are being dominated by high gas prices and inflation. There's a lot to unpack here, but suffice to say it's worse for everyone else, including China. MAGA coal rollers pay more at the pump. Whatever. No big deal. > If you knew something about economics, you'd know that the presence of high inflation is a sign of depleted capital markets. Blind faith and reality aren't the same. Can you elaborate? I don't know anything about economics as you said so I'm struggling to understand how "high" inflation of a few percent means the US has depleted capital markets. When were they depleted? For how long will they be depleted? Are you able to answer these questions? > That's the usual war propaganda, full of meaningless generalities, sound bites and straw men. Well it's not really propaganda. There was a thread about it on the front page the other day about college students booing commencement speakers when they talk about artificial intelligence. > The value of technology doesn't exist outside of economics - it's the difference between what it provides and what it costs over the time frame of adoption. Can you be more elaborate? I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't know much about economics. > In other words, rushing a generally good technology can turn it into a monster Sure! So make sure you are continuously clamoring from every corner that China must slow down its adoption of AI.

bigbadfeline 5mo ago
> Sure! So make sure you are continuously clamoring from every corner that China must slow down its adoption of AI. I don't see any signs that China is rushing AI adoption, they are simply trying to stay close enough to the US to counter the obvious and loudly proclaimed existential threat of external domination, words supported by wide-ranging sanctions and tariffs. > I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't know much about economics. That's not unusual and I can't blame anybody, except the professional economists, for the sordid state of econ education in this country. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it less of a deal breaker, one cannot claim to understand the political landscape without understanding economics. Nevertheless, I'll give you a few hints - the rushed buildout of data centers stuffed with expensive GPUs, made in Korea and Taiwan, strains both the semiconductor and energy markets, the prices go up but new production is slow to come and always insufficient. Little or even nothing is gained from the rush, except inflated asset prices (market manipulation) and general inflation. At the same time, the rest of the economy is starved for capital which goes to the semiconductor makers in Korea and Taiwan to pay for $ 1 million bonuses, per worker, per year. The picture is similar on the market for power equipment. War and Hormuz are the icing on the cake. In other words, the rush causes a spike in demand which causes a spike of inflation, like about 500% for RAM and somewhat less for GPUs, the high costs require more capital for the same assets, which depletes the capital markets and the continuous expansion of demand with stagnating production leads to an inflationary spiral. The rushed adoption also causes friction on the labor market where subsided AI is used to fire large number of workers. Looks good in the earnings reports (market manipulation again) but doesn't do anything good for the US economy or population. In this situation, blaming the students cannot be accepted seriously.
- ericmay 5mo ago
  > I don't see any signs that China is rushing AI adoption, they are simply trying to stay close enough to the US to counter the obvious and loudly proclaimed existential threat of being dominated, words supported by wide-ranging sanctions and tariffs. If the US is rushing and China is trying to stay close then it makes sense for them to slow down. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Separately if you're claiming that there's an existential threat of being dominated by the US going too fast you admit both that the US is making significant and important progress on AI which, as the trailing nation, would be concerning, and secondly you admit that the US must also push far and fast because to fall behind simply puts it in China's current position which... is trying to catch up for precisely the same reasons. Your rationale/criticism here doesn't add up. Regarding tariffs, I don't want to re-litigate, though I will if you want, the thousands of conversations that have taken place, but suffice to say China has not been a good actor and has failed to open their markets. Not only the United States but the European Union have taken action specifically against China because of anti-competitive policies. We could quibble about the effectiveness of tariffs - seemingly very effective with respect to China, but it would be unfair to suggest that they sprang up out of nowhere and weren't a response to other actions. > At the same time, the rest of the economy is starved for capital which goes to the semiconductor makers in Korea, Taiwan to pay for $ 1 million bonuses, per worker, per year. The picture is similar on the market for power equipment. War and Hormuz are the icing on the cake. That just seems like a rather routine labor dispute. Workers want higher shares of the profits. So what? > The rushed adoption also causes friction on the labor market where subsided AI is used to fire large number of workers. Looks good in the earnings reports (market manipulation again) but doesn't do anything good for the US economy or population. I'm still not seeing any evidence that the US capital markets are dried up. What source are you pulling from? How much are they down by? From what I can tell from example reports like this: https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/deals/us-capital-markets-watch.html https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/deals/us-capit... things are looking pretty good. > Looks good in the earnings reports (market manipulation again) Which specific earnings reports did you read and are citing and claiming to be manipulated? I'd like to read those too. > In this situation, blaming the students cannot be accepted seriously. I'm not blaming the students, I'm saying the approach is wrong. If they (and others) fail to adopt AI then the US falls behind China. Or is being behind not a problem? If it's not a problem, why then would it be a problem for China?

by ericmay 5mo ago

bigbadfeline 5mo ago

> Sure! So make sure you are continuously clamoring from every corner that China must slow down its adoption of AI. I don't see any signs that China is rushing AI adoption, they are simply trying to stay close enough to the US to counter the obvious and loudly proclaimed existential threat of external domination, words supported by wide-ranging sanctions and tariffs. > I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't know much about economics. That's not unusual and I can't blame anybody, except the professional economists, for the sordid state of econ education in this country. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it less of a deal breaker, one cannot claim to understand the political landscape without understanding economics. Nevertheless, I'll give you a few hints - the rushed buildout of data centers stuffed with expensive GPUs, made in Korea and Taiwan, strains both the semiconductor and energy markets, the prices go up but new production is slow to come and always insufficient. Little or even nothing is gained from the rush, except inflated asset prices (market manipulation) and general inflation. At the same time, the rest of the economy is starved for capital which goes to the semiconductor makers in Korea and Taiwan to pay for $ 1 million bonuses, per worker, per year. The picture is similar on the market for power equipment. War and Hormuz are the icing on the cake. In other words, the rush causes a spike in demand which causes a spike of inflation, like about 500% for RAM and somewhat less for GPUs, the high costs require more capital for the same assets, which depletes the capital markets and the continuous expansion of demand with stagnating production leads to an inflationary spiral. The rushed adoption also causes friction on the labor market where subsided AI is used to fire large number of workers. Looks good in the earnings reports (market manipulation again) but doesn't do anything good for the US economy or population. In this situation, blaming the students cannot be accepted seriously.

ericmay 5mo ago
> I don't see any signs that China is rushing AI adoption, they are simply trying to stay close enough to the US to counter the obvious and loudly proclaimed existential threat of being dominated, words supported by wide-ranging sanctions and tariffs. If the US is rushing and China is trying to stay close then it makes sense for them to slow down. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Separately if you're claiming that there's an existential threat of being dominated by the US going too fast you admit both that the US is making significant and important progress on AI which, as the trailing nation, would be concerning, and secondly you admit that the US must also push far and fast because to fall behind simply puts it in China's current position which... is trying to catch up for precisely the same reasons. Your rationale/criticism here doesn't add up. Regarding tariffs, I don't want to re-litigate, though I will if you want, the thousands of conversations that have taken place, but suffice to say China has not been a good actor and has failed to open their markets. Not only the United States but the European Union have taken action specifically against China because of anti-competitive policies. We could quibble about the effectiveness of tariffs - seemingly very effective with respect to China, but it would be unfair to suggest that they sprang up out of nowhere and weren't a response to other actions. > At the same time, the rest of the economy is starved for capital which goes to the semiconductor makers in Korea, Taiwan to pay for $ 1 million bonuses, per worker, per year. The picture is similar on the market for power equipment. War and Hormuz are the icing on the cake. That just seems like a rather routine labor dispute. Workers want higher shares of the profits. So what? > The rushed adoption also causes friction on the labor market where subsided AI is used to fire large number of workers. Looks good in the earnings reports (market manipulation again) but doesn't do anything good for the US economy or population. I'm still not seeing any evidence that the US capital markets are dried up. What source are you pulling from? How much are they down by? From what I can tell from example reports like this: https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/deals/us-capital-markets-watch.html https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/deals/us-capit... things are looking pretty good. > Looks good in the earnings reports (market manipulation again) Which specific earnings reports did you read and are citing and claiming to be manipulated? I'd like to read those too. > In this situation, blaming the students cannot be accepted seriously. I'm not blaming the students, I'm saying the approach is wrong. If they (and others) fail to adopt AI then the US falls behind China. Or is being behind not a problem? If it's not a problem, why then would it be a problem for China?