3 ms·

Feels more like another blockchain hype cycle to me. Especially the part where we're always on the cusp of the entire world changing while the biggest change i

by pydry 2mo ago

Feels more like another blockchain hype cycle to me. Especially the part where we're always on the cusp of the entire world changing while the biggest change is just that huge sums of money changed hands, inducing psychosis in a large group of investors.

sejje 2mo ago
We're not on the cusp, we're in the process. World-changing doesn't happen overnight. The internet didn't, either. This is like 1991 internet.
- jejsjsjsn 2mo ago
  it's more like the flight of the Concorde
tayo42 2mo ago
Blockchain wasn't this overwhelming though. You could pretty much ignore it if you wanted.
jrflo 2mo ago
I know what you're saying, there is a lot of speculation going on in AI right now. The difference is there is hard evidence of AI capabilities accelerating now: we've gone from toy chatbots to sort-of useful coding helpers to agents solving novel math problems in 3.5 years. We could plateau any day and a lot of investors would be stuck holding the bag, or we could continue on that trajectory and they'll make crazy profits. With crypto, the bet was always "how much money will people keep sticking in this market?" which seems a lot more flawed to me.
- pydry 2mo ago
  The irony with blockchain is that it also had a bunch of real life use cases but the sheer extremity of the hype cycle managed to actually prevent them from being effectively brought to life. There was a lot of genuinely useful tech that blockchain could have facilitated and all we were left with in the end was a mountain of scams and bitcoin. I'm seeing something similar with AI where the genuinely useful stuff is getting washed out by the hype simply because it's a gradual improvement and not "disruptive". Meanwhile the stuff sold as disruptive like vibe coding is mostly bullshit.
  - Eisenstein 2mo ago
    What was the useful blockchain tech? It seemed to me to all be different ways of avoiding regulations or bypassing existing system or addressing issues that were already solved by using centralized systems.
    - pydry 1mo ago
      it let you decentralize trust. as one example, I was hoping that as well as "sign in with google" I could sign in with a blockchain based decentralized identity service where nobody could one day decide to revoke my identity on a whim. i remember my friends excitedly telling me how cross border container trade is still done with paperwork because nobody trusts each others' IT systems. I'm pretty sure it still is because they can't be convinced to trust blockchain systems either. trustworthy voting is another application. ive yet to see a political party that runs an internal voting system that doesnt rely upon you trusting a central server run by a few people. this is crazy.
      - Eisenstein 1mo ago
        So, they resolved solved problems but without centralized systems. It seems to me that people don't want to run their own security upon which they have no recourse if they fail, and don't think that benefits of centralized systems are worth giving up for the dubious benefits of a decentralized trust. Imagine if the scams for the currencies occurred with voting systems, with no way to undo it. The technologies just didn't do anything that more than a small number of people wanted.
grebc 2mo ago
You have absolutely nailed it. Funniest part of all of it is it’s all the same actors. Same hardware even. Just the crypto shills now talk about agentic capabilities & we’re approaching a singularity man! Can’t you see!!?

by pydry 2mo ago

sejje 2mo ago

We're not on the cusp, we're in the process. World-changing doesn't happen overnight. The internet didn't, either. This is like 1991 internet.

jejsjsjsn 2mo ago
it's more like the flight of the Concorde

tayo42 2mo ago

Blockchain wasn't this overwhelming though. You could pretty much ignore it if you wanted.

jrflo 2mo ago

I know what you're saying, there is a lot of speculation going on in AI right now. The difference is there is hard evidence of AI capabilities accelerating now: we've gone from toy chatbots to sort-of useful coding helpers to agents solving novel math problems in 3.5 years. We could plateau any day and a lot of investors would be stuck holding the bag, or we could continue on that trajectory and they'll make crazy profits. With crypto, the bet was always "how much money will people keep sticking in this market?" which seems a lot more flawed to me.

pydry 2mo ago
The irony with blockchain is that it also had a bunch of real life use cases but the sheer extremity of the hype cycle managed to actually prevent them from being effectively brought to life. There was a lot of genuinely useful tech that blockchain could have facilitated and all we were left with in the end was a mountain of scams and bitcoin. I'm seeing something similar with AI where the genuinely useful stuff is getting washed out by the hype simply because it's a gradual improvement and not "disruptive". Meanwhile the stuff sold as disruptive like vibe coding is mostly bullshit.
- Eisenstein 2mo ago
  What was the useful blockchain tech? It seemed to me to all be different ways of avoiding regulations or bypassing existing system or addressing issues that were already solved by using centralized systems.
  - pydry 1mo ago
    it let you decentralize trust. as one example, I was hoping that as well as "sign in with google" I could sign in with a blockchain based decentralized identity service where nobody could one day decide to revoke my identity on a whim. i remember my friends excitedly telling me how cross border container trade is still done with paperwork because nobody trusts each others' IT systems. I'm pretty sure it still is because they can't be convinced to trust blockchain systems either. trustworthy voting is another application. ive yet to see a political party that runs an internal voting system that doesnt rely upon you trusting a central server run by a few people. this is crazy.
    - Eisenstein 1mo ago
      So, they resolved solved problems but without centralized systems. It seems to me that people don't want to run their own security upon which they have no recourse if they fail, and don't think that benefits of centralized systems are worth giving up for the dubious benefits of a decentralized trust. Imagine if the scams for the currencies occurred with voting systems, with no way to undo it. The technologies just didn't do anything that more than a small number of people wanted.

grebc 2mo ago

You have absolutely nailed it. Funniest part of all of it is it’s all the same actors. Same hardware even. Just the crypto shills now talk about agentic capabilities & we’re approaching a singularity man! Can’t you see!!?