3 ms·

Money flowing from the rest of the economy means money no longer being spent on something else. Assuming for the moment it's not all a big circular inflationary

Money flowing from the rest of the economy means money no longer being spent on something else. Assuming for the moment it's not all a big circular inflationary scheme, what exactly is being cut back on to fund this infinite spend on AI inference?

ajb 13d ago
Economic activity is a flow, not a stock. There might well be a bubble, but you can't prove it like that.
- swiftcoder 13d ago
  > Economic activity is a flow, not a stock Any one actor has finite cash flow (plus their cash-on-hand buffer). Directing cashflow towards inference necessarily directs it away from something else. Either these companies are spending less on something else, or they are returning less profit.
  - ajb 13d ago
    That assumes that their use of AI does not generate cash flow. Trivial example: the ones reselling tokens. You can't analyse expenditure assuming income is constant, because all expenditure decisions will be made with a view to how they affect income.
    - swiftcoder 12d ago
      Token resellers don't change the equation, they are just adding a tax to the revenue stream, it still has to flow from an actual upstream source. If your argument is that a bunch of consumer-facing companies are collectively suddenly making trillions more in revenue due to adopting AI... well, I have a pretty nice bridge for sale here
      - ajb 12d ago
        I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that's a case you have to make, not one you can just derive from an accounting identity. Also it doesn't have to be increased revenue- it can be reduced costs. This is more likely to be their motivation. Of course, it's one that may be more problematic for the economy as a whole. In general, political discussion suffers a lot from far too much of it being simply "I am obviously right, you are an idiot and/or malicious if you believe the other guy". This is not a dig at you personally, look at any political discussion and you will see that 99% of it is like that. Our public sphere would be in better condition if more people pushed back on it. So no, I don't think anyone should accept "proof by ridicule/slur".

ajb 13d ago

Economic activity is a flow, not a stock. There might well be a bubble, but you can't prove it like that.

swiftcoder 13d ago
> Economic activity is a flow, not a stock Any one actor has finite cash flow (plus their cash-on-hand buffer). Directing cashflow towards inference necessarily directs it away from something else. Either these companies are spending less on something else, or they are returning less profit.
- ajb 13d ago
  That assumes that their use of AI does not generate cash flow. Trivial example: the ones reselling tokens. You can't analyse expenditure assuming income is constant, because all expenditure decisions will be made with a view to how they affect income.
  - swiftcoder 12d ago
    Token resellers don't change the equation, they are just adding a tax to the revenue stream, it still has to flow from an actual upstream source. If your argument is that a bunch of consumer-facing companies are collectively suddenly making trillions more in revenue due to adopting AI... well, I have a pretty nice bridge for sale here
    - ajb 12d ago
      I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that's a case you have to make, not one you can just derive from an accounting identity. Also it doesn't have to be increased revenue- it can be reduced costs. This is more likely to be their motivation. Of course, it's one that may be more problematic for the economy as a whole. In general, political discussion suffers a lot from far too much of it being simply "I am obviously right, you are an idiot and/or malicious if you believe the other guy". This is not a dig at you personally, look at any political discussion and you will see that 99% of it is like that. Our public sphere would be in better condition if more people pushed back on it. So no, I don't think anyone should accept "proof by ridicule/slur".