6 ms·

Why are people such big opponents of the AI buildout? I generally don't see many cons to it. 1. Big tech was just using profits to buy back shares before AI b

Why are people such big opponents of the AI buildout? I generally don't see many cons to it. 1. Big tech was just using profits to buy back shares before AI build out. Would you rather they buy back shares with their profits or finance the AI build out? 2. If there is an AI bubble, great, when it pops, we'll all have ultra cheap tokens and we'll have all these amazing AI infrastructure built for the next wave of innovation. 3. Even if AI progress stops here and models hit a wall in intelligence, we'll still have AI good enough to solve millennium problems. My theories on why people are so anti-AI: 1. It threatens their jobs. 2. They want AI stocks to drop so they can buy the dip. 3. Their identity is being challenged because AI makes what they do easier.

alpinisme 26d ago
People whose retirement funds might be impacted by a bubble burst, or who might lose their jobs (or struggle to get a first/next job) in a post crash economy. You seem to be neglecting the economic impact question and assuming only the ai companies themselves are impacted in a burst.
- aurareturn 26d ago
  That’s only if they buy in now. If they don’t believe in AI, they wouldn’t buy in now.
  - alpinisme 26d ago
    Large index funds that most people’s portfolio inevitably includes substantially invest in AI-adjacent stocks. Not to mention the fact that bubble bursting is not by any means guaranteed to have its effects limited to one sector.
    - aurareturn 26d ago
      AI is the sole reason why stocks have gone up since 2022.
      - alpinisme 26d ago
        That means that all new investment has been in AI (trading in other sectors is a wash). So a bubble burst would sweep up all that growth.
      - blactuary 26d ago
        2022-26 is irrelevant for people's retirement savings. They are not or should not be even paying attention to that short-term movement. If the bubble bursts there will be collateral damage that impacts way more than just AI or AI-adjacent companies, and that could have long-term consequences
        aurareturn 26d ago
        It isn't going to go below what it was in 2022. AI has added too much productivity since.
  - monegator 26d ago
    do you remember, how spacex was trying to bribe.. ehr.. convince.. regulators to be fast tracked into S&P 500? And they said no. Why do you think anthropic is postponing their IPO?
    - aurareturn 26d ago
      Yes, I mentioned SpaceX a few minutes ago before your post. I didn’t like that but that’s only one company and it is Elon. He’s been scamming investors well before SpaceX. I think Anthropic is postponing their IPO because OpenAI is killing it.
  - blactuary 26d ago
    They do not have a choice of whether to buy in if they are doing the sound strategy of index funds through their 401k, funds which are now inflated by the bubble
    - aurareturn 26d ago
      Their 401k and index funds have been very happy since AI buildout.
      - blactuary 26d ago
        Completely irrelevant short-term thinking that is the exact wrong way to think about retirement savings
- delfinom 26d ago
  The entire stock market is being held up by AI. Any company that is not AI for the last 5 years has been declining or flat. But are retirement funds really impacted by the bubbling bursting, or are they simply correcting back to the real economic condition for the majority of the country.
  - alpinisme 26d ago
    You assume that the money that was invested in AI wouldn’t have been invested elsewhere.
whatevaa 26d ago
What are the benefits to actual people? What you are gonna replace lost jobs with? All electronics with ram or storage is now way more expensive due to AI gobling up everything. And then there are local power grid impact concerns. Why would you be suprised there is opposition?
- tyyye 26d ago
  What about the people who have already lost jobs due to false expectations set via over hyping the tech? That poster is so clueless.
  - aurareturn 26d ago
    If this is true, then you can just hire them and beat out the businesses that erroneously laid off valuable workers.
    - bigbadfeline 25d ago
      > If this is true, then you can just hire them and beat out the businesses that erroneously laid off valuable workers. Hiring requires financing, and that's reserved for monopolies only, especially now with the AI trust-like, circular monopolies sucking every available dollar out of the debt markets.
- aurareturn 26d ago
  I’m not surprised there is. I even spelled out why I think there are so many who are opposed. There is something very contradictory about these posts. For example, you seem to suggest that it doesn’t benefit people but AI is can also replace workers. So which is it? AI is very useful to people to a point that one person can do the job of many? Or AI is useless? Do we have mass unemployment because of AI? No. Our unemployment rate has been very low since ChatGPT.
  - bigbadfeline 25d ago
    > There is something very contradictory about these posts. > For example, you seem to suggest that it doesn’t benefit people but AI is can also replace workers. The only contradiction is in your words because workers are (the) people and they don't benefit from being replaced. In other words, you contradict yourself by claiming contradiction where it doesn't exist. > Our unemployment rate has been very low since ChatGPT The unemployment rate includes only a small portion of the unemployed, it's a made-up number gated by many other conditions. The real measure is the LFPR - labor force participation rate - since 2006 it has fallen from 67% to 61%, that makes 18 million less employed today compared to 20 years ago. Also, official IT unemployment rate today is almost twice the average and it's gotten considerably worse compared to 2022.
zerosizedweasle 26d ago
[dead]
carlm42 26d ago
We don't have enough energy production for massive AI buildouts. New energy capacity will not come online fast. National and regional grids will be stressed contributing to impacts on populations and industries. New energy capacity will be expensive and if carbon-intensive will accelerate climate breakdown. Additionally at current fossil fuel prices, energy prices (will) rise dramatically. Currently planned locations for buildouts are suboptimal at best, horrible at worst and vehemently opposed by local populations. That could be NIMBYISM, but in this case it's probably justified: who would want a noisy, ugly-looking grey cube raising electricity prices near their house? And that's just one angle. There are many more. Nothing to do with "AI will take our jobs", that's a pretty low-effort justification/theory.
- aurareturn 26d ago
  We are building more energy now than ever. AI has forced that. If this AI bubble collapses, we will have plenty of cheap electricity.
  - andriy_koval 26d ago
    is it gas turbines energy?
    - aurareturn 26d ago
      Nuclear has been reinvigorated. HN was extremely pro Nuclear before ChatGPT hit. Now we are finally heavily investing in it again. Fusion has been given a ton of money since AI.
      - andriy_koval 26d ago
        Do you have any numbers how much fossil energy capacity was installed and how much nuclear?
        aurareturn 26d ago
        No. Do you?
tyyye 26d ago
Your posts have been interesting to watch. You’re progressively entering the delusional territory.
andriy_koval 26d ago
To me its not just about AI, but how they utilize all this financial scenarios to push things absolutely over the top, e.g. fast inclusion into indexes and essentially funding bubble from people's 401k.
- aurareturn 26d ago
  You mean SpaceX? That’s just one. And it’s Elon. He’s been doing that before AI.
  - andriy_koval 26d ago
    index thing happened this year, and now investors are obviously lining up before openai and anthropic to get a cut too during IPO.
    - aurareturn 26d ago
      Elon has been scamming investors with Tesla for years.
      - andriy_koval 26d ago
        its unrelated to index inclusion. Are you just trolling?
        aurareturn 26d ago
        So you hate AI buildout because of what Nasdaq did with SpaceX. I’m wondering if you are just trolling.
        andriy_koval 26d ago
        as I mentioned its not just SpaceX but also Anthrhopic and OpenAI is also in the queue, which is up to total 6T extracted from index holders. Do you think this is valid concern or trolling?
monegator 26d ago
1) i write code for a living. Without the tool. I have never been impressed by the tools and don't want to use them for work because i know my brain will rot pretty fast, pretty soon. Amused, sure, but they are still stupid by large. Useful idiot remain a useful idiot even if it appears smarte. My boss shows me some cool shit he experimented with all the time, only to have the thing redone from scratch every other week. Still useful, still a mess, still requiring competent people to keep the castle from crumbling. And you can't get competent people without having them do the hard work. 2) i want them to fail and disappear forever. Let open models stay. Let the VC fuckers starve to death before they use MY retirement fund without my consent because they bribe regulator to include them in protected indexes even if they have not followed the process, just because they are the future and too big, trust me bro 3) fuck me if i identify myself with my job, and only my job.
- aurareturn 26d ago
  So basically all 3 reason I listed.
  - blactuary 26d ago
    You're just trolling. Nothing he said aligns with your reasons
    - aurareturn 26d ago
      1) i write code for a living. Aligns with my reason #1 and probably #3. Let the VC fuckers starve to death before they use MY retirement fund without my consent because they bribe regulator to include them in protected indexes even if they have not followed the process Probably aligns with #2. They probably will buy the dip. 3) fuck me if i identify myself with my job, and only my job. Aligns with #1 and #3.
      - blactuary 26d ago
        This is absolute nonsense. He is explicitly saying he does not feel threatened by it because he is confident in his own coding skills, and that he does not tie his identity to his work, and you are just making things up saying he actually believes the opposite. Like I said, bad faith trolling
unrented7977 26d ago
You don't see the cons because you refuse to see or hear. You refuse to actually engage with any of the complaints and examples people show you. You're deluding yourself and thinking that somehow everyone else is the problem and you're the only sane one in the room. You should really reevaluate your perspectives .
- aurareturn 26d ago
  I’ve been engaging with every single reply. But instead of attacking me, why don’t you engage with me.
tliltocatl 26d ago
1. Because resources (land and water) are limited and build-out crawls the resources from the more important (even vital) affairs. 2. Because there is still no convincing way how AI giants would make profit. Whatever impressive and useful tricks the stochastic parrot is able to do will never pay back enough to make a breakeven. 3. Because AI giant CEOs are a bunch of galactic-scale douchebags who keep saying "this is far too powerful for a mere mortal, but as long as we hold this power it's okay" with a straight face while presenting us with the stochastic parrot. No, seriously, I'm very impressed. Someone actively subverting the tech narrative couldn't do a better job.
- aurareturn 26d ago
  1. We waste a lot of land and water on many less productive things. For example, building massive golf courses that need acres of land and water. What is the threshold for you? 2. Personally, I think the people who say LLMs are stochastic parrots are themselves stochastic parrots. They heard this term from someone online once and now they keep repeating it. Anyways, I’d love to see your math on why you think AI can’t make a profit. 3. You must be new to tech if you think it’s only AI. Many tech CEOs have always been out of touch. I personally don’t care too much about the CEOs. If AI CEOs had better PR, would you be less anti AI?
  - tliltocatl 26d ago
    > What is the threshold for you? Golf courses are stupid too, but the scale is nowhere close. The difference is that new golf courses are not financed by an too-big-to-fail infinite money glitch, so they are limited by how many people are willing to spend their money building golf courses. > If AI CEOs had better PR, would you be less anti AI? I'm not against AI. I'm against companies blowing up a bubble. Notice that the question "is it a bubble" is orthogonal to "is it useful". > why you think AI can’t make a profit. AI can make a profit - in niches. Automatic translation. Mathematic proofs - but yes math is more than proofs and there never were much money there. Maybe code generation in some cases, but I don't see "programmers becoming obsolete" any time soon - spewing out code was never the problem for me, domain knowledge was and still is. And yes, all that doesn't make it any less of a stochastic parrot. A useful parrot, but still a parrot. But OpenAI and Antropic can't generate the profits they promise at the scale they need to break even. Because a. Most of their use cases yet demonstrated are self-defeating. Text generation is useless once everyone hates slop and long texts stops becoming a useful signal. The whole story is basically "I can generate infinite gold, I'm now can buy anything". No, your gold is now worth very little. And everyone whose pay was indexed in gold is now fucked too. b. They have no real moat aside from loads of money. Their entire plan is "growing too big to fail, then engage regulatory capture." And people engaging in in regulatory capture deserve nothing but slow and painful death. Not that it would work anyway, we've got China fixing that, for better or worse.
blactuary 26d ago
They are getting too big and too cozy with federal govt, making a bailout more likely They are moving too fast and using too much dirty energy They are committing crimes to trick people into thinking they've created god None of your three theories are correct at all
- aurareturn 26d ago
  Did the federal government bail out dotcom burst? Why and how do you think the government can bail out an AI burst? Too fast? So it’s getting too smart too fast to you. But at the same time, they are going to need a bailout to you. I don’t think they’re tricking anyone at all. Most normal people don’t care. They just use AI when it’s helpful to them. It’s only people who are on HN or X who care.
  - blactuary 26d ago
    The dotcom burst wasn't concentrated in a a couple of well-connected companies. The better comparison is the financial crisis, and yes, they did bail them out. No, it is not getting too smart. Moving too fast means exactly the opposite, they are doing idiotic and destructive things because the models are not as smart as they want us to think It's clear from reading your posts in this thread you are just trolling and not trying to have good faith discussion
    - aurareturn 26d ago
      What is the government going to do? Bail out Nvidia, Google, Microsoft, Meta? Why? They're all extremely profitable companies. At worse, they lose a year or two of profits. Who cares. No, it is not getting too smart. Moving too fast means exactly the opposite, they are doing idiotic and destructive things because the models are not as smart as they want us to think The ability to do destructive things suggests that AI's capabilities are increasing. Do you have good faith discussion? You haven't acknowledged anything that is a pro of AI.
fragmede 26d ago
People are scared about their future and don't think AI is going to make things better. And who could blame them? A movie that doesn't have any conflict and ends with everyone being happy and everything is nice isn't going to sell a lot of tickets. So we get endless variations of that movie where AI and robots are going to kill us and terminate humanity. That is the backdrop against which real life AI that's actually happening and is here today has to compete with. If I was in the horse carriage industry when the car came out, I would be up in arms about it as well. People are scared, and rightly so. If I don't have a job, because they don't need me, because AI can do it, then how do I pay my rent or for food? If we lived in a world where we treated poor people well, and they're just down on their luck, they just need a helping hand that we're happy to give. Then the coming jobpocalypse wouldn't be so scary, and people wouldn't be so up in arms against AI. We only have to look at the history of coal miners to realize that there's no one coming to save us though. Hearing the ghoulish haunting noise that the jet turbines that Elon Musk put down, and thinking: that could be your future; is enough to get everyone and their mom off the couch and dead set against the entire concept. That noise, non-stop, for the rest of forever. We don't do subtleties at all, because if you give them an inch, they're going to take a mile, so in a different world it would be possible to be pro AI data centers while also being for upholding regulations on water and noise pollution, along with not raising the cost of electricity, but that doesn't seem to be the world we live in. People don't trust their local politicians to make sure that doesn't happen, so I can't blame people for being against AI data center build outs entirely.
- aurareturn 26d ago
  This is a very honest post. I think people here have stated a variety of reasons. Many go at it from an economics standpoint saying they are anti-AI because they don't think AI will make a profit because it isn't/won't be that smart. Yet, you are saying something complete opposite. You're saying that AI could become so smart that it makes many people unemployable. I think your reason is completely different than just about everyone's here. I think it's more honest. I think people here who hate AI for different reasons actually have the same fear inside but they don't want to admit it for some reason.
  - 25d ago
deleted 26d ago
[deleted]
bigbadfeline 25d ago
> 1. Big tech was just using profits to buy back shares before AI build out. Would you rather they buy back shares with their profits or finance the AI build out? This statement is factually wrong. AI isn't financed by profits, it's financed by debt - the "$300B AI exposure off balance sheets" in the title refers to debt. The buy-back grift isn't legit either, but it's not as a damaging as the AI buildout. > My theories on why people are so anti-AI: 1,2,3 Wrong theory again. The sky-high AI debt causes inflation, asset extraction and market scalping by front-running it. The opportunity cost prevents the rest of the economy from allocating capital to competing ventures and from increasing capacity - part of the reason for inflation. That's what an honest economics analysis would tell you. > 2. If there is an AI bubble, great, when it pops, we'll all have ultra cheap tokens Wrong again. We already have ultra-cheap tokens from China but the bubble continues unimpeded, feeds on inflation and if that's not enough, bailouts are certain. Inflation is a way to silently pop the bubble at the expense of consumers leaving the perpetrators whole, that's where it's all going.

alpinisme 26d ago

People whose retirement funds might be impacted by a bubble burst, or who might lose their jobs (or struggle to get a first/next job) in a post crash economy. You seem to be neglecting the economic impact question and assuming only the ai companies themselves are impacted in a burst.

aurareturn 26d ago
That’s only if they buy in now. If they don’t believe in AI, they wouldn’t buy in now.
- alpinisme 26d ago
  Large index funds that most people’s portfolio inevitably includes substantially invest in AI-adjacent stocks. Not to mention the fact that bubble bursting is not by any means guaranteed to have its effects limited to one sector.
  - aurareturn 26d ago
    AI is the sole reason why stocks have gone up since 2022.
    - alpinisme 26d ago
      That means that all new investment has been in AI (trading in other sectors is a wash). So a bubble burst would sweep up all that growth.
    - blactuary 26d ago
      2022-26 is irrelevant for people's retirement savings. They are not or should not be even paying attention to that short-term movement. If the bubble bursts there will be collateral damage that impacts way more than just AI or AI-adjacent companies, and that could have long-term consequences
      - aurareturn 26d ago
        It isn't going to go below what it was in 2022. AI has added too much productivity since.
- monegator 26d ago
  do you remember, how spacex was trying to bribe.. ehr.. convince.. regulators to be fast tracked into S&P 500? And they said no. Why do you think anthropic is postponing their IPO?
  - aurareturn 26d ago
    Yes, I mentioned SpaceX a few minutes ago before your post. I didn’t like that but that’s only one company and it is Elon. He’s been scamming investors well before SpaceX. I think Anthropic is postponing their IPO because OpenAI is killing it.
- blactuary 26d ago
  They do not have a choice of whether to buy in if they are doing the sound strategy of index funds through their 401k, funds which are now inflated by the bubble
  - aurareturn 26d ago
    Their 401k and index funds have been very happy since AI buildout.
    - blactuary 26d ago
      Completely irrelevant short-term thinking that is the exact wrong way to think about retirement savings
delfinom 26d ago
The entire stock market is being held up by AI. Any company that is not AI for the last 5 years has been declining or flat. But are retirement funds really impacted by the bubbling bursting, or are they simply correcting back to the real economic condition for the majority of the country.
- alpinisme 26d ago
  You assume that the money that was invested in AI wouldn’t have been invested elsewhere.

whatevaa 26d ago

What are the benefits to actual people? What you are gonna replace lost jobs with? All electronics with ram or storage is now way more expensive due to AI gobling up everything. And then there are local power grid impact concerns. Why would you be suprised there is opposition?

tyyye 26d ago
What about the people who have already lost jobs due to false expectations set via over hyping the tech? That poster is so clueless.
- aurareturn 26d ago
  If this is true, then you can just hire them and beat out the businesses that erroneously laid off valuable workers.
  - bigbadfeline 25d ago
    > If this is true, then you can just hire them and beat out the businesses that erroneously laid off valuable workers. Hiring requires financing, and that's reserved for monopolies only, especially now with the AI trust-like, circular monopolies sucking every available dollar out of the debt markets.
aurareturn 26d ago
I’m not surprised there is. I even spelled out why I think there are so many who are opposed. There is something very contradictory about these posts. For example, you seem to suggest that it doesn’t benefit people but AI is can also replace workers. So which is it? AI is very useful to people to a point that one person can do the job of many? Or AI is useless? Do we have mass unemployment because of AI? No. Our unemployment rate has been very low since ChatGPT.
- bigbadfeline 25d ago
  > There is something very contradictory about these posts. > For example, you seem to suggest that it doesn’t benefit people but AI is can also replace workers. The only contradiction is in your words because workers are (the) people and they don't benefit from being replaced. In other words, you contradict yourself by claiming contradiction where it doesn't exist. > Our unemployment rate has been very low since ChatGPT The unemployment rate includes only a small portion of the unemployed, it's a made-up number gated by many other conditions. The real measure is the LFPR - labor force participation rate - since 2006 it has fallen from 67% to 61%, that makes 18 million less employed today compared to 20 years ago. Also, official IT unemployment rate today is almost twice the average and it's gotten considerably worse compared to 2022.

zerosizedweasle 26d ago

[dead]

carlm42 26d ago

We don't have enough energy production for massive AI buildouts. New energy capacity will not come online fast. National and regional grids will be stressed contributing to impacts on populations and industries. New energy capacity will be expensive and if carbon-intensive will accelerate climate breakdown. Additionally at current fossil fuel prices, energy prices (will) rise dramatically. Currently planned locations for buildouts are suboptimal at best, horrible at worst and vehemently opposed by local populations. That could be NIMBYISM, but in this case it's probably justified: who would want a noisy, ugly-looking grey cube raising electricity prices near their house? And that's just one angle. There are many more. Nothing to do with "AI will take our jobs", that's a pretty low-effort justification/theory.

aurareturn 26d ago
We are building more energy now than ever. AI has forced that. If this AI bubble collapses, we will have plenty of cheap electricity.
- andriy_koval 26d ago
  is it gas turbines energy?
  - aurareturn 26d ago
    Nuclear has been reinvigorated. HN was extremely pro Nuclear before ChatGPT hit. Now we are finally heavily investing in it again. Fusion has been given a ton of money since AI.
    - andriy_koval 26d ago
      Do you have any numbers how much fossil energy capacity was installed and how much nuclear?
      - aurareturn 26d ago
        No. Do you?

tyyye 26d ago

Your posts have been interesting to watch. You’re progressively entering the delusional territory.

andriy_koval 26d ago

To me its not just about AI, but how they utilize all this financial scenarios to push things absolutely over the top, e.g. fast inclusion into indexes and essentially funding bubble from people's 401k.

aurareturn 26d ago
You mean SpaceX? That’s just one. And it’s Elon. He’s been doing that before AI.
- andriy_koval 26d ago
  index thing happened this year, and now investors are obviously lining up before openai and anthropic to get a cut too during IPO.
  - aurareturn 26d ago
    Elon has been scamming investors with Tesla for years.
    - andriy_koval 26d ago
      its unrelated to index inclusion. Are you just trolling?
      - aurareturn 26d ago
        So you hate AI buildout because of what Nasdaq did with SpaceX. I’m wondering if you are just trolling.
        andriy_koval 26d ago
        as I mentioned its not just SpaceX but also Anthrhopic and OpenAI is also in the queue, which is up to total 6T extracted from index holders. Do you think this is valid concern or trolling?

monegator 26d ago

1) i write code for a living. Without the tool. I have never been impressed by the tools and don't want to use them for work because i know my brain will rot pretty fast, pretty soon. Amused, sure, but they are still stupid by large. Useful idiot remain a useful idiot even if it appears smarte. My boss shows me some cool shit he experimented with all the time, only to have the thing redone from scratch every other week. Still useful, still a mess, still requiring competent people to keep the castle from crumbling. And you can't get competent people without having them do the hard work. 2) i want them to fail and disappear forever. Let open models stay. Let the VC fuckers starve to death before they use MY retirement fund without my consent because they bribe regulator to include them in protected indexes even if they have not followed the process, just because they are the future and too big, trust me bro 3) fuck me if i identify myself with my job, and only my job.

aurareturn 26d ago
So basically all 3 reason I listed.
- blactuary 26d ago
  You're just trolling. Nothing he said aligns with your reasons
  - aurareturn 26d ago
    1) i write code for a living. Aligns with my reason #1 and probably #3. Let the VC fuckers starve to death before they use MY retirement fund without my consent because they bribe regulator to include them in protected indexes even if they have not followed the process Probably aligns with #2. They probably will buy the dip. 3) fuck me if i identify myself with my job, and only my job. Aligns with #1 and #3.
    - blactuary 26d ago
      This is absolute nonsense. He is explicitly saying he does not feel threatened by it because he is confident in his own coding skills, and that he does not tie his identity to his work, and you are just making things up saying he actually believes the opposite. Like I said, bad faith trolling

unrented7977 26d ago

You don't see the cons because you refuse to see or hear. You refuse to actually engage with any of the complaints and examples people show you. You're deluding yourself and thinking that somehow everyone else is the problem and you're the only sane one in the room. You should really reevaluate your perspectives .

aurareturn 26d ago
I’ve been engaging with every single reply. But instead of attacking me, why don’t you engage with me.

tliltocatl 26d ago

1. Because resources (land and water) are limited and build-out crawls the resources from the more important (even vital) affairs. 2. Because there is still no convincing way how AI giants would make profit. Whatever impressive and useful tricks the stochastic parrot is able to do will never pay back enough to make a breakeven. 3. Because AI giant CEOs are a bunch of galactic-scale douchebags who keep saying "this is far too powerful for a mere mortal, but as long as we hold this power it's okay" with a straight face while presenting us with the stochastic parrot. No, seriously, I'm very impressed. Someone actively subverting the tech narrative couldn't do a better job.

aurareturn 26d ago
1. We waste a lot of land and water on many less productive things. For example, building massive golf courses that need acres of land and water. What is the threshold for you? 2. Personally, I think the people who say LLMs are stochastic parrots are themselves stochastic parrots. They heard this term from someone online once and now they keep repeating it. Anyways, I’d love to see your math on why you think AI can’t make a profit. 3. You must be new to tech if you think it’s only AI. Many tech CEOs have always been out of touch. I personally don’t care too much about the CEOs. If AI CEOs had better PR, would you be less anti AI?
- tliltocatl 26d ago
  > What is the threshold for you? Golf courses are stupid too, but the scale is nowhere close. The difference is that new golf courses are not financed by an too-big-to-fail infinite money glitch, so they are limited by how many people are willing to spend their money building golf courses. > If AI CEOs had better PR, would you be less anti AI? I'm not against AI. I'm against companies blowing up a bubble. Notice that the question "is it a bubble" is orthogonal to "is it useful". > why you think AI can’t make a profit. AI can make a profit - in niches. Automatic translation. Mathematic proofs - but yes math is more than proofs and there never were much money there. Maybe code generation in some cases, but I don't see "programmers becoming obsolete" any time soon - spewing out code was never the problem for me, domain knowledge was and still is. And yes, all that doesn't make it any less of a stochastic parrot. A useful parrot, but still a parrot. But OpenAI and Antropic can't generate the profits they promise at the scale they need to break even. Because a. Most of their use cases yet demonstrated are self-defeating. Text generation is useless once everyone hates slop and long texts stops becoming a useful signal. The whole story is basically "I can generate infinite gold, I'm now can buy anything". No, your gold is now worth very little. And everyone whose pay was indexed in gold is now fucked too. b. They have no real moat aside from loads of money. Their entire plan is "growing too big to fail, then engage regulatory capture." And people engaging in in regulatory capture deserve nothing but slow and painful death. Not that it would work anyway, we've got China fixing that, for better or worse.

blactuary 26d ago

They are getting too big and too cozy with federal govt, making a bailout more likely They are moving too fast and using too much dirty energy They are committing crimes to trick people into thinking they've created god None of your three theories are correct at all

aurareturn 26d ago
Did the federal government bail out dotcom burst? Why and how do you think the government can bail out an AI burst? Too fast? So it’s getting too smart too fast to you. But at the same time, they are going to need a bailout to you. I don’t think they’re tricking anyone at all. Most normal people don’t care. They just use AI when it’s helpful to them. It’s only people who are on HN or X who care.
- blactuary 26d ago
  The dotcom burst wasn't concentrated in a a couple of well-connected companies. The better comparison is the financial crisis, and yes, they did bail them out. No, it is not getting too smart. Moving too fast means exactly the opposite, they are doing idiotic and destructive things because the models are not as smart as they want us to think It's clear from reading your posts in this thread you are just trolling and not trying to have good faith discussion
  - aurareturn 26d ago
    What is the government going to do? Bail out Nvidia, Google, Microsoft, Meta? Why? They're all extremely profitable companies. At worse, they lose a year or two of profits. Who cares. No, it is not getting too smart. Moving too fast means exactly the opposite, they are doing idiotic and destructive things because the models are not as smart as they want us to think The ability to do destructive things suggests that AI's capabilities are increasing. Do you have good faith discussion? You haven't acknowledged anything that is a pro of AI.

fragmede 26d ago

People are scared about their future and don't think AI is going to make things better. And who could blame them? A movie that doesn't have any conflict and ends with everyone being happy and everything is nice isn't going to sell a lot of tickets. So we get endless variations of that movie where AI and robots are going to kill us and terminate humanity. That is the backdrop against which real life AI that's actually happening and is here today has to compete with. If I was in the horse carriage industry when the car came out, I would be up in arms about it as well. People are scared, and rightly so. If I don't have a job, because they don't need me, because AI can do it, then how do I pay my rent or for food? If we lived in a world where we treated poor people well, and they're just down on their luck, they just need a helping hand that we're happy to give. Then the coming jobpocalypse wouldn't be so scary, and people wouldn't be so up in arms against AI. We only have to look at the history of coal miners to realize that there's no one coming to save us though. Hearing the ghoulish haunting noise that the jet turbines that Elon Musk put down, and thinking: that could be your future; is enough to get everyone and their mom off the couch and dead set against the entire concept. That noise, non-stop, for the rest of forever. We don't do subtleties at all, because if you give them an inch, they're going to take a mile, so in a different world it would be possible to be pro AI data centers while also being for upholding regulations on water and noise pollution, along with not raising the cost of electricity, but that doesn't seem to be the world we live in. People don't trust their local politicians to make sure that doesn't happen, so I can't blame people for being against AI data center build outs entirely.

aurareturn 26d ago
This is a very honest post. I think people here have stated a variety of reasons. Many go at it from an economics standpoint saying they are anti-AI because they don't think AI will make a profit because it isn't/won't be that smart. Yet, you are saying something complete opposite. You're saying that AI could become so smart that it makes many people unemployable. I think your reason is completely different than just about everyone's here. I think it's more honest. I think people here who hate AI for different reasons actually have the same fear inside but they don't want to admit it for some reason.
- 25d ago

deleted 26d ago

[deleted]

bigbadfeline 25d ago

> 1. Big tech was just using profits to buy back shares before AI build out. Would you rather they buy back shares with their profits or finance the AI build out? This statement is factually wrong. AI isn't financed by profits, it's financed by debt - the "$300B AI exposure off balance sheets" in the title refers to debt. The buy-back grift isn't legit either, but it's not as a damaging as the AI buildout. > My theories on why people are so anti-AI: 1,2,3 Wrong theory again. The sky-high AI debt causes inflation, asset extraction and market scalping by front-running it. The opportunity cost prevents the rest of the economy from allocating capital to competing ventures and from increasing capacity - part of the reason for inflation. That's what an honest economics analysis would tell you. > 2. If there is an AI bubble, great, when it pops, we'll all have ultra cheap tokens Wrong again. We already have ultra-cheap tokens from China but the bubble continues unimpeded, feeds on inflation and if that's not enough, bailouts are certain. Inflation is a way to silently pop the bubble at the expense of consumers leaving the perpetrators whole, that's where it's all going.