2 ms·

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

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 6d 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 6d 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.

aurareturn 6d 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 6d 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.