[HN Gopher] Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of...
___________________________________________________________________
Google boss says AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'
Author : jillesvangurp
Score : 121 points
Date : 2025-11-18 06:06 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote:
| Except, yes, they will.
|
| Not immune, maybe, but pretty well off if they didn't buy in.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| I'm okay with being victim to RAM and NVME prices returning to
| pre-skyrocket levels.
| general1465 wrote:
| And GPUs being available again for normal prices.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Is it really a bubble about to burst when literally everyone is
| talking about AI being in a bubble and maybe bursting soon?
|
| To me, we're clearly not peak AI exuberance. AI agents are just
| getting started and getting so freaking good. Just the other day,
| I used Vercel's v0 to build a small business website for a
| relative in 10 minutes. It looked fantastic and very mobile
| friendly. I fed the website to ChatGPT5.1 and asked it to improve
| the marketing text. I fed those improvements back to v0. Finished
| in 15 minutes. Would have taken me at least one week in the past
| to do a design, code it, test it for desktop/mobile, write the
| copy.
|
| The way AI has disrupted software building in 3 short years is
| astonishing. Yes, code is uniquely great for LLM training due to
| open source code and documentation but as other industries catch
| up on LLM training, they will change profoundly too.
| zerosizedweasle wrote:
| Let him cook
| watwut wrote:
| > Is it really a bubble about to burst when literally everyone
| is talking about AI being in a bubble and maybe bursting soon?
|
| Yes, it is even one of necessary components. Everybody is
| twitchy afraid of the pop, but immediate returns are too
| tempting so they keep money in. The bubble pops when
| _something_ happens and they all start to panicking at the same
| time. They all need to be sufficiently stressed for that mass
| run to happen.
| aurareturn wrote:
| So after the bubble pops, do you think the AI market will
| still be bigger in November 2025?
|
| In other words, do you think we're in 1995 of the dotcom or
| 2000?
| camillomiller wrote:
| This is a very biased example. Also, it is possible only
| because right now the tools you've used are heavily subsidised
| by investors' money. A LOT of it. Nobody questions the utility
| of what you just mentioned, but nodoby stops to ask if this
| would be viable if you were to pay the actual cost of these
| models, nor what it means for 99.9% of all the other jobs that
| AI companies claim can be automated, but in reality are not
| even close to be displaced by their technology.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Why is it biased?
|
| So what if it's subsidized and companies are in market share
| grab? Is it going to cost $40 instead of $20 that I paid? Big
| deal. It still beats the hell out of $2k - $3k that it would
| have taken before and weeks in waiting time.
|
| 100x cheaper, 1000x faster delivery. Further more, v0 and
| ChatGPT together for sure did much better than the average
| web designer and copy writer.
|
| Lastly, OpenAI has already stated a few times that they are
| "very profitable" in inference. There was an analysis posted
| on HN showing that inference for open source models like
| Deepseek are also profitable on a per token basis.
| ido wrote:
| LLMs are particularly good at web development (granted
| that's a big market), probably due to a lot of the training
| material being that.
| qcnguy wrote:
| We don't know what AI should cost but if you look at the
| numbers then 2x more expensive is much too low.
|
| Think about the pricing. OpenAI fixed everyone's prices to
| free and/or roughly the cost of a Netflix subscription,
| which in turn was pinned to the cost of a cable TV
| subscription (originally). These prices were made up to
| sound good to his friends, they weren't chosen based on
| sane business modelling.
|
| Then everyone had to follow. So Anthropic launched Claude
| Code at the same price point, before realizing that was
| deadly and overnight the price _went up by an order of
| magnitude_. From $20 to $200 /month, and even that doesn't
| seem to be enough.
|
| If the numbers leaked to Ed Zitron are true then they
| aren't profitable on inference. But even if that were true,
| so what? It's a meaningless statement, just another way of
| saying they're still under-pricing their models.
| Inferencing and model licensing are their only revenue
| streams! That has to cover everything including training,
| staff costs, data licensing, lawsuits, support, office
| costs etc.
|
| Maybe OpenAI can launch an ad network soon. That's their
| only hope of salvation but it's risky because if they botch
| it users might just migrate to Grok or Gemini or Claude.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Then everyone had to follow. So Anthropic launched Claude
| Code at the same price point, before realizing that was
| deadly and overnight the price went up by an order of
| magnitude. From $20 to $200/month, and even that doesn't
| seem to be enough.
|
| Maybe it was because demand was so high that they didn't
| have enough GPUs to serve? Hence, the insane GPU demand?
| jmpman wrote:
| I've wondered if it makes sense to buy Intel along with
| Cerebrus in order to use Intels newest nodes while under
| development to fab the Cerebrus wafer level inference
| chips which are more tolerant of defects. Overall that
| seems like the cheapest way to perform inference - if you
| have $100B.
| camillomiller wrote:
| If it subsidized it's a problem because we're not talking
| about Uber trying to disrupt a clearly flawed system of
| transportation. We're talking about companies whose entire
| promise is an industrial revolution of a scale we've never
| seen before. That is the level of the bet. The fact they
| did much better than the average professional is also your
| own take and assessment that is purely self evident. Also,
| your example has fundamentally no value. You mentioned a
| marginal use case that doesn't scale. Personal websites
| will be quicker to make because you can get whatever the AI
| spews your way, you have basically infinite flexibility and
| the only contraints are "getting it done" and "looking
| ok/good". That is not how larger business work, at all. So
| there is a massive issue of scalability of this. Finally,
| OpenAI "states" a lot of things, and a lot of them have
| been proven to be flat out lies, because they're led by a
| man who has been proved to be a pathological narcissistic
| liar many times over. Yet you keep drinking the kool aid,
| inlcuding about inference. There are by the way reports
| that, data in hand, prove quite convincingly that "being
| profitable on inference" seems to be math gymnastics, and
| not at all the financial reality of OpenAI.
| aurareturn wrote:
| The vast majority of highly valuable tech companies in
| the last 35 years have subsidized their products or
| services in the beginning as they grew. Why should OpenAI
| be any different? In particular the tokenomics is already
| profitable.
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| I think you are missing the fundamental point here. The
| question is not really if AI has some value. That much is
| obvious and the exemple you give, increasing developer
| productivity, is a good one.
|
| The question is: is the value generated by AI aligned with the
| market projected value as currently priced in AI companies
| valuation? That's what's more difficult to assess.
|
| The gap between fundamental financial data and valuations is
| very large. The risk is a brutal reassessment of these prices.
| That's what people call a bubble bursting and it doesn't mean
| the underlying technology has no value. The internet bubble
| burst yet the internet is probably the most significant
| innovation of the past twenty years.
| Xelbair wrote:
| Well it all started with usual SV style "growth
| hacking"(price dumping as a SaaS) of "gather users now,
| monetize later" by OpenAI - which works only if you attain
| virtual monopoly(basically dominance over segment of a
| market, with competition not really competing with you) over
| segment of the market.
|
| The problem is no one attained that position, price
| expectations are set and it turns out that wishful thinking
| of reducing costs of running the models by orders of
| magnitude wasn't fruitful.
|
| Is AI useful? of course.
|
| Are the real costs of it justified? in most cases no.
| aurareturn wrote:
| The question is: is the value generated by AI aligned with
| the market projected value as currently priced in AI
| companies valuation? That's what's more difficult to assess.
|
| I agree it is difficult to assess. Right now, competitive
| pressure is causing big players to go all in or get left
| behind.
|
| That said, I don't think the bubble is done growing nor do I
| think it is about to burst.
|
| I personally think we are in 1995 of the dotcom bubble
| equivalent. When it bursts, it will still be much bigger than
| in November 2025.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| It's not that the AI models or products don't work.
|
| It's how much money is being poured into it, how much of the
| money that is just changing hands between the big players, the
| revenue, and the valuations.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Well, do you have a model for this? Or is it just
| regurgitating mass media that it's a bubble?
|
| If hyperscalers keep buying GPUs and Chinese companies keep
| saying they don't have enough GPUs, especially advanced ones,
| why should we believe someone that it's a bubble based on
| "feel"?
| checker659 wrote:
| The economics of it is what's the problem, not the power of
| LLMs.
| aurareturn wrote:
| So tell us the economics of it?
|
| The vast majority of AI doomers in the mass media have never
| used tools like v0 or Cursor. How would they know that AI is
| overvalued?
| rvz wrote:
| Most of all of Big Tech, especially Google are doing just fine,
| making $100B a quarter.
|
| Startups and other unprofitable companies however...
| marcyb5st wrote:
| After COVID they were still making a killing, but axed 12k
| people anyway. So, if someone starts doing layoffs and the
| market reacts well profitable companies will do layoffs as well
| gizajob wrote:
| You do have to question the usefulness of Big Tech burning all
| that profit to the ground in order to buy GPUs though.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| In other words - _" We will be firing many of you when the bubble
| bursts."_
| yawpitch wrote:
| It's not a matter of _if_ , it's a matter of _when_.
| donkeylazy456 wrote:
| Now they are talking like Wall Street greedy bankers back in
| subprime crisis.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Also it seems like Wall Street greedy bankers might have an
| other subprime crisis on their hands at same time... I wonder
| which one will be saved again...
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Sounds like _" We're too big to fail. If we go down, everyone
| goes down. It is your choice."_
|
| But unlike 08 crisis, we're getting a heads up to bring out the
| lube.
| franktankbank wrote:
| I hope it goes down. Its really not a very powerful threat.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon will get through easily. They
| don't have excessive debt. They can afford to lose their
| investments into AI. Their valuations will take a hit. Nvidia
| will lose revenue and profits, stock will go down by 60% or more,
| but it will also survive.
|
| Oracle will likely fail. It funded its AI pivot with debt. The
| Debt-to-Revenue ratio is 1.77, the Debt-to-Equity ratio D/E is
| 520, and it has a free cash flow problem.
|
| OpenAI, Anthropic, and others will be bought for cents on the
| dollar.
| tow21 wrote:
| Google, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon might get through easily _as
| companies_. I don 't think all G/M/M/A staff will get through
| easily.
| conartist6 wrote:
| Microsoft is in a pickle. They put AI lipstick on top of
| decades of unfixed tech debt and their relationship with
| their userbase isn't great. Their engineering culture is
| clearly not healthy. For their size and financial resources,
| their position in the market right now is _very_ delicate.
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| I don't think so.
|
| They are one of the few companies actually making money
| with AI as they have intelligently leveraged the position
| of Office 365 in companies to sell Copilot. Their AI
| investment plans are, well, plans which could be scaled
| down easily. Worst case scenario for them is their
| investment in OpenAI becoming worthless.
|
| It would hurt but is hardly life threatening. Their revenue
| driver is clearly their position at the heart of entreprise
| IT and they are pretty much untouchable here.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > Worst case scenario for them is their investment in
| OpenAI becoming worthless.
|
| And even then, if that happens when the bubble pops,
| they'll likely just acquire OpenAI on the cheap. Thanks
| to the current agreement, it already runs on Azure, they
| already have access to OpenAI's IP, and Microsoft has
| already developed all their Copilots on top of it. It
| would be near-zero cost for Microsoft at that point to
| just absorb them and continue on as they are today.
|
| Microsoft isn't going anywhere, for better or for worse.
|
| Despite them pissing off users with Windows, what HN
| forgets, is they aren't Microsoft's customer. The
| individual user/consumer never was. We may not want what
| MS is selling, but their enterprise customers definitely
| do.
| throwawayffffas wrote:
| I think that's the impression you get if you focus on
| Microsoft as a OS vendor. It's not that anymore, that's why
| their OS sucks for many years now. Their main business is
| b2b, cloud services, and azure. I think they are pretty
| safe from OpenAI. Plus they have invested big in OpenAI as
| well.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Windows is hard to replace in large organizations. Is
| there actually any real AI competitors in the stack? Well
| Google, maybe. The whole Windows+Office+AD+Exchange and
| now Azure stack is unlikely to go any time soon. However
| badly they screw it up.
| robotnikman wrote:
| True. Basically any medium to large scale business is
| reliant on Windows/Office/AD. While there are open source
| alternatives to Windows/Office, I can't think of a good
| open source alternative to AD/Group Policy/etc
| goalieca wrote:
| M365 is arguably far worse than office97.
| Drive/sharepoint is confusing and team is especially
| broken.
|
| Azure is a product all right, but there's nothing
| particularly better there than anywhere else.
| nabla9 wrote:
| I cry for Elon, that precious jewel of a human being.
|
| Tesla (P/E: 273, PEG: 16.3) the car maker without robots,
| robotaxis is less than 15% of the Tesla valuation at best.
| When the AI hype dies, selloff starts and negative sentiment
| hits, we have below $200B market cap company.
|
| It will hurt Elon mentally. He will need a hug.
| slaw wrote:
| Never bet against TSLA. Elon will just start selling
| tickets Mars colony.
| officeplant wrote:
| He's gonna need a lot of ketamine in the aftermath that's
| for sure.
| Rover222 wrote:
| Then show us your puts, mr buffet
| bdangubic wrote:
| lol - yea...
| gizajob wrote:
| The fanboys obsessively buy any dip. It should have been
| back at a $200billion market cap countless times but it
| never gets there.
| aurareturn wrote:
| OpenAI, Anthropic, and others will be bought for cents on the
| dollar.
|
| OpenAI is existential threat to all big tech including Meta,
| Google, Microsoft, Apple. Hence, they're all spending lavishly
| right now to not get left behind.
|
| Meta --> GenAI Content creation can disrupt Instagram. ChatGPT
| likely has more data on a person than Instagram does by now for
| ads. 800 million daily active users for ChatGPT already.
|
| Google --> Cash cow search is under threat from ChatGPT.
|
| Microsoft --> Productivity/work is fundamentally changed with
| GenAI.
|
| Apple --> OpenAI can make a device that runs ChatGPT as the OS
| instead of relying on iOS.
|
| I'm betting that OpenAI will emerge bigger than current big
| tech in ~5 years or less.
| nabla9 wrote:
| OpenAI has no technical moat (others can do what they do),
| generate content, all have the same data.
|
| OpenAI does not expect to be cash-flow positive until 2029.
| When no new capital comes in, it can't continue.
|
| OpenAI can's survive any kind of price competition.
| aurareturn wrote:
| They consistently have the best or second best models.
|
| They have infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly
| active users.
|
| Investors are lining up to give them money. When they IPO,
| they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion.
|
| There's price competition right now. They're still
| surviving. If there is price competition, they're the most
| likely to survive.
| nabla9 wrote:
| > Investors are lining up to give them money. When they
| IPO, they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion.
|
| Your premise is that there is no bubble. We are talking
| about what happens when bubble bursts. Without investor
| money drying out there is no bubble.
| aurareturn wrote:
| I think we are in 1995 of the dotcom bubble for AI.
| arunabha wrote:
| Clearly, a _lot_ of people here disagree with you. Doesn
| 't mean you cannot be right, but in general, the HN crowd
| is a pretty good predictor of the trends in the tech
| industry.
| gizajob wrote:
| More like 1998
| jimbokun wrote:
| What if investors stop giving them money before they IPO?
| NumberCruncher wrote:
| They have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves
| 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users.
|
| Even worse, they train their model(s) on the interactions
| of those non-paying customers, what makes the model(s)
| less useful for paying customers. It's kind of a "you can
| not charge for a Porsche if you only satisfy the needs of
| a typical Dacia owner".
| j_w wrote:
| > Apple --> OpenAI can make a device that runs ChatGPT as the
| OS instead of relying on iOS.
|
| Yeah... No they can't. I don't agree with any of your
| "disruptions," but this one is just comically incorrect.
| There was a post on HN somewhat recently that was a simulated
| computer using LLMs, and it was unusable.
| r053bud wrote:
| I'll HAPPILY bet that it won't. $10,000 to a charity of each
| other's choosing?
| officeplant wrote:
| >Apple --> OpenAI can make a device that runs ChatGPT as the
| OS instead of relying on iOS.
|
| Ah yes, PromptOS will go down in the history books for sure.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > I'm betting that OpenAI will emerge bigger than current big
| tech in ~5 years or less.
|
| I seriously doubt it. If this bubble pops, the best OpenAI
| can hope for is they just get absorbed into Microsoft.
| belter wrote:
| You will be able to rent a whole Meta datacenter with thousands
| of NVIDIA B200 for $5/hour. AWS will become unprofitable due to
| abundance of capacity...
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon will get through easily.
| They don't have excessive debt. They can afford to lose their
| investments into AI.
|
| Survive, yes. I don't think anybody ever questioned this.
|
| I wonder if they will be able to remain as "growth stocks",
| however. These companies are allergic to be seen as nature
| companies, with more modest growth profiles, share profits,
| etc.
| throwawayffffas wrote:
| Obviously, at least in the US the AI bubble is the only thing
| keeping the economy afloat. If it wasn't for the bubble the US
| would be in a recession.
|
| Not sure how the situation is in Europe and Asia, but I would
| guess about the same.
| clickety_clack wrote:
| Sounds like something an extortionist would say in a movie.
| "We're all dirty here!"
| project2501a wrote:
| Yeah, exactly: it is an implied threat: "If I go, I am taking
| you down with me"
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| The context makes it clear that it's not any sort of implied
| threat. Pichai made his statement in response to an interview
| question about whether Google might be so well positioned
| that they're immune to the impact of an AI bubble. (But I
| don't blame you for being misled - like most headlines these
| days, this would have been intensely optimized for virality
| over accuracy, and making tech CEOs sound like supervillains
| is great for virality.)
| pixl97 wrote:
| I mean this commonly happens in business/economies. Businesses
| that are dirty can make more money, at least temporarily out
| competing those around them. If they play it right they can
| drive their good competitors out of business or buy them up.
| Moreso, the crash at the end of a bubble will just as likely
| drive the good businesses out as the bad.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| "But everybody's doing it!"
| jordanb wrote:
| They really are shameless aren't they?
|
| Makes one think that this was the plan all along. I think they
| saw how SVB went down and realize that if they're reckless and
| irresponsible at a big enough scale they can get the government
| to just transfer money to them. It's almost like this is their
| new business model "we're selling exposure to the $XX trillion
| dollar bailout industry."
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _They really are shameless aren 't they? Makes one think
| that this was the plan all along._
|
| Not really. Sundar is still pretty bullish on GenAI, just not
| the investor excitement around it (bubble).
| Pichai described AI as "the most profound technology"
| humankind has worked on. "We will have to work through
| societal disruptions," he said, adding that the technology
| would "create new opportunities" and "evolve and transition
| certain jobs." He said people who adapt to AI tools "will do
| better" in their professions, whatever field they work in.
| gizajob wrote:
| Yeah the profundity of the slop churned out by Sora is
| really something to behold. Veritably the pinnacle of
| millennia of human art and creativity.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| I don't think it's very difficult to imagine that the usgov
| is trying to put pressure on industry to make "number go up".
| Given the general competency level in usgov these days, I
| also wouldn't be particularly surprised if nobody knew or
| cared about whether the "up" of the number was real or
| meaningful, or whether there would be consequences.
|
| Current admin really, _really_ wants the number going up, and
| is also incapable of considering or is ignorant to any notion
| of consequence for any actions of any kind.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| This is the thing that worries me the most. The market is
| past due for a market correction. Yet this government is
| willing to burn down everything for short term gains.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Hasn't it been pretty widely acknowledged that AI funding has
| created a whirlpool of money cycling between a few players-
| cloud / datacenter hosts / operators (oracle), GPU (nvidia) and
| model operators (openai).
|
| To pile on, there's hardly a product being developed that
| doesn't integrate "ai" in some way. I was trying to figure out
| why my brand new laptop was running slowly, and (among other
| things) noticed 3 different services running- microsoft
| copilot, microsoft 365 copilot (not the same as the first,
| naturally) and the laptop manufacturer's "chat" service. That
| same day, I had no fewer than 5 other programs all begging me
| to try their AI integrations.
|
| Job boards for startups are all filled with "using AI" fluff
| because that's the only thing investors seem to want to put
| money into.
|
| We really are all dirty here.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > He told the BBC that the company owns what he called a "full
| stack" of technologies, from chips to YouTube data to models and
| frontier science research. This integrated approach, he
| suggested, would help the company weather any market turbulence
| better than competitors.
|
| I guess but is it better for an investor to own 2 shares of
| Google or 1 share of OpenAI and 1 share of TSMC?
|
| Like I have no doubt that being vertically integrated as a single
| company has lot of benefits but one can also create a trust that
| invests vertically as well.
| jmalicki wrote:
| There may be firm specific risk etc., but there is also a
| concept of double marginalization, where monopolies that exist
| across the vertical layers of a production chain will be less
| efficient than a single monopoly, because you only get a single
| layer of dead weight loss rather than multiple.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_marginalization?wprov=s...
| pphysch wrote:
| OpenAI going poof would have a negative impact on TSMC demand
| (revenue), right?
| wmf wrote:
| Yeah, TSMC demand might go down from 300% to 100%.
| jaennaet wrote:
| So yes, it would have an effect; even with your imaginary
| numbers that'd be a 3x drawdown
| convolvatron wrote:
| it might bring in the schedules, but since it probably
| wouldn't cause there to be an actual hole, its really
| more about long term fab build plans than anything else
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _since it probably wouldn 't cause there to be an
| actual hole, its really more about long term fab build
| plans than anything else_
|
| Equities are forward looking. TSMC's valuation doesn't
| make sense if it doesn't have a backlog to grow into.
| nradov wrote:
| OpenAI is privately held. Regular retail investors can't buy
| shares.
| boringg wrote:
| Well if AI goes poof - the equity markets take a really big bad
| hit. So I would probably move out of equity and into something
| more concrete and reinvest if you can time the market bottom.
|
| Nvidia earnings tomorrow will be the litmus test if things are
| going to topple over.
| ghostpepper wrote:
| Does anyone really think it's "if" and not "when" ?
| burnte wrote:
| Agreed, it's when. They're hoping to stave it off or maybe
| stretch out the pop into a correction by all hedging together
| with all these incestuous deals, but you can't hold back the
| tide. They debuted this tech way too early, promised way too
| much, and now the market is wary about buying AI products until
| more noise settles out of the system.
| ares623 wrote:
| It's going to pop as soon as they get confirmation the govt
| will bail them out. Until then they're going to give it their
| all to keep it growing.
| pksebben wrote:
| I think they already have that confirmation. When we bailed
| the banks out in 08 we basically said "If you're big enough
| that we'd be screwed without you then take whatever risks
| you like with impunity".
|
| That's a reduction of complexity, of course, but the core
| of the lesson is there. We have actually kept on with all
| the practices that led to the housing crash (MBS, predatory
| lending, Mixing investment and traditional banking).
| n8cpdx wrote:
| > If you're big enough that we'd be screwed without you
| then take whatever risks you like with impunity".
|
| I know financially it will be bad because number not go
| up and number need go up.
|
| But do we actually depend on generative/agentic AI at all
| in meaningful ways? I'm pretty sure all LLMs could be
| Thanos snapped away and there would be near zero material
| impact. If the studies are at all reliable all the
| programmers will be more efficient. Maybe we'd be better
| off because there wouldn't be so much AI slop.
|
| It is very far from clear that there is any real value
| being extracted from this technology.
|
| The government should let it burn.
|
| Edit: I forgot about "country girls make do". Maybe gen
| AI is a critical pillar of the economy after all.
| pksebben wrote:
| I expect the downvotes to come from this as they always
| seem to do these days, but I know from my personal
| experience that there is value in these agents.
|
| Not so much for the work I do for my company, but having
| these agents has been a fairly huge boon in some specific
| ways personally:
|
| - search replacement (beats google almost all of the
| time)
|
| - having code-capable agents means my pet projects are
| getting along a lot more than they used to. I check in
| with them in moments of free time and give them large
| projects to tackle that will take a while (I've found
| that having them do these in Rust works best, because it
| has the most guardrails)
|
| - it's been infinitely useful to be able to ask questions
| when I don't know enough to know what terms to search
| for. I have a number of meatspace projects that I didn't
| know enough about to ask the right questions, and having
| LLMs has unblocked those 100% of the time.
|
| Economic value? I won't make an assessment. Value to me
| (and I'm sure others)? Definitely would miss them if they
| disappeared tomorrow. I should note that given the state
| of things (large AI companies with the same shareholder
| problems as MAANG) I do worry that those use cases will
| disappear as advertising and other monetizing influences
| make their way in.
|
| Slop is indeed a huge problem. Perhaps you're right that
| it's a net negative overall, but I don't think it's
| accurate to say there's not any value to be had.
| s1mplicissimus wrote:
| I'm glad you had positive experiences using this specific
| technology.
|
| Personally, I had the exact opposite experience: Wrong,
| deceitful responses, hallucinations, arbitrary pointless
| changes to code... It's like that one junior I requested
| to be removed from the team after they peed in the
| codebase one too many times.
|
| On the slop i have 2 sentiments: Lots of slop = higher
| demand for my skills to clean it up. But also lots of
| slop = worse software on probably most things, impacting
| not just me, but also friends, family and the rest of
| humanity. At least it's not only a downside :/
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure all LLMs could be Thanos snapped away
| and there would be near zero material impact.
|
| I mostly agree, but I don't think it's the model
| developers that would get bailed out. OpenAI & Anthropic
| can fail, and should be let to fail if it comes to that.
|
| Nvidia is the one that would get bailed out. As would
| Microsoft, if it came to that.
|
| I also think they should be let to fail, but there's no
| way the US GOV ever allows them to.
| exasperaited wrote:
| Which of these firms is too big to fail though?
|
| It all depends on whether MAGA survives as a single
| community. One of the few things MAGA understands
| correctly is that _AI is a job-killer_.
|
| Trump going all out to rescue OpenAI or Anthropic doesn't
| feel likely. Who actually needs it, as a dependency? Who
| can't live without it? Why bail out entities you can
| afford to let go to the wall (and maybe then corruptly
| buy out in a fire sale)?
|
| Similarly, can you actually see him agreeing to bail out
| Microsoft without taking an absurd stake in the business?
| MAGA won't like it. But MS could be broken up and sold;
| every single piece of that business has potential buyers.
|
| Nvidia, now that I can see. Because Trump is surrounded
| by crypto grifters and is dependent on crypto for his
| wealth. GPUs are at least real solid products and Nvidia
| still, I think, make the ones the crypto guys want.
|
| Google, you can see, are getting themselves ready to
| _not_ be bailed out.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| > One of the few things MAGA understands correctly is
| that AI is a job-killer
|
| Trump (and by extension MAGA) has the worst job growth of
| any President in the past 50 years. I don't think that's
| their brand at all. They put a bunch of concessions to AI
| companies in the Big Beautiful Bill, and Trump is not
| running again. He would completely bail them out, and
| MAGA will believe whatever he says, and congress will
| follow whatever wind is blowing.
| bigbuppo wrote:
| If Meta or Google disappared overnight, it would be, at
| worst, a minor annoyance for most of the world. Despite
| the fact that both companies are advertising behemoths,
| marketing departments everywhere would celebrate their
| end.
| lazide wrote:
| Considering how much of the world runs on WhatsApp alone,
| that's laughably wrong.
| diroussel wrote:
| So if WhatsApp had an outage, but you needed to
| communicate to someone, you wouldn't be able to? Don't
| you have contacts saved locally, and other message apps
| available?
| lazide wrote:
| In most of Asia, Latin America, Africa, and about half of
| Europe?
|
| You'd be pretty stuck. I guess SMS might work, but it
| wouldn't for most businesses (they use the WhatsApp
| business functionality, there is no SMS thing backing
| it).
|
| Most people don't even use text anymore. China has it's
| own Apps, but everyone else uses WhatsApp exclusively at
| this point.
| hermanzegerman wrote:
| Nobody uses WhatsApp Business in Germany, Austria or
| Switzerland in a way that you would be stuck without
| hermanzegerman wrote:
| Then they would just use another Messenger or fall back
| on RCS/SMS.
|
| The only reason WhatsApp is so popular, is because so
| many people are on it, but you have all you need (their
| phone number) to contact them elsewhere anyway
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Watching this on my Android on a chrome browser.
|
| Hard disagree
| project2501a wrote:
| They got enough slush money to make this go on for a couple
| of years.
|
| I am shocked at the part they know it is a bubble and they
| are doing nothing to amortize it. Which means they expect the
| government to step in and save their butts.
|
| ... Well, not that shocked.
| bigbuppo wrote:
| They're floating 40 year bonds for technology with a three
| year lifecycle. They do not have the actual cash for this.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > They debuted this tech way too early, promised way too
| much,
|
| finally, some rational thought into the AI insanity. The
| entire 'fake it til you make it' aspect of this is
| ridiculous. sadly, the world we live in means that you can't
| build a product and hold its release until it works. you have
| to be first to release even if it's not working as
| advertised. you can keep brushing off critiques with "it's on
| the road map". those that are not as tuned in will just think
| it is working and nothing nefarious is going on. with as long
| as we've had paid for LLM apps, I'm still amazed at the
| number of people that do not know that the output is still
| not 100% accurate. there are also people that use phrases as
| thinking when referring to getting a response. there's also
| the misleading terms like "searching the web..." when on this
| forum we all know it's not a live search.
| burnte wrote:
| > sadly, the world we live in means that you can't build a
| product and hold its release until it works. you have to be
| first to release even if it's not working as advertised.
|
| You absolutely can and it's an extremely reliable path to
| success. The only thing that's changed is the amount of
| marketing hype thrown out by the fake-it vendors. Staying
| quiet and debuting a solid product is still a big win.
|
| > I'm still amazed at the number of people that do not know
| that the output is still not 100% accurate.
|
| This is the part that "scares" me. People who do not
| understand the tool thinking they're ACTUALLY INTELLIGENT.
| Not only are they not intelligent, they're not even
| ACTUALLY language models because few LLMs are actually
| trained on only language data and none work on language
| units (letters, words, sentences), tokens are abstractions
| from that. They're OUTPUT modelers. And they're absolutely
| not even close to being let loose unattended on important
| things. There are already people losing careers over AI
| crap like lawyers using AI to appeal sanctions because they
| had AI write a motion. Etc.
|
| And I think that was ultimately the biggest unforced error
| of these AI companies and the ultimate reason for the
| coming bubble crash. They didn't temper expectations at
| all, the massive gap between expectation and reality is
| already costing companies huge amounts of money, and it's
| only going to get worse. Had they started saying, "these
| work well, but use them carefully as we increase
| reliability" they'd be in a much better spot.
|
| In the past 2 years I've been involved in several projects
| trying to leverage AI, and all but one has failed. The most
| spectacular failure was Microsoft's Dragon Copilot. We
| piloted it with 100 doctors, after a few months we had a
| 20% retention rate, and by the end of a year, ONE doctor
| still liked it. We replaced it with another tool that
| WORKS, docs love it, and it was 12.6% the cost, literally a
| sixth the price. MS was EXTREMELY unhappy we canceled after
| a year, tried to throw discounts at us, but ultimately we
| had to say "the product does not work nearly as well as the
| competition."
| Zaskoda wrote:
| Sort of? My thoughts are that there's something of an AI arms
| race and the US doesn't want to lose that race to another
| country... so if the AI bubble pops too fiercely, there may
| likely be some form of intervention. And any time the
| government intervenes, all bets are off the table. Who knows
| what they will do and what the impact will be.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| I can see them intervening to preserve AI R&D of some sort,
| but many of the current companies are running consumer
| oriented products. Why care if some AI art generation website
| goes bust?
| nicce wrote:
| More like that when it happens, how big the pop is.
| tetris11 wrote:
| It'll be fine. When the banks burst in 2008, they were gifted
| 7 trillion to make up the shortfall and life went on for the
| rich.
|
| This time they'll be gifted 70 trillion to make up for the
| shortfall, and life shall continue on for the rich.
|
| It's win-win for them, there's no risk at all
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I think the economic background has changed, in 2008 it was
| after a big run up in wealth so the reversion wasn't so
| bad, there was some fat to cut. Since then people have been
| ground down to the breaking point, another 2008 wipeout
| will cut into the bone. I do think this time it could be
| different.
| jghn wrote:
| privatize profit, socialize risk. same as it always was
| gizajob wrote:
| The money system breaking is one thing, companies that
| build chatbots going to the wall is another.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It's also possible it'll be more of a deflation than a pop.
|
| That's what I'm personally hoping for anyway, would rather
| the economy avoid a big recession.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Without AI bubble the economy is already mostly in a
| recession.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Without the AI bubble, most of that money would probably
| still flow to some other sector of the economy. It
| wouldn't just disappear.
| kazen44 wrote:
| which is kind of sad to think about. The US could have
| invested all that money to actually invest in its
| infrastructure, schools, hospitals and general wellbeing
| of its workforce to make the economy thrive.
| techblueberry wrote:
| I've been trying to grok this idea of - when does a bubble pop.
| Like in theory if everyone knows it's a bubble, that should
| cause it to pop, because people should be making their way to
| the exists, playing music chairs to get their money out early.
|
| But as I try to sort of narrative the ideas behind bubbles and
| bursts, one thing I realize, is that I think in order for a
| bubble to burst, people essentially have to want it to burst(or
| the opposite have to want to not keep it going).
|
| But like Bernie Madoff got caught because he couldn't keep
| paying dividends in his ponzi scheme, and people started
| withdrawing money. But in theory, even if everyone knew, if no
| one withdrew their money (and told the FCC) and he was able to
| use the current deposits to pay dividends a few years. The
| ponzi scheme didn't _have_ to end, the bubble didn't have to
| pop.
|
| So I've been wondering, like if everyone knows AI is a bubble,
| what has to happen to have it collapse? Like if a price is what
| people are willing to pay, in order for Tesla to collapse,
| people have to decide they no longer want to pay $400 for Tesla
| shares. If they keep paying $400 for tesla shares, then it will
| continue to be worth $400.
|
| So I've been trying to think, in the most simple terms, what
| would have to happen to have the AI bubble pop, and basically,
| as long as people perceive AI companies to have the biggest
| returns, and they don't want to move their money to another
| place with higher returns (similar to TSLA bulls) then the
| bubble won't pop.
|
| And I guess that can keep happening as long as the economy
| keeps growing. And if circular deals are causing the stock
| market to keep rising, can they just go on like this forever?
|
| The downside of course being, the starvation of investments in
| other parts of the economy, and giving up what may be better
| gains. It's game theory, as long as no one decides to stop
| playing the game, and say pull out all their money and put it
| into I dunno, bonds or GME, the music keeps playing?
| AstroBen wrote:
| Eventually money to invest will run out. If earnings of the
| companies doesn't catch up we'll reach a situation where
| stock prices reach a peak, have limited future expected
| returns, and then it'll pop when there's a better opportunity
| for the money
|
| Imagine if interest rates go up and you can get 5% from a
| savings account. One big player pulls out cash triggering a
| minor drop in AI stocks. Panic sells happen trying to not be
| the last one out of the door, margin calls etc.
|
| You're assuming cash will never stop flowing in driving up
| prices. It will. The only way it goes on forever is if the
| companies end up being wildly profitable
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _when does a bubble pop_
|
| This one? When China commits to subsidising and releasing
| cutting-edge open-source models. What BYD did to Tesla's FSD
| fee dreams, Beijing could do to American AI's export
| ambitions.
| wavemode wrote:
| It's important to keep in mind the difference between the
| stock market and the economy.
|
| Economically, AI is a bubble, and lots of startups whose
| current business model is "UI in front of the OpenAI API" are
| likely doomed. That's just economic reality - you can't run
| on investor money forever. Eventually you need actual
| revenue, and many of these companies aren't generating very
| much of it.
|
| That being said, most of these companies aren't publicly
| traded right now, and their demise would currently be
| unlikely to significantly affect the stock market.
| Conversely, the publicly traded companies who are currently
| investing a lot in AI (Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc) aren't
| dependent on AI, and certainly wouldn't go out of business
| over it.
|
| The problem with the dotcom bubble was that there were a lot
| of publicly traded companies that went bankrupt. This wiped
| out trillions of dollars in value from regular investors.
| Doesn't matter how much you may irrationally want a bubble to
| continue - you simply can't stay invested in a company that
| doesn't exist anymore.
|
| On the other hand, the AI bubble bursting is probably going
| to cost private equity a lot of money, but not so much
| regular investors unless/until AI startups (startups
| dependent on AI for their core business model) start to go
| public in large numbers.
| whattheheckheck wrote:
| I think the targeted ad revenue all of the llm providers
| will get using everyones regular chat data + credit card
| dataset for training is going to be insanely good.
|
| Plus the information they can provide to the State on the
| sentiment of users is also going to be greatly valued
| techblueberry wrote:
| Didn't perplexity make only like 27K from ad revenue?
| They're going to have to actively compete with Google and
| Facebook dollars, as google and facebook develop
| competing products.
| burnte wrote:
| And there we have the reason for all of these interdependent
| deals between all these firms, they're all hedging with each
| other they can keep this set of plates spinning.
|
| They can't, not firever. Bubbles pop.
| nickff wrote:
| How is what they're doing a 'hedge'? It seems more like
| alternative financing, or keiretsu.
| viccis wrote:
| Very cool and healthy for the CEO of a company investing massive
| amounts into a given technology to casually refer to it as a
| "bubble" at the same time. I guess he softens the statement a bit
| by calling it "an AI bubble" instead of the "the AI bubble", but
| it's still interesting to see everyone involved in this economic
| mess start to acknowledge it.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Unironically agreed that it's good for a CEO to remain
| relatively level headed and clear eyed.
|
| The comparison made to the dotcom bubble is apt. It was a
| bubble, but that didn't mean that all the internet and
| e-commerce ideas were wrong, it was more a matter of investing
| too much too early. When the AI bubble pops or deflates,
| progress on AI models will continue on.
| sgroppino wrote:
| It's not a bubble until it bursts
| barbazoo wrote:
| Gave our kids a bath last night, can confirm, a bubble is a
| bubble even before it pops.
| jmount wrote:
| Tons of companies survived the dot com bubble pop. Corrections
| are when the market does some sorting.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| Wow, this is such a unique and beautiful insight literally
| nobody has ever heard before. Good job!
| gizajob wrote:
| 10x more useful than your retort.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| I think it will pop but not in the way everyone thinks it will
| pop. There's plenty that's not going to go away / anywhere, but
| I'm sure lots of startups will fail and close their doors.
| hypeatei wrote:
| What way do you envision it popping? Nvidia has tons of
| investments on their books in smaller companies. If a couple of
| them start showing poor earnings, it could cause a death spiral
| for NVDA because 1) their investment just tanked, and 2) those
| companies are no longer buying chips from them therefore
| reducing revenue.
|
| Nvidia also makes up ~7% of the S&P 500 so if their stock price
| falls substantially, that's a big chunk of capital just... gone
| for a lot of people.
| scottLobster wrote:
| Silicon Valley! Unprofitable debt and marketing all the way up
| until you get bailed out by the taxpayers, apparently.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I'm not seeing that happening. Unlike banking and housing
| there's not much systemic or political risk in letting these
| companies crash. It's mostly going to hit a very small number
| of high net worth people who don't have a lot of clout and are
| oddly disconnected from the rest of the economy.
| bogomipz wrote:
| This is incorrect. A lot of these companies are raising debt
| to pay for these datacenter build outs. And that debt has
| already been sold to pension funds. The risk has already been
| spread. See Blue Owl Capital and how Meta is financing its
| Hyperion datacenter. They raised 30 billion in debt. Main
| street is already exposed as those bonds are in funds offered
| by the usual players BlackRock, Invesco, Pimco etc.
| scottLobster wrote:
| Virtually everyone's 401k is overexposed to these companies
| due to their insane market caps and the hype around them. If
| they go every S&P 500 and total US market ETF goes with them,
| right as the Boomers start retiring en-masse.
|
| Even Vanguard's Total World Index, VT, is roughly 15% MAG 7.
|
| That's not even getting into who's financing whom for what
| and to whom that debt may be sold to.
| rchaud wrote:
| Most bubbles occur due to excessive levels of credit offered too
| cheaply, resulting in a whole bunch of defaults happening at the
| same time. All the major AI players have borrowed money to buy
| GPUs and build data centers and have used Special Purpose
| Vehicles to do it so the debt doesn't fall on their own balance
| sheet, probably using a certain amount of stock as collateral. If
| the SPV defaults, could that trigger a big sell-off?
| vineyardmike wrote:
| The question is, a sell off for who?
|
| If they've securitized and sold their data center buildout,
| will the big clouds and AI labs actually face any severe
| impact? While the sums are huge, most of these companies have
| the cash on hand to pay down the debt. The big AI labs have
| said their models earn enough to cover the cost to train
| themselves, just not the next one. This means they could at any
| time walk away from the compute spend for training.
|
| With the heavy securitization of all these deals, will the
| "bubble pop" just hurt the financial industry?
|
| If a company like CoreWeaver sees their SPV for a Microsoft-
| specific data center go bankrupt, that means MSFT decided to
| walk away from the deal. Red flag for the industry, but also a
| sign of fiscal restraint. Someone else can swoop in and buy the
| DC for cheap, while MSFT avoids the Opex hit. Seems like the
| losers will be whoever bought that SPV debt, which probably
| isn't a tech company.
| Irishsteve wrote:
| It's an insurance company so basically pensions.
| nradov wrote:
| Right, insurance companies are the new "financial dark
| matter". The next financial crisis will probably be
| triggered when a few large life and property insurers fail
| because they purchased debt assets which were highly rated
| but turn out to be junk. (Medical and auto insurers aren't
| exposed here because they operate on much shorter
| timeframes.)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _It's an insurance company_
|
| What is?
| badgersnake wrote:
| Every CEO is reading from the same script right now. It might be
| a bubble but it's just like the internet, it's still going to be
| relevant and it's just the crap companies and grifters who will
| die.
|
| I wonder who's writing the script.
| partiallypro wrote:
| I think AI is a bubble, but I don't think we're close to the peak
| yet.
| hylaride wrote:
| Ever literally blow bubbles? You never really know how big each
| one will be.
|
| My biggest worry is that what will be left standing after all
| of this is the organizations that are quietly all the AI slop
| everywhere, be it the normal web or YouTube.
| helterskelter wrote:
| I'm curious what HN is doing with their portfolios right about
| now. I'd be dumping NVDA and reallocating to more bonds for the
| time being.
| josefritzishere wrote:
| This sub is the most important question in the thread. Where do
| you put your money to hedge against an AI market crash?
| hirako2000 wrote:
| Commodities.
| ajross wrote:
| You _can 't_ hedge against a whole market. And you can't time
| bubble pop events anyway. You can dump NVDA today, sure,
| because it's overvalued at $180. And most of us agree. But
| that won't prevent it from going to $300 before it pops
| (which is totally reasonable too!), so dumping it today might
| hurt as much as it helps. Run-ups at the end of a speculative
| bubble are by definition irrational and produce in-hindsight-
| ridiculous numbers.
|
| If you're young and invested for the long term, just leave
| all your junk in broad index securities. You can't do better
| than that, you just have to ride the bumps.
|
| On the other hand, I'm approaching retirement and looking
| seriously at when to pull the trigger. The aggregate downside
| _to me_ of a large market drop or whatever is much higher
| than it is to a 20-something, because losing out on (to make
| a number up) an extra 30% of net worth is minor when compared
| to "now you have to work another three years before
| retiring" (or alternate framings like "you have to retire in
| Houston and not Miami", etc...).
|
| So most of my assets are moving out of volatiles entirely.
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| into? bonds?
| ajross wrote:
| A few bond funds, but frankly just a lot of money market
| cash in the short term. Most of our guts say that the
| crash is imminent and if it is the extra fees and hassle
| won't be worth it.
| oulipo2 wrote:
| Cash or bonds I assume
| nradov wrote:
| In a crash everything gets positively correlated for a while.
| You can go to cash temporarily but of course no one can
| consistently time the market.
| coldpie wrote:
| Same thing as always. Stick with your plan and rebalance if
| you need to. If your plan is 80% stock 20% bond (or whatever
| ratios), and the increased stock prices are putting you
| significantly out of balance, then sell your stock funds and
| buy bonds to put it back to where it should be. If the crash
| happens, sell your now too-high bonds and buy stocks. Or just
| buy into one of those funds that does all this for you, or
| hire a fiduciary financial advisor to do it for you.
| hylaride wrote:
| With even the SP500 being super concentrated in AI-exposed
| companies, probably a combination of bonds and foreign
| equities. But hedging does mean being OK with watching any
| (perceived or real) bubble madness continue. I wanted to put
| all my wealth into Apple circa 2005, but chose not to because
| blah blah blah diversification. Obviously I wish I did, but
| I'm ok with the perfectly sensible decision I made - and I'd
| be retired many times over had I done it.
|
| Personally speaking, as somebody that was 100% in equities
| until earlier this year (I'm in my early 40s and had most of
| my wealth in VOO), I shifted to a 60-40 portfolio - there are
| ETFs that maintain the balance for you. I did this knowing
| full well that this could attenuate my upside, but I figured
| it's worth it than being so concentrated in a single part of
| an industry (AI within tech) and so much upside was already
| acquired up until that point. Also, I figured the chances of
| the 2nd Trump term adding to volatility weren't going to help
| tamper volatility. On top of that, my income is tied to tech,
| so diversifying away further from it is sensible (especially
| the equity parts of my compensation).
|
| But if you're in your 20s, your nest egg is likely small
| enough that I'd just continue plugging away in automatic
| contributions. Investing at all is far more important than
| anything else at that stage.
| mrtesthah wrote:
| AAPL is chronically undervalued, and at the same time derives
| no revenue from generative AI.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| Do you live in a home you own with no mortgage? Do you have a
| fully electrified home, only EVs, and enough solar to run
| those things? You can make real concrete capital investments
| instead of abstract financial ones to reduce your required
| living/"operating" expenses, insulating you somewhat from the
| state of financial markets.
| Anonyneko wrote:
| This doesn't seem to work very well in economies where
| housing isn't constantly appreciating like crazy (I'm not
| from the US)...
| ndriscoll wrote:
| It does if you're paying for that housing (either rent or
| mortgage payments). People invest into stocks while
| simultaneously holding a liability (e.g. they need to
| somehow come up with payments to continue living
| somewhere, or to continue having heating/cooling/lights).
| If you think all of the financial investments available
| to you might crash, and your source of income may
| evaporate in a correlated event, you can instead put all
| of your money into minimizing your liabilities. The goal
| is not to see your home value increase--you're not trying
| to sell it. It's to secure everything you need to have
| the standard of living you want by _owning_ those things.
| eqvinox wrote:
| Land/housing/property, as directly as possible and
| reasonable. Just make sure you don't do it in an overheated
| place like New York.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Just make sure you don 't do it in an overheated place
| like New York_
|
| If the stock market crashes, New York property probably
| sings. Stock market crash means ZIRP. And ZIRP means lots
| of money sloshing through New York.
| eqvinox wrote:
| > lots of money sloshing through New York.
|
| That's kinda the problem, I'd expect it to be a bit...
| volatile. I guess it's a valid target to gamble on if
| that matches your risk profile.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I 'd expect it to be a bit... volatile_
|
| Technically yes, but only because something monotonically
| increasing in price is volatile.
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| It's more complex than that, a summary of my highly
| subjective understanding:
|
| 1. AI companies manage to build AGI and achieve takeoff. I
| have no idea on how to hedge against that.
|
| 2. The market is not allowed to crash. There will likely be
| some lag between economic weakness and money printing. Safer
| option is probably to buy split 50% SPY and 50% bonds. A
| riskier option is trying to time the market.
|
| 3. The market is allowed to crash. Bonds, cash, etc.
|
| Depending on what you believe will happen and risk appetite
| you can blend between the strategies or add a short
| component. I am holding #2 with no short positions in post-
| tax accounts and full SPY in tax advantaged accounts.
| dabockster wrote:
| US government bonds
| nurettin wrote:
| Why trade individual stocks anyway? Cost averaging ETFs is a
| proven way to building wealth. S&P goes down 20%, you average
| down, it recovers and you get another 2-3 years of growth. This
| goes on until civilization collapses.
| gretch wrote:
| If you buy ETFs, you basically hold some stocks you don't
| want.
|
| For example, stock from war profiteering companies (lockheed,
| raytheon).
|
| Note that investing in war profiteers is a proven way to
| build wealth. I just don't want to do that.
|
| This argument not only applies to evil companies, but also
| dumb ones. For example, I have no interest in investing in
| IBM or Oracle even those both of those are also money makers.
| lazide wrote:
| Ok?
| miloignis wrote:
| You could buy ETFs and then short the stocks you don't like
| more, I suppose.
| nradov wrote:
| Buying index funds (either mutual funds or ETFs) has been an
| effective approach for retail investors. But the concern now
| is that some US stock index funds are so heavily weighted to
| the "Magnificent 7" stocks that much of the previous benefit
| of diversification has been lost. The Mag 7 are all highly
| correlated with each other so if one falls then usually the
| others do as well.
|
| https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/smart-
| money/magnifi...
|
| There are other index funds which are equal weighted rather
| than market weighted. Those have underperformed lately but
| might be less volatile if the AI bubble pops.
| prism56 wrote:
| I'm in a global tracker and the sheet amount in these big
| stocks is scary.
| AstroBen wrote:
| Broad, global diversification with a long term time horizon. So
| I'm doing exactly nothing
|
| I'm not able to predict what the overall market is going to do
| short or medium term
|
| What makes you think your guess is better than the rest of the
| money in the market, most of it acting with better information
| than you?
| boringg wrote:
| Theres a really funny thing going on right now -- in that
| everyone is forecasting an AI bubble to pop. It feels like
| every single human is saying that from the heads of tech
| companies with comments that are veiled to bankers and everyone
| on the street.
|
| It reminds me of the time that everyone said the economy was
| going to tank and somehow everyone had it wrong a couple years
| ago.
|
| It feels implausible that it isn't overbuilt but it also feels
| really strange for everyone to be pushing this narrative that
| its a bubble - and people taking very public short bets. It
| feels like the contrarian bet is that its going to keep running
| hot. Nvidia earnings tommorrow big litmus test.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| If it was the people actually investing in AI all saying it's
| a bubble, implying that they are holding back, not all-in,
| for fear of it crashing, then it'd have room to run further
| (until they were all-in, and leveraged to the eyeballs, cf
| subprime housing crash liar loans, dot-com crash investor
| margin accounts).
|
| However, it seems more like the people pumping billions into
| AI are all still "this is going to the moon" gung-ho, and
| unless they are investing billions of CASH, then I guess they
| are borrowing to do so.
|
| I don't know how this financing works - maybe no fear of
| having it pulled like a foreclosure on a subprime mortgage
| holder, or a broker margin call, but it's not going to end
| well if these investments start to fail and the investors
| start running for the door.
|
| Peter Thiel's recent exit from NVidia should be a bit
| concerning given his good record on macro bets and timing.
| officeplant wrote:
| Currently? Wishing there was an S&P 500 that banned tech
| stocks.
| cschmidt wrote:
| There are equal weight S&P ETFs, which avoid having a handful
| of stock dominating. However, they do have to do a lot more
| rebalancing to keep things in line.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| The SPXT [0]/XMAG [1] ETFs are exactly what you're looking
| for.
|
| [0] https://www.proshares.com/our-etfs/strategic/spxt (S&P
| minus tech stocks)
|
| [1] https://www.defianceetfs.com/xmag/ (S&P minus
| "Magnificent 7")
| officeplant wrote:
| Welp, time to see if my 401k provider supports them.
| binary132 wrote:
| if only there were some way for THE ENTIRE MARKET to not have
| quite so much exposure to hype bubbles
| OptionOfT wrote:
| Interestingly I think if the AI succeed at the level that a lot
| of these CEOs hope we're not much better off either.
|
| And the sentiment that goes around is more: reduce the amount of
| people needed to do the same amount of work:
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/09/mckinsey_ai_monetizat...
|
| > McKinsey says, while quoting an HR executive at a Fortune 100
| company griping: "All of these copilots are supposed to make work
| more efficient with fewer people, but my business leaders are
| also saying they can't reduce head count yet."
|
| The problem becomes that eventually all these people who are laid
| off are not going to find new roles.
|
| Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one has
| money to throw around?
| jmkni wrote:
| There's a karma element too
|
| Maybe I can make things more efficient by getting rid of you
| and replacing you with AI, but how long until my boss has the
| same idea?
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-one
| has money to throw around?
|
| The same people who are buying products and services right now.
| Just 10% of the US population is responsible for nearly 50% of
| consumption.
|
| We are just going to bifurcate even more into the haves and
| have-nots. Maybe that 10% now becomes responsible for 70+% of
| consumption and everyone else is fighting for scraps.
|
| It won't be sustainable and we need UBI. A bunch of unemployed,
| hungry citizens with nothing left to lose is a combo that
| equals violent revolution.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| I posit that the consumption is the problem.
| ben_w wrote:
| The top 10% income bracket of the US is broad enough to
| include basically all US software developers, isn't it?
|
| If all jobs evaporate, what does the economy look like when
| just based on interest and dividend payments?
| jimbokun wrote:
| It looks like Mad Max.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| Pretty much yeah, I believe it's around $200k/year puts you
| in that bracket.
|
| If all jobs evaporate, then only asset owners will have
| money to spend, everyone else is left to fight for scraps
| so we either all die off or we get mad max.
| stackskipton wrote:
| Top 10% of households are 212k. Plenty of software
| developers don't make that but if they have a spouse with
| 70k job, they are in top 10%. However, many software jobs
| are starting to be in HCOL so they probably don't feel like
| they are in top 10%.
| cedws wrote:
| I don't even know what the selling point of AI is for regular
| people. In the 60s it was possible for a man to work an
| ordinary job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support
| two or three children. That's completely out of the realm of
| reality for many young people now and the plummeting birth
| rates show it.
|
| The middle class have financially benefited very little from
| the past 20+ years of productivity gains.
|
| Social media is driving society apart, making people selfish,
| jealous, and angry.
|
| Do people really think _more_ technology is going to be the
| path to a better society? Because to me it looks like the
| opposite. It will just be used to stomp on ordinary people and
| create even more inequality.
| Avicebron wrote:
| What's crazy is that people will jump all over themselves to
| say "well you could totally live like that at a 1960s level"
| like that's even a viable possibility today (in the US).
|
| What's that about the falcon and the falconer? The center
| cannot hold..
| Retric wrote:
| People do make it work in the US with tiny incomes and a
| better standard of living than you'd see in a typical
| 1960's household.
|
| I know people raising a family of 4 on 1 income well below
| the median wage without a collage degree. They do get
| significant help from government assistance programs for
| healthcare, but their lifestyle is way better off than what
| was typical in the 1960's.
|
| Granted they aren't doing this in a ultra expensive US
| city, but on the flip side they're living in a huge for
| 1960's 3 bedroom house with a massive backyard.
| FloorEgg wrote:
| To me this all just looks like a big frothy chemical reaction
| playing out far beyond any one person's control.
|
| With that view, many things oscillate over time, including
| game theory patterns (average interaction intentions of win-
| win, win-lose, lose-lose), and integration / mitosis (unions,
| international treaties, civil wars),etc.
|
| So my optimistic view is that inevitably we will get more
| tech whether we want it or not, and it will probably make
| things worse many for a while, but then it will
| simultaneously enable and force a restructuring at some level
| that starts a new cycle of prosperity. On the other side it
| will be clear that all this tech directly enables a better
| (more free, more diverse, more rewarding, more sustainable)
| way of life.
|
| I believe this because from studying history it seems this
| pattern plays out over and over and over again to varying
| degrees.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| When you say that this pattern plays out, can you be
| specific?
| FloorEgg wrote:
| I don't have time to be precise, but I'll do my best to
| be more specific.
|
| New system better at organizing human behavior ->
| increases prosperity -> more capacity for invention ->
| new technologies disrupt power dynamics -> greed and
| power-law dynamics tilt system away from broad prosperity
| (most powerful switch from win-win to win-lose) ->
| majority become unsatisfied with system -> economics
| break down (too much debt, not enough education,
| technology increasingly and disproportionately benefits
| wealthy) -> trust break down -> average pattern of
| behavior tilts towards lose-lose dynamics -> technology
| keeps advancing -,> new technologies disrupt old power
| structures -> restructuring of world-powr order at
| highest levels (often through conflict) -> new system
| established, incorporating lessons learned from the old
| (more fair, more inclusive) -> trust reestablished, shift
| back to win-win dynamics (cycle repeats)
|
| In reality it's more messy than this. Also the
| geographical location of this cycle and the central power
| can move around. Some places may sit out one or more
| cycles and get stuck.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Either that or the AI robots kill us all.
|
| Could go either way.
| gizajob wrote:
| The majority of people are already doing "bullshit jobs"
| and many of them know it too. Using AI to automate the
| bullshit and capture the value leaves them with nothing.
|
| The AI evangelists generally overlook that one of the
| primary things that capitalism does is fill people's lives
| with busywork, in part as an exercise in power and in
| another part because if given their time back, those people
| would genuinely have absolutely no idea what to do with it.
| Demiurge wrote:
| > In the 60s it was possible for a man to work an ordinary
| job, buy a house, settle down with a wife and support two or
| three children.
|
| Every kind of a man, or woman?
|
| > Do people really think more technology is going to be the
| path to a better society? Because to me it looks like the
| opposite.
|
| Well, this probably why statistics exist.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Yeah if you bar over 50% of your workforce from working at
| market clearing wages then naturally the other 50% are
| going to get paid at their expense. When you underpay
| minorities and often outright ban women from working formal
| employment, it's not hard to see how wages for the others
| remain high.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Well congratulations! We have succeeded in having
| stagnating wages and stagnating standard of living for
| everyone now!
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| Lemme guess, we should bring back Bretton Woods?
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Do you want to take a 20% pay cut so I can take the
| marginal benefit? Who wants to volunteer to be barred
| from working so I can negotiate better salary?
| jitix wrote:
| Thanks for pointing out this skewed view of economic
| history common in North America.
|
| The short period of boom in 50s/60s US and Canada was
| driven by WW2 devastation everywhere else. We can see the
| economic crisis' in the US first in the 70s/80s with Europe
| and Japan rebounding, then again in 90s/00s with China and
| East Asia growing, and now again with the rest of the world
| growing (esp Latin America, India, Indonesia, Nigeria,
| Philippines, etc). Unless US physically invades and
| devastates China, India or Brazil the competition will keep
| getting exponentially higher. It's a shame that US didn't
| invest all that prosperity into social capital that could
| have helped create high value jobs.
|
| In short, its easier to have high standards of living in
| your secure isolated island when the rest of the world
| (including historical industrial powers) are completely
| decimated by war.
| jimbokun wrote:
| > It's a shame that US didn't invest all that prosperity
| into social capital that could have helped create high
| value jobs.
|
| What does this sentence mean?
| redhed wrote:
| I assume the idea is more money could've been invested
| into bringing the bottom rungs of American society up and
| created a more skilled and educated workforce in the
| process.
| jimbokun wrote:
| So "social capital" == "education"?
|
| The US has pushed a shit ton of money into education. I
| mean an unreasonable amount of it went to administrators.
| But the goal and the intent was certainly there.
| nradov wrote:
| Education is part of it. But a lot of the social capital
| which makes societies prosperous is separate from what we
| usually consider to be education. On an individual
| behavior that includes things like knowing how to show up
| for work on time, sober, and properly dressed, and follow
| management instructions without arguing or taking things
| personally. These are skills that people in the middle
| and upper classes take for granted but they forget that
| there are a large number of fellow citizens in the
| economically disconnected underclass who never had a good
| opportunity to learn those basics. As a society we've
| never done a good job of lifting those people up.
| bonsai_spool wrote:
| > I mean an unreasonable amount of it went to
| administrators. But the goal and the intent was certainly
| there.
|
| This is wrong.
|
| The increase in administrator pay began well after the
| crises cited in OP.
|
| You could cite spending on the sciences (and thus Silicon
| Valley), but the spending by the US did not accrue to
| administrators; and further, federal money primarily goes
| to grants and loans, but GP is citing a time over which
| there were relatively low increases in tuition.
| jitix wrote:
| Cheaper education, free/subsidized healthcare,
| free/subsidized childcare, cultural norms around family
| support, etc.
|
| Things that let workers focus on innovation. IT workers
| in cheaper countries have it much easier while we have to
| juggle rising cost of living and cyclical layoffs here.
| And ever since companies started hiring workers directly
| and paying 30-50% (compared to 10-15% during the GCC era)
| the quality is almost at par with US.
| palmotea wrote:
| >>> It's a shame that US didn't invest all that
| prosperity into social capital that could have helped
| create high value jobs.
|
| >> What does this sentence mean?
|
| > Cheaper education, free/subsidized healthcare,
| free/subsidized childcare, cultural norms around family
| support, etc.
|
| Except for free/subsidized healthcare, didn't the US
| _already have_ those things during the post-war boom?
|
| Cheaper education? Public K-12 schools, the GI bill,
| generous state subsidies of higher education (such that
| you could pay for college with the money you made working
| a summer job).
|
| Free/subsidized childcare, cultural norms around family
| support? Wages high enough to raise a family on a single
| income, allowing for stay-at-home moms to provide
| childcare.
| jitix wrote:
| > Except for free/subsidized healthcare, didn't the US
| already have those things during the post-war boom?
|
| Yes, but education system is being dismantled piece by
| piece at all levels. I work in edutech and our goal is to
| cut costs faster than revenue. Enrolments are down,
| students are over burdened with student loans, and new
| grads can't compete in the market.
|
| Also, do you think kids going to K-12 in the US can
| compete with kids who go to international schools in
| China and India? High end schools in those countries
| combine the Asian grind mindset with western education
| standards.
|
| > Wages high enough to raise a family on a single income,
| allowing for stay-at-home moms to provide childcare.
|
| This was a special period of post war prosperity that I
| mentioned. It was unnatural and the world has reset back
| to the norm where a nuclear family needs
| societal/governmental support to raise kids, or need to
| have two 6 figure jobs. "It takes a village to raise a
| child" is a common western idiom based on centuries of
| observations. Just because there was 20-30 years of
| unnatural economic growth doesn't make it the global or
| historical norm.
| nradov wrote:
| Education is a tough one. Like healthcare, it's highly
| subject to Baumol's Cost Disease. Technology holds some
| potential but fundamentally we still need a certain ratio
| of teachers to students, and those teachers get more
| expensive every year.
|
| https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/baumols-cost-disease-
| long...
|
| Education should be well funded. But at the same time,
| taxpayers are skeptical because increasing funding
| doesn't necessarily improve student outcomes. Students
| from stable homes with aspirational parents in safe
| neighborhoods will tend to do well even with meager
| education funding, and conversely students living in
| shitholes will tend to do badly regardless of how good
| the education system is. If we want to improve their lot
| then we need to fix broader social issues that go beyond
| just education. Anyone who has gotten involved with a
| large school district has seen the enormous waste that
| goes to paying multiple levels of administrators, and
| education "consultants" chasing the latest ineffective
| fad. Much of it is just a grift.
| palmotea wrote:
| >> Except for free/subsidized healthcare, didn't the US
| already have those things during the post-war boom?
|
| > Yes, but education system is being dismantled piece by
| piece at all levels.
|
| So? That's not really relevant to the historical period
| you were referring to when you said: "It's a shame that
| US didn't invest all that prosperity into social capital
| that could have helped create high value jobs."
|
| At the time, Americans _already had_ many of the things
| you 're saying they should've invested in to get. How
| were they supposed to predict things would change and
| agitate for something different without the hindsight you
| enjoy?
|
| > This was a special period of post war prosperity that I
| mentioned. It was unnatural and the world has reset back
| to the norm where a nuclear family needs
| societal/governmental support to raise kids, or need to
| have two 6 figure jobs.
|
| Exactly why do you think it is it unnatural?
|
| I think you should be more explicit about how you think
| things _should_ be for families. Because going on an on
| about how the times when things were easier was
| "unnatural" may create the wrong impression.
|
| Also keep in mind where talking about _human society_
| here, the concept of "natural" has _very little_ to do
| with any of it. What were really talking about is the
| consequence of the internal logic of this or that set of
| _artificial_ cultural practices.
| jitix wrote:
| > How were they supposed to predict things would change
| and agitate for something different without the hindsight
| you enjoy?
|
| By comparing themselves to their counterparts in other
| countries. By 1955 there should have been alarm bells
| ringing as Europe re-industrialized. Same with 70s oil
| crisis but the best that US could do was to cripple Japan
| with Plaza Accords.
|
| Americans even now have a mindset that nothing exists
| beyond their borders, one could assume it was worse back
| then.
|
| > Exactly why do you think it is it unnatural?
|
| Because only two industrialized countries were left
| standing after WW2 and those two countries enjoyed
| unnatural growth until others caught up - first the
| historical powers in Europe then Asia.
| judahmeek wrote:
| Right, because Europe is so innovative.
|
| The mother of invention is idiomatically necessity, not
| comfort.
|
| Ultimately, increased levels of competition should lead
| to higher levels of innovation.
|
| Btw, what is "the GCC era" a reference to?
| jitix wrote:
| Europe is quite innovative on per-capita basis. Not like
| US but the workers there have much happier lives and
| their societies don't have extreme inequality and
| resulting violence like the US.
|
| China is arguably more innovative than all and has
| terrible work life balance, but their society is stable
| and you won't go from millionaire to homeless just
| because you had to get cancer treatment.
|
| GCC = global consulting companies, the bane of
| innovation. Outsourcing of all kinds (even domestic C2C)
| should be banned.
| palmotea wrote:
| > Thanks for pointing out this skewed view of economic
| history common in North America....
|
| > In short, its easier to have high standards of living
| in your secure isolated island when the rest of the world
| (including historical industrial powers) are completely
| decimated by war.
|
| So, what's your point? That the plebs shouldn't expect
| that much comfort?
| jitix wrote:
| A common maxim across all cultures is to "manage
| expectations" for happiness.
|
| And while comparing societal standards expand the time
| horizon to 100 years, not nitpick one specific unnatural
| era of history.
|
| An automotive engineer in Detroit in 1960 was a globally
| competitive worker because most of his counterparts in
| other countries were either dead, disabled or their
| companies bankrupt.
|
| The equivalent in today's world would be aerospace
| engineers, AI researchers, quantum engineers, robotics
| engineers, etc who arguably have the same standard of
| living as the automotive engineer in 1960s Detroit.
|
| Economic and technological standards evolve - societies
| should invest in human capital to evolve with them or
| risk stagnation.
| palmotea wrote:
| > An automotive engineer in Detroit in 1960 was a
| globally competitive worker because most of his
| counterparts in other countries were either dead,
| disabled or their companies bankrupt.
|
| > The equivalent in today's world would be aerospace
| engineers, AI researchers, quantum engineers, robotics
| engineers, etc who arguably have the same standard of
| living as the automotive engineer in 1960s Detroit.
|
| You know were not really talking about top-end positions
| like automotive engineers in Detroit in 1960. I think
| we're talking more about automotive factory workers in
| Detroit in 1960.
|
| > Economic and technological standards evolve - societies
| should invest in human capital to evolve with them or
| risk stagnation.
|
| You need to be more explicit about how you think things
| _should_ be for the common man.
| eli_gottlieb wrote:
| So you're saying that working-class living standards are
| a zero-sum competition across capitalist countries, even
| negative-sum as competing national economies grow their
| total output and hourly productivity?
|
| That sounds like a really shitty system.
| cedws wrote:
| I'm not going to engage with you on a debate because you
| aren't acting in good faith.
| jimbokun wrote:
| > Every kind of a man, or woman?
|
| Why do so many people miss the point on this?
|
| Instead of making this dream true for all the people who
| were previously excluded, we have pursued equality by
| making this dream accessible to NO ONE.
|
| > Well, this probably why statistics exist.
|
| Like the statistics on plummeting mental health and
| happiness, an obesity epidemic, increases in "deaths of
| despair", and plateauing or decreasing life expectancy?
| apsurd wrote:
| You're both right. I take your point to mean similar to
| the disastrous outcome of "no child left behind" act. I
| do agree with you, but people didn't seriously _intend_
| for the result to be everyone lowers to a shit position.
|
| Or maybe you're saying that's always how these
| initiatives turn out? It can't be helped?
| watwut wrote:
| I think there is something to be valued about historical
| accuracy.
|
| > Like the statistics on plummeting mental health and
| happiness, an obesity epidemic, increases in "deaths of
| despair", and plateauing or decreasing life expectancy?
|
| In the 60ties, suicide rates went UP. Peaked around 1970
| and we did not reached their levels.
|
| Long terms statistics about alcoholism rates and drug use
| are also a real exiting thing. We know that cirrhosis
| death rate was going up in the 60ties up to 70ties,
| peaked and went down. It was the time when drinking and
| driving campaigns started.
|
| Current drug use is nowhere near what it was a generation
| ago.
| apsurd wrote:
| I originally upvoted the parent comment. But I changed it.
|
| "The good ol' days" ... yeah, but good for who?
| astura wrote:
| According to the census bureau median family income in 1960
| was $5,600, which is $58,946.59 in Jan 2024 dollars. It's
| $83,730 in 2024.
|
| For individual males, in 1960 it was $4,100 ($43,157.33 Jan
| 2024 dollars) and $71,090 in 2024.
|
| Sources:
|
| https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1962/demo/p60-03.
| ..
|
| https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-28.
| ..
|
| The thing is, a 1960s standard of living would be totally
| unacceptable today. Single car max, no air conditioning,
| small house or apartment, multiple children sharing bedrooms,
| no Internet, no cable, no streaming. Children allowed outside
| by themselves.
| ethanwillis wrote:
| now tell us how they calculate those inflation adjusted
| dollars-- what basket of goods? prices in which markets?
| RajT88 wrote:
| > The problem becomes that eventually all these people who are
| laid off are not going to find new roles.
|
| At least one sci-fi author has gamed this out:
|
| https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Who is going to be buying the products and services if no-
| one has money to throw around?_
|
| We have no basis for seriously considering this hypothetical
| when it comes to LLMs.
| ben_w wrote:
| Depends how absolute one takes the statement "no-one has
| money to throw around".
|
| Taken loosely, we have seen previous developments which make
| a large fraction of a population redundant in short periods,
| and it goes really badly, even though the examples I know of
| are nowhere near the entire population.
|
| I'm not at all sure how much LLMs or other GenAI are "it" for
| any given profession: while they impress me a lot, they are
| fragile and weird and I assume that if all development
| stopped today the current shinyness would tarnish fast
| enough.
|
| But on the other hand, I just vibe coded 95% of a game that
| would have taken me a few months back when I was a fresh
| graduate, in a few days, using free credit. Similar for the
| art assets.
|
| How much money can I keep earning for that last 5% the LLM
| sucks at?
| rozap wrote:
| Realistically I think there are two outcomes:
|
| AGI succeeds and there are mass layoffs, money is concentrated
| further in the hands of those who own compute.
|
| OR
|
| AI bubble pops and there are mass layoffs, with bailouts going
| to the largest players to prevent a larger collapse, which
| drives inflation and further marginalizes asset-less people.
|
| I honestly don't see a third option unless there is government
| intervention, which seems extremely far fetched given it's
| owned by the group of people who would benefit from either
| scenario presented above.
| jimbokun wrote:
| If the AI bubble pops it's just another bubble like the many
| ones that have occurred throughout history and the market
| eventually recovers.
|
| In the AGI Succeeds scenario, the situation is unprecedented
| and it's not clear how it ever gets better.
| throwacct wrote:
| Tbh, the answer is simple: if we truly get AGI, the
| government would nationalize it because it's a matter of
| national security and prosperity for that matter.
| Everything will change forever. Agriculture,
| Transportation, Health... Breakthrough after breakthrough
| after breakthrough. The country would hold the actual key
| to solve almost any problem.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Looking at the current state of politics around the
| world...you really think that would be the outcome?
| throwacct wrote:
| AGI? Absolutely. If your country gets there, would anyone
| relinquish that type of power and knowledge?
| gizajob wrote:
| The government only nationalises losses, not wins.
| gizajob wrote:
| The key to typing out the solution to any problem, not
| actually solving it.
| apsurd wrote:
| when you write it out like that, it sounds
| unfathomably... silly.
|
| I'm not a tinfoil hat skeptic, and i'd like to think i
| can accept the rationale behind the possibility. But I
| don't think we're remotely close as people seem to think.
| throwacct wrote:
| Third option: no bailouts of any type. Don't socialize
| losses. The board resets itself again, and let entrepreneurs,
| small businesses flourish again.
| goalieca wrote:
| Bailouts for chip fabicration and nothing else.
| guytv wrote:
| Every cent poured into this boom is building Google's future
| competitors.
|
| Of course he's nervous - what else would you expect him to say?
| mtrovo wrote:
| Assuming this is irrational and must come back to reality at some
| point, I'm not convinced this is connected to the common man
| economy as other bubbles in the past were. This round of
| investment is mostly being funded by exuberant cash flow
| accumulated over the years that was otherwise used as stock
| buybacks by a small number of stocks and some private credit
| deals that are not that accessible to the general public. This is
| looking more like a crypto crash kind of effect rather than a
| 2008 one.
| beanjuiceII wrote:
| will gamers be eatin' good?
| s1mplicissimus wrote:
| i hope so, its been a while
| HardwareLust wrote:
| ...says the man guilty of said irrationality.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-18 23:01 UTC)