[HN Gopher] Do Markets Believe in Transformative AI?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Do Markets Believe in Transformative AI?
        
       Author : surprisetalk
       Score  : 21 points
       Date   : 2026-02-08 15:13 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (marginalrevolution.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (marginalrevolution.com)
        
       | akomtu wrote:
       | It tells a lot about our society that the only way to apply
       | capital is to build a slop machine that will make us redundant.
        
         | thrance wrote:
         | Nothing new here, that's basically what the luddites complained
         | about: the machines that replaced them output worse quality
         | garments and sent them all to the streets. It only benefitted
         | the owners. Capital will always seek to rid itself of its
         | dependence on labor, until it eventually succeeds...
        
           | delichon wrote:
           | > It only benefitted the owners.
           | 
           | And the buyers. As a ballpark estimate, it would take around
           | 50 hours of human labor to produce a shirt by hand, fabric
           | plus sewing, versus about an hour of human labor by
           | industrial machines. That lowers the cost greatly, which most
           | consumers demonstrably value over custom tailoring.
        
             | thrance wrote:
             | At the time, the quality of machine-made clothes was
             | noticeably worse than human-made. It's debatable wether the
             | "consumers" (the term certainly wasn't used at the time)
             | won in the end. Terry Pratchett's "Boots theory" feels
             | relevant here:
             | 
             | > Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a
             | month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots
             | cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which
             | were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like
             | hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars.
             | Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore
             | until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he
             | was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the
             | cobbles.
             | 
             | > But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and
             | years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of
             | boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years'
             | time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots
             | would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same
             | time and would still have wet feet.
        
               | delichon wrote:
               | > It's debatable whether the "consumers" won in the end.
               | 
               | If "in the end" is now, it's pretty clear that automation
               | has made clothing both better and cheaper. And paying $10
               | now for shoes of less than 1/5th value of $50 shoes much
               | later, or not at all, can be entirely rational. Most of
               | us make that kind of compromise frequently.
        
               | stoneforger wrote:
               | It's a cult, these people really just want to believe
               | everything is better because of unhinged capitalism, not
               | despite it.
        
               | delichon wrote:
               | I just bought a new shirt on eBay for $22, including
               | shipping. If that shirt had taken 50x as much labor to
               | produce, what would it have cost? Is it unhinged
               | capitalism to prefer the cheap shirt?
        
               | asdff wrote:
               | The only reason why the shirt is cheap is because we
               | value your labor in the dollars an hour and the shirt
               | maker's labor in the pennies.
               | 
               | Now what if you made that same $5 a week as the shirt
               | maker. Is that $22 shirt still cheap? How many might you
               | own? Now think of what shirt the $5 week shirt maker is
               | wearing. It says Chicago Bulls on it and was given to
               | them by a nonprofit. The nonprofit only had this shirt
               | available because people like him make 1000 shirts a day
               | to sell to westerners to wear for a few weeks
               | collectively before they give it for free to goodwill.
               | 
               | Does this seem like a sustainable, scalable system of
               | resource and labor distribution to you? Or is it based
               | entirely on the fact that there exist some orphan
               | crushing machine still in some corner of the world to
               | make it seem cheap and frictionless for those of us in
               | the global 1%?
        
       | mono442 wrote:
       | I don't believe it'll work for anything that doesn't have a tight
       | feedback loop. So while it can replace a lot of software
       | engineers, it doesn't seem plausible to me that it would make a
       | significant difference in other engineering industries.
        
       | MarkusQ wrote:
       | The markets and I agree then.
       | 
       | I'm a firm believer in technological progress, but not so fond of
       | group-think hype trains. The LLM/diffusion breakthrough(s) are
       | huge, but they aren't what their rabid fans/neurotic critics are
       | thinking.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-02-08 23:01 UTC)