[sigilis]

There are various links in the article that have more information. Clicking these references will give the evidence for bad unit economics claims and whatnot.

As for predicting the moment, the author has made a prediction and wants it to be wrong. They expect the system will continue to grow larger for some time before collapse. They would prefer that this timeline be abbreviated to reduce the negative economic impacts. He is advising others on how to take economic advantage of his prediction and is likely shorting the market in his own way. It may not be options trading, but making plans for the bust is functionally similar.

[AznHisoka]

The papers he linked all fail to support his claim. The first paper he linked simply counts the mentions of the term “deep learning” in papers. The 2nd surveyed people who lived in… Denmark and tried to extrapolate that to everyone globally

His points are not backed by much evidence

[scythmic_waves]

The first link is a mistake. It's supposed to be the thing being discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45170164.

The 2nd link seems reasonable to me? Why does a study about 25k workers in Denmark (11 occupations, 7k workplaces) not count as evidence? If there was a strong effect to be found globally, it seems likely to be found in Denmark too.

Also, what about the other links? The discussions about the strange accounting and lack of profitability seem like evidence as well.

If anything, this article struck me as well-evidenced.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Side note: If you're going to short an AI company (or really, buy put options, so you don't have unlimited downside exposure), I would suggest shorting NVIDIA. My reasoning is that if we actually get a fully automated software engineer, NVIDIA stock is liable to lose a bunch of value anyways -- if I understand correctly, their moat is mostly in software.

Wile E Coyote sprints as fast as possible, realizes he zoomed off a cliff, looks down in horror, then takes a huge fall.

Specifically I envision a scenario like: Google applies the research they've been doing on autoformalization and RL-with-verifiable-rewards to create a provably correct, superfast TPU. Initially it's used for a Google-internal AI stack. Gradually they start selling it to other major AI players, taking the 80/20 approach of dominating the most common AI workflows. They might make a deliberate effort to massively undercut NVIDIA just to grab market share. Once Google proves that this approach is possible, it will increasingly become accessible to smaller players, until eventually GPU design and development is totally commoditized. You'll be able to buy cheaper non-NVIDIA chips which implement an identical API, and NVIDIA will lose most of its value.

Will this actually happen? Hard to say, but it certainly seems more feasible than superintelligence, don't you think?

[jstanley]

NVIDIA is like the only company making money on the AI bubble, they're not the one I would choose to short.

Tesla is currently trading at 260x earnings, so to actually meet that valuation they need to increase earnings by a factor of 10 pretty sharpish.

They're literally not going to do that by selling cars, even if you include Robotaxis, so really it is a bet on the Optimus robots going as well as they possibly can.

If they make $25k profit per Optimus robot (optimistic) then I think they need to sell about a million per year to make enough money to justify their valuation. Of a product that is not even ready to sell, let alone finding out how much demand their truly is, ramping up production, etc.

For comparison the entire industrial robot market is currently about 500k units per year.

I think the market is pricing in absurdly optimistic performance for Tesla, which they're not going to be able to meet.

(I have a tiny short position in Tesla).