The dot-com bubble didn’t prove the internet was a fad — it proved the internet was inevitable, but the valuations assumed adoption would happen in 2 years instead of 15–20. To me it feels like the AI inevitability will be much quicker.
> To me it feels like the AI inevitability will be much quicker.
Based on what? We're only seeing linear improvements for increasing spending. There's no new algorithm ideas on the horizon, just more and more hardware, in the hopes that if we throw enough RAM and CPU at the problem, it will suddenly become "AGI."
No one has their eye on power budgets or sustainability or durability of the system. The human brain has such a high degree of energy efficiency that I don't think people understand the realities of competing with it digitally.
The main problem "AI" seems to solve is that humans get bored with certain tasks. The language models obviously don't, but they do hallucinate, and checking for hallucinations is an exceedingly boring task. It's a coffin corner of bad ideas.
A lot of those early .com companies could have been profitable. They chose to go for rapid growth instead. Some people here probably remember discussion of users mattering more than revenue.
You see that same pattern with AI now. Products are being provided for free or nearly free, and plenty is being spent on marketing.
If technology had been the same for the past 20 years, basically none of these would have existed, or would be even close as large as today. We needed way faster cable and mobile internet, and smartphones. Probably even smaller laptops. It was possible to predict these more or less, however, it was impossible to predict when or whether people start to really utilize the internet. Even now, we needed COVID to have another shift regarding this. The general acceptance of “internet first” kind of worldview maybe would have never happened without forcing us to have.
Technology for all the above existed in rudimentary form, faster Internet, faster machines and adoption was missing. But Current bets are assuming AGI. No one knows how soon. To predict that would be foolish.
On the RHS, post hype, the second movers could work on the boring, unsexy problems in those domains nobody wanted to solve. And solve them extremely well. Then build a moat around that.
There is also a customer adoption curve of technology that lags far behind the technologist adoption curve. For example video on the Web failed a long time, until it didn't, when Youtube began to succeed. The problem became "boring" to technologists in some ways, but consumers gradually caught up.
Aside from a belief that the AI adoption will happen very quickly, which maybe that’s your main point, you’re not really disagreeing with the article:
> All this means two things to us: 1)The AI revolution will indeed be one of the biggest technology shifts in history. It will spark a generation of innovations that we can’t yet even imagine. 2) It’s going to take way longer to see those changes than we think it’s going to take right now.
The internet was monumental and valuable, offering instant conveyance of media and data. AI is monumental, allowing instant access to near infinite data; but whether instant access is as valuable as instant conveyance yet alone five times the value, appears to be the question
Honestly anyone who thinks AI has intrinsic value to rival the GDP of nations is a bagholder in denial and I'll be happy to buy your puts.
To say whether it's a bubble, we need to know the value of the technology.
The value of modern AI seems very high. That nobody knows how high, that they still haven't figured out applications, and that the technology and its tools are still far from refined, is normal for any new technology.
If you add the value of the potential political power gained by controlling AI, then the value to the owners and investors is astronomical. Many of the investors have demonstrated a strong motivation to sacrifice money for political power, for example by supporting nationalism that undermines a global economy that they benefit enormously from. Somewhere, I read someone explaining their investment by saying 'it's the greatest transfer of power in (modern) history'. Also see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45983700
The implied promise was that these things were going to “revolutionize the workplace” i.e. massively automate middle class office jobs
A couple of years down the road, their useful applications still are summarizing text, transferring style to text, generating code under strict supervision, and generating images that need retouching.
That’s a lot to get out of a tool, but it’s dubious that investors were pouring trillions of dollars into these things thinking of automating away junior software engineers and low end design work.
Edit: I forgot their other niche, that of generating homework and school test answers
Alternate viewpoint - The value of modern AI seems very high. That nobody knows how high, that they still haven't figured out applications, and that the technology and its tools are still far from refined, might be a sign that the technology shouldn't be valued this highly at all
> The value of modern AI seems very high. That nobody knows how high, that they still haven't figured out applications, and that the technology and its tools are still far from refined, is normal for any new technology.
The same could be said for the internet. But, and I know this will be hard for younger readers to believe, I seem to recall the value proposition of the Internet being more immediately apparent at the time.
Arguably, it's exactly this mindset creating the problem. It's not the value of the technology that matters. It's the value of the companies. If one company was the only one that had a particular valuable technology, then that would matter, but otherwise 90% of them likely end up worthless even if the sector itself doesn't.
How that washes out on net we'll have to see. I'm not gonna pretend I know more than anyone else. Just keep in mind that a major difference between now and 2000 is companies stay private a lot longer. An IPO forces you to open the books and sustain public scrutiny of the broad investor class. A still-private startup only needs to convince one funder of their value. That inevitably leads to higher variance and a greater risk of failure. That doesn't mean the whole sector is necessarily a bubble, but if it is, it can be sustained a lot longer without us knowing. A small number of people with $50 billion they need to park somewhere and no other obvious options can keep shitty ideas afloat in a way that wouldn't be possible if they had to be subjected to broader exposure. We like to believe people with $50 billion can't be wrong, but the wisdom of crowds always beats the wisdom of individual genius.
the real answer is that the applications for the military, surveillance, and population control are proven, and the pathways to scale those capacities are clear, so the money will pour in no matter what. the implication is that we had better come up with some more consumer/humanity friendly applications that create comparable value, or that is all we will get.
The value can be incredibly high... just like the value of the internet was incredibly high.. and it can still be a finanfial bubble. I feel like the people arguing against the bubble perspective are saying look the internet was actually valuable and so too will this.. and that's totally a valid perspective. The bubble is not about whether there's value but about whether or not the market will come down. All of the above can totally happen
Absolutely nothing in your list prevents the AI from being a bubble. The Internet is an absolute marvel of engineering that completely changed the life of the majority of people in the world, and yet it crashed 25 years ago, and crashed hard. Both can be true at the same time.
> To say whether it's a bubble, we need to know the value of the technology.
Not really. I mean, not only. The value of the web is immense. And yet, the dot-com bubble was indeed a bubble. What matters is the value in the short term compared to the value of the companies in the current context. Even if AI is huge 20 years from now, it can still crash dramatically tomorrow.
I have a noob question. How can developed economies where populations levels have plateaued continue to be expected to post positive GDPs (and therefore add net new goods and services) yoy?
Homes as assets should pass on, higher cost services of today would be replaced by lower cost which only temporarily would increase units sold(but should eventually plateau because #units/person is not going to change). No component of the GDP will move.
If the fertility rate of developed economies is less than 2.1 then there should be wealth and asset accumulation among the younger people over time. The demand for newer goods and services from the people who get richer is inelastic: most goods and service's prices dont matter to the rich they buy them any ways, and it continues to keep becoming more inelastic.
So within like a several years the demand should just collapse as wealth accumulates a lot and people work less and become more price insensitive. Immigration is set to remain low to developed nations for the next 3-5 years.
This seems to be quite evident in Japan and EU already(though in the EU if you adjust the productivity for work hours the GDP becomes same as America's).
So why do people assume developed countries would even buy this much more new stuff. 1.5 trillion$ worth of new things over the next 5 years?
> And Coreweave, the former crypto miner turned data center service provider, unveiled in its IPO documents earlier this year that it has borrowed so much money that its debt payments represent 25 percent of its revenues.
Wow, what a sentence. It starts out bad and just gets worse.
Ok, so if that prediction is true what actions did you take?
Identify the therefore part of the prediction and enumerate the three highest priority steps.
Have you determined that the stock market will crash and bought positions accordingly? Have you sold all your nvidia stock?
What are the implications in the broader economy and what steps have you taken?
This sort of reactionary post is a tiring as the motivating situation. Here's a big difference: aside from all the circular investments the companies at the root of AI have huge earnings and did so before the boom as well.It's convenient to say "Look at all these declines in the past month! The end is nigh!" - maybe expand your chart to 12 months or even 5 years. You can argue against Nvidia but if you do they've made you look foolish 3 pivots in a row. Are companies very expensive right now? Absolutely. Are there a lot of frothy valuations and looming failures? Probably - I think so. Is this just like the Internet bubble? Beyond the generic basics, no.
Idk, we seem to be the at the cusp of autonomous driving. Transportation is like ~8% of world's GDP. Payroll is, what, 30% of that? It seems like we can already have the return on all AI investment by just conquering this one application.
Maybe guard your investments, but the big question back then was "is the internet really that good, will it stick around" and the reality is it won argument hands down. The same thing will prove true about AI.
One difference is most of the companies listed are old, long standing, well-performing businesses. Pets.com had potential, Apple, Amazon, and Google had large amounts of revenue even 3 years ago.
The bubble may deflate but every company mentioned will still be standing, whereas in 1999 many of them were basically Ponzi schemes relying on further investor dollars to subsidize losses. All this AI spending will hurt some investors if the bubble pops but just make for a few bad quarters for the big tech cos.
> One difference is most of the companies listed are old, long standing, well-performing businesses. Pets.com had potential, Apple, Amazon, and Google had large amounts of revenue even 3 years ago.
Plenty of old companies spiked in 2000. Companies like Microsoft, Intel, or Cisco. Shovel sellers with a history of decent profits. I mean, the NASDAQ crashed, an it is not all made of start ups. You sound in denial, but there are more similarities than you seem to realise.
Hmm. The comparison makes sense in some ways, but the thing is - as much as I dislike AI, I think AI will stay, whereas the internet bubble seemed to subside without that much left from it, more or less. While I hate most of AI, it does have some use cases - the current hype will eventually subside or collapse, but I think the core use cases will most likely remain.
"All but Alphabet have seen big share declines in the past month. Microsoft is down 12 percent, Amazon is down 14 percent, Meta is down 22 percent, Oracle is down 24 percent"
That fluctuates anyway and profits are made by some - nothing new here.
I think the world needs to detach from the stock markets though. That may not seem realistic right now, but if you look at the current US president and the ties to superrich, we really have a huge problem now. A few parasitize on the masses. That can not be sustained. It is not ethical.
"It will spark a generation of innovations that we can’t yet even imagine."
I am not so sure. So far I successfully avoided AI, including becoming dependent on AI - I am not. So that is good.
I can not really see what "innovation" would make me want to embrace AI. Perhaps I can be forced into it, but right now I am happy avoiding it.
"Because we humans are pretty good at predicting the impact of technology revolutions beyond seven to ten years."
No, we really are not.
"Not only does the AI bubble in 2025 feel like the internet bubble in 1999"
It is still not the same.
I feel the article is falling apart there. It tries too much to compare to the 1999, but it is not the same.
I wonder if we need a new term rather than bubble for these types of short-term over-invested sectors.
The Tulip mania (if it existed) was a bubble. It popped, it's never coming back.
BeanieBabies was a bubble for the same reason. NFT art remains to be seen, but I think it was likely a bubble.
The internet was over-invested and decreased significantly when looking on a timeline of 5-7 years.
But outside of that, if you were to take the valuation of internet companies, it is greater than during the period we call the bubble.
We'll see the same with AI. There will most likely be a drop in valuations when looking at a medium term timescale, but long-term, I expect AI companies will be worth far more than they are today.
When the markets drop on a monthly scale, but then rebound, we don't call that a bubble, so why do we call this sub-decade decline a bubble?
Do you think we should have another term for this?
Same with the housing bubble, yes, it popped and lots of people got hurt, but those who were able to hang-on, I think, ended up ok, and on a moderately decent timeline.
Poor old much maligned tulips. The mania isn't coming back but the tulip industry had endured for nearly four hundred years and Holland produces billions of tulip bulbs each year. Some of the more conservative tulip buyers in mania days probably even did ok out of it.
What’s really scary is the money that’s being invested vs the .COM bubble. In the end 90s 100 million was a huge investment. Now it seems every AI company immediately a billion dollar and more valuation. There was a time when this was called “unicorn”.
I grew up in the 90's and remember being a computer nerd BEFORE the .com bubble, and starting my career precisely after it burst. Let me tell you one difference I personally am experiencing that differentiates the two. Note, this is a pro-'we're in a bubble' stance:
In the late 90's and early 2000's, businesses were SALIVATING to get online, individuals were finding new ways to benefit and profit from it, and massive investment was being made to facilitate what was inevitable: an interconnected network of everything. Do you remember faxing things ? Paper mail? People half in the know were pushing the Boomers and older Gen-X types to get on with it and modernize.
Now? Not only are people not CLAMORING for more AI, it's that The Powers that Be are forcing it down our throats. At work, we have mandatory AI training, we have people getting promoted for promoting extremely dubious AI solutions both internally and on our product. I log into ANY web site now, whether I'm shopping for a vacuum cleaner or logging into a vendor website, and I get AI shoved in my face, from from "assistant" I have to interact with before typing "agent" to new features I don't care about.
Is there some truth, some merit? Absolutely. But my red flag I'm trying to raise is this: never did it feel FORCED in the 90's, there was a salivation from individuals to get more online, and a reluctance from institutions like elementary and high schools to get with the program.
Now? Corporations large and small are shoving it down our throats. Why? Well, to justify the crazy spending.
I'm no prophet and the world (and economy) are fundamentally unpredictable. But I'll say this. I'm putting my money where my mouth is, and I've put in an order to buy a 5 digit dollar amount of puts on a big 'AI' type ETF, that'll expire in the Spring. It's already wobbling and if you can't beat them, profit off of them when they stumble.
There's absolutely something wrong in the current moment, even if AI is somehow the future. For one thing, the U.S. economy would probably be in a recession right now if it weren't for this insane AI spending. It's wobbled with the recent Nvidia earnings release, and I think it is going to dip (not crash, but start dipping) soon.
The author wrote:
"None of these companies has proven yet that AI is a good enough business to justify all this spending. But the first four are now each spending $70 billion to $100 billion a year to fund data centers and other capital intensive AI expenses. Oracle is spending roughly $20 billion a year. "
In my opinion it's a theoretical arms race 'just because my competitor might win', and not based on anything certain.
I know this is semantics pedantry, but there has never been an „Internet bubble“, only an „Internet-related stock market bubble“.
It’s not as if there were ten million people using and/or building on the Internet, and then this bubble popped and for some years there were only ten thousand people on the Internet.
And I think the same is true for „AI usage/adoption“.
[+] [-] hnburnsy|3 months ago|reply
Webvan → Instacart, DoorDash, Amazon Fresh
Kozmo.com → Postmates, Uber Eats, Gopuff
Boo.com (fashion) → Farfetch, Net-a-Porter, ASOS
Broadcast.com → YouTube, Netflix, Twitch
The dot-com bubble didn’t prove the internet was a fad — it proved the internet was inevitable, but the valuations assumed adoption would happen in 2 years instead of 15–20. To me it feels like the AI inevitability will be much quicker.
[+] [-] themafia|3 months ago|reply
Based on what? We're only seeing linear improvements for increasing spending. There's no new algorithm ideas on the horizon, just more and more hardware, in the hopes that if we throw enough RAM and CPU at the problem, it will suddenly become "AGI."
No one has their eye on power budgets or sustainability or durability of the system. The human brain has such a high degree of energy efficiency that I don't think people understand the realities of competing with it digitally.
The main problem "AI" seems to solve is that humans get bored with certain tasks. The language models obviously don't, but they do hallucinate, and checking for hallucinations is an exceedingly boring task. It's a coffin corner of bad ideas.
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|3 months ago|reply
The internet is a medium, an interconnection of autonomous computer networks
A "web" of hyperlinked HTML pages is one use of an internet
However this internet is more than a handful of popular websites incorporated as companies
Perhaps that's why it was called the "dot-com" bubble and not the "internet" bubble
[+] [-] nitwit005|3 months ago|reply
You see that same pattern with AI now. Products are being provided for free or nearly free, and plenty is being spent on marketing.
[+] [-] ruszki|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] conqrr|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] softwaredoug|3 months ago|reply
There is also a customer adoption curve of technology that lags far behind the technologist adoption curve. For example video on the Web failed a long time, until it didn't, when Youtube began to succeed. The problem became "boring" to technologists in some ways, but consumers gradually caught up.
[+] [-] thefz|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] wayeq|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] AbstractH24|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bluefirebrand|3 months ago|reply
AI is accelerating "let them eat cake" at rates never seen before in history, so I imagine the violence will follow soon after
[+] [-] roxolotl|3 months ago|reply
> All this means two things to us: 1)The AI revolution will indeed be one of the biggest technology shifts in history. It will spark a generation of innovations that we can’t yet even imagine. 2) It’s going to take way longer to see those changes than we think it’s going to take right now.
[+] [-] unknown|3 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chasing0entropy|3 months ago|reply
Honestly anyone who thinks AI has intrinsic value to rival the GDP of nations is a bagholder in denial and I'll be happy to buy your puts.
[+] [-] mmooss|3 months ago|reply
The value of modern AI seems very high. That nobody knows how high, that they still haven't figured out applications, and that the technology and its tools are still far from refined, is normal for any new technology.
If you add the value of the potential political power gained by controlling AI, then the value to the owners and investors is astronomical. Many of the investors have demonstrated a strong motivation to sacrifice money for political power, for example by supporting nationalism that undermines a global economy that they benefit enormously from. Somewhere, I read someone explaining their investment by saying 'it's the greatest transfer of power in (modern) history'. Also see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45983700
[+] [-] forgetfulness|3 months ago|reply
A couple of years down the road, their useful applications still are summarizing text, transferring style to text, generating code under strict supervision, and generating images that need retouching.
That’s a lot to get out of a tool, but it’s dubious that investors were pouring trillions of dollars into these things thinking of automating away junior software engineers and low end design work.
Edit: I forgot their other niche, that of generating homework and school test answers
[+] [-] digdugdirk|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] hyperbovine|3 months ago|reply
The same could be said for the internet. But, and I know this will be hard for younger readers to believe, I seem to recall the value proposition of the Internet being more immediately apparent at the time.
[+] [-] nitwit005|3 months ago|reply
The internet was amazingly valuable, but many of the early companies failed. Investing in internet companies was hardly a sure bet.
[+] [-] nonameiguess|3 months ago|reply
How that washes out on net we'll have to see. I'm not gonna pretend I know more than anyone else. Just keep in mind that a major difference between now and 2000 is companies stay private a lot longer. An IPO forces you to open the books and sustain public scrutiny of the broad investor class. A still-private startup only needs to convince one funder of their value. That inevitably leads to higher variance and a greater risk of failure. That doesn't mean the whole sector is necessarily a bubble, but if it is, it can be sustained a lot longer without us knowing. A small number of people with $50 billion they need to park somewhere and no other obvious options can keep shitty ideas afloat in a way that wouldn't be possible if they had to be subjected to broader exposure. We like to believe people with $50 billion can't be wrong, but the wisdom of crowds always beats the wisdom of individual genius.
Heck, AI itself taught us that same lesson!
[+] [-] logsr|3 months ago|reply
the real answer is that the applications for the military, surveillance, and population control are proven, and the pathways to scale those capacities are clear, so the money will pour in no matter what. the implication is that we had better come up with some more consumer/humanity friendly applications that create comparable value, or that is all we will get.
[+] [-] redwood|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] usrnm|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] kergonath|3 months ago|reply
Not really. I mean, not only. The value of the web is immense. And yet, the dot-com bubble was indeed a bubble. What matters is the value in the short term compared to the value of the companies in the current context. Even if AI is huge 20 years from now, it can still crash dramatically tomorrow.
[+] [-] ghm2180|3 months ago|reply
Homes as assets should pass on, higher cost services of today would be replaced by lower cost which only temporarily would increase units sold(but should eventually plateau because #units/person is not going to change). No component of the GDP will move.
If the fertility rate of developed economies is less than 2.1 then there should be wealth and asset accumulation among the younger people over time. The demand for newer goods and services from the people who get richer is inelastic: most goods and service's prices dont matter to the rich they buy them any ways, and it continues to keep becoming more inelastic.
So within like a several years the demand should just collapse as wealth accumulates a lot and people work less and become more price insensitive. Immigration is set to remain low to developed nations for the next 3-5 years.
This seems to be quite evident in Japan and EU already(though in the EU if you adjust the productivity for work hours the GDP becomes same as America's).
So why do people assume developed countries would even buy this much more new stuff. 1.5 trillion$ worth of new things over the next 5 years?
[+] [-] shigawire|3 months ago|reply
I'm not a real "investor" (index funds only) but I am feeling more willing to forgo gains to be more risk averse just based on my own neuroses.
Maybe I cash out and buy T-bills? Gold? Bullets? What's the non-crazy person equivalent?
[+] [-] pinkmuffinere|3 months ago|reply
Wow, what a sentence. It starts out bad and just gets worse.
[+] [-] more_corn|3 months ago|reply
Identify the therefore part of the prediction and enumerate the three highest priority steps.
Have you determined that the stock market will crash and bought positions accordingly? Have you sold all your nvidia stock? What are the implications in the broader economy and what steps have you taken?
[+] [-] stevage|3 months ago|reply
AI literally does people's jobs for them. There's not much imagination required.
[+] [-] _verandaguy|3 months ago|reply
It's also not doing peoples' jobs for them, for the most part. AI's supporters do very loudly proclaim this, though.
[+] [-] skeeter2020|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] christophilus|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] zahirbmirza|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] rafaelero|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] fakedang|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] smrtinsert|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mattmaroon|3 months ago|reply
The bubble may deflate but every company mentioned will still be standing, whereas in 1999 many of them were basically Ponzi schemes relying on further investor dollars to subsidize losses. All this AI spending will hurt some investors if the bubble pops but just make for a few bad quarters for the big tech cos.
[+] [-] kergonath|3 months ago|reply
Plenty of old companies spiked in 2000. Companies like Microsoft, Intel, or Cisco. Shovel sellers with a history of decent profits. I mean, the NASDAQ crashed, an it is not all made of start ups. You sound in denial, but there are more similarities than you seem to realise.
[+] [-] shevy-java|3 months ago|reply
"All but Alphabet have seen big share declines in the past month. Microsoft is down 12 percent, Amazon is down 14 percent, Meta is down 22 percent, Oracle is down 24 percent"
That fluctuates anyway and profits are made by some - nothing new here.
I think the world needs to detach from the stock markets though. That may not seem realistic right now, but if you look at the current US president and the ties to superrich, we really have a huge problem now. A few parasitize on the masses. That can not be sustained. It is not ethical.
"It will spark a generation of innovations that we can’t yet even imagine."
I am not so sure. So far I successfully avoided AI, including becoming dependent on AI - I am not. So that is good.
I can not really see what "innovation" would make me want to embrace AI. Perhaps I can be forced into it, but right now I am happy avoiding it.
"Because we humans are pretty good at predicting the impact of technology revolutions beyond seven to ten years."
No, we really are not.
"Not only does the AI bubble in 2025 feel like the internet bubble in 1999"
It is still not the same.
I feel the article is falling apart there. It tries too much to compare to the 1999, but it is not the same.
[+] [-] unknown|3 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pedalpete|3 months ago|reply
The Tulip mania (if it existed) was a bubble. It popped, it's never coming back. BeanieBabies was a bubble for the same reason. NFT art remains to be seen, but I think it was likely a bubble.
The internet was over-invested and decreased significantly when looking on a timeline of 5-7 years.
But outside of that, if you were to take the valuation of internet companies, it is greater than during the period we call the bubble.
We'll see the same with AI. There will most likely be a drop in valuations when looking at a medium term timescale, but long-term, I expect AI companies will be worth far more than they are today.
When the markets drop on a monthly scale, but then rebound, we don't call that a bubble, so why do we call this sub-decade decline a bubble?
Do you think we should have another term for this?
Same with the housing bubble, yes, it popped and lots of people got hurt, but those who were able to hang-on, I think, ended up ok, and on a moderately decent timeline.
[+] [-] tim333|3 months ago|reply
Poor old much maligned tulips. The mania isn't coming back but the tulip industry had endured for nearly four hundred years and Holland produces billions of tulip bulbs each year. Some of the more conservative tulip buyers in mania days probably even did ok out of it.
[+] [-] baxtr|3 months ago|reply
Crazy amount of funding, little to no revenue, no competitive moat, no demand.
Compare that to today, and you see only the crazy amount of funding part is the same.
[+] [-] coffeebeqn|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] charlierguo|3 months ago|reply
Doesn't this also describe Thinking Machines Lab?
[+] [-] Havoc|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] vjvjvjvjghv|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mancerayder|3 months ago|reply
In the late 90's and early 2000's, businesses were SALIVATING to get online, individuals were finding new ways to benefit and profit from it, and massive investment was being made to facilitate what was inevitable: an interconnected network of everything. Do you remember faxing things ? Paper mail? People half in the know were pushing the Boomers and older Gen-X types to get on with it and modernize.
Now? Not only are people not CLAMORING for more AI, it's that The Powers that Be are forcing it down our throats. At work, we have mandatory AI training, we have people getting promoted for promoting extremely dubious AI solutions both internally and on our product. I log into ANY web site now, whether I'm shopping for a vacuum cleaner or logging into a vendor website, and I get AI shoved in my face, from from "assistant" I have to interact with before typing "agent" to new features I don't care about.
Is there some truth, some merit? Absolutely. But my red flag I'm trying to raise is this: never did it feel FORCED in the 90's, there was a salivation from individuals to get more online, and a reluctance from institutions like elementary and high schools to get with the program.
Now? Corporations large and small are shoving it down our throats. Why? Well, to justify the crazy spending.
I'm no prophet and the world (and economy) are fundamentally unpredictable. But I'll say this. I'm putting my money where my mouth is, and I've put in an order to buy a 5 digit dollar amount of puts on a big 'AI' type ETF, that'll expire in the Spring. It's already wobbling and if you can't beat them, profit off of them when they stumble.
There's absolutely something wrong in the current moment, even if AI is somehow the future. For one thing, the U.S. economy would probably be in a recession right now if it weren't for this insane AI spending. It's wobbled with the recent Nvidia earnings release, and I think it is going to dip (not crash, but start dipping) soon.
The author wrote:
"None of these companies has proven yet that AI is a good enough business to justify all this spending. But the first four are now each spending $70 billion to $100 billion a year to fund data centers and other capital intensive AI expenses. Oracle is spending roughly $20 billion a year. "
In my opinion it's a theoretical arms race 'just because my competitor might win', and not based on anything certain.
[+] [-] exegete|3 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ManuelKiessling|3 months ago|reply
It’s not as if there were ten million people using and/or building on the Internet, and then this bubble popped and for some years there were only ten thousand people on the Internet.
And I think the same is true for „AI usage/adoption“.