[jopsen]

We don't know if there will be software improvements leaving the AI data centers as stranded assets.

We don't know if software product like Adobe suite will be irrelevant or cloned with vibe coding.

The assumption that inference with sota won't be local in 5 years is not certain.

[hedora]

I think things are pretty clear. I don’t know when the markets will agree, sadly.

We do know technological advancements will leave the data centers as stranded assets. There’s not enough money in the most optimistic revenue projections to pay for them, and models are simultaneously getting better and cheaper to operate.

Adobe (and similar companies) will either improve or be replaced by vibe coding. I think the assumption a lot of wall street and management is making is that Adobe can replace itself with vibe coding and vibe customer support, and then not be simultaneously out-innovated by a few dozen companies founded by folks they laid off.

Local inference is 6-12 months behind SOTA. If that holds, you can have a 2029 SOTA locally on a Rapberry Pi 8, or 2030 SOTA for $500/month (in 2026 dollars). If 2030 SOTA is qualitatively better at that point, then we’ll be way past AGI, and the economy will be unrecognizable.

[jsnell]

It is basically impossible for AI software improvements to devalue the AI compute investments.

It's the other way around, software improvements make the hardware more valuable. Let's say that one unit of compute can generate one unit of value. As the software improves on any of the principal axes (cheaper cost for same quality, or new capabilities that you could previously not get for any price), that same unit of compute will produce more value.

What would threaten those compute investments? Basically order of magnitude improvements in the hardware, but that kind of thing will take longer to happen than the projected lifetime of the hardware. (Or the demand for AI evaporating, but that tends to be an issue of faith that is hard to have a useful discussion on.)

[Yizahi]

That's assuming all existing LLM investments divided by the all existing LLM usage is net valuable as baseline. But if that is not yet like that, then software improvements may or may not bring those investments over the valuable threshold.

[jopsen]

That's an interesting take.

It does assume that more intelligence is both possible and useful -- that's probably not unlikely.

[the_snooze]

Exactly, my view is intellectually honest because it's falsifiable. I would love to live in a world where tech largely respects and empowers end-users instead of trapping them in engineered dependency. Tech companies just need to act humanely.

That's just not the world we live in currently.

[tim333]

I'm not sure I see that with the big tech I'm an end user of, the biggest being Google. I get free search, email, youtube. It's provided a lot of value for me and never really caused problems at that end.

I think the downsides of Google are more driving competitors and companies that have to pay them out of business, like for example the online travel business has suffered because they need to pay a lot to get any customers.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe some monopoly laws that make their service worse so others can compete?