[JCM9]

The “we don’t need as many workers because AI” line from CEOs isn’t sticking. It might work for a quarter or two but sooner or later these companies must answer hard questions on why they’re not getting measurable returns from massive investments in AI. That day is coming and it’s going to be really ugly.

Same for many of these “AI companies” that are burning through cash in a race to the bottom towards a commodity with no real prospects for a sustainable business model. The tech is cool, and can be useful, but the business aspects of all this is a forrest full of dry timber waiting for one strike of lightning to burn the whole thing to the ground.

[b112]

You must have experienced the last few decades differently than I have.

I've seen crash after crash, all softened with taxpayer bailouts, and economic recovery within a couple of years. Often, to "booming" economies, which just means "compared to during the crash".

Should your crash come to pass, it will be another part of the news cycle, 4% to 8% of people will be out of work for a few months to a year, and nothing will happen to the companies responsible.

In fact, they'll get bonuses for pre-crash performance.

This is how history has played out for decades.

[conception]

I think the thing is that it’s not a massive investment to displace a worker. You can spend ten grand a month on AI tools before you start running into the cost of a single low end tech employee. That’s a lot of AI tools.

[JCM9]

The problem with this picture though is you’re spending 10 grand a month on a product someone else is losing 10 grand a month selling you. It’s beginning to look like a house of cards. The finances of many of these companies are on shaky grounds and they claim “profit” without accounting for the true costs of what they’re doing (eg not counting model training in the COGS when the useful life of a model in 2025 is very limited). When investors realize the returns won’t be there and shut off the free cash taps the party will be over.

[spacemadness]

The problem generally starts with “we need our own nuclear power plants to power this tech.”

[_DeadFred_]

For the geeky non-serious sci-fi kid in me it's wild to live in the future, where there is serious talks of building independent from the grid nuclear power plants to power AIs. Because one of the big things from all the pre-thinking about AI was that we definitely DON'T want to be able to turn their power off remotely. Glad removing that capability is already in the plan. Totally doesn't seem sketchy.

[padjo]

But it’s a bit like saying you can buy an awful lot of hammers for the price of a carpenter.

[conception]

More like you need to hire a robotics engineer to manage your automated factory.