[Karrot_Kream]

And social media will upvote the preferences of the community over the truth until the heat death of the universe.

This quote is the dumbest thing. There are traders at firms that make money from the market every day. Chances are you may even benefit from products these traders sell to more risk averse people.

It's totally fine to say something like "I'm worried that the actual products that the AI boom are producing won't generate enough revenue to justify these levels of investment." But the silly doomshilling happening constantly makes no sense. Perhaps more saliently, if you treat the market as a source of economic information, the doomshilling seems to offer no new information at all.

[throwaway290]

how many people here are professional trader firms trading someone else's money. if I broke my children do not eat.

you could say for half of all threads here, don't talk about it, it's all just doomshilling, just shut up and make a bet on polymarket and make some quick buck instead. but to me it sounds like it's censoring people. these talks is why a forum exists.

sure I also agree that some comments like "ah stock is overpriced" doesn't give much useful info. feels like a low effort manipulation somebody would say publicly if he was a trading firm and wanted to get stock lower to buy some. but I would say "why?" not "shut up and go gamble on it".

[Karrot_Kream]

> how many people here are professional trader firms trading someone else's money. if I broke my children do not eat.

"It often happens that someone propounds his views with such positive and uncompromising assurance that he seems to have entirely set aside all thought of possible error. A bet disconcerts him. Sometimes it turns out that he has a conviction which can be estimated at a value of one ducat, but not of ten. For he is very willing to venture one ducat, but when it is a question of ten he becomes aware, as he had not previously been, that it may very well be that he is in error. If, in a given case, we represent ourselves as staking the happiness of our whole life, the triumphant tone of our judgment is greatly abated; we become extremely diffident, and discover for the first time that our belief does not reach so far. Thus pragmatic belief always exists in some specific degree, which, according to differences in the interests at stake, may be large or may be small." -- Immanuel Kant

Perhaps having our opinions moderated by our appetites to bet behind them would help offer a better picture of the world to us than just holding ideas and airing it out to the commons. If you don't want to do that, maybe don't rush to judgement. There's lots of things in the world that I don't understand and I don't have opinions on; I trust that the experts in those fields have informed opinions.

> you could say for half of all threads here, don't talk about it, it's all just doomshilling, just shut up and make a bet on polymarket and make some quick buck instead. but to me it sounds like it's censoring people. these talks is why a forum exists.

I don't think a forum should exist for banal thoughts. Online forums shouldn't be places for people to just say whatever they think. The defining problem on the internet is Low SNR; the amount of irrelevant content far exceeds the amount of relevant content. Search engines and LLMs are huge industries all oriented around surfacing relevant content. I don't think contributing to the net's low SNR to speak "your truth" is a good thing. The end result of that is an internet filled with banal, irrelevant, often incorrect information.

> not "shut up and go gamble on it".

I'd say "if you have nothing new to add, shut up and maybe go gamble on it to test your feelings"

[throwaway290]

> There's lots of things in the world that I don't understand and I don't have opinions on; I trust that the experts in those fields have informed opinions.

Betting money on some stock makes you an expert in some subject? Cmon

This is hacker news, many here are literally experts on this thing, and not experts in finance, and not into gambling.

> I don't think contributing to the net's low SNR to speak "your truth" is a good thing

And you are saying people should only be allowed to say whatever they decide to put money on knowing full well that if enough rich people prop stock up for long enough short attempt will fail even if the company is bullshit hype. This just creates a rich people echo chamber that's all.

[Karrot_Kream]

> And you are saying people should only be allowed to say whatever they decide to put money on knowing full well that if enough rich people prop stock up for long enough short attempt will fail even if the company is bullshit hype.

No I'm saying that if you don't have anything new or informative to say, don't say it. I don't really talk about why AI is a bubble because I have nothing new to add that hasn't already been said even though I believe it too. Things I am informed about and are different from what others have already said, I say. Obviously the line here is quite vague but I think we should err on the side of saying less not more.

> This is hacker news, many here are literally experts on this thing, and not experts in finance, and not into gambling.

In my own area of expertise, < 10% of HN commenters (depending on the thread) actually understand what's going on. The rest really don't. I think you see expertise on this site where I do not. It's true a few experts in my field are on here but there are many more in other places like project Discords or Twitter or even mailing lists.

Anyway I don't think there's much more to be gained by us talking. I think we have two fundamentally different views on what this site should be. Thanks.

[Jensson]

> No I'm saying that if you don't have anything new or informative to say, don't say it.

I don't see anyone else saying that here yet though? Every day new people learn about that quote, its a good quote that helps many not lose money, its not bad to post it where its relevant.

If you goad people to lose their money then they can defend with that quote, that is fine.

[Karrot_Kream]

> I don't see anyone else saying that here yet though?

My original thought was:

> It's totally fine to say something like "I'm worried that the actual products that the AI boom are producing won't generate enough revenue to justify these levels of investment." But the silly doomshilling happening constantly makes no sense. Perhaps more saliently, if you treat the market as a source of economic information, the doomshilling seems to offer no new information at all.

I'm not sure what folks are thinking about money when they read what I say. I think there's some imputed values about gambling and money there (namely I read some values about gambling being bad and money being dangerous) that might be confusing from my point.

Money is just the tool to hold one accountable for what they say. Saying something like "oh it's obvious Oracle is in trouble, AI is a bubble it's going down" (not actually what GP said) is, to me, a post of sentiment without information. It's the kind of thing I do in group chats not online forums. I think it's important for folks who post a sentiment to either post why they believe that sentiment with some amount of detail or to have some consequence for failure for their sentiment. Or else the commons are polluted with irrelevant at best and incorrect at worst content.

Put another way, I think the open internet needs a much, much, much higher level of gatekeeping than it gets now. Putting money behind your beliefs is one way to do this. And since we're talking about publicly tradable financial instruments, it seems like a fairly obvious one.