[preommr]

I am not saying this to be sarcastic - the problem is that people from OpenAI/Antrhopic are saying things like superintelligence in 3 years, or boris saying coding is solved and that 100% of his code is written by AI.

It's not good enough to just say oreo ceos say we need to more oreos.

There's a real grey area where these tools are useful in some capacity, and in that confusion we're spending billions. Too may people are saying too conflicting things and chaos is never good for clear long-term growth.

Either that 20 years is completelly inapplicable to AI, or we're in for a world of hurt. There's no in between given the kinds of bets that have been made.

[ozim]

AI companies don’t have 20 years, they have max 5 years where they have to turn to profit.

They don’t have time to wait for all the companies to pick up use of AI tooling in their own pace.

So they lie and try to manufacture demand. Well demand is there but they have to manufacture FOMO so that demand materializes now and not in 20 or 10 years.

[rfv6723]

This outlook is as short-sighted as the 2000 fiber optic bust. Critics then thought overcapacity meant the end, yet that infrastructure eventually created the modern internet. Capital does not walk away from a fundamental shift just because of one market correction. While specific companies may fail, the long-term value of the technology ensures that investment will continue far beyond a five-year window.

[afavour]

But fiber optic created in 2000 is still very usable in 2026. AI hardware purchases in 2026 is going to out of date very quickly by comparison.

[rfv6723]

The massive investment in power grids and data centers provides a permanent physical backbone that outlives any specific silicon generation. This infrastructure serves as a durable shell for the model design knowledge and chip architectural IP gained through each iteration. Capital is effectively funding a structural moat built on energy access and engineering mastery.

[DrewADesign]

Seems like there’s a lot of resources being dumped into those data centers that will not be very useful. Saying it will all be worthwhile because we’ll have the buildings and the modest power grid updates (which are largely paid for by tax payers, anyway,) feels like saying a PS5 is a good long-term investment because the cords and box will still be good long ag after the PS5 has outlived its usefulness.

[rfv6723]

The "PS5" analogy fails to account for how "useless" hardware often triggers the next paradigm shift. For decades, traditionalists dismissed high-end GPUs as expensive toys for gamers, yet that specific architecture became the accidental engine of the AI revolution.

[toomuchtodo]

How much capital was wiped out for it to be cheap after the bust? Someone is going to eat the exuberance loss in the near term, even if there is long term value.

[whattheheckheck]

Try 3

[Terr_]

It's a "Motte and Bailey" system [0], where the extreme "AI will do everything for you" claim keeps getting thrown around to try to get investors to throw in cash, but then somehow it transmutes into "all technologies took time to mature stop being mean to me."

To be fair, it isn't necessarily the same people doing both at once. Sometimes there are two groups under the same general banner, where one makes the big-claims, and another responds to perceived criticism of their lesser-claim.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

[flowerthoughts]

> the problem is that people from OpenAI/Antrhopic are saying things like superintelligence in 3 years

An even bigger problem is that people listen to them even after they say rationally implausible things. When even Yann LeCunn is putting his arms up and saying "this approach won't work," it's pretty bad.