[bwhiting2356]

How can something be both a bubble and also eradicate the middle class's ability to make a living? There are reasonable people making the case for both of these things, that investment in AI will fall flat and that AI will be too powerful. Coalition forces are pushing them together into an anti-AI camp, but there's a contradiction. Is it too powerful or not powerful enough?

[mannanj]

It can represent a few peoples interests, who aren't middle class, and eradicate the middle class. AI can fall flat in its affect and benefit for most people, while helping a few people. It can thusly be powerful for a few people, and not powerful enough for most people. (I feel we may see special models that most people will never access, while a few get those most powerful models).

Did that answer your questions and address the contradictions?

[bwhiting2356]

The parent comment referred to AI as a bubble, and what you're describing I would not call a bubble.

[mannanj]

You would not, and I would say what I am saying doesn't support nor deny a bubble's existence. I think that would be an error in thinking to conclude what I said supports bubbles.

[overgard]

I call AI a bubble because none of the finances make any sense. Everyone save for nvidia is losing money at an absurd rate (Anthropics "profitable" quarter is basically an accounting trick, not a real change). Circular financing is well known by everyone paying attention.

[bwhiting2356]

Valid. That's also what I would call a bubble. But if this prediction is true, that not enough people will buy their tokens to meet their projections, then it also won't be automating away everyone's jobs. That's the contradiction.

[overgard]

I said they want to eradicate the middle class, I didn't say they'd succeed at it. But your logic is faulty either way:

> How can something be both a bubble and also eradicate the middle class's ability to make a living?

Easy: it gets a lot of people fired because of AI psychosis in CEOs, then massively underdelivers on replacing them. Or it succeeds in replacing them, but ruins the economy because nobody can afford to buy anything anymore because they're unemployed. Or a million other scenarios.

To be clear, I don't think it will replace the middle class, I just think that's basically the intention. If it's not the intention, they're at the very least indifferent about the potential catastrophes. Again, they're claiming to be a "public benefit" company. They chose that route, and they're not living up to it.

It's a bubble because it massively overpromises and underdelivers, and it's a menace because what they're promising (and failing to deliver on) is bad for everyone save rich people, and it'll eventually be bad for them, too (hint: "taste" is not going to save you)

[bwhiting2356]

Big layoffs so far have been at legacy companies. Hiring at startups is strong, and the unemployment rate is steady at 4%.