[datsci_est_2015]

What’s the line that separates grift from speculative investment? Does it only require true believers? If Elizabeth Holmes truly believed in her product, would that have made it not a grift?

> The AI situation seems more like a bunch of investors knowingly investing in something very speculative. If they lose their money, while that is the nature of speculative investments.

This is a bit reductive, especially as the government’s role in shaping American life is reduced and the influence of extremely high wealth individuals impacts every citizen. We’re somewhat losing our democratic rights when Congress does not answer to our interests, and the extremely high wealth individuals directly (FoxNews) or indirectly (X, Meta incentives) manufacture consent.

The whole theory of low taxes and light regulations is that high wealth individuals will be incentivized to “create jobs”, like modern Lords of the Manor. When those who essentially steer the direction of the economy take actions that are highly speculative seemingly only to enrich themselves and concentrate wealth further despite public outcry … well, maybe there isn’t a word that elegantly describes that situation, but “grift” is as close as I can muster.

[bawolff]

> What’s the line that separates grift from speculative investment?

Are they actively lying to people in concrete ways? Not just, we think this is going to be big, when that is questionable, but do they say AI can do X right now, when objectively it cannot even remotely do X under any circumstance? Lying is what makes the difference.

> well, maybe there isn’t a word that elegantly describes that situation, but “grift” is as close as I can muster.

I think the word you are looking for is capitalism.

Rich people put their money where they think it will generate more money. The economy uses that to determine what to focus on. Sometimes rich people are wrong and are punished by losing a bunch of money. That is how the system is supposed to work. It is far from perfect but traditionally has done better than the alternatives.

[datsci_est_2015]

To your first point about lying, surely that’s not the bar you’d like to set? Misleading investors is pretty much the greatest talent of all of history’s greatest capitalists - were they all grifters? Is it the extent of the lying that matters? Because pure honesty is nowhere to be found in SV.

> I think the word you are looking for is capitalism.

“It” may be a consequence of some countries’ and cultures’ attempt at implementing capitalist policies, but I don’t think that’s anyone’s working definition of capitalism.

“It” being a runaway concentration of wealth being held by few individuals who are not as well-informed and smart as they think they are, exploiting economies of scale and highly financialized systems.

> That is how the system is supposed to work.

The system is supposed to work in the way that we design it to work. Massive speculative bubbles where every rich yahoo is simply looking for an “exit strategy” is far from ideal.

You’re far too forgiving, covering your eyes while the industrialists rob us blind. There’s a culture of grift and exploitation running rampant in the US at the moment, and this sort of apologia only serves to exacerbate.

[bawolff]

> To your first point about lying, surely that’s not the bar you’d like to set?

Its literally the dictionary definition.

> Misleading investors is pretty much the greatest talent of all of history’s greatest capitalists - were they all grifters? Is it the extent of the lying that matters?

Some are. Plenty are in the grey.

But there is a big difference between objectively lying like in theranos, and hyping things up questionably. There is a reason why Theranos people are in jail, while many a hype man walk free.

> anyone’s working definition of capitalism.

How about the dictionary definition of capitalism. Private individuals owning and controlling the means of production and subjecting to their whims is as fundamental to capitalisim as you can get.

Maybe there is an exception for monopolies, but i dont think any of the AI companies are monopolies.

> held by few individuals who are not as well-informed and smart as they think they are

I mean, seems to be working out pretty well for them. Can't argue with success.

> The system is supposed to work in the way that we design it to work

Key word being "we". As in society. Not you personally.

> There’s a culture of grift and exploitation running rampant in the US at the moment, and this sort of apologia only serves to exacerbate.

People making heated diatribes instead of cold logical arguments serve to exacerbate it.

[datsci_est_2015]

> People making heated diatribes instead of cold logical arguments serve to exacerbate it.

Your arguments aren’t nearly as logical as you think they are, they merely tell the rest of us the blind spots your world view is plagued by.