Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by simianwords 3 days ago
Its very interesting how you are contradicting the whole article's axioms and then arriving at the same conclusion that we are in for a crash!

Rational takeaway is to step back and analyse what's really happening here.

- Are we really in for a crash?

- What does it say about the culture and people's mental models that we have two radically opposing viewpoints on AI costs and people still arrive at same conclusion?

3 comments

The fact is that a lot of people think AI is overvalued to the point there's no way it can deliver on the hype, so (if they're right) there necessarily must come a crash that brings sentiment down to the same level with objective reality. There's a lot of hype surrounding AI, so there's many different ways to defend the idea that it's overhyped, the same way that if you ask ten different people what is most wrong with the country, you'll get ten different answers.

>- Are we really in for a crash?

The question you should really be asking is, is AI really overvalued, or is it so useful it justifies all the hype that surrounds it? If the former, then yes, a crash is inevitable, because we don't live in the land of make-believe. If a crash never happens then AI was not overvalued, it was valued appropriately.

It's just schadenfreude/ressentiment. Our societal values are very christian even as we secularize and you can see this reflected everywhere you turn. Same thing with people feeling there ought to be a 'catch' to GLP1s, etc. etc.
I don't get you because I'm too stupid to parse your thoughts
thanks for the productive reply
I thought you would explain what you meant but I asked Claude and I kinda understood. Interesting analysis.
You can think that AI is a transformative technology and still come to the conclusion that the AI industry's economics don't pan out. I do think that we will eventually develop AGI. But I think the current scale up economics won't get us there before the music stops.