Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fooker 5 days ago
You're making a classic philosophical error here by accidentally anthropomorphizing companies :)

A company losing out on a risky bet and failing, letting a new upstart rise up is pretty natural. A large fraction of experts from the failed companies continue at the new ones, business as usual. There are engineering teams at $BIGTECH now full of OS, database, or compiler experts from XP, Sun, HP etc.

This natural ability of companies to take risky bets is what made silicon valley successful.

1 comments

Companies are run by people, 100 billion dollar companies are ran by people who want to stay billionaires and will street accordingly. But I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on, yes the talent will migrate, AI industry will eventually settle on some none bubble equilibrium, but that doesn't mean current AI economics is sensible, or inflated hardware costs beyond yield is not danger indicator. Like yeah, risky bets are burning, most people are going to move and carry their technical expertise on instead of unalive themselves or flip burgers, but that's independent of whether business models and broader economy is going to explode.
> that's independent of whether business models and broader economy is going to explode.

It's independent of the former, but not the later. That is my point.

Businesses and business models fail all the time, does not mean the 'broader economy is going to explode'.

It could, sure. But that has been predicted several hundred times and happened only a few times.

You're making a classic logic error by accidentally equating corner bodega with trillion dollar keystone industry.

Business models fail all the time, trillion business models that underpins entire macro economic growth engine exploding and causing massive contagion happens rarely, not even generationally. But when they do the leading bubble mathematic indicators are more clear.

You may be conflating magnitude of dollars invested in AI being at records with the fact that they're actually a lower percentage of GDP than other speculative bubbles have been ... this is important to understand because the magnitude of a slow down maybe much smaller than you seem to think