The (real) dead economy theory

hhn_acker about 2 hours ago 23 commentsRead Article on pluralistic.net

FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

64% Positive

Analyzed from 760 words in the discussion.

Discussion (23 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

thelastgallon•26 minutes ago

There was a recent discussion:

The Dead Economy Theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48324712

"The underlying purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth". (comment on the discussion above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48334069)

lionheart•about 1 hour ago

I just don't get it. How do you go from writing the kinds of future visions he has to staring at the singularity practically hitting you in the face and calling it "the world's money-losingest technology"?

Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?

techbro92•about 1 hour ago

I think you are confusing Charles Stross with Cory Doctorow

lionheart•about 1 hour ago

I think you’re right. And yet still.

beebmam•about 1 hour ago

Ideological capture is an often socially enforced prison

rokob•about 1 hour ago

> something is valuable because some people think other people will pay more for it in the future, and not because it does useful things

This has been the definition of finance for hundreds of years. I don't know why it comes across here like this is a new phenomenon.

badlibrarian•34 minutes ago

Finance has always run on both: an asset that produces something has a floor. An asset that produces nothing does not. Between the two lies human nature. One way to get rich is to focus on fundamentals. One way to get rich or poor faster is to bet on human nature.

roxolotl•about 1 hour ago

Just because something is doesn’t mean it ought to be. We’ve settled on this system because it seems to be generally the most effective way of valuing things. In times of extreme changes in valuation it comes off as more egregious than normal.

debo_•about 1 hour ago

Whenever I read Cory Doctorow, I feel like someone took the complement of Paul Graham's writing and posted it. I personally find both of them vapid and annoying.

Edit: the article that the author is commenting on is IMO much better than the linked commentary. There's not much to it

https://crookedtimber.org/2026/06/15/one-big-grift/

rayiner•33 minutes ago

> But that's not the fun fact; this is: everything he's done since 2020 was a flop

Okay boomer.

neko_ranger•about 1 hour ago

most interesting sentence is the first one

civilian•about 2 hours ago

> That's the logic of the whole market today. AI – the world's money-losingest technology – attracts investment at the expense of everything else.

I expect Cory to have skepticism about technology that can be exploited for dystopian purposes, but calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch. If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment bet is about.

I get that the blog post is making a separate point about Musk's companies but it's dissapointing to see mistakes like this in Cory's thinking

Grombobulous•5 minutes ago

I share your feeling that LLM-based AI is a high-potential technology.

The issue is the objective dollars and cents financials of the situation. It’s literally the technology that is the money-losingest at this time.

The potential and utility of the technology can’t become viable just by being really useful.

There’s a good accounting argument to be made for AI IPOs happening out of a serious need for capital.

I wouldn’t bet money at a casino in this, but if OpenAI went completely out of business or was absorbed into irrelevancy within a calendar year, nobody with a finance degree would be surprised. They objectively cannot exist in ~18 months without massive spending cuts or additional cash infusion.

AI has wonderful potential but no amazing product is guaranteed commercial viability. If Uber spends $1500 on tokens per employee they might as well spend $0 on AI and hire a real person in a low cost of living country.

I think about how the railroad barons went through a somewhat similar process. By the end of the American railroad buildout, numerous lines became financially unviable within a few short decades, some not even really making it into the automobile era. The only railroad business that ended up with any sort of long term profit viability was freight.

bayarearefugee•about 1 hour ago

> calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch

In what way is it out of touch or wrong? It is objectively correct today.

It may very well not be correct 2 years from now, but his statement was about the present, not the future.

nelsonfigueroa•about 1 hour ago

> If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment bet is about.

That's one big "If". From personal experience AI just tends to burn money. Time will tell if the investment pays off but I disagree that, at this time, it is out of touch to say AI is a money sink.

lukol•about 1 hour ago

"money-losingest" -> AI already brings in billions and many AI companies could become profitable in little time if they'd stop R&D and simply keep selling what they already have.

yes, it's risky and investment-heavy but it's not a bottomless pit with no path to break even. there are many other recent technologies - NFTs? data centers in space? - that would be a better fit for this label.

projektfu•about 1 hour ago

Is that true? If Anthropic stopped last November at versions 4.5, would people keep using it enough to recoup the investment?

pfraze•about 1 hour ago

“Losing” is a loaded word choice. If I buy something I’m really happy to have, I probably don’t describe it as losing the money.

Obviously the investment expense has been extremely high, which is what the replies are quibbling about.

MaysonL•about 1 hour ago

AI is currently a massive money sink. Yes or No?

ZionBoggan•about 1 hour ago

Obviously no...? The implications far outweigh the "money sink" notion...

ggm•about 1 hour ago

Obviously yes. On evidence alone the path to profit doesn't exist for most of the massive capital sinks. A small number of players At best MAY return on investment, but in the cycle time capital needs a return, most are functionally incapable

AGI isn't happening. So, it's incremental improvements on LLM and Generative methods. Any advance which requires more tech inputs demands more capital. Any advance which requires less tech makes all the existing capex look stupid.

amanaplanacanal•about 1 hour ago