ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
75% Positive
Analyzed from 1403 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#energy#don#fast#more#why#bubble#tech#buy#still#big
Discussion (54 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
The guarantee allows lenders to behave partly as though they're lending to NVIDIA, Meta or Broadcom rather than to an AI startup or single-purpose data-center company.
The interesting question isn't "Is the debt hidden?" (it isn't), but is who ultimately owns the downside risk of the AI infra boom?
More interesting headline would be "Big Tech is using its creditworthiness to finance the AI boom without taking on equivalent amounts of direct debt."
The US taxpayer for the inevitable corporate bailouts.
what informs your prediction?
I generally don't see many cons to it.
1. Big tech was just using profits to buy back shares before AI build out. Would you rather they buy back shares with their profits or finance the AI build out?
2. If there is an AI bubble, great, when it pops, we'll all have ultra cheap tokens and we'll have all these amazing AI infrastructure built for the next wave of innovation.
3. Even if AI progress stops here and models hit a wall in intelligence, we'll still have AI good enough to solve millennium problems.
My theories on why people are so anti-AI:
1. It threatens their jobs.
2. They want AI stocks to drop so they can buy the dip.
3. Their identity is being challenged because AI makes what they do easier.
They are moving too fast and using too much dirty energy
They are committing crimes to trick people into thinking they've created god
None of your three theories are correct at all
Too fast? So it’s getting too smart too fast to you. But at the same time, they are going to need a bailout to you.
I don’t think they’re tricking anyone at all. Most normal people don’t care. They just use AI when it’s helpful to them. It’s only people who are on HN or X who care.
No, it is not getting too smart. Moving too fast means exactly the opposite, they are doing idiotic and destructive things because the models are not as smart as they want us to think
It's clear from reading your posts in this thread you are just trolling and not trying to have good faith discussion
2) i want them to fail and disappear forever. Let open models stay. Let the VC fuckers starve to death before they use MY retirement fund without my consent because they bribe regulator to include them in protected indexes even if they have not followed the process, just because they are the future and too big, trust me bro
3) fuck me if i identify myself with my job, and only my job.
2. Because there is still no convincing way how AI giants would make profit. Whatever impressive and useful tricks the stochastic parrot is able to do will never pay back enough to make a breakeven.
3. Because AI giant CEOs are a bunch of galactic-scale douchebags who keep saying "this is far too powerful for a mere mortal, but as long as we hold this power it's okay" with a straight face while presenting us with the stochastic parrot. No, seriously, I'm very impressed. Someone actively subverting the tech narrative couldn't do a better job.
2. Personally, I think the people who say LLMs are stochastic parrots are themselves stochastic parrots. They heard this term from someone online once and now they keep repeating it. Anyways, I’d love to see your math on why you think AI can’t make a profit.
3. You must be new to tech if you think it’s only AI. Many tech CEOs have always been out of touch. I personally don’t care too much about the CEOs. If AI CEOs had better PR, would you be less anti AI?
Why would you be suprised there is opposition?
There is something very contradictory about these posts.
For example, you seem to suggest that it doesn’t benefit people but AI is can also replace workers. So which is it? AI is very useful to people to a point that one person can do the job of many? Or AI is useless?
Do we have mass unemployment because of AI? No. Our unemployment rate has been very low since ChatGPT.
That poster is so clueless.
You should really reevaluate your perspectives .
But instead of attacking me, why don’t you engage with me.
You seem to be neglecting the economic impact question and assuming only the ai companies themselves are impacted in a burst.
And they said no.
Why do you think anthropic is postponing their IPO?
You’re progressively entering the delusional territory.