I want to see everyone hop on the IPOs and ride them all the way down to the floor!
Fuck AI
If I wasn’t convinced the entire financial system was fraudulent I would be shorting the fuck out of all of them
I think those IPOs are meant to bring in enough money to give the founders and managers golden parachutes before the whole system folds.
They don’t make any money - on the contrary - and they won’t miraculously start making it just because the IPO happened.
‘At some point you’ve got to make money’
Hey hey hey, now, that’s loser talk. Here, c’mon, let’s snort a ton of coke.
Based on what? Spotify took what, 16 years to turn a profit?
Money stopped working like you expect it to a long time ago.
ERROR: Capitalism has no idea how to deal with this situation.
I’m actually kinda fascinated with how this will shake out. This isn’t like one or two companies making a bet. The entire S&P500 is pushing Ai.
Well, here’s hoping a few investors do a flip before they hit the pavement.
This is capitalism working exactly as intended. People with capital are using it to guide businesses to make them more money.
The mistake is thinking that capitalism is motivated by a healthy economy, when the theory is that if everyone is aggressively selfish then the economy will naturally become healthy and efficient.
The people making money are counting on making their money as investors keep pumping more in. The investors are all aiming to be the last one to sell before the crash. Russian roulette venture capitalism. (In some cases they think the economy will tolerate 1-2 companies and they’re aiming to buy a controlling interest in a company worth 2% current value after the correction, and in others they just have so much money that a few billion is a minor bet - BlackRock comes to mind, with more than $10 trillion to invest)
If you look at 2008, we had a similar-ish situation with a major portion of the economy being invested in mortgage based investments.
ERROR: Capitalism has no idea how to deal with this situation.
Actually it does. Bad decisions can be made only until money runs out
Currently reading Enshittification.
AI will make money, it’s currently in the make users happy stage which is the least profitable but most important lock in stage.
Stage two comes post IPO when they shift value from users to businesses. They will start printing lots of money at this point.
Stage 3 is where they start to squeeze everyone to their own benefit and start generating cash to the moon and everyone bemoans how they miss the old days of answers without product hints or other nonsense and husinesses miss the old days when they could do anything on top of AI that could make a profit.
Don’t worry, it’s coming, AI stocks are going to drop post IPO because of a surplus of hype and cash but mid to long term they will go crazy high as stage 2 and 3 come online.
This has happened so many times with new tech, it will happen again. Don’t bet against it.
The thing is they’re currently trying to sell as a business oriented tool. They’re not going to make money off of individuals.
Google is positioned to come closest because they’re already an advertising company.If you think their focus isn’t businesses then you’re not paying attention to their strategy. The pressure to drive profitability is increasing as their business customers are reporting that investment in AI capabilities isn’t converting into measurable financial returns. That’s the type of news that makes investors wary.
If you operate at a loss, you need to be providing a value to your customers that you can leverage. You need more than high interest, you also need demonstrable utility.
There have also been plenty of times that a new technology just … Didn’t pan out. This specifically happens with AI technology, and we even have a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter The tech won’t go away, it’ll just be market infeasible for a while until it’s no longer called AI and is just a feature in some other product.
Take your comment and apply it to someone marketing “spell check as a service”.
I’m not much of an AI skeptic compared to most on Lemmy. I think the technology is incredibly useful and probably beneficial to society if we can remove the control of the ruling class.
That said I truly don’t understand how the AI business model is supposed to work. I’m sure there is some market for businesses, governments, etc., basically people who have too much money who may want to pay for the latest and greatest models.
But I don’t really see the average consumer doing this when slightly less good versions will almost certainly be available for free. And the above customers will not be able to support the level of investment that’s going on right now.
This isn’t directed at you specifically, but just the broad sentiment that people are coming now OK with AI even though people kinda I guess forgot that like AI stole and ripped all of our information books. Music works of art all of it’s stolen ya know. But I’ll digress it doesn’t matter anymore.
I personally don’t think the concept of stolen IP is ethically coherent. Ownership of ideas is a ridiculous concept. So I don’t find this to be a very compelling argument for why AI is bad per se.
However, I do think it strengthens the argument that it should not be the intellectual property of tech oligarchs who did not create the vast breadth of knowledge that the algorithm is sorting through and accessing.
But I’ll digress it doesn’t matter anymore.
Exactly. There is no ethical consumption.
The Internet that you’re posting on was built on top of a military network intended to provide redundant communication in the event of a global thermonuclear war. The satellites that provide you with GPS were created in order to more accurately drop bombs and guide armies. The rockets that put them in space exist because of research into methods of delivering nuclear weapons.
Your smartphone likely contains components built by slave labor, you almost certainly consume food products resulting from child labor. Your clothing as well.
The world is built on all manner of immoral things. ‘Stealing’ information (which presupposes the idea that a person can own knowledge, which I disagree with) is incredibly mild.
On top of that, the advances in AI are happening independent of LLMs. The advances in machine learning that made LLMs possible apply to all kinds of different areas that have nothing to do with language, music, or art.
LLMs just happen to be the easiest kind of AI to train because humanity has spent millennia storing language in books and the Internet provides a massive amount of data as well.
The Internet that you’re posting on was built on top of a military network intended to provide redundant communication in the event of a global thermonuclear war.
Responding to this part alone: that’s not actually true.
The intent of arpanet, the direct predecessor to the Internet, was to make it easier for universities to use high powered computer resources located at national laboratories, as well as making it easier to distribute software updates. The person who initially pushed for it’s creation wanted “an electronic commons open to all, 'the main and essential medium of informational interaction for governments, institutions, corporations, and individuals '”. They secured funding for the initial computer science labratories, os research that underpin everything, and the foundation for the “INTERgalactic NETwork”.Arpa was, at the time, the advanced research project agency. They were under the DoD, but they filled a role closer to the NSF today.
In designing the system they referenced work done by people who were studying robust communication networks. At the time that meant the phone system and nuclear weapons. The research, however, was applicable to any unstable network, and so had particular interest to them because computers had terrible reliability and they wanted to not have to call people if they discovered they had turned off a computer halfway between New York and LA.
The closest thing it has to a cold war military objective is to help us win the research race and spite the Soviets. It can withstand a nuclear attack, but that’s just because that’s the easiest way to make it survive a farmer with a backhoe accidentally hitting a wire.
They were under the DoD, but they filled a role closer to the NSF today.
DARPA was defense projects funded by the military for the military. NSF predates DARPA by 8 years. DARPA did not fill a role closer to the NSF today.
It was after ARPANET was created for the military that it was expanded into general university use by NSF into NSFNet in 1986.
(I worked for Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf in the early 90’s.)
DARPA was originally ARPA. They were under the department of defense but their project scope wasn’t limited to defense projects. The reorganization that rebranded the agency as DARPA and made it defense focused ostensibly saw the non-defense oriented moonshot project responsibility transfer to the NSF, although the funding shift wasn’t proportional.
The order of creation isn’t exactly relevant to how responsibilities have shifted.It’s kinda like how, for the longest time, presidential security was handled by the Treasury department. It wasn’t because presidential security was considered a financial matter, but because that’s where it fit.
https://www.darpa.mil/news/features/arpanet
Secure communications and information-sharing between geographically dispersed research facilities were among the ARPANET’s original goals.
From your link to the arpanet wiki:
Building on the ideas of J. C. R. Licklider, Bob Taylor initiated the ARPANET project in 1966 to enable resource sharing between remote computers.
Sutherland and Taylor continued their interest in creating the network, in part, to allow ARPA-sponsored researchers at various corporate and academic locales to utilize computers provided by ARPA, and, in part, to quickly distribute new software and other computer science results.
There’s a big difference between ARPA funded labs and general university usage.
I’m not sure why it would matter that you worked for them in the early 90s. That doesn’t exactly give you a privileged insight into the creation of ARPANET.
information-sharing between geographically dispersed research facilities
Research facilities doing DOD research.
I’m not sure why it would matter that you worked for them in the early 90s.
The president of the company got Vint and Bob on board because he was their military liason at Darpa.
The project I worked on was partially funded by Darpa. We reported weekly updates to a Lt Colonel.
The Internet was originally by the military and for the military and only later handed off to universities.
Yes, I will just take your word for it over the word of the original people involved.
You keep talking about DARPA, when they’re not the same organization that backed ARPANET. Arpanet came before laws were passed saying DARPA could only fund projects directly related to defense.
How is the technology useful?
For the love of Asimov, someone please explain.
It is useful for programming, I know a lot of people here don’t want to hear that, but denying it now is being willfully ignorant. No it isn’t good enough that you can tell it “just go do the thing” and then accept what it gives you without checking it, but using it as a tool as a professional can very much improve your work and how quickly you do things.
For me recently I used it to unpick a nasty race condition that was occasionally causing a program I was working on to lock up and couldn’t figure out why. It took some back and forth with it but it did help me figure it out when before I had been stumped.
it’s not useful for programming and it makes code more verbose, poorly structured, and requires too many attempts to get a mildly useful block.
poorly structured,
yes, that’s bad
requires too many attempts to get a mildly useful block.
yes, that’s bad
more verbose,
How is that bad? I can’t count how many times I’ve revisited my work a year or more later, and wondered what I was thinking, having taken 2 minutes to parse something dense that I wrote, and then thought “why didn’t I make this a little clearer at the time?”
More verbose does not imply that is is more clear, it is often rambling and not even accurate.
correct. it’s long winded code that could be written a lot more succinctly.
wow these guys seem to hate it all of a sudden, what changed…
