you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 66 points 15 hours ago (14 children)

Everyone knows except the people who are investing billions of dollars into AI and their press.

A lot of them do know and are planning to be the ones not left with the bag

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 15 hours ago (12 children)

    Eh kind of. AI is not going to go away. It's going to be just like the internet in the early days. With a similar crash to the dot-com crash.

    They're just all trying to be the one that doesn't go bankrupt during the crash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

    trying to be the one that doesn’t go bankrupt during the crash == planning to be the ones not left with the bag

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

    I wonder if some people don’t understand that saying anymore. “Get that bag” means getting a full money bag. “Left with the bag” or “left holding the bag” means you have an empty money bag that has been emptied by others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 hours ago

    There's a full discussion of the phrase here

    Your interpretation, to be left with an empty bag that previously had something valuable, is one of several interpretations, but not the earliest.

    The original seems to be, the member of the group holding a bag of contraband when the authorities intervene.

    I think this second meaning is the more compelling: the group sought a benefit but only one bears the cost. Or, each member of the group took the risk but that risk only materialised for one member.

    I mean, after you share out a bag of gold, including giving yourself a share, the bag will be empty.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 14 hours ago

    No, I know what it means. I don't think it applies here. It would apply to something like a pump and dump scheme, where the people know the bag is already empty, but they fluff it up and try to pass it off on someone else before the whole thing collapses.

    That's not what these companies are doing. They legitimately believe that AI will eventually become profitable and are trying to corner the market and be the dominant player. They WANT the crash. They just want to be the ones that survive it. That's not the same as trying to leave someone else with the bag at the end of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 14 hours ago

    I don't think that's really the same. Not being left with the bag means you know already know the bag is empty and pass it on to someone else before they realize it's empty. Like a pump and dump scheme.

    That's not what these companies are doing. They're not trying to leave investors holding the empty bag. They are legitimately trying to turn profitable and corner the market.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

    The fibre in the ground from the dotcom bubble was still used... eventually.

    Most of the 100's of billions of dollars of GPUs that have just been sitting on shelves in warehouses and will continue to sit there for years even if there isn't a crash will be nearly worthless (relative to the prices paid) whether they try to mass liquidate at a small fraction of the purchase price to pay back some of their 10%+ interest loans they used to buy them or they sit around for a decade until there's a place to put them and at that point they could be so inefficient, they're not worth the money to install them and power to run them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 14 hours ago

    Yeah, chips are more of a perishable good than any kind of durable infrastructure, and at the end of the day, the models themselves have no durable value because information is never truly scarce, regardless of how they try to make us pretend it is or poison the well with lies. There's no magic solution to making LLMs actual AGI or even effective tools outside of their narrow scope. Not only that, the way they're using it is extremely reckless, deeply inefficient, and supremely cost intensive, on a level that makes the Manhattan Project look wholesome. There isn't going to be a "last man standing" to win, it's just going to go up like flash powder and take everyone in the dogpile with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 hours ago*

    Just so we are clear the dot com crash was a result of over commercialization and venture capitalization of the World Wide Web (hence “dot com” crash and not Newsgroup crash). The Internet was nearly 30 years old at that point. What became AOL went online in 1985, 8 years before commercial interests were allowed on the WWW, just as one for instance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 14 hours ago

    I didn't say AI is going to go away. I said there are many unscrupulous investors that are trying to game the system to take money from suckers knowing full well there is a crash coming and planning to pull out at the top.

  • source
  • parent