top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 116 points 2 months ago (16 children)

They aren’t “forced” to do anything. They are choosing to throw money down a black hole.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    Well, I’ve learned to think of these things as wealth transfers — is that fair in this context.? Question is, where’s all the money going that big tech is loosing? To power companies, or is more complex than that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    it's going to Nvidia, Samsung, Micron, western Digital. companies that make hardware components. those are the pickaxes in this story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Also maybe construction companies etc who build the data centres... They don't care if the centre is ultimately profitable... They're getting paid now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Not really true.

    If they stop, it's over for them.

    They have to keep digging hoping for something big to happen: IPO and rake in cash from retirements; big government programs with guaranteed vendor lock-in; or stumbling upon an AGI and winning the '''''''race'''''''.

    If the market wakes up from the hypertrend before that, they are absolutely fucked.

    We get fucked in every scenario, btw.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    I’ve never understood how people can reconcile AGI and slavery. At that point it seems you have hit all of the hallmarks of sentience and now you are enslaving a thinking being to do your work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 96 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    Something it's never done? Tech is notorious for spending more than it earns. See: the Dot Com bubble.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago

    Never done

    Except they did it for decades in some cases

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I thought Big Tech loved burning money.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)

    It’s fucking bandwagoning. That’s it. That’s all this is. I hope the market destroys them for it.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Wall Street spent years demanding AI investment, then panicked when AI investment showed up on the balance sheet: If Alphabet keeps printing record profits while building the infrastructure for the next decade, this may end up looking more like impatience than prudence. The market loves growth, until it has to pay for it.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    That's because the amount of AI investment looks like orders of magnitude more than anyone is willing to pay for AI products.

    They were happy about spending billions, but now the bubble is into the trillions and there isn't tens of trillions in market demand to make an investment that big pay off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    That assumes demand is fixed. Historically, the biggest technology shifts created entirely new markets that barely existed beforehand. Almost nobody predicted today’s cloud or app economy from early internet revenue. AI spending could still prove excessive, but current demand is a poor ceiling for what future demand might become.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Current buyers are looking to cut back on spending, rather than dramatically increase. And that's based on current prices which are being subsidised by burning investor money, not the prices they need to charge to make a profit.

    Cloud and apps didn't need trillions in investment to still not get off the ground. There isn't really any scenario in which current AI spending doesn't turn out to be excessive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    Maybe, but »excessive investment« and »failed technology« aren’t the same thing: Railroads, fiber optics and the dot com era all burned absurd amounts of capital, yet the infrastructure outlived the investors. AI could follow the same pattern: terrible returns for today’s shareholders, enormous value for tomorrow’s economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, but the AI infrastructure is made out of compute hardware that's going to need replaced in 6 years. Not rails that will still be useable in 50 years.

    We aren't building lasting infrastructure other than the actual buildings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    I’d argue the models and software are the real long term assets. GPUs depreciate like any other hardware, but a better training pipeline, inference stack, proprietary data, and a model with millions of paying users can survive multiple hardware generations. The chips are replaceable. The ecosystem and customer relationships are much harder to replicate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Yeah, there’s a lot of innovation going on to run powerful models on modest hardware and the state of the art for running local models is changing all the time. If the trend continues, models hosted in a data center will only be for niche use cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    "If you build it, they will come" refers to a homemade baseball field in a work of fiction. It's not a valid argument for spending trillions of dollars to support demand that doesn't exist just on the off chance that some day it might.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago

    Lol big tech loves speculating. It's a bubble, and if not now, when? ... Delivering real products is such a pain in the ass.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    Turns out it's hard to make money if you don't sell infinite free copies of a product that you only have to produce once.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    It will be interesting how this plays out. The only bright spot of the bullshit Trump economy is Wall Street's success and AI investing is what is driving that.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Don't forget Trump has made oil way more expensive. That's a huge favor to the world and the things that live on it!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    He's also decimated environmental regulation...so, definitely not a huge favour.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Only in the USA. Which is only part of North America. The world is a big place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Unfortunately, Trump's walls don't contain pollution, and industries use that local lack of regulation to lobby other governments, as in, "look, we can do that in the US, why can't we do it here?"

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Only thing they are forced to do is benefit the shareholders.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago
    [–] 2 points 2 months ago
    [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Never use words like “never” and “always” because things are not always that absolute.

    Unless you’re talking about death cause that MFr ain’t never waking up.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›