In before: No. It is not because English is not my native language. My spelling is actually worse in Dutch, amd I do not mind whatsoever people pointing out my misspellings.
I agree, but I think the fortunes of the Trump administration are too tied up with the stock market for them to just let them fail. Obviously “shmail out” was a joke, but there is some truth to the idea. Because whatever it is can’t look like a bail out, it has to look like the private markets saved themselves.
The problem with the revolution talk is too few know how to "work to live".
Only 4% hunt in the US anymore. When is the last time you sewed a shirt? Grew a carrot? 100 years ago everyone had manual labor skills, even the rich. Musk and Zuckerberg live the same prisoner's dilemma.
Our lived experience informs us revolution is certain doom as we watch ourselves live daily routines that only require the smallest obligation to ourselves; eat, shower, sleep, computer.
~84% live less than 100 miles from their childhood home. Americans are fine being sedate and cared for despite the rhetoric they're rugged individuals.
Office workers need to learn how to grow potatoes and rotate a tire first.
The best kind of revolt would be a methodical Luigi style pruning. Simpsons made that joke 20+ years ago; you'd have to kill 50 CEOs to see certain changes[1]. That's included here to demonstrate how normal and old the issue is.
Inflation since 1980 is 297%. Slow steady deflation of buying power into helplessness was not an accident.
It's not a rational response. If you think the game is unfair and you are losing, you always have the option to kick over the board. When people feel things are unfair they do radical things.
Nah, we don't have that luxury anymore. I mean in a vacuum of data yes sure it's a physical possibility. But we have polls of public opinion and those polled express concern for their lives and story so far.
There is no simple binary choice. Inequality has been growing for decades. We've been discussing the unfairness the entire time. No revolutions.
The actual Simpsons joke had nothing to with either health care or CEOs. That subreddit is for making memes around classic Simpsons references, not a repository for them.
If you can’t even get the Simpsons right, I’m more than skeptical of the various statistics you cited but didn’t bother providing sources for.
Oh man one point was incorrect. You'd be the kind of teacher that fails a student that quarter for a 98% on one test.
You have Google. I found those data points because of my innate curiosity. Sorry I am not grub hub handing you the outcome you want with zero effort of your own.
Except that you completely misunderstood the joke. It’s at the expense of the character that thought killing was the way to achieve progress.
And you cited a post-Luigi meme using The Simpsons as evidence of something having been mainstream during the time of The Simpsons. With a fancy citation and everything!
The subtext of the joke is "killing people fosters change." I understood it just fine. You're hung up on specifics of contemporary cultural nature. The joke was not about the in world setup; writers (especially back then) used the Simpsons as a rice cake, a bland vessel to provide cover for the critique of their culture.
Not so much today where media is obsessed with fan service, probably to manipulate their perception of the world and keep them addicted. They need a lot of you's out there sweating the details, coming back for another bump.
"Fancy" citation when such things are commonplace. "Everything" yet more hand wavy melodramatic emotional terminology.
Your posts aren't constructive at all. Ignoring the painting to argue over a couple brush strokes, as they are terribly offensive to your sensibilities. If we were in a room together I would expect you to pull a up turns nose good day, sir!
You might consider going outside as circling trivialities with such emotional conviction is unhealthy.
Just went on a 5 mile walk myself. Feels good man.
The joke is that the dumb biker character believes he has to kill people to get things for himself. The joke is at that character's expense.
Or do you mean you understood the meme you found in /r/simpsonsshitposting and then claimed was from thirty years ago and showed that The Simpsons writers had pointed out the necessity of killing CEOs?
Before you try to use The Simpsons references to add credibility to your edge-lord political arguments you should try watching the show. Maybe after your next walk?
We don't need anything "too big to fail" and should be aggressively passive whenever corporations shoot themselves in their own feet unless failure means large damage to the environment or the health of the people. The datacenter water consumption is trouble. For everyone. Everything else should be left to collapse and correct.
We passed "too big to fail" a long time ago. NVDA alone is worth $4.4T, up 1100% in five years. The entire 2008 crash only lost $8T in stock market capitalization.
I agree, one hundred percent. Capture of the government by corporate interests has neutralized the ability of the FTC to do their job and stop problems like this. Companies have gotten so large that if they catch a cold, the entire world coughs. This is unacceptable.
The question remains, "Who is going to bell the cat?"
Has anyone analysed this house of cards? Like if OpenAI goes bust, what are the knock-ons due to the crazy loan exchange system in place across the industry.
The problem with bailing out these companies is that it just kicks the can down the road. When GM and Chrysler got bailed out in 08, GM returned to profitability in 2010 and Chrysler returned to profitability in 2011.
The difference here is these AI companies have never been profitable and there is no telling if a bailout will even get them to profitability, it just gives them another few years until they need another cash infusion.
Currently my prediction is that OpenAI's IPO will likely blow up in much the same way that WeWork's IPO blew up and that will likely be the start of the great AI bubble burst.
Google has long been profitable, and Gemini is legit. Perhaps they're not included in the assertion as their computational clusters are monetized in other services as well?
In my comment I was really just referring to OpenAI, Anthropic and other companies where AI is the primary business. Google is a bit different cause they have a massive profitable business outside of AI.
Sure, a Nest thermostat doesn't allow you to converse with a large language model but it's still advertised as with AI.
I think the difference is really Google had an existing business that they can augment with new technologies while a lot of these other companies are a solution in search of a product.
I'm responding to the assertion that Gemini is legit. Being useful and being so indispensable that people are willing to spend 10-20% of their income on it (directly or indirectly) are entirely different things, and stock market valuations & investment levels roughly assume the latter will occur.
Chrysler didn't really recover. It made it out alive but soon chose to be eaten by Stellantis. They now are in crisis again, but under different ownership structure so another bailing is highly unlikely. They are at best 50% American (financially) with only one vehicle in production (big minivan and medium minivan, both terrible).
GM made it, but quite a bit of their family didn't.
I would be happy to see the Microsofts being forced to choose between axing something like Xbox and Office to survive the 2030s due to AI becoming a brown turd investment. That would be wild.
Love it when the media starts reflecting the bubble fears HN described for at least 2 years. OpenAI might not crash yet but talk of bubbles is likely to tighten AI industry companies access to investor money imo. The days of investors blindly showering money on anything AI are coming to an end looks like. Actual RoI of existing AI systems is likely to come under increasing scrutiny imo
actually Sam didn't ask for a bailout. Everyone is getting crazy because the big short guy who has been wrong for a decade shorting Tesla went short and then other fear mongering mainly because people just can't grasp AI (yet).
I don't think this is about the big short guy. The main things with the recent discussion:
Sam says they are spending $1.4T on data centers although they only have $14bn/yr in income and are loss making. When asked how that works he gets defensive.
And the OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar was talking about:
>"Meaning like a federal subsidy or something?" asked WSJ tech and media editor Sarah Krouse.
>Friar replied, "Meaning like just first of all, the backstop, the guarantee that allows the financing to happen, that can really drop the cost of the financing...
OpenAI say people are taking that out of context and they don't want guarantees for data centers.
A federal guarantee of debt is a subsidy, one with horrendous potential downside. A CEO really shouldn't be so flippant, though I think he knows what he's saying.
Once it's enshittified by ads, I'm calling AI fully baked. What is there to actually grasp other then the humongous overspending? AI hasn't had a sensational breakthrough since ChatGPT was released years ago. Everyone else is following this leader at normal technical evolution speeds.
If everyone’s talking about an AI bubble, chances are nothing’s going to happen—at least not yet. I think there’s still plenty of time to profit before there’s anything to worry about. There’s just so much money out there with nowhere else to go.
That does not align with my experience at all. Lots of companies are seeking investment right now but investors are being shrewd spenders. AI is a bit of an anomaly in that it still attracts investments.
