The fear is that, if the past is anything to go by, the AI boom will follow a similar arc to these other technology-driven infrastructure booms: a flood of speculative capital will flow in, leading to massive overinvestment, asset price bubbles and ultimately a crash as euphoria collides with a disappointing reality.
Shocking.
What’s mindfuckingly frustrating is that EVERYONE (but the rich ass financial types) see it coming. And there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE CAN DO to prevent or prepare for it.
We met with my mother’s broker a few weeks ago (company rhymes with “Laymond Maims”). My brother expressed his concern about the AI bubble and the broker basically said CEOs are smart people who are legally bound to safeguard their companies and they wouldn’t be so heavily invested in AI if there was any chance of its being a bubble.
Just one of the most dumbassed arguments I’ve ever heard. OK, then how did all the other bubbles in history happen? But it was equally dumbassed of my brother to expect a broker to say anything else. I’ll bet he gets a fucking daily memo telling him not to let anybody de-AI their portfolios – if that’s even possible at this point.
I would immediately change brokers. That’s a level of uneducated and propagandized that is truly dangerous.
I don’t think others differ that much.
Almost certainly true.
most of them like peddles the same propaganda.
CEOs are smart people who are legally bound to safeguard their companies and they wouldn’t be so heavily invested in AI if there was any chance of its being a bubble.
Reciting his training - were I your mother, I’d never speak with Lameman James’ Tool again and ensure that they receive no further comissions from her assets.
Alas, mom is all “they’ve done such a great job over the years increasing the value of our portfolio”. Bitch, the fucking market went through the roof, that’s why your portfolio has done so well. It has nothing to do with Draymond Claims. You were in mutual funds the whole time!
No, I don’t actually call my mom a bitch.
The last few financial crises have led to massive wealth transfers to the 1%. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the more accelerationist of them are trying to engineer them at this point.
except this time, AI costed them more than it returned.
Oh they see it coming as well, but unlike us, they have the levers and means to come out on top of it.
they have the levers and means to come out on top of it.
To delude themselves that they’ll be coming out on top… they’ll suffer too, and the more they strive to climb, the more they’ll be risking everything.
They came out on top of 2008/09 as well.
Save your pennies then you can buy up all the property of the impoverished at a deflated rate and rent it back to them at any price you want.
The rich ass financial types see it coming, they just think they have a handle on it - that they’re going to gain competitive advantage in the shitstorm it will unleash. Some will, most won’t, but when you’re rich and bored and have nothing better in your head than just climbing one more rung up the “mine’s bigger than yours” ladder, they’d rather bet on longshots than die comfortable on their perch.
They will keep the scam going until an IPO. Then cash out and let the rest of us fucked
Investment banking 101.
Great, that means were gonna fight mecha hitler in the 2040s
Better load up Wolfenstein 3D again. We’re ready for this.
You’re training the AI on tactics to avoid
So you’re saying we can train it to fight wrong, as a joke.
you mean ketamincocaine mecha hitler.
Open enrollment for all art schools just in case…
Oh, come on. This is nothing like the Great Depression.
The Great Depression was caused by a supply side spending boom, producing massive excess of capacity, while nobody had any money to spend on anything.
…
Nothing like it, I tell you!
Is it possible that their attempt to be listed on the index is a way for private capital to cash in on their investments, leaving 401k funds etc holding the bag when the value dips?
There are numerous articles and analyses online exactly to this effect. It is absolutely the goal.
It is absolutely one of the goals. The goals are many, the benefactors are few.
I mean the money was just sitting there in those 401ks they’d be foolish not to figure out some way to rob it for themselves
That’s been my take on it for sure.
Just wait for the collapse and buy when the prices are low. As the markets recover the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer. What is there to be worried about?
The reality that the rich will be bailed out with public funds, perpetrators and benefactors will receive no just consequences, and the economic hardship will destroy prosperity for multiple future middle class generations with unattainable retirement and runaway inflation.
So the usual stuff.
But that will only be bad for you if you’re poor.
Just don’t be poor, was always the answer - and they haven’t come up with a better one yet.
Joke’s on them. All the public funds got used up on the last “too big to fail” bailout.
bottomless pits and blind bus drivers tend to do that
The ‘AI spending boom’ framing cuts both ways though — the Depression analogy holds if the productive capacity being built never finds a paying customer, but breaks down if monetization is just lagging the infrastructure cycle by 3-5 years (like the internet circa 1999-2004). @Wudi, what’s the falsifiable signal you’re watching? Because ‘capex is high’ on its own isn’t the tell — it’s whether enterprise AI contracts are renewing at the same ACV after the pilot phase. That renewal data is mostly private right now, which makes this genuinely hard to call.
Your points are adressed by Ed Zitron.
The AI hardware is dead after 3-5 years.
Gary Marcus has a Substack everyone should read. It’s sobering.
It’s a pity that your Pulitzer Prize level writing didn’t enable you to craft something more literate than a two sentence clickbait title for your article.
Judging by the downvotes, I think my comment might have been misinterpreted. I was addressing the writer of the Fortune article in absentia, not criticizing the poster of the article on Lemmy.
No, people just think your petty response to the headline, in the absence of any meaningful response to the article, doesn’t contribute anything to the conversation.
Fair enough. I’ll live with my downvotes, but it is a pet peeve. In the spirit of making a more tangible contribution, albeit still an off-topic one, I’ll leave this slightly satirical Mc Sweeney’s article here, which addresses this scourge: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/two-sentence-headlines-are-everywhere-heres-why-you-should-be-concerned
I do believe that having issues with the current format of media is, in itself, a trope that is as old as time.
Criticism of confirming to the norm is a bit lazy. Certainly in this case. It could’ve been the editor that forced him to the format.
Or do you find fault with him putting house Pulitzer prize forward in the title? Because if so, ironically inferring from your posted article, he should’ve used a three sentence title :p.
you couldn’t have addressed the writer, when you were referring to the person with the pulitzer
🤣🤣🤣
