• theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Don’t worry, we can’t bail them out this time. There’s just not enough money, each bailout is exponentially bigger than the last one and this time the bubble is bigger than the rest of the global economy

      We’ll probably destroy the global economy buying them just a few more months anyways though

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s also arguably the only thing propping up the American economy right now. They don’t have anything to bail with, if the AI bubbles goes on fire. Their economy may well come tumbling down in short order.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t think you even have to argue it. If you move the top 7 from the us economy, the US has been in recession for about a year I think.

        • Upgrayedd1776@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          pretty sure as soon as the strategic reserve is at minimum levels the gas prices will pop the economy just like in 08, looking at fuel prices, there is some consensus that the derivatives bubble and the economy was accelerated or contributed by the big spike then too, for what its worth here is a snippet from a longer conversation with claude the other day about the timing and effects…

          “The timing is on your side. Oil peaked around $147 in July 2008, but Lehman didn’t collapse until September 15, and the bulk of the crash to the $30s happened over September–December, right on top of the acute credit panic. So the dominant driver of that specific collapse was the financial crisis — a credit freeze, a global trade contraction, forced deleveraging, and a stampede out of commodity speculation — not primarily consumers and firms conserving because gasoline got expensive. Presenting $147→$30s as a clean “high price destroyed demand” story conflates a financial/credit event with a price-response event, exactly as you say. Fair hit. The honest nuance is that they’re entangled rather than fully separable. James Hamilton — probably the leading economist on oil-and-macro — argued in a 2009 Brookings paper that the oil spike itself was a meaningful contributor to the recession, not just a bystander: US miles driven and gasoline demand had already rolled over in late 2007 and early 2008, before Lehman, and the auto-heavy parts of the economy were buckling under fuel costs first. His stronger claim was that the oil shock alone might have produced a recession even without the financial crisis. That’s a contested, minority-leaning view — the mainstream reading is still that the financial crisis dominated — but it means high oil wasn’t innocent; it was one of the stressors loading an already over-levered system. So the two didn’t just coincide, they reinforced each other. And here’s the deeper point your question exposes, which is worth more than the correction itself: it’s genuinely hard to find a clean example of price-alone demand destruction, because oil spikes and recessions almost always travel together. Spikes help cause recessions, and recessions crush oil demand, so they arrive as a package — you rarely get to observe the price-conservation channel in isolation. That entanglement is real, and I was papering over it. The cleaner illustration of the structural piece — the permanent kind of demand destruction — is the aftermath of the 1970s shocks. Global and especially US oil demand fell durably through the early 1980s and didn’t recover for years: fuel economy standards, switching oil out of power generation and home heating, industrial efficiency. That’s the sliver that sticks even after the economy recovers, and it’s isolatable precisely because it persisted past the recovery — though even there the Volcker recession is a confounder, so it’s not perfectly pure either. So let me refine the claim rather than abandon it. 2008 is a fine illustration that a demand collapse crashes the oil price, but a poor illustration that the high price alone caused the collapse. My underlying point — that $150–200 oil is self-limiting — still holds, but the mechanism is better stated as: high oil prices help trigger or deepen a recession, and/or a coincident recession does the demand-crushing, and it’s that demand collapse (from whatever mix of causes) that breaks the price. Pure price-induced conservation is the slower, structural component I described last turn, not the fast circuit-breaker. The circuit-breaker is the recession — which, as you’re implying, may have its own separate ignition source and just happens to also torch oil demand on the way down.”

  • arc99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I will happy when this bubble bursts. OpenAI, Grok and several other companies offer nothing substantive and if they’re burning cash and disrupting economies then just die already.

  • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yes but you have forgotten about the technique used by the most skilled and intelligent company leaders to consistently outperform all predictions for years now: Corruption

    • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Step one: make thing

      Step two: make everyone hate that thing

      Step three: call it “too big to fail” and force you to pay for thing you hate with your taxes

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It will be a race which AI company holds out longest. All of them are making losses that no company can survive, and if they rise their prices enough to cover the costs, they will basically lose all their customers. Who will then struggle to hire the people back who still know how to do things without AI.

    • sobchak@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think they could significantly lower their costs if they turn their focus away from the race to “AGI.” But, their valuations don’t really make sense unless investors believe they will achieve AGI.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I was there when the “Neural Networks” idea started. They thought they could program NNs to achieve AGI. Now they think they can do it with LLMs. But LLMs are just parrots with a large dictionary. They won’t reach that point, either. An LLM is way too much rooted in words to be able to think.

        • sobchak@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The “best” one I’ve tried is the latest Opus. I don’t trust any of them to use for real work, so I mostly just play around with a local Qwen 3.6 27B or Deepseek v4 Flash. I have heard OpenAI’s latest models produce less bloat than Anthropic’s.

          I should say I do find LLMs useful as a kind of search agent (both web and large unfamiliar code bases). And GhidraMCP is pretty cool (maybe just because I don’t have much experience with reverse engineering).

        • Olap@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yet still hallucinates mass bullshit and can’t count, can’t architect, and can’t write a decent test

        • expr@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          How is this a response to a comment about AGI?

          LLMs are not currently, nor ever will be, anything remotely resembling AGI. AGI is still entirely within the realm of science fiction, like teleportation or time travel.

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Then Google wins? Since they have the ad business sonar least they are making some money.

    • droopy4096@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      use their cheapest plan, burn their tokens, burn the hole in their budget. could backfire though as then “clever analysts” will claim that demand is up and eager bankers will shell out more cash

      • RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Or educate the people around you that “AI” is not the magical fairy dust machine that can do anything imaginable. Might be better than giving them any money at all.

        • DevDave@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The people actively using AI are not an issue of lacking education on how bad it is. Just a quick example is of an upper management asshole who absolutely “loves” AI. Reality is they shit out slop but their direct reports undo the damage to protect their jobs. I know of more than a few developers in a tough spot where they are credit card slaves so work invisible overtime to compensate. They did this to themselves and are trapped in AI hell.

          • RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Interesting perspective. Software development works different where I come from, the dev part is still very much in control of the developers themselves. However the management lives in delusionville and the expectations are pretty much insane compared to the reality of the actual turnout. My comment above was more about educating the general public… AI results can look pretty compelling unless you decide to have a closer look, and a lot of non-dev people are falling for it. Either because they are dumb and gullible, lack analytic thinking or because they have no real contact with AI and are just exposed to the hype through the media.

  • GodofLies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Amazon wasn’t profitable for many years until it was. Now make your own conclusions about AI.

    • Jaysyn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Apples & oranges.

      The AI industry is fundamentally judged based on its symbolic similarities to bygone eras. Buying GPUs and building data centers sort of feels like Amazon Web Services, even though the $765 billion that big tech will spend in 2026 will be more than ten times Amazon’s combined capex during the period where AWS was being built. ChatGPT sort of feels like Google Search or Facebook Ads or next app store, but only because it’s a culturally-relevant piece of software, largely driven by the larger cargo cult of tech crystalizing around it.

      https://www.wheresyoured.at/cargo-culture/