• PangurBan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 小时前

    Most things work this way lol

    Heavy unprofitable investment with hope that the thing matures with time and expansion resulting in profits.

    “Top Economists”

  • abc@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    56 分钟前

    Implies that people are largely still pretty incompetent with it. The pioneers have a lot to win.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 小时前

    Fancy being a top economist and therefore being privy to knowledge that is beyond the capabilities of us mortals. We thought the AI was a profitable business, and it turns out it’s a giant scam, who would have thought it?

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 小时前

    I think AI could have a good tool for specific purposes and also a very lucrative business if only they had not thrown all that money at it.

    The extreme investments forced them to roll it out prematurely over a much larger market that it could ever supply in a meaningful way.

    They’re trying to force a camel through the eye of a needle.

    • captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 小时前

      They have been able to use it on less powerful deceives lately. I’m waiting for something like an ebook reader to be able to run an LLM. Imagine you forget who a character is and the on device AI parses the whole book and explains what you have forgotten.

  • mHtt@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    14 小时前

    The problem with capitalism is that morons can get filthy rich and make poor decisions.

    Example 1: US president.

    • Avicenna@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 小时前

      I mean really the same problem with Monarchy. Once someone somehow gets on top very hard to remove them and their descendants from power even if the original person or their descendants are complete idiots.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 小时前

        The stupid thing is there are already profitable VR games that basically do exactly what Zuckerberg was trying to do. So despite the fact that he could just copied somebody else’s homework he managed to screw it up.

  • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 小时前

    The goal isn’t consumer level profits, the goal is to replace workers, this is the first time capitalists are looking farther than quarterly profits. They’re investing in R&D to replace us, not selling a product. We are not part of the plan.

    • UninvestedCuriosity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 小时前

      Oh my god thank you. Somehow despite being engulfed in this stuff being an I.T person while having affection toward Ed Zitran and full agreement on almost all arguments living this weird ying yang over the topic.

      This is the succinct detail I hadn’t clued into until this moment of what the core motivation is for all of the crazy spending that makes zero sense. It’s literally this. There is no amount of money, lying, cheating or stealing that cannot be justified by the most cynical of capitalist if they believe this is the outcome.

      It’s such an obvious thing when you put it like that and I’m even sure I’ve seen it said before but it really hit me for some reason from your comment. They would move mountains if they thought there was even the smallest chance and bet the entire farm over it.

      First you have recognize there is no barriers to their cynicism I guess but this is the only root cause conclusion that could be rationalized. That or fomo and temporary wins but for those spending and not on any receiving end, I couldn’t make sense of the rational until you said it so plainly.

    • Napster153@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 小时前

      It’s not even capitalism anymore, assuming they expect their peers in corruption to actuallg pay each other and themselves a fair amount.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    18 小时前

    Together they’re on the hook for over a trillion dollars in lease payments, so far, that haven’t started yet. They’re counting on turning a profit before they need to start paying that back. That’s why they’re shoving it down our throats, they either make this shit work or they go down in flames.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/ai-data-centre-race-builds-1-trillion-lease-burden-big-tech-2026-08-04/

    I’m betting they go down in flames, base on the absolute shit-show “AI” has turned out to be. They keep claiming they have fixed it, or they will fix it, and then it shits the bed again in some public, spectacular way.

    • percent@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 小时前

      For some reason, I find this satisfying and funny. The landscape has been changing. The open-weight models from Chinese labs are getting really good and becoming a serious threat to the closed models from American AI companies.

      Interestingly, Google, Meta, and Microsoft — who all have revenue streams outside of AI — recognize the threat are getting more supportive about open-weight models. Anthropic and OpenAI support keeping models closed for “safety” reasons.

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 小时前

      I think when they start feeling the flames, they’ll also pull us into it. Like selling LLMs meant for exploits and cyberwarfare to the public.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 小时前

      I mean that’s 4 companies though, so we’re like saying “Microsoft has something like 250 billion in leases”… But they are “worth” over 3 trillion and hold assets worth 2-3 times those leases. Don’t think it’s enough to sink those large companies, it’s just general investing at their scale now I guess.

      Personally I think they are all overvalued, but unless all their shit flops quickly, they’ll be around in 10 years still.

  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    21 小时前

    Why is it that almost all big financial situations in my lifetime are Ponzi schemes?

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      20 小时前

      This has Ponzi elements, but it’s closer to a multi-company Enron in its structure. They’re manufacturing fake revenues through circular investments. Nvidia invests in AI companies and increases their value while AI companies use that investment to buy Nvidia cards increasing its value so, so they invest more in AI, so they buy more cards…

      Enron did this by making fake companies to generate fake revenue. Right now the tech sector is all working together on this scheme, so none of the companies are fake, but the revenue is.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        18 小时前

        The scheme requires an every increasing amount of new “investment” or the whole thing collapses. Is it more then a ponzi scheme? Sure, most normal schemes can’t do what these companies can do but at the end of the day the scheme is still very much a ponzi structure.

        These (non hardware) companies are not relying on fake revenue, they all post massive losses in AI on the regular and yet like some sort of massive lost cost fallacy the markets still keep investing. Maybe next quarter (insert AI) will start making money, but more likely it will all pop before. And the hardware companies making money hand over fist? They are getting bodied on the market (see the South Korean situation).

        None of this is even unexpected or seen as odd anymore, the financial systems, markets, private equity and most funds seem to just treat the situation as normal. I have seen nothing but once in a lifetime financial fuckups every few years since I was in high school, and almost every one is in the end is just some ponzi style scheme that was always doomed to collapse.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          17 小时前

          The key difference with a Ponzi scheme is that the Ponzi/Madoff investors weren’t in on the schemes. They though they were investors in a legitimate enterprise. They had a central figure as the fraudster, wheras Enron and the AI bullshit are institutional-level fraud requiring multiple companies to be complicit.

          The new one is the most elegant, because they don’t have to break the law to make money on the grift. It also makes it the biggest by far because everyone wants in on the action.

          This bursting of this bubble with be catastrophic. Maybe tens of trillions (there’s estimated to be about 125 trillion dollars in assets total worldwide).

          • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            15 小时前

            And the .com bubble the hosing crisis, the banking collapse etc. etc. It all seems like the same scam being redone over and over. Never the same but always alike. And now it seems crime is legal (if you have the capital backing).

            I really hope at some point in my life the fuck ups have some lasting consequences.

    • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      19 小时前

      Usually it’s because someone needs the line on a chart to go up… no matter what.

      American big tech hasn’t had a breakthrough technology equivalent to PCs, Smartphones, internet, etc. in ten years. Their latest forays into smart Watches, Smart glasses, VR that stupid virtual world Meta pushed… none of it has seen real adoption or growth.

      They needed AI to be a hit to continue justifying their stock prices. The only way they can justify their stock prices now is if sales for AI become a 2 or trillion dollar industry. The only way you do that is by replacing humans. Human jobs go away and corps pay for AI tokens instead.

      But it hasn’t panned out that way and so far and all you have are AI companies passing around the same dollar and booking it as revenue on their P&Ls. That will work for a little while but it isnt a industry.

  • qaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    22 小时前

    I feel like everyone knows it’s a bubble but that people are expecting it to be like the Dot-com bubble where a small amount of companies succeed, hoping that they invest in those companies.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      22 小时前

      That’s pretty much what is driving the entire AI “boom”. It’s the Amazon effect.

      Amazon, and Netflix to a certain extent as well as a number of other early internet startups, lost money for around 10 years before they started making shit tons. And everybody wants to be on that particular ride. So they are queueing up in every AI line they can find to hedge their bets on one of them being the one that survives and thrives. It doesn’t really occur to any of them that all of them could fail. Because “AI is the future”. Except there is no plan to monetize any of them. And so far every time one of them introduces a charge, people stop using it.

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 小时前

        I feel like it’s just as likely that further breakthroughs cause costs to plummet to the point that any of the major AI companies will never even be capable of seeing a profit, paving the way for some yet unestablished or open model to reign supreme in the end.

        Hopefully, anyway lol.

  • fodor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    20 小时前

    Fortune is part of this bubble. They helped create it by encouraging top management to ride it… And even here they still do “he said” reporting.

    • ksh@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 小时前

      The profits will come from reselling everything again as an add-on or inapp(ropriate) purchases

  • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    23 小时前

    ‘Profits are currently being funded by investors rather than earned from customers’

    Which profits?

    Ah, now I see the actual quote is: “[…] the AI boom’s profits are currently being funded by investors rather than earned from customers.” he means the profits of the shovel sellers, not AI profits.

      • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 小时前

        Not just Nvidia.

        For a start of who the shovel sellers might be, you can take a look at the list in his post that Torsten Slok used to calculate his margin numbers:

        Note: Data as of 2Q 2026 and for OpenAI (1Q 2026 estimate from PitchBook) and Anthropic (2Q 2026 estimate from Financial Times). Averages are equal-weighted bucket averages of Energy & Grid (Constellation Energy, Vistra, NextEra Energy, Vertiv, Eaton, Arista Networks), Silicon & Equipment (Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom, Marvell, TSMC, SK Hynix, Samsung Electronics, Micron), Compute & Cloud (Super Micro, Dell Technologies, Foxconn, Equinix, Digital Realty, Amazon/AWS, Microsoft/Azure, Alphabet/Google Cloud, CoreWeave, Nebius) and Models & Applications (OpenAI, Anthropic). Sources: Bloomberg, PitchBook, Apollo Chief Economist

        In short according to his research the people currently making a profit or at least positive margins, are the people who build chips and memory, who build energy infrastructure, and who build servers and data canters.

        I would like to see the distinction between Servers (Super Micro, Dell Technologies, Foxconn) and Datacenters (Equinix, Digital Realty, Amazon/AWS, Microsoft/Azure, Alphabet/Google Cloud, CoreWeave, Nebius) but he seems to have put them together.

        Also I heard from our local news that ABB (which is Swiss, Edit: apparently also Swedish) is profiting too, they belong in the power category.

        And I wonder why Arista goes in the Energy category, I’d see them and Cisco, and Juniper, and Extreme, and Nokia in a separate network category.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 天前

      I’m willing to bet most of the funders are people using AI to replace workers and manipulate the masses. So really; they’re paying customers.

      • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 天前

        I didn’t go to business school, so take this with a grain of salt: doesn’t business solvency require you to charge more for your product than it cost you to produce it and bring it to market?

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          22 小时前

          Powerful people are willing to pay a large price to manipulate the masses.

          As7de from that, the plan is to lose money for years gobbling up all the data before there’s laws that actually get enforced to protect against it, and to get an entire generation of college kids and workers dependant on using AI, with companies relying heavily on its usage. This is happening to a huge degree right now with data entry, “vibe coders”, Law firms, and healthcare.

          Those people won’t really be able to transition back or away from AI. They’ll be dependent on it. And AI will start charging them way more than they are now. And they’ll eat the costs and pay it.

          So it’s stealing data while it’s free or nearly free, power to manipulate all the sheeple, create dependency.

          • Salvo@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            12 小时前

            But it doesn’t work! You hear all sorts of anecdotes about a business who retrenched their workforce to replace with LLMs, everything comes crashing down and they have to rehire all their workforce at higher rates.

            It would be interesting to see actual verified numbers. I am sure that a lot of useless people can be replaced with computers, but most of the time, all it requires is a very small sh script, it doesn’t need a monstrous data centre that uses more water and power than a human.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 小时前

              It doesn’t work for some people and some businesses and when that happens, it gets blasted all over the place because it makes for a good headline.

              Tons of jobs have been replaced by ai, though. Especially customer service chats and online help and a LOT of game production and design art jobs and music and editing jobs.

              Plus all the jobs where people are still there but heavily relying on ai.

        • IronBird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 天前

          in theory, in practice you just need to be convincing enough to get greedier/dumber people to pay for your shit in the gamble they might get more in return later. (they like to call themselves “investors”, but most are just degenerate gamblers) and then cover your own ass if/when the house of cards tumbles.

          building and popping bubbles, and fleecing as many people as possible throughout the whole thing, is what the US financial markets casino is literally designed to facilitate

        • Cricket [he/him]@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          24 小时前

          At least in the tech industry that doesn’t apply if the investors believe that the technology or application is promising enough. Look at Uber’s example. They lost very large amounts of money for many years before turning a profit. They were able to do this because the investors kept sustaining them through their unprofitable years.

          The same thing has been happening for years with the AI companies. I heard a while back that OpenAI wouldn’t turn a profit on their services even if they charged end users $100/month.

          • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            23 小时前

            Uber is an example of government corruption leveraged to overthrow a market. The livery industry required special licensing, so only licensees were legally allowed to do it. Uber then started doing it without the $1 million per license overhead, bribed the government to ignore that, and naturally undercut their competitors that had huge government-imposed overheads that Uber didn’t. They were initially unprofitable because they had to compete for business, then became profitable when the government helped then destroy their competitors and structure their pay so as to have no minimum wage.

            If you only look at modern examples, youre looking at a funhouse mirror reflection of real business operations. Running at a loss for a decade while you create a monopoly is the path to business success today, but this is not a functioning market. Real business success involves making money right out of the gate or at least right after. If your business only works if it is a near-monopoly, it is not a sound one.

            • Cricket [he/him]@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              22 小时前

              I completely agree with your conclusion. Just to be clear, I was in no way saying that what Uber did and OpenAI does is OK. They both suck and should never be allowed to operate as they had and have. I don’t know if Uber was government corruption though, at least I had never heard it described as such. What I have heard is that they found loopholes in taxi laws around the world and employed a global army of lawyers exploit those loopholes.

              • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                21 小时前

                At least in the USA, livery workers were required to have a “medallion”, which is essentially an onerously expensive license with the stated purpose of restricting competition to the point of profitability for those workers. There was no loophole, and it was ridgidly enforced.

                Then, Uber came in and started violating that law so flagrantly that governments seemed stunned into inaction. The government corruption comes in where they then decided not to enforce those rules on Uber for some reason around the same time Uber aggressively contributed to political campaigns around the world.

                I went down this line of discussion to point out that Uber is not a good example of organic business success that started out financially underwater. Their ethics or lack of them is an aside to the discussion, but agreed, they are unrepentant scumbags.

                • Cricket [he/him]@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  20 小时前

                  Got it, thanks. My memory of how Uber was able to gain a foothold was a little different, but my memory of it was patchy anyway. My recollection was that they essentially said that Uber was not a taxi service. They sold it as just regular people offering to “share” a ride with someone else to an area that they were going to anyway. I have no doubt that heavy political contributions were part of their arsenal in their attack on the taxi industry and regulations, so I agree that this was government corruption. But I also recall that they also had armies of lawyers fighting at every level of government around the world to ram through the idea that this wasn’t a taxi service and shouldn’t be subject to taxi regulations. Maybe my memory is more patchy than I thought, or perhaps both things were true - government corruption and a legal war allowed them flourish.