The investor who bet against the US housing market in the run-up to the 2007 financial crisis has now placed a significant wager on the collapse of the artificial intelligence (AI) boom.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

While I want both to be true, he's betting against governments wanting actionable intelligence on each and every citizen (although the moat there is shallow, easy for someone else to start a race to the bottom) and massively parallel processors becoming less valuable (remember how smoothly they switched from crypto to AI?, remember when you could buy a gaming video card for less than the rest of your computer, likely another bubble in the wings) plus the whole circular investment is propping up the entire US economy situation, the epitome of too big to fail (without the whole US economy going tits up, which given the current situations is distinctly possible). Actually 8:2 sounds ballpark, but I doubt he's not hedging his bets.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    While I want both to be true, he’s betting against governments wanting actionable intelligence on each and every citizen

    Not at all... governments can keep that even if ALL commercial AI disappears today. The gov wanting this would keep the tech alive but not commercially viable at all; if anything, the gov would prefer to have it all to themselves and keep whatever advantage it's supposed to provide.

    AI, in and of itself, if not more privacy intrusive than: cellphones, facebook, google suite, etc

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    being against governments wanting

    A thing they already had and this doesn't help with

    but the infra!

    That burns out in like two years

    but the ponzi scheme can't collapse!

    ...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    A thing they already had and this doesn’t help with

    Sorry to necro, but I guess that should have been

    governments wanting plausibly deniable, legal implication free, actionable intelligence

    as to the others, valid enough, though I doubt they'll be burning out chips (if you cool them properly and server farms do, they become outdated far before they die, even @ <4nm...). Ponzi, yup, sure is, in spades, but that's the finance game now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Governments that think AI can reliably automate this don't understand the technology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments