0 points
*

Yeah, we see this all the time with emerging tech and platforms. All of the top tech companies now were once spending cash faster than they could make it, and all the naysayers saying they’d never be profitable.

Don’t y’all get tired of being wrong sometimes? Maybe try to learn from the past.

permalink
report
reply
1 point
*

Don’t y’all get tired of being wrong sometimes? Maybe try to learn from the past.

Fondly remembering all the times we were wrong. Ah, remember that one time we were totally wrong about the metaverse not being the future? Oh, oh, or the classic “cryptocurrencies are just a scam” talk we had to walk back so many times. Damn, good thing we didn’t call out WeWork for being a money sink or we’d be looking pretty fucking stupid now!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

Crypto is actually really useful for buying drugs and other illegal products and services. People have legitimately made a lot of money as well if they weren’t falling for the stupid scams. You should see the price of BitCoin or Ethereum these days.

Not saying it’s ethical to run a lot of these given their limited usefulness and very high costs. But saying they didn’t make people money, were all scams, or didn’t have a use is objectively wrong.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

That’s some wildly disingenuous goal post moving when describing what was meant to be The Future of Finance™ at the time.

Like saying yeh, AGI was a pipedream and there’s no disruption of technical professions to be seen anywhere, but you can’t deny LLMs made it way easier for bad actors to actively fuck with elections, and the people posting autogenerated youtube slop 5.000 times a day sure did make some legitimate ad money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

all of actual large scale uses of crypto as it stands today are money laundering, sanctions evasion by nk, iran and russia, securities frauds and other financial crimes from hundred years ago repackaged in cyberpunk wrapper, and a couple of other ways to scam cryptobros

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

And how many failed technologies and companies were there along the way? How many movies do you watch on your LaserDisc player? Or your HDDVD player?

This current “AI” iteration is already hitting its limits despite having access to the sum total of human history. The bubble is already bursting as companies are finding that people don’t want AI in their refrigerators any more than they want it to replace a basic search engine or making fake Facebook accounts for you to talk to like Tom from MySpace.

OpenAI has said that they will go bankrupt if they can’t train their AI on copyrighted material for free.

It’s largely a tech without a use case in this current form, and not every money pit turns into a success before the companies burning cash go bankrupt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

you may in fact want to understand how much the ZIRP years had a hand in this, and then to also look just how many of those that remain (of which there continue to be fewer and fewer) are having to engage in Creative Accounting to make it seem like everything is fine

maybe try to learn from the past.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

ZIRP?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Zero interest rate period, when the taps of investor money were wide open and spraying at full volume because literally any investment promising some sort of return was a better proposition than having your assets slowly diminished by e.g. inflation in the usually safe investment vehicles.

Or something to that effect, I am not an economist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

THANK YOU. I feel the exact same way, word for word, although my feelings are directed at juicero rather than openai. sick of the juicero naysayers who don’t understand

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Ngl, you had me on the first half.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

me frantically changing my downvote

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

but they’re still not profitable lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

maybe try to learn from the past

we did. you just don’t listen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

it’s weird you pretend to be an anti-corporate leftist but when convenient post shit like:

All of the top tech companies now were once spending cash faster than they could make it, and all the naysayers saying they’d never be profitable.

“the only thing I hate more than neolibs and Peter thiel is when a bunch of thiel’s friends get credibly accused of running a massive grift” haha sure

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

so when was youtube profitable?

permalink
report
reply
3 points

I don’t think Youtube was ever profitable, to be honest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

An ad before and after every single question you ask chatgpt? Worth a shot, I guess !

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Youtube wasn’t burning billions per year and it’s also pretty much the primary entity for video for the whole world which has other benefits for google. Finally Youtube can be monetized through adverts, since storage and bandwidth costs are relatively low. Whereas GenAI’s compute costs aren’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

x doubt

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Can’t they put ads into the responses?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If they could, they would have already.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

By “Sam Altman said” in a “series of posts”, this article means these two tweets from 10 hours ago: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1876104580070813976.
This is a screenshot of a tweet talking about an article written about two tweets by Sam Altman. Is this really the world we’re living in, now?

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Welcome to the wonderful XXI century where our innovations in communication technology and financial instruments allow a hyperoptimised economy where two tweets are more than enough to cause billion-dollar shifts on the market. Completely organic and based on solid fundamentals I am assured by the same people that assured me of this in 2000 and 2008.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

Yeah, and I think you’re pretending it’s more ridiculous than it is

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’ve seen more written on one post. People will eat up ‘news’ if presented in the right way. There is a reason the stupid websites and advertisers use the click-bait titles.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This 100% answers my question from another thread. These businesses have cooked the books so bad already that they thought this was gonna save them and it doubled down on em.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Sounds like they’ll need a bailout, to preserve the economy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

So people are really believing Altman would publish these damning statements without ulterior motives? Are we seriously this gullible? Holy shit, we reached a critical mass of acephalous humans, no turning back now.

permalink
report
reply

TechTakes

!techtakes@awful.systems

Create post

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here’s the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

Community stats

  • 1.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 548

    Posts

  • 12K

    Comments

Community moderators