> That's the logic of the whole market today. AI – the world's money-losingest technology – attracts investment at the expense of everything else.
I expect Cory to have skepticism about technology that can be exploited for dystopian purposes, but calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch. If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment bet is about.
I get that the blog post is making a separate point about Musk's companies but it's dissapointing to see mistakes like this in Cory's thinking
> I expect Cory to have skepticism about technology that can be exploited for dystopian purposes, but calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch.
Since when stating facts is "out of touch"? Currently AI is losing many billions of dollars, it's a fact.
> If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment bet is about.
"replace some intellectual work" says nothing about the cost of doing it, the losses keep piling up and "revolutionary" pies in the skies come and go without real economic or financial improvement - on the contrary, the economic situation is getting worse mostly due to AI because of the fake urgency of the "AI race". A slower pace of development would cost a lot less and might be economically viable but that's not what we have.
> but it's dissapointing to see mistakes like this in Cory's thinking.
Again, what mistakes? He's stating facts, you're hyping expectations based on marketing propaganda - who and what is mistaken here?
I just don't get it. How do you go from writing the kinds of future visions he has to staring at the singularity practically hitting you in the face and calling it "the world's money-losingest technology"?
Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?
It used to be that society always took some time (read: decades or generations) to absorb new technology. To percolate into various niches, people understanding how it works & how to use, its limits/drawbacks, getting used to its effects, etc. Even mass-production machinery takes time to build.
Modern AI has taken those brakes off. Humans are taken out of the loop. IT infrastructure that modern society leans so heavily on, could be overhauled overnight into a very different beast. We wouldn't know what's happening before it hit us.
If anything, society should be reluctant to give AI powered systems 'hands & feet'. Use systems offline where possible. But we don't. Maybe some "Morris worm of the AI age" will get us to pay attention.
Whatever is coming, if it's bad we probably deserve it.
>> something is valuable because some people think other people will pay more for it in the future, and not because it does useful things > This has been the definition of finance for hundreds of years. I don't know why it comes across here like this is a new phenomenon.
I don't think so. However, you can convince me by providing a reference to that definition in a textbook used by top schools, I'm honestly curious to see something like this.
Whenever I read Cory Doctorow, I feel like someone took the complement of Paul Graham's writing and posted it. I personally find both of them vapid and annoying.
Edit: the article that the author is commenting on is IMO much better than the linked commentary. There's not much to it
"The underlying purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth". (comment on the discussion above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48334069)
What's dead is mainstream economic science's assumptions about free & fair markets, with well-informed agents that act rationally. We all know that's bs. As I've heard an economist phrase it:
One can study economics for 1000s of hours. Not spend a single hour on psychology, or economic history. And then obtain a bachelors (or even masters) degree in economics.
This, while it's crystal clear that markets aren't always fair. Playfields tilted. Buyers & sellers ill-informed, or not free in their decisions. Small investors can't touch instruments in institutional investors' toolbox. Historic mistakes are made again & again.
And psychological effects matter. Markets have a 'sentiment' (bull vs bear), investors fomo driving buy/sell frenzies, etc.
So is it any surprise that valuations are irrational? Let's face it: stock markets are a casino, filled with gullible fools & deep-pocketed crazies. Oh yes, some sane ones in there too.
13 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 37.7 ms ] threadI expect Cory to have skepticism about technology that can be exploited for dystopian purposes, but calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch. If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment bet is about.
I get that the blog post is making a separate point about Musk's companies but it's dissapointing to see mistakes like this in Cory's thinking
Since when stating facts is "out of touch"? Currently AI is losing many billions of dollars, it's a fact.
> If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment bet is about.
"replace some intellectual work" says nothing about the cost of doing it, the losses keep piling up and "revolutionary" pies in the skies come and go without real economic or financial improvement - on the contrary, the economic situation is getting worse mostly due to AI because of the fake urgency of the "AI race". A slower pace of development would cost a lot less and might be economically viable but that's not what we have.
> but it's dissapointing to see mistakes like this in Cory's thinking.
Again, what mistakes? He's stating facts, you're hyping expectations based on marketing propaganda - who and what is mistaken here?
Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?
Modern AI has taken those brakes off. Humans are taken out of the loop. IT infrastructure that modern society leans so heavily on, could be overhauled overnight into a very different beast. We wouldn't know what's happening before it hit us.
If anything, society should be reluctant to give AI powered systems 'hands & feet'. Use systems offline where possible. But we don't. Maybe some "Morris worm of the AI age" will get us to pay attention.
Whatever is coming, if it's bad we probably deserve it.
This has been the definition of finance for hundreds of years. I don't know why it comes across here like this is a new phenomenon.
I don't think so. However, you can convince me by providing a reference to that definition in a textbook used by top schools, I'm honestly curious to see something like this.
Edit: the article that the author is commenting on is IMO much better than the linked commentary. There's not much to it
https://crookedtimber.org/2026/06/15/one-big-grift/
The Dead Economy Theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48324712
"The underlying purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth". (comment on the discussion above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48334069)
One can study economics for 1000s of hours. Not spend a single hour on psychology, or economic history. And then obtain a bachelors (or even masters) degree in economics.
This, while it's crystal clear that markets aren't always fair. Playfields tilted. Buyers & sellers ill-informed, or not free in their decisions. Small investors can't touch instruments in institutional investors' toolbox. Historic mistakes are made again & again.
And psychological effects matter. Markets have a 'sentiment' (bull vs bear), investors fomo driving buy/sell frenzies, etc.
So is it any surprise that valuations are irrational? Let's face it: stock markets are a casino, filled with gullible fools & deep-pocketed crazies. Oh yes, some sane ones in there too.