The instructive part about the comparison is that believing "AI is a bubble" doesn't mean saying that AI is worthless. After all, after the dot-com bubble burst the internet still existed and continued to transform the whole world.
The irony of using Claude to write this is almost to much to "hold". (Claude loves to tell you to hold things in its writing).
Here's another great Claudism: "The replies had a different read. One of them, in full: {embedded tweet}" lol. Who writes like that? "In full"? You're promising me you didn't fake the embedded tweet or something?
Also this one: "So here’s my first hypothesis, stated so you can hold me to it."
Sentence is utterly redundant, and it reads like Claude first wrote it with a colon and you edited it to be a comma to read less like AI. I think you should've just removed it entirely.
If you could transport yourself to the late 90s, would you try to convince people that the internet's impact on the economy would be no greater than that of the fax machine by 2005.
No, AI isn’t like the dot-com bubble and it’s short sighted that people keep trying to compare it.
The dot-com bubble had investment before mass adoption.
AI has mass adoption, there are many industries where usage of AI is now expected.
They have similarities, but claiming they are the same is so fucking stupid.
> Hold that exchange still for a second. Nobody in it is stupid. That’s what makes it worth understanding.
The room falls silent. Except there is no room. There is no scene to dramatize. So I have to instruct you.
Two things. Both of them true. Yet I’ve decided that your imbecile mind can’t imagine that. How can they both be true? One word. Nuance.
I would know. On one hand I haven’t written a line of code in a year. But that’s table stakes. Everyone does not write code any more. I also haven’t written even a four-minute blog post in a year. (Arthiritis? AI? Both. It’s both.) On the other hand I am critical of AI. I think fully autonomous coding and writing is not here. Yet. Nuance.
My pieces used to be about writing. Now? They are about understanding.
My pieces used to be about individual inquiry. Now? I string you along for a series of posts. That’s collective inquiry.
By the end you won’t need me to spell out a conclusion. Bubble. Revolution. Dark. Light. Contrasts. It’s not discrete. It’s analog.
This blog post is so rambly that I don't think this discussion will go anywhere beyond the usual AI good/bad arguments. This is exactly the sort of thing that frustrates HN.
Since we're not banning these submissions outright, we should maybe move them to their own filter (like "new", but exclusively for "AI" rants)? Somewhere, anywhere, very very far away from the rest of HN.
8 comments of 36
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 20.9 ms ] threadHere's another great Claudism: "The replies had a different read. One of them, in full: {embedded tweet}" lol. Who writes like that? "In full"? You're promising me you didn't fake the embedded tweet or something?
Also this one: "So here’s my first hypothesis, stated so you can hold me to it."
Sentence is utterly redundant, and it reads like Claude first wrote it with a colon and you edited it to be a comma to read less like AI. I think you should've just removed it entirely.
If you could transport yourself to the late 90s, would you try to convince people that the internet's impact on the economy would be no greater than that of the fax machine by 2005.
Or was it just some companies were overvalued?
The dot-com bubble had investment before mass adoption. AI has mass adoption, there are many industries where usage of AI is now expected. They have similarities, but claiming they are the same is so fucking stupid.
The room falls silent. Except there is no room. There is no scene to dramatize. So I have to instruct you.
Two things. Both of them true. Yet I’ve decided that your imbecile mind can’t imagine that. How can they both be true? One word. Nuance.
I would know. On one hand I haven’t written a line of code in a year. But that’s table stakes. Everyone does not write code any more. I also haven’t written even a four-minute blog post in a year. (Arthiritis? AI? Both. It’s both.) On the other hand I am critical of AI. I think fully autonomous coding and writing is not here. Yet. Nuance.
My pieces used to be about writing. Now? They are about understanding.
My pieces used to be about individual inquiry. Now? I string you along for a series of posts. That’s collective inquiry.
By the end you won’t need me to spell out a conclusion. Bubble. Revolution. Dark. Light. Contrasts. It’s not discrete. It’s analog.
Since we're not banning these submissions outright, we should maybe move them to their own filter (like "new", but exclusively for "AI" rants)? Somewhere, anywhere, very very far away from the rest of HN.