Google's AI search is abysmal and is almost always, at least, 30% wrong (outdated, wrong info) ime. I find that I just use the chat interface to save tokens on basic things so I don't want to waste my real AI subscription tokens on basics.
In theory I understand their change to make search -> AI search instead, but I have a hard time believing that this was benchmarked in any way and not rushed to desperately remain relevant in the AI race.
Like the sibling, I can't really agree with this. Google is now quite good at answering general queries and doing simple calculations, which is a big step up from its capabilities a few years ago. For example, you can ask
> What is the equivalent focal length on APS-C of 80mm on full frame?
and get the correct answer. It's not good compared to frontier AI models, but that's to be expected, given that you don't pay for it.
It seems to basically one-shot off of the top X search results. If you ask it a spec I would expect it to be quite reliable. If you try to use it for anything with nuance it will typically fall on its face.
It has at least improved with the second category recently that it seems to be more right than wrong. But it still tends to work your query into whatever results it got, which makes it downright dangerous for when people are doing searches on health-related information.
Disagree. In my experience particularly over the last few weeks, Gemini has gotten very good at understanding what i'm asking for and giving a relevant response that 9 times out of 10 just answers my question without me having to go further into the relevant wiki link etc.
Agreed. I have no doubt I could throw curveballs at it, but it has been getting things mostly correct for a while. And the fact that I can follow up with a direct challenge is kind of nice.
Try asking it about a sporting event or score. It literally just makes shit up. I asked it Tuesday if there was a world series game; it told me with complete confidence there wasn't and that Milwaukee was leading the series 2-1 after losing the night before.
A bit off-topic, but: How often do they re-train models on current events? Every month? Every day? Every hour?
Given how AIs work, if they weren't trained with last night's sports news, you can't get an accurate answer this morning. All you can get is a hallucination.
This is such a terrible failure mode. I had quite a few of those "People are saying that ..." that turned out to be sourced from the only two reviews left on the product I was looking for, but made it seem like it had broad consensus.
> Google's AI search is abysmal and is almost always, at least, 30% wrong
Different experience for me, IMO AI mode pretty much saved Google search. The classic search was pretty much worthless due to decades of SEO winning over good results. AI mode saved Google search for me and gives me what I'm looking for 99.9% of the time.
I do understand some people (website operators who used to rely on SEO, google stockholders after the recent earnings report) being upset about AI mode, but as a search user I find it much more effective than where search was just prior to AI mode.
Honestly, AI search(Google or ChatGPT etc) has been fresh breeze of air because the web itself has been stinky pile of garbage with some forgotten gems in it since the last 15 years. Younger people never seen non-garbage website.
It sucked at first, I definitely got some wild responses from the AI helper at Google Search, but they seem to have bumped up the model capability over the last couple months. It's surprisingly pretty good now. Sometimes I'll use Claude instead, but for little things I've been pretty happy with the quick result from Googling.
I wondered how Claude would do on non-coding/math questions. I want to replace the front end of my truck, from ball joints to bumper, and Claude was hopeless. It didn’t even know bumper weights, what kind of suspension I have, and more. Gemini nailed everything, giving detailed and correct information on how to replace everything including the problematic (on my truck) driver’s side upper control arm. Replacement bumper weights and costs were correct. Even the welding advice was right.
I still find Claude better for learning math but I won’t use it for other everyday things again.
Intel's finance chief David Zinsner said the firm did not expect to
bring in more cash than it spent this year, and forecast
lower-than-expected revenue for its fourth quarter.
You could have manufactured enough ARC video cards to meet demand. Going forward, you could manufacture solutions to bring local LLM options closer to affordability.
If you're into manufacturing stuff people really want, that is.
This guy is seriously evil. He has just absolutely speedran becoming a POS. No surprise him and Musk fight.. they're fighting to see who can hurt humanity the quickest.
The upcoming cards for local inference use LPDDR (which is also not immune to the shortage) - but maybe it's time Intel gets back to its roots and produce some memory chips. CXL Optane would also shine as a KV cache store.
Intel stopped making memory in 1985. Everyone who ever did that work there is retired or dead today. Any random startup will have the same likelihood of success that Intel could ever hope for.
Except, you know, the billions of dollars and platform and contacts and industrial engineers and experience building clean room fabs and political leverage and...
It took CXMT 10 years to make a profitable DDR5 line, with a similar advantage of billions of dollars, contracts, political leverage, clean room fabs, and allegedly stolen IP.
It would probably be easier for Micron to double their memory production, than it would be for Intel to beat Micron's annual shipments.
CXMT was hindered by various sanctions and lawsuits for the "allegedly" stolen IP. Intel can cleanly partner with Micron like they did for their Optane line (which btw can also offload a lot of the demand via CXL DIMMs).
They also don't have to match Micron, they just need to introduce sufficient marginal supply to a supply constrained market or use it to their advantage by making the memory for their own platforms by-passing the shortage everyone else has to contend with.
Even with insane memory prices, 16GB of GDDR7 is ~$200-300 at most. That by itself isn't responsible for GPU prices to explode. The fabs are just producing more profitable chips, so everything else becomes more expensive as they compete for a much smaller remaining capacity at TSMC.
This company has been run so far into the ground over the last 15 years. Such a fall from grace, with so many decisions that just seem to never be correct.
If Intel were capable of building more chips they would. I don't think their lagging TSMC is a diabolical attempt to inflate their profit margins. Although I only really know what I read on the news.
Thank you. We've already seen what the future looks like, and it's models on a chip. It's several orders of magnitude faster at inference than anything else:
For the record, "the future" you are describing is running a tiny LLM from 2 years ago.
Those on-device weights are horribly outdated, underperform for their size, and cannot be updated to use a different model. I don't think Nvidia is afraid of Taalas.
There was a time when people were running less-capable minicomputers, but the future was mainframes.
There was a time when people were running microcomputers, but they were just toys; the future was mainframes and minis to do real work.
The way tech goes is that the "toys" become real. They become where the action is. The bigger stuff doesn't go away - there are still mainframes, even today - but the action moved on to microcomputers, and then to phones.
There will still be "big" models, but don't dismiss models on a chip because they are "toys".
Note well: I do not claim that models on a chip will certainly follow that trajectory. All I'm saying is that, given the trends in tech over the last several decades, don't dismiss them just because they are toys.
I don't see the microprocessor comparison here. Dedicated inference ASICs already have a great chip design parallel - ASICs. Most PCs and smartphones avoid ASICs entirely to control things via the SOC if possible. The most popular modern microprocessors are all generally not ASIC designs.
Crypto miners already charged down this route for mining, and now there are thousands of ASIC mining rigs that are worth nothing, when GPU rigs are resold at a profit. ASICs are a dead-end, and I think that's why Nvidia couldn't give a rats ass what Taalas builds.
Their 24GB GPU took a year to reach Europe and the 48GB one is nowhere to be found. I mean even if you want to give Intel a second chance in the GPU market they’re so fucking incompetent.
Isn't the current economic scenario unsolvable from the supply side in a 20 year time span? Like is ASML going to magically start mass manufacturing EUL machines, the universities magically gonna spit out 10K more PhD grade level people to work new foundries, and some country magically going to make all the infrastructure investments to build entire cities of compute manufacturing?
Maybe I am wrong but the supply side of this equation seems completely hosed from a fundamental perspective.
That sort of thing did happen in the past though. Complicated engineering operations scaled up in months and years. Immediate post war era saw massive buildout of university engineering departments, more PhDs minted than ever before.
The fact we have so much latent demand and aren't getting these benefits right now is depressing. Where is our silico-industrial buildout? Why is our federal government cutting unversity research funding, and not expanding it to train more PhDs to run in demand fabs? We are being led by short thinking greedy assholes is why.
The reality is no one wants to be left holding the bag if the industry collapses. It costs $8-15B to build a fab for DRAM. If we rush to increase capacity, and the demand drops N-fold, everyone who rushed in will lose their shirt.
Also, fabs are easily the most complex manufacturing on the planet. You don't want to rush stuff like that.
That's it? That's cheap for stuff these days. Especially when your market cap is lets see 2 trillion for tsmc. 5 trillion for NVIDIA. 1 trillion for micron. 1 trillion for Elon Musk. Intel might have to get a loan, "only" worth 350 billion.
Grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and Intel fumbles trends. I'm sure they might cancel the ARC division next for fun and go develop optical chips or something, who knows.
> You could have manufactured enough ARC video cards to meet demand.
Intel was at best breaking even and likely making a loss on each ARC card. They released them to stay in the space, but manufacturing more would increase their losses.
>> You could have manufactured enough ARC video cards to meet demand.
> Intel was at best breaking even and likely making a loss on each ARC card.
How do we know that? Intel's AXG segment did sustain a loss in 2022. AXG included the ARC line, the HPC lines (CPU, GPU) and other AI support components.
And further complicating the 2022 numbers, most of the AXG revenue that year was intersegmental; Intel was selling to itself. In 2023, Intel reorganized and moved ARC into CCG, burying ARC P&L in a way that outside analysts were unable to even guess whether ARC was turning a profit or a loss.
How much of this is the current uncertainty over politics in the US? With the incredibly frustrating aspect that we can't really directly discuss exactly how corrupt a few of the main actors have been, to date.
And the oddest fear is precisely what will happen if we start trying to ramp up a bit of what used to be normal accountability?
Apologies, I didn't mean that at a personal level. Obvious the conversation here is happening. I was more gesturing at the national media which is basically eggshell walking around this admin.
A bunch of tech companies reported this week and nasdaq is being hit hardest.
Political uncertainty has an impact but it's presently outsized by tech. The president is well-insulated from "normal accountability". He won't be impeached so he can continue manipulating the market and self-dealing.
Probably a mix of both. There's a gigantic amount of costs (and debt) piling up for many companies without anything to show for it when it comes to generating revenue.
But for sure a lot of businesses are getting disrupted - Adobe and now Google are good examples. Just that Google has quite a lot of areas where it shouldn't be so bad - Android, Youtube, mail & storage, cloud. And AI lets them reduce headcounts which is a very big cost.
Yeah Youtube has no real competitor and AI shouldn't disrupt it that much, aside from the inflow of AI generated content which might be a problem on the storage cost side.
But most of Google's income is from search and AI/LLMs are killing it off pretty fast. Maybe they'll try to more forcibly inject ads into the summary output.
I think when AIs start summarising YouTube videos it will take a hit too.
I do this a lot already, I run the audio through a transcriber and get an LLM to summarise that. I deeply hate watching videos because I have a short attention span (ADHD). I'm really glad I now have the tools to not have to do that anymore. Because some content is only available in video or podcast format.
Windows will soon lose the normie consumer market, and all that's left for them will be gamers (of which they will make zero dollars from) and enterprise (of which their successes will broadly match laptop job employment figures)
Tim Sweeny being "one of the people who dooms Windows" was the least likely thing on my multiverse bingo card - but he's eroding that too. EAC v2 will have kernel mode (eBPF) anti-cheat. Microsoft has lost their moat at the throne of AI.
I think it's a little more complicated than that, there was a submission about it earlier [0], where the author argued:
> EACv2 can't accept self-signed kernels and bootloaders, that would defeat the purpose. This means that, in order to play Fortnite on Linux, you will be forced to use a distribution that Epic approves of, with a bootloader that Epic approves of. This almost guarantees that anyone not running RedHat software is shit out of luck. But it gets worse. [...] Microsoft gets to decide what Linux distributions will run Fortnite. [...]
> Microsoft, the company that, has throughout its entire history, thrived on first controlling the competition to destroy them. They even coined a term for it: "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". [...] You might as well install Windows at that point.
I don't understand why the kernel needs to be linked to the distro. I use Gentoo and kernel upgrades are orthogonal to my userspace because of Linus' "we don't break userspace" policy. I do not even need to recompile packages when I change my kernel.
If EAC signs a custom kernel I will just boot into that one when I want to play video games. Unlike dual-booting Windows it won't delete my Linux boot entries and I can use all my applications.
Exactly, this is exactly what I'm going to do on NixOS. Apparently Epic is greenlighting CachyOS, so I'll most likely just pull their bins.
> GP: EACv2 can't accept self-signed kernels and bootloaders
Also, from what I understand from the NixOS discussion[1] on this, it's using mok. That does put which keys are trusted in Epic's hands (which also isn't perfect, but is still vastly better than Microsoft). That article author seems to be poorly informed, or may be spreading FUD.
This seems backwards to me. Linux is in a lot of ways more appealing to gamers than ever (proton/wine/etc is amazing), with the only thing really holding back being anticheat solutions that block Linux. But for the normie market the problems are the same as they've ever been - libreoffice is a poor MS office substitute, and despite one million AI clones the Adobe suite and similar software remains table stakes for many industries.
I love my Steamdeck but I've never found the argument for Linux gaming very compelling when it explicitly hinges on running Windows emulator software. It's really just an argument for consoles. PC gaming isn't really a good idea because PCs aren't really a good idea, and with the PCs, the big 3 OSes aren't really a good idea either. Salvage the kernels and build narrow, bespoke things without all the cruft.
How come I never see these threads when Nasdaq has a banger of a day? Stocks fall faster than they rise - it's not useful discourse to panic every time there's a correction. Give it a few days and we'll be back where we were.
Google has had exactly two quarters of negative free cash flow in its entire history as a public company, both of which occurred back-to-back in 2026. That's spooked investors who are already wondering if it's a bubble, which is leading to sell-offs across tech.
This isn't an everyday occurrence, so billing it as a panic every time there's a correction seems a bit off.
I wasn't convinced the first year or two. Too much hallucination, too little sense to really be useful.
But now it helps me like an assistant. It researches stuff for me and keeps me on track. I have ADHD so I have trouble with that and I procrastinate starting things because the first steps are boring. It really helps me with that and as a result I get way more done.
What it doesn't do is doing everything for me, it's really an enabler more than anything. I'm not a software developer so YMMV.
Economically though, I won't spend more than 20-30 bucks a month on it. Neither will my employer (even that much for all our employees is already tens of millions a year) So how they're going to get those trillions back I don't really know.
It's truly bizarre for there to be widespread hope and excitement for a bubble burst. It's arguably stupid, and I'm one of the stupid people because I find myself hoping for it too.
I just want it to pop because I'm like six years out from my intended retirement date and sequence of returns risk will be high for me (retiring early). There are ways to mitigate that risk, obviously, but I'd feel better not sliding into retirement right at the moment the stock market is riding a pretty obvious bubble if I can avoid it.
Many people are tired of watching the world slowly getting worse and hope for a fire.
They hope there's a phoenix-like resurrection and they'll be the winners.
That might be gamers hoping for cheap graphics cards, young families hoping for lower housing prices or just job seeker hoping AI won't pull the ladder up before they retire. Some just want AI bros getting taken down a peg. So that you didn't miss out on the craze (like crypto.)
Personally, I don't think a bubble burst will be much fun, but hey.
Well... On HN, the crowd is largely technical and the rhetoric has been that our jobs are no longer useful or required. Seeing 'that' idea fail (in any capacity, efficiency gain and usefulness of the technology aside) is probably some schadenfreude, and a bit of self preservation.
I also believe that a lot of the hype has been unrealistic, so IF there is a bubble and IF it is bursting, I'd hope it to be a wake up call and give investors, companies, and regular people more realistic expectations about what we're working with here.
I’m not sure whether AI companies can keep going with these low costs. My workflow is already completely merged into AI. I don’t want to go back to digging through Stack Overflow and spending an hour writing 100 lines of code like before.
I feel very confident making the assertion that if you work a white collar job, and cannot find $200/mo worth of value in the current crop of SOTA models/agents, you probably don't actually know how to wield their abilities.
For those who do, the models could be worth upwards of $5,000 month easy.
Understood but they can't keep subsidizing forever.
So the question is, will you or your employer pay the real cost? And if so where will that money come from? Will there be mass layoffs or will the products become a lot more expensive leading to mass inflation?
Note that either answer is not going to be fun for society.
Did you dump them into Bonds or are you just sitting on cash?
I always find these movements very interesting because you can't have everything decrease in price. If demand for Google drops there should have to be an increased demand in something else.
I personally have dumped everything into money market funds. That should give you somewhere between 3 and 4% return assuming you're using a dollar one.
That's sort of a random heading put on reports of Q3 earnings.
The big news is "Alphabet shares record their worst day ever, shedding $500 billion in value"[1] Google ad revenue has dropped. AI results from search engines don't generate the click-through revenue that search ads did. That's scary for Google management.
Roblox reports user counts are down. Reddit traffic is down and management blames AI search not referring users to Reddit. None of this seems to be closely related to AI costs.
That's losing the competition for attention.
Intel reports PC sales are down. That's likely related to RAM costs, which made price/performance of new PCs drop.
There are issues with AI costs, but they don't seem to be the cause of these reported Q3 earnings drops.
The risk of not putting in AI is that someone else does, users like it and Google’s lock on search gets compromised.
That would be a much, much more existential risk for Google. It may well be worth a substantial hit to revenue and even market cap to stave off that possibility.
Except the other models/harnesses can already search the web. The only reason why I still end up on google is if I need to check the spelling of a word ("Didn't you mean xyz instead?") or for very quick and small checks ("Number of inhabitants in X city")
If I need to _really_ search, something that would take comparing multiple links, I go to Claude/ChatGPT directly.
Just yesterday, I was looking for a small tool, I didn't really know the name, but had a picture. My first reflex has been to paste the picture in Claude, and ask it to find me places where I could buy it, that delivered in my country.
I think Google's lock on search was coming to an end anyway. They enshittified so much the last few years that most people I know started looking elsewhere. Of course the masses take much longer because they're more stuck in their habits but I think the writing is on the wall anyway.
The biggest issue is that a site that pays to be on top of the search results is usually not the one the user is looking for.
Yeah us too. Just keep using the same hardware for a while longer is what they're saying. That's fine for me, 3 years was too short a cycle anyway. And lenovo's ThinkPad range have been getting much worse. My T490s still had a great keyboard but my T14s gen3 is terrible. Almost no travel and no feel to it.
If it were up to me I would have kept the 490s but they insisted on replacing it :(
Reddit has completely turned me off with their user hostile policies. I used to browse Reddit without having an account while drinking my coffee in the morning.
Now, I need to be logged in otherwise the responses in a thread or posts in the sub-reddits are hidden behind a non-removal modal on mobile.
Well, Reddit sorry to say but it did not work and now I read a book.
The issue is that investors expected the legacy revenue sources to compensate for the negative cash flows required for the AI build out. The expectation was that the traditional business would provide a risk backstop because they would be uncorrelated to AI related revenue. The Q3 earnings provide some evidence that the old business may not be the backstop everyone hoped and worse AI may be cannibalizing that revenue. Even if AI manages to compensate, the unit economics of AI is far worse than traditional software, meaning Google et al would have effectively traded a money printer business for a commodity utility, a horrible trade by nearly any standard you can imagine. Of course this is just one quarter but Wall Street is naturally going to hate that possibility being live which it is now.
It's a good point, and it's not just worrying for Google but also many smaller sites.
Why bother making content when nobody ever looks at it except some bots? This is something the AI revolution still has to figure out. If it doesn't it will see a diminishing content base for AI to be built on.
It's showing exponential growth but mostly towards the value models (DeepSeek Flash, GLM 5.3 Flash, etc). Which might be an indication that these models are "good enough". At this intelligence level perhaps it's more about cost optimisations.
I cannot speak for everyone else but for us (20 people company) AI spending has definitely peaked and is trending downwards. We're consolidating providers and heavily experimenting with "good enough" models.
Aaah, finally the sell-off has begun. Anthropic's listing will probably disappoint and OpenAI has already decided not to go public at this time (probably due to lack of demand for their stock).
Soon, we'll be able to buy DRAM and SSDs again cheaply.
How well are the AI companies stocked up on Aerons and other nice chairs? I'm guessing a lot of us have chairs dating back to the dotcom bust 20 years ago and could use an upgrade...
I think the assumption that AI demand will keep growing is a no-brainer based on the value that AI brings. However, you need people and companies to pay for that demand, and if people and companies start losing money due to AI and job cuts, then you have demand but not enough money to pay for it.
The market is still up 20% since May. Some of the stocks collapsing now were purely speculative, e.g. Intel. It was a crappy company a year ago and nothing changed dramatically for it to be a less crappy company, but AI and the stock went to the moon.
The market is going to react badly to even the slightest hint of a slowdown on AI. The whole AI space is so heavily leveraged up with debt and VC cash at the moment that even a slight slowdown will cause the whole thing to collapse in a financial $hitstorm the likes of which we’ve not seen in a while.
Theres “big bets” and then there’s heavily leveraged bet the farm with leveraged debt. The first one hurts when it pops. The second one wipes people out.
Ignoring any technology narrative, just considering Alphabet went from $100 billion free cashflow to negative in months is extremely concerning. Whatever the reason is, the underlying capex has a hell of a catch up to deliver.
The big question is: who's going to get wiped, and what will that mean?
In 2008 the USA managed to export the shit assets generated by the mortgage boom , mostly to Europe. The consequence for the European economy and political setting have been quite sharp. For example it's hard to imagine a Brexit vote if the economic conditions of 2006 had persisted in the UK.
If the AI boom unwinds it's quite hard to see how the USA will export the pain this time. The issue is that the boom is tied to physical infrastructure in the USA and these assets will be stranded. Corporate bonds used to finance it are mostly owned by US pensions and 401k. We are likely to see many US insurance companies liquidated... and that will kill the annuities for many retirees.
The grid expansions that are being created in the USA will mean significant debts on US utility providers as well, if the data centres profitably come on line then this will get paid back. If not then American households are going to have to pay. Chip producers (Tiawan SK) will also get burned.
The USA will forfeit tech leadership, the US bond market will not permit Keynesian expansion. Basically the USA will be looking at a great depression. US hackernews friends need to find a cover story that stops their neighbours realising that they were part of the shit storm, and they also need to sharpen their camping skills and general outdoor hardiness. Alternatively -> try and get a French passport?
> The big question is: who's going to get wiped, and what will that mean?
The end of democracy, that's what all of this is about and why we've seen so many of the super rich build private bunkers or buy entire private islands, talking about shock collars for their staff to keep them from rising up. They're preparing.
You shall own nothing and rent everything, and the easiest way to achieve that is to wipe out everyone's retirement savings.
> Chip producers (Tiawan SK) will also get burned.
They'll be fine. They already got paid, and if the AI bubble crashes, there's years of pent up consumer demand just waiting for affordable slots at the chip fabs.
> Basically the USA will be looking at a great depression.
The US is looking at a return to medieval times. Rich elites lording over the poor masses.
Alternatively, we'll see World War 3. It's notable enough that most countries have slowly risen the temperature on disaster preparedness, even those not in direct line of fire of Russia.
To me this feels peak doomerism, and frankly tiring. The consequences of a total disaster are laid out in big detail but the possible causes leading to the disaster are...assumed and literally not addressed in the comment.
I mean, the premise is "who's going to get wiped[...]?", but the harder question is why would they? And that answer is not trivial because these companies are actually generating money and are competitive. The people and investors running these companies and investing are also not just standing still.
I think one can assume these companies are all a massive scam, but having used LLMs in my day to day every day from the very same companies this article talks about, I don't feel so. I only see the integration of intelligence becoming deeper, and even if cheaper per unit(token), many more tokens will be required. Productivity unlocked is further unlocking business and social opportunities we are only now exploring and getting to know. In the very essence it is very easy to see how this will turn out badly: after all a collapse passes all the known floors on the way down, but we have no idea where we are going up with this technology. I don't buy the comparison with the dotcom bubble because it is very easily falsified by simple metrics as the profitability of these technologies in the present. In the dotcom companies were not profitable, and many other counter examples disprove the comparison applicability. I will not even comment on the comparison with the subprime loans which were related to real estate, which has very little unknown upside.
Anyway, have some faith people this is hacker news, and with LLMs I never was able to do so much cool tinkering in my whole life. I have custom modifications on my gnome shell, I have privately developed file servers, I have automations that make use of my rooted TV, I have a prototype web page to help my folk's small business. I am able to support and learn from the LLM about topics that would be too expensive to get input from. For example with a calibrated microphone the LLM generated the custom equalized bands for my type of amplituner. It looked at a picture of my living room and suggested moving certain furniture like the curtains and measure it. With LLMs I was able to take pictures of nice rugs in the internet and visualize them in my living room before actually buying to great effect. So many possibilities... Focusing on the known unknowns is the easy part, let us have our imaginations run wild and let the whimsical hacker spirit return.
It's friday night, I've had a beer (or three) and I was being glib and snarky with my comment above and you have replied in good faith and I feel that I owe you a good faith reply in return. Please accept apologies for any hurt caused by my comment or by this comment but I feel that there are serious issues to be addressed here.
I think that the first issue you raise is "why would they" and the answer is (IMHO) because there are a bunch of people who are trying to make money anyway that they can and as far as they are concerned it's just bad luck and social darwinism if they get the cash and other people are left holding the bag.
You are right that the products that have emerged from the AI boom have real value, but it's not clear that anyone can capture the value from consumers. LLMs are more or less commodity items. Listen, for sure, for serious, if you gave me $20m I could build a tier 3 LLM in six months. Fella, I am not boasting, I am a small fry old AI researcher and there are 100 like me in every bar in my town (London, near enough) but I know I could do that. I also know that the tricks to move from tier 3 to tier 1 are increasingly available *FROM THE FRONTIER MODELS THEMSELVES* . The number 1 use case at OpenAI for AI is... managing the clusters. And managing the clusters has been the hard bit since about 2017. This is not the case of a rare product that everyone wants, it's basically the same as Florida condos - yes a view over the ocean is great, yes a nice condo is good to live in, but also there is a lot of beach front in Florida and building condos is not rocket science (I am bearish on SpaceX too but for other reasons).
No one will give me $20M sadly, and if they did I'd probably abscond to somewhere I hoped was safe with it and spend the rest of my life raising litters of kittens. This is definitely a good hobby and is actually quite like managing big clusters, but with a better emotional balance.
Anyway, the next point is profitability.
These companies are not profitable. OpenAI is not profitable, Anthropic is not profitable. In fact they are burning cash and losing money hand over hand. They are subsidising subscribers and enterprises to use their models because if they don't, and they force market costs, then they won't have market share. Look to openrouter's stats if you don't believe me : https://openrouter.ai/rankings
The path for Amazon to be profitable was to use investor cash to build a modern last mile distribution and supply chain across the US and then the globe. The AI gamble was to create a capability to serve AI that could effectively monopolise the market and that they could raise the drawbridge like Google did with search. But Google created a market out of you and me for advertisers, where as OAI and Anthropic are asking you and me to buy their products. Brother, I will, but only if they are cheapest and best, which means that this will be a competition, and in a competition I do not care if you go bust and the data centre has to be auctioned to the lowest bidder because if that happens I will then see a cheap service come into use that asset to replace the leavered up investors who sadly lost their pants. If you have to sell off an Amazon distribution center you've got a big problem, an Amazon distribution center only has real value because of the last mile fulfillment and the global supply chain that's attached to the store. A data center for LLMs is not the same, tokens are tokens. I can buy them from Slough or Texas, the Texas ones might cost be less because gas is cheap there, but we're talking $1.40 per million vs $1.00.
Also, I could be wrong, but I see two additional problems with the AI business model:
* AI accelerationists believe that generative AI will lead to compounding software complexity that enables incredible economic growth. But there's a good chance it will mostly just expand breadth-wise, i.e. not actually invent any new abstractions or reify concepts that allow for compounding complexity but instead flood the world with mediocre code that follows well-trod paths and ships a lot faster. I don't think consumers actually want this.
* Unless software development is forever "finished" in its current state, or unless actual general intelligence is somehow invented, the training work can never stop. If the money runs out, current models will still be useful for a while, but eventually the industry will lap the training data and model output will degrade.
It has been very interesting that although I experience huge productivity benefits and am hugely empowered to create new software with AI I simply do not see that reflected either in an improvement in throughput of software projects at work, or a step change in terms of better, faster, less buggy software from other companies.
There is a paradox here, I think that there is a lot of denial about it.
If Europe was able to muddle though the 2009 financial crash, then the US will be able to muddle through the next one. Cause that's just what you have to do.
What happens if AI is a net loss for the tech industry? It's entirely plausible that AI kills the SaaS business, along with the web and mobile business, alongside large categories of software engineers/tech professionals.
While there might be new stuff, these business's are currently the ones funding AI - if they all get wiped or substantially reduced, then there will be less ai revenue then there is current tech revenue - potentially at reduced margins.
I doubt it, and from what I hear it's the opposite. I sat with a potential client just today that had a sort of working mess of vibe coded stuff to handle parts of his business (one man show). He was now looking for a proper solution to replace because it took too much time to maintain, it was unstable, etc. He wanted something that just works that he can rely on.
I think a lot of SaaS tools have a great future. But they will require less engineers to build.
I am investigative of this scenario, but it can go two ways, if models continue to approve in leaps (IMO):
1 - People build more and more complex implementations, and your "working mess" software DOES still need time to maintain it, is unstable, and they will still want something that "just works" so they hand it off to another person / group. (This would be AI effectively creating "more software + jobs"
2 - People build more and more complex implementations, and AI no longer creates a "working mess" as it improves, it creates "working software" that does not need time to maintain it, is stable, and they do not need to hand it off to another person / group.
I think it's more likely that scenario 1 is going to be the case. I've seen the things people are building around my company. They are enthused, creative, and useful - but need a ton of work, and are continuing on the path of "usable mess", and are now getting fatigue because they need to maintain the tooling they built...
There might be more awareness if, rather than the mainstream [people and news] narrative of "Oh no, some giant event is building and about to happen!", these financial schemes and their socialised downfalls were primarily, rightly labelled as simply the latest in a clearly repeating pattern of behaviour that we as a species are enabling.
I'm finding it almost hard to feel much angst about this cycle, not due to a lack of compassion, but because I'm learning not to spend all my energy on today's Big Finance misadventure, when it seems there'll be another tomorrow anyway.
AI is going to kill the internet, more specifically, AI is going to kill anything with a screen, and whatever happens ultimately we will be better of for it.
If I had interest in FAANGS right now. I might sell now in anticipation of reallocation to Anthropic and other new entrants to the public markets in the AI space. I wonder if some of this is partly the liquidity shock an Anthropic IPO may cause for retail investors.
I don't know how anyone could be bearish right now. We are seeing technological innovation at a pace I never believed possible. Bullish on AI. Bullish on America!
There is a strange dynamic between data center build out and inference prices.
If the data centers do get built and come on line, we will see an increase in compute supply and that should lower inference prices.
If they don't, for whatever reason including financial ones, then we will not have enough compute to meet demand and inference prices will rise. But this would mean the financial concerns were misplaced.
165 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 34.8 ms ] threadIn theory I understand their change to make search -> AI search instead, but I have a hard time believing that this was benchmarked in any way and not rushed to desperately remain relevant in the AI race.
> What is the equivalent focal length on APS-C of 80mm on full frame?
and get the correct answer. It's not good compared to frontier AI models, but that's to be expected, given that you don't pay for it.
It has at least improved with the second category recently that it seems to be more right than wrong. But it still tends to work your query into whatever results it got, which makes it downright dangerous for when people are doing searches on health-related information.
Given how AIs work, if they weren't trained with last night's sports news, you can't get an accurate answer this morning. All you can get is a hallucination.
Taking it at face value is just asking for trouble; they're useful primarily for finding references.
The people who get burned by these things are the ones who just blindly trust the generated text.
Different experience for me, IMO AI mode pretty much saved Google search. The classic search was pretty much worthless due to decades of SEO winning over good results. AI mode saved Google search for me and gives me what I'm looking for 99.9% of the time.
I do understand some people (website operators who used to rely on SEO, google stockholders after the recent earnings report) being upset about AI mode, but as a search user I find it much more effective than where search was just prior to AI mode.
I still find Claude better for learning math but I won’t use it for other everyday things again.
If you're into manufacturing stuff people really want, that is.
/s
[0] https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/data-centers/open...
I don't know if anyone told you, but GDDR is included in the current RAM shortage.
It would probably be easier for Micron to double their memory production, than it would be for Intel to beat Micron's annual shipments.
They also don't have to match Micron, they just need to introduce sufficient marginal supply to a supply constrained market or use it to their advantage by making the memory for their own platforms by-passing the shortage everyone else has to contend with.
Definitely not just a memory problem.
> I don't know if anyone told you, but GDDR is included in the current RAM shortage
My understanding is that the 2025 RAM shortage did not cause the 2022/2023 ARC shortages.
Doesn't manufacture anymore*.
This company has been run so far into the ground over the last 15 years. Such a fall from grace, with so many decisions that just seem to never be correct.
https://chatjimmy.ai
AMD acquired this company, and I hope they start releasing consumer hardware based on their tech.
Your move Intel and NVIDIA, give us what we want and stop hording GPUs in data centers.
Those on-device weights are horribly outdated, underperform for their size, and cannot be updated to use a different model. I don't think Nvidia is afraid of Taalas.
There was a time when people were running microcomputers, but they were just toys; the future was mainframes and minis to do real work.
The way tech goes is that the "toys" become real. They become where the action is. The bigger stuff doesn't go away - there are still mainframes, even today - but the action moved on to microcomputers, and then to phones.
There will still be "big" models, but don't dismiss models on a chip because they are "toys".
Note well: I do not claim that models on a chip will certainly follow that trajectory. All I'm saying is that, given the trends in tech over the last several decades, don't dismiss them just because they are toys.
Crypto miners already charged down this route for mining, and now there are thousands of ASIC mining rigs that are worth nothing, when GPU rigs are resold at a profit. ASICs are a dead-end, and I think that's why Nvidia couldn't give a rats ass what Taalas builds.
They make new car models each year. Plenty of folks drive old ones. Few do annual upgrades.
Maybe I am wrong but the supply side of this equation seems completely hosed from a fundamental perspective.
The fact we have so much latent demand and aren't getting these benefits right now is depressing. Where is our silico-industrial buildout? Why is our federal government cutting unversity research funding, and not expanding it to train more PhDs to run in demand fabs? We are being led by short thinking greedy assholes is why.
Also, fabs are easily the most complex manufacturing on the planet. You don't want to rush stuff like that.
We could also maybe use more semiconductor physics PhDs?
Intel was at best breaking even and likely making a loss on each ARC card. They released them to stay in the space, but manufacturing more would increase their losses.
> Intel was at best breaking even and likely making a loss on each ARC card.
How do we know that? Intel's AXG segment did sustain a loss in 2022. AXG included the ARC line, the HPC lines (CPU, GPU) and other AI support components.
And further complicating the 2022 numbers, most of the AXG revenue that year was intersegmental; Intel was selling to itself. In 2023, Intel reorganized and moved ARC into CCG, burying ARC P&L in a way that outside analysts were unable to even guess whether ARC was turning a profit or a loss.
ref: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/00000508632300...
https://morethanmoore.substack.com/p/intc-doubling-down-agai...
And the oddest fear is precisely what will happen if we start trying to ramp up a bit of what used to be normal accountability?
But let’s consider what causes a wave. Economic anger.
Political uncertainty has an impact but it's presently outsized by tech. The president is well-insulated from "normal accountability". He won't be impeached so he can continue manipulating the market and self-dealing.
More agents browsing the web and people relying on AI summaries -> less revenue for Google Search and Reddit
AI drastically reducing the barrier to game dev -> less users on Roblox
But for sure a lot of businesses are getting disrupted - Adobe and now Google are good examples. Just that Google has quite a lot of areas where it shouldn't be so bad - Android, Youtube, mail & storage, cloud. And AI lets them reduce headcounts which is a very big cost.
But most of Google's income is from search and AI/LLMs are killing it off pretty fast. Maybe they'll try to more forcibly inject ads into the summary output.
There is no future timeline where people are giving away compute for free. Right now we are still in the "Get them hooked" phase.
I do this a lot already, I run the audio through a transcriber and get an LLM to summarise that. I deeply hate watching videos because I have a short attention span (ADHD). I'm really glad I now have the tools to not have to do that anymore. Because some content is only available in video or podcast format.
Is that really a thing? AI can make mediocre games for your own amusement, but Roblox is a social experience.
Which is what everyone wanted right?
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/article/roblox-ceo-cites-c...
Tim Sweeny being "one of the people who dooms Windows" was the least likely thing on my multiverse bingo card - but he's eroding that too. EAC v2 will have kernel mode (eBPF) anti-cheat. Microsoft has lost their moat at the throne of AI.
I think it's a little more complicated than that, there was a submission about it earlier [0], where the author argued:
> EACv2 can't accept self-signed kernels and bootloaders, that would defeat the purpose. This means that, in order to play Fortnite on Linux, you will be forced to use a distribution that Epic approves of, with a bootloader that Epic approves of. This almost guarantees that anyone not running RedHat software is shit out of luck. But it gets worse. [...] Microsoft gets to decide what Linux distributions will run Fortnite. [...]
> Microsoft, the company that, has throughout its entire history, thrived on first controlling the competition to destroy them. They even coined a term for it: "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". [...] You might as well install Windows at that point.
[0] news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50298563
If EAC signs a custom kernel I will just boot into that one when I want to play video games. Unlike dual-booting Windows it won't delete my Linux boot entries and I can use all my applications.
> GP: EACv2 can't accept self-signed kernels and bootloaders
Also, from what I understand from the NixOS discussion[1] on this, it's using mok. That does put which keys are trusted in Epic's hands (which also isn't perfect, but is still vastly better than Microsoft). That article author seems to be poorly informed, or may be spreading FUD.
[1]: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/eac-linux-v2-requirements-vs-b...
We'll see about next week, if these threats against Iran are hollow we might rebound.
This isn't an everyday occurrence, so billing it as a panic every time there's a correction seems a bit off.
I wasn't convinced the first year or two. Too much hallucination, too little sense to really be useful.
But now it helps me like an assistant. It researches stuff for me and keeps me on track. I have ADHD so I have trouble with that and I procrastinate starting things because the first steps are boring. It really helps me with that and as a result I get way more done.
What it doesn't do is doing everything for me, it's really an enabler more than anything. I'm not a software developer so YMMV.
Economically though, I won't spend more than 20-30 bucks a month on it. Neither will my employer (even that much for all our employees is already tens of millions a year) So how they're going to get those trillions back I don't really know.
It's not great when finance people are openly talking about trying to time the top.
They hope there's a phoenix-like resurrection and they'll be the winners. That might be gamers hoping for cheap graphics cards, young families hoping for lower housing prices or just job seeker hoping AI won't pull the ladder up before they retire. Some just want AI bros getting taken down a peg. So that you didn't miss out on the craze (like crypto.)
Personally, I don't think a bubble burst will be much fun, but hey.
I also believe that a lot of the hype has been unrealistic, so IF there is a bubble and IF it is bursting, I'd hope it to be a wake up call and give investors, companies, and regular people more realistic expectations about what we're working with here.
For those who do, the models could be worth upwards of $5,000 month easy.
So the question is, will you or your employer pay the real cost? And if so where will that money come from? Will there be mass layoffs or will the products become a lot more expensive leading to mass inflation?
Note that either answer is not going to be fun for society.
I always find these movements very interesting because you can't have everything decrease in price. If demand for Google drops there should have to be an increased demand in something else.
The big news is "Alphabet shares record their worst day ever, shedding $500 billion in value"[1] Google ad revenue has dropped. AI results from search engines don't generate the click-through revenue that search ads did. That's scary for Google management.
Roblox reports user counts are down. Reddit traffic is down and management blames AI search not referring users to Reddit. None of this seems to be closely related to AI costs. That's losing the competition for attention.
Intel reports PC sales are down. That's likely related to RAM costs, which made price/performance of new PCs drop.
There are issues with AI costs, but they don't seem to be the cause of these reported Q3 earnings drops.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/alphabet-google-sto...
How is this not related to "AI cost fears"?
The amount of cash being dumped into AI datacenters has driven up the cost of a lot of other things in adjacent industries.
PCs dropping in volume can signal better AI demand.
The question in my mind, is what were all the Google execs smoking when they decided to kill the golden goose?
It's not like this is a non-obvious outcome of sending all your most valuable searches to an in-house AI answer instead of an ad click...
Photo of Google leadership regarding this issue: https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/037/873/We'...
That would be a much, much more existential risk for Google. It may well be worth a substantial hit to revenue and even market cap to stave off that possibility.
If I need to _really_ search, something that would take comparing multiple links, I go to Claude/ChatGPT directly.
Just yesterday, I was looking for a small tool, I didn't really know the name, but had a picture. My first reflex has been to paste the picture in Claude, and ask it to find me places where I could buy it, that delivered in my country.
The biggest issue is that a site that pays to be on top of the search results is usually not the one the user is looking for.
Please don't tell me you value your shitty 401k more than keeping kids off of this horrible game
Doesn't this seem totally obvious? Like, they removed the need to click through things, that's kind of the defining behavior of these AI results.
My university has put all the laptop and PC purchases for staff and faculty on hold and they are approving them only on a case by case basis.
If it were up to me I would have kept the 490s but they insisted on replacing it :(
Reddit has completely turned me off with their user hostile policies. I used to browse Reddit without having an account while drinking my coffee in the morning.
Now, I need to be logged in otherwise the responses in a thread or posts in the sub-reddits are hidden behind a non-removal modal on mobile.
Well, Reddit sorry to say but it did not work and now I read a book.
Why bother making content when nobody ever looks at it except some bots? This is something the AI revolution still has to figure out. If it doesn't it will see a diminishing content base for AI to be built on.
I cannot speak for everyone else but for us (20 people company) AI spending has definitely peaked and is trending downwards. We're consolidating providers and heavily experimenting with "good enough" models.
Soon, we'll be able to buy DRAM and SSDs again cheaply.
Theres “big bets” and then there’s heavily leveraged bet the farm with leveraged debt. The first one hurts when it pops. The second one wipes people out.
In 2008 the USA managed to export the shit assets generated by the mortgage boom , mostly to Europe. The consequence for the European economy and political setting have been quite sharp. For example it's hard to imagine a Brexit vote if the economic conditions of 2006 had persisted in the UK.
If the AI boom unwinds it's quite hard to see how the USA will export the pain this time. The issue is that the boom is tied to physical infrastructure in the USA and these assets will be stranded. Corporate bonds used to finance it are mostly owned by US pensions and 401k. We are likely to see many US insurance companies liquidated... and that will kill the annuities for many retirees.
The grid expansions that are being created in the USA will mean significant debts on US utility providers as well, if the data centres profitably come on line then this will get paid back. If not then American households are going to have to pay. Chip producers (Tiawan SK) will also get burned.
The USA will forfeit tech leadership, the US bond market will not permit Keynesian expansion. Basically the USA will be looking at a great depression. US hackernews friends need to find a cover story that stops their neighbours realising that they were part of the shit storm, and they also need to sharpen their camping skills and general outdoor hardiness. Alternatively -> try and get a French passport?
I didn't know about this. How did it work?
http://www.esp.org/humor/subprime.pdf
The end of democracy, that's what all of this is about and why we've seen so many of the super rich build private bunkers or buy entire private islands, talking about shock collars for their staff to keep them from rising up. They're preparing.
You shall own nothing and rent everything, and the easiest way to achieve that is to wipe out everyone's retirement savings.
> Chip producers (Tiawan SK) will also get burned.
They'll be fine. They already got paid, and if the AI bubble crashes, there's years of pent up consumer demand just waiting for affordable slots at the chip fabs.
> Basically the USA will be looking at a great depression.
The US is looking at a return to medieval times. Rich elites lording over the poor masses.
Alternatively, we'll see World War 3. It's notable enough that most countries have slowly risen the temperature on disaster preparedness, even those not in direct line of fire of Russia.
I mean, the premise is "who's going to get wiped[...]?", but the harder question is why would they? And that answer is not trivial because these companies are actually generating money and are competitive. The people and investors running these companies and investing are also not just standing still.
I think one can assume these companies are all a massive scam, but having used LLMs in my day to day every day from the very same companies this article talks about, I don't feel so. I only see the integration of intelligence becoming deeper, and even if cheaper per unit(token), many more tokens will be required. Productivity unlocked is further unlocking business and social opportunities we are only now exploring and getting to know. In the very essence it is very easy to see how this will turn out badly: after all a collapse passes all the known floors on the way down, but we have no idea where we are going up with this technology. I don't buy the comparison with the dotcom bubble because it is very easily falsified by simple metrics as the profitability of these technologies in the present. In the dotcom companies were not profitable, and many other counter examples disprove the comparison applicability. I will not even comment on the comparison with the subprime loans which were related to real estate, which has very little unknown upside.
Anyway, have some faith people this is hacker news, and with LLMs I never was able to do so much cool tinkering in my whole life. I have custom modifications on my gnome shell, I have privately developed file servers, I have automations that make use of my rooted TV, I have a prototype web page to help my folk's small business. I am able to support and learn from the LLM about topics that would be too expensive to get input from. For example with a calibrated microphone the LLM generated the custom equalized bands for my type of amplituner. It looked at a picture of my living room and suggested moving certain furniture like the curtains and measure it. With LLMs I was able to take pictures of nice rugs in the internet and visualize them in my living room before actually buying to great effect. So many possibilities... Focusing on the known unknowns is the easy part, let us have our imaginations run wild and let the whimsical hacker spirit return.
I think that the first issue you raise is "why would they" and the answer is (IMHO) because there are a bunch of people who are trying to make money anyway that they can and as far as they are concerned it's just bad luck and social darwinism if they get the cash and other people are left holding the bag.
You are right that the products that have emerged from the AI boom have real value, but it's not clear that anyone can capture the value from consumers. LLMs are more or less commodity items. Listen, for sure, for serious, if you gave me $20m I could build a tier 3 LLM in six months. Fella, I am not boasting, I am a small fry old AI researcher and there are 100 like me in every bar in my town (London, near enough) but I know I could do that. I also know that the tricks to move from tier 3 to tier 1 are increasingly available *FROM THE FRONTIER MODELS THEMSELVES* . The number 1 use case at OpenAI for AI is... managing the clusters. And managing the clusters has been the hard bit since about 2017. This is not the case of a rare product that everyone wants, it's basically the same as Florida condos - yes a view over the ocean is great, yes a nice condo is good to live in, but also there is a lot of beach front in Florida and building condos is not rocket science (I am bearish on SpaceX too but for other reasons).
No one will give me $20M sadly, and if they did I'd probably abscond to somewhere I hoped was safe with it and spend the rest of my life raising litters of kittens. This is definitely a good hobby and is actually quite like managing big clusters, but with a better emotional balance.
Anyway, the next point is profitability.
These companies are not profitable. OpenAI is not profitable, Anthropic is not profitable. In fact they are burning cash and losing money hand over hand. They are subsidising subscribers and enterprises to use their models because if they don't, and they force market costs, then they won't have market share. Look to openrouter's stats if you don't believe me : https://openrouter.ai/rankings
The path for Amazon to be profitable was to use investor cash to build a modern last mile distribution and supply chain across the US and then the globe. The AI gamble was to create a capability to serve AI that could effectively monopolise the market and that they could raise the drawbridge like Google did with search. But Google created a market out of you and me for advertisers, where as OAI and Anthropic are asking you and me to buy their products. Brother, I will, but only if they are cheapest and best, which means that this will be a competition, and in a competition I do not care if you go bust and the data centre has to be auctioned to the lowest bidder because if that happens I will then see a cheap service come into use that asset to replace the leavered up investors who sadly lost their pants. If you have to sell off an Amazon distribution center you've got a big problem, an Amazon distribution center only has real value because of the last mile fulfillment and the global supply chain that's attached to the store. A data center for LLMs is not the same, tokens are tokens. I can buy them from Slough or Texas, the Texas ones might cost be less because gas is cheap there, but we're talking $1.40 per million vs $1.00.
That's it.
A $3Trn commodity service.
Also, I could be wrong, but I see two additional problems with the AI business model:
* AI accelerationists believe that generative AI will lead to compounding software complexity that enables incredible economic growth. But there's a good chance it will mostly just expand breadth-wise, i.e. not actually invent any new abstractions or reify concepts that allow for compounding complexity but instead flood the world with mediocre code that follows well-trod paths and ships a lot faster. I don't think consumers actually want this.
* Unless software development is forever "finished" in its current state, or unless actual general intelligence is somehow invented, the training work can never stop. If the money runs out, current models will still be useful for a while, but eventually the industry will lap the training data and model output will degrade.
There is a paradox here, I think that there is a lot of denial about it.
While there might be new stuff, these business's are currently the ones funding AI - if they all get wiped or substantially reduced, then there will be less ai revenue then there is current tech revenue - potentially at reduced margins.
It’s been sort of funny to watch the tech industry realize that the main thing being disrupted by AI is tech itself.
I think a lot of SaaS tools have a great future. But they will require less engineers to build.
1 - People build more and more complex implementations, and your "working mess" software DOES still need time to maintain it, is unstable, and they will still want something that "just works" so they hand it off to another person / group. (This would be AI effectively creating "more software + jobs"
2 - People build more and more complex implementations, and AI no longer creates a "working mess" as it improves, it creates "working software" that does not need time to maintain it, is stable, and they do not need to hand it off to another person / group.
I think it's more likely that scenario 1 is going to be the case. I've seen the things people are building around my company. They are enthused, creative, and useful - but need a ton of work, and are continuing on the path of "usable mess", and are now getting fatigue because they need to maintain the tooling they built...
I'm finding it almost hard to feel much angst about this cycle, not due to a lack of compassion, but because I'm learning not to spend all my energy on today's Big Finance misadventure, when it seems there'll be another tomorrow anyway.
If the data centers do get built and come on line, we will see an increase in compute supply and that should lower inference prices.
If they don't, for whatever reason including financial ones, then we will not have enough compute to meet demand and inference prices will rise. But this would mean the financial concerns were misplaced.
Where is the equilibrium point?