Hi, not all organisations are the same. I do not operate my team this way. I am sorry that this is your experience but please don’t pretend that it’s universal.
> AI is a tool wielded by humans. If we’re wiped out by AI, it will be at the direction of a human.
Being deliberately wiped out seems like it's mostly a misdirection away from the damage that's actually happening.
I'm sure some of the AI people high on their own supply believe it. And because the consequences are so negative, we should react as though the supposed experts were sane -- but I think it's a long shot that they are.
The bigger risk is that we end up in a rapidly enshittifying dystopia, treated as a cost center that needs to be optimized, and unable to competitively participate in the economy.
I have a number of successful AI investors in my social circle who are already placing their bets on a poorer and more disenfranchised humanity, with money going away from consumer tech, and towards a mix of B2B tech and policing.
As I mentioned above, if you’re making a niche query, maybe. If you’re making a very generic query “average temperature in Hong Kong in January”, it’s fine. You’re overestimating average complexity of a query.
"Fine" may be "right 95% of the time" but I'll look like a jackass 5% of the time that I trust the Google AI Overview.
And I won't know which ones are the wrong ones, so I may as well trust it 0% of the time.
Most people I know use AI Overview now as their primary way of doing any sort of research or question-answering... and I urge them: If getting an LLM take is suitable for your purpose, at least ask free-tier ChatGPT, which is at least an order of magnitude less likely to vomit up false or confused information. Also, asking actual Gemini is another sane option that is far superior to AI Overview.
Does it really matter that much? Did it matter that everyone's parents pre-internet were wrong half of the time?
Most people are not asking google to build them a train signaling system but to look up some question on Wikipedia for which the answer does not matter that much
7M is fine if you don't care about the quality/correctness of the output and just want some utterance that looks plausibly related to the question. I guess that is the bar this thread has set for Google search quality being good enough for most users.
Interesting, I had terrible experience with ChatGPT as search not-so while back, found gemini quite useful for finding out the articles and brainstorming information.
Not sure if you're joking, but I go back and forth between this thought. Finance is not my forte, far from it for sure, but there's a part of me that hopes a collapse can at least open the door for future opportunity. A "reset" if you will. The younger generations are up against a massive wall when it comes to acquiring wealth (or even a reasonable means of living at this point), it would be nice to give them an equal chance. I know this is very likely a naive take, but it's the only hopeful aspect of a collapse I can accept.
Not quite. Poor people suffer more in real terms, but rich people suffer more in nominal (dollar) terms. Nominal inequality gets reset.
Don't let the term "nominal" undersell this: it's nominal inequality that locks working people out of assets and imposes upon them the need to service the (otherwise) exponentially growing profit expectations of their economic complements. At no point in the cycle is it better to be poor than rich, but the contractionary quadrant is the one where the gap shrinks.
Inequality declined temporarily during the recession, but reached new highs during the recovery.
2008 decreased inequality for a very short time, but inequality increased overall. The rich have the available assets to profit from instability and are able to ride out unemployment, for the poor a crash and losing their job can be existential.
Why would it? The wealthy people who haven’t allocated their capital to those assets that are depressed from a recession can reallocate to the depressed assets and end up even wealthier on the rebound. People with no money at all don’t have that opportunity to invest.
The stock market is $80T, cash is $20T. The former cannot "weather the storm" in the latter in aggregate, even though I'm sure there are individuals who successfully timed the market.
> At no point in the cycle is it better to be poor than rich, but the contractionary quadrant is the one where the gap shrinks.
Your anecdote about getting lucky doesn’t answer the question, sorry. Rich people have money to buy cheap assets when shit hits the fan, unemployed people do not.
There's not much incentive for institutional change when everyone's making money. Yeah, it'll hurt folks a great deal short term. But may be better for our kids long term.
That's what people said in 2008, instead, wealth was incinerated, the most vulnerable got hurt the most, while the already wealthy got bailed out and bought back assets at bargain bin prices. The wealth owning class would love a collapse.
Oddly enough, 2008 is exactly what inspired my comment and it's based off my exact experience back then. I couldn't afford investing in the market, I couldn't afford a home, and the interest on car loans were higher. All of that changed after the 2008 collapse. First I should mention that I was laid off and unemployed during some of it, so there was a huge negative impact for sure. What followed after though was amazing. I was able to invest in some $1-$5 stocks in the market that were previously not obtainable to me. This investment actually took me/my wife from being in debt living with my in-laws to completely out of debt and into our own place. Once I finally got employed again, I was able to save up enough just in time to buy a home at near the bottom with low interest. Car loans were also low interest. It was life changing and for the better in my situation.
The inflation being caused by all the "crowding-out" caused by AI overinvestment is currently incredibly harmful.
That really needs to unwind.
However much potential energy has been stored in it, is going to turn into kinetic energy in the subsequent correction/crash.
The best time for this to happen is as soon as possible, causing the least amount of damage.
I pretty much expect the damage to be immense, though, but that is going to be unavoidable at this point. However big the bubble is, it needs to pop.
In retrospect, we will find that there were truly idiotic decisions made in blowing up the bubble, and in the aftermath the wrong people will almost certainly get hurt, because that is just what we do these days.
reply