undefined | Better HN

0 pointsautomatic61311y ago0 comments

This is the crux. A cool thing has been invented, with real usages. Unfortunately, it's cost hundreds of billions of dollars and it has absolutely zero hope of making the trillions needed to justify that.

Now someone will respond about how it's just a stepping stone, and how the billions are justified by _something completely imaginary, and not invented yet, and maybe not ever_ e.g. agents.

0 comments

trhway1y ago

>it's cost hundreds of billions of dollars and it has absolutely zero hope of making the trillions needed to justify that.

The BigTech companies have been flush with liquidity and poured those hundreds of billions into the promising tech, and as result we got a wonderful new technology. There is not much need for those trillions in return - just look at liquidity positions of those companies, they are just fine. If those trillions come in eventually - even better.

automatic6131OP1y ago

>There is not much need for those trillions in return

Whilst you are correct that big tech cos do not need the return to survive, that's not how public markets work at all, and thus not how the incentives for those in charge of the companies work, and so making you actually wrong.

trhway1y ago

If i were wrong, those companies would be distributing that cash to shareholders instead of chasing any promise of any big chance.

If investment in AI don't pan out (i do think that it will pan out, and those trillions will come) then those companies would just pour even more billions into whatever big thing/promise would come next. Rinse and repeat. Because some of those things do generate tremendous returns, and thus not playing that game is what really constitute true loss of money.

1 more reply

krainboltgreene1y ago

Funny, I had been told we had to lay off all those workers because they weren’t flush with cash.

TheOtherHobbes1y ago

They're convinced they no longer need them.

Just as they were convinced after Covid that they needed to put hiring into overdrive.

Tech management has the collective IQ of a flock of sheep.

1 more reply

trhway1y ago

cash on hands GOOG - 100B, AMZN - 80B, FB - 70B, and their core businesses are basically printing money, so they pretty much do have to invest into new things. If somebody sees a multi-billion dollar sink better than AI right now ...

2 more replies

SZJX1y ago

They’ll be fine and will survive regardless, but their current astronomical valuations probably won’t be.

SubiculumCode1y ago

To train. Inference is much cheaper...and getting cheaper by the day

hoseja1y ago

I see it a little differently. What was the direct economic return of the Manhattan Project?

whatshisface1y ago

Ideally it was thought to have shortened a very expensive war, and may have prevented the USSR from taking over Europe by leveraging its unquestioned postwar conventional forces advantage.

hoseja1y ago

Well sure but how much cash did the MaPr corp. make selling their new and improved model implosion-type-u-235?

2 more replies

square_usual1y ago

The Manhattan Project was driven by the U.S. Government, which doesn't need a VC-tier return. The entire business model of VCs is based on the idea that they'll have the occasional 100x return, and if none of the AI companies do that it would destroy the VC model.

namaria1y ago

About the GDP of the US and Europe over the past 80 years so a few quadrillion dollars.

hoseja1y ago

That's not direct return of VC-invested cash that people are refusing to see past in here.

2 more replies

jcgrillo1y ago

Wait, what? The Manhattan project produced something--multiple somethings in fact. What has this "project" produced?

TeaBrain1y ago

Completely irrelevant. The Manhattan Project wasn't funded by VCs with an expectation of a return.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

trhway1y ago

>it's cost hundreds of billions of dollars and it has absolutely zero hope of making the trillions needed to justify that.

automatic6131OP1y ago

>There is not much need for those trillions in return

trhway1y ago

If i were wrong, those companies would be distributing that cash to shareholders instead of chasing any promise of any big chance.

1 more reply

krainboltgreene1y ago

Funny, I had been told we had to lay off all those workers because they weren’t flush with cash.

TheOtherHobbes1y ago

They're convinced they no longer need them.

Just as they were convinced after Covid that they needed to put hiring into overdrive.

Tech management has the collective IQ of a flock of sheep.

1 more reply

trhway1y ago

2 more replies

SZJX1y ago

They’ll be fine and will survive regardless, but their current astronomical valuations probably won’t be.

SubiculumCode1y ago

To train. Inference is much cheaper...and getting cheaper by the day

hoseja1y ago

I see it a little differently. What was the direct economic return of the Manhattan Project?

whatshisface1y ago

Ideally it was thought to have shortened a very expensive war, and may have prevented the USSR from taking over Europe by leveraging its unquestioned postwar conventional forces advantage.

hoseja1y ago

Well sure but how much cash did the MaPr corp. make selling their new and improved model implosion-type-u-235?

2 more replies

square_usual1y ago

namaria1y ago

About the GDP of the US and Europe over the past 80 years so a few quadrillion dollars.

hoseja1y ago

That's not direct return of VC-invested cash that people are refusing to see past in here.

2 more replies

jcgrillo1y ago

Wait, what? The Manhattan project produced something--multiple somethings in fact. What has this "project" produced?

TeaBrain1y ago

Completely irrelevant. The Manhattan Project wasn't funded by VCs with an expectation of a return.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse