undefined | Better HN

0 points32dsfa1d ago0 comments

Thats not investing - firms are paying out to llm producers in the form of operating expenses. What asset are they acquiring that deems it to be a investment? lmao

Laying people off offsets some of those expenses. Eventually revenue has to climb.

The reality is many of these tech firms have reached the peak of what they can offer - Meta and Google still have some ways to go with existing assets pre-LLMs that can generate lots more cash flows. So the sobering truth eventually will be that this tool seems really great but its not going to make the firm seem more productive in terms of its financials, beyond efficiency-generated growth which is finite.

And whether you like it or not, thats the only thing that matters. The firm exists to maximize wealth of its stockholders.

0 comments

llbbdd1d ago

Most firms would consider experimenting with efficiency gains "R&D", which is investment. The AI companies under scrutiny here are gathering up as much compute as they can because people and companies are paying for it, and anybody pretending they're doing that for no reason is covering their eyes and ears.

> Laying people off offsets some of those expenses.

Layoffs are independent of AI. The impact of AI is that firms can do more with less, they are doing more with less, and when the economy supports them having more, they'll do more, not less.

> The firm exists to maximize wealth of its stockholders.

Deeply tired of hearing this type of argument. Your grandma is a stockholder. Your 401k is a stockholder. The Stockholders aren't some alien leech race. We've structured the economy so that the average person doesn't have to grow their own food; the result is stockholders, and it's not a scary word.

Ed is posturing to his explicitly anti-AI audience. Read any of his recent work on this topic and it's normal to feel embarrassed for agreeing with any of it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse