> Every article I've seen so far on LLM datacenter investment is either very bullish or very bearish and I haven't seen sober exploration of whether it might be neither.
Because bullish articles are bought by AI companies and/or encouraged by editors because AI is the hot traffic keyword right now, hence tons and tons of articles about utterly banal ML integrations being rebranded as AI so Wall Street will think your fuckin Microwave company is ushering in Skynet.
And on the flip side the bearish articles are because we're now almost 2 years into this hype cycle that Silicon Valley is trying so incredibly hard to make us believe is real, and we've had, yes, a few minor interesting things, but the vast majority of every part of it is unwanted integration of chat-bots into products that do not need chat-bots, or the replacement of lower-paid staff with a ChatGPT integration that doesn't work.
There is, and I cannot stress this enough, so incredibly little consumer interest in this tech. Nobody. Fucking. Cares. In fact, I read something recently that including AI in product descriptions actually hurts the rate of purchase by people because they're so fucking sick of it.
Now mind you, that's not going to kill AI companies, because AI companies are not worth 50 bazillion dollars on the back of chatbots. They are worth all that because of the "usefulness" of varying legitimacy in the defense industry, the insurance industry, border security, all manner of things that will almost without fail make your or other people's lives meaningfully worse, but they'll do it in a cost-effective way that reinforces existing capital and power. That's why it's worth so much money.
The recent advances in image recognition have millions of minor applications to agriculture, manufacturing and logistics, but the net effect is workforce reduction.
> I read something recently that including AI in product descriptions actually hurts the rate of purchase by people because they're so fucking sick of it
I mean I think LLMs are quite cool, but like, that’s it. They’re cool. My Corvette is also very cool and I love it very much, but it would be silly to say it’s the ideal car for everyone. It’s wildly impractical for carrying any cargo, and while efficient, if you’re driving it and having fun, it isn’t anymore, haha.
Genuinely curious though: what is it you find so compelling about them as a product?
Because bullish articles are bought by AI companies and/or encouraged by editors because AI is the hot traffic keyword right now, hence tons and tons of articles about utterly banal ML integrations being rebranded as AI so Wall Street will think your fuckin Microwave company is ushering in Skynet.
And on the flip side the bearish articles are because we're now almost 2 years into this hype cycle that Silicon Valley is trying so incredibly hard to make us believe is real, and we've had, yes, a few minor interesting things, but the vast majority of every part of it is unwanted integration of chat-bots into products that do not need chat-bots, or the replacement of lower-paid staff with a ChatGPT integration that doesn't work.
There is, and I cannot stress this enough, so incredibly little consumer interest in this tech. Nobody. Fucking. Cares. In fact, I read something recently that including AI in product descriptions actually hurts the rate of purchase by people because they're so fucking sick of it.
Now mind you, that's not going to kill AI companies, because AI companies are not worth 50 bazillion dollars on the back of chatbots. They are worth all that because of the "usefulness" of varying legitimacy in the defense industry, the insurance industry, border security, all manner of things that will almost without fail make your or other people's lives meaningfully worse, but they'll do it in a cost-effective way that reinforces existing capital and power. That's why it's worth so much money.