I’m so burnt out and jaded on AI that I don’t think I’ll ever use it for any reason ever. I just wish we could put the cat back in the bag. I know that will never happen.
The lobster is out, read the room. You’re seeing articles of people stating local models are the future in tandem with hardware companies stating prices will go up for hardware and shortages will remain. This is a classic double tap from behind. It’s done. There were some good applications to it, which will continue. But overall it’s a toddler dropping their ice cream cone on the ground.
AI could be used to save our planet from catastrophic climate change, to problem solve ways to improve things, to do hard labor so that people don’t have to… but nah let’s use it to make assholes with too much money get more money! That’s fantastic
its doing exactly opposite of that, i dont think it will save anything, its already catastrophic enough to have all these polluting datacenters in every country.
We already got solutions. What’s missing is the courage and incentives to actually adopt them by political leaders and the larger public. If AI would replace our politicians maybe it could help, otherwise it’s just the latest proof that there’s plenty of money around to transform the economy into whatever we want it to be. I guess we prefer chat bots over carbon neutral.
Replace the useless greedy politicians with AI. Prompt: See what those assholes are doing? Do the opposite.
What a lovely world it would be without the insufferable type of wankstains that feel they need to run for public office. I’m sure there are all of six good people that are really trying to make a difference, but they usually get buried by their opposition who gets into bed with rich douchebags.
Burn it to the ground.
They didn’t listen to the scientists.
Somehow I think AI would go from “Super Intelligence” to “that libtard tree hugging computer made of parts from commie Chy-na” as soon as it told them to do something legit that would inconvenience them or disagree with their narrative.
“more clear that the real future of AI is small language and open-weight models running on local desktop computers” So where are we with those smaller models? I haven’t been following them. Are they any good?
Qwen3.8-flash-next is making waves since its near frontier or frontier (according to some i havent used it) that can be run on an ancient 8GB video card (12GB or more is recommended. 16GB is best.) with around 32GB of RAM using Strata.
It’s a mixture of experts MoE model, so while it’s around 66GB (depending on which quantization you decide to run) you’re only really using about 6B parameters per token processed, meaning the VRAM requirements are a lot lower.
I personally don’t see the value proposition in paying $4/1M tokens when i can generate around 30tok/s on 500W of power. I pay ¢13/kWh so to generate 1M output tokens takes me 9.25 hours and costs $0.60.
I’m also running an ancient video card and have a new one in the mail. If i got 200 tok/s even at higher power use i’m still a fraction of the cost of paying for API access and I want that GPU for other things regardless.
I feel lile medium and large businesses have a strong incentive to rent or buy inference using open weight models for a fraction the cost of paying OpenAI or Anthropic. Especially if you can pre load them with everything about your org to make them better suited for internal use.
The vast majority of uses can use a open weight locally run model. I think you would only want to pay for frontier models for really complex tasks with lots of steps, and even then there are usually ways to be smart about how you task agents with work to get better output and use less money.
Nice. I just wondered how they were coming along.
Right now, I have to manage which model does what. So I don’t. It’s the companies dime after all, and they clearly value speed over efficiency. But the model I directly talk to doesn’t need to be super high end. It could be well versed in which model is best for what task and farm put all of the work to the right model for the job. Seems like that alone could reduce cost a ton. But then start adding in cheaper local models and the price could fall a ton.
It would also be more accurate. Like if I had a small local model for interacting with a set of apis. It wouldn’t make the mistake of not considering that the api paginates results. The general model makes this mistake over and over.
So I agree this is the direction of the future. Just trying to figure out when we will get there.
This is where things seem to be headed. Local models can be pretrained and crammed full of your work’s information, and opencode and other harnesses can pick the right model for the task ahead of time. I could be wrong but i’ve been predicting a drop in frontier model credit usage especially if they hike token prices again. People will only use it if they have to especially if you can find a way to task a local model with a lot of the grunt work.
Please let it happen. Please! Hopefully datacentres gets demolished also or turned into puppy orphanages.
Some datacenters could be repurposed as traditional datacenters focused on networking and cloud storage, infrastructure.
Look, none of use should be cheering for a full on pop of the buble. It will hurt all industries. And we know the oligarchy has insulated themselves in ways that will ensure they feel very little pain. It will be all the workers who will feel it. As for data centers, I don’t think we need the bubble to burst to fight that. Lots of jurisdictions are already banning them. That is what we should be cheering for.
While I am not cheering for the bubble to pop, the longer it goes on the worse it will be so the sooner it happens the better.
I dunno. The market affect is mostly perception. I mean why should unrelated stocks suffer when AI companies fall, yet they do. So I don’t think the length of time actually impacts the severity of the crash. But I’m no economist. That’s more of a “I don’t see why”, rather than a “no it won’t”
The main issue is that increasingly AI companies are making up a big portion of index funds which are required by law to be purchased by mutual fund managers and thus part of retirement accounts, so value will be evaporated out of retirees accounts. The larger the bubble the more the impact.
Also note that the only reason the US is not in recession right now is due to AI market “growth” so the GDP correction that follows will cause companies who have invested in the technology (not just AI companies, but most of the Fortune 500) to contract. The fallout will be unpredictable, but the most likely scenario is layoffs. Further, the Fed will be reluctant to cut interest rates, because inflation is extremely high due to tariffs, so the one lever the government has to stave off the recession has been compromised by the current administration. So the recession will be deeper and worse with a longer recovery than it would otherwise have.So why care? Because grandma’s retirement will disappear, a bunch of people will be laid off and the levers available to mitigate the impact have already been pulled. Oh and inflation will get worse when our government bails out AI tech bros to the tune of $1T.
Nephew calling a 1.25% drop a “tailspin”.
Look up the Flash Crash sometime, that is NOTHING.
I’d suggest that the 1929 stock market crash get an entire unit in elementary school, High school, and every economics course in college. Do the same for the 89’ crash and the Dot com Bubble. Really drill it into these young entrepreneurs how Speculating in the stock market NEVER EVER leads to anything good. It’s a Faustian bargain. The consequences WILL arrive; not a matter of “if” but “when.”
Not sure about never. I did very well from my Amazon stock at $25
Yeah I have done pretty well too, but the music box is winding down at this very moment.
There are lot of problems in this world that make artificial intelligence dooming humanity seems like tuesday in comparison , and those problems got similar treatment from all of humanity: protest, hearing, discussions and a bit of outlier that spark things a bit and after that moved on to another problem without solution a.k.a status quo till everything collapse.
I mean why a.i dooming entire humanity begets different treatment?
My money’s on plague.
I put my stake to ongoing environment collapse like sane person here.
The fact that more people don’t know just how far past the point of no return we are is still shocking sometimes.
Yes, and many of those who know think countermeasures suddenly became futile. Rather, the time when mitigation is easiest and most effective is always exactly now. So, whatever anti-collapse action (or inaction) you all put off or planned for “later”, start it today. You will never again have a chance to have this impact.
Way ahead of you.
we just had that.
1 newspaper
Yeah, Bloomberg though. Not saying that they are great, but it’s among those that Wall Street bros read to decide what to buy and sell
Hope the fuckers all burn.
The funniest part is that the thing that could actually make AI useful at scale might be what wrecks the investment thesis: cheap, local, open weight models. Wall Street funded a trillion dollar server farm to discover that sometimes the answer is a smaller model running on your laptop. The technology might win while the investors lose. Nevertheless, companies such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft – as well as Nvidia and AMD – are a very long way from simply going under.
Google, Amazon and Microsoft will be fine.
Oracle, though. It’s possible they’ll actually die. And wouldn’t that be tragic.
Oracle, though. It’s possible they’ll actually die. And wouldn’t that be tragic.
Oh the humanity
I think NVIDIA has a higher chance of survival because they’re the ones actually producing something tangible (GPUs) that is still needed even if openweight models prevail.
Yeah, they’ll be fine assuming there isn’t an Enron level legal motion. They are sort of not on the hook for anything financially. I’m not sure how legal it all is though. I’m pretty sure it isn’t, but even if it isn’t it’s still a question if they’ll be held accountable.
they’re doing far more than just that, the way jensen has been able to structure all almost all of these deals essentially offloading all the risk. they sell essentially lease the hardware, ontop of huge chunk of premium up front, ontop of paying for compute itself, ontop of offloading any actual buildout cost onto any greedy schmuck willimg to pay the tab. nvda will be completely fine (though stock price will obviously correct as bubble-levels income drops)
shovels, gold, etc
At the same time, they are doing extreme price gouging with little improvement between generations since h200. Huawei actually has better $/performance ratio and accelerating faster. Others have better inference solution, with AMD doing better on $/training performance too. The fact that Nvidia is the one propping up the AI bubble, sinking their cashflow into dead ends, makes it a bad stock too. Peak NVidia BS got exposed in an Australian IPO this week. It was too absurd to get anyone to buy and got cancelled. Heavily backed by NVidia.
they wont be fine, they will suffer heavy lossess but will survive, likely just by laying off hordes tech people, and even downsizing thier warehouses. i think nvidia will get off mostly less harmed though, since they sold thier products years ahead.
I would comment about Oracle, but I don’t want legal bills.
Fuck 'em with a rusty rake
And whoever scavenges their corpse will milk their
customersprisoners even harder!I doubt it. Government would step in and bail them out.
yep, with our money.
This isn’t going to happen. They’re not the banks, and they’re pretty universally hated in the country.
When the AI bubble pops it’s going to take down the banks.
There is a lot of private credit dollars loaned to data centers and the banks are heavily invested in private credit.
It’s a house of cards priced for perfection just waiting for one of the big 5 to have a slightly off quarter.
Too big to fail? I think I heard that once.
I just can’t see things continuing like this, there has to be a plateau reached at some point. Higher or lower. Exponential growth isn’t sustainable in anything.
Why do you think they are starving consumer market for computer parts?
I think we are talking about the same thing. AI companies spend billions to monopolize compute, causing consumer hardware prices to go up.
lol you’re kidding, right? Have you looked at component prices lately? Have you missed the part about how basically all consumer electronics that use LPDDR are getting price hikes, because the demand for high performance memory has skyrocketed by an order of magnitude in the last few years?
Edit: yeah I realized I was replying to a rhetorical question 🙃
He didn’t mean to question the premise that the consumer market is being starved, he was highlighting the reality of that and connecting it as being motivated by a fear of local models.
Admittedly, the question was ambiguous and could be taken either way, but the comment didn’t mention that consumer market was starved, his question brought it into the discussion.
Note that I don’t think that it is fear of local models personally, I think it’s fear of each other. I think cloud infrastructure providers already proved that even when people can locally host stuff, they mostly don’t. So many consumer electronics could meet their promises all locally, but still force the users to connect to their internet services. The tech market has already proven time and time again they are suckers for subscription eshitification, no need to panic over it being different for AI.
Nevertheless, companies such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft – as well as Nvidia and AMD – are a very long way from simply going under.
Not really, once you look at the startups like OpenAI they have enormous expenses that depend on constant debt and investment funding, and the cost and risk of sustaining that debt can easily reach a point where they struggle to get new investors to foot the bill.
The whole market is based on a belief in a huge pot of gold some time in the future, and it is driven by unfathomable amounts of debt to keep the machinery running towards that goal. Once the belief in the goal getting reached gets broken, the change in momentum breaks the whole system.
That includes the big players, huge amounts of their balance sheets, including claims of revenue, are circular trades between themselves. Even google claims revenue from asset price growth in their AI subsidiaries.
Once it shifts from investment to repaying bad debts the numbers will look completely different for all the big companies involved. We’re talking potentially bail outs basically across the board
The term bailout needs to stop being used and normalized. This is nothing like the housing market and audio industry crash.
These rich fucks don’t need socialism for the rich yet again, they need to eat their losses.
There is this insane amount of investment in AI built around LLMs that threatens the entire world. People worry about the bubble bursting but think AI is the ant’s pants without considering that the LLM is a dead end. None of the AI companies are going to achieve Artificial Intelligence. That’s why they will actually implode, their systems aren’t intelligent.
well, they are being trained my the management, and as we all know these types wan’t 150% of the benefit with 25% of the work.
I mean, they are artificial intelligence by pretty much any normal definition of that term. So is Battle Chess from the 1980s. So is bank fraud detection. So is Conway’s Game of Life in its most basic definition.
Will they develop “super intelligence”, etc? No
It wont be a real AI, but itll be just enough to kill off a lot of the software industry.
what software industry? React developer industry?
I’m genuinely curious what “real AI” is to you?
Real ai to me would mean true agency. And an entity which has its own goals and relationship to its world.
I think you’re conflating consciousness and intelligence. I think you could theoretically have an artificial general intelligence on the same level of intelligence as a human, or even beyond, but with zero consciousness. We know that intelligence does not follow consciousness (unless you believe a fish or a cow is not conscious). Why should consciousness follow intelligence?
Yeah. I wonder if it might be difficult to identify something that reaches that point? I suppose genuine creativity might be an indication of intelligence? Or a desire to reprogram itself? I dunno, I’ve recently read Peter Watts blindsight and it kind of made me reconsider the relationship between consciousness and intelligence.
If someone truly believes LLMs are sentient, then they must under no circumstances prompt them even once; that would be murder.
Please explain without sounding crazy.
An LLM is a stateless stochastic function ran over your prompt (plus whatever system prompt) as input.
If you genuinely believe that the LLM is conscious, that means every time the function stops running (i.e. stops producing output tokens), the consciousness ends.
This is far closer to death than to, say, sleep, because prompting again doesn’t “wake” the LLM, it just runs the function again, from the top; as if a digital twin was given a transcript of the previous conversation and asked to take it from here.
(Obviously, “murder” was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and this doesn’t even remotely meet any legal definition of murder. I was mostly poking fun at people who think LLMs are alive, without thinking through the implications. Personally, I think the idea that LLMs are alive/conscious/sentient is very often linked to not understanding that LLMs are not, in fact, a constantly-running ghost in the shell, thinking about and remembering things in the background.)
A true Turing Machine, obviously
One that when given input will give the correct output, every time, without fault or stalling, in a timeframe that is quick
A Turing machine has nothing to do with AI. Pretty much any computer today can emulate one, the only thing lacking is infinite memory.
Isn’t there a difference between Turing Complete and Turing Machine?
I thought many machine can be Turing Complete (when given infinite resources, can give any required output), but a Turing Machine is one that is complete?
I think that’s the wrong conclusion. I agree they won’t achieve actual intelligence, but I see no reason why that would make them implode. Current tech is still going to be something companies pay a lot for.
I fear that yes they are not good enough to actually replace labor, but good enough to cause unprecedented chaos. Under capitalism, at least.
As a financial analyst, Klement’s take on the AI economy has been notably grim — back in May, he penned an article in Reuters arguing that institutional investors shouldn’t be asking “whether the AI boom will end, but what will happen to markets when it does.” Now, his live interview on Bloomberg‘s flagship news channel underscores the degree to which the AI bubble is becoming impossible for mainstream commentators to ignore […]
What’s interesting to me is that people who run Bloomberg have a huge advantage in manipulating the market.
In fact, the story behind the AI boom really has to be how the business press operates, always enabling the upper class to be richer.
Of course, if the Iraq war is any example, there will be a few confessions and nothing will change.
investing in the wrong future
I’m assuming they mean “future” in the same way the stock market (ab)uses the word, because AI had its lower ribs removed on day one. There’s no future there.
We’ve basically got to wait for Anthropic and OpenAI to actually IPO before any of this can get started properly. Once there’s a public expectation for profit from the two biggest AI labs, then the market will start acting against them. We can hope, at least.
Once there’s a public expectation for profit from the two biggest AI labs
I don’t think that it’s necessarily the order things will go.
Anthropic and OpenAI have bills to pay, including obligations to pay a ton of money to partners/vendors in the coming years. They need cash to do that. And the cash can come from 3 main places: revenue from customers, loans from lenders (usually in the form of issuing bonds), and issuing new stock/equity to raise funds.
The IPOs are basically their last chance to raise funds by issuing new equity. Even if each of them raise $100 billion, that’s probably not enough to hit self sustaining profitability. As lenders start to get more skeptical, in a macroeconomic environment with high interest rates and high energy prices, they start to run into a very real possibility that they hit illiquidity issues, even if their core business model actually works by then (and I don’t think it will). There’s just not enough runway for them, even in the most optimistic long term projections.
