""Despite its expensive price tag, the technology is nowhere near where it needs to be in order to be useful," Jim Covello, Goldman Sachs's most senior stock analyst and a 30-year veteran of covering tech companies, said in a recent report about AI. "Overbuilding things the world doesn't have use for, or is not ready for, typically ends badly.""

Who should I believe: (a) Goldman analyst with 30 years experience or (b) HN commenters who consistently dismiss any and all criticism of "AI".

Every criticism or iota of skepticism of "AI", even something as simple as "show me the money", gets countered on HN. It reminds me of the way HN commenters defend "crypto". It is like some sort of religion.

Every day, we have to wade through endless submissions about "AI". Yet an HN poll showed voters thought "AI" was overhyped.

I am going with (a).

Too much focus on "the future" while trying to deflect attention away from the present. Vapourware tactics.