Hacker News Reader

Comment by coffeecoders | Hacker News Reader

Every bubble looks obvious in hindsight. The dot-com crash left behind Amazon and Google. The crypto crash left behind Coinbase and a few real revenue generating companies. If this is the AI bubble, then the survivors are going to look very obvious in a decade, we just don’t know which ones yet.

View on HN

> The crypto crash left behind Coinbase and a few real revenue generating companies.

A lot of us clocked the crypto bullshit waaaay before the crash.

Crypto isn't bullshit well most of it is but the utility is still used by millions of people around the world, specifically USDT and USDC which they proven a good way to move your assets without too much regulations.

So it is regulatory arbitrage. I think many of the critics never contested that crypto is good for doing crime. The critics just also think that either those crimes should continue to be prevented via the financial system or the financial system should be deregulated for all without a crypto backdoor.

A Money Market Fund gives you interest if you are able to access it.

This is kind of a pattern:

1. There is some regulation that is inefficient ( e.g. taxi medallions, KYC, copyright protection ...)

2. New technology comes about which allows startups to claim that they have invented a new area that should be regulated differently

3. Turns out (2) is not true and new technology can easily be mapped to existing regulation but it would look bad for the regulator to take away the punchbowl

4. There is some down-turn (bubble pops) and the regulator takes away the punchbowl OR investors have accumulated so much money/power that they corrupt the government to have new rules for their businesses

> A lot of us clocked the crypto bullshit waaaay before the crash.

I'm sorry what crash are you talking about?

But google and amazon were obvious to those in the know, in terms of what they delivered.

S Jobs called it back in 1995-97 - he referred to it as shopping for information and shopping for good and services.

Nobody has this crystal clear, tangible vision re. LLMs. Nobody at all. That is a big problem.

I found the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqSfFcaluHc&t=1700s

Personally I never tougth of Google as a dotcom era company. Most of those were landing pages with news and chat rooms.

It was more of web 2.0 company.

It was founded 1998, very much dotcom era, and had no significant web 2.0 products for years after that.

And the term 2.0 was coined in 1999.

Right, but the term and the concept didn't really take off until years later. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0:

> The term "Web 2.0" was coined by Darcy DiNucci, an information architecture consultant, in her January 1999 article "Fragmented Future" [...] her "2.0" designation refers to the next version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term's current use.

> The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2002.

Google's first big Web 2.0 products were GMail (beta launched in 2004, just before Google's IPO) and Google Maps (2005).

Gmail and Google Maps were prototypical 2.0.

Gmail's beta started in 2004, and Google Maps launched in 2005. Google's IPO was in 2004, so Web 2.0 products played no part in its enormous early growth.

Gmail had a fundamental part in Googles IPO.

Because LLMs are a technology, not a business.

Ultimately it doesn't matter who survives the AI bubble, because they are all more or less equivalent, proposing the same technical solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com