Hacker News Reader

The other thing that's tiring is talking about how AI is a bubble as if that's an indictment of AI.

Being a bubble is a statement about the value of the stock market, not about the technology. There was a dotcom bubble, but that does not mean the internet wasn't valuable. And if you bought at the top of the dotcom bubble you'd be much wealthier now than you were when you bought. But it would have taken you a significant time to break even.

View on HN

If you bought ETFs, yes, but not if you bought Pets.com and Yahoo.

Right, which is a distinction that matters if you have a sensible view of what it means to be in a bubble.

But many people talking about AI being a bubble aren't trying to figure out which ticker is going to win in the long run, they're trying to convey a belief that AI is bogus altogether.

There's widespread agreement that nobody knows whether the AI valuations we see are right. What I'm saying is tiring is people who confuse that idea with an indictment of the technology.

It say something about how useful is it when it is not subsidiced.

The bubble exists be cause no AI company gets any profits and laughable revenue.

Is it 2000$/month useful is the interesting question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com