Big Tech's AI Push Is Costing More Than the Moon Landing
wsj.com
wsj.com
Just need to make sure the wealth is spread equally
Now if we could only make thinking machines. ;-)
(Kind of surprised at all the negging of moon landings in this thread. Maybe I'm just of an older generation. At least one other post here points out all the spinoffs in regard to integrated circuits, etc. that came from the previous apace race.)
But thinking machines, even if they only have an IQ of 70 right now, even if they may end humanity, are still a technological marvel on the order of splitting the atom
Somehow this doesn't feel like the same kind of achievement though. We had the whole of the country pulling for the moon landing. Instead we have a handful of CEO's schmoozing Wall Street, raping the power grid, making hardware unobtainium for the rest of us for this "moon shot".
We chose to go to the moon because it was hard. We choose to build AI because it will make corporate America rich? (Somehow doesn't have the same ring to it in Peoria.)
And as we have already seen, the downsides of AI are extensive—they may turn out to outweigh the benefits? Other than cost, it's hard to find a downside to the moon landing.
I'm saying that the best current AI probably has an IQ of at least 60-70, and that is more impressive than getting a few people on the moon for a few hours. As far as I'm concerned we've made another thinking mind, it's not exactly creating life from nothing, but it's pretty close.
TBH It sounds like this is a tremendously emotional topic for you if it's absolutely inconceivable that somebody could think that anybody could have a different opinion...
Also you're kinda a jerk ftr.
To be fair, I don’t think distributing wealth equally even makes sense but we should definitely aim for distributing wealth in a way that most people can get through life with all their basic needs comfortably met.
That doesn’t mean it’s useless. It just means the infrastructure is way ahead of the everyday experience.
What I keep noticing is that the big breakthroughs aren’t coming from bigger models. They’re coming from very specific product decisions.
Things like:
– Apps that understand context without you re-explaining everything
– Interfaces that predict what you need before you type
– Systems that remove 3–4 manual steps
That’s where the real shift is happening.
If all this spending just results in faster chatbots, the market will correct hard. But if it turns into software that genuinely reduces friction in daily work, then the long term value will be justified.
I wrote about this recently: what features will mobile apps need in 2026 if they don’t want to loose users. Most of it has nothing to do with flashy demos and everything to do with removing invisible friction.
Do others here think spending is ahead of product reality or if we’re underestimating what’s quietly being built?
On another note I wish there is some break down of where all the spendings goes to. GPU, CPU, RAM, Network, Switch, Cables, Power, Datacenter. The AI ecosystem and business is larger than Smartphone revolution kick started by Apple, but unlike Smartphone or consumer products these Hyperscaler and AI spending right now it is very opaque.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_Moon_rocks.
The effort to drive carbon emissions to 0 continues in earnest, but climate chaos is already here, and at this rate it’s going to get much worse before we finally take this problem seriously.
Isn’t it good people didnt think this way when the internet revolution happened? One could’ve rationalised not building out the internet because of supposed scare of climate change. But the gains we got from internet far surpassed any climate related problems.
Also the US and the Soviet Union raced to get to the moon first, but the whole internet-connected world gets LLMs right now.
AI stuff (and tbh all silicon valley tech companies even outside AI) all seem to be funded by the theoretical valuation of various companies and barely any of it is hard cash. All stock deals and dog food.