Predicting the timing of such a thing is notoriously difficult. I don't think being wrong about timing 2 years ago means there won't be a correction.
They were right about all of that but it took 15-20 years and the companies involved grew 100x in that timefold, eventually reaching trillion-dollar valuations that would've seemed insane in 2007.
There is a tremendous amount of money to be made in destroying society.
What I remember from that time period is people predicting that we were in a tech bubble driven by social media, that obviously Facebook and LinkedIn were overvalued because social media was a trivial fad, and so on. Example article pulled at random:
https://theconversation.com/linkedin-is-floating-on-air-or-i...
And yet there was no bubble, these companies did fine and Meta became a financial Godzilla.
Anyone remember this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6IQ_FOCE6I
How many of the logos that scroll by there still exist?
Ironically I feel like it captures the spirit of the then-coming 2010s boom more than the climate in 2007, though some of the language it's using is decidedly pre-mobile and more "web 2.0"-ish.
So, it stands to reason that it wasn't a prediction, but a lucky guess (unless the alleged predictor has a history of correct predictions).
I'm not open-minded to arguments about utility, given that I personally witnessed LLMs evolve from interesting but useless toys to insanely helpful tools I use every day.
So the claim is the cost isn't coming down enough to make it make sense for a lot of uses in the long term. When I hear that next to the most wild claims, some by influential people, that the entire white collar workforce is going to be replaced very shortly, it's a bit of a useful reality check.
If I had someone giving me free access to cranes and excavators, I'd be raving about how easy it was to build houses now. But tomorrow when I have to pay full price for them, I'm going to be making very different calculations about return on investment.
The question we need to be asking is "what is the likely full-price cost we'll have to pay for these tools, and is that cost likely to be worth paying?"
What Ed's pointing to is that the full-price cost will have to cover the capital expenditures that have been invested, or the companies which risked that capital will go bust. That gives us a floor for what the full price cost will be, and that floor seems higher than the value being offered by the tools.
Is reading comprehension really this bad nowadays?