At one point I'm pretty sure there are six paragraphs shortly after each other that are all trying to restate the paragraphs before it. Since nothing seemed to become much clearer I kind of gave up at that point.
Following HNs guidelines, my most charitable interpretation of your response is that you don’t understand the arguments or numbers behind them and you aren’t just dismissing the arguments because you don’t like them. For that I’m saying you need to feed the article to the LLM of your choice and work back and forth until you get to an understanding of what’s being argued.
> For that I’m saying you need to feed the article to the LLM of your choice
Ahh, the daily cry of the AntiAI crusader. Pretty fun to see it over here, tho! Usually it’s confined to reddit and bsky.
That definitely does not follow HN guidelines.
I mean you don't need that much text or numbers to argue most of the AI hardware spend seems driven by two companies, who likely need to spend more next year to match projected growth.
But then there's a lot of repetition and calling those two companies unprofitable and unsustainable, which I really hoped he would expand upon but he didn't get that far before I gave up.
I don't see him making that claim, though.
Screwdrivers aren't useless. Screwdrivers have gotten a lot better over the decades. Everyone uses screwdrivers these days. Investing $500 billion into screwdrivers and expecting the screwdriver industry to grow to a double-digit percentage of GDP is still a really stupid idea. Let's face it: Universal Screwdriver[0] isn't going to happen.
They never refute his claims with anything substantial. They just call you “anti ai” or whatever (despite the argument having nothing to do with the technology, just a subset of companies).