Hacker News Reader

That assumes that their use of AI does not generate cash flow. Trivial example: the ones reselling tokens.

You can't analyse expenditure assuming income is constant, because all expenditure decisions will be made with a view to how they affect income.

View on HN

Token resellers don't change the equation, they are just adding a tax to the revenue stream, it still has to flow from an actual upstream source.

If your argument is that a bunch of consumer-facing companies are collectively suddenly making trillions more in revenue due to adopting AI... well, I have a pretty nice bridge for sale here

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that's a case you have to make, not one you can just derive from an accounting identity. Also it doesn't have to be increased revenue- it can be reduced costs. This is more likely to be their motivation. Of course, it's one that may be more problematic for the economy as a whole.

In general, political discussion suffers a lot from far too much of it being simply "I am obviously right, you are an idiot and/or malicious if you believe the other guy". This is not a dig at you personally, look at any political discussion and you will see that 99% of it is like that. Our public sphere would be in better condition if more people pushed back on it. So no, I don't think anyone should accept "proof by ridicule/slur".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com