61,795 karma · joined March 23, 2021
“Wow! Signore professore dottore Eco, what a library you have! How many of these books have you read?”
"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life."
- Jean-Luc PicardYou are still on time, to coach a model to create a reply saying the are completely wrong, and send back a print screen of that reply :-)) Bonus points for having the model include disparaging comments...
The hyperscalers are spending 600 billion a year, and literally betting their companies future, on what will happen over the next 24 months...but the bloggers are all doing it for philanthropy and to play with cool tech....Got it...
With these assumptions:
– Big 4 keep spending at current pace for 3 more years
– Returns only start showing after aprox 2 years
– Heavy competition with around 20% operating margin on AI and Cloud
– Use of 9% cost of capital
This is the current reality:
AWS aprox $142B/yr
Azure aprox $132B/yr
Google Cloud around $71B/yr
Combined its about $330B to $340B annual cloud revenue today
And lets says Global public cloud market of $700B total today.
To justify the current capex trajectory under those assumptions, by year 3 the big hyperscalers would need roughly $800B to $900B in new annual revenue just to earn a normal return on the capital being deployed.
That implies combined hyperscaler cloud and AI revenue going from: $330B today to $1.2T within 3 years :-))
In other words...Cloud would need to roughly do 4× in a very short window, and the incremental revenue alone would exceed the entire current global cloud market.
So for the investment wave to make financial sense, at least one of these must be true:
1 Cloud/AI spending globally explodes far beyond all prior forecasts
2 AI massively increases revenue/profit in ads, software, commerce and not just cloud
3 A winner takes all outcome where only 1 or 2 players earn real returns
4 Or a large share of this capex never earns an economic return and is defensive
People keep modeling this like normal cloud growth. But what we have is insanity
However I would argue there are significant gaps:
- You do not name your consulting clients. You admit to do ad-hoc consulting and training for unnamed companies while writing daily about AI products. Those client names are material information.
- You have non payments that have monetary value. Free API credits, and weeks of early preview access, flights, hotels, dinners, and event invitations are all compensation. Do you keep those credits?
- The "I have not accepted payments from LLM vendors" could mean receiving things worth thousands of dollars. Please note I am not saying you did.
- You have a structural conflict. Your favorable coverage will mean preview access, then exclusive content then traffic, then sponsors, then consulting clients.
- You appeared in an OpenAI promotional video for GPT-5 and were paid for it. This is influencer marketing by any definition.
- Your quotes are used as third-party validation in press coverage of AI product launches. This is a PR function with commercial value to these companies.
The FTC revised Endorsement Guides explicitly apply to bloggers, not just social media influencers. The FTC defines material connection to include not only cash payments but also free products, early access to a product, event invitations, and appearing in promotional media all of which would seem to apply here.
They also say in the FTC own "Disclosures 101" guide that states [2]: "...Disclosures are likely to be missed if they appear only on an ABOUT ME or profile page, at the end of posts or videos, or anywhere that requires a person to click MORE."
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-...
[2] - https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/10...
I would argue an ecosystem of free access, preview privileges, promotional video appearances, API credits, and undisclosed consulting does constitute a financial relationship that should be more transparently disclosed than "I have not accepted payments from LLM vendors."
I will reformulate my question to ask instead if the page is still 100% correct or needs an update?
Their page looks to me like a lot of invented jargon and pure narrative. Every technique is just a renamed existing concept. Digital Twin Universe is mocks, Gene Transfusion is reading reference code, Semport is transpilation. The site has zero benchmarks, zero defect rates, zero cost comparisons, zero production outcomes. The only metric offered is "spend more money".
Anyone working honestly in this space knows 90% of agent projects are failing.
The main page of HN now has three to four posts daily with no substance, just Agentic AI marketing dressed as engineering insight.
With Google, Microsoft, and others spending $600 billion over the next year on AI, and panicking to get a return on that Capex....and with them now paying influencers over $600K [1] to manufacture AI enthusiasm to justify this infrastructure spend, I won't engage with any AI thought leadership that lacks a clear disclosure of financial interests and reproducible claims backed by actual data.
Show me a real production feature built entirely by agents with full traces, defect rates, and honest failure accounting. Or stop inventing vocabulary and posting vibes charts.
mods please update.
I hope there will be harder problem waiting for you, than using flamegraphs to optimize GenAI Porn.
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/14/openai-chatgpt-erotica-ment...
Wait for the second set of files...
"...One of Mr. Epstein’s former boat captains told The New York Times earlier this year that he had seen Mr. Brin on the island more than once..."
https://dnyuz.com/2026/01/31/powerful-men-who-turn-up-in-the...
The man running the kiosk asks "Is there something wrong with the paper?"
"No, I'm just looking for an obituary"
The man at the kiosk lets out a laugh. "Well, sir, you aren't going to find the obituaries on the front page."
"The one I'm looking for will be on the front page."
https://www.wsj.com/finance/jeffrey-epstein-advised-sergey-b...
"Jeffrey Epstein's autopsy: A closer look" - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-autopsy-a-close...
- Jeffrey EpsteinIt is from an extremely articulate and intelligent Epstein victim, that is only speaking out after the DOJ, either trough incompetence or most likely via malicious compliance, had her personal information in the released files.
I think we agree...this site is indeed full of idiots confidently spouting nonsense. :-)
The Journal of Accountancy - "Bugged by Excel’s calculation errors" - https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2014/mar/excel-c...
ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants) — "Rounding Errors Revisited" (Excel Tips #447) - https://www.icaew.com/technical/technology/excel-community/e...
Just a reminder that an accountant who might say "I use Currency format" is still working in binary floating point as the format is just used as a display mask. And using VBA macros with the Currency type will hit problems at the boundary, when values move between the worksheet and the macro. The tool is broken in a way that proper accounting software is not...
"Floating-point arithmetic may give inaccurate results in Excel" - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/microsoft-365...
But you are correct, this entire site is full of idiots confidently spouting nonsense... :-)
"Floating-point arithmetic may give inaccurate results in Excel" - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/microsoft-365...
"Classification of Spreadsheet Errors" - https://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.4224
"A study conducted by Coopers & Lybrand found errors in 90% of the spreadsheets audited."
"Impact of Errors in Operational Spreadsheets" - https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0715
"What We Don’t Know About Spreadsheet Errors Today" - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.02601
I just hope the divine powers of Luca Pacioli might help you, before is too late. A whole set of accounting bodies and real world disasters expressly advise against its use and spreadsheets in general.
You even have dedicated pages...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spreadsheet_mistakes
EuSPRIG Horror Stories - Spreadsheet mistakes
https://eusprig.org/research-info/horror-stories/
For example the (ICAEW) UK chartered accountants explicitly warn auditors. And research has shown that around 94% in these contexts contain errors:
"Errors in Operational Spreadsheets" - https://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/images/uploads/faculty/se...
Also... Excel does not use exact decimal arithmetic. It stores numbers in IEEE-754 binary floating point, which cannot precisely represent many decimal values used in accounting. Microsoft documents this explicitly:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/troubleshoot/excel/...
It also only preserves 15 significant digits and silently zeroes anything beyond that:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/excel-specificati...
So this means:
– decimal values are approximated
– rounding errors accumulate
– large financial values lose precision
– results depend on formula structure and rounding order
That alone disqualifies it as Accounting ledger. Historically you have lots of famous examples of bad outcomes of treating Excel as financial infrastructure...
The JPMorgan London Whale - $6B loss A flawed Excel risk model and copy paste errors understated risk and helped produce multi-billion losses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_JPMorgan_Chase_trading_lo...
TransAlta energy trading — $24M loss Simple spreadsheet row misalignment in bidding model cost aprox 10% of the company profit. https://www.lumeer.io/spreadsheet-for-project-management/
Fannie Mae - $1.3B reporting error wrong spreadsheet formula caused more than $1B accounting misstatement. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/oct/28/microsoft... https://archive.is/w1cjj
Fidelity Magellan — $2.6B error Missing minus sign in a spreadsheet overstated capital gains by billions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spreadsheet_mistakes
Large audit firms also publish entire risk frameworks, ( and I am sure PWC does also...) explaining why uncontrolled spreadsheets are a major source of financial misstatement in the first place.