iusewindows

He is irrelevant to future trends, as should be clear from basic reading comprehension. And so what...? Tens of thousands of people, probably more, have worked in film. Each one of these is immune to criticism and an accurate futurist? My point remains, he engaged with every early comment except the polite one from xp84, which lays out the same general issue already.

Nolan is irrelevant. He is the last of a dying breed. Once him and his ilk are gone, studios will go 100% into AI slop, Oscars be damned. No company is funneling 200 million into risky Oscar bait when they can make one hour Tiktok equivalents and get higher ROI. Movie theaters as a whole might go the Blockbuster route in a decade or two. The younger generations are not supporting the film industry with their eyeballs or dollars.

Someone else already replied to you politely explaining this from another angle, but for some reason you not to engage with him.

Today I read a stupid Hackernews comment about how AI is useless. Therefore Hackernews is stupid. Oh, I need a filtered list of which comments to read?

Do you build computers by ordering random parts off Alibaba and complaining when they are deficient? You are complaining that you need to RTFM for a piece of high tech?

The shovel analogy is typically used to discuss tools versus goals, irrespective of the microeconomics of buying and selling.

I can use another sector, biotech, as an example. The sequencing industry spends billions of dollars designing and selling the next generation of sequencers, along with collecting more and more data. They are still actively researching and developing new platforms. The end goal (product) of biotech is ultimately to produce a medicine. Pharma is in the business of end products. You can spend billions on sequencing and never produce a new medicine.

Shovels = sequencing

End product = medicine

That has nothing to do with the cost or availability of shovels. As a biology major, you could choose to go into sequencing or go into medical research.

AI is a tool. For what? In the future, who knows--isn't that the big question at the moment, about whether the investments are justified and so on. But other businesses will presumably purchase and use these AI services. OpenAI can spend $500 billion, but how are they going to recover the cost (short of AGI demolishing HFT or the like, or simply taking over the world) without another business buying it and using it to create value in the form of end products.

Shovels are typically B2B.

End products are B2C.

OpenAI doesn't need anything from (the proverbial) you. Also, I stated in the title, "Currently". We aren't talking about doomsday AGI situations where AI exists as the end-all of humanity, and the point is just to own it. For current investors and labor, the model appears to be that these large companies sell their AI services.