rhetocj23

My point is reading does not provide substantial value, it provides barely any because you have to net out the opportunity cost of time spent reading. The gains are realised when you think and do something with the information consumed.

Therefore reading and watching are not the key to success.

Yeah the conversion rate is poor and its demand is not price inelastic, I would argue for many individuals demand is very price elastic.

Difficult to say for certain.

It depends on the extent to which the promise was peddled and whether MSFT can be trusted with the cash balance - investors will reflect that in the stock price in future if there is a bubble bursting event. If that scenario pans out, Apple will be sitting there very pretty given it has not spent any real money on pursuing LLMs.

You learn by doing and thinking.

Not reading and watching.

Pure and simple.

Yes but the sunk cost is also driving that - the investment has to show growth in cashflows, to the extent it is beating the hurdle rate to add value.

Yeah Im just waiting for this to finally play out.

If you understand product design, economics, corporate finance and various other disciplines well - its obvious what is going on.

MSFT wants to juice their numbers for the next earnings call to keep the mania going. Zzzzzzzzzzz

Ive spoken to people who work in the finance sector - portfolio management and tax audit - they laugh hysterically at how bad the tools are (copilot in particular) and resent how much they are being pushed down on them.

Lol lets not even talk about his comical toupee.

Much like a boil.

I think certain people are far too deep into it that there’s no rationale behind what is going on now.

It’s all about ‘accelerating’ forward at all costs.

Cringe

Whats the time horizon for said problems to be solved? Because guess what - time is running and people will not continue to aimlessly provide money at this stuff.

Wealthy people are extremely well diversified. Their main risk exposure is to variables that effect the entire market - e.g interest rates.

lol you and I are not talking about the same stuff mate

You haven’t brought in the side costs into your analysis

The market is due a correction irrespective of bubble mania.

The implied equity risky premium is getting pretty low - a sign of greed.

Yeah thats the thing. I believe there is a mismatch between the firm and the tech being pursued. As a result, Meta will make some strange decisions that otherwise couldve been done differently to yield a viable product.

I find it funny we assume (arrogantly) that progress will just keep on coming.

Really? Im not convinced we have the right people in this day-and-age to bring about those leaps.

It might be that humanity goes another 50 years until someone comes around with a novel take.

Isnt this what social media is?

Do you know what the concept of time value of money means?

The further out into the future you go, the less valuable the returns are when taken back into the present.

The reality is, Mr Zuck is a manager who is there to invest the cash of its shareholders on their behalf into projects that beat the hurdle rate. Shareholders dont care abut how cool the tech is.

Zuck isnt the kinda charismatic leader akin to Jobs who can actually get the best out of people.

I remain unconvinced re. his management style. Thus far it seems to work if the product is oriented around A/B testing.

Is it though? Zuck has a very coloured history and is not really the innovator he wants to think he is.

He seems to have an obsession of breaking free of Apples control.

Errm thats nothing of the kind I requested.

So I continue to sit here laughing. Keep coming back with weak evidence though.

"I suppose the big advantage of being more “productive” is that you can churn through more wrong ideas more quickly and thus perhaps improve your chances of stumbling across something that is valuable."

But I think there is a very big danger here - you build in the action but completely neglect the deep thinking behind a vision, strategy etc.

So yes you produce more stuff. But that stuff means more money spent - which is generally a sunk cost too.

In a bizarre way, I predict we will see the failure rate of software firms rise. Despite the fact these 'productivity' tools exist.

It might actually be in Googles best interest to damage the interest in LLMS by showing those crappy AI Mode stuff, because it materially impacts their business model.

The perception of LLMs in the gen pop is what matters, not in the eyes of techies.

Jeez. Brutal but true.

Yeah I agree.

A controlled experiment done with a representative sample would be lovely. In the long-run it comes down to the financial impact that occurs incrementally because of LLMs.

In the short-run, from what I see, firms are trying to play-up the operational efficiency gains they have achieved. Which then signals promise to investors in the stock market, for which, investors then translate this promise into expectations about the future which are then reflected in the present value of equity.

But in reality it seems to be reducing head-count because they over-hired before the hype and furore of LLMs.

Yeah exactly… hardly comparable to the median or mean dev

I’ve asked this many times on here - I never get a coherent answer

Very curious to hear responses about this too

One thing I don’t get - If you spend much of your time reviewing, you’re just reading - you’re not actually doing anything - you’re passive in the activity of code production. By extension you will become worse at knowing what a good standard of code is and become worse at reviewing code.

I’m not a SWE so I have no interests to protect by criticising what is going on.