The headline invites the reader to think these liabilities are concealed from investors, but they're not. Deeper in the article it talks about how credit-rating agencies explicitly includes in their modeling.
The guarantee allows lenders to behave partly as though they're lending to NVIDIA, Meta or Broadcom rather than to an AI startup or single-purpose data-center company.
The interesting question isn't "Is the debt hidden?" (it isn't), but is who ultimately owns the downside risk of the AI infra boom?
More interesting headline would be "Big Tech is using its creditworthiness to finance the AI boom without taking on equivalent amounts of direct debt."
Why are people such big opponents of the AI buildout?
I generally don't see many cons to it.
1. Big tech was just using profits to buy back shares before AI build out. Would you rather they buy back shares with their profits or finance the AI build out?
2. If there is an AI bubble, great, when it pops, we'll all have ultra cheap tokens and we'll have all these amazing AI infrastructure built for the next wave of innovation.
3. Even if AI progress stops here and models hit a wall in intelligence, we'll still have AI good enough to solve millennium problems.
My theories on why people are so anti-AI:
1. It threatens their jobs.
2. They want AI stocks to drop so they can buy the dip.
3. Their identity is being challenged because AI makes what they do easier.
We don't have enough energy production for massive AI buildouts. New energy capacity will not come online fast. National and regional grids will be stressed contributing to impacts on populations and industries. New energy capacity will be expensive and if carbon-intensive will accelerate climate breakdown. Additionally at current fossil fuel prices, energy prices (will) rise dramatically.
Currently planned locations for buildouts are suboptimal at best, horrible at worst and vehemently opposed by local populations. That could be NIMBYISM, but in this case it's probably justified: who would want a noisy, ugly-looking grey cube raising electricity prices near their house?
And that's just one angle. There are many more. Nothing to do with "AI will take our jobs", that's a pretty low-effort justification/theory.
That on its own would be a good incentive for the AI bubble to pop ;-)
As others have pointed out though, I'd be keen to see how much of it is gas turbines.
I'm also not convinced that energy buildouts are seeing as much interest and by the time they come online prices will already have skyrocketed (that is, after the current skyrocketing).
We are building more dirty fossil fuel energy to keep up with AI demands. When the solar build out is further along, and the grid is updated, it will be more acceptable to be using so much energy. Spinning up a bunch of new gas powered plants because they want to move too fast is terrible
Did the federal government bail out dotcom burst? Why and how do you think the government can bail out an AI burst?
Too fast? So it’s getting too smart too fast to you. But at the same time, they are going to need a bailout to you.
I don’t think they’re tricking anyone at all. Most normal people don’t care. They just use AI when it’s helpful to them. It’s only people who are on HN or X who care.
The dotcom burst wasn't concentrated in a a couple of well-connected companies. The better comparison is the financial crisis, and yes, they did bail them out.
No, it is not getting too smart. Moving too fast means exactly the opposite, they are doing idiotic and destructive things because the models are not as smart as they want us to think
It's clear from reading your posts in this thread you are just trolling and not trying to have good faith discussion
What is the government going to do? Bail out Nvidia, Google, Microsoft, Meta? Why? They're all extremely profitable companies. At worse, they lose a year or two of profits. Who cares.
No, it is not getting too smart. Moving too fast means exactly the opposite, they are doing idiotic and destructive things because the models are not as smart as they want us to think
The ability to do destructive things suggests that AI's capabilities are increasing.
Do you have good faith discussion? You haven't acknowledged anything that is a pro of AI.
To me its not just about AI, but how they utilize all this financial scenarios to push things absolutely over the top, e.g. fast inclusion into indexes and essentially funding bubble from people's 401k.
What are the benefits to actual people? What you are gonna replace lost jobs with? All electronics with ram or storage is now way more expensive due to AI gobling up everything. And then there are local power grid impact concerns.
I’m not surprised there is. I even spelled out why I think there are so many who are opposed.
There is something very contradictory about these posts.
For example, you seem to suggest that it doesn’t benefit people but AI is can also replace workers. So which is it? AI is very useful to people to a point that one person can do the job of many? Or AI is useless?
Do we have mass unemployment because of AI? No. Our unemployment rate has been very low since ChatGPT.
1) i write code for a living. Without the tool. I have never been impressed by the tools and don't want to use them for work because i know my brain will rot pretty fast, pretty soon. Amused, sure, but they are still stupid by large. Useful idiot remain a useful idiot even if it appears smarte. My boss shows me some cool shit he experimented with all the time, only to have the thing redone from scratch every other week. Still useful, still a mess, still requiring competent people to keep the castle from crumbling. And you can't get competent people without having them do the hard work.
2) i want them to fail and disappear forever. Let open models stay. Let the VC fuckers starve to death before they use MY retirement fund without my consent because they bribe regulator to include them in protected indexes even if they have not followed the process, just because they are the future and too big, trust me bro
3) fuck me if i identify myself with my job, and only my job.
About 1), boss is a smart person that tries things for himself so we are not overemcumbered with everey little idea or thought, tries then sees what's not working then we discuss about it and proceed accordingly. If we have time we do the trying ourselves, but again there is only so much one can do in a work day. Tool is useful to him and that is good, but there is not enough prompting that can save you from "you're absolutely right." even if you use a local model with zero kelvin temperature. It's the nature of the tool, actual skill and experience can never be replaced.
Now, onto how we can get current year juniors and low tier managers to understand that...
Let the VC fuckers starve to death before they use MY retirement fund without my consent because they bribe regulator to include them in protected indexes even if they have not followed the process
Probably aligns with #2. They probably will buy the dip.
3) fuck me if i identify myself with my job, and only my job.
i can assure you that if coding will ever die becuase of AI (it won't.) it doesn't matter because i have a list of other interests and skills i cultivated growing up, and even now. I even have a few i haven't fully explored because a day is only 24 hours, and if i need a job, a competent person will always have work, he can get up to a new task in little time. I have friends always looking for someone with half a brain. Do you have at least half a brain? As a matter of fact, i feel sorry for those that can't see past their day job.
The other poster is right, i took the bait (willingly)
This is absolute nonsense. He is explicitly saying he does not feel threatened by it because he is confident in his own coding skills, and that he does not tie his identity to his work, and you are just making things up saying he actually believes the opposite.
You don't see the cons because you refuse to see or hear. You refuse to actually engage with any of the complaints and examples people show you. You're deluding yourself and thinking that somehow everyone else is the problem and you're the only sane one in the room.
1. Because resources (land and water) are limited and build-out crawls the resources from the more important (even vital) affairs.
2. Because there is still no convincing way how AI giants would make profit. Whatever impressive and useful tricks the stochastic parrot is able to do will never pay back enough to make a breakeven.
3. Because AI giant CEOs are a bunch of galactic-scale douchebags who keep saying "this is far too powerful for a mere mortal, but as long as we hold this power it's okay" with a straight face while presenting us with the stochastic parrot. No, seriously, I'm very impressed. Someone actively subverting the tech narrative couldn't do a better job.
1. We waste a lot of land and water on many less productive things. For example, building massive golf courses that need acres of land and water. What is the threshold for you?
2. Personally, I think the people who say LLMs are stochastic parrots are themselves stochastic parrots. They heard this term from someone online once and now they keep repeating it. Anyways, I’d love to see your math on why you think AI can’t make a profit.
3. You must be new to tech if you think it’s only AI. Many tech CEOs have always been out of touch. I personally don’t care too much about the CEOs. If AI CEOs had better PR, would you be less anti AI?
Golf courses are stupid too, but the scale is nowhere close. The difference is that new golf courses are not financed by an too-big-to-fail infinite money glitch, so they are limited by how many people are willing to spend their money building golf courses.
> If AI CEOs had better PR, would you be less anti AI?
I'm not against AI. I'm against companies blowing up a bubble. Notice that the question "is it a bubble" is orthogonal to "is it useful".
> why you think AI can’t make a profit.
AI can make a profit - in niches. Automatic translation. Mathematic proofs - but yes math is more than proofs and there never were much money there. Maybe code generation in some cases, but I don't see "programmers becoming obsolete" any time soon - spewing out code was never the problem for me, domain knowledge was and still is. And yes, all that doesn't make it any less of a stochastic parrot. A useful parrot, but still a parrot.
But OpenAI and Antropic can't generate the profits they promise at the scale they need to break even. Because
a. Most of their use cases yet demonstrated are self-defeating. Text generation is useless once everyone hates slop and long texts stops becoming a useful signal. The whole story is basically "I can generate infinite gold, I'm now can buy anything". No, your gold is now worth very little. And everyone whose pay was indexed in gold is now fucked too.
b. They have no real moat aside from loads of money. Their entire plan is "growing too big to fail, then engage regulatory capture." And people engaging in in regulatory capture deserve nothing but slow and painful death. Not that it would work anyway, we've got China fixing that, for better or worse.
People whose retirement funds might be impacted by a bubble burst, or who might lose their jobs (or struggle to get a first/next job) in a post crash economy.
You seem to be neglecting the economic impact question and assuming only the ai companies themselves are impacted in a burst.
Yes, I mentioned SpaceX a few minutes ago before your post. I didn’t like that but that’s only one company and it is Elon. He’s been scamming investors well before SpaceX.
I think Anthropic is postponing their IPO because OpenAI is killing it.
They do not have a choice of whether to buy in if they are doing the sound strategy of index funds through their 401k, funds which are now inflated by the bubble
Large index funds that most people’s portfolio inevitably includes substantially invest in AI-adjacent stocks. Not to mention the fact that bubble bursting is not by any means guaranteed to have its effects limited to one sector.
2022-26 is irrelevant for people's retirement savings. They are not or should not be even paying attention to that short-term movement. If the bubble bursts there will be collateral damage that impacts way more than just AI or AI-adjacent companies, and that could have long-term consequences
The entire stock market is being held up by AI. Any company that is not AI for the last 5 years has been declining or flat. But are retirement funds really impacted by the bubbling bursting, or are they simply correcting back to the real economic condition for the majority of the country.
People are scared about their future and don't think AI is going to make things better. And who could blame them? A movie that doesn't have any conflict and ends with everyone being happy and everything is nice isn't going to sell a lot of tickets. So we get endless variations of that movie where AI and robots are going to kill us and terminate humanity.
That is the backdrop against which real life AI that's actually happening and is here today has to compete with. If I was in the horse carriage industry when the car came out, I would be up in arms about it as well. People are scared, and rightly so. If I don't have a job, because they don't need me, because AI can do it, then how do I pay my rent or for food? If we lived in a world where we treated poor people well, and they're just down on their luck, they just need a helping hand that we're happy to give. Then the coming jobpocalypse wouldn't be so scary, and people wouldn't be so up in arms against AI. We only have to look at the history of coal miners to realize that there's no one coming to save us though.
Hearing the ghoulish haunting noise that the jet turbines that Elon Musk put down, and thinking: that could be your future; is enough to get everyone and their mom off the couch and dead set against the entire concept. That noise, non-stop, for the rest of forever.
We don't do subtleties at all, because if you give them an inch, they're going to take a mile, so in a different world it would be possible to be pro AI data centers while also being for upholding regulations on water and noise pollution, along with not raising the cost of electricity, but that doesn't seem to be the world we live in. People don't trust their local politicians to make sure that doesn't happen, so I can't blame people for being against AI data center build outs entirely.
I think people here have stated a variety of reasons. Many go at it from an economics standpoint saying they are anti-AI because they don't think AI will make a profit because it isn't/won't be that smart.
Yet, you are saying something complete opposite. You're saying that AI could become so smart that it makes many people unemployable.
I think your reason is completely different than just about everyone's here. I think it's more honest. I think people here who hate AI for different reasons actually have the same fear inside but they don't want to admit it for some reason.
The headline invites the reader to think these liabilities are concealed from investors, but they're not. Deeper in the article it talks about how credit-rating agencies explicitly includes in their modeling.
The guarantee allows lenders to behave partly as though they're lending to NVIDIA, Meta or Broadcom rather than to an AI startup or single-purpose data-center company.
The interesting question isn't "Is the debt hidden?" (it isn't), but is who ultimately owns the downside risk of the AI infra boom?
More interesting headline would be "Big Tech is using its creditworthiness to finance the AI boom without taking on equivalent amounts of direct debt."
> but is who ultimately owns the downside risk of the AI infra boom?
The US taxpayer for the inevitable corporate bailouts.
> The US taxpayer for the inevitable corporate bailouts.
what informs your prediction?
[dead]
https://archive.is/a4uct
Why are people such big opponents of the AI buildout?
I generally don't see many cons to it.
1. Big tech was just using profits to buy back shares before AI build out. Would you rather they buy back shares with their profits or finance the AI build out?
2. If there is an AI bubble, great, when it pops, we'll all have ultra cheap tokens and we'll have all these amazing AI infrastructure built for the next wave of innovation.
3. Even if AI progress stops here and models hit a wall in intelligence, we'll still have AI good enough to solve millennium problems.
My theories on why people are so anti-AI:
1. It threatens their jobs.
2. They want AI stocks to drop so they can buy the dip.
3. Their identity is being challenged because AI makes what they do easier.
We don't have enough energy production for massive AI buildouts. New energy capacity will not come online fast. National and regional grids will be stressed contributing to impacts on populations and industries. New energy capacity will be expensive and if carbon-intensive will accelerate climate breakdown. Additionally at current fossil fuel prices, energy prices (will) rise dramatically. Currently planned locations for buildouts are suboptimal at best, horrible at worst and vehemently opposed by local populations. That could be NIMBYISM, but in this case it's probably justified: who would want a noisy, ugly-looking grey cube raising electricity prices near their house? And that's just one angle. There are many more. Nothing to do with "AI will take our jobs", that's a pretty low-effort justification/theory.
We are building more energy now than ever. AI has forced that. If this AI bubble collapses, we will have plenty of cheap electricity.
is it gas turbines energy?
Nuclear has been reinvigorated. HN was extremely pro Nuclear before ChatGPT hit. Now we are finally heavily investing in it again.
Fusion has been given a ton of money since AI.
Do you have any numbers how much fossil energy capacity was installed and how much nuclear?
No. Do you?
I don't, I doubt any nuclear plants could be brought online that fast.
But my point was that type of energy matters in this context.
That on its own would be a good incentive for the AI bubble to pop ;-) As others have pointed out though, I'd be keen to see how much of it is gas turbines. I'm also not convinced that energy buildouts are seeing as much interest and by the time they come online prices will already have skyrocketed (that is, after the current skyrocketing).
We are building more dirty fossil fuel energy to keep up with AI demands. When the solar build out is further along, and the grid is updated, it will be more acceptable to be using so much energy. Spinning up a bunch of new gas powered plants because they want to move too fast is terrible
I'd love to see numbers on dirty fossil fuel energy, how long this is needed until nuclear (and hopefully fusion) take over.
Also, since AI demand is so high, what do you suggest we do? Not do the buildout and just let people fight over tiny capacity?
They are getting too big and too cozy with federal govt, making a bailout more likely
They are moving too fast and using too much dirty energy
They are committing crimes to trick people into thinking they've created god
None of your three theories are correct at all
Did the federal government bail out dotcom burst? Why and how do you think the government can bail out an AI burst?
Too fast? So it’s getting too smart too fast to you. But at the same time, they are going to need a bailout to you.
I don’t think they’re tricking anyone at all. Most normal people don’t care. They just use AI when it’s helpful to them. It’s only people who are on HN or X who care.
The dotcom burst wasn't concentrated in a a couple of well-connected companies. The better comparison is the financial crisis, and yes, they did bail them out.
No, it is not getting too smart. Moving too fast means exactly the opposite, they are doing idiotic and destructive things because the models are not as smart as they want us to think
It's clear from reading your posts in this thread you are just trolling and not trying to have good faith discussion
What is the government going to do? Bail out Nvidia, Google, Microsoft, Meta? Why? They're all extremely profitable companies. At worse, they lose a year or two of profits. Who cares.
The ability to do destructive things suggests that AI's capabilities are increasing.Do you have good faith discussion? You haven't acknowledged anything that is a pro of AI.
To me its not just about AI, but how they utilize all this financial scenarios to push things absolutely over the top, e.g. fast inclusion into indexes and essentially funding bubble from people's 401k.
You mean SpaceX? That’s just one. And it’s Elon. He’s been doing that before AI.
index thing happened this year, and now investors are obviously lining up before openai and anthropic to get a cut too during IPO.
Elon has been scamming investors with Tesla for years.
its unrelated to index inclusion.
Are you just trolling?
So you hate AI buildout because of what Nasdaq did with SpaceX.
I’m wondering if you are just trolling.
as I mentioned its not just SpaceX but also Anthrhopic and OpenAI is also in the queue, which is up to total 6T extracted from index holders.
Do you think this is valid concern or trolling?
We haven’t even seen their S1 yet and we don’t know what index.
I’m personally going to invest in Anthropic and/or OpenAI outside of index funds. I’m not concerned personally.
My conclusion is that after many attempts, you couldn't comprehend index issue.
Looks like its time to finish discussion.
What are the benefits to actual people? What you are gonna replace lost jobs with? All electronics with ram or storage is now way more expensive due to AI gobling up everything. And then there are local power grid impact concerns.
Why would you be suprised there is opposition?
I’m not surprised there is. I even spelled out why I think there are so many who are opposed.
There is something very contradictory about these posts.
For example, you seem to suggest that it doesn’t benefit people but AI is can also replace workers. So which is it? AI is very useful to people to a point that one person can do the job of many? Or AI is useless?
Do we have mass unemployment because of AI? No. Our unemployment rate has been very low since ChatGPT.
What about the people who have already lost jobs due to false expectations set via over hyping the tech?
That poster is so clueless.
If this is true, then you can just hire them and beat out the businesses that erroneously laid off valuable workers.
1) i write code for a living. Without the tool. I have never been impressed by the tools and don't want to use them for work because i know my brain will rot pretty fast, pretty soon. Amused, sure, but they are still stupid by large. Useful idiot remain a useful idiot even if it appears smarte. My boss shows me some cool shit he experimented with all the time, only to have the thing redone from scratch every other week. Still useful, still a mess, still requiring competent people to keep the castle from crumbling. And you can't get competent people without having them do the hard work.
2) i want them to fail and disappear forever. Let open models stay. Let the VC fuckers starve to death before they use MY retirement fund without my consent because they bribe regulator to include them in protected indexes even if they have not followed the process, just because they are the future and too big, trust me bro
3) fuck me if i identify myself with my job, and only my job.
So basically all 3 reason I listed.
About 1), boss is a smart person that tries things for himself so we are not overemcumbered with everey little idea or thought, tries then sees what's not working then we discuss about it and proceed accordingly. If we have time we do the trying ourselves, but again there is only so much one can do in a work day. Tool is useful to him and that is good, but there is not enough prompting that can save you from "you're absolutely right." even if you use a local model with zero kelvin temperature. It's the nature of the tool, actual skill and experience can never be replaced. Now, onto how we can get current year juniors and low tier managers to understand that...
You're just trolling. Nothing he said aligns with your reasons
i can assure you that if coding will ever die becuase of AI (it won't.) it doesn't matter because i have a list of other interests and skills i cultivated growing up, and even now. I even have a few i haven't fully explored because a day is only 24 hours, and if i need a job, a competent person will always have work, he can get up to a new task in little time. I have friends always looking for someone with half a brain. Do you have at least half a brain? As a matter of fact, i feel sorry for those that can't see past their day job.
The other poster is right, i took the bait (willingly)
This is absolute nonsense. He is explicitly saying he does not feel threatened by it because he is confident in his own coding skills, and that he does not tie his identity to his work, and you are just making things up saying he actually believes the opposite.
Like I said, bad faith trolling
That's great that he doesn't feel threatened.
I also don't feel threatened. I think AI is going to either create even more tech jobs or make tech jobs stay flat.
[dead]
You don't see the cons because you refuse to see or hear. You refuse to actually engage with any of the complaints and examples people show you. You're deluding yourself and thinking that somehow everyone else is the problem and you're the only sane one in the room.
You should really reevaluate your perspectives .
I’ve been engaging with every single reply.
But instead of attacking me, why don’t you engage with me.
1. Because resources (land and water) are limited and build-out crawls the resources from the more important (even vital) affairs.
2. Because there is still no convincing way how AI giants would make profit. Whatever impressive and useful tricks the stochastic parrot is able to do will never pay back enough to make a breakeven.
3. Because AI giant CEOs are a bunch of galactic-scale douchebags who keep saying "this is far too powerful for a mere mortal, but as long as we hold this power it's okay" with a straight face while presenting us with the stochastic parrot. No, seriously, I'm very impressed. Someone actively subverting the tech narrative couldn't do a better job.
1. We waste a lot of land and water on many less productive things. For example, building massive golf courses that need acres of land and water. What is the threshold for you?
2. Personally, I think the people who say LLMs are stochastic parrots are themselves stochastic parrots. They heard this term from someone online once and now they keep repeating it. Anyways, I’d love to see your math on why you think AI can’t make a profit.
3. You must be new to tech if you think it’s only AI. Many tech CEOs have always been out of touch. I personally don’t care too much about the CEOs. If AI CEOs had better PR, would you be less anti AI?
> What is the threshold for you?
Golf courses are stupid too, but the scale is nowhere close. The difference is that new golf courses are not financed by an too-big-to-fail infinite money glitch, so they are limited by how many people are willing to spend their money building golf courses.
> If AI CEOs had better PR, would you be less anti AI?
I'm not against AI. I'm against companies blowing up a bubble. Notice that the question "is it a bubble" is orthogonal to "is it useful".
> why you think AI can’t make a profit.
AI can make a profit - in niches. Automatic translation. Mathematic proofs - but yes math is more than proofs and there never were much money there. Maybe code generation in some cases, but I don't see "programmers becoming obsolete" any time soon - spewing out code was never the problem for me, domain knowledge was and still is. And yes, all that doesn't make it any less of a stochastic parrot. A useful parrot, but still a parrot.
But OpenAI and Antropic can't generate the profits they promise at the scale they need to break even. Because
a. Most of their use cases yet demonstrated are self-defeating. Text generation is useless once everyone hates slop and long texts stops becoming a useful signal. The whole story is basically "I can generate infinite gold, I'm now can buy anything". No, your gold is now worth very little. And everyone whose pay was indexed in gold is now fucked too.
b. They have no real moat aside from loads of money. Their entire plan is "growing too big to fail, then engage regulatory capture." And people engaging in in regulatory capture deserve nothing but slow and painful death. Not that it would work anyway, we've got China fixing that, for better or worse.
People whose retirement funds might be impacted by a bubble burst, or who might lose their jobs (or struggle to get a first/next job) in a post crash economy.
You seem to be neglecting the economic impact question and assuming only the ai companies themselves are impacted in a burst.
That’s only if they buy in now. If they don’t believe in AI, they wouldn’t buy in now.
do you remember, how spacex was trying to bribe.. ehr.. convince.. regulators to be fast tracked into S&P 500?
And they said no.
Why do you think anthropic is postponing their IPO?
Yes, I mentioned SpaceX a few minutes ago before your post. I didn’t like that but that’s only one company and it is Elon. He’s been scamming investors well before SpaceX.
I think Anthropic is postponing their IPO because OpenAI is killing it.
They do not have a choice of whether to buy in if they are doing the sound strategy of index funds through their 401k, funds which are now inflated by the bubble
Their 401k and index funds have been very happy since AI buildout.
Completely irrelevant short-term thinking that is the exact wrong way to think about retirement savings
Large index funds that most people’s portfolio inevitably includes substantially invest in AI-adjacent stocks. Not to mention the fact that bubble bursting is not by any means guaranteed to have its effects limited to one sector.
AI is the sole reason why stocks have gone up since 2022.
2022-26 is irrelevant for people's retirement savings. They are not or should not be even paying attention to that short-term movement. If the bubble bursts there will be collateral damage that impacts way more than just AI or AI-adjacent companies, and that could have long-term consequences
It isn't going to go below what it was in 2022. AI has added too much productivity since.
That means that all new investment has been in AI (trading in other sectors is a wash). So a bubble burst would sweep up all that growth.
The entire stock market is being held up by AI. Any company that is not AI for the last 5 years has been declining or flat. But are retirement funds really impacted by the bubbling bursting, or are they simply correcting back to the real economic condition for the majority of the country.
You assume that the money that was invested in AI wouldn’t have been invested elsewhere.
People are scared about their future and don't think AI is going to make things better. And who could blame them? A movie that doesn't have any conflict and ends with everyone being happy and everything is nice isn't going to sell a lot of tickets. So we get endless variations of that movie where AI and robots are going to kill us and terminate humanity.
That is the backdrop against which real life AI that's actually happening and is here today has to compete with. If I was in the horse carriage industry when the car came out, I would be up in arms about it as well. People are scared, and rightly so. If I don't have a job, because they don't need me, because AI can do it, then how do I pay my rent or for food? If we lived in a world where we treated poor people well, and they're just down on their luck, they just need a helping hand that we're happy to give. Then the coming jobpocalypse wouldn't be so scary, and people wouldn't be so up in arms against AI. We only have to look at the history of coal miners to realize that there's no one coming to save us though.
Hearing the ghoulish haunting noise that the jet turbines that Elon Musk put down, and thinking: that could be your future; is enough to get everyone and their mom off the couch and dead set against the entire concept. That noise, non-stop, for the rest of forever.
We don't do subtleties at all, because if you give them an inch, they're going to take a mile, so in a different world it would be possible to be pro AI data centers while also being for upholding regulations on water and noise pollution, along with not raising the cost of electricity, but that doesn't seem to be the world we live in. People don't trust their local politicians to make sure that doesn't happen, so I can't blame people for being against AI data center build outs entirely.
This is a very honest post.
I think people here have stated a variety of reasons. Many go at it from an economics standpoint saying they are anti-AI because they don't think AI will make a profit because it isn't/won't be that smart.
Yet, you are saying something complete opposite. You're saying that AI could become so smart that it makes many people unemployable.
I think your reason is completely different than just about everyone's here. I think it's more honest. I think people here who hate AI for different reasons actually have the same fear inside but they don't want to admit it for some reason.
[dead]
Your posts have been interesting to watch.
You’re progressively entering the delusional territory.
[dead]