It’s the same thing. Either way, they get free government money and lots of passive income because they don’t actually have to make anything or do anything to make money.
For the vast majority of these companies, probably not.
If the company is AI-only, then if/when the bubble bursts, I suspect it’ll go under too. Only the biggest players will survive that, like OpenAI, since so many other services call out to their API.
Companies that can pivot back to core markets will be fine, Google, Microsoft. Shovel sellers will mostly be okay too. What that’ll look like for them is a period of huge overvaluation and then a return to sanity, you can see similar histories if you look at the stock price of still extant dotcom bubble companies.
And then the hype will be over, there will be a huge crater left in GDP, retirement accounts, and the larger economy, but some “AI” technology will remain — stuff that is actually useful, like transcription, natural speech, noise removal, automated rotoscoping. But the fantasy of replacing information workers and artists will not come to pass, though they probably won’t differentiate for the next several years, as the jobs market is decimated all the same by speculation hangover.
And economist and an accountant were taking a walk when they noticed a frog. The accountant says to the economist, “I’ll give you $100 if you eat that frog.” The economist thinks for a moment, then agrees. A little later they come across another frog, and the economist says, “I’ll give you $100 to eat that frog.” The accountant thinks about it for a second and also agrees. As they continue walking, the accountant says, “So I got to see you eat a frog for $100, and by eating a frog myself, I got my money back, so I understand why I did it. But you had already eaten a frog and had $100, so why did you do it?” The economist replies, “Ah, but this way it’s twice as good for the economy!”
Nobody wants it to pay off. They want to be the last one standing which will pay off.
The last one standing or the last one left holding the bag?
It’s the same thing. Either way, they get free government money and lots of passive income because they don’t actually have to make anything or do anything to make money.
Will it, though?
For the vast majority of these companies, probably not.
If the company is AI-only, then if/when the bubble bursts, I suspect it’ll go under too. Only the biggest players will survive that, like OpenAI, since so many other services call out to their API.
Companies that can pivot back to core markets will be fine, Google, Microsoft. Shovel sellers will mostly be okay too. What that’ll look like for them is a period of huge overvaluation and then a return to sanity, you can see similar histories if you look at the stock price of still extant dotcom bubble companies.
And then the hype will be over, there will be a huge crater left in GDP, retirement accounts, and the larger economy, but some “AI” technology will remain — stuff that is actually useful, like transcription, natural speech, noise removal, automated rotoscoping. But the fantasy of replacing information workers and artists will not come to pass, though they probably won’t differentiate for the next several years, as the jobs market is decimated all the same by speculation hangover.
That seems optimistic, but I’ll take it.
I hope not but it probably will.
The last one standing will probably get a bailout by corporate Democrats and every Republican.
The last one standing will be “too big to fail” because currently the only reason that the global economy is not in a recession is due to AI spending.
Oh you mean each company promising to spend money on each other without actually doing anything.
Time for a joke.
And economist and an accountant were taking a walk when they noticed a frog. The accountant says to the economist, “I’ll give you $100 if you eat that frog.” The economist thinks for a moment, then agrees. A little later they come across another frog, and the economist says, “I’ll give you $100 to eat that frog.” The accountant thinks about it for a second and also agrees. As they continue walking, the accountant says, “So I got to see you eat a frog for $100, and by eating a frog myself, I got my money back, so I understand why I did it. But you had already eaten a frog and had $100, so why did you do it?” The economist replies, “Ah, but this way it’s twice as good for the economy!”
Big if, because you expect a US company to win.
All companies are US companies as long as they
brivemake campaign contributions. Business has no borders.Worked for the US after WWII.
Well… for a while at least.
The people, of course