Waiting patiently for the Ed Zitron article on this...

gitremote 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

When executives can't measure success by output, they measure success by input, a perverse incentive that rewards inefficiency.

Execs ask their employees to return to office, because they don't know how to measure good employee output.

Now OpenAI and Nvidia measure success by gigawatt input into AI instead of successful business outcomes from AI.

▲

timmytokyo 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://bsky.app/profile/edzitron.com/post/3lzgt7up5ts2g

▲

nextworddev 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

He single-handedly cost people more than anyone with his bearish takes lol

▲

topaz0 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Or he saved them more than anyone by limiting their losses when it does finally crash

	▲	nextworddev 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		except he called the top in 2023

▲

mikhmha 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Its not a good argument against him. I read his articles and he is absolutely correct about the state of things. Predicting the crash is a fools errand. I don't use that as a argument to discredit what he actually writes regarding the raw economics of the AI industry.

I say this as someone who has been holding NVDA stock since 2016 and can cash out for a large sum of money. To me its all theoretical money until I actually sell. I don't factor it into financial planning.

You don't see me being a cheerleader for NVDA. Even though I stand to gain a lot. I will still tell you that the current price is way too high and Jensen Huang has gotten high off his own supply and "celebrity status".

After all, we all can't buy NVDA stock and get rich off it. Is it truly possible for all 30,000+ NVDA employees to become multi-millionaires overnight? That's not how capitalism works.

▲

locallost 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I am all against bubbles and irrational valuations etc. but I think in this case the prospect of future growth was fully justified. There are never guarantees, but Nvidia's price went up 10x or more in three years and e.g. their PER stayed mostly flat. But their PER of 50 three years ago would be 5 today, which would be extremely undervalued. I would say the "market" got it correctly this time.

▲

nextworddev 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

He’s been absolutely wrong on most things but spreading FUD is how he makes money, like Gary Marcus

	▲	mikhmha 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't care for personalities. You want to mark him as a grifter but is that just an emotional response? I have not bought anything from Ed, I don't subscribe to his newsletter, I don't know much about him beyond visiting his website every few weeks and reading the free articles. He does not sell me vitality pills or coffee mugs. The only soliciting he does is his paid sub stack. But it goes both ways? Because AI promoters are also spreading FUD. That's how they make money. Because their livelihoods are tied to this technology and all the valuations. So is spreading FUD for you just a condition on whether or not you agree with the person?
	▲	watwut 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If there is any FUD, it is feom other side. No one is scared after they read Zitron article, most are bored because they are dense to read. But people are literally scared ai will destroy all the jobs after reading articles about how it will. Companies scared not to use ai whether it makes sense or not just to not miss out is where FUD is.