| |
| ▲ | lukecarr 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And famously, the economy never changes course. Something, something, stocks always go up. | | |
| ▲ | itsalwaysgood 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you think AI will go away and suddenly businesses will start hiring people back? Or that a competitive startup won't lean on AI to get ahead? Doesn't matter how much stock prices move up and down...AI is here to stay and no amount of booing changes our desires to compete. The world doesn't hold hands with anyone, there is no global consensus, no policy. I recall all the bemoaning when IT jobs started going overseas... businesses always go with the cheapest labor. The world is dog eat dog, and those that prepare for the future are better equipped to deal. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a massive long shot pipe dream, but we might somehow end up with legislators who have backbones and actually represent the people, and they'll enact regulation to reign in the applications of AI, provide a safety net for the millions who will be affected by it, and/or at least find a way to spread the prosperity that comes from AI across the population rather than into the hands of the few. I'm not betting on it, but it theoretically could happen. | | |
| ▲ | itsalwaysgood 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I doubt it. There is so little care for monopoly or copyright because AI is a race, as much as it is a tool. And nobody wants to restrict the race. Policy may pass that limits the use of AI for the general public, but the 'whatever it takes' race to 'superintelligence' goes on. |
| |
| ▲ | watwut an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Or that a competitive startup won't lean on AI to get ahead? Specifically, with the way both economy and politics is structured, everything will be about big corporations with centralized power. A competitive startup leaning on AI getting ahead will be either destroyed or bought. >The world doesn't hold hands with anyone, there is no global consensus, no policy. It is totally holding hands and helping out - to Schmidts, Trumps, Musks, Epsteins. Just not to poorer people. > Do you think AI will go away and suddenly businesses will start hiring people back? In fact, with well run economy that systematically prevents monopolies, yes it tends to hire people no matter what technological level. Currents state where few super powerful companies are able to push themselves into everything and create monopolies via dumping prices, even as they are not profitable and can count on their friends in administration to bail them out once if all goes pop is the ineffective economy. | | |
| ▲ | itsalwaysgood 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I agree with most of your points except the last one. Probably easier to ask a question than argue a point:
How eager are you to use Government services? Businesses are only well-run if they make profit: hiring the cheapest labor to produce something people will actually spend money on. And the more frictionless that process, the more our economy advances it. AI fits in there very well. I also want to point out: startups are usually happy to be bought up by the bigger guys. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | al_borland 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The economy looked really good before the dotcom crash too. The crash didn’t make the internet go away, but it damped the hype and blind, unchecked optimism that was leading to some rather short-sighted decisions. Right now so many companies are trying to use AI just to use AI, rather than using it when and where it actually makes sense. This is the big thing that drives me, and I think many others, a bit crazy. I don’t expect a bubble pop to make us go back in time to 2022, but I expect it will put an end these the AI mandates, token maxing, and other foolish behavior. | | |
| ▲ | itsalwaysgood 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A lot of businesses depend on the Internet. AI will be the same in the future. Not sure what to say about the ups and downs of stock price, or hype cycles. | |
| ▲ | skinfaxi 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The crash didn’t make the internet go away, but it damped the hype and blind, unchecked optimism that was leading to some rather short-sighted decisions. The crash did not make the internet go away. I don't foresee a world where we will go back to the pre-AI times either. In the same way that post dotcom crash, you would be a fool to not have your business online, I think we will find similar things to be the case around AI. Even if the bubble bursts AI is here to stay and that will have major consequences for labor. | | |
| ▲ | itsalwaysgood an hour ago | parent [-] | | The irony of the dotcom crash is that a lot of 'dark fiber' service started rolling out decades later. Fiber that was laid during the dotcom era. There are lots of datacenters going up in similar fashion. I don't know if they'd have the same utility decades later (very unlikely), but it's interesting. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | crispyambulance 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > From which would you take advice, the successful entrepreneur/investor, or the nice hacker geek [?] The nice hacker geek? By the way, the Woz has a net-worth of 140MM, so he's more wealthy that the vast majority of "successful entrepreneur/investors", and also vastly more beloved than virtually all of them. In any case, that's a false dichotomy and actually the wrong question entirely. | | |
| ▲ | tmp10423288442 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Woz should have a lot more money than that for being such a large early shareholder of Apple, so that actually speaks poorly to his reputation as a "successful entrepreneur/investor". Some of the reason why his net worth is below expectations is noble (giving $10m of shares to early employees), but most of it is not - 4 marriages as opposed to Steve Jobs' 1 marriage, an impractical attitude in general, and never having any success after Apple, even as an investor. | | |
| ▲ | coldpie an hour ago | parent [-] | | No one should have more than $140MM. That is a ludicrous amount of money. | | |
| ▲ | jjulius an hour ago | parent [-] | | Additionally, it's kinda funny to see someone arguing that an individual who's famous for talking about how uncomfortable he is with massive wealth, including his own, should be more wealthy than he is. |
|
| |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >By the way, the Woz has a net-worth of 140MM, so he's more wealthy that the vast majority of "successful entrepreneur/investors", So are a lot of people who invested(gambled) early in Bitcoin and Tesla, that doesn't mean people should take career advice from them just because they managed to make a lot of money. But if you design and developed several successful tech products in your career, I think people should at least listen because it's a pattern rather than just luck. >and also vastly more beloved than virtually all of them So is Taylor Swift, that doesn't mean people should take career advice from her. When I look for people to take advice from I want to see a pattern of home runs, that they can deliver successful products repeatedly, like Erich Schmidt or Steve Jobs, not one trick ponies like Woz who managed to get lucky once in a completely different era, then coast the next 50+ years on past glory giving speeches. Again, I really like Woz as a person, he's my spirit animal, but that doesn't mean he's correct and in tune on the status of the tech market, the challenges people and entrepreneurs will face today. His experience being a HW tinkerer in his garage in the 1970's isn't relevant anymore today. The world has changed massively since then. A more modern day woz would be Palmer Luckey of Anduril. Love him or hate him he's more up to date on what the industry rewards today if you want to be a garage tinkerer made billionaire entrepreneur founder than Woz. | | |
| ▲ | crispyambulance 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > When I look for people to take advice from I want to see a pattern of home runs, that they can deliver repeatedly...
That's fine, I guess, if your idea of "success" is apple-scale product home-runs (good luck with that).For those of us with more modest aspirations, listening to a cool person talk about cool stuff is a far better of use of time and attention. | | |
| ▲ | jjulius 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right? OP asked a very subjective question on a public forum and is bristling that other's worldviews/desires/goals are different from his. | | |
| ▲ | itsalwaysgood 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a topic about predicting and preparing for the future. If you want to be snarky: this is hackernews, not reddit. Bring some logic into the discussion and stop fishing for points. | | | |
| ▲ | stavros 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The only people I see bristling are the ones who don't want to hear an uncomfortable viewpoint. "When it comes to jobs, I'd rather listen to a business wizard from 2011 than a technical wizard from 1981" is hardly contentious, but if people liked hearing "AI has changed the world and you're all fucked", the students wouldn't have been booing in the first place. Honestly, if you don't like what Eric Schmidt was saying, you should have a long hard think about whether unchecked capitalism is really as great as advertised. |
|
| |
| ▲ | naravara 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Funny thing about Steve Jobs is that he actually didn’t deliver a single home run until his return to Apple late in his career. The Apple II was Woz, the Mac was okay but mostly got shepherded into what it was by the other Apple leadership, the Lisa was a flop, Pixar he was an investor but was mostly Lasseter’s baby, NeXt went nowhere until the Apple acquisition. The guy had somehow managed to make a successful career out of shipping very opinionated, interesting, and cool products that were commercial failures. If you were going purely by commercial performance you would not have picked him, you’d be picking him based on that ineffable reality distortion field of his that makes you BELIEVE everything he’s doing will change the world. | | |
| ▲ | StilesCrisis an hour ago | parent [-] | | Did you forget Pixar? Jobs transformed the company with his extremely bold bet on Toy Story. They were doomed to obscurity without this big bet and now all children's movies are made this way. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | LargeWu 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I want advice from the one questioning whether we should, not just whether we can. | | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | OK, and who's stopping you? Take your advice from whoever you want. History tends to shows the pragmatists wiping out the luddites out of the gene pool/business market, but you are free to make your choice the way you see fit, nobody is forcing you to follow anyone. | | |
| |
| ▲ | jjulius 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wozniak, every time. Gigantic financial success at the expense of everything Google has negatively impacted isn't something I would be proud of. Everyone defines success differently, and Schmidt's "success" is, frankly, unappealing and gross to myself and, I'm sure, many others. There's a lot more to life and the world than the economy and massive financial gains. Focusing on "economic, market and product results" yet mentioning nothing about the impact to people and customers is how Zuckerberg sleeps at night, and that's ugly to me. | |
| ▲ | wat10000 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm fairly allergic to advice in general, but if I were to take some, I'd take it from the happy extremely rich guy over the ridiculous ultra rich guy. | |
| ▲ | watwut 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Google turned from company that at least pretends to not do evil ... into one who does it without care. I think that taking advice from a sociopath able to amass a lot of money is usually bad idea. Their advice is designed to make you make him a lot of money. His advice is not about what is good for you - he does not care. And if you succeed you are his competitor. |
|
