I don't think "predict doom and gloom" is a fair characterisation. He cations us against assuming the optimistic scenario will unfold ("it's not flawless" to quote the article), and asks us to hedge our bets -- something he has made significant money doing.

Being prudent is appropriate every hour, not twice a day, even if someone who is reckless can be lucky 11 hours of the day.

He is such an interesting character to me. I've read a few of his books and some principles he brings up are super interesting and overlooked imo, while majority of the stuff he writes about uses the most handwave-y explanations.

Not only that. His company makes money by betting on downturns. So... it's not like he doesn't have a vested interest in markets tanking.

I see your point, but that same logic is ignored for most other companies so I'm not sure how we should take it.

YCombinator makes money betting in startups, it sure has a vested interest in disruption. Would we be up in arms at YC regularly pointing out potential disruption paths ?

How good is his company reaping money based on his philosophy?

On this particular prediction: we know that China graduates more science, technology, engineering and mathematics students each year than the rest of the world combined. According to World Population Review, the highest IQs are found in Asian countries including Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China and South Korea (Taiwan is top at an average of 106). Why would it be surprising to see China with its capital and human resources catch up with the West and surpass it?

Maybe we should treat predictions as messages ('do something if you don't like it') not certainties.

>we know that China graduates more science, technology, engineering and mathematics students each year than the rest of the world combined

What is probably more important is their quality. Though higher quantity tends to help with getting more of the world's best, too.

This is not particularly about China though. its about overvaluation of a particular wave of businesses in one technology.

its VERY like the dotcom boom.

I do think they targeted the wrong business. I'm old enough to remember AMZN losing what I think was well over 80% of it's value over the course of the first dot-com crash if I'm recalling correctly. And it was one of the first stocks to get hit.

This is kind of feeling like that to me. When this is over, I'm wondering if NVidia doesn't come out even stronger than it was when we started? There's just something that smells way too familiar about what's happening.

I'm thinking one could wait for NVidia to become a victim of negativity hype, and I bet you could buy and go long at that point. If the market gets irrational and cuts 80% of NVidia's value, man, it's pretty hard to think up a better opportunity than that laying around? I guess we'll see what happens.

I certainly think NVidia is in a better position than software and services businesses to benefit from LLMs long term. If more powerful hardware is needed, they will profit. The question is how long it takes for the hardware prices to fall.

> Why would it be surprising to see China with its capital and human resources catch up with the West and surpass it?

Racism

Or some mix of American exceptionalism and MBA culture: The USA can choose to only do the most profitable things and be fine. AI was going to be such a thing: huge profits and great power (owning the workforce of the future!) to those able to invest huge amounts first.

> According to World Population Review, the highest IQs are found in Asian countries including Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China and South Korea (Taiwan is top at an average of 106).

Careful there. Implying that some cultural norms are superior to others are going to get you into trouble in the wrong crowd.

> Why would it be surprising to see China with its capital and human resources catch up with the West and surpass it?

Because the message that diversity === strength is a powerful one. Plenty of people simply cannot wrap their heads around how positive an effect homogeneity can have on results; their built-in PC filters cut in before they even get to the thought.

I've observed decades of how, in the west, not only can you simply not say something, but any insinuation that you are thinking it is liable to result in consequences for wrong-think.

I think the east is going to catch up and surpass the west in science and technology. The best way to prevent this is to seed their society with the same ideological tarpit that the west finds itself in and hope like hell it catches on so that they too can have enforced inclusivity training on company time.

Of all issues to focus on, this is the one which troubles you the most - company training to avoid creating a hostile work environment.

What makes you think this troubles me the most? Or at all?

Do you imagine that people who think "some cultural norms superior to others" make it part of their identity?

While yes the US could be better about freedom of speech and ideas in some areas, it's a pretty wild assertion to say that China of all places has a comparative advantage here.

That is not how I understood GP. It was not a comment on free speech in general, but on the acceptability of certain ideas that have an economic impact.

I do not actually agree with assertion being made either - the west has problems, but its biggest problems are complacency, economic policy, and an unwillingness to face difficult problems, not lack of homogeneity.

> While yes the US could be better about freedom of speech and ideas in some areas, it's a pretty wild assertion to say that China of all places has a comparative advantage here.

Who said anything about free speech? I said, and still stand by, that some cultures norms are superior to others, and that that sentiment is not acceptable to many in the west.

The reason isn't "acceptable" is because the world is fraught with examples where the sentiment of superiority of culture or race led to horrific outcomes.

Therefore people have worked extremely hard over the decades to stop those sort of things.

I see from your profile you're from South Africa, so I'd assume you are more capable than many others of recognising that.

Perhaps things swung a bit too far one way (I genuinely am undecided), but we should realise the intentions in this started out well. And we'll swing too far back the other way if we're not careful.

> The reason isn't "acceptable" is because the world is fraught with examples where the sentiment of superiority of culture or race led to horrific outcomes.

You know, I didn't say anything about race.

Please don't misrepresent my point in order to argue against it because ... well, there's a reason that there's a common name for that sort of thing.

> I see from your profile you're from South Africa, so I'd assume you are more capable than many others of recognising that.

Not just "from", I grew up in Apartheid South Africa.

I saw the rubicon speech live on TV, not read it in a wikipedia article. I had to watch where I go because of the "whites only" signs in certain parts of the country.

And yet, I still get lectured on race by people who have never lived under legislated racism, which is a good deal harsher than "systemic racism".

> Perhaps things swung a bit too far one way (I genuinely am undecided), but we should realise the intentions in this started out well. And we'll swing too far back the other way if we're not careful.

Some cultural norms are superior, and have superior results, producing better and more productive members of society on average.

And some cultural norms are primitive and regressive, and produce less productive or net-negative productive members of society.

Race has nothing to do with it.

You're not following the advice of hn and reading my post in the most charitable light. I specifically used "culture" in my reply, and added "or race" to illustrate my point. You chose to view this as a strawman. It is not. Please feel free to ignore the "race" part of my statement.

So for the benefit of doubt, the world has over many decades tried to fight against the sentiment that some cultures are superior because (and pay attention here) this line of thought (whether it is right or wrong), has led to horrific outcomes in the past, and still does.

Here's the thing, though, my point was always "some cultural norms are superior".

I never made the point that "some cultures are superior".

You responded as if I said "some cultures or races are superior", and your second response refined my point to "some cultures are superior", both of which are incorrect characterisations of my position.

There's a big difference in the meanings between what I wrote and what you read, twice.

I wouldn't read this as Taleb predicting a crash. The gist of his advice is generally that for the classic equity investments (ie buy the Nasdaq), your return distribution is heavily negatively skewed. You make money most of the time, and occasionally you suffer a fairly significant drawdown - ie a market crash. Nobody knows when the drawdowns will happen. His thesis is that by their nature, they cannot be predicted.

Another way to think about this is that returns are linear, and drawdowns are convex. 90% of your returns are going to be a normal distribution, but the tails become something like a pareto. The simplest thing to do is to hold convex payoff assets - ie buy puts. The devil is in the detail of knowing enough about options to determine what to buy to avoid bleeding all your profits away. This is the business model of Universa - they know what to buy, how much of it, and to a lesser degree when to buy it.