CEOs are just salivating at the prospect of firing most of their staff and replacing them with AIs. And then you have hype men at these AI companies blowing a burning coal mine of smoke up their asses. And every month the products become even more expensive for even more incremental gains. The hype is unsustainable.

How many "we will have AGI by X/X/201X" predictions have we blown past already?

> How many "we will have AGI by X/X/201X" predictions have we blown past already?

Just imagine how many predictions we'll have in six months, or even a year from now!

We don’t need to imagine, we can ask ChatGPT

Yeah, everyone knows LLMs excel at providing mathematically-sound answers to novel questions. :p

> How many "we will have AGI by X/X/201X" predictions have we blown past already?

This seems wildly inaccurate.

Can you find any single such claim from any credible source? Anybody hyping up an AGI timeframe within the 2010s?

Ok, this one is for the end of 2025 so we could still achieve it, and this is from a guy with an AI company (xAI):

https://www.reuters.com/technology/teslas-musk-predicts-ai-w...

Another AI company CEO prediction:

https://time.com/7205596/sam-altman-superintelligence-agi/

I think you're proving my point here. Nobody credible was promising AGI would be arriving in the 2010s.

2025 is halfway through the 2020's.

The VCs are the small players in this bubble now. Big traditional finance is helping Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Amazon build out their datacenters, and the infrastructure to power them. VCs have a lot of money compared to your startup, but they can’t finance a trillion dollars in construction projects.

They’re all so highly levered up that they can’t afford for the bubble to pop. If this goes on for another couple of years before the pop, we may see “too big to fail” wheeled out to justify a bailout of Google or Microsoft.

I don't think Microsoft has a lot of corporate debt relative to its profits etc., and Google has even less.

I'm sure there will be losers, but I'm not quite sure who.

Their recent filings show that they’re planning $100bn/yr in AI expenditures as early as 2027. They’re raising debt, rather than spending from revenues, because they get a better multiplier there.

They’re also acting as a guarantor to lots of infrastructure project - meaning the debt is their responsibility, but not on their books.

If the creditworthiness of any of the hyperscalers slip, even a tiny amount, the tech and banking sectors are in some hot water.

Ah, I see.

But 100 billion is still on the order of the current profit of each. I suppose with interest, if it's sustained over time it could be a problem though.

msft and google both made $100 billion in profit last year. Theyre nowhere near a bailout

I like your phrases "a smoking crater in the ground" and "a dumpster fire burning next to a gasoline truck" enough to steal them for use in my own critiques.

> Right now VC FOMO is the only thing stopping all that from blowing up

That was probably 2-3 years ago.

I'd be surprised if VCs hadn't already figured out they're in a bubble. They're probably playing a game of chicken to see who will remain to capture the actually profitable use cases.

There's also a number of lawsuits going on against AI companies regarding piracy and copyright. It's already an established fact in the courts that these companies have downloaded ebooks, music, videos, and images illegally to train their models.

It's a bubble if the tech or audience wasn't there and capabilities weren't improving weekly.

There's definitely people who don't understand the tech talking about applying it increasing the failure rate of software projects.

> It's a bubble if the tech or audience wasn't there and capabilities weren't improving weekly.

But...is it and are they? Gen AI boosters tend to make assertions like this as if they're unassailable facts, but never seem interested in backing them up. I guess it's easier than thinking.

The whole mindset of LLM boosterism is that thinking is obsolete anyway — all you need is pattern matching on existing data — so it's not surprising that they don't want to indulge in it excessively.

Thinking is absolutely not obsolete with LLMs.

Human thought is the only way any software (including LLMs) operate efficiently.

Same goes for leveraging LLMs.

As a tech person..

It is, and they are.

For the boosters, notice how few or many come from a tech background and pay attention accordingly

As a tech person too...I know too many tech people to believe they're not gullible.

It'll certainly be lonely on HN without pages of AI articles to read daily..

/s