Many people are hoping—nay, praying—that the potential AI bubble will burst soon.
But to hear Google tell it, generative AI is the future, and the company’s products have to change to keep up with the technical reality. As a result, Gemini is seeping into every nook and cranny of the Google ecosystem. Generative AI feeds on data, and Google has a lot of your data in products like Gmail and Drive. What does that mean for your privacy, and what happens if you don’t want Gemini peeking over your shoulder? Well, it’s kind of a mess.
The amount of data Gemini retains depends on how you access the AI, and opting out of data collection can mean running straight into so-called “dark patterns,” UI elements that work against the user’s interest.
This is the future?
Many people are hoping—nay, praying—that the potential AI bubble will burst soon.
But to hear Google tell it, generative AI is the future,
Both of those are true.
In the late 90s the internet was a bubble.
In the 1800s railroads were a bubble.All new transformative technology goes through an initial bubble phase. People recognize it’s potential before that it’s fully understood. They over invest for a time, realise they were doing it wrong, the boubble pops, a few remain, and the transformative tech is figures out and changes everything.
Apples to oranges fallacy.
Railroad infrastructure and dark fiber brought long-term post-bubble value. Rapidly deprecating GPUs are not.
They are depreciating due to market forces (upgrades), but the data centers and hubs of gpus are infrastructure in a similar way that fiber and rails were in the other bubbles. I think the comparison stands. They all age to some extent, but gpus depreciate in value faster because nvidia is always marketing the next generation, not because they physically degrade that fast.
I say this as someone genially against the rapid construction of new data centers btw.
That difference doesn’t matter to my point.
They were still transformative technologies that started as bubbles.It matters a great deal if you want to argue AI is more than a bubble by actually saying anything concrete, anything more than implications.
You can’t just say “look at these other bubbles, ignore the glaring differences, and assume this will be the same” without having a damn good reason why. Let alone implying something is transformative (or to be concrete: transformative in a way that remotely justifies money wasted so far).
AI companies like NVIDIA look more like Enron than the Web writ large.
But implications are all I need.
It’s either transformative or a fad.
It’s already transformed media, education, advertising, politics, and more.
Do you think once the bubble pops, AI will just disappear like Pogs?
Even when the datacenters go dark, the tech will still be here, still be used. Eventually it will find its natural place in a new world.I’m not saying it’s not a bubble. It absolutely is. Everything you’re saying is true. It will fall, and hard. I’ve put 10s of thousands of dollars on it being soon. But after the dust clears AI will still be used, and has already changed the world. How much more it’ll change is the only question.
You appear to have missed the part where I asked you to be concrete and justify whether it’s worth the investment.
Vague talk of “change” and “transformation” mean nothing. Sure, it “changed” the level of poison in the atmosphere over communities in Tennessee.
It’s not worth this level of investment. That’s what a bubble is. We agree on that.
But long after the bubble pops. 20 years from now. Will AI disappear? Will it be a joke people tell? Or will it be as important to the world as the internet is today?
I’m saying it’s both a bubble, and an important lasting technology. It’s not a binary choice.
I see you saying it’s important, but you haven’t provided one reason why.
