702
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

It could be an Auryn. It symbolizes the fucked up circular market flow between software and hardware manufacturers and how their greed is a neverending story.

[-] ApeNo1@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

I like that the articles main image looks like a giant gold turd.

[-] sirico@feddit.uk 1 points 6 hours ago

An Ouroboros made of shit

[-] IamBlank@lemmy.zip 12 points 16 hours ago

Fingers crossed! Let it burn.

[-] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 18 points 19 hours ago
[-] arc99@lemmy.world 23 points 20 hours ago

I will happy when this bubble bursts. OpenAI, Grok and several other companies offer nothing substantive and if they're burning cash and disrupting economies then just die already.

[-] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 6 hours ago

offer nothing substantive

Like industrial farming, there is nothing new, but now everybody can create memes and create software. Society will change.

[-] tristynalxander@mander.xyz 87 points 1 day ago

I'm really disappointed in this thread.

There are a number of people who are recommending buying their cheapest plan under the premise that it will put them under since it is a loss leader. Despite the popular fantasy, the rich and powerful are not stupid. You don't know more about a company or market from passively consuming headlines than the leadership of that company. So, I'll state the obvious: If you don't like a company or industry, the last thing you should do is give them your money.

I'm sure a bunch of people with excel sheets to monitor their credit card points will show up in the replies to argue about how it's theoretically possible, but I will reiterate: The leaders of the companies are not stupid. If they started seeing a net loss from their sales strategy, they'd change strategies.

[-] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

The leaders of the companies are not stupid. If they started seeing a net loss from their sales strategy, they'd change strategies.

Unless money is not the goal. Not the sole goal at least. As you said, they're not stupid. It's entirely within reason to assume they may be aiming for more than just money.

Who knows what they're planning. Nothing good for us - that's for sure.

[-] mr_satan@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 day ago

While I agree with not buying being better that giving them money. I can't agree with leadership being smart.

This thing was never going to be profitable. So they either:
a) they're actively malicious — they were never planning on profiting which means this is basically a pump and dump scheme capable of triggering some form of recession;
b) they're fucking morons for believing their own fantasies, which judging by their public appearances would track.

Former seems just as plausible, but my bet is on the latter. These AI bro CEOs seem to be woefully average at best.

[-] tristynalxander@mander.xyz 27 points 22 hours ago

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

I assume you're operating off this principle, and I understand the point, but it's ill conceived for our purposes. Where malice and stupidity are functionally identical, preparing for malice is equivalent to preparing for stupidity. Where malice and stupidity differ, malice is more dangerous and requires greater preparation. Hanlon's Razor is a good perspective to prevent escalation in cycles of revenge, but it's bad perspective for strategy.

It's safe to assume some portion of highly educated and entrenched powers are willing to undermine the public good for their own gain. We shouldn't allow our selves or our peers to dismiss potential adversaries as stupid. Even if the leadership was composed entirely of nepo-nitwits, there are competent people working for them, advising them, and benefiting from their success.

[-] mr_satan@lemmy.zip 6 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

I want this response to be higher. This is an excellent take.

I've worked too many places where "b" is absolutely the answer. Even small companies that you've probably never heard of where management is drinking the koolaid. They usually don't like being asked why someone would actually pay for whatever bullshit they're selling. The answer, almost without exception, is because one of their CEO buddies told them it was a good idea.

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

Counterpoint:

They already are losing money. They themselves do not project that they will be profitable until 2030. The idea that "smart people with spreadsheets won't let them lose money" is obviously wrong because they have done nothing except lose money, ever.

They get thier operating capital from funding, not sales.

Now, I agree that the gambit is wrong. So you're right. You're just right for the wrong reason.

Funding is just the cash value of market optimism for the future of your product. High usage props up optimism. Social media IPOs were valued very much based on active users, the idea being that more users meant more opportunity for profit.

The more people actively using these tools, even if they're just maliciously burning tokens, just add to the "active users" metric. Which makes funding easier. And funding is the ACTUAL way these companies "make thier money".

[-] tristynalxander@mander.xyz 9 points 1 day ago

Sure, they're in the business of selling shares not AI-tokens. Standard bubble stuff. Doesn't change the overall point.

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago

Yeah, I conceded that your call to action was correct.

Just wanted to add colour so people understand the mechanics at play. When you understand them, it lets people evaluate other things, without needing you to tell them what to do.

For example, if your comprehension of these companies is that the companies are acting with the goal of profitability l, they would see something like a fast-track onto an index post IPO as a bid for legitimacy, some kind of ego play.

If you comprehend it as a beast that can only subsist on funding with no viable product, it entirely changes how you comprehend the post IPO index listing desire.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Despite the popular fantasy, the rich and powerful are not stupid.

Uh... famously untrue. Mental illness has plagued monarchs, pharaohs, and caesers for millennia. That's long before you get to all the quirked up white boys and trad rad girl bosses currently running things.

You don’t know more about a company or market from passively consuming headlines than the leadership of that company.

Okay, but you can review their balance sheets and their primary lines of credit. Case in point, Sam Altman is heavily reliant on three big financial partners - Softbank, Oracle, and NVIDIA. Two of these are - themselves - hemorrhaging money thanks to large capital outlays that have failed to produce substantive returns.

There are finance journalists who get out ahead of this and report their own analysis. And you can find that in a thousand different private journals, substacks, and podcasts. But you can also go do the grunt work yourself if you're ambitious.

OpenAI's financials have been disclosed already (although the official SEC filing is still upcoming). So... just read them if you doubt what you're reading in the news. But it's not some kind of secret that the business is operating at a loss, with a fixation on debt-fueled growth. The argument is over future projected revenue, which isn't something business leadership can be any more certain of than a passive media consumer.

I definitely get the knee-jerk impulse to announce "business professionals know more about business than internet idiots". Because, sure. True. But the idea that business professionals don't routinely make bad decisions has some pretty historic well-established counterpoints.

"The business people know more" line is akin to saying "This used car dealer must know more about the vehicles on his lot than I do, so I can trust him".

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

The only way to stop them is give them more money.

[-] FukOui@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago

I think companies these days are more about valuation (how much people think they are worth) vs profit (what they actually earn). AI companies are loss leaders, yet vcs still fund them anyways. Paying them more money will just add to hype and valuation (eg "our XX service grew YY% which projects to ZZ potential profit")

[-] morto@piefed.social 4 points 22 hours ago

I see a lot of people in this thread stating and insisting that people should give them more money, which fells so surreal. I guess people's mind have been shaped into consumerism to such a degree that they can't think about a solution to things that doesn't involve buying something anymore. It's so hard to believe

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] nibble4bits@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 15 hours ago

Let's accelerate the the process. What's the AI query version of DDOS?

Yes, they could just set more limits.. but itll still shave the time sooner.

[-] roofuskit@lemmy.world 201 points 1 day ago

How can we make that sooner?

[-] droopy4096@lemmy.ca 51 points 1 day ago

use their cheapest plan, burn their tokens, burn the hole in their budget. could backfire though as then "clever analysts" will claim that demand is up and eager bankers will shell out more cash

Why burn tokens when datacenters are much more flammable

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 day ago

Or educate the people around you that "AI" is not the magical fairy dust machine that can do anything imaginable. Might be better than giving them any money at all.

[-] MrKoyun@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

educating people doesnt work very often. people do not give a shit about what's going on inside or behind of their glowing rectangle machine.

[-] DevDave@piefed.social 8 points 1 day ago

The people actively using AI are not an issue of lacking education on how bad it is. Just a quick example is of an upper management asshole who absolutely "loves" AI. Reality is they shit out slop but their direct reports undo the damage to protect their jobs. I know of more than a few developers in a tough spot where they are credit card slaves so work invisible overtime to compensate. They did this to themselves and are trapped in AI hell.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] morto@piefed.social 4 points 22 hours ago

That would definitely backfire. The best approach against any corporation is not to use them and let their name be forgotten, therefore, the shares losing value and becoming less and less attractive to investors

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 day ago

Doesn’t matter. The regime got what they wanted out of this. The data centers are up, the tech is there, they will just snap it up cheap for use in surveillance and fabricating evidence of dissenters.

[-] Chulk@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago

The datacenters largely aren't built yet, as someone else pointed out. That doesn't even matter though, to your point.

The Epstein class has successfully destroyed large portions of the Internet through bot traffic. They've scraped virtually all human contributions and stolen it, while ruining traditional vehicles for information gathering. They've eviscerated consumer hardware, and thus shifted control of compute away from the masses. They've successfully manufactured consent for mass surveillance including harvesting our biometric data.

Once the AI bubble bursts, it will be one of the largest transfers of wealth in history as they force us to bail out this fradulent industry. If it doesn't throw us into another great depression, the damage it will do will ensure that things never go back to how they were pre-AI. Once that reality becomes apparent to the masses, they'll be primed and ready for Peter Theil's vision of "Freedom Cities"

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 9 points 1 day ago

The data centres are far from up. Many of them look to have a few steel beams in place and that's it. Others are sitting empty due to lack of hardware or lack of power.

[-] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 156 points 1 day ago

Oh boy, I can't wait for my tax dollars to go to bailing them out instead of food and healthcare

load more comments (11 replies)

How can we make them run out in mid-2026?

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 25 points 1 day ago

Come on, burn faster!

[-] GodofLies@lemmy.ca 5 points 22 hours ago

Amazon wasn't profitable for many years until it was. Now make your own conclusions about AI.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

I can run an open weights amazon from my house?

[-] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago

Apples & oranges.

The AI industry is fundamentally judged based on its symbolic similarities to bygone eras. Buying GPUs and building data centers sort of feels like Amazon Web Services, even though the $765 billion that big tech will spend in 2026 will be more than ten times Amazon’s combined capex during the period where AWS was being built. ChatGPT sort of feels like Google Search or Facebook Ads or next app store, but only because it’s a culturally-relevant piece of software, largely driven by the larger cargo cult of tech crystalizing around it.

https://www.wheresyoured.at/cargo-culture/

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Iamaquantummechanic@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

I sold all my funds today. Gonna hold on to my cash until this bubble bursts.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

It will be a race which AI company holds out longest. All of them are making losses that no company can survive, and if they rise their prices enough to cover the costs, they will basically lose all their customers. Who will then struggle to hire the people back who still know how to do things without AI.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2026
702 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

86228 readers
2485 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS