- 4 days
He’s predicted around sixteen market crashes so far by my count. The dude got lucky once and has been riding the fame ever since. I’m not necessarily disagreeing that this whole thing will crash, but timing is the important part and he keeps missing it. I’ll not be making any financial decisions on his recommended timeline anytime soon. He may as well be Dave Ramsay imo.
- 3 days
Trump will make sure it doesn’t crash by avoiding all regulations and anything that would make shareholders sweat.
“AI investment” is the reason why we’re not in a full blown “official” recession. He doesn’t want a recession for “his” economy while he is president. When the AI bubble bursts the GOP will be blaming the Democrats and will ask to be put back on power again
- CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
The question is can he float the problem for that long, the current pace of AI investment simply requires more returns than are possible, something like 1/5 of the entire GDP of the united states at a minimum yearly. At some point the emperors lack of clothes will become impossible to hide no matter how much they try.
- cinoreus@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Not to mention US debt is currently in a precarious position right now. I don’t understand how one can even possibly bailout these companies while the USA is sitting on a dicey position itself.
- Kcap@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
I own a beer bar, and we work with some friends who have a catering business that does pop ups on our patio. They’ve been using AI to generate flyers and then tag us to have us share them to our larger audience. I stopped doing it because they look like trash, get low engagement, and are off brand for our art-inspired space. They got upset with me that we weren’t helping promote, and I explained my position on their AI flyers, and they sent a very lengthy email back about how AI is being utilized by small businesses in ways that we’re still scratching the surface to understand its value. I popped the email into chatgpt and asked if it wrote that email and it said it did, lol. Now I have more work on my hands to design their flyers for them, but it’s worth it.
5 daysit’s so bizarre to me that people who work with food don’t realize that the ai trash is producing images that are REVOLTING, do not look like food, and actively deter people from their products.
you’d be better off with a half lit shitty polaroid of actual food than putting that trash on your branding, so much of it is nightmare fuel
- nickiwest@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
Typically, one expects a “bar” to have beer and liquor and the ability to make at least basic mixed drinks (rum and Coke, gin and tonic, etc.).
A “beer bar” usually has a wider variety of beers on draft and no liquor or mixed drinks.
- octobob@lemmy.mlEnglish4 days
Damn you could just have a lot of beers and liquor as well, sounds gimmicky
- ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
Some places have different licensing costs and requirements for places that serve beer and wine only vs also serving spirits.
- octobob@lemmy.mlEnglish20 hours
Never heard of this shit, ngl. In Pittsburgh you can still smoke in bars, even ones that serve food
- Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
I popped the email into chatgpt and asked if it wrote that email and it said it did, lol
It doesn’t work that way tho
- Kcap@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
I mean, it literally does though. The email sounded phony AF, especially knowing that the person’s first language isn’t English and it was overly proper sounding. I copy and pasted it into chatgpt and said “did you write this email?“ and it’s response was” yes, based on the writing style and phrasing, I wrote this content."
- Reality@feddit.orgEnglish5 days
Someone put in the intro to the book Frankenstein into an ai checker and it confirmed it to be 100 percent written by an LLM. It’s not deterministic.
It’s not deterministic.
This is the first thing about LLMs always, and what most people can’t seem to understand.
LLMs are a thing where you give an input and get an output, and it happens to correspond to reality much of the time. But there’s no actual understanding there.
AI is obviously a bubble.
That said, Burry has also predicted 6 of the last 2 crashes.
More like 20. Besides, most of these articles are just reporters misunderstanding Burry’s trades. Guy is a trader, in and out. By time you know his positions, he’s sold and moved on.
- toohotforsoup@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
Does anyone expect a large business to not fail when theyve been as poorly run as Tesla?
Also can we talk about how Musk seemingly is propping up all his companies with the values of his other investments? And that most of that money is government contracts?
- raspirate@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
The AI bubble will “burst” as soon as they figure out how to inflict all the damage onto regular working people. The housing bubble bursting is what enabled the ownership class to kick a bunch of working people out of their homes and then buy up all the recently vacated real estate for cheap. Nothing about the damage that the rich did to our economy caused any of them to face any actual consequences.
The promise of AI was that it would replace all the workers, but it’s not doing that fast enough and it’s beginning to look like it never will. We’ve been hearing that the AI bubble will “burst any day now” for years at this point, but if it happened right now, the ownership class are the ones who would be left holding the bag, and that can’t be allowed to happen. When they find a way to take it out of our hides, we’ll see that suddenly the “invisible hand of the free market” will present a scenario such that the floodgates open and the bloodbath is finally allowed to proceed. I imagine that’s why they started wrapping up so many pension funds and the like in AI investments.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish4 days
ownership class
pension funds
Same thing. Pension funds ARE the ownership class.
I’ve been commenting that people over 55 own 52% of the US and baby boomers as a generation own ~8x more than billionaires as a class, but I re-checked and I’d quoted the wrong number in a bunch of my comments. 52% is for baby boomers only. All over 55s added together are actually over 70%. Let that sink in.
The entire goal of the economy is to let old people enjoy the spoils of the young’s work. Even billionaires are just a symptom of a larger, systemic issue (which is not to say they shouldn’t be hunted for sport, that should still happen).
- karlhungus@lemmy.caEnglish4 days
Over 55 isn’t babyboomers anymore that’s gen x.
I think this kind of data is exactly what you’d expect to see in a somewhat equal society: you work your whole life, saving, of course you’ve got more savings then people who haven’t been working their whole lives.
Really I suspect averaging here is skewing your perception, that 70% can hide a few super wealthy and many more poor (which is what you’d expect given 1% of the population own more than the combined bottom 95% ).
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish3 days
Over 55 isn’t babyboomers anymore that’s gen x.
And silent. But notice how little the percent goes up when you add both silent and much of gen x to it. Most of it is still baby boomers.
I think this kind of data is exactly what you’d expect to see in a somewhat equal society: you work your whole life, saving, of course you’ve got more savings then people who haven’t been working their whole lives.
Yes. So why are people whining that their paychecks aren’t rising, that they can’t afford property, etc? All that goes to old people who, via retirement funds mostly, own the companies that young people work for. The housing is owned by old people and companies belonging to old people. If the US suddenly had a 50 dollar an hour minimum wage, old people would be fucked and have to go back to work because their holdings would no longer be worth shit.
Really I suspect averaging here is skewing your perception, that 70% can hide a few super wealthy and many more poor (which is what you’d expect given 1% of the population own more than the combined bottom 95% ).
Median baby boomer is worth like 400k, average is near 2 mill, so of course it’s still skewed, 10% of baby boomers own 70% of their wealth. But what I’m trying to argue is that you can’t have both a great working life and a great retirement life at the same time unless the amount of retired people is small. Baby boomers enjoyed a great working life and now they’re enjoying a great retirement life, but they can only enjoy the latter because everyone else’s wages stagnated. No other generation has ever been as rich as the baby boomers, no other generation’s wealth outclassed the preceding generation as early as theirs. They’re enjoying more time at the top than anyone before them. Gen X and millennials on the other hand are getting there much later in life and I don’t know if Gen Z will ever be the wealthiest generation before most millennials are dead.
People just aren’t having enough children for this whole retirement thing to work much longer. Millennials might never retire, Gen Z will definitely not retire (and this isn’t specific to the capitalist system). But we get to pay baby boomers to retire.
Eventually we need to start talking about getting rid of retirement altogether. We can’t have 5 retirees living off the back of one working person, that’s absurd.
Ironically the AI everyone’s fighting against, combined with a better economic system of course, is the only thing that can change things. When there are truly very few jobs that need a human, we can finally consider having so many non-working people for so few working people, without outright straddling all the working people with debt. Maybe not AI as it is now, but AI that can truly replace knowledge workers to the point that it can design automation for physical jobs on its own. As it is now, even supposedly “communist” countries need people working well into the 50s and 60s, and it’ll get worse when their demographics crises hit.
- karlhungus@lemmy.caEnglish2 days
If the US suddenly had a 50 dollar an hour minimum wage, old people would be fucked and have to go back to work because their holdings would no longer be worth shit.
This is a counter factual, I think it’d be really hard to prove what would have happened to current people over 55’s savings if wages had kept pace.
I don’t actually think that people need to work forever otherwise the old prey upon the young. I think this is more of an inequality issue, that is remedied with taxes on wealth (i’m mostly basing that opinion on “capital in the 21st century”).
Eventually we need to start talking about getting rid of retirement altogether
Yes yes, make the old’s work again! WTF dude. You know this will happen to you if your lucky right? Personally i want my old age or my parents to not be plagued by want. I see it as part of my duty to support my parents, on account of them supporting me. It seems like you’ve consumed too much zero sum game.
I also think AI has way too many negative externalities (more propping up the ultra wealthy, contributing to climate change) to counter it’s positive effects.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish1 day
This is a counter factual, I think it’d be really hard to prove what would have happened to current people over 55’s savings if wages had kept pace.
Well they’d certainly own less, that’s for sure. Corporate profits would’ve gone down, and corporate profits are where most old people’s wealth comes from (401k, pensions, etc).
Yes yes, make the old’s work again! WTF dude. You know this will happen to you if your lucky right? Personally i want my old age or my parents to not be plagued by want. I see it as part of my duty to support my parents, on account of them supporting me.
The boomers had to support their parents. We have to support our parents and some of their childless friends. Our children will have to support more like 10-15 people each. Unless we raise our retirement ages enough that we aren’t a burden on our children. In general, if you’re under 40 and thinking of retiring one day, you’re selfish as fuck. Personally I at least acknowledge to myself that my desire to retire one day, is extremely selfish, as it requires me to accumulate resources that other people could use.
It seems like you’ve consumed too much zero sum game.
While there are places in economic where zero sum game does not apply (e.g you get more out of education than the money invested into it), resources are largely a zero sum game, as is time (labour). Once an apple has been grown and harvested, only one person can eat it. Once a house is built, only one family can live in it at a time. Etc. When there are fewer people working, less work can get done, unless those people work more hours. To have enough resources for everyone, a big enough share of people has to work. As we have more old people, we need people working longer, unless we figure out a way to replace human labor. As you’re against AI, there’s little real way to do that.
The whole retirement thing is predicated on growth. There’s enough growth that you can tax young people, either via corporations underpaying them (corporations owned by old people), or via direct taxation and a national pension (where the old people benefitting at least benefit a bit more evenly), without it weighing down on them too badly. This worked great for a while because the population kept growing, but that has pretty much stopped in the developed world.
Which is why I keep telling people: If you don’t want retirement ages to rise, you better be making babies and tons of them.
- karlhungus@lemmy.caEnglish1 day
Well they’d certainly own less, that’s for sure. Corporate profits would’ve gone down
There is no way you could say this with certainty. Why would corp profits go down… I could as easily say they’d go up (people have more money because their wages are keeping up so they spend more blah blah. Your taking at least 40 years and suggesting you could predict what would happen if they were fundamentally different.
Once an apple has been grown and harvested, only one person can eat it. Once a house is built, only one family can live in it at a time
Sure, but we don’t have a lack of food problem, or a lack of housing problem. We have distribution problems. It doesn’t take one person to farm all day to feed a family anymore, we can feed thousands with one persons labour now. We have the houses, the ownership is concentrated.
The whole retirement thing is predicated on growth
Right, we don’t have 0.01% holding 10% of total wealth, we couldn’t possibly be spreading that out more evenly. We don’t ask children to go down to the mine, we put them in school. We work together to make more than we need and those growing up and those in old age reap either the benefits of learning and practising, or having earned it through their lifes work resting.
It baffles my mind that you ignore the work retired people did before they retired.
Which is why I keep telling people: If you don’t want retirement ages to rise, you better be making babies and tons of them
You should stop telling them that.
- wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish4 days
They own, but they don’t control that ownership. Their savings are used as investment funds, but very few actually know what they are invested in. That control is in the hands of the indexes. S&P, NASDAQ and the like. Just because NASDAQ blessed SpaceX with being part of their index, millions of pensions bought the stock.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish3 days
They don’t control, yes - the control (on the level of the individual companies) is being handled for their benefit though. Line must go up for the shareholders - aka old people.
- wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish3 days
…handled for their benefit though.
Theoretically, yes. In reality they’re a long way down the food chain.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish1 day
So shareholders are now a long way down the food chain? If that’s the case, maybe publicly traded companies aren’t as evil as we once thought.
