by DavidPiper | 2025-04-19 07:05:44+00:00
I agree that situations are much more complex than an economic analysis. And I'm completely onboard with doing the things that take your interest. I do agree with most of the points you're making, and for some I can clarify the direction of my thoughts:

> But what are the fundamentals for LLM? Hype rarely reveals them right away.

I think this is true, and that it is actually a core component of hype: it is not interested in fundamentals. This is true for hype of unproven things, but is also true for hype of proven things (e.g. the iPhone). When I compare the hype around AI to Crypto I see AI has having a much stronger case for "there are fundamentals here". However when I compare them BOTH to the iPhone, it's a different story.

The iPhone already existed when its hype intensified. In this way the hype doesn't really need to "materialise", the thing is already proven, and the hype is the world exploring a thing that exists, not a thing that is promised (e.g. Crypto) or partially-proven (e.g. AI).

> If it doesn't get acessible, well, it probably will be some niche tech like COBOL. Pays awesomelly, but not my jam. That is winning for some people.

I agree, and this is not dissimilar from:

> So, I will fucking learn what I can learn, what I like to learn, and I will hope I can survive on what it pays. That is winning in my books (at least on such narrow economic definition of it).

This sounds to me a lot like the acting profession. People do it because they love it, even though getting gigs is hard, stable income is hard, callbacks are rare, there are skill and relationship and economic ceilings everywhere, but breaking through implies large wins in all of those domains and more.

I don't at all begrudge people for making low-odds bets - I have a number of them myself, just in other places - but I think assessing your bets is important.

> Premise, reality, etc. So maleable.

This is where I pretty strongly disagree. [Assuming you mean "promise"] promises are extremely malleable, but that doesn't make them valuable. In fact I would say it reduces their value, and not realising this is exactly what grifters and dodgy salespeople (etc) hope for.

Reality is not malleable. This is the reason many people who have not bought into the hype keep asking for examples of where AI has is useful. They're not necessarily trying to suggest that it won't ever reach the heights the hype claims (though some certainly are suggesting that). But hype is presented as value NOW, and while reality may change over time, I think a lot of people RIGHT NOW see AI as either not helpful to them, or detrimental to industries broadly (visual art in particular).

It's worth noting though that these two views are somewhat contradictory: we say that it is detrimental right now but also that it is not useful right now. It can be both but the argument is naturally weak.

For my part: I'm starting to find AI enormously useful for search and self-instruction purposes. It's essentially replaced StackOverflow and related sites for me.

But that reality for me doesn't match what the hype says is currently happening. So I consider it a high risk area until the situation changes. The fact that it IS hyped so much is a counter-signal to me that suggests I shouldn't believe everything that is being said until I start seeing strong evidence.