this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
826 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

75756 readers
8033 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AnAverageSnoot@lemmy.ca 220 points 1 day ago (11 children)

AI is funded solely by sunk cost fallacy at this point. I wonder how long it will be before investments start getting pulled back because of a lack of ROI. I can already feel the sentiment towards AI and it getting pushed in everything turning negative amongst consumers recently.

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 35 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (5 children)

Investment is done really to train models for ever more miniscule gains. I feel like the current choices are enough to satisfy who is interested in such services, and what really is lacking is now more hardware dedicated to single user sessions to improve quality of output with the current models.

But I really want to see more development on offline services, as right now it is really done only by hobbyists and only occasionally large companies with a little dripfeed (Facebook Llama, original Deepseek model [latter being pretty much useless as no one has the hardware to run it]).

I remember seeing the Samsung Galaxy Fold 7 ("the first AI phone", unironic cit.) presentation and listening to them talking about all the AI features instead of the real phone capabilities. "All of this is offline, right? A powerful smartphone... makes sense to have local models for tasks." but it later became abundantly clear it was just repackaged always-online Gemini for the entire presentation on $2000 of hardware.

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 36 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They're investing this much because they honestly seem to think they're on the cusp of super intelligent AGI. They're not, but they really seem to think they are, and that seems to justify these insane investments.

But all they're really doing is the same thing as before but even bigger. It's not going to work. It's only going to make things even more expensive.

I use Copilot and Claude at work, and while it's really impressive at what it can do, it's also really stupid and requires a lot of hand holding. It's not on the brink of AGI super intelligence. Not even close. Maybe we'll get there some day, but not before all these companies are bankrupt.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] artyom@piefed.social 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I knew it was a bubble since Computex January 2024 when Derb8uer showed an "AI PC case". He asked "What's AI about this PC case?" and they replied that you could put an AI PC inside it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

AI is funded solely by sunk cost fallacy at this point.

and the us economy an gdp relies solely on ai make of that what you will.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

One of our biggest bookstores contracted with a local artist for some merch. That artist used AI with predictable results. Now everyone involved is getting raked over the coals for it.

No surprise, they just announced a 4th round of layoffs too. 😟

https://lithub.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-powells-ai-slop-snafu-and-what-we-can-all-learn-from-it/

https://www.koin.com/news/portland/powells-layoffs-employees-10292025/

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 13 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I wouldn't have a problem if they were actually investing the money in something useful like R&D

Nearly all the investment is in data centers. Their approach for the past 2 years seems to be just throwing more hardware at existing approaches, which is a really great way to burn an absurd amount of money for little to nothing in return

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 77 points 1 day ago (6 children)

is this $11,500,000,000 in real money or speculative money?

[–] msage@programming.dev 38 points 1 day ago
[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 12 points 22 hours ago

There is no difference anymore

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] blueamigafan@lemmy.world 63 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I look forward to the AI bubble bursting, and billionaires looking shocked, 'because there were no signs'

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They won't lose any money...

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago (9 children)

In contrast to the housing bubble, where a lot of the value was in overpriced houses sold to individuals, this overpricing is almost entirely in tech stocks, and tech stocks are almost entirely owned by by the wealthiest 10%, even 1%. The tech billionaires have limited ability to divest themselves of their own overpriced companies and absolutely will lose money.

None of them are going bankrupt, they'll all be just fine when the market recovers in a few years, because that's the nature of capitalism. A bunch of peons, who convinced themselves that the bubble-value of their 401k meant it was safe to retire, will suffer, will have to go back to work - if you're not an oligarch, losing money is painful.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] someacnt@sh.itjust.works 61 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Maybe, just maybe, the bubble started bursting now.

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 33 points 21 hours ago (16 children)

I wish. Even knowing it's all a gigantic scam, they'll first protect themselves before letting it burst and screw everybody else. The rich get a buffer period.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Emilien@lemmy.world 52 points 1 day ago (3 children)

So they "lost" $11.5B? Cool, I lost 20 bucks last week and still had to explain it to my accountant 🤭 Feels like the entire AI industry is built on "don't worry, growth will save us", but at some point someone has to pay the electricity bill...

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 day ago

It's magic that will magically transform the world and make everybody rich and magically do our work for us. Like in Disney's Sorcerer's Apprentice.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ReHomed@lemmy.cafe 48 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Good.

Fuck AI, send it directly to hell.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 42 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

AI is here to stay. AI is also in an unsustainable bubble. Both things are true

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] oakey66@lemmy.world 34 points 21 hours ago

Wow. Glad they just converted to a for profit entity! Can’t wait for them to unleash all this success on to the the general financial market.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 34 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

This reminds me of something that came up recently. Copilot started hallicinating quite a bit more than usual in Copilot reviews. That made me think about the cost of operarion. As they burn money like this, I won't be surprised if they start decreasing inference quality to decrease cost per user. Which also means people relying on certain model behaviour for tasks could get nasty surprises. Especially within automation workflows where model outputs aren't being reviewed.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sirico@feddit.uk 33 points 1 day ago

Hubble bubble S&P's in trouble

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 31 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I thought for-profit companies were supposed to make a profit...

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 62 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Well actually there is a long and rich history of companies that are able to operate at a loss using funds appropriated from sale of shares to investors, and this process continues so long as new investors keep buying in such that anybody selling out is covered by the new funds until enough people try to sell out that the price starts to plunge, although the collapse can be delayed by the company strategically buying back and occasionally splitting or reorganizing, meaning everyone gets their money back unless they sell too late.

You know.

A fucking Ponze Scheme.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 16 points 14 hours ago

Oh honey, that hasn't been true since 2008.

The government will bail out companies that get too big to fail. So investors want to loan money to companies so that those companies become too big to fail, so that when those investors "collect on their debt with interest" the government pays them.

They funded Uber, which lost 33 billion dollars over the course of 7 years before ever turning a profit, but by driving taxi companies out of business and lobbying that public transit is unnecessary, they're an unmissable part of society, so investors will get their dues.

They funded Elon Musk, whose companies are the primary means of communication between politicians and the public, a replacing NASA as the US government's primary space launch provider for both civilian and military missions, and whose prestige got a bunch of governments to defund public transit to feed continued dependence on car companies. So investors will get their dues through military contracts and through being able to threaten politicians with a media blackout.

And so they fund AI, which they're trying to have replace so many essential functions that society can't run without it, and which muddies the waters of anonymous interaction to the point that people have no choice but to only rely on information that has been vetted by institutions - usually corporations like for-profit news.

The point of AI is not to make itself so desirable that people want to give AI companies money to have it in their life. The point of AI is to make people more dependent on AI and on other corporations that the AI company's owners own.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 29 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The whole "AI" thing is one big grift.

[–] SugarCatDestroyer@lemmy.world 12 points 19 hours ago

I agree, and essentially they used slightly reworked old neural network technologies, increasing their power with the help of data centers.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 27 points 1 day ago (6 children)

But that's what they wanted anyway, isn't it?

Burning shitloads of money.

Waiting until they can later, finally, rule the world.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] popekingjoe@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

Oh no!

Anyway...

[–] vane@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (6 children)

apparently the bubble might not be as extreme as some people think because the major AI players are all being propped up by companies that actually produce revenues and profits

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

12 billion in one quarter…. Holy fuck

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jlow@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 17 hours ago
[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 16 points 17 hours ago

Is that why MSFT dumped like 3.5% today?

[–] elgordino@fedia.io 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Remember when OpenAI launched Dall-E 2? You got a few tokens for free images and then had to pay for it. Presumably that was at least some reflection on the cost of producing the images.

Now you can create video for free and consumer expectations that generative AI should be super cheap have been set. That genie is not going to go easily back into the bottle.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You have to make money to lose money.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›