this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
856 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

76484 readers
5274 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 3 points 13 hours ago
[–] AnAverageSnoot@lemmy.ca 226 points 1 day ago (12 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.

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 26 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)
[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 36 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 37 points 1 day ago (3 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 (3 replies)
[–] artyom@piefed.social 26 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)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 37 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)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 10 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

And that is probably only the beginning.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] XLE@piefed.social 9 points 18 hours ago

What's the deal with the "HPE" in some Register articles? It's apparently the Hewlett-Packard Enterprise logo, but articles about HPE don't appear to have that logo.

Is The Register affiliated with HPE now?

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 134 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When I lose $11 Billion dollars, I have to go to bed without supper.

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 96 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you owe the bank $100, that’s your problem; if you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem.

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 92 points 1 day ago (9 children)

The difference between 100 million and 11.5 billion is about 11 billion. If you own a bank 11 billion that's not only that bank's problem, it's the economy's problem.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's about 11.5 billion, really.

[–] MattBlackAlien@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago (8 children)

It's exactly 11.4 billion, really.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 83 points 1 day ago (7 children)

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

[–] msage@programming.dev 40 points 1 day ago
[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 12 points 21 hours ago

There is no difference anymore

[–] baduhai@sopuli.xyz 1 points 13 hours ago

What's the difference?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago
[–] Emilien@lemmy.world 55 points 1 day ago (4 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...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] blueamigafan@lemmy.world 66 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 59 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They won't lose any money...

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 36 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)
[–] vane@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brownsugga@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (9 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

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 20 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (10 children)

Like Nividia which... Oh all based on AI revenue.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] ragas@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 day ago

You know if you invest all your winnings into all the companies that buy your stuff so that they can buy more of your stuff, you are actually not generating any winnings.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] popekingjoe@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

Oh no!

Anyway...

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›