this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
137 points (96.6% liked)

Hardware

4531 readers
104 users here now

All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.


Rules (Click to Expand):

  1. Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about

  2. Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.

  3. No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.

  4. Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.

  5. Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).

  6. If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.


Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:

Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

One other theory I've heard is that the oligarch class are searching for a radically disruptive tech in terms of economic impact (mass market home computers, internet, smartphones), but there is no guarantee that "AI" will be as disruptive or offer the same ROI values.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Oh yeah, they are def doing that. I think this theory answers the question of why they're doing what they're doing. Why they piled up money in various tire fires since the Great Recession, the latest one being AI. And if the ROI doesn't show signs that there's ungodly money to be made in AI, the money would move elsewhere, by selling off AI assets, thus crashing AI asset prices (NVIDIA stock, OpenAI valuations, etc.) Once that occurs, if it occurs, is where my hypothesis begins. I'm basically saying that there isn't an obvious thing for them to throw money at, at similar rate they're throwing it to AI. If there's nowehere for them to throw money at as they take it out of AI. Nothing will grow until they find something new, since we know the rest of the economy isn't growing.

BTW, perhaps less obviously, if AI actually shows it would return the huge ROI the market is expecting, I really don't see how that ROI actually going to materialize. At first there will be high returns as firms displace workers with AI, partially (more work per worker, layoff some) or fully. But as more and more firms do this, I highly doubt the economy would be able to quickly find jobs of equivalent pay for all those laid off workers. That means rising unemployment and/or deskilling/downward mobility/lower pay. Which means lower aggregate demand. Which means at one point there won't be enough demand to buy the output of the firms displacing workers with AI. At that point they won't be able to get further returns on their AI investment. That would also likely produce an economic crisis and social unrest as it has in the past.

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Agreed, much of the American-style faux-optimism is based on the ignorance of history.

Push the plebs too far and there is some risk that they will rebel. No LLM or smartphone is going to change that.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

We’re a lot more comfortable these days though. I think more people are struggling and stressed, but what counts as poverty is still better than the poverty of 1900s recession, as living standards have risen. It’s when people get hungry that violence begins and I don know that enough people are hungry to cause violent upheaval. It’s a good thing, but a lesson to the ruling class about the limits hey can push.

However, with Trump in control, I don’t know that those limits will be as precise or as considered. So, we may speedrun to it.

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

As a counter arguement (not necessarily in the US context), commoners in say 1100 had it way worse than than commoners in 1900.

By 1900 there were already certain moral standards and expectations, nothing like we have now especially in more developed countries, but in comparison 1900 is much closer to 2025 than to 1100.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 4 weeks ago

Yes, and it's all relative to what we see and expect. There has been a general trend of improving living standards. However, since the boomer generation, there has been a continued rise in standards but their kids are the first, in the west, that didn't necessarily have a step up in standards apart from technological advances. Food and shelter being huge and sanitation being effectively solved.