this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
89 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

81802 readers
4172 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
89
‘A feedback loop with no brake’: how an AI doomsday report shook US markets (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 5 hours ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 47 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

I just..

Am I wrong here? Like, look, shame me. I work in machine learning and have since 2012. I don't do any of the llm shit. I do things like predicting wildfire risk from satellite imagery or biomass in the amazon, soil carbon, shit like that.

I've tried all the code assistants. They're fucking crap. There's no building an economy around these things. You'll just get dogshit. There's no building institutions around these things.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 5 points 1 hour ago

Heh, that's the joke going around now.

AI works, it replaces workers, we lose our jobs.

AI doesn't work, bubble pops, we lose our jobs.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 3 points 1 hour ago

They're fucking crap. There's no building an economy around these things.

You are right in every serious part of the world.

But add "venture capital" to the equation and it works out stronger than anything else so far.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago

I think it’s supposed to work like, “well, even if you are right about the massive utility of AI, is that still what we should be aiming for?”

It gets around the combative “you’re wrong, AI is garbage” argument. The people hoisting AI because they believe, even if it does suck, it’ll get better… those people can probably understand this argument much more easily.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 64 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Really reinforces my belief that the stockmarket is driven by idiots.

Reminds me of this old Kal cartoon:

Granted AI will probably doom us all but not how the substance post says it will.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 11 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Lol, they sort of seem to know it's all castles on clouds and any spark e.g. a substack post could trigger the loaded spring. Yet, nobody thinks they'll be the ones holding bags of shit.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

They kind of know. The dot com crashed many companies, and also gave rise to Amazon. They're all just hoping they'll be the one that invested in the next Amazon.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 2 points 57 minutes ago (1 children)

Have they made a profit yet?

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 4 points 48 minutes ago (1 children)

Amazon didn't make any profit for a decade and made 360 billion least year. They tell investors that AI will be the same.

[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 minutes ago

The difference was that Amazon knew how to make a profit, but was reinvesting into infrastructure plays and bigger fish.

If they had to, they could have been a modestly profitable bookshop in 2002. AWS and monster logistics might not have developed to put them in the 13-digit club though.

Does any AI-centric play have that fundamental fallback? The services that seem to be most effective at direct monetization, the coding tools, are typically running at huge losses. If they raised costs to cover, precious few firms will pay basically the salary of a senior dev for an emulation of an enthusiastic junior dev with an affinity for footguns.

The less enterprise-focused products-- parasocial toys, image and video gen, will likely try to dip into consumer subs and advertising, but can that generate the cash volumes these platforms demand?