Comment by PaulRobinson

He's not wrong about the numbers, and you may be seeing what you want to see a little, here.

Fable scoring OK on some benchmarks does not the mean the investment has financially paid off, because that's not how ROI works.

You're right that no bubble has deflated, but I think we can all see that a) there seems to be a bubble - I'm old enough to remember the dot-com era bubble, and this definitely feels like that, b) the only company clearly making a profit on AI right now is NVIDIA, and c) the net economic value of the sector as a whole (i.e. money out > money in), is still unproven

It's not even obvious to me as somebody who is up on comp-sci, that this isn't all hype, that the progress is/will be steady, and that reaching brain equivalent levels and beyond using these architectures will be economically viable.

I can create a perfectly good human brain in 9 months, train it in ~20 years, and have it pay off economically in a more proven way than [waves hands] all of this.

For some reason we've decided paying a hyperscaler the equivalent of a year's salary to do a job in a a day that a similarly paid and skilled human could do in a month is value for money.

You could probably give everyone in the US free healthcare for life and a free ride through college for less money than has been pumped into AI in the last 5 years, and have a more proven economic model.

Sure, time value is a thing, but given the error rates, the energy issues... this direction is not exactly a slam dunk as a net benefit, and I think that's all he's called out in any of the writing I've seen of his.

I also happen to agree with his take on Oracle, as it happens - they're only going to survive if it turns out they're a part of critical national infrastructure deep in the bowels of the US government. They look totally over-leveraged otherwise.