Most of that hard-ish data is locked up in the companies involved (and they make every, legal they hope, step they can to hide from the public) and some few pundit factories who have, more or less, inside information at said companies. By and large both the AI companies and the factories keep mum to the Rest of Us. Wouldn't want to spoil the gag, now would they? Of course not.
Well... one of Sleepy Joe's Lunatic Libtard econ types has spilled some of those beans at the NYT. Where else, of course? Jeff The Bald One© will have none of that these days. Wouldn't want to piss off Our Malignant Narcissist©John Gardner.
Thus ecouraged, here are some of the highlights, supportive as they are of these essays, from that report.
A small group of companies are buying and selling large amounts of a hot product to one another, inflating demand for the product and obscuring the risks of the system in a web of complexity. The accountants and credit-rating companies that analyze the situation — and that are financially beholden to the debtors — are deploying shaky excuses to declare it all fine.That's a round about way of admiting that AI, as currently implemented, is a producers' good nearly always, with little to no consumer spend to support the enterprise. If that sounds more than a bit like the prelude to The Great Recession... hell yeah. And, naturally, Our Malignant Narcissist©John Gardner, is in love with debt as he proclaims all the time. Naturally, a wastrel real estate "developer" can only damage a bit of our economy. A wastrel President is another matter entirely.
With more U.S. funds in A.I.-heavy stocks than in homes, a crash could destroy more wealth than the 2008 financial crisis did. And the Trump administration, reportedly eager to prevent a bust, is making changes that inject new opacity and more risk into the situation.Ya feel that sphincter getting a bit tighter? It gets better.
A Wall Street Journal analysis in August concluded that the nine largest tech companies, Nvidia and Meta included, have managed to accrue $3 trillion of debt, or roughly 10 percent of the entire U.S. economy, off their balance sheets. Keeping the debt off the books (and away from the figures investors and regulators watch most closely) makes it easier for those companies to spend enormous sums constructing the data centers that drive A.I. — centers they believe will both improve the technology and satisfy an expected takeoff in demand.Ah, "an expected takeoff in demand". The mother's milk of scammers. Again: the only demand that matters is the end-users' (aka, consumer). Everything else is embedded in companies' BoM, and that drives up cost/price of widgets. Unless, naturally, AI, as currently implemented, will eliminate trillons of Bongo Bucks going to labor. According to FRED total labor compensation is about $12 trillion. So lop off a quarter of those who work (well... given the level of income inequality, you'll have to decimate the lower classes). Forever. May be. Let's ponder that. And shall we not forget that recent research shows that the top 10% of earners do 50% of consumer spending. Will the Damn Gummint conscript the redundant from the top 10%? Do pigs fly? Will it have to be most of the bottom 90%? Who'll buy then? What will the The United States of Alabama produce then? Just financial services and physical goods from the Shithole Countries? Now, to meet that $3 trillion nut, will anything less than a full blown Socialist State protect that remaing 90%? A simple fact that's still not acknowledged by the lamestream media.
In 2018, Congress, worried about the potential impact on small businesses, loosened rules to allow many private creditors to stretch their balance sheets. It ignored objections that money would always flow like water to the least regulated corners of finance.Love that last sentence. Mirrors the classic "race to the bottom" of capitalism. A few winners, many losers. Wait... isn't that Our Malignant Narcissist©John Gardner play with crypto? Yes, yes it is.
Recent estimates indicate that A.I. would need to generate as much as $3 trillion annually in perpetuity to return the capital extended. That's 9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, or twice what Americans spend on food.So, where's all those Bongo Bucks going to come from? If AI, as currently implemented, continues on the intermediate/producer goods path, then those goods must needs yield to aggregate prices at least 3 trillion Bongo Bucks above baseline. Forever. It matters not whether AI is embedded in prices or bought directly by consumers. The difference is, of course, if the latter, then AI is directly useful to whoever has the moolah to buy it. If the former, it's just a cost balloon for what you've always bought. Wonderful.
[T]he basic aim is simple: Our most powerful A.I. models, which are perhaps proving too expensive for any private firm to build, could then answer to democratically elected leaders and be pointed more clearly to public good than to quarterly profits.Jennifer goes all La La Land with that last bit, certainly if Our Malignant Narcissist©John Gardner or his anointed successor is the "democratically elected leaders". No way in Hell will such use AI for anything more than universal repression; even his "base" will feel the pain just as they do now. That's what dictators do when they have the ultimate weapon.
[my emphasis]
No comments:
Post a Comment