this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
917 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

76499 readers
2357 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 17 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] happyfullfridge@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago

they will somehow shift the cost on the consumer and continue on

[–] TwinTitans@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Don’t worry. An XBOX will cost 1400$ soon to help make up for it.

[–] weew@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 minutes ago

Also, with mandatory AI Gamer Buddy™ so everyone will buy one themselves instead of going over to your friend's house to play

[–] crimsonpoodle@pawb.social 2 points 6 hours ago

But when will i get cheap GPUs

[–] Ilixtze@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 hours ago

Move fast and burn everything down

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Did they check the couch cushions?

[–] titanicx@lemmy.zip 4 points 7 hours ago

It's all the Starbucks they're buying

[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

So, #FuckAI?

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Fuck AI, it's a bubble, etc. But I do wonder how much of the spending is actual revenue-generating operating costs and how much is further investment/R&D. I doubt Sam Altman sees spending Microsoft's billions on whatever tf he wants as a loss.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 hours ago

Considering how many trillions quietly went into the field, I expect that's a LOT lower than real numbers.

[–] Doorknob@lemmy.world 21 points 14 hours ago

Who wants to give me a billion dollars to dig a hole and I'll give you a billion to fill it back in and we'll both say to investors we posted a billion dollars in revenue.

[–] gergolippai@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Just exploitative market grab for early dominance. (Or: "Grift" lol.) They will make it back when all of us have no choice but use chatgpt for everything.

[–] happyfullfridge@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago

how does it make money tho?

[–] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I don't see them eliminating Linux from the internet

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 13 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

technically according to NSPM-7 any FOSS is terroristic by nature because it's anticapitalist.

that means if you have contributed to FOSS at any time, you are a terrorist. technically.

[–] Stitch0815@feddit.org 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I know this is not a real discussion :D

But I don't think FOSS is inherently anticapitalist. It's just not late stage capitalism. There are plenty of commercial FOSS projects.

Sure you could compile them from source or download somones executable. But especially companies often want convenience, customer support and LTS versions.

[–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

There are, of course, open source licenses that don't allow for commercial use without a license.

Also, there are lots of industries that need guarantees about the software, and even CC0 open source software doesn't come with those guarantees; those come from a commercial use and support contact.

[–] misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You have to make money to lose money.

[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago

That's not what the bank told me

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 33 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I thought for-profit companies were supposed to make a profit...

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 67 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well actually there is a long and rich history of companies that are able to operate at a loss using funds appropriated from sale of shares to investors, and this process continues so long as new investors keep buying in such that anybody selling out is covered by the new funds until enough people try to sell out that the price starts to plunge, although the collapse can be delayed by the company strategically buying back and occasionally splitting or reorganizing, meaning everyone gets their money back unless they sell too late.

You know.

A fucking Ponze Scheme.

[–] reptar@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well that's a damn good post Mr banjo

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 21 points 1 day ago

Oh honey, that hasn't been true since 2008.

The government will bail out companies that get too big to fail. So investors want to loan money to companies so that those companies become too big to fail, so that when those investors "collect on their debt with interest" the government pays them.

They funded Uber, which lost 33 billion dollars over the course of 7 years before ever turning a profit, but by driving taxi companies out of business and lobbying that public transit is unnecessary, they're an unmissable part of society, so investors will get their dues.

They funded Elon Musk, whose companies are the primary means of communication between politicians and the public, a replacing NASA as the US government's primary space launch provider for both civilian and military missions, and whose prestige got a bunch of governments to defund public transit to feed continued dependence on car companies. So investors will get their dues through military contracts and through being able to threaten politicians with a media blackout.

And so they fund AI, which they're trying to have replace so many essential functions that society can't run without it, and which muddies the waters of anonymous interaction to the point that people have no choice but to only rely on information that has been vetted by institutions - usually corporations like for-profit news.

The point of AI is not to make itself so desirable that people want to give AI companies money to have it in their life. The point of AI is to make people more dependent on AI and on other corporations that the AI company's owners own.

[–] BigBrownBeaver@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

rookie numbers.. you gotta pump it up

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 32 points 1 day ago

Billions in investment. Trillions in speculation. All on something that makes less money than Genshin Impact.

Fun times.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] J52@lemmy.nz 4 points 19 hours ago

It's not small change anymore. That's what happens when you don't listen to your customers.

[–] ReHomed@lemmy.cafe 53 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Good.

Fuck AI, send it directly to hell.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (4 children)

AI is here to stay. AI is also in an unsustainable bubble. Both things are true

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] someacnt@sh.itjust.works 66 points 1 day ago (22 children)

Maybe, just maybe, the bubble started bursting now.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] AnAverageSnoot@lemmy.ca 246 points 1 day ago (27 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.

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is that why MSFT dumped like 3.5% today?

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 hours ago

Its priced in

load more comments
view more: next ›