32 pointsby poisonfountain6 hours ago7 comments
  • float45 hours ago
    As someone who's in his late 20s and didn't (consciously) witness the dotcom crisis I want to ask the older people here: was this also part of the dotcom bubble era? Were people working in bookstores angry at Amazon, people working in retail fashion angry at fashion ecommerce stores, etc?
    • epoxyhockey5 hours ago
      The dotcom boom (it wasn't a crisis) was about putting brick and mortar stores online and making shopping more convenient and price efficient. The younger generation was much more enthusiastic about shopping online, and being initial drivers of it. I remember the $25 off (no minimum order) coupons to basically get free stuff every week. The older generations still preferred to go to a store. It was a much slower progression taking 10-years for the older generations to become comfortable with shopping online.

      AI is being driven by the more enthusiastic older generation (in my view) and it's not just about taking a fraction of brick and mortar sales away, it's about systematically replacing the full breadth of white collar jobs, especially the entry level jobs. You know, the jobs that college grads are vying for.

      • xscott2 hours ago
        There was also a decent amount of enthusiasm for the "long tails" because with unlimited virtual shelf space, you could find products that would not have enough mass appeal to the average consumer to justify their space on physical shelves. For instance, Netflix would loan you a DVD of almost any movie but Blockbuster only stocked the middle of the bell curve.
    • Daviey4 hours ago
      No, it was novel and exciting.
    • ThrowawayR25 hours ago
      During the dotcom bubble, people didn't have as much access to the internet as today (a lot of people were still using 56k dial-up modems at ~5 kilobytes/second of download speed) so the effect of online shopping on brick and mortar stores was more of a slow erosion than a sudden collapse. There was resentment and hand wringing about brick and mortar eventually but not until, I think, the late '00s and '10s when more of the world had high speed internet and smartphones were starting to take off.
    • SirFatty4 hours ago
      Apples and oranges.
    • ivewonyoung4 hours ago
      Free Prime shipping which started in 2005 was the real killer. Before that it was more about the large variety that was simply not available in bookstores etc. so people were willing to pay extra for shipping.
    • bediger40005 hours ago
      There was some concern about Amazon in particular, but Amazon didn't eat all the bookstores until well after the dotcom boom/bust. I recall a more academic-economistically inclined friend saying that investing in Amazon now (2001) was buying a part of a future monopoly. The online stuff 1998-2003 was wimpy compared to today.
      • jonstewartan hour ago
        Publishers (and authors) have long had a beef with Amazon. It was Barnes and Noble that put the bookstores out of business, and then Amazon put them out of business and no one really cared.

        Most of the early internet unleashed pent-up demand for greater connectivity. The main industry that was negatively impacted was journalism. Most small towns had their own newspapers, there were many great newspapers across the country, and their business model was advertising, especially classifieds. That was all vaporized, more or less. I don’t think search ads were an improvement, though Craigslist is.

    • seanmcdirmid5 hours ago
      Not really. Secretaries and typists aged out of the job market, Barnes and Nobles was still booming and attracted all the bookstore scorn, people still bought things in stores anyways.
      • ompogUe4 hours ago
        What I remember is the big box book stores coming to town and putting the independent and smaller stores out of business. While I did appreciate having access to stacks of modern computer manuals, it didn't last long: once the mom-and-pops were out of business, the big box stores pivoted to converting half of their floor space to selling candles and pillows.
        • seanmcdirmid26 minutes ago
          There was never much money in books, B&N would always make their margins on their cafe and their overprice gifts and toys. Amazon never really made money from books either, and they don't really make it on retail, but the data they get from retail is very valuable and profitable.

          Borders used to have a beautiful computer book section with a lot of upper end books that you wouldn't find...definitely not find at B&N. It was sad when they went out of business. Amazon has everything but you can't really browse it, and its not like university engineering bookstores and libraries are keeping their books up to date either.

  • tim3332 hours ago
    They have the full speech here https://youtu.be/b1eM3jv0vWY?t=7968

    There's quite a lot less booing vs cheering compared with the linked recording which I guess was done on a phone near some people who didn't like it.

  • lioeters5 hours ago
    Ex-CEO of Google telling a crowd of young graduates entering society, "You will work for AI." Then trying to counter the boos with remarks like: "If you get offered a chance to ride on the rocket ship, you don't ask questions you just get on."

    This is not only about AI the technology, it's the deserved anger against the privileged and powerful for their utter mismanagement of society. The youth sees through the bullshit. Good on them, there may be hope for humanity after all.

    • rvz5 hours ago
      The worst part was he was smirking.

      At this point, people in tech are just as hated as bankers and the general public will see them as their enemies, taking away their job, but this time permanently.

      Of course he knows there will be a crash in this, so its unsurprising to see this reaction. But the point is, Schmidt does not care either way as he stands to benefit and expects humanity to be paying for the tokens.

      He is already prepared for the eventual backlash anyway.

    • foldr4 hours ago
      >If you get offered a chance to ride on the rocket ship, you don't ask questions you just get on

      This doesn't even work as a metaphor. I absolutely would not jump on the chance to ride on a literal rocket ship without asking a hell of a lot of questions first!

  • ChrisArchitect4 hours ago
    More discussion on the linked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48096674
    • tim3333 hours ago
      That was about a different speaker, although still booing AI.
  • rvz5 hours ago
    Figure 1 - Former Google CEO with a vested interest in AI companies who just wants to watch the world burn tokens for the 'benefit of humanity'.
  • yacin5 hours ago
    Out of touch exec commencement speeches will continue until morale improves.
  • stavros5 hours ago
    Honest question, are people against AI, or against AI being solely in the hands of a few massive companies, thus concentrating wealth even more? Are people against local models as well? What if they could run Claude at home (maybe with the same power requirements as now, but maybe with much less upfront cost).
    • AlexeyBrin3 hours ago
      Honest answer: nobody knows. You will need to create a poll large enough of people representing all society and ask the questions. Most people in tech (I include myself here) just speculate and project their own bias on the entire population.
    • xscott2 hours ago
      For me, I'm very enthusiastic about it's use for programming, mathematics, and as a teaching assistant[0]. I'm very worried about it being used for automated surveillance, terrible customer service, and deceptive targeted advertisements. I'm unconcerned about slop and alignment issues. I'm very much in favor of local models (democratization), just like I'm a fan of Wikipedia for making so many topics available to everyone for free.

      [0] I don't see a lot of people using LLMs to learn a new topic, but I had a really great experience by walking through some math I wanted to know, forcing it to go slowly, and writing code and test cases for each concept to make sure it wasn't hallucinating. There are no "choose your own adventure" textbooks like this, and there are no professors who would be that patient with me in office hours. I don't think it will work well for unmotivated learners.

    • Austizzle4 hours ago
      I feel like it's a mix of so many things it's hard to know the answers to any of these questions.

      - the job market is harder now, apparently because of AI - environmental concerns due to data centers - the ethical issues with scraping people's copyright data to power AI - slop overwhelming the Internet, fake videos all over tiktok that seem real - safety issues like AI psychosis

      The world is hard right now, and a lot of the things that make it hard seem to intersect in all sorts of ways with the way AI is being developed, run, and used.

      If you solve one of those issues, you still haven't solved the other ones.

      • krackers3 hours ago
        I don't think AI safety/psychosis/alignment issues are on most people's minds. All of the other ones are basically downstream of AI furthering wealth inequality. Job market for obvious reasons. Environmental concerns are mostly downstream of the fact that cities are suddenly accommodating data centers while they didn't care about promoting growth of infrastructure before, and citizens are asked to foot the electrical/water bills. (People would not care about environmental impacts as much if they weren't immediately impacted, say the DCs were built in Africa).

        Also missed is the pushback against AI art: the further devaluation of talent, and an associated loss of meaning many people have. I think this is probably still downstream of it threatening jobs though, since people would not react as violently if they could truly treat art as a hobby instead of as a profession.

    • AnimalMuppet3 hours ago
      Speaking just for myself:

      I hate AI output. I hate it in code, I hate it in prose. It's just off in ways that range from subtle to absolutely blatant. It's wrong in ways that the humans involved (if any) either can't or don't fix.

      I hate the carelessness of other peoples' time and attention. No, I have no interest in what your AI "thinks" in response to your prompt. If that's what you're doing, just send me the prompt, not the AI output.

      And I hate the AI companies, not so much because AI is solely in the hands of a few companies, but because they're trying to make it appear so inevitable and once-in-a-lifetime-get-on-it-now-or-be-left-behind-forever that everyone is losing their minds and chasing it like lemmings.

      I'm against all of it. I actually care about people. Computers are tools; that's all. When the tools make it harder to connect with other humans in a human way, when the contact turns into this weird unnatural garbage where I can't hear the heart of the person on the other side, then computers are bad tools that need to stop being used. (Yes, you could have "corporate speak" that had the same problems, but at least that came at the speed that humans can type. AI lets it flow far faster, fast enough that it drowns out actual human communication. That's a huge loss.)

      • sinigang2 hours ago
        I feel the same. You're not alone.
      • potsandpans3 hours ago
        This is an example of the conversion disorder currently prevailing in the west. Lets call it "averse ai behavioral syndrome"

        Where an individual has incoherent and acutely strong feelings about an ephemeral ai boogeyman. Usully, using "ai" to refer to generative llm output. May or may not understand that "ai" refers to a much wider set of tools and technologies that are prevalent in the majority of the world.

        To be compared with "llm psychosis", a similar condition in which an individual interacting with generative llm output cannot dostinguish reality from hallucinations.

        It is typically socially unacceptable to present with symptoms of llm psychosis. Aabs tends to be tolerated by most unless symptoms are extreme.

        • kevin948an hour ago
          No need to be so dismissively pathological. If you disagree, that's one thing, but this reads as 'look at this sad, crazy fool' when this is a pretty understandable reaction to feeling alienated by the way in which LLMs are being forcefully pushed in both personal and professional domains and the oft ensuing breakdown in human to human communication. 'Who does this technology serve?' is a valid question and 'not us' is a valid answer.

          Sure, the poster's feelings may stem from a 'wider set of technology/tooling', but that doesn't necessarily take from the point. People are sensing that LLM technology is being used as an accelerant for further alienation, whether attributed perfectly to the specific technology or not.