this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
373 points (99.5% liked)

People Twitter

5182 readers
2086 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 109 points 1 month ago (3 children)

What a waste of power. Somehow they went from "we're green tech!" to "fuck it, we need ALL the power" real quick. And for nothing.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (5 children)

They are making money off AI. Don't think they're not. I don't understand how, but these company's are getting profit.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If you look at the enterprise pricing and options for Copilot and Security Copilot, they're building a pretty obvious business model around automating everything from end user basic tasks to tier 1 incident response.

I'm not advocating that it will work, especially as a person in IR but, all the big players are pushing for security automation. All it's going to take is one high profile incident to shift the CSO's and the like to jump in with both hands full of "ai" purchase orders.

The shittiest part is, this is only going to eliminate more entry level secops jobs. Jobs that are generally a great place to start in the industry.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's also going to create more headaches for the people left to fix things

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

"Shut up and use the AI we are paying a fortune for!"

Proceeds to figure everything out for themselves and works themselves to death

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

This is the real concern I have.

It's already hard enough keeping a job in IT that doesn't drive you absolutely crazy, between having to deal with people who still cannot use a computer and people who make a hundred times what you do having every single blink on their screen being a tier one response crisis and the having to do the actual work of it which is building up and establishing the systems that these workers use.

If they also make it so that there's less need to hire PFYs (pimply faced youths) so that the old blood doesn't get refreshed with the new blood, then it's going to tank the entire sector.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not necessarily. Companies chase what's popular because it boosts the stock. Executives get bonuses and move to the next hot idea.

Remember when everything was block chain?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

No, I mean they are literally making money from it. Asianometry touched on it, but didn't explain how they were making the profit.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They're racking in a ton of investment case on AI. I'm sure there's also a slew of government contracts that keep this beast afloat.

But in terms of real value added to the economy? This seems like its just another Wall Street bubble waiting to pop.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh I agree. But the fact is these company's are seeing actual profits right now.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

They're seeing a flood of new investment, but they're also absorbing huge losses from within their AI divisions.

The profits they're reaping are in other sectors.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think the real pop is going to happen when all of these hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on AI and then a plucky upstart company actually releases general AI and completely and totally demolishes every company that is building up on it.

That is my prediction and my estimation would be 2030-2032 when that happens.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

a plucky upstart company actually releases general AI

Setting aside the very term AGI is ill defined to the point of meaningless, what prevents the bigger company from simply eating the plucky upstart?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You can't buy what isn't for sale, I guess.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hostile takeovers suggest you can.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

You can only hostile take over a publicly traded company. You can't walk into a private business and kick the owners out unless you have a lot of manpower and the ability to fend off the police and lawyers and everybody else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

it's venture capital, fueled by the fumes of hopes and dreams and fantasy stories for investors.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Don’t forget that Microsoft isn’t some dumb company trying to jump on the AI bandwagon. They’re a cloud provider and Azure provides lots of AI options.

Microsoft is one of the platforms raking in heaps of money from dumb companies trying to jump on the AI bandwagon. They’re the equivalent of the people selling MAGA shirts outside trump rallies.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Microsoft is one of the platforms raking in heaps of money from dumb companies trying to jump on the AI bandwagon.

True. But one of their biggest customers is OpenAI. A big part of Microsoft's investment in OpenAI comes in the form of free access to its data centers (which cost money to run, thus costing Microsoft in the short term). By taking advantage of OpenAI's non-profit status, Microsoft was able to write off a bunch of those losses early on as tax deductions.

But they're still losses.

Other firms using Microsoft to jump on the AI bandwagon might help make up the difference. But that's like saying "I'm only doing some of my own heroin, so I still come out ahead". Given the current rate of return on AI investments, the only truly correct investment value is $0.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a weird take. By that logic, the overall rate of return of Amazon as a company being negative for over a decade says that the only correct investment in Amazon was $0

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Amazon is still comically weighted towards AWS. If you could choose which part of the business to own, it wouldn't be much of a contest.

But, by all means, give Jeff Bezos another billion dollars for his Blue Origin project. See what kind of return that gets you.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Nuclear is green

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

The plant is actually going to be renamed "Crane Clean Energy Center" so it's fine!