Finance has always run on both: an asset that produces something has a floor. An asset that produces nothing does not. Between the two lies human nature. One way to get rich is to focus on fundamentals. One way to get rich or poor faster is to bet on human nature.
Just because something is doesn’t mean it ought to be. We’ve settled on this system because it seems to be generally the most effective way of valuing things. In times of extreme changes in valuation it comes off as more egregious than normal.
Whenever I read Cory Doctorow, I feel like someone took the complement of Paul Graham's writing and posted it. I personally find both of them vapid and annoying.
Edit: the article that the author is commenting on is IMO much better than the linked commentary. There's not much to it
I just don't get it. How do you go from writing the kinds of future visions he has to staring at the singularity practically hitting you in the face and calling it "the world's money-losingest technology"?
Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?
> That's the logic of the whole market today. AI – the world's money-losingest technology – attracts investment at the expense of everything else.
I expect Cory to have skepticism about technology that can be exploited for dystopian purposes, but calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch. If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment bet is about.
I get that the blog post is making a separate point about Musk's companies but it's dissapointing to see mistakes like this in Cory's thinking
> If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment bet is about.
That's one big "If". From personal experience AI just tends to burn money. Time will tell if the investment pays off but I disagree that, at this time, it is out of touch to say AI is a money sink.
"money-losingest" -> AI already brings in billions and many AI companies could become profitable in little time if they'd stop R&D and simply keep selling what they already have.
yes, it's risky and investment-heavy but it's not a bottomless pit with no path to break even. there are many other recent technologies - NFTs? data centers in space? - that would be a better fit for this label.
Obviously yes. On evidence alone the path to profit doesn't exist for most of the massive capital sinks. A small number of players At best MAY return on investment, but in the cycle time capital needs a return, most are functionally incapable
AGI isn't happening. So, it's incremental improvements on LLM and Generative methods. Any advance which requires more tech inputs demands more capital. Any advance which requires less tech makes all the existing capex look stupid.
[delayed]
> something is valuable because some people think other people will pay more for it in the future, and not because it does useful things
This has been the definition of finance for hundreds of years. I don't know why it comes across here like this is a new phenomenon.
Finance has always run on both: an asset that produces something has a floor. An asset that produces nothing does not. Between the two lies human nature. One way to get rich is to focus on fundamentals. One way to get rich or poor faster is to bet on human nature.
Just because something is doesn’t mean it ought to be. We’ve settled on this system because it seems to be generally the most effective way of valuing things. In times of extreme changes in valuation it comes off as more egregious than normal.
Whenever I read Cory Doctorow, I feel like someone took the complement of Paul Graham's writing and posted it. I personally find both of them vapid and annoying.
Edit: the article that the author is commenting on is IMO much better than the linked commentary. There's not much to it
https://crookedtimber.org/2026/06/15/one-big-grift/
I just don't get it. How do you go from writing the kinds of future visions he has to staring at the singularity practically hitting you in the face and calling it "the world's money-losingest technology"?
Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?
I think you are confusing Charles Stross with Cory Doctorow
I think you’re right. And yet still.
Ideological capture is an often socially enforced prison
most interesting sentence is the first one
> That's the logic of the whole market today. AI – the world's money-losingest technology – attracts investment at the expense of everything else.
I expect Cory to have skepticism about technology that can be exploited for dystopian purposes, but calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch. If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment bet is about.
I get that the blog post is making a separate point about Musk's companies but it's dissapointing to see mistakes like this in Cory's thinking
> calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch
In what way is it out of touch or wrong? It is objectively correct today.
It may very well not be correct 2 years from now, but his statement was about the present, not the future.
> If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment bet is about.
That's one big "If". From personal experience AI just tends to burn money. Time will tell if the investment pays off but I disagree that, at this time, it is out of touch to say AI is a money sink.
“Losing” is a loaded word choice. If I buy something I’m really happy to have, I probably don’t describe it as losing the money.
Obviously the investment expense has been extremely high, which is what the replies are quibbling about.
"money-losingest" -> AI already brings in billions and many AI companies could become profitable in little time if they'd stop R&D and simply keep selling what they already have.
yes, it's risky and investment-heavy but it's not a bottomless pit with no path to break even. there are many other recent technologies - NFTs? data centers in space? - that would be a better fit for this label.
Is that true? If Anthropic stopped last November at versions 4.5, would people keep using it enough to recoup the investment?
AI is currently a massive money sink. Yes or No?
Obviously no...? The implications far outweigh the "money sink" notion...
Obviously yes. On evidence alone the path to profit doesn't exist for most of the massive capital sinks. A small number of players At best MAY return on investment, but in the cycle time capital needs a return, most are functionally incapable
AGI isn't happening. So, it's incremental improvements on LLM and Generative methods. Any advance which requires more tech inputs demands more capital. Any advance which requires less tech makes all the existing capex look stupid.
if