jj4211

The bad news for them is that AI is terrible at getting it 'right' the first time, so they have to do things over and over again guessing until it works. So the AI-heavy user pretty much has to just let the commands run to get any benefit since otherwise it's spending 95% of its time waiting on user to approve commands. Further, it's likely commands the user doesn't understand, because they are asking AI to do it in the first place frequently because they don't know themselves.

I'm with you, but as a result other people proclaim to be 'better' AI users largely because they trust the AI. Their stuff is crap and once in a while one of them blows themselves up, but in the short term they are getting praise from management.

Man I can't wait for the bubble to pop and management no longer being hyped for the sake of hype over it.

Congratulations, though a lot of folks are certainly not in that boat.

I will say that at least right now in my area, renting is actually a bit lower than the expected mortgage payment for comparable housing. However, that advantage would shift after 2-3 years as rent goes up but the mortgage would have stayed the same.

It mostly just means higher property tax.

Now there are opportunities to get better interest rates by taking a loan out on your house, but that's depressing. It is, however, a common thing for older people who can't live on their retirement benefits otherwise.

Now the key question is did it drop below the price the owner would have been paying? Assuming the owner had it for at least 3 or 4 years, the rate drop was probably still not below their loan payments based on the purchase price.

If the housing market goes into the shitter…

The owner probably still comes out ahead, no matter what.

Think of the 2008 housing crash. Must have sucked to be paying a fixed mortgage when the market went down. Except the person bought the house in 2004 and was paying the same mortgage they were then, and that's still less than typical rent after a crash calmed things down a bit.

You don't pay the mortgage of the house as it would sell right now, you pay the mortgage based on the purchase price that over years almost certainly trends lower. So as the landlord prices according to current market, the owner costs are largely based on the prices from years ago (except property taxes and insurance).

That's of course assuming you have a mortgage at all, and ignoring the fact that the mortgage goes away entirely at some point.

One thing I will say where renting wins hands down is if you are going to only be there a couple of years. You probably would have needed the mortgage, the property value wouldn't have increased by that much, and the loan origination fees, interest, and various other closing costs means you likely would lose money selling it that soon. The renter may be no worse off financially, but they are no better off then either. Except they can just leave and not worry about finding a replacement.

The boomers aren’t getting any younger, as more of them die, more houses go onto the market

Problem being that many of those houses suck. They are likely to be where there's no housing shortage already, because no one is interested in living there. They tend to be old, and not charmingly over a hundred years old but still standing; like 50 years old with questions of asbestos and polybutylene; with dubious insulation at its best and likely decayed a bit. Terribly in need of maintenance with busted HVAC, rodent destroyed ductwork, dangerous wiring, and moldy crawlspace. Cracked foundations and sagging structures suggesting the wrong storm could just ruin it. They also tend to be relatively tiny compared to houses built in the last couple of decades. I had a boomer relative die, and what did their children manage to get for the house, after months and months on the market? $60k. We were shocked but that was actually a bit higher than houses in their area went for.

Ok, I find this very bizarre. You lament that neoliberal economics is bad but should not be considered disadvantaged?

There's a reason I explicitly mentioned state aid as an option. So it's a fair argument because currently they are disadvantaged. Advocating for equivalent state aid wild be on the table

Now McConnell will make a mysterious recovery.

He got to hell and made a deal.

Well yes, but for example, when someone activated voice interaction with their phone, Google or Apple decide what AI solution is used, and Google already decided to roll their own. When most companies go into AI, just expanding their existing relationship with Microsoft is what their business leaders like. Generally the established companies have preserved the customer engagement even when they resell newcomers.

An example of what you ponder would be like Sears, kmart, Amazon. The thing was that Amazon was greatly valued going direct. People loved the prices and shipping speed. Imagine if instead Amazon decided to partner with Sears and K mart and those companies largely handled the customer engagement with Amazon fulfillment on the backend. Amazon would have been much more exposed to those companies bringing it in house. This latter situation more closely resembles OpenAI and Anthropic right now, at least for the big businesses likely to pay enough after the price hikes.

I personally would exclude OpenAI from my list of likely to endure. OpenAI partners are largely switching to Anthropic, their models and tools are generally less well regarded. The only time I had someone advocate for them it was due to some scenario where it was much cheaper.

Problem is that based on what I've read. Altman has way overextended his company. The financial obligations outpace their revenue and likely revenue way too much.

Anthropic has some risk since Microsoft, Google, and Apple insourcing would be a big problem for them.

GenAI is here to stay in one form or another, with long term impacts.

I wager the bubble will pop when OpenAI finally admits they have no path to making good on their purchasing commitments. They aren't the whole bubble and Altman has made what should be obviously the worst financial moves, however the broader market will be more bearish on anything they vaguely think to be OpenAI like.

I suspect it'll be with a year from now, based on what I've read.

The companies will never stop doing the GenAI things, but they may be less utterly obnoxious about it. I suspect Google and Anthropic have the highest chances of enduring a pop, anthropic for being well regarded in the field and Google because they get to make most phones go to them automatically whether requested or not.

I think GenAI will persist in obnoxious ways, but at least more bearable without folks desperately needing it to be adopted for the sake of their wealth.