#davekarpf — Public Fediverse posts

What kind of AI bubble are we in?

This is very helpful by Dave Karpf about three prevailing narratives concerning the dot-com crash which are lurking in the background of current debates:

So those are our three potential narratives: (1) a startup bubble, (2) unrealistic capital expenditures, and (3) way-too-fancy financial chicanery. All three of these phenomena happened simultaneously, but the lessons we take from the dotcom crash vary depending on which story we emphasize.

As he points out Sam Altman means (1) such that his company will be the equivalent of Amazon arising from the crash. Whereas I think the most incisive critique of the current bubble concerns the parallels between the financial infrastructure of AI (e.g. circular financing, a push to ‘financial innovation’, deliberately opaque treatment of business fundamentals) and financialisation from Enron through to the great recession. I’ve not as convinced that the infrastructural build out is as self-evidently irrational as Karpf suggests here:

For the past year, the AI data center construction boom has given off strong Global Crossing vibes. Microsoft, Meta, Google, OpenAI, and X.ai are all spending billions to build massive data centers. I’m just a simple political scientist who reads old tech magazines, but I cannot fathom how the costs of data center construction are ever supposed to be recouped from a mass user base that pays between $0 and $20/month for the products. (Read Ed Zitron for much more on how little sense these numbers make).

Effectively they’re deploying their savings glut on a bet about who controls the future of planetary scale computation. The calculation is that this will be used for something and it’s a long term capital investment as much as a short-term bet on generative AI. I agree with him that it’s like the telecoms story with the exception that I don’t think this will bankrupt any of the major cloud computing players. OpenAI and Anthropic on the other hand….? This on the other hand seems like a deeply precarious basis for sustained growth:

But with the latest wave of multibillion- and trillion-dollar dealmaking among the largest AI players, the vibes are turning decidedly Enron-like. Nvidia announced it is investing $100 billion in OpenAI, which OpenAI will then use to purchase Nvidia products. OpenAI announces a deal to buy $78 billion in chips from AMD, and is awarded 10% of the company in the deal, effectively offsetting the purchase.

As he puts it in the closing paragraph: “But I’ll say this: the AI bubble isn’t predominantly giving off Pets.com or Global Crossing vibes anymore. It’s giving Enron vibes” 👌

This is something which the FT journalist Rana Foroohar drew attention to years ago in Don’t Be Evil. This is how Readwise summarises my highlights and notes oon her book:

Her systemic-risk argument:

• Big Tech has become “too big to fail” by amassing giant, opaque bond portfolios and acting like unregulated banks (issuing cheap debt, buying higher-yield corporate bonds, anchoring deals). If those assets are downgraded or dumped, markets could be toppled.

• Their dominance across critical “infrastructure” (ads, cloud, payments/logistics, data) makes them systemically important beyond finance, with failures or abuses spilling into politics, media, healthcare, and national security.

• The tech–finance convergence (using privileged data to price and push credit/insurance) amplifies information asymmetries and offloads tail risks to the public, with the state likely as insurer of last resort.

So it’s not just big balance sheets; it’s balance sheets + market centrality + regulatory gaps that create new systemic risk.

#accounting #anthropic #capitalism #daveKarpf #dotComCrash #Enron #finance #openAI #politicalEconomy #risk

What kind of AI bubble are we in?

This is very helpful by Dave Karpf about three prevailing narratives concerning the dot-com crash which are lurking in the background of current debates:

So those are our three potential narratives: (1) a startup bubble, (2) unrealistic capital expenditures, and (3) way-too-fancy financial chicanery. All three of these phenomena happened simultaneously, but the lessons we take from the dotcom crash vary depending on which story we emphasize.

As he points out Sam Altman means (1) such that his company will be the equivalent of Amazon arising from the crash. Whereas I think the most incisive critique of the current bubble concerns the parallels between the financial infrastructure of AI (e.g. circular financing, a push to ‘financial innovation’, deliberately opaque treatment of business fundamentals) and financialisation from Enron through to the great recession. I’ve not as convinced that the infrastructural build out is as self-evidently irrational as Karpf suggests here:

For the past year, the AI data center construction boom has given off strong Global Crossing vibes. Microsoft, Meta, Google, OpenAI, and X.ai are all spending billions to build massive data centers. I’m just a simple political scientist who reads old tech magazines, but I cannot fathom how the costs of data center construction are ever supposed to be recouped from a mass user base that pays between $0 and $20/month for the products. (Read Ed Zitron for much more on how little sense these numbers make).

Effectively they’re deploying their savings glut on a bet about who controls the future of planetary scale computation. The calculation is that this will be used for something and it’s a long term capital investment as much as a short-term bet on generative AI. I agree with him that it’s like the telecoms story with the exception that I don’t think this will bankrupt any of the major cloud computing players. OpenAI and Anthropic on the other hand….? This on the other hand seems like a deeply precarious basis for sustained growth:

But with the latest wave of multibillion- and trillion-dollar dealmaking among the largest AI players, the vibes are turning decidedly Enron-like. Nvidia announced it is investing $100 billion in OpenAI, which OpenAI will then use to purchase Nvidia products. OpenAI announces a deal to buy $78 billion in chips from AMD, and is awarded 10% of the company in the deal, effectively offsetting the purchase.

As he puts it in the closing paragraph: “But I’ll say this: the AI bubble isn’t predominantly giving off Pets.com or Global Crossing vibes anymore. It’s giving Enron vibes” 👌

This is something which the FT journalist Rana Foroohar drew attention to years ago in Don’t Be Evil. This is how Readwise summarises my highlights and notes oon her book:

Her systemic-risk argument:

• Big Tech has become “too big to fail” by amassing giant, opaque bond portfolios and acting like unregulated banks (issuing cheap debt, buying higher-yield corporate bonds, anchoring deals). If those assets are downgraded or dumped, markets could be toppled.

• Their dominance across critical “infrastructure” (ads, cloud, payments/logistics, data) makes them systemically important beyond finance, with failures or abuses spilling into politics, media, healthcare, and national security.

• The tech–finance convergence (using privileged data to price and push credit/insurance) amplifies information asymmetries and offloads tail risks to the public, with the state likely as insurer of last resort.

So it’s not just big balance sheets; it’s balance sheets + market centrality + regulatory gaps that create new systemic risk.

#accounting #anthropic #capitalism #daveKarpf #dotComCrash #Enron #finance #openAI #politicalEconomy #risk

What kind of AI bubble are we in?

This is very helpful by Dave Karpf about three prevailing narratives concerning the dot-com crash which are lurking in the background of current debates:

So those are our three potential narratives: (1) a startup bubble, (2) unrealistic capital expenditures, and (3) way-too-fancy financial chicanery. All three of these phenomena happened simultaneously, but the lessons we take from the dotcom crash vary depending on which story we emphasize.

As he points out Sam Altman means (1) such that his company will be the equivalent of Amazon arising from the crash. Whereas I think the most incisive critique of the current bubble concerns the parallels between the financial infrastructure of AI (e.g. circular financing, a push to ‘financial innovation’, deliberately opaque treatment of business fundamentals) and financialisation from Enron through to the great recession. I’ve not as convinced that the infrastructural build out is as self-evidently irrational as Karpf suggests here:

For the past year, the AI data center construction boom has given off strong Global Crossing vibes. Microsoft, Meta, Google, OpenAI, and X.ai are all spending billions to build massive data centers. I’m just a simple political scientist who reads old tech magazines, but I cannot fathom how the costs of data center construction are ever supposed to be recouped from a mass user base that pays between $0 and $20/month for the products. (Read Ed Zitron for much more on how little sense these numbers make).

Effectively they’re deploying their savings glut on a bet about who controls the future of planetary scale computation. The calculation is that this will be used for something and it’s a long term capital investment as much as a short-term bet on generative AI. I agree with him that it’s like the telecoms story with the exception that I don’t think this will bankrupt any of the major cloud computing players. OpenAI and Anthropic on the other hand….? This on the other hand seems like a deeply precarious basis for sustained growth:

But with the latest wave of multibillion- and trillion-dollar dealmaking among the largest AI players, the vibes are turning decidedly Enron-like. Nvidia announced it is investing $100 billion in OpenAI, which OpenAI will then use to purchase Nvidia products. OpenAI announces a deal to buy $78 billion in chips from AMD, and is awarded 10% of the company in the deal, effectively offsetting the purchase.

As he puts it in the closing paragraph: “But I’ll say this: the AI bubble isn’t predominantly giving off Pets.com or Global Crossing vibes anymore. It’s giving Enron vibes” 👌

This is something which the FT journalist Rana Foroohar drew attention to years ago in Don’t Be Evil. This is how Readwise summarises my highlights and notes oon her book:

Her systemic-risk argument:

• Big Tech has become “too big to fail” by amassing giant, opaque bond portfolios and acting like unregulated banks (issuing cheap debt, buying higher-yield corporate bonds, anchoring deals). If those assets are downgraded or dumped, markets could be toppled.

• Their dominance across critical “infrastructure” (ads, cloud, payments/logistics, data) makes them systemically important beyond finance, with failures or abuses spilling into politics, media, healthcare, and national security.

• The tech–finance convergence (using privileged data to price and push credit/insurance) amplifies information asymmetries and offloads tail risks to the public, with the state likely as insurer of last resort.

So it’s not just big balance sheets; it’s balance sheets + market centrality + regulatory gaps that create new systemic risk.

#accounting #anthropic #capitalism #daveKarpf #dotComCrash #Enron #finance #openAI #politicalEconomy #risk

What kind of AI bubble are we in?

This is very helpful by Dave Karpf about three prevailing narratives concerning the dot-com crash which are lurking in the background of current debates:

So those are our three potential narratives: (1) a startup bubble, (2) unrealistic capital expenditures, and (3) way-too-fancy financial chicanery. All three of these phenomena happened simultaneously, but the lessons we take from the dotcom crash vary depending on which story we emphasize.

As he points out Sam Altman means (1) such that his company will be the equivalent of Amazon arising from the crash. Whereas I think the most incisive critique of the current bubble concerns the parallels between the financial infrastructure of AI (e.g. circular financing, a push to ‘financial innovation’, deliberately opaque treatment of business fundamentals) and financialisation from Enron through to the great recession. I’ve not as convinced that the infrastructural build out is as self-evidently irrational as Karpf suggests here:

For the past year, the AI data center construction boom has given off strong Global Crossing vibes. Microsoft, Meta, Google, OpenAI, and X.ai are all spending billions to build massive data centers. I’m just a simple political scientist who reads old tech magazines, but I cannot fathom how the costs of data center construction are ever supposed to be recouped from a mass user base that pays between $0 and $20/month for the products. (Read Ed Zitron for much more on how little sense these numbers make).

Effectively they’re deploying their savings glut on a bet about who controls the future of planetary scale computation. The calculation is that this will be used for something and it’s a long term capital investment as much as a short-term bet on generative AI. I agree with him that it’s like the telecoms story with the exception that I don’t think this will bankrupt any of the major cloud computing players. OpenAI and Anthropic on the other hand….? This on the other hand seems like a deeply precarious basis for sustained growth:

But with the latest wave of multibillion- and trillion-dollar dealmaking among the largest AI players, the vibes are turning decidedly Enron-like. Nvidia announced it is investing $100 billion in OpenAI, which OpenAI will then use to purchase Nvidia products. OpenAI announces a deal to buy $78 billion in chips from AMD, and is awarded 10% of the company in the deal, effectively offsetting the purchase.

As he puts it in the closing paragraph: “But I’ll say this: the AI bubble isn’t predominantly giving off Pets.com or Global Crossing vibes anymore. It’s giving Enron vibes” 👌

This is something which the FT journalist Rana Foroohar drew attention to years ago in Don’t Be Evil. This is how Readwise summarises my highlights and notes oon her book:

Her systemic-risk argument:

• Big Tech has become “too big to fail” by amassing giant, opaque bond portfolios and acting like unregulated banks (issuing cheap debt, buying higher-yield corporate bonds, anchoring deals). If those assets are downgraded or dumped, markets could be toppled.

• Their dominance across critical “infrastructure” (ads, cloud, payments/logistics, data) makes them systemically important beyond finance, with failures or abuses spilling into politics, media, healthcare, and national security.

• The tech–finance convergence (using privileged data to price and push credit/insurance) amplifies information asymmetries and offloads tail risks to the public, with the state likely as insurer of last resort.

So it’s not just big balance sheets; it’s balance sheets + market centrality + regulatory gaps that create new systemic risk.

#accounting #anthropic #capitalism #daveKarpf #dotComCrash #Enron #finance #openAI #politicalEconomy #risk

brutal but entirely accurate review of Balaji's¹ book "The Network State" that is regarded as something of a blueprint for a future government by the #broligarchs currently running the country.

¹ Balaji is a crypto con artist who has also been a partner at Marc Andreessen's #a16z as well as CTO of #Coinbase.

https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/the-tech-barons-have-a-blueprint

#NerdReich #NetworkState #Coinbase #MarcAndreessen #a16z #DOGE #elonmusk #uspol #fascism #techfascism #davekarpf #Balaji

brutal but entirely accurate review of Balaji's¹ book "The Network State" that is regarded as something of a blueprint for a future government by the #broligarchs currently running the country.

¹ Balaji is a crypto con artist who has also been a partner at Marc Andreessen's #a16z as well as CTO of #Coinbase.

https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/the-tech-barons-have-a-blueprint

#NerdReich #NetworkState #Coinbase #MarcAndreessen #a16z #DOGE #elonmusk #uspol #fascism #techfascism #davekarpf #Balaji

brutal but entirely accurate review of Balaji's¹ book "The Network State" that is regarded as something of a blueprint for a future government by the #broligarchs currently running the country.

¹ Balaji is a crypto con artist who has also been a partner at Marc Andreessen's #a16z as well as CTO of #Coinbase.

https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/the-tech-barons-have-a-blueprint

#NerdReich #NetworkState #Coinbase #MarcAndreessen #a16z #DOGE #elonmusk #uspol #fascism #techfascism #davekarpf #Balaji

brutal but entirely accurate review of Balaji's¹ book "The Network State" that is regarded as something of a blueprint for a future government by the #broligarchs currently running the country.

¹ Balaji is a crypto con artist who has also been a partner at Marc Andreessen's #a16z as well as CTO of #Coinbase.

https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/the-tech-barons-have-a-blueprint

#NerdReich #NetworkState #Coinbase #MarcAndreessen #a16z #DOGE #elonmusk #uspol #fascism #techfascism #davekarpf #Balaji

brutal but entirely accurate review of Balaji's¹ book "The Network State" that is regarded as something of a blueprint for a future government by the #broligarchs currently running the country.

¹ Balaji is a crypto con artist who has also been a partner at Marc Andreessen's #a16z as well as CTO of #Coinbase.

https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/the-tech-barons-have-a-blueprint

#NerdReich #NetworkState #Coinbase #MarcAndreessen #a16z #DOGE #elonmusk #uspol #fascism #techfascism #davekarpf #Balaji

While I see the value in exploring the ideological infrastructure supporting the authoritarian turn amongst digital elites, I think Dave Karpf is right to argue that the material driver is a pushback by venture capitalists, whose interests are not identical with big tech, against increasing regulation of the sector:

This, by the way, is the main reason why so much of Silicon Valley has decided to embrace the candidacy of former President Donald Trump. It isn’t that tech leaders necessarily love incompetent authoritarians. It isn’t because they believe any of his promises. It’s that they have spent 3.5 years facing Lina Khan at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and they cannot handle answering to a competent regulator anymore.

The FTC published a spicy memo last month, warning AI companies not to misrepresent what their services are or can do.

“Your therapy bots aren’t licensed psychologists, your AI girlfriends are neither girls nor friends, your griefbots have no soul, and your AI copilots are not gods. We’ve warned companies about making false or unsubstantiated claims about AI or algorithms. And we’ve followed up with actions, including recent cases against WealthPress, DK Automation, Automaters AI, and CRI Genetics. We’ve also repeatedly advised companies – with reference to past cases – not to use automated tools to mislead people about what they’re seeing, hearing, or reading.”

This is what the “Little Tech Agenda” is fighting against. They are opposed to having an FTC that prevents outright fraud. But if the government actually protects consumers, a16z’s investment portfolio may take a big hit. This is why many VCs would much prefer autocracy to accountability

https://www.techpolicy.press/the-little-tech-agenda-is-just-selfserving-nonsense/

https://markcarrigan.net/2024/07/16/why-digital-elites-are-embracing-trump/

#bigTech #daveKarpf #digitalElites #platformCapitalism

Frustration

Learning to distinguish the map versus the territory is an essential step. It’s critical to learn what a map is, and what maps are good for, in order to proceed with one’s life. Maps enable me to see and do things otherwise impossible; maps reveal unknown unknowns. Maps can also frustrate me endlessly. Sometimes I don’t want to have an opinion; I don’t want to spend the energy to have an opinion. I don’t care how I get from here to there. Just. Tell. Me. how to get there. And of course nothing in this paragraph has to do with literal maps of the world— I’m not talking about cartography nor driving directions.

On closer examination, it turns out there are many things wrong with it. Thousand True Fans is a hollow philosophy. It is Chicken Soup for the Digital Creator’s Soul, ultimately devoid of any real nutritional value.

~ Dave Karpf from, The Hollow Core of Kevin Kelly’s “Thousand True Fans” Theory

slip:4usupe5.

Kevin Kelly’s 1,000 True Fans is a map, before it there was another map, The Cluetrain Manifesto, and there were others. When you find a new-to-you map it opens your mind to new possibilities. I would assume the first children’s books I encountered were astounding, but wouldn’t have the same effect today. (I’m not denigrating either of those works; I’m not suggesting they are “children’s books”.)

But I do get frustrated. I see a terrific map, and then I want to make a terrific next “move”. That’s not how maps work, Craig. You look at the map, then you take the next small step informed by everything you know, including the new perspective from the new map. You write one sentence (for example, on a page soliciting support for your work) and that’s informed by all the maps you’ve previously seen. Big picture. Little steps.

ɕ

Dave Karpf takes on Chris Dixon's historical revisionism and creates a pretty nifty timeline of the Web in the process. Well worth the read, even if you're not looking for a crypto takedown.

#InternetHistory #ChrisDixon #DaveKarpf

https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/web3s-fake-version-of-the-history

Dave Karpf takes on Chris Dixon's historical revisionism and creates a pretty nifty timeline of the Web in the process. Well worth the read, even if you're not looking for a crypto takedown.

#InternetHistory #ChrisDixon #DaveKarpf

https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/web3s-fake-version-of-the-history

Dave Karpf takes on Chris Dixon's historical revisionism and creates a pretty nifty timeline of the Web in the process. Well worth the read, even if you're not looking for a crypto takedown.

#InternetHistory #ChrisDixon #DaveKarpf

https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/web3s-fake-version-of-the-history

Dave Karpf takes on Chris Dixon's historical revisionism and creates a pretty nifty timeline of the Web in the process. Well worth the read, even if you're not looking for a crypto takedown.

#InternetHistory #ChrisDixon #DaveKarpf

https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/web3s-fake-version-of-the-history