Comment by mrsilencedogood

The funniest thing is that somehow the executive class is even more out of touch than they used to be.

At least before there was a certain common baseline derived from everyone watching the same news and reading the same press. Now they are just as enclosed in their thought bubbles as everyone else. It is entirely possible for a tech CEO to have a full company of tech workers despising the current plan and yet that person being constantly reinforced by linkedin and chatgpt.

We need better antitrust and anti-monopoly enforcement. Break up the biggest companies, and then they'll have to actually participate in markets.

> There's too much group-think in the executive class.

I think this is actually the long tail of "too big to fail." It's not that they're all thinking the same way, it's that they're all no longer hedging their bets.

> we have made the rewards too extreme and too narrowly distributed

We give the military far too much money in the USA.

Exactly. So instead of electing the people who will allocate the resources, the people who are successful in one thing are given the right to manage the resources for whatever they wish and they can keep being very wrong for very long time when other people are deprived from the resources due to the mismanagement and can't do anything about it.

In theory I guess this creates a demand that should be satisfied by the market but in reality it seems like when the wealth is too concentrated in the hands of the few that call all the decision the market is unable to act.

Centralized planning is needed in any civilization. You need some mechanism to decide where to put resources, whether it's to organize the annual school's excursion or to construct the national highway system.

But yeah in the end companies behave in trends, if some companies do it then the other companies have to do it too, even if this makes things less efficient or is even hurtful. We can put that onto the human factor, but I think even if we replaced all CEOs with AIs, those AIs would all see the same information and make similar decisions on those information.

There is pascal's wager arguments to be had: for each individual company, the punishment of not playing the AI game and missing out on something big is bigger than the punishment of wasting resources by allocating them towards AI efforts plus annoying customers with AI features they don't want or need.

> Right now are living through a new gilded age with a few barons running things, because we have made the rewards too extreme and too narrowly distributed.

The usa has rid itself multiple times of its barons. There is mechanisms in place, but I am not sure that people really are going to exercise those means any time soon. If this AI stuff is successful in the real world as well, then increasing amounts of power will shift away from the people to the people controlling the AI, with all the consequences this has.

If you get paid for being rich in proportion to how rich you are -- because that's how assets work -- it turns into an exponential, runs away, and concentrates power until something breaks.

how is this centralized planning? It’s a corporate decision making operating in a free market to optimize for what majority shareholders want (though the majority of shares are owned by few).

>It is a weird form of centralized planning [...]

It's a form of "centralized planning", except it's not centralized at all.

This is why I think taxes on the very wealthy should be so high that billionaires can't happen. The usual reasons are either about raising revenue or are vague ideas about inequality. It doesn't raise enough revenue to matter, and inequality is a fairly weak justification by itself.

But the power concentration is a strong reason. That level of wealth is incompatible with democracy. Money is power, and when someone accumulates enough of it to be able to personally shake entire industries, it's too much.

>It is a weird form of centralized planning. Except there's no election to get on to the central committee, it's like in the Soviet era where you had to run in the right circles and have sway in them.

No, it's pure capitalism where Atlas shrugged and ordered billions worth of RAM. You might not like it but don't call it "centralized planning" or "Soviet era".

Every corporation is a (not so) little pocket of centrally planned economy.

The only saving grace is that it can die and others will scoop up released resources.

When country level planned economy dies, people die and resources get destroyed.

[dead]

Bridges can be used for decades, your brand new GiGaAiFaRm will be fully deprecated by 2030 already.

All the infrastructure will be useless when the data centers move to the next city/state offering a tax cut.

>AI is the first industrial breakthrough in a century

Is it?

Why not follow the time-honoured approach and put the data centres in low-income countries?

Usually companies run out of resources before they screw up global prices in massive markets.

If it was a couple billion dollars of memory purchasing nobody would care.

> This is part of how free markets self correct, misallocate resources and you run out of resources.

Except that these corporations will almost certainly get a bail out, under the auspices of national security or some other BS. The current admin is backed by the same VCs that are all in on AI.

What's odd about this is I believe there does exist a winner takes all technology. And that it's AR.

The more I dream about the possibilities of AR, the more I believe people are going to find it incredibly useful. It's just the hardware isn't nearly ready. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe these companies are making some of the largest strategic blunders possible at this point in time.

> Is there any way to avoid this kind of market failure?

There are potentially undesirable tradeoffs and a whole new game of cheats and corruption, but you could frustrate rapid, concentrated growth with things like an increasing tax on raised funds.

Right now, we basically let people and companies concentrate as much capital as they want, as rapidly as they want, with almost no friction, presumably because it helped us economically outcompete the adversary during the Cold War. Broadly, we're now afraid of having any kind of brake or dampener on investments and we are more afraid of inefficiency and corruption if the government were to intervene than we are of speculation or exploitation if it doesn't.

In democratically regulated capitalism, there are levers to pull that could slow down this kind of freight train before it were to get out of control, but the arguments against pulling them remain more thoroughly developed and more closely held than those in favor of them.

There is a way, and if anyone tells you we have to go full Hitler or Stalin to do it they are liars because last time we let inequality cook this hard FDR and the New Deal figured out how to thread the needle and proved it could be done.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the flavor of politics on tap at the moment.

Sam Altman cornering the DRAM market is a joke, of course, but if the punchline is that they were correct to invest this amount of resources in job destruction, it's going to get very serious very quickly and we have to start making better decisions in a hurry or this will get very, very ugly.

A tax on scale.

Yeah I know HN is going to hate me for saying that.

If a big company and a few small companies all have identical costs for producing a product, society is better served by having it produced by the few small companies than the one big company.

Once "better served" is quantified, you know the coefficient for taxation.

Make no mistake, this coefficient will be a political football, and will be fought over, just like the Fed prime interest rate. But it's a single scalar instead of a whole executive branch department and a hundred kilopages of regulations like we have in the antitrust-enforcement clusterfuck. Which makes it way harder to pull shenanighans.

For example: allocating the resources to only few industries deprives everyone else: small players, hobbyists, gamers, tinkerers from opportunities to play with their toys. And small players playing with random toys is a source of multiple innovations.

Unless I get all the resources I want, when I want, all at low prices, the market has obviously failed.

Or you could look at reality where it generates fake social media posts s lot and we could all ask, why is this valuable?

Gamers at least enjoy their GPUs and memory.

The tone from the AI industry sounds more like a dependent addict by comparison. They're well past the phase where they're enjoying their fix and into the "please, just another terawatt, another container-ship full of Quadros, to make it through the day" mode.

More seriously, I could see some legitimate value in saying "no, you can't buy every transistor on the market."

It forces AI players to think about efficiency and smarter software rather than just throwing money at bigger wads of compute. This might be part of where China's getting their competitive chops from-- having to do more with less due to trade restrictions seems to be producing some surprisingly competitive products.

It also encourages diversification. There is still no non-handwavey road to sustainable long-term profitability for most of the AI sector, which is why we keep hearing answers like "maybe the Extra Fingers Machine cures cancer." Eventually Claude and Copilot have to cover their costs or die. If you're nVidia or TSMC, you might love today's huge margins and willing buyers for 150% of your output, but it's simple due diligence to make sure you have other customers available so you can weather the day the bubble bursts.

It's also a solid PR play. Making sure people can still access the hobbies they enjoy is an easy way to say you're on the side of the mass public. It comes from a similar place to banning ticket scalping or setting reasonable prices on captive concessions. The actual dollars involved are small (how many enthusiast PCs could you outfit with the RAM chips or GPU wafer capacity being diverted to just one AI data centre?) but it makes it look like you're not completely for sale to the highest bidder.

What do you think happens when the majority of consumers are priced not only out of bread, but also circuses?

It is the market working as expected, but it still failed to allocate money diversely.

yeah but the demand is based on empty promises

OpenAI appears to have bought the DRAM, not to use it, as they are apparently buying it in unfinished form, but explicitly to take it off the market and cause this massive price increase & squash competition.

I would call that market manipulation(or failure if you wish)--in a just society Sam Alton would be heading to prison.

Or not cause inflation, rising cost of living etc. People said the same about crypto GPUs but it never really happened in the end. Those cheap pre-LHR RTX cards never really entered the picture.

Not even. Tulips were non-productive speculative assets. NFTs were what the tulip was. The AI buildout is more like the railroad mania in the sense that there is froth but productive utility is still the output.

Consoles are increasingly becoming PCs, so I don't see this happening

console ram isn't magically cheaper

I don't know if the term console even makes sense any more. It's a computer without a keyboard and mouse. And as soon as you do that, it's a PC. So I don't see how this makes any sense or will ever happen.