AnarchistArtificer

@AnarchistArtificer@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI Seeks Additional Capital From Investors as Part of Its $40 Billion Round⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  The return comes from more future promises filled with ever increasing hot air. OpenAI is especially bad for this — In 2024, they spend $9 billion to make $5 billion. They’re losing money each year, but they drum up venture capital investment by saying “invest more money because some day we’ll be profitable”. Then they build larger, more complex GPT models to continue fuelling the hype machine, even though those models cost even more to run. But as long as OpenAI and the like can sustain the hype machine, venture capital will keep pumping money in. They have to, because they’ve got too much money in the system already, and when the bubble pops, the hot air will escape.

  If they invested into something cool or meaningful, their returns will be limited. Tech seems to be especially appealing for venture capital because it facilitates the illusion of infinite growth being possible. The super rich don’t really trade in money, because they borrow against their assets. Imagine if you owned a fairly modest house that was worth 500k, but you wanted to sell it for more. If you and a bunch of other people constructed an elaborate fiction that led to your house being valued at $10 million, then you could borrow multiple millions of dollars against the inflated value of your house. Even if early investors in a bullshit project wise up and realise their mistake, they haven’t necessarily lost money as long as other investors still think the bullshit is worth investing in. So the cycle of venture capital means that everyone has a vested interest in keeping the hype train going.

  It’s an absurd bubble, and it’s going to be absolute chaos when it bursts. Ed Zitron’s analysis explores it really well.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lower Decks: Can anyone tell me what I'm missing?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t think you’re necessarily missing anything. Lower Decks is probably my favourite Star Trek series by a decent margin, but I think that people’s varying tastes is part of the Trek experience.

  Like the first Star Trek I ever watched was TNG, with a partner who hated DS9 because of how far it was from the much more utopian tone of TNG. My best friend, however, loved DS9 most of all for that exact same reason. I can’t tolerate The Original Series because of how campy and cringe it is, but I have friends who love it for that.

  If you hate Lower Decks, then your perspective is one I can’t really relate to, but that just feels like regular old Trekkie solidarity to me - with a show so varied, inevitably there’s going to be diverse viewpoints. That in mind, I’m not going to try and change mind, I’m just going to highlight why I love Lower Decks.

  My favourite bit about Lower Decks is that it feels like a love letter to Trek, in all its forms. There’s a lot of references I don’t get, but I don’t need to get them to feel the warm fuzzies of knowing this show was made by people who are, first and foremost, fans of Star Trek. I like utopian sci fi because the state of the real world means that I can find real hope in the fantasy because in my heart, I believe in humanity.

  Alongside all of that idealistic space exploration though, Lower Decks doesn’t shy away from the more pernicious aspects of Star Trek, and Starfleet/the Federation. The humour isn’t always my taste, but I think they use it well to poke fun at Star Trek, the show, but also the world within. The sometimes critical lens that is taken is part of why it feels so much like a love letter to Trek - if you truly love something, you’ve got to take the bad with the good and not pretend that everything is perfect.