7 ms·

Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. You can say "AI will be able to _____" and be right 99.9 times out of 100,

Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. You can say "AI will be able to _____" and be right 99.9 times out of 100, but the question is when. You can say "The AI market will go to 0" and be at least directionally right eventually. But none of it matters if you get the timing wrong.

Zsfe510asG 15d ago
It would matter if we had politicians who acted before bubbles collapse instead of bailing out the perpetrators after the fact.
- unsupp0rted 15d ago
  That will successfully prevent 200% of market multipliers: bubbles and just plain sudden rapid value creation. It's like cutting out the prostate from all men at age 30 to prevent nearly 100% of prostate cancer.
  - 129528754 15d ago
    Take a break from LLMs.
  - psd1 15d ago
    If actions are extreme, perhaps. But that doesn't have to be the case. We have made efficient frictionless markets a holy cow. The appropriate response is not to eliminate them. The better part of "rapid value creation" is not the rapidity.
  - coldtea 15d ago
    >That will successfully prevent 200% of market multipliers: bubbles and just plain sudden rapid value creation. So a win-win. Market multipliers rarely end up well, bubbles or not. >It's like cutting out the prostate from all men at age 30 to prevent nearly 100% of prostate cancer. It's more like cutting steroids from all men, and letting them build strengh naturally over time by training.
coldtea 15d ago
>Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. It's not the predicting that's important to me, it's the assessing. I don't care if it will do X in 2 or 5 years. I do care if something IS "X", and we should correct course to not get the bad outcome associated with X (whenever it might come) or not.
- BoiledCabbage 14d ago
  > I don't care if it will do X in 2 or 5 years. Yes, but for should care if it's 2 years vs 50 years. That's why timeline are important for predictions. Anyone can predict lots of things that given enough time will eventually be true. "The sun will burn out", "humans as a species will no longer exist", "the US will collapse". That's useless. But those become meaningful if they will happen within the next three years. It's the reason the saying "the market can be irrational longer than your can stay solvent" has such important meaning.
pydry 15d ago
>Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. I dont think Zitron has predicted anything 5 years too early. 1 or 2 at the outside is probably the limit. I remember during the original internet boom the people who were given the most shit were the ones who predicted the bubble popping a year or two early. Zitron fits quite neatly in this category: most of the predictions of his Ive seen that are "wrong" are things which could still happen and things where he gave wrong timelines. Realistically identifying a bubble and the stupidity associated with it just requires an ability to do the research and see through bullshit. identifying even roughly when it will pop really needs a crystal ball. Mass human delusions do not collapse in a predictable way.
- unsupp0rted 15d ago
  My recollection is a couple years before it popped everybody (except tech CEOs going public or investing tens of millions in dog food delivery infrastructure) was in disbelief it hadn't happened yet
  - pydry 15d ago
    yeah I also remember a lot of talk about the bubble for 18 months to 2 years before it actually popped. i think we're in that (quite long) stage with AI right now where most halfway smart people "know" but they're still invested due to the greater fool theory and still talking their book.
    - ayden93638 15d ago
      [dead]
    - unsupp0rted 14d ago
      I'm invested because I "know" it'll pop and I also "know" it'll eventually work and revolutionize everything. What do I have to lose? I'm just going to get decrepit and die anyway if it doesn't work out.
HWR_14 15d ago
> Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. It depends on what type of thing you are predicting and why. Even something as simple as "Enron will implode" in 1995 has very different levels of usefulness if you are planning to short a stock versus figuring out what stock to buy and hold in your retirement account.

Zsfe510asG 15d ago

It would matter if we had politicians who acted before bubbles collapse instead of bailing out the perpetrators after the fact.

unsupp0rted 15d ago
That will successfully prevent 200% of market multipliers: bubbles and just plain sudden rapid value creation. It's like cutting out the prostate from all men at age 30 to prevent nearly 100% of prostate cancer.
- 129528754 15d ago
  Take a break from LLMs.
- psd1 15d ago
  If actions are extreme, perhaps. But that doesn't have to be the case. We have made efficient frictionless markets a holy cow. The appropriate response is not to eliminate them. The better part of "rapid value creation" is not the rapidity.
- coldtea 15d ago
  >That will successfully prevent 200% of market multipliers: bubbles and just plain sudden rapid value creation. So a win-win. Market multipliers rarely end up well, bubbles or not. >It's like cutting out the prostate from all men at age 30 to prevent nearly 100% of prostate cancer. It's more like cutting steroids from all men, and letting them build strengh naturally over time by training.

coldtea 15d ago

>Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. It's not the predicting that's important to me, it's the assessing. I don't care if it will do X in 2 or 5 years. I do care if something IS "X", and we should correct course to not get the bad outcome associated with X (whenever it might come) or not.

BoiledCabbage 14d ago
> I don't care if it will do X in 2 or 5 years. Yes, but for should care if it's 2 years vs 50 years. That's why timeline are important for predictions. Anyone can predict lots of things that given enough time will eventually be true. "The sun will burn out", "humans as a species will no longer exist", "the US will collapse". That's useless. But those become meaningful if they will happen within the next three years. It's the reason the saying "the market can be irrational longer than your can stay solvent" has such important meaning.

pydry 15d ago

>Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. I dont think Zitron has predicted anything 5 years too early. 1 or 2 at the outside is probably the limit. I remember during the original internet boom the people who were given the most shit were the ones who predicted the bubble popping a year or two early. Zitron fits quite neatly in this category: most of the predictions of his Ive seen that are "wrong" are things which could still happen and things where he gave wrong timelines. Realistically identifying a bubble and the stupidity associated with it just requires an ability to do the research and see through bullshit. identifying even roughly when it will pop really needs a crystal ball. Mass human delusions do not collapse in a predictable way.

unsupp0rted 15d ago
My recollection is a couple years before it popped everybody (except tech CEOs going public or investing tens of millions in dog food delivery infrastructure) was in disbelief it hadn't happened yet
- pydry 15d ago
  yeah I also remember a lot of talk about the bubble for 18 months to 2 years before it actually popped. i think we're in that (quite long) stage with AI right now where most halfway smart people "know" but they're still invested due to the greater fool theory and still talking their book.
  - ayden93638 15d ago
    [dead]
  - unsupp0rted 14d ago
    I'm invested because I "know" it'll pop and I also "know" it'll eventually work and revolutionize everything. What do I have to lose? I'm just going to get decrepit and die anyway if it doesn't work out.

HWR_14 15d ago

> Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. It depends on what type of thing you are predicting and why. Even something as simple as "Enron will implode" in 1995 has very different levels of usefulness if you are planning to short a stock versus figuring out what stock to buy and hold in your retirement account.