- Surrounded by other kids who have access to the same internet you do

- Access to the school's career networks (LinkedIn)

The way I think about it is that a lot of what we considered knowledge work isn't anymore. In "the before times", I would have considered it knowledge work to know how to dig into an unfamiliar code repo or long document and produce a useful summary of the information within, or identify which parts of a codebase are applicable to a given problem I'm trying to solve. AI turns semantic search up to 11; you can point it at an unfamiliar repo and say "what do I have to touch to make this work" and get a 90% accurate result. That's insane magic. I think if the bar is to consider it not a replacement for knowledge work as long as there is a human in the loop, then we're not there yet, but it keeps eating away at more and more of the basic pieces.

It's also annoying how he keeps using the term "bubble" as a sleight-of-hand synonym for, I don't know, "useless and fake". Tulip valuations vastly outgrew their actual value and never made it back up. The Dot Com bubble was just early and investment outpaced real-world adoption. Nobody looks back on dot com and thinks claims like "nearly all commerce and social interaction will move online" are silly because that's exactly what happened. AI investment might be at outsized levels right in this moment, it remains to be seen, but even if it doesn't get any better from here it's already insanely useful. That won't "pop" in any meaningful way that he predicts.

EDIT: To say nothing of the overwrought 2023-era comparisons to cryptocurrency. It was obvious at the start that crypto was a solution in search of a problem, shaded by the fact that most advocates benefited strongly from convincing everyone else how valuable of an idea it was. Anybody has been able to spend 20 minutes with free ChatGPT for years now and immediately start to grasp the real-world applications of tech that genuinely replaces a substrate of knowledge work.

> Laying people off offsets some of those expenses.

Layoffs are independent of AI. The impact of AI is that firms can do more with less, they are doing more with less, and when the economy supports them having more, they'll do more, not less.

> The firm exists to maximize wealth of its stockholders.

Deeply tired of hearing this type of argument. Your grandma is a stockholder. Your 401k is a stockholder. The Stockholders aren't some alien leech race. We've structured the economy so that the average person doesn't have to grow their own food; the result is stockholders, and it's not a scary word.

Ed is posturing to his explicitly anti-AI audience. Read any of his recent work on this topic and it's normal to feel embarrassed for agreeing with any of it.

I almost stopped reading here. I get that he's captured a paying audience that had their brains largely turned off as long as the AI hate keeps spewing, but he's not this dumb. The world is drowning in demand for GPUs and memory for all purposes. There are dozens of reasons that Musk would lease this capacity to Anthropic; it's not like they can just spin up a hyperscale public cloud service offering overnight with this capacity. Musk shot himself in the foot trying to compete with better players in the agent space and needs a way to justify the hardware, this is like the only way to do it.

> Where is the demand coming from if it’s not OpenAI and Anthropic?

It is OpenAI and Anthropic, and their competitors, and they can't use it yet because it's not built yet, and they are serving customer demand right now.