> Nvidia is literally paying for datacenter construction, which means paying other companies to buy their chips.
Does Nvidia pay more than it receives from datacenter construction?
> A great website to bookmark and keep an eye on is: isaiprofitable. At the bottom, you’ll see that Nvidia (selling pans, shovels, and blue jeans) is the only company making money.
Have you considered that:
1) There are many other companies making a lot of money? Examples: NVIDIA, Micron, TSMC, Broadcom, AMD, SK Hynix, ASML...
2) The hyperscalers (Google, Microsoft, Amazon) are profitable?
I nod along with Howey here on every point save one. Namely, it is simply false that the apocalyptic narratives are full-cloth marketing products that are cynically engineered and used.
For better or worse, the hold that Yudkowski-flavoured big-R Rationalism holds over us all is significant. Academics (like Cal Newport) seem committed to belittling it as a sort of cult-sex-flavoured philosophy fan fic, and writers (Zitron, Howey, Doctorow) seem equally committed to a cui-bueno wake-up-sheeple take.
But my position is: no matter how florid the polycule, or naive the argumental ligaments, or potentially lucrative the bezzle, it is still worthwhile taking the stated intellectual commitments of the people making the tech.
Take people seriously. And, unless you really, really, really know for certain that they are operating in bad faith, you are to regard yourself as stuck with their putative sincerity.
This is the "principle of charity" familiar from undergrad philosophy classes, and it is an epistemic moral value worth holding onto in 2026.
Their erratic behavior, ridiculous claims, failed predictions, fervent nationalism and escalationism, constant lying, mass manipulation, and terribly misaligned incentives don't make it particularly easy. Being charitable to actively malicious people that benefit from putting you under their control forever will hurt you a lot faster than the imaginary murderous AI.
We're living in a weird and unique time in which "misaligned AI", a la OpenAI's so-called "rogue agents", clearly exists, but buying into the most popularized conceptual framework describing these things doesn't seem to do a great job explaining what they actually do and how they've actually been able to do it.
Why do people keep talking about circular financing? It’s hardly a drop in the ocean and doesn’t change the underlying financials. Is it 30% of revenue? 10%? Is it priced in the market? I think it’s around 5% of revenue and already priced. It’s a nothingburger.
Some questions to the author, if he reads HN:
> Nvidia is literally paying for datacenter construction, which means paying other companies to buy their chips.
Does Nvidia pay more than it receives from datacenter construction?
> A great website to bookmark and keep an eye on is: isaiprofitable. At the bottom, you’ll see that Nvidia (selling pans, shovels, and blue jeans) is the only company making money.
Have you considered that:
1) There are many other companies making a lot of money? Examples: NVIDIA, Micron, TSMC, Broadcom, AMD, SK Hynix, ASML...
2) The hyperscalers (Google, Microsoft, Amazon) are profitable?
His four misconceptions:
AI is just doing math - While this is true, basically one could say that the brain is just doing math, too.
AI is going to kill us in ten years - Points out the incentives of the big AI companies to propagate this
AI is a bubble that’s about to pop - Financially it will pop, but AI is here to stay as a technology (like other technology bubbles)
Using AI is a betrayal to our human souls - It's just another tool to use
All these are pretty sane, in my opinion...
Expected anti-AI psychosis propaganda but was pleasantly surprised.
+1 a good and balanced take
I nod along with Howey here on every point save one. Namely, it is simply false that the apocalyptic narratives are full-cloth marketing products that are cynically engineered and used.
For better or worse, the hold that Yudkowski-flavoured big-R Rationalism holds over us all is significant. Academics (like Cal Newport) seem committed to belittling it as a sort of cult-sex-flavoured philosophy fan fic, and writers (Zitron, Howey, Doctorow) seem equally committed to a cui-bueno wake-up-sheeple take.
But my position is: no matter how florid the polycule, or naive the argumental ligaments, or potentially lucrative the bezzle, it is still worthwhile taking the stated intellectual commitments of the people making the tech.
Take people seriously. And, unless you really, really, really know for certain that they are operating in bad faith, you are to regard yourself as stuck with their putative sincerity.
This is the "principle of charity" familiar from undergrad philosophy classes, and it is an epistemic moral value worth holding onto in 2026.
> Take people seriously.
Their erratic behavior, ridiculous claims, failed predictions, fervent nationalism and escalationism, constant lying, mass manipulation, and terribly misaligned incentives don't make it particularly easy. Being charitable to actively malicious people that benefit from putting you under their control forever will hurt you a lot faster than the imaginary murderous AI.
We're living in a weird and unique time in which "misaligned AI", a la OpenAI's so-called "rogue agents", clearly exists, but buying into the most popularized conceptual framework describing these things doesn't seem to do a great job explaining what they actually do and how they've actually been able to do it.
Why do people keep talking about circular financing? It’s hardly a drop in the ocean and doesn’t change the underlying financials. Is it 30% of revenue? 10%? Is it priced in the market? I think it’s around 5% of revenue and already priced. It’s a nothingburger.
Hugh Howey has converted to an AI booster. These are standard talking points that we hear here daily and hourly.
He is of course wrong in so many things: it is not exactly known how neurons work etc.
I must give AI that it could have written a better article than Howey. He should be careful what he is advocating for.