I complained about it already https://tickerfeed.net/articles/whitehouse-genesis-mission-b...

I have a brilliant idea. Why not start this now?

The US government will give every child born $1000 in money in order to hand it to the small number of families who own 70% of equities in order to purchase equities the child can't touch for 18 years. That is US Government -> child -> rich person who currently owns the equity, although the rich person gets the cash in hand the child has to wait 18 years to sell the equity.

Where does the US Government get this $1000 per child from? Borrow it, adding to the $38,000,000,000,000 in national debt.

Here is the interesting part of my brilliant plan. That child will inherit, calculated per capita, $111,000 in debt the moment she is born. That child will be responsible, calculated per capita, for ~$3,000 a year in interest on that debt.

In order to sell the idea, every time the US Government gives $1000 to a child to purchase stocks I own, I will give $250 to another child to purchase stocks I own. Let's do the math: $1000 profit - $250 loss + $250 profit = $1000 profit. Best part is the media will run this as the leading news story for 3 days making me look like God.

It is a brilliant idea.

If we separate the tech from the industry, it's clear one has some value (albeit very hard to say just how much) and the other is a lot of smoke and mirrors. This is not a healthy space.

I have a feeling the word "actually" is doing a lot of work with this. I shipped AI facing user products a few years ago, then worked in more research focused AI work for awhile (spending a lot of time working with internals of these models). Then seeing where this was all headed (hype was more important than real work) decided to go back to good ol' statistical modeling.

Needless to say, while I think AI is absolutely useful, I'm bearish on the industry because current promises and expectations are completely out of touch with reality.

But I have a feeling because I'm not currently deploying a fleet of what people are calling "agents" (real agents are still quite cool imho), you would describe me as not "actually" using AI.

- Most participants in the economy are creating very little real value. They're shifting things around or temporarily solving problems that are highly localized to the organization they're in.

- There's a lot of unrealized value stored in the corpus of knowledge that AI companies have ingested— the millions of webpages, the scanned books, wikipedia, the blogs and Q&A sites. So even if AI companies are not creating new insights, just the act of locating, filtering, and summarizing knowledge that was already present somewhere in the world is valuable. Indeed, one could use this same argument to declared that Google in 1999 was creating no value, which is demonstrably untrue.

Narrator: As it turns out, they can.

The difference now is instead of banks holding the risk, they are now the safest portion of the loans. The risk is now moved to private credit, so if this bubble bursts, they will panic sell other assets to cover the AI losses, which will crash unrelated sectors as well.

Since the now bad AI loans can't be sold, they need liquidity form elsewhere to cover. AI bursting means other S&P 500 stocks, treasuries, gold, crypto, commercial real estate will all go down with it.

The .com bubble wasn't like this, but it was a minority between bubbles.