The Dead Economy Theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48324712

"The underlying purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth". (comment on the discussion above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48334069)

Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?

This has been the definition of finance for hundreds of years. I don't know why it comes across here like this is a new phenomenon.

Edit: the article that the author is commenting on is IMO much better than the linked commentary. There's not much to it

https://crookedtimber.org/2026/06/15/one-big-grift/

Okay boomer.

I expect Cory to have skepticism about technology that can be exploited for dystopian purposes, but calling AI "the world's money-losingest technology" is out of touch. If AI can support/replace some intellectual work, it'll be revolutionary, and that's what the investment bet is about.

I get that the blog post is making a separate point about Musk's companies but it's dissapointing to see mistakes like this in Cory's thinking

The issue is the objective dollars and cents financials of the situation. It’s literally the technology that is the money-losingest at this time.

The commercial utility of the technology can’t become viable just by being really useful.

There’s a good accounting argument to be made for AI IPOs happening out of a serious need for capital.

I wouldn’t bet money at a casino on this, but if OpenAI went completely out of business or was absorbed into irrelevancy within a calendar year, nobody with a finance background would be surprised. They objectively cannot exist in ~18 months without massive spending cuts or additional cash infusion. And they can’t make their models better and serve more tokens to build that future potential that justify their present valuation without additional capital, which becomes decreasingly efficient as data center build costs skyrocket.

AI has wonderful potential but no amazing product is guaranteed commercial viability. If Uber spends $1500 on tokens per employee they might as well spend $0 on AI and hire more real people to compensate.

I think about how the railroad barons went through a somewhat similar process. By the end of the American railroad buildout, numerous lines became financially unviable within a few short years or decades, some not even really making it into the automobile era. The only railroad business that ended up with any sort of long term profit viability was freight.

In what way is it out of touch or wrong? It is objectively correct today.

It may very well not be correct 2 years from now, but his statement was about the present, not the future.

That's one big "If". From personal experience AI just tends to burn money. Time will tell if the investment pays off but I disagree that, at this time, it is out of touch to say AI is a money sink.

yes, it's risky and investment-heavy but it's not a bottomless pit with no path to break even. there are many other recent technologies - NFTs? data centers in space? - that would be a better fit for this label.

Obviously the investment expense has been extremely high, which is what the replies are quibbling about.