Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Helge Heß (helge@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 28-Oct-2025 09:22:26 JST Helge Heß

   • Paul Cantrell

   @inthehands My idea was more that they don’t actually have to distract investors by AI or whatever, that part seems a little off. If times get worse the investor pitch would still be: we are the ones who own the market, whatever size.

   • Embed this notice
     Helge Heß (helge@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 28-Oct-2025 09:22:26 JST Helge Heß

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell

     @inthehands I think the AI part may be a pretty weird combination of:
     - some managers actually drank the cool aid
     but also:
     - blame it on the AI

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Tuesday, 28-Oct-2025 09:22:26 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     @helge
     Yes, exactly. And the line between the two is extremely fuzzy.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Tuesday, 28-Oct-2025 12:18:27 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     @helge
     See the thing is you live in the world of coherent thought where holding mutually contradictory beliefs simultaneously is a •problem•, whereas in their world it’s a •solution•

   • Embed this notice
     Helge Heß (helge@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 28-Oct-2025 12:18:28 JST Helge Heß

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell

     @inthehands I'm not sure it is fuzzy, they seem almost polar opposites to me.
     a) is people actually believing the thing will enhance productivity, by say 8.5%. (might be, unsure myself)
     b) is people already knowing that this is *not* the case, but that unrelated (cough) things break the economy and blaming AI is a very convenient hate target.