this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
429 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

61203 readers
4630 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
429
OpenAI, valued at $157 billion, isn't profitable. Should that be normal? (www.salon.com)
submitted 1 week ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
110 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Why should they be stopped by the government? That assumes the stock market should be logical and predictable but why should that be true? It’s all speculation, just a step above gambling, and people should be allowed to.

Tesla is a great example. Its stock has never been at an expected level for their revenue or profit. It’s all speculation about their potential to disrupt the car market (which they have), and predictions like 50% growth per year. Even now, self-driving and artificial intelligence seem a bit far fetched to most of us, but if they happen will be very disruptive.

But yes , politicians should have required ethics standards, including banning insider training. The rest of us have to: how does it make sense for our leaders to have lower ethical standards than everyone else?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

people should be allowed to

uh no they shouldn't

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why should they be stopped by the government?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Maybe, but hopefully the existing controls will prevent that from happening again …. Unless overzealous attempts at “reducing regulations” break those. There were quite a few factors around the Great Depression but consider controls like:

  • “circuit breakers”, automatically halt trading when a stock or the overall market drops too quickly
  • “qualified investors” are criteria you must meet for the riskiest investments, basically that you can handle the loss
  • bank requirements for capital, risk, so less likely to collapse
  • bank rescues - Lemmy likes to complain about rescuing banks instead of people, but bank collapses during a crisis are what can push the crash off the deep end

Also the overall size and complexity of the modern investment industry should make it much less likely for any one type of investment to drive a general crash.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
  • “qualified investors” are criteria you must meet for the riskiest investments, basically that you can handle the loss

I'm surprised you're not calling that a government overreach considering your previous comment.

Do you think the current government controls are working and shouldn't be changed at all?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

We haven’t had a real depression in 100 years, so something is working. Sure, we have recessions periodically and some are worse than others, but as long as it’s relatively limited.

I think that a lot of regulations were put in place for a reason. Whether they work for that reason or not, it would be better to understand the reason before blindly removing regulations

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

None of them have come close to the severity of the Great Depression. We’ll never control all instabilities, the important part is limiting their severity

Yes, I’ve been affected by several of these. I’ve gotten laid off during downturns. I’ve been affected by high interest rates. I’ve been affected by unattainable housing. But at least it wasn’t worse

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

And yet this is a place where centrism is the goal.

  • We know that trying to tightly control economies does not work. At all. We shouldnt even try.
  • We also know that corporate-anarchy serves only robber barons. That’s not acceptable.

So yes, the best answer is to give the market freedom but not complete freedom. To let it do its ups and downs … within limits. To combine the strengths of capitalism with the guardrails of a guided market. Where the capitalist driven market does not serve society, it’s a failure to guide the market so capitalism fulfills desirable goals

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago

There's centrism and then there's "centrism" 😅 (people who call themselves centrist and argue for acceptance of extremist right wing policies and "considering both sides of the argument").

Also the whole idea of left, right and centrist is an overused often oversimplification for the purpose of forming in groups and out groups which is not constructive and leaves no room for nuances.

[–] SoftTeeth@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It should be forced to be logical and predictable because Capitalists have made it so the stock market is the only way to really save for retirement.

Our society and economy shouldn't be a fun game for the whales to win at the expense of the rest of us.