• plz1@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    The only thing separating this from being a Ponzi scheme is that there is a product, and it does have value. It’s overblown for sure, but it’s not a pure Ponzi scheme.

    • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      19 hours ago

      LLMs will bounce back to local GPUs when they find out its really hard to keep this circular grift going just for surveillance. Turns out you actually need to extract money from the workers to pay for this, so those workers need money and can’t just be replaced with AI.

      • Captain Poofter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        18 hours ago

        i used googles LLM to help me code a python script to completely replace my fake cloud ai twitch streaming companion with one that runs entirely on my own machine no internet required so now i don’t need googles LLM

    • thanksforreading@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 hours ago

      The product doesn’t deliver on it’s promise though. It’s going to crash and burn real hard and we will be left holding the bag as usual.

    • Sasquatch@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Isn’t the lack of product the primary criteria for defining a ponzi scheme?

      • 4am@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Literally the entire point of the comment you replied to, like making exactly that point.

        Like; it’s not saying it’s a Ponzi scheme, it’s saying that this does everything a Ponzi scheme does, but with an extremely overvalued product, instead of no product at all.

        so we don’t have a name for this type of fraud specifically, and we’re not calling it a Ponzi scheme because that, as we established, means something else. But it works very similarly, in the logistical sense. So much so that we can succinctly describe it - not by enumerating all the things it is - but instead juxtaposing it against a Ponzi scheme and establishing that it’s the same except if you change this one thing.

        Perhaps we should name it instead? Like a Fauxnzi scheme? Like pronounce it like Fonzie so it’ll catch on with boomers? I mean maybe Henry Winkler doesn’t deserve all that but it’s descriptive no?