←back to thread

AI capex is so big that it's affecting economic statistics

(paulkedrosky.com)
338 points throw0101c | 1 comments | 18 Jul 25 19:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jonas21 ◴[18 Jul 25 21:09 UTC] No.44609857[source]▶
I don't know... 1.2% of GDP just doesn't seem that extreme to me. Certainly nowhere near "eating the economy" level compared to other transformative technologies or programs like:

- Apollo program: 4%

- Railroads: 6% (mentioned by the author)

- Covid stimulus: 27%

- WW2 defense: 40%

replies(18): >>44609903 #>>44609914 #>>44609929 #>>44609942 #>>44609978 #>>44610058 #>>44610176 #>>44610526 #>>44610627 #>>44610705 #>>44610847 #>>44611010 #>>44611147 #>>44611151 #>>44611385 #>>44612266 #>>44612358 #>>44614934 #
raincole ◴[18 Jul 25 21:18 UTC] No.44609942[source]▶
Yeah that's my first reaction to. 1.2% doesn't sound much. It's just people making headlines out of thin air. If it lists the water and energy consumption I might be more concerned.

Slightly off-topic, but ~9% of GDP is generated by "financial services" in the US. Personally I think it's a more alarming data point.

replies(5): >>44610013 #>>44610794 #>>44611558 #>>44611598 #>>44613030 #
linotype ◴[18 Jul 25 21:25 UTC] No.44610013[source]▶
https://youtu.be/HA1YKg_OLBw

Financial services makes the unrealistic consumption of rich countries possible. That’s worth 9%.

replies(3): >>44610067 #>>44610538 #>>44610672 #
afiodorov ◴[18 Jul 25 22:53 UTC] No.44610672[source]▶
Nice clip yet it does not make it clear why 9% is the good value of GDP. Why not 7%?
replies(1): >>44611241 #
1. airstrike ◴[19 Jul 25 00:06 UTC] No.44611241[source]▶
Why not 50%?