(paulkedrosky.com)

338 points throw0101c | 1 comments | 18 Jul 25 19:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.263s | 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]▶

>>44609857 #

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 #

1. bryanrasmussen ◴[19 Jul 25 06:17 UTC] No.44613030[source]▶

>>44609942 #

some years back I was talking to an acquaintance through my daughter's kindergarten and complaining about this point and he said it was because financial services was where all the innovation was happening (he was an investment consultant of some sort)

He was convicted of fraud a few years later.

↑

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