←back to thread

387 points reaperducer | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.017s | source
Show context
Flockster ◴[] No.45771921[source]
Okay, that article is a little bit shallow. I just summarises the headlines of the last weeks of circular deals. But is there also a more in depth article that sheds a little more light onto what this actually means? From a financial perspective?
replies(4): >>45772043 #>>45772091 #>>45772330 #>>45772570 #
Spooky23 ◴[] No.45772043[source]
It’s probably hard to do that in a news context because the real rationales are pretty tight.

Depending on your POV OpenAI and the surrounding AI hype machine is at the extremes either the dawn of a new era, or a metastasized financial cancer that’s going to implode the economy. Reality lies in the middle, and nobody really knows how the story is going to end.

In my personal opinion, “financial innovation” (see: the weird opaque deals funding the frantic data center construction) and bullshit like these circular deals driving speculation is a story we’ve seen time and time again, and it generally ends the same way.

An organization that I’m familiar with is betting on the latter - putting off a $200M data center replacement, figuring they’ll acquire one or two in 2-3 years for $0.20 on the dollar when the PE/private debt market implodes.

replies(2): >>45772450 #>>45772716 #
gitremote ◴[] No.45772450[source]
> Reality lies in the middle

The argument to moderation/middle ground fallacy is a fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

replies(1): >>45772781 #
parineum ◴[] No.45772781{3}[source]
Not really. The idea that reality lies _in_ the middle is fairly coherent. It's not, on it's face, absolutely true but there are and infinite number of options between two outcomes so the odds are overwhelmingly in the favor that the truth lies somewhere in between. Is either side totally right about every single point of contention between them? Probably not, so the answer is likely in the middle. The fallacy is a lot easier to see when you're arguing about one precise point. In that case, someone is probably right and wrong. But, in cases where a side is talking about a complex event with a multitude of data points, both extremes are likely not completely correct and the answer does, indeed, lie in between the extremes.

The fallacy is that the true lies _at_ the middle, not in the middle.

replies(3): >>45773116 #>>45773325 #>>45773416 #
gitremote ◴[] No.45773416{4}[source]
Flat-earthers: The earth is flat.

Round-earthers: The earth is round.

"Reality lies in the middle" argument: The earth is oblong, not a perfect sphere, so both sides were right.

replies(3): >>45773537 #>>45774649 #>>45775687 #
1. missinglugnut ◴[] No.45774649{5}[source]
If we're gonna be pendantic about fallacies, you're using argument by analogy and it's not in any way comparable to the claims GP made about OpenAI.
replies(1): >>45783097 #
2. gitremote ◴[] No.45783097[source]
It's not an argument by analogy. It's a reductio ad absurdum on the generalization that reality always lies in the middle but not always at the exact middle.