Hacker News Reader

Comment by klodolph | Hacker News Reader

A while ago I was thinking, “Gee, AI is so complicated, how can I keep up with the landscape?”

After reading these articles go by so often, it feels like what I actually can’t keep up with is the bond market. To paraphrase Trotsky, you may not be interested in the bond market, but the bond market is interested in you. I want to be able to read the signals at the bottom of this article, and divine some kind of prediction that can guide me… I don’t know, to choose whether I should buy a house or change the investment strategy in my retirement fund or something. But I’m just seeing all these signals go by, waiting for the story to be written, which only happens when the dust settles.

I guess I’ll go back to not understanding AI, instead of not understanding the bond market.

View on HN

> Gee, AI is so complicated, how can I keep up with the landscape?

The interesting thing is: you do not need to keep up. It’s actually way easier and cheaper to wait a bit for the chaos to stabilize, then learn to use the tools. You don’t need to have been someone who experienced the whole evolution, non stop at the edge. It’s ok to let the enthusiasts discover how things work and eventually learn from them. Just like any other technology. The whole „you will be left behind“ is nonsense. If AI is the future, then it will here to stay and you can let others map the domain first

This is the way. You can jump in and out at any time and let everybody else wear the pain of working it out.

I think there's a common misconception at play here: using proprietary software thought of as a skill

Must be a mix of decades of corporate branding in software and the erosion of trust in the labor market coupled with the rise in noise from various sources...

Skills are what they always have been. Logical thinking, good memory, long attention span, critical thinking, communication (the ancient Mediterranean, the culture which forged the currently dominant "West", valued 'rhetoric' almost above everything else besides physical prowess)

Being well connected, having a sharp mind, cultivating deep knowledge of science, philosophy, language, mathematics. These things are timeless. Using the current brand of software well is a moot point. Software can only become dominant if it falls in line with mainstream design. Learn design, you can intuit how to use relevant software and the badly design tools will be weeded out naturally.

In a nutshell, exercise body and mind. Be strong, cultivate strong relationships. Everything else is just background noise.

Don’t forget there is a constant pressure for everyone to have an opinion on how this is going to end while hoping it ends tomorrow so they can be vindicated. The dotcom bust took a decade to grow and collapse. I think it is too early to make predictions with AI. I mean the sentiment here is either it will dry up the world and kill us all or transcend humanity, there’s no gray area. I don’t want to fall into the emotional sieve that seems to drive everything.

What’s weird is how emotional people get on this. I told publicly (because I was asked, not out of an obligation to have an opinion), that the prices we pay for LLMs are likely to go up because that’s what happens when the ratio of operational assets to foreign capital drops due to the capital having been turned into heat rather than operational assets. The grief I got from people, dear Lord…

I think that opinion is as reasonable as any. I feel compelled to argue against it (I even thought out the arguments in my head!) but my compulsion to have an opinion on HN is a disease, and you made a point of saying that you gave the opinion because asked.

That's the financial stakes here. That's why it's all or nothing. You're spending on a level that is only justified by the bonafide machine god being ushered into existence, not productivity or coding tools (and on relatively short time horizon). So if this doesn't change the near term trajectory of humanity to a parabolic move upward there is going to be a lot of economic pain. It's not just the spending, it's that the expectations for the returns to justify them are in a relatively short period of time.

What’s your reasoning for saying that the spending level requires that level of justification?

I think these large numbers are casually thrown about, but the real meaning is mind boggling. 1 trillion dollars is the entire US defense budget - aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, health care, salaries, stealth fighters ect. The hidden AI debt alone is more than that https://asia.nikkei.com/business/technology/five-us-tech-gia... just for five tech giants (not to mention all the other smaller players like neoclouds)

By that measure it doesn’t sound like that much.

You’re talking about about an amount that is a 13% of the total US government spending, of which is 20% of the entire US GDP.

I’m not saying it’s insignificant but it’s only a few percent of the US GDP and it represents spending over several years.

I mean that's so far, it continues to grow exponentially larger with each quarter. The debt issuance for the first half looks to be crowding out US treasuries in the bond market - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-07-23/ai-deb... - that's an extremely large amount of debt. And it's still getting larger and larger each quarter.

I would question the idea that highly industry consolidated debt is competing with risk free debt issued by the US government. Those are two very different products.

And while the quarter by quarter growth may seem astonishing it very different saying “debt levels today are alarming” versus “if this trend continues debt levels will be alarming”

So the disclosed balance sheet debt is 1.35 trillion and then the off-balance sheet debt is 1.65 trillion for a total of 3 trillion in AI debt for the 5 tech giants so far. It's multiplying every quarter and they've set investors expectations to be that this is never ending basically. But the tech giants aren't the only people spending themselves into massive debt, think of the CoreWeaves and the Nebius and the hundreds of other smaller companies. And the expectation is that there will be a near term return on all this with a healthy profit. Those five tech giants are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the amount of debt.

While the debt numbers might look large, don't forget how much revenue is coming into these companies as well.

OpenAI gross revenue was $4B in 2024, $13B in 2025 and estimated to hit $26B in 2026. Revenue is doubling or more.

Same with Anthropic. $1B in 2024, $9B in 2025 and estimated to be $47B in 2026.

All the AI companies together are pulling in hundreds of billions of dollars per year in revenue and it's going up quickly. To me, taking on trillions in debt in order to make hundreds of billions in revenue doesn't seem crazy.

Yeah this is going to be north of 10 trillion by the end, I would wild-ass-guess. Inflation adjusted it's larger than the manhattan project, apollo program, works progress administration, hell, it's on par with the cold war era military buildout, or a baby world war.

1T is big in the absolute sense, but that's simply the scale these big tech companies operate at. Go back to 2024 or 2025 and you'll see as a group they are making a net income of $400B+. The scale at which these companies do anything is just staggering.

Good that you made the comparison with defense budget because it's becoming evident that AI is the new "nuclear bomb". First, if you have more advanced AI than your opponent, you just hack them and the war is over before it began. I'm simplifying obviously, but the point that AI is essential to modern warfare stands. Second, even during peacetime, you can use AI to directly influence what people think, what they do, etc. in the most literal sense of this expression. We already know that people outsource thinking, relationships, and cultural expression to LLMs, and even if that wasn't the case, you can use AI to deliver to each single person hand-crafted propaganda, not to mention the previously unimaginable opportunities to spy on people.

It would be strange if the race to wield this power wouldn't result in AI getting pumped to the moon, way beyond anything that seems reasonable.

That could all be true, but the problem is however powerful it is, it still needs to make money for the people who invested in it who are expecting a return. The stock valuations, the bonds yields - they don't care about the power of a nuclear bomb. They want to get paid. They expect to get paid. And if they don't get what they are expecting, there will be hell to pay in the economy. There's a probably a good reason the power of nuclear weapons isn't an ETF I could buy into.

No, if you have god-like powers via super-powerful AI, you don't need money.

After all, at the end of the day, money is just a tool to motivate people. If you have other ways to motivate them (manipulation via AI, or just a brute force facilitated via AI), you don't need money any more. You just have to make sure there is nobody else with access to such AI.

Most people mean this to say that 1 trillion is a lot of money, but it still comes back to what you believe AI is- in hindsight, does 1 trillion dollars to build the internet sound like a lot or a little? (That is, spending 1 year of USA's defense budget to get the entire internet)

It comes back to your perception of what AI is because to people who say AI is glorified auto-complete won't believe that the money is worth it.

The AGI-pilled true believers who say it will end all money and result in a post-scarcity world believe literally any amount is justifiable.

Most people, me included, land somewhere in the middle- it seems like AI is a humanity-level sea change in technology and how computers work and serve us. It seems plausible that a few trillion is a reasonable amount.

I'm not going to make a prediction of what will happen with AI whether it will autocomplete / productivity or AGI. I will say it seems to be trending towards former than the latter just by how scaled down the promises have become over the last year (we went from curing all disease and cancer / post-scarcity to productivity and code.) The amounts being spent on this can only really justified by some paradigm shifting returns and within the timeframe investors expect. This isn't something like Apollo / Manhattan project - those were taken on by the government with public money. This is explicitly a profit making enterprise funded by markets.

I have personal experience using it at work so I come down on the “it’ll be a big productivity boost” side rather than Deep Thought. At my job we are still evaluating ROI so it is mandated we all use it to help us, via copilot. For example I recently did a code port that one team said would take a month and sonnet did it for 18000 tokens in a seven hours. Thats 180.00$ vs tens of thousands. Thats a huge productivity boost. Now with the rise of token cost the question is about ROI for my company. What bothers me the most are the hidden costs to the environment that my company does not factor into the equation. From that perspective it seems more than a profit making exercise but I can’t help wonder if it could be done cheaper, and really is an over inflated circle jerk to mint a million new billionaires. It’s like if Martin Shkrelli discovered fire. A great product from an absolute scum bag.

> Most people mean this to say that 1 trillion is a lot of money, but it still comes back to what you believe AI is- in hindsight, does 1 trillion dollars to build the internet sound like a lot or a little?

You are talking about the Value of AI, but the key is the Revenue of AI.

If AI companies cannot get the Revenue to pay for all those investments, somebody is going bankrupt.

A trillion is a lot of money to cover.

> if this doesn't change the near term trajectory of humanity to a parabolic move upward there is going to be a lot of economic pain

"trajectory of humanity to a parabolic move upward" is poorly defined here. Whether we are headed to a machine god ruled scenario or "just" incredibly powerful productivity tools, there will be a lot of economic pain for some (most) and a lot of economic gain for a few.

I've yet to a see an LLM/agent-based business plan in where scaling with an order fewer workers than before LLMs is not a central part of the value proposition.

such a business plan has not yet created economic value, being able to roll out features at rocket speed is not a huge determinant of a startup's success.

> such a business plan has not yet created economic value, being able to roll out features at rocket speed is not a huge determinant of a startup's success.

Speed of feature implementation isn't the objective. High feature throughput with labor cost reduction is.

We’re still spending less as a percent of GDP on the AI datacenter buildout than was spent on building the railroads in the 1880s (Morgan Stanley estimates 2.5% of GDP will be spent on AI this year, as compared to 6% for railroads)

Nobody expected a machine god from Union Pacific

> there is a constant pressure for everyone to have an opinion on how this is going to end while hoping it ends tomorrow so they can be vindicated

In what bubble does this pressure exist?

How do you stay out of it all, if at all?

I feel obliged to step in here to say there is a grey area where these are useful tools for some applications but not on the path to AGI.

Unfortunately the hype machine has far outstripped their capabilities so far, and the amount of money spent doesn’t look like being recouped, so somebody is going to lose money, as people lost money on the overpriced spacex ipo (overpriced because of AI).

> The dotcom bust took a decade to grow and collapse

I'm inclined to think the collapse has already started but nobody wants to see it yet.

In the last few weeks SP500 is down, kospi is down, nikkei is down, US inflation is still high and growth is softer than expected. Hyper inflated stocks (Tesla, Nvidia, SpaceX) are deflating. US bonds are at a 20 year high.

Interesting times ahead.

I was able to create a custom index based on the top 500 that I stripped the big AI stocks from (shovels too). Then I added decent chunks of international, small cap, and treasury ETFs to it.

I have no illusions that I can time a bubble, but I'm hopeful I'm at least partially shielded, and most importantly I feel better about ignoring wall street again.

>I can time a bubble

What do you mean? Selling everything before this bubble pops?

Talk about taking a quote out of context...

> taking a quote

What exactly do you mean here? Like quoting it the right way?

Reddalo omitted the negation when quoting the parent comment. In general its considered rude to quote someone in a way that implies they are saying something different from what they said.

Yeah I tried to make fun of it, but not that successfully I guess.

Sorry, my bad. I just wanted to know what the OP meant by "timing a bubble", I didn't want to insinuate that they said something different.

Oh, if you could time a bubble, you wouldn't just sell everything: you'd sell more than everything. Ie you'd sell short.

Instead of starting with the top 500 American stocks, and then adding international and small caps, you can start with a global all-market stock index--and then remove AI from that.

Yeah I couldn't figure that out with Questrade (Canada). It's a pretty new feature, but I think it's great, so I hope they expand their baseline indexes.

I was considering writing a tool that simply follows any index you choose with a .toml of simple config options, like which stocks to exclude, potential fixed locks for specific stocks (or maybe upper and lower percentage of portfolio settings), a hard per stock cap (say AAPL at 3%), and drift threshold. Something you just run once a day and it spits out your buy / sell orders. Seems like this is something brokerages are already offering in some variation though, and I'm not sure what, if any, API access looks like, or export / import options.

I'm in Singapore. My money is in VWRA (without bothering to remove AI companies).

Your idea for the tool sounds interesting. I suspect even just copy-and-pasting the paragraph you wrote here into your favourite AI programming agent would get you pretty close to a prototype you can play around with. At least in terms of 'spit out buy / sell orders' and leaving out the API integration.

Yes, it's a very simple concept IMO. Without API access or at least CSV import / export integration w/ a brokerage for automation I don't think I'd use it. I could have an agent use the Web UI on my behalf, but honestly, that feels like lighting tokens / gas on fire.

So at least IBKR has some MCP (or so) integration.

If you are not trying to be current up to the minute, you can get stock information from eg Yahoo or elsewhere on the open web.

You are perhaps not as diversified as you think in this top heavy market.

https://stockanalysis.com/quote/lon/VWRA/holdings/

~ 5% Nvidia as biggest holding and 20% in US listed tech companies (most of which are heavily invested in AI), over 60% in the US market, so this ticker is very similar to investing in the US market alone.

Also when a bubble like this deflates it hits almost everything so it is very hard to avoid, but world indexes are particularly exposed.

You are right about the numbers. But wrong about what I am thinking: I'm aware, and it's a deliberate choice on my part to allocate in proportion to market cap.

So you’re heavily invested in this AI bubble then. Your biggest holding is Nvidia.

I'm deferring judgement to the market.

As a retail investor, you should buy an index fund and then forget about it.

By the time you have read this article, the professionals and their computers will have digested that material a thousand times over and have priced it in.

To be more precise: buy the lowest cost most diversified index fund you can buy and then hold it. If you want to spend some smarts to get a better return: look at how to minimise taxes and fees.

> As a retail investor, you should buy an index fund and then forget about it.

That definitely was true.

I am unsure it is still true. Index funds have taken so much of the trade volume the are becoming momentum strategies

So long as you are happy following the market wherever it goes, and if the recent past is a guide then up is the direction, then yes.

But given the nepotism and corruption in the highest reaches of USAnian society (e.g. Trump's crypto currency scams and the blatant inside dealing and rule ignoring of the Space X float) the future looks much less certain than the past

The future always has risks but the question is that does an option better than index funds exist?

Depending on jurisdiction and taxation, yes. Eg in many places owner-occupied housing is favoured, and might make sense to acquire, even though otherwise it's silly: a single lumpy usually highly levered position; no diversification; multiple times your networth and with very high transaction costs.

> I am unsure it is still true. Index funds have taken so much of the trade volume the are becoming momentum strategies

I don't understand how that's supposed to work?

Btw, keep in mind that index funds are typically really, really keen to lend their shares out to short sellers.

> But given the nepotism and corruption in the highest reaches of USAnian society (e.g. Trump's crypto currency scams and the blatant inside dealing and rule ignoring of the Space X float) the future looks much less certain than the past

That's a big part of why I am invested in a global index fund, not anything America specific.

> By the time you have read this article, the professionals and their computers will have digested that material a thousand times over and have priced it in.

I think you overestimate traders. What we call smart money is very often really, really dumb from a macro perspective. Professional traders believe hype and follow trends. There is still at least 2 thesis playing out at the moment for the AI trade, and you don’t need to be a professional trader to take part: one is the AI impact on saas (the market has been very bearish on SaaS companies, and still hasn’t corrected meaningfully), and the ai infrastructure (hardware companies + hyperscalers)

The average professional trader might not be that smart, who knows. But:

(A) I am not confident I am smarter than the average professional trader here.

(B) You don't need to win against the average professional trader: you need to win against the smartest ones. And: I'm not so sure I am smarter than the average professional trader anyway.

About your theses: my null hypothesis is that these things are already priced in.

You actually don't need to win against the smartest ones, it's not really who is on the other side of the trade. There is an interesting dynamic where the space where retail investors operate isn't really the same space as the "smart money", and because of that there are a lot of small-ish arbitrage opportunities that you can advantage based on your industry expertise (I don't mean insider trading, I mean your understanding regarding how your industry is evolving). Relying on an ETF is perfectly fine, it's way less stressful and gives you the safe-ish exposure to the market most people want. But if you want to do active trading by picking stocks (and you don't mind risking losing your money), you really don't need anything too sophisticated.

That being said I would really not recommend people who don't have money and time to lose to actively invest. It's a fun hobby and can be pretty profitable, but not for everyone

> That being said I would really not recommend people who don't have money and time to lose to actively invest. It's a fun hobby and can be pretty profitable, but not for everyone

Do you have any idea on the risk adjusted returns of your hobby? As far as I can tell, it's counterproductive for most people. (And if it ain't, you should probably go earn the big bucks at a hedge fund instead of whatever you are currently doing.)

And _iff_ you want more risk, you can add leverage to your portfolio instead of concentrating on individual stocks.

I say 'risk adjusted returns', because if the general market went up, it's relatively easy for some folks to be up more if they got lucky and concentrated on the winners (but equally easy to get unlucky and get below market returns).

Btw, I live in a jurisdiction without capital gains tax, so in theory active trading would be especially lucrative for me; I just doubt I can beat the market.

I've been averaging into IGV (Software / SaaS ETF) over the past few months. Before that, I was averaging into CIBR (Cybersecurity ETF.) CIBR has bounced back big time, while IGV is only up a bit.

Why the averaging?

Mostly, I didn’t have all the cash to invest at once. There is also a psychological component: I feel better investing on down days.

I wonder with the spacex thing if this should be revised. “Smart money” have figured out what you are doing and they are at the gates.

Sorry, could you please explain?

For the record, I deliberately picked an index fund (VWRA) that's not choosy about who to admit, so SpaceX would have been in there pretty quickly no matter what shenanigans they are doing with the S&P500.

Introduce a vapid company(ies) to the index that will have no future cash-flow and withdraw the liquidity to these "investments". If your index fund has SpaceX in it, Elon musk has basically funneled money out of your retirement account to his insanity rides.

If you think SpaceX has even a minuscule chance of succeeding then this conversation doesn't make sense to carry on.

There's like a few thousand companies in the index my ETF is following. I don't have opinions on every last one of them. I just (automatically) follow the market consensus.

Keep in mind that index funds are generally really, really keen to lend out their shares to short sellers, too.

I think there is now so much passive investing that wall street and tech bros are gaming it, and it's no longer based in reality (fundamentals). I mean Elon's deal to get SPCX short listed with NASDAQ was directly targeted at 401(k)s.

Not sure how it's all going to play out, but this ginormous increase in passive investing over the past decade or so, mainly in S&P 500, seems like a vulnerability. Small cap might be a better (non-sexy) target long term.

> I think there is now so much passive investing that wall street and tech bros are gaming it,

Yes, they are supposed to! And they are supposed to compete for the privilege. That's how index funds can add and remove stuff from the index so cheaply.

I agree that the S&P500 is not an optimal index. I picked something (VWRA) that's more diversified and less picky about who to admit.

I like it how morningstar provides a graph of the stock price and morningstar's target price for the past few years, and the target price always closely follows the stock price, even as the stock price fluctuates wildly. All that genius analysis somehow concludes that the company is worth exactly what the market says it is, right up to the point that it doubles/halves in price.

How does 'the market' properly set prices if everyone blindly buying the same things without any discriminators?

depends entirely on your definition of price. But generally speaking, the idea that the stock market is efficient at allocating resources is just not true. It's an ok-ish thing to say for a 101 course (i.e a first introduction) on the topic, but it very quickly becomes clear how inefficient things can be in practice

Could you please elaborate?

What do you mean by everyone?

Btw, keep in mind that index funds are really keen to lend out their shares to short sellers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com