Hacker News Reader

This is not the argument. It's not a comparison to gambling but a comparison to something that does not materially improve a person's life. Economic expenditure does not equate to human benefit. This is the original argument, and the onus is on THAT person to explain why people spending for AI actually benefit, not the other way around.

Perhaps you can ask Claude to explain it to you.

View on HN

I think it’s widely accepted that most things are bought because they satisfy people’s needs or wants. Sure, there are exceptions, like drugs or gambling. Is there any reason to think AI is one of them?

Drugs, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, vaping, ultra processed foods, social media, luxury goods/conspicuous consumption, etc.

A lot of humans are incredibly bad at allocating money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com