Hacker News

points by lelanthran 1 day ago | 0 comments

It's a bit early to be calling it, I think.

A sell-off is required to start a panic-sell and bubble-pop, but not all sell-offs start a panic-sell and bubble-pop.

It's hard to tell in advance what this is.

Yes. This is just the first day.

It's going to take a year or two more. Will the humanoid robots being built be useful? Will Tesla's robotaxi ever work without a huge number of remote monitors? Will the free models start to displace the expensive ones? Will someone figure out a way to do all this at lower cost? We don't know yet. But there are too many huge companies with rather inflated market caps. Some of that has to be air.

[–] gizajob 1 day ago

Will we still need ever-larger GPUs and Memory? Yes.

There’s no version of the immediate future where this isn’t the case.

[–] rolisz 1 day ago

Really? I find local models such as Qwen 3.8 and Muse Glimmer to be pretty good. Not Opus or Sol, but.... Close to Sonnet maybe? So if I had to only use the local models from now on, it would not be a huge loss. Granted, I can't work on parallel on multiple tasks locally. But it's still 48 GB of RAM vs 750 GB or what is required for GLM5.3

[–] gizajob 1 day ago

You’d happily take a TB of RAM if offered though. The fact you can’t get it is evidence that hardware manufacturers have a huge amount of life left in them and the current correction is a buying opportunity.

[–] lelanthran 1 day ago

> There’s no version of the immediate future where this isn’t the case.

Pity you qualified your prediction with "immediate"; a simimlar sentiment was around just before the dot-com crash: "There's no version of the future where we won't be able to use all that extra network infra."

Turned out, in the immediate future, just post-crash, we actually didn't need them. They only got used a decade later.

Will we need every larger compute and RAM?

Sure?

Will we need it in a post-crash scenario?

Nope!

[–] gizajob 1 day ago

So we have enough RAM kicking around in the world today that will suffice for the next 5-10 years?

And an RTX5090 is going to drop down to a few hundred dollars is it? Just because the price of stonks is temporarily correcting downwards?

[–] lelanthran 1 day ago

> So we have enough RAM kicking around in the world today that will suffice for the next 5-10 years?

No, but we may have enough GPU (with their RAM) sitting around in datacentres that our AI needs will be taken care off for the foreseeable future.

I mean, RAM is not really fungible - these valuations are not tied to RTX5090s, they are tied to the server GPUs.

The investment was not used to buy RAM sticks for desktop and server m/boards. ANthropic did not use their VC money to buy RTX5090s. The VC money went to power generation, datacentres, and server GPUs with 768GB of RAM.

So, yeah, if the bubble pops, we're well taken care of in the immediate future by the stuff the VC money already bought.

[–] gizajob 1 day ago

And they’re gonna let you access that super cheap at fire sale prices yeah? Because of the oversupply. Right.

And what about local AI and agentic stuff? We can all stick with 32Gb of ram at home and piddly lil GPUs?

In my opinion this turmoil is hedge funds and market makers flushing out liquidity, same as they always do. Paying Bernie Sanders to tweet “no more datacentres” is pretty cheap to do.

Extreme fear = always a buying opportunity.

[–] lelanthran 1 day ago

> And they’re gonna let you access that super cheap at fire sale prices yeah?

That's literally the definition of a bubble-pop. The assets get sold for pennies on the dollar (sometimes even fractions of a penny on the dollar).

> And what about local AI and agentic stuff? We can all stick with 32Gb of ram at home and piddly lil GPUs?

Won't matter if there's demand for that, that specific market can't use the stuff already purchased by VC money. TBH, I won't even care about self-hosting if the bubble pops, because all those things the VC money purchased will get bought up for basically scrap prices, then hosted for cost of hosting + tiny markup.

There's no principle to repay, so prices are going to be opex + markup, not opex + training costs + repayment on loan + commitment penalties + markup.

> Extreme fear = always a buying opportunity.

Which brings me back to your assertion: that all these things already purchased by VC money will still be needed. We found that to be untrue during the dotcom crash: Hardware makers (those that survived) stock took 17 years to get back to where they were pre-crash, the 0.01% software stock that survived the crash took a decade to recover.

The only way this is a buying opportunity is if there is no crash.

[–] eli_gottlieb 8 hours ago

> Will Tesla's robotaxi ever work without a huge number of remote monitors?

Tesla? Waymo is operating in American cities right now. I've taken them.

[–] 0xDEAFBEAD 20 hours ago

Shiller P/E was approaching dot-com levels:

https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe

I think a big bubble pop is plausible.

[–] sumeno 1 day ago

That seems to be the entire point of this page.

Everyone either misinterpreting what it says or only reading the headline, because it's pretty clear that the author is arguing that only 1 in 5 sell-offs equivalent to the current one end up being significant.

> The recent AI sell-off brought a lot of fearmongering headlines. Put next to past stock market crashes, it's only a mild correction for the S&P 500, 6% below its record.