Right but that's very task specific, and what many people want is a single robot which can do many different tasks, and do so without modifying the existing environment. I would love a robot which could cook and clean and do laundry (including folding) but I still need to live in the same space it would use. The most obvious way to do that is a humanoid robot, which is why nanny companies are working on it, and here he's arguing that's not going to work.

The other obvious way to do it is to centralize it, have a lift in your house that brings up meals and clean laundry to order, where you can put your dirty dishes in when you're done, and a central space where staff and robots take care of things.

I'm actually surprised or interested that this isn't more of a thing, it doesn't take any high tech either. I suppose people like having their own stuff, or people can't be trusted, or it's prohibitively expensive to outsource food / laundry (even if especially in the US ordering food or eating out is very common).

Seems like a nice feature but the most important aspect is "fit" and I wouldn't trust these models to do that accurately. They'll most likely make everything fit perfectly. Should be fixable tho.

Definitely an aggressive timeline but it seems like the biggest barrier to AI taking over radiology will be legal. Spending years training for a job which only continues to exist because of government fiat, which could change at any time, seems like a risky choice.

They absolutely were not first to the smart phone, that was blackberry. It's just that blackberry sucked. They were first to PC but I don't think they were first to laptop.

Sure you can go back well before blackberry to find even earlier versions of the smartphone but the type we all use today was introduced by Apple.

They just removed the physical keyboard. Pretty much everything else about a modern phone was either added in later years or already existed. The first iphone was extremely basic.

Yes it was a bubble. (Also a much larger related credit bubble). A big run up followed by a crash. Many companies went under, many people suffered. The fact that prices recovered a decade later doesn't change any of that.

Up 4x in 2 years seems like an indication it is a bubble, not the opposite. There's really no way of knowing when a bubble is going to pop, there's no reason an overvalued stock can't become even more overvalued.

I think we need to first straighten out the terms.

What really is a bubble? In my view, if we want to get strict with this, a bubble is really an enlargement in asset prices that is not backed by fundamentals.

Now as it stands, Nvidia's recent growth has been to date backed by fundamentals due to increases in free cash flows. However, its market capitalization is based upon the fact that demand for what they produce continues to rise notwithstanding competition.

The problem is, Nvidia's customers who are responsible for their revenue growth are not seeing meaningful ROI and how steep will the barriers to entry remain? Its questionable if Nvidia can maintain existing barriers to entry (let alone making those barriers any steeper) to sustain the market power it enjoys over a long time horizon to justify its present value. Therein lies the problem with Nvidia's valuation.

There is also no evidence that shows Nvidia's projects have real options embedded within them. Now of course, lets get real - who is really doing this level of analysis? Very few, and we are seeing this play out with jumps in the stock price with no tangible justification.

One could also rent the 3% loan at absurdly high prices. But that also requires the extra effort of being a land lord.

Apple and Microsoft are the 2nd and 3rd largest companies in the US (by market cap), Kodak never came close to that

GE however was. It was in the top 10 as late as 2012 when I use to work there.

Check out "the precipice" by Tony Ord. Biological warfare and global warming are unlikely to lead to total human extinction (though both present large risks of massive harm).

Part of the argument is that we've had nuclear weapons for a long time but no apocalypse so the annual risk can't be larger than 1%, whereas we've never created AI so it might be substantially larger. Not a rock solid argument obviously, but we're dealing with a lot of unknowns.

A better argument is that most of those other risks are not neglected, plenty of smart people working against nuclear war. Whereas (up until a few years ago) very few people considered AI a real threat, so the marginal benefit of a new person working on it should be bigger.