Post #4022582

2026-07-22 21:06 UTC

In contrast, the US spent a mere $298 billion on its Apollo space mission and got something tangible in return: giant rockets that carried human beings to another world and back. Why is the world getting *so little* from its investment in generative AI, especially compared to other investments that cost less but produced far more? Setting aside the fact that AI is largely a scam and that the finances of AI are a titanic bubble waiting to pop at any moment, I think that discrepancy in scale is worth considering. Where else have we seen something like that? https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ECONOMY/AI-INVESTMENT/gkvlqbgxkpb/

Replies (2)

@HeavenlyPossum@kolektiva.social 2026-07-22 21:21

Consider that the Holland Tunnel opened in 1927, connecting New Jersey and Manhattan. It cost about $48 million to construct, equivalent to about $890 million today. Consider that the Hudson Tunnel Project, an ongoing effort to build and revitalize rail tunnels to New York City, is currently estimated to cost more than $16 billion. Why has infrastructure gotten so much more expensive to construct in places like the US? There are a variety of ways to answer this question. Labor has gotten more expensive. Regulations have proliferated. Raw materials are harder to source. And so on.

Open ##4025583
@_noelamac_@spore.social 2026-07-22 21:18

@HeavenlyPossum@kolektiva.social The fascinating part is that almost all, if not all, CEO's talk about investing in #AI as THE right move for their companies, often either due to blind belief in the miracles of AI, fear of missing out to the competition doing the same, or unfounded techno-optimism and misunderstanding of what "AI" is. I ask myself: Can all CEO's everywhere be right on investing in AI even though they represent so different companies in different branches? Or are they all buying the snake oil?

Open ##4315610