ChatGPT

[MU82]

Yes consulting firms should use AI to aid them.  You still need junior staff to eventually hand the reigns to though.  People want to hire people with experience.  If AI does all the low hanging fruit, who will get experience for future generations to run the company?

Future generations no matta.

[Uncle Rico]

Future generations no matta.

I believe, that's the boomer slogan.

[MU82]

I believe, that's the boomer slogan.

Boomers no matta, either.

[Uncle Rico]

Future generations no matta.

We need to have a party when the last boomer croaks

[MU82]

We need to have a party when the last boomer croaks

Wait ... the last boomer is a frog?

[Shaka Shart]

Wait ... the last boomer is a frog?

Amphibians have more skills

[dgies9156]

Yes consulting firms should use AI to aid them.  You still need junior staff to eventually hand the reigns to though.  People want to hire people with experience.  If AI does all the low hanging fruit, who will get experience for future generations to run the company?

This is a fascinating and under-appreciated concern. I worked in banking and professional service firms for most of past 35 years. I was a Managing Director and later Senior Managing Director in a mid-sized firm and raised the same issue when we proposed opening an off-shore operation in India.

The big question is who will manage, validate and improve the AI? Not my problem because I'm retired but if there isn't a ready stream of young, ambitious leaders wanting to burst your door down, where's the leaders of tomorrow coming from?

Incidentally, publicly held consulting firm revenue is down because use of consultants is down. There is a real question of, "what's the value proposition?" My view has been that a combination of value and long-term personal relationships ensures strong consulting revenue. But.....

[forgetful]

https://fortune.com/2025/08/18/mit-report-95-percent-generative-ai-pilots-at-companies-failing-cfo/

This actually makes sense and it is not a bad thing. It is a bit of the Wild West right now, where everyone is trying to create their own system, for everything, that does everything.

That isn't what AI will end up doing. The ones that are succeeding are the ones well thought out and directed to very specific tasks, by those dialed into how AI can best be leveraged.

[Hards Alumni]

This actually makes sense and it is not a bad thing. It is a bit of the Wild West right now, where everyone is trying to create their own system, for everything, that does everything.

That isn't what AI will end up doing. The ones that are succeeding are the ones well thought out and directed to very specific tasks, by those dialed into how AI can best be leveraged.

The issue is that whomever comes out with the first true AGI just wins.  Everyone else's models will be irrelevant immediately.

But until that happens, more specialized models can potentially function as a business.  Maybe.

[Shaka Shart]

The issue is that whomever comes out with the first true AGI just wins.  Everyone else's models will be irrelevant immediately.

But until that happens, more specialized models can potentially function as a business.  Maybe.

Well china scaled up their power grid for that arms race possibility and we didn't (moving in opposite direction).

[Hards Alumni]

Well china scaled up their power grid for that arms race possibility and we didn't (moving in opposite direction).

They plan, we react.

It's why we will lose.

[jficke13]

The issue is that whomever comes out with the first true AGI just wins.  Everyone else's models will be irrelevant immediately.

But until that happens, more specialized models can potentially function as a business.  Maybe.

0% chance that transformer based modeling achieves AGI. Everyone who claims the current crop of LLM-based companies has a credible AGI program is scamming you.

Hell, the winds have already shifted. Some of the spokespeople for the big companies just started to down play it.

[Shaka Shart]

Meta just instituted a hiring freeze for AI related jobs. Which considering this summer they were headhunting execs to the tune of hundreds of millions, that's pretty wild

[MU82]

Meta Platform's (NASDAQ:META) Chief AI Officer, Alexandr Wang, insists there is no slowdown in artificial intelligence investments despite multiple reports this week possibly indicating otherwise.

"We are truly only investing more and more into Meta Superintelligence Labs as a company," Wang said Thursday afternoon in a post on X. "Any reporting to the contrary of that is clearly mistaken."

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4488098-metas-ai-chief-clears-the-air-says-no-slowdown-in-superintelligence-labs-investments

[tower912]

Well china scaled up their power grid for that arms race possibility and we didn't (moving in opposite direction).
[/quote

Well china scaled up their power grid for that arms race possibility and we didn't (moving in opposite direction).

Yes, yes they did.  All in commitment to clean energy and the related grid.   That will be how and why they kick our butts.

[JWags85]

Yes, yes they did.  All in commitment to clean energy and the related grid.   That will be how and why they kick our butts.

No comment on the downstream effects of it on AI and their power grid, but any and all chatter about China and clean energy is complete BS and always has been.  Its not propaganda, its just truth.  My Asia GM found out on a trip to China that 3 different office parks in Chendgu, Shenzhen, and Guangzho that we had customers in (and factories nearby) that were loudly and publicly green and clean energy reliant...were actually fueled by coal plants in the rural areas outside of the city.  Different regions and cities, same story.

Until clean/renewable energy gets as cheap and easy/efficient as coal/gas power plants, it will never be the sole, or even main, source of energy in China (or any legit manufacturing country, US included).  Believing otherwise is buying into the LEDs in every major city tricking people into thinking China is Blade Runner future utopia.

[Shaka Shart]

No comment on the downstream effects of it on AI and their power grid, but any and all chatter about China and clean energy is complete BS and always has been.  Its not propaganda, its just truth.  My Asia GM found out on a trip to China that 3 different office parks in Chendgu, Shenzhen, and Guangzho that we had customers in (and factories nearby) that were loudly and publicly green and clean energy reliant...were actually fueled by coal plants in the rural areas outside of the city.  Different regions and cities, same story.

Until clean/renewable energy gets as cheap and easy/efficient as coal/gas power plants, it will never be the sole, or even main, source of energy in China (or any legit manufacturing country, US included).  Believing otherwise is buying into the LEDs in every major city tricking people into thinking China is Blade Runner future utopia.

Gonna ramble:

You're using anecdotes when easily accessible data shows otherwise.

Chinas installed wind capacity is more than double the US and Wind/solar is about 1/4 of their current generation.

You're confusing the fact that sheer volume of their electricity needs and sources still requires predominantly coal power generation by claiming they barely use it at all, or that certain places don't use it.

Depending on the position of those factories in the grid, they may very well use most if not all coal generation with renewables making up demand elsewhere within the infrastructure.

The truth is they still have their emissions peaking at the end of this decade as putting up wind and solar farms don't flip the breakout overnight. But currently in global volume, they generate 41% of global renewable energy. That's an insane market share.

Not once have I seen anyone claiming it's entirely green energy yet and I work in renewables where Chinese renewable energy is an aggressive global competitor.

they're lapping the sh** out of us on grid infrastructure installation. We can crow and moan about how we should be doing nuclear until our faces are blue but our grid is outdated, poorly maintained, and in desperate need of expansion. Building a nuke plant in the middle the Great Plains requires pathways to get generation to where the power is consumed, just like you need roads to get to work or pickleball.

If you want to place the blame on the US not building nuclear, that's fine I actually agree with you there. But it's because nuclear is insanely expensive and requires an unholy amount of continuing investment to keep running over a lifespan of decades. If you want to see why the US despite headwinds (ha) continues to put up solar/wind, see the attached chart. Installation cost and corresponding cost per Mw/Hr is extremely competitive even factoring in full lifetime nuclear cost, but the renewables take maybe a year to 18 months to complete at scale. the other takes 15 years with 10 year lead time of the turbines and equipment (gas and nuclear).

The US economic system does not look kindly on energy generation that does not produce timely returns and quite simply, there isn't really another viable option in the US to increase our capacity in the next 10 years unless we want rolling blackouts nationwide (they seem to want that?!).

[JWags85]

Gonna ramble:

You're using anecdotes when easily accessible data shows otherwise.

Chinas installed wind capacity is more than double the US and Wind/solar is about 1/4 of their current generation.

You're confusing the fact that sheer volume of their electricity needs and sources still requires predominantly coal power generation by claiming they barely use it at all, or that certain places don't use it.

Depending on the position of those factories in the grid, they may very well use most if not all coal generation with renewables making up demand elsewhere within the infrastructure.

The truth is they still have their emissions peaking at the end of this decade as putting up wind and solar farms don't flip the breakout overnight. But currently in global volume, they generate 41% of global renewable energy. That's an insane market share.

Not once have I seen anyone claiming it's entirely green energy yet and I work in renewables where Chinese renewable energy is an aggressive global competitor.

they're lapping the sh** out of us on grid infrastructure installation. We can crow and moan about how we should be doing nuclear until our faces are blue but our grid is outdated, poorly maintained, and in desperate need of expansion. Building a nuke plant in the middle the Great Plains requires pathways to get generation to where the power is consumed, just like you need roads to get to work or pickleball.

If you want to place the blame on the US not building nuclear, that's fine I actually agree with you there. But it's because nuclear is insanely expensive and requires an unholy amount of continuing investment to keep running over a lifespan of decades. If you want to see why the US despite headwinds (ha) continues to put up solar/wind, see the attached chart. Installation cost and corresponding cost per Mw/Hr is extremely competitive even factoring in full lifetime nuclear cost, but the renewables take maybe a year to 18 months to complete at scale. the other takes 15 years with 10 year lead time of the turbines and equipment (gas and nuclear).

The US economic system does not look kindly on energy generation that does not produce timely returns and quite simply, there isn't really another viable option in the US to increase our capacity in the next 10 years unless we want rolling blackouts nationwide (they seem to want that?!).

Great and informative post.  Thank you.  I guess its semantics.  I read they are "all-in" like that implies they are moving to a fully or predominately green/clean energy grid and thought that seemed fanciful.  I don't have any arguments with them having more resources and planning towards renewable sources than the US (or other global players) that's for sure.

I think I admittedly interpreted the gist of the statements wrong, and also blended some of my annoyance with the recent re-shift in millenial/Gen-Z China is the best sentiment/propaganda because of US related frustrations.  They do a lot of things really well and are completely ahead of the US in plenty of things but most people have absolutely no perspective on what greater China is really like and how full of misrepresentation so much of their outward facing information is.

Happy to chat in DMs if you have any other thoughts about my factory/green examples cause I know plenty about China and whats going on there, but plenty is still a complete mystery unless you're getting direct on the ground response.

[tower912]

The thing is, both of you can be right.   The two are not mutually exclusive.   Pushing green energy and (1) it isn't universal and there are still many coal plants, and (2) China is far ahead of the United States on renewables and grid infrastructure improvements.

[Shaka Shart]

Great and informative post.  Thank you.  I guess its semantics.  I read they are "all-in" like that implies they are moving to a fully or predominately green/clean energy grid and thought that seemed fanciful.  I don't have any arguments with them having more resources and planning towards renewable sources than the US (or other global players) that's for sure.

I think I admittedly interpreted the gist of the statements wrong, and also blended some of my annoyance with the recent re-shift in millenial/Gen-Z China is the best sentiment/propaganda because of US related frustrations.  They do a lot of things really well and are completely ahead of the US in plenty of things but most people have absolutely no perspective on what greater China is really like and how full of misrepresentation so much of their outward facing information is.

Happy to chat in DMs if you have any other thoughts about my factory/green examples cause I know plenty about China and whats going on there, but plenty is still a complete mystery unless you're getting direct on the ground response.

China is absolutely greenwashing many of their actions. The cynic in me assumes that their rapid deployment of the tech is more on the speed of scalability and expansion vs them actually thinking from a fully environmentalist position.

I get what you mean with the "china is this utopia" content though. Some of the things they do so well required a ton of blatant ignorance of safety protocols, eminent domain and eviction of citizens, and steamrolling any potential opposition. Their hydroelectric policy is a good example of that.

I tend to look at it as a "we should be embracing the things they're doing well because it would benefit our society significantly". But I am not endorsing its deployment be at the expense of millions of people's homes and culture.

Getting back to AI though, where this really creates a gap is what the energy generation shortage in America will do to the consumer by driving energy prices up due to ability to absorb the price fluctuations of corporations.

Americas aggressive curtailment of domestic battery production in the past year or so 1. Loses American manufacturing jobs we were going to create and 2. Exacerbates the gap between us and competitors in the AI and Energy space simultaneously.

Storing excess generation has long been the holy grail on grid stabilization and we are inching closer to it being commercially viable especially with data center based demand structures, but the clawback of IRA and other domestic tax incentives completely upended the momentum here which globally everyone else steams ahead with that technology.

The sodium ion battery tech is gonna revolutionize the world if executed

[jesmu84]

Any thoughts on the "AI bubble"?

[MU82]

Two grieving parents have filed the first known wrongful death case against OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT.

Their 16-year-old son initially used ChatGPT for help with schoolwork. But over time he confided in it more, and he eventually told it that he was thinking of ending his own life. They discussed suicide extensively. When he asked for advice on nooses, the bot furnished suggestions. He later hanged himself.

"This tragedy was not a glitch or an unforeseen edge case — it was the predictable result of deliberate design choices," the lawsuit says.

The suit may serve as a test case for an area of the law that does not yet have much precedent: When a machine with some capacity for decision-making has a role in a person's death, who bears the responsibility?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/technology/chatgpt-openai-suicide.html