@drmorrisj @nixCraft

How could you tell my second hobby was arguing with idiots on the internets?

Though you seem to have free time for that too. I don't get what is so funny to you.

@drmorrisj @nixCraft

My point may have also been hard to follow so:

- My first reply - I question if there even is a fallacy because your definition still fits. Maybe a stretch, which is I now agree after thinking.
- Other replies, after I saw you say that original point is a fallacy - I say that even if term is incorrect or confusing with "investments" mentioned beside it, the point still stands that "AI" is overvalued and actively harmful.

About me "disliking tech" - I like tech in general, I spend a lot of my time, productive or hobby, on IT admin and programmer things. I even liked so called AI (and still like many parts of machine learning that actually bemefit society, be that computer vision or ML-based OCR), until I saw how much it negatively impacted me and those around me. You sound quite condencing trying to say things I say doesn't matter because I am "emotional" while you actually work on whatever sort of machine learning or statistical models that you equate with what companies call AI nowadays.

About CWs - screw you for removing them and then mocking me about it, actually, very petty and unnecessary. I have them because this a divisive topic that my followers may not want to read about when they are fed up about it.

@drmorrisj @nixCraft

Something having or not having speculative or overinflated value doesn't explicitly mean it will forever be that way. Internet is irrelevant here.

Though I recognise I (especially in my first reply, in which I noted that definition you gave still seems to fit AI in my opinion) and nixcraft may be technically wrong for using a specific term instead of another it doesn't exactly mean much for the actual point, is what I want to say.

@drmorrisj

My idea is, phrasing it like your example - you should not invest into company that is based on promises of ghosts. So called luddites are more concerned with that company is killing people, but they also will be angry that promised ghosts are theoretical speculation, and that investors are going in because of promises and blankets made to look like ghosts.

If that doesn't exactly fit a specific domain-specific definition of speculation and you technically wrong for calling investitions speculative, that doesn't really matter for the point. Maybe not ideal phrasing on the side of @nixCraft, but it's not really a fallacy.

@drmorrisj @nixCraft

I just think that trying to make distinction is useless, because the way AI companies earn money is with more investments because of overvalued investments and promises, which is another form of investment speculation, and the way people suffer for it isn't any speculation at all. When people say value of AI companies is speculative, they mean in that sense too.

@drmorrisj @nixCraft

> value is based on potential future price movements rather than current cash flow or intrinsic utility.

Pretty much fits a lot of concerns about AI too. Investments into it are mostly based on idea that it will soon become profitable to the point of badly damaging companies who didn't invest into it. While currently, AI is too costly to be profitable and too unreliable and produces low quality output to talk about intrinsic utility.

So called Luddites don't care much about whether this investment will fail or not, but they are savvy enough to see why this investment happens and call it speculative in business sense too.