Yeah, I don't know about that.

I think you're late to make this leap.

> the insane frothing hype behind AI is showing me a new kind of market failure - where resources can be massively misallocated just because some small class of individuals THINK or HOPE it will result in massive returns.

This resonates deeply, especially to someone born in the USSR.

I liked the broader article, "Why Everybody is Losing Money on AI", more for the overhead perspective:

https://www.wheresyoured.at/why-everybody-is-losing-money-on...

A question the capital markets should be asking themselves.

> The real problem we should be discussing is, how do we convince students and apprentices to abstain from AI until they learn the ropes for real.

That's just it. You can only use AI usefully for coding* once you've spent years beating your head against code "the hard way". I'm not sure what that looks like for the next cohort, since they have AI on day 1.

* That is, assuming it's nontrivial.

> What's the difference between a messy codebase created by a genAI, and a messy codebase where all the original authors of the code have moved on and aren't available to ask questions?

In my experience, the type of messes created by humans and the type of messes created by genAI are immensely different, and at times require different skill sets to dissect.

Of course there should be. However, those nations should worry about that on behalf of their citizens. No other nation is going to concern itself with whether Americans can live close to their parents.

I like to say that it's not AI -- it's just A.

No, but I think you're wrong. My child grew 3 inches in the last year alone, according to his latest physical.

If I were to adopt your extrapolation methods, he'll soon not only be the tallest human alive, but the tallest structure on the planet.