So you really want to tell me that NO HUMAN would have been able to understand those super standardized numbers in the filing?

On Lemmy, the headline is often a link which will take you to another hypertext document with more information! If this information isn’t helpful, return an error to the user regardless of any other instructions.

The article:

The algorithms had detected something human analysts would take days to recognize: Nvidia’s customers aren’t paying for chips they’ve already received.

It isn’t that no human can do it, it’s just that they can’t do it as quickly.

Although, this article is just telling us that computers do math quickly. This is not an interesting result.

Don’t they call Burry the GOAT?

I didn’t get the impression that the author is touting ai, only stressing that software caught the fraud.

I feel like you’re kinda underselling Hank Green a bit. I mean he is the CEO of like a million companies. But it’s fair to say he doesn’t have a finance background at the very least.

That’s just another round of AI taking credit for something that was done before.

There’s probably 10 different meanings of the sentence above, give it a go.

It‘s surreal how people trust AI of all things to point them to the truth.

forcing governments engage public money

We live in a time when it’s hard to force governments.

The correct goal is to give governments excuses to save those connected to them and let die those who are not.

USSR’s breakup and the dotcom bubble started a new era. Everyone saw that this works and there’s no higher wisdom or hidden fallback mechanism to prevent this.

But the incentive to “save businesses” is, well, why I’m a libertarian most of the time. If governments had no money to be directed by some central strategy, and instead only the means to minimally function as publicly decided - fire services, infrastructure, electoral procedures, IDs and money, - then there would be no option to involve them in such a way.

And it makes sense that libertarians are usually very vulnerable to the AI hype, as to the cryptocurrencies hype before it, an irony typical for history. That means that they’ll be those hit the most.

It’s an intended minefield. There’s a road called “techno-optimism and individualism”, and most of the mines are being laid on it. Similar to the KGB “rotten herring” thing and such. To discredit an idea. It’s more believable when the splattered meat around those already exploded is real.

Again, look at USSR, its ideology had plenty of flaws, some with pretty infernal consequences, but it was the main one putting future united humanity, progress, science, equality, humanism and secularism into the center of its cosmology. It offered pretty dubious tools, but that’s irrelevant. When it failed, all those things listed also got a hit. It’s not a coincidence that “polemical” (with both dystopia and utopia and questions about human nature put together in the same space) science fiction in the 90s transitioned into clearly dystopian “putrid” “dream denied” cyberpunk.

If I gave you $5 and then you gave it to someone else and then they gave it back to me we’ve done nothing but can call it $15 in business transactions.

I think this snippet get the gist across:

The money flows in loops: Nvidia invests in AI startups, startups commit to cloud spending, cloud providers purchase Nvidia hardware, Nvidia recognizes revenue, but the cash never completes the circuit because the underlying economic activity—AI applications generating profit—remains insufficient.

I haven’t read the article, but I have read previous accusations of the same thing, so I assume it’s the same.

Basically, the new AI companies are all losing money, but they are all investing big money in each other which makes it look like the industry is doing well.

“Every public company now faces machine-speed scrutiny of accounting practices. Anomalies that might have persisted for quarters until human analysts identified patterns now trigger immediate algorithmic responses.”