It took me a few thought cycles to put down that question.

In my understanding, we, as a civilization, are on a high wire number over a pit of knifes. The AI craze is full throtle as we speak, with conflicting indicators that it may/will cause the worst economical crash ever - becoming third in less than twenty years, where each was always reported as an unprecedented and irrepeatable event - while at the same time infiltrating companies in ways we are still to discover how ruinous may prove and spreading over the internet like a grotesque parasite, rendering services unsuable and leaking sensible data.

If the great AI companies tank (I can only hope) and the services they provide - whatever those may be - faill, how much is it going to affect companies? There is really no sense of consensus; some say it was the best thing ever, others are registering neglictable improvements, others failed miserably and had to return to the original state of affairs.

Then there is the constant attack from agents on the net, rendering websites, more or less important, more or less useable or stealing, destroying or corrupting valueable data.

I've reached a point where I am willing to forego internet and even computers. Even technology in a wide sense. At best, I may keep an air gapped machine, to use for writing and printing documents. But will others do it? And if so, will 8t happen in an organic fashion or will things devolve to a point where something cracks and things just get ugly? Because people are tired. Tired of datacenters popping up like poisonous mushrooms everywhere, destroying everything.

People are getting tired. Everywhere.

We might be forced to.

Unless "to some degree" is doing an extreme amount of heavy lifting here, I don't expect so.

In general, it's a lot easier to build complex systems when error doesn't propagate through the system, and that happens with analog systems.

With a digital system, a given component has precisely-defined behavior. 1+1=2. And if you manufacture many instances of that component, they all can have the same, precisely-defined behavior.

With an analog system, there are tiny errors that accumulate. 1+1=2.0001, say. Then that tiny error gets passed on to the next component, and maybe the error there magnifies this error.

That doesn't matter much for some simple systems, but it becomes really problematic for complex ones.

Most complex systems we make are made out of simpler parts. Being able to cut that error out of the picture when specifying the behavior of a component or reasoning about it in the context of a larger system is helpful.

And in general, we want to be able to build complex systems.

Digital systems do force quantitization, and that is a limitation on precision. There will probably always be limited use of the occasional analog component, like, oh, a lens, say. Situations where you don't have a chain of many analog components.

But I don't think that we will return to a point where people made simple devices with few components, because the ability to make complex systems is very powerful. And complexity and analog systems don't play well together.

When AI crashes it will make computing prices plummet...

All the factories making AI shit, will switch back to consumer grade.

Like, I don't even understand you post, you say it'll fail then go on a rant about it working?

I hope it will fail, terribly, miserably, irreversably, but I have to account for the now. And the now shows how bad things are and how worst they can get.

I'm totally down, but most humans aren't and dont have the mental capacity or understanding of how life worked then. Even those who grew up without internet have largely fried their brains with smartphones.

There will be pockets of non tech tribes probably like those desert tribes that exist just making art and doing drugs. But yeah theres no way people can give up tech, and they dont know how to in the first place, the world basically requires it.

The worst case scenario, the internet and related technology implodes, overrun by bots and AI-agents, in my understanding. If rendered useless, can't see how it will be maintained. It's not a land line we can forget about in the wall.

Probably, humanity will suffer a population collapse within 200 years (mostly due to climate collapse; there are several studies and reviews in this topic). If >95% would disappear, that would mean that the critical mass to keep industry, power plants, innovation, medical services and hospitals etc going is gone. So in the midterm future most human activity will be muscle- and analog- based. Don’t get depressed by this: we still have a chance to turn the rudder around; so get active!

i am currently on the process on going back to CDs for music, technically still digital, but offline. Keeps me away from the Internet, also i think 16 bit 44.1kHz is the sweet spot, Sony/Philips had it right 45 years ago, and since i mostly listen old music, plenty for me in the used market

I think the vast majority of people will revert to a more analog standard. If you check out self hosting, the digital space is alive and well. I'm doing my damnedest to keep people connected and away from toxic algorithm social media. I've had very few takers.

I set up a Friendica instance, I share my Jellyfin and Audiobookshelf libraries with as many people as possible. I am living my best digital life right now. But for most people, they can't seem to pull themselves away from the instant gratification that modern social spaces offer. If people reduced their dependence and would put up with the discomfort of change and maybe a little less convenience, they could continue on in a healthier digital space. But, humans being humans, they won't and they'll cast off digital stuff and dive deep into analog instead of adapting to open and non-commercial digital options.

Fuck, I wish. I can fix analog stuff on my own and keep analog equipment running basically indefinitely.

we, as a civilization

No, LOL.

Only 1 out of ~200 countries (and maybe 2 or 3 others who follow them all too much, but not all hope is lost for them). And even the few ones from there who are still able to think somewhat straight, they also suffer from severe hybris, for example of thinking they were the whole civilization.

how much is it going to affect companies?

Again, I would separate: the current AI providing companies vs all the rest.

All the rest can easily and quickly turn to the free models. New operating companies for them, and self-operating solutions, are already in the making.

The current AI providing companies' economic black hole is not identical to the world's use of current ultra-expensive AI.

Theres smart people out there and other protocols that are going to be hard for bots to ruin. Itll be an underground internet for sure.

The clearnet will be trash though

No.

Convenience is king.

Analog tech is inherently slower, more expensive, etc.

This is like asking if farming by hand is better than farming using machinery.

The only reason people think this is way is because they didn't live through analog tech, for them it is retro or nostalgia and they romanticize it because when they do use it, there are no downsides.

Just like the people who think farming by hand is better than farming with machinery are people who don't farm, or they are those investment banking types who 'retired' to go start a farm in upstate NY for fun and pretend it's a viable commercial enterprise.

People are getting tired. Everywhere.

Speak for yourself. You're free to drop out, but if everyone feels like that then why is AI development continuing? Money is pouring in because there are people with money who want this stuff. Capacity is being built because capacity is being used.

streaming is already out the window for me and even before ai slop I felt media was really getting crappy. So for myself I will likely continue to consume older things.

I've fixed my car by describing the problem to ChatGPT and being given an explanation of what I need to do to resolve it. There's nothing incompatible here.

None of those things you mention are analog.

Sounds like there will be even bigger demand for automation and AI with a population drop like that.

That is one of my concerns: is it really being used or is it being touted as such?

I haven't used it and don't intend to, so that is my stance on the technology. It has the potential to be extremely useful but not as it is being developed today. Commit to laboratories for scientifical research and development not wide scale intelectual theft.

And is the money in fact pouring in or is it trapped in a very well disguised circular motion between key companies? That's a conflicting sign: many say the money keeps moving in, as many signal the investors are positioning away. Not being knowleadgeable enough, I find myself split, hoping it will fail.

I am aware my thinking is not very well liked but, echoing your sentiment, who doesn't like can move on.

I’m stepping backwards. But most people I see around me are chugging along and accepting.

I believe ai will continue regardless if the market crashes, they will continue to build data centers and continue to expand surveillance, after all they are creating god finally to have their judgment day dreams come true, they probably feel a deep obligation to continue

Yeah. My entire comment (like, all of it) was about keeping a digital life. Not having to go analog because there are still digital options available.

I haven't used it and don't intend to, so that is my stance on the technology.

You actually are, though. Lemmy makes use of AI in its development.

And is the money in fact pouring in or is it trapped in a very well disguised circular motion between key companies?

To what end?

There are clearly identifiable "drains" for that circulating money. When a data center gets built money flows out to purchase real estate, it flows out to construction companies, it flows out to power providers, it flows out to chip manufacturers who pay staff and buy raw materials and so forth. Money is leaving the system. That can't be sustained for long without it coming in to the system from somewhere, and AI's been booming for four years now. Someone's got to be getting something valuable out of it, I'm dubious that literally all of this money is just being dumped in by investors who haven't seen a dime of return in all that time.

That list I linked to shows that an enormous number of real-world software projects are using AI for various things, for example. Money's changing hands for at least some of that usage.

Keep doing that good work!

You got lucky. Chatgpt and other AI chatbots are terrible for working on cars, often just throwing out suggestions until it gets something right.

That is good to hear and I sincerely hope a more decentralized internet becomes true, made by those in it, not gigantic mega corporations.

The alternative was to not know how to fix it and bring it in to the shop for someone else to do.

How much do you use ChatGPT? Have you had much experience with its car repair suggestions recently?

Why is AI development continuing?

There is demand, but that demand only exists because consumers aren't being exposed to the actual price of AI. It's all being subsidised by investor hype.

Not one of the frontier AI companies have made a profit as of today, not a single one..

The only ones making profit are those exploiting the subsidised pricing for business (or to pull huge scams) and the guys selling the shovels components for data-centres, like Nvidea - who are desperate to keep the investor money flowing, to the point that they themselves are pouring some profits into their own AI company customers in the unofficially dubbed great AI Investor circle-jerk.

... And though this Bloomberg report was from January 2026, if you look hard enough you'll notice this circular financing hasn't stopped, in-fact Nvidea even acknowledged this circular fimancing themselves not even two months ago.

If the only way this keeps going is propping up the industry with investor money and circular financing, then when one of those eventually give and the public are exposed to the true price of AI - what happens then?

A bit into conspiracy territory now, but it's what has me suspecting that a lot of the news we hear about AI going rogue and what-not isn't as accidental as it seems. Any publicity is good publicity and keeps AI on the forefront of investors minds.

Yeah, I've used it and Gemini. Both of them have told me completely wrong things unrelated to the problem while trying to weirdly kiss my ass like AI tends to do. I've gone back to buying Chilton's and Haynes manuals online.

Its not about the tech, it how you use it. I'm nomadic, off grid, and pretty tech minimalist. My 5 year old smart phone just has comaps, revanced, Lemmy, signal and a few other basic tools. My PCs stay as airgapped as possible and I'm ready to hunker down and emulate the last 40 years of video games offline. I haven't kept up with llms but I'd like to get a decent lower power, highly optimized open source model to run locally once they're at the best they'll get before being banned. I just want essentially a offline search engine summary. If its critical I'll get online but a offline local llm is really useful for me to change little 3 hour ADHD adventures into just a few questions.

Already on that path too. I can't be bothered to be always connected to have music.

Back to basics and back to being humane, so it seems, then.

This where I'm at--no streaming, but no real problem with downloading stuff if I get to own it.

I started a pretty decent DVD library visiting thriftstores. 50 cents to maybe four bucks max per DVD. Now that I've exhausted the stores and spending $20 on a movie seems outrageous, I'm turning to other methods and a jellyfin server.

I think analog will stick around, but the ease and convenience of digital, outside of streaming, is too great to ignore.

Theres an interesting article on Collapse OS that I reference quite a bit.

https://collapseos.org/why.html

Personally I think the answer is a big NO. Because theres just so much tech out there.

BUT we may see little collapses all over in our lifetime. The latest computer cost going up is just one. I remember not being able to get certain items from time to time because of something globally happening. Its always a good thing to come up with alternatives just in case. Because in my lifetime ive had issues with getting:

1. Electricity out for more than a week (California brownout/power failures)
2. Water (main pipe blew out in apartments, no water for a couple of days)
3. Food (many, many, many recalls)
4. Pandemic
5. Strange weather (ash falling from the sky, toxic chemical air for a bit, etc...)

Its good to have a grab and go bag. Its good to have a plan. Its NOT good to see the above list and think: This is the new norm. It shouldn't be. It probably wont be.

Analog technology is great and we should always have alternatives.

There is demand, but that demand only exists because consumers aren't being exposed to the actual price of AI.

I use AI extensively and it's mostly via local models, which I pay 100% of the inference costs for.

If the only way this keeps going is propping up the industry with investor money and circular financing, then when one of those eventually give and the public are exposed to the true price of AI - what happens then?

Reduced AI usage. Not no AI usage, though. For example, my usage wouldn't go down one whit. The price wouldn't change at all for me.

Am I? Or am I using a by-product of it? Different concept, in my understanding.

I've already admited the entire scheme of money movement around it is murky to me.

That sounds resonable.

There is a limit for how much media I want to keep. I've been more interest in books and music than television and cinema throughout my life. It makes sense for me to store those. But not much else. Regardless, I understand your point.

I had the exact same realization recently when our internet went down for a few days. I have a local LLM on my PC, and used it as a fake Google search, and to help me troubleshoot a couple programs. Not always accurate, but it did feel cool to have basically an internet search on my disconnected computer.

If you mean as a society probably not but if you mean subsets of people I think it will grow

If the great AI companies tank (I can only hope) and the services they provide - whatever those may be - faill, how much is it going to affect companies?

It depends on how far along all this bullshit is when the fall comes.

Right now, the companies that are selling AI to everyone, if it all comes crashing down...fuck em. They released this cancer and they can deal with the consequences (Anthopic, OpenAI, Google, Meta, etc...)

But the companies that fell for it and actually purchased their product, they'll simply purge the A.I. out of their systems, rehire a bunch of developers, and get on with their lives. And that's really for the same reason that A.I. will crash in the first place:

it's not necessary in order to successfully run a business.

It never has been. We've all been doing just fine for decades, and we'll get along just fine again once all the shit-peddlers go belly up.

The only reason people think this is way is because they didn’t live through analog tech, for them it is retro or nostalgia and they romanticize it because when they do use it, there are no downsides.

Yeah....no....sorry. But you're deluded.

I'm exactly that generation that you speak of. I grew up Analog, came of age in my early twenties with the first popularization of the internet, and am now getting old while the internet enshitifies.

You are correct that early tech is better than analog, most definitely. Those early days of just about everything (internet, smartphones, computer gaming, etc...) were amazing and I loved them. It was new and exciting. We built the fucking internet with our bulletin boards, and myspace pages, and blogs and forums.

What you are referring to; what we're living in now, is NOT that. We've gone past the phase where technology was legitimately better than Analog and we are well into the phase where the technology doesn't work for us anymore. It works for the billionaires

Somewhere in the mid 2010's, we stopped being the reason technology keeps progressing, and we became the product that the internet was selling to companies (our data, our tracking, our metrics).

Would I dearly love to go back to an early to late 2000's version of the internet and tech in general, maybe all the way up to 2012. Absolutely. But if that's not possible, than yes...Analog is definitely better than what we have now, even if it does take a bit more time.

Convenience is only convenience if you don't have to sell your soul to get it. Maybe you'll figure that out when you're a big boy.

You're confusing technology and politics.

Tech is always getting better. You just are getting as many of the fruits of those advancements due to politics and economic policies deriving form those politics.

analog wasn't better, it was that economic policy was different. the 1980s economy was vastly different than the economy we have today.

but keep insulting me if makes you feel better I guess? clearly I'm ignorant and if we go back to tapedecks instead of spotify that would somehow mean billionaires would stop existing or something... I mean, yeah, please go out and buy one of those retromod tapedecks they sell on for $200 if you want, that will surely 'show' Bezos or something...

I can only hope.

I'm dreaming of fully open, fully modular (comparatively) low-tech computers in the MHz and 50 nm structures range each country has a few fabs around. We could do that, if we don't carry 50 years of computing history around and don't emulate things for (misplaced) compatibility that ought to be robust, in hardware.

So, basically yes.

You just are getting the fruits of those advancements due to politics.

I'm not entirely sure what you are meaning with that. So forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you. But the fruits of those advancements (loss of privacy, destruction of the environment, etc...) are not political (or at least they shouldn't be). They are very real and very dangerous consequences of an economic system that demands continuous growth for the benefit of shareholders.

Think of it this way. In project management we learn about stakeholders. When making corporate decisions, a stakeholder is defined as "any person, entiry, or thing that will be affected by that decision, good or bad". If a company decides that they are going to cut health benefits, who is going to be affected by that decision. The employees, negatively. The shareholders, positively. The consumer, potentially positively if those savings equate to lower costs for the company's products.

When techology was new, the decisions that were being made included us the end-user. We were a stakeholder that was considered when facebook/twitter/google would decide to add a feature, or remove a feature, or whatever. Around the same time that advertising revenue overtook subscription models and premium services as the way for these tech companies to make money, WE stopped being stakeholders. Any tech advance after that, stopped being about us and started being about profit extraction. If we didn't like the change, well fuck us...we were now just the product because the advertisers were the ones paying the bills.

Just because on the rare occasion, these corporations happen to put out a product that has potential to improve things, doesn't make it better, because WE, the users were never asked whether we wanted it, or whether or not we were willing to accept that tradeoffs that came along with it.

It's like building a new sweat-shop in India in order to put out a new style of running shoe without bothering to do any market research to figure out if your customer base actually wants it or not. Because we, the customer base don't fucking matter anymore.

You think Microsoft considered you a stakeholder when they released MS-DOS in 1981?

Customers aren't stakeholders. They are customers. Your understand of economics and business here seems to be a lot of idealistic projection about how things should be, not how they are/were.

No idea what you are on about. Every product I use in the IT space is continually getting better than it previously was. Just because folks are mad things like subscription models doesn't mean they are offering an inferior product. You never owned software in the first place, it was always a limited license. True that the 'illusion' of you owning it is gone in a subscription model because it's no longer on a physical disk, but legally it's the same.

What customers want is irrelevant and often erroneous. Most of my users say they want x, but if you given them x they freak out, and if you give them y they are happy, because well, they don't know what they want and they especially don't know what is good for them. It's my job as their admin to make those choices for them. They mostly just hate change, even if the change benefits them overwhelmingly and have nostalgia for old inefficiencies that benefited nobody.

Please tell me I'm not the only one that still has a simple wristwatch.

I think Ted was right and this is the only way forward

I have a self winding one and a couple of old time mechanical ones.