Have you considered that he might not actually expect $7T, but this ask makes us think $1T is relatively reasonable and so he gets it?

It's called anchoring

yes, he is expanding his own personal Overton window.

AAPL is 2.8T now, how is it 2300x AAPL equals to 7T.

7T is actually possible, but yes it's huge.

In some places, usage of , and . within numbers is revered from what you use

The comment they're replying to initially said "2300x", but was fixed after it was pointed out (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39386997).

IMO HN should have an edit indicator, at least after others have already replied.

I can respect that.

You’re comparing cash flow to a static pile of money spent over decades

The current world economy is $85T/anno

If (the best) AI adds 10% to that, $7T is not only possible but a bargain.

AI is more akin to a zero sum game. It won't add 10% to the global economy (and if it did - it would be around "peak of inflated expectations" and, likely, have a corollary slide down into the "trough of disillusionment") because it will both distract budgets and/or redirect budgets. That hypothetical $7T is not coming out of thin air. I'd even go as far to argue that this hype cycle will ultimately detract from global economy over time as it's a significant draw on resources that could have been / would have been used on more productive efforts long term.

This reads like it could be used to reason against the industrial revolution or the first computer revolution or any other significant advance in human history. Am I missing something?

James Watt didn't ask for 10% of the global GDP

If he had, it would've been a bargain for the impact of the industrial revolution.

Watt couldn't have asked, his engines specifically weren't enough of a difference by themselves even though the revolution as a whole was, and I strongly suspect this is also going to be true for any single AI developer; however a $7T investment in many unrelated chip factories owned by different people and invested over a decade, is something I can believe happening.

I assume his objection was regarding the AI being a "zero-sum game", whatever that was supposed to convey

The industrial revolution wasn't a leech on resources for little to no value. Most of the energy and diverged efforts by companies globally is currently being wasted on efforts to try and figure out how to profit from this "revolution". This isn't a revolution, this currently looks like a heist of epic proportions.

If the industrial revolution wasted the majority of its input for low value / unneeded output it wouldn't have been a revolution. Please enlighten me on how LLMs have revolutionized the world and then feel free to share how much energy, money and time have been sunk thus far with little to show as a tangible increase in the lives of a global human population.

Per annum (the preposition per governs the accusation case rather than the ablative case).

$100T in 2022 according to the World Bank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

> or 2300x AAPL market cap

It's only 2x the AAPL market cap.

It is a future projected value of a company. You can not realize it. If you start selling stocks, they will drop at a rapid pace. The entire stock market is in a way projection of all future money the stocks will potentially make for a long time. This is not liquid cash that can be injected for any other purpose.

Cool.

However, the OP was incorrect, it's 2x the AAPL market cap.

Oops, you're right on that one

is 7T over a period of maybe 20 years. 1T is enough to buy out most engineers from TSMC, or maybe even buy out TSMC

Or to put it another way, one month's worth of world GDP.