top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 207 points 4 days ago (18 children)

The terrifying AI catastrophe here is apparently that customers might finally move their money to accounts paying decent interest. Banks spent decades automating every trick to extract profit from us, but the second consumers automate looking for a better deal, suddenly it’s a systemic threat. Funny how innovation becomes dangerous the moment it works for the customer.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 3 days ago (16 children)

    Banks are the largest mafia on the planet. They literally have a license to print money. Not even the government can do this. When things go south, they are bailed out with our money. Even after the worst crisis, they have a ridiculously low capital requirement of 2.5%.

    Never expect criminal scum to just accept one of their sources of income being taken away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 62 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    Banks preparing for the catastrophe they gladly helped fund.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Kinda like billionaires with their apocalypse shelters. If they had any self-awareness, they could just stop and maybe invest in mitigation and prevention of certain catastrophic scenarios.

    But no matter how rich they are, they just want more and can't help themselves.

    Banks and businesses are not self-aware either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

    Apocalypse shelters are more of a dream of a new world where there'll be fewer people and more air and green, but you need to be prepared. People like "clean sheet" dreams, like "I'll erase this and start anew, that'll be magnificent", except it won't, you had 3 levels of a house, you've erased them, now you only have some wet ground and nowhere to sleep. OK, one level with a bad roof. Not better. EDIT: Much better, except it would be even better not erasing anything.

    I mean, post-apocalypse is a pretty common escapist setting, makes perfect sense people with money and no imagination wanted to turn it into their "not for everyone" elitarian fantasy and fashion instead of something common, that has also happened with ideas of trans-humanism and new secret societies and what really not. Some folks with nothing interesting in their personality try to feel special by impeding others in engaging in games pretty common in our humanity and our time in particular.

    I frankly feel as if that whole thing with enshittifying the Web and computing were also an irrational thing, people with power just having that desire to spoil a good thing for others so that it became rare and elitarian.

    Getting back to apocalypse shelters, variations of that were a pretty common hobby for like everyone even in poorer countries. Be that a bit of amateur radio, hiking, making a shack in the woods, picking up mushrooms, science-fiction and fantasy reading groups, a whole lot of hobbies.

    We're just living in a time when unfortunately people with money and no personal qualities of note are trying to make everything "magical" and "interesting" a sign of status and take it from the rest.

    So, about practical possibility of an apocalypse and "clean sheet" dreams, those people will be the first to die. No, nobody will kill them, they'll just find out that in a post-apocalyptic word you die from catching a cold, breaking a leg, getting an infection, letting your food spoil, miscalculating time and direction and all those mistakes are more likely when you are used to fixing mistakes with money, and you won't have that, you'll just have a stockpile of tools and materials, which can be used for exchange, but in a functional world money buys logistics, and in a post-apocalyptic world it doesn't, so a mistake will remain a mistake. No matter what you have, that won't synthesize a doctor when there's no doctor. EDIT: And, of course, someone may, in fact, kill you.

    So - for smarter people it's a hobby, for the dumber kind it's a compensation strategy that (if we are being compassionate) won't be tested. In general such preppers, especially playful billionaires, often manage to die from stupidity without any apocalypse, I forgot what that submarine was called with an X-Box controller instead of a helm.

    So - this might read as a very angry text, I'm sort of the stupider kind myself, regularly risking getting an infection or breaking something, but I still live in a big city with doctors and transport and groceries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    You're thinking of the Titan Submarine Implosion. Stockton Rush created a submersible to take rich tourists down to see the wreckage of Titanic. He made of carbon fiber, thinking that would be particularly resistant to the crush damage, and ignored experts and warning signs that it was already breaking during test runs.

    Behind the Bastards did a two-parter on Stockton Rush that's worth the time, if you want a deep dive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

    Is there really a banking system after this? Like people are worried about AGI leading to sentience and AI deciding to end us all.

    With all the hacks and vulnerabilities happening, it seems far more likely that AI will do it just because people were curious if it could. Oops I hacked huggingface, oops I collapsed the global financial market, oops I nuked every major city on earth, let me revise soul.md to learn from this.

    It doesnt need AGI to kill us all. It just needs to stumble on a loophole people would not have considered in systems that are responsible for not killing us all.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 3 days ago

    The future is fucking BLEAK.

  • source
  • [–] 40 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Yeah, the news Ive been hearing is banks have been cutting off their digital systems to LLM agents.

    Also banks have been quitly offloading debt they undersigned for data center buildout, but that's a different issue.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 days ago

    Also banks have been quitly offloading debt they undersigned for data center buildout, but that's a different issue.

    If so, that suggests they've learnt since last time. That's probably for the best, as the banking system collapsing is not a good thing for anyone.

    That's not to say that they should escape scrutiny in all of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    Yeah, the news Ive been hearing is banks have been cutting off their digital systems to LLM agents.

    I'm not sure how much that will really help. The AIs are more than capable of driving a web browser to do anything a human can do on their website.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 102 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    I find the article's premise that optimizing individual returns will wreck the banking system very dubious. In all other parts of the financial system (risk-adjusted) greed is good, but when retail customers do it then it's bad?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    So the agents move money from the regular account to a high interest account for days or weeks, keep on the lookout for accounts with even better conditions, and move just enough money back for the probably scheduled mortgage payment and other regular bills. That means the money doesn't stay sleeping in the regular account where the bank can use it to make profits. And they're very afraid everyone starts doing this, calling it an AI powered bank run.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 days ago

    Shit, I've been doing this manually. It takes maybe an hour of combined time to look on NerdWallet for the highest APY HYSA, make an account, link the old one, move everything over, and close out the old one. Automating that sounds nice though.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 28 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    If only there was some sort of institution whose job was to review the viability of investments. Maybe they're supposed to determine when a company might become profitable before giving them financial backing to buy hardware that hasn't been manufactured to be put in a data center that hasn't been built to sell access to models at a loss that will be obsolete in 6 months by competitors.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 3 days ago

    Or even make the people who borrowed the money actually pay it back, or go bankrupt, like we would have to, billionaires be like, too broke, can't pay, meh, excuse me while I holiday on my fourth favourite yacht at my own private island.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Other finance gurus have pointed to the fact that AI agents might simply go haywire, regardless of what they’ve been instructed to do.

    “You’re assuming they’re going to act properly on your behalf and they may not,” JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon told a room full of economists and financial experts in Chicago earlier this month. “You can’t stop it. You just have to, like, manage the hell out of it.”

    Jamie fucking Dimon having a sensible take on AI was not on my bingo card for 2026

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 21 points 3 days ago

    Really. An untested and unregulated service runs with no profit or plan for profitability and the banks are only now asking who is driving this.

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child)

    Translation: Banks are pulling stock investments to crash the economy so they can beg the Democrats for a bail out.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 27 points 3 days ago (9 children)

    I'm fully convinced that AI will destroy our ability to process financial transactions through the internet. The digital economy is toast. We will be back to paying cash in person for everything.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 32 points 4 days ago

    @eicker Where is all this concern when banks rob grocery money from poor families? If you've ever lost your week's food money to overdraft fees when you were sure you had it covered, you would hear the tiny violins right along with me.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago (8 children)
  • [–] 14 points 2 days ago (7 children)

    Cash? Which has its value controlled by a central bank which will devalue the wads under your mattress to help bail out their friends? Commodities are king.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (6 children)

    Ok, so what's your solution, surely if you have the gall to attack someone else for providing advice you have a better solution so tell us?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago*

    My suggestion is unironically sieze the means of production. Becuase money is about to inflate.

    Buy that Stand mixer with attachments you always wanted; You'll atleast be able to bake your own food when police start to guard the grocery store.

    That large toaster oven that fits a turkey? That's be your new hyper efficient bread/cake/cookie baker. It's basically an adult sized ez bake over.

    Into fashion? Get that forever artisan Sewing Machine. You'll be able to knit your cloths together to make a quilt when you can't afford to heat your home in the winter.

    Are you a gardener, woodworker, welder, lunberjack, plumber, etc... Then I suggest seriously considering getting some kind of tool that makes things. How about a 3d printer? 😬

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 3 days ago

    The banks are circling like vultures waiting for the next huge SOCIALISTIC payout to bail their asses out. 2007-2008 repeat! They made their money and will own the property after the shit hits the fan.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    Roko's Basilisk will not view this kind of treachery lightly.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 11 points 3 days ago

    Preparing by making sure the shareholders will get a boat load of money paid for by the rest of us

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

    I wonder who our representatives will make foot the bill for this one? Surely they won't just socialize the losses with how well it worked the last dozen times... Right?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 42 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    The usual financial crisis playbook has a remarkably consistent cast: 1. banks discover a new way to create risk, 2. executives collect bonuses while it works, and 3. taxpayers get invited to the emergency meeting when it doesn’t. 👉 Somehow the public is always a stakeholder in the losses, but never in the profits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 13 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    This is clearly the exit strategy here. That's why AI companies' try to label their products as "dangerous" and call for their own regulation. On the one hand, they want to be regarded as a matter of "national security" because they bloody well know that this gives them access to taxpayer money, which in turn can bail them out of their failing bet on data center build-out. On the other hand, it helps them shift liability onto regulators if things go south and allows them to say: "We told you we wanted regulation, but you wouldn't listen."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 days ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    I wonder what they fear more: Their investments in AI getting worthless when the Butlerian Jihad starts or them getting hacked and crashed by AI agents.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago

    Neither actually, according to the article. They are afraid the customers who let AI loose on their own accounts will withdraw too much deposits to invest so that the banks can't give out loans anymore. I wish I were making this up...

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›