Reply guy over here. It's a lonely, thankless job.

At traders.

Judging by your post, I don't think it's for you. It depicts losers of all races, genders and backgrounds in often very complicated and very dangerous situations. People of all kinds love this show. Like I said, imvvho it's probably not for you. But I know nothing.

Weekly Market Recap $SPX chart below Some people say the selling has become too frantic, the bearishness too extreme, and that we're due for a rebound, if not a resumption of the ever-higher race to infinity. Yet looking at the weekly $SPX chart, one barely notices the selling. The index finished around 7620, with 7600-ish support still standing. Apparently, the weekly chart hasn't been reading the headlines. The pain in parts of the AI trade is real. So far, though, the so-called AI panic remains fairly circumscribed. The Dow and Russell 2000 actually finished the week higher. So is this a bout of nervousness that could subside, perhaps if Anthropic goes ahead with its IPO without a glitch? Or are we in the early innings of a broader, bona fide correction? An orderly IPO could reassure investors that the AI story remains financeable. Whether the returns ultimately justify the spending is a separate question. More immediately, next week's results from Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon should give us something substantial to chew on. Their spending plans, guidance and, especially, the market's reaction will matter. Good numbers that fail to lift stocks (see $META) would hardly support the argument that the selling has exhausted itself. Technically, $SPX remains below its fast weekly MA but comfortably above its rising 50-week SMA. The shorter-term picture has weakened; the longer-term uptrend remains intact. 7600-ish is still the line. Holding it keeps the consolidation scenario alive. A weekly close below it brings 7400-ish into play. Reclaiming 7800-ish would strengthen the case for a resumption toward 8000-ish. For now, the panic remains louder than the weekly chart. That can change in a New York minute. Or a Silicon Valley nanosecond. Thanks for reading. 🙏🙏👊🍻

All you have to do is make it to 50. Life gets better from there.

This is obvious rage baiting . Respectfully, a few notes, in order of appearance. 1. "What do people actually use AI for?" is a question. "I've found it to be completely useless" is the answer. You asked and answered it before anyone could reply. That's not a question; it's a verdict wearing a question mark as a disguise. (Also, "to be" is optional there. Cut it. You're welcome.) 2. "Completely" is doing heroic work. "Completely useless" is a universal negative, and a single useful output, anywhere, ever, disproves it. I've personally seen several. This morning it turned an 87-page 10-K into the three paragraphs that mattered and found the footnote where management buried the bad news. (Footnote 14. It's always footnote 14.) 3. "Gets a lot of information wrong." "A lot" isn't a number. Compared to what? Your brother-in-law? Cable news? Sell-side price targets? The weather app? The bar was never "never wrong." The bar is "wrong less often and faster than the alternative," which is the same bar we use for doctors, mechanics, and the guy at Home Depot who swears it's in aisle 9. 4. "Incapable of doing tasks better than a human." Which human? This is a quantifier problem. Better than EVERY human at EVERYTHING? No, but nothing is. A forklift is useless at poetry, and nobody calls forklifts useless. Better than SOME humans at SOME tasks? It's been better at chess since 1997. It cracked protein folding, which got a Nobel. It'll translate a French lease at 2am without sighing, and it'll write the Excel formula you've been googling for 40 minutes. Also, the comparison human has to be awake, available, free, and not mad at you. 5. Minor point: the spam filter that keeps your inbox usable, the autocorrect that fixed "completly," and the algorithm that served me this post are all machine learning. You've been using it all day. You just didn't call it AI because it worked. 6. To answer the actual question: people use it to summarize, draft, translate, debug, outline, sanity-check, explain things they're too embarrassed to ask a human about, and argue at 3am about whether their thesis holds up. Its main weakness is that it's only as good as the question it's asked. Which, respectfully, brings us back to point 1. Disclosure: this reply was drafted with AI. Under your framework, it's riddled with errors and worse than what a human could have written. Please identify which part. I'll wait.

Bro moved from hawking NFTs to hawking AI monthly plans. 🤣🤣🤣 Better get 3 different $20 plans wirh 3 different model providers than one $100 plan.

Don't forget who his mentor was: Roy Cohn. Now that's quite the rabbit hole.

All context no subtext vs. All subtext no context. The salient fact about fanatical schools of thought isn't that they’re misguided (who cares about that, right?), it's that they make recrutement so easy.