I have no idea what the former has to do with the latter. NFTs were a scam (I think the same about crypto more generally, but know that's a more idiosyncratic belief). LLMs are not.
Is your point that LLMs are overhyped? Everything is overhyped. That's not what distinguished NFTs from previous hype cycles; the fact that there was literally nothing there is what distinguished it.
I believe his point is something like this: entrepreneurs used to look for ideas on how to create something of value that people want, and then create a sustainable business model out of it, in order to turn a profit. There was some pride in pleasing customers. Now they look for ideas to make a profit, whether or not something of actual value is created or if people actually want it.
I think the point is that many of the individuals involved in hyping NFTs moved on to hyping projects in AI. Even if there's immediate real world utility in AI, it's reasonable to approach the space cautiously if you have concern over the demographics contributing to a significant portion of it.
> AH Capital Management, LLC (commonly known as Andreessen Horowitz, or a16z) is an American privately held venture capital firm, founded in 2009 by Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz.
$46B under management, so one of the larger players.
Digital art and NFT's are not synonymous. I know many digital artists who never bothered with them and could see the triviality. Unsurprisingly many art haters use this as a way to subtly reinforce their bias.
I'd say it also revealed to a lot of lay people that the traditional high end art market is basically the same as NFTs. The value is purely in the scarcity and having enough other people paying into it to create inflated values far beyond the utility of the product itself. Even super famous paintings like the Mona Lisa aren't really worth much as art - we can create equally good reproductions, but those don't have scarcity so they don't have value beyond the work it takes to create them.
You can examine the Mona Lisa to study Leonardo's actual brush strokes, materials, underpainting, etc. It's hard to make an exact copy of it that can provide the same insight, though high-resolution 3-d scans (including x-ray/MRI/etc.) could help.
However, some artwork is lost to time and all we have are copies. Those copies may have lost important features from the original work, though they may provide additional insight into the artists who created the copies.
With digital works, one can usually trivially create an exact copy.
Don't confuse NFT gambling with Bitcoin. The former is a dying craze as the gamblers move onto something else. The latter is at all-time-highs, for the obvious reason that a digital replacement for gold is clearly useful, and Bitcoin is the obvious leader in that market category.
Indeed, for certain use-cases Bitcoin is competing with Christies too: a lot of the fine art market is actually about storing and moving value. Not about the art.
it is the latter, they are continuing to sell digital art and NFTs and they realized their “specialists” didn't have specialized knowledge to justify a separate division
It just takes slower people longer to see the simple similarities to what they already do
regarding the catalyst for consolidating at Christie’s, the whole art market is following a similar downtrend in price and volume as the NFT market since 2022, there was an article about fine art and the contemporary market here the other day
Adrian Pocobelli has a daily vlog where he shows different artists' latest works. Just watch a random video and jump around to different timestamps. There's some really really cool stuff out there.
The whole NFT craze was embarrassing and very revealing about what powers a lot of people's belief in crypto.
Everyone who was trading monkey JPEGs has moved on to claiming that they can replace your staff with an LLM.
I have no idea what the former has to do with the latter. NFTs were a scam (I think the same about crypto more generally, but know that's a more idiosyncratic belief). LLMs are not.
Is your point that LLMs are overhyped? Everything is overhyped. That's not what distinguished NFTs from previous hype cycles; the fact that there was literally nothing there is what distinguished it.
I believe his point is something like this: entrepreneurs used to look for ideas on how to create something of value that people want, and then create a sustainable business model out of it, in order to turn a profit. There was some pride in pleasing customers. Now they look for ideas to make a profit, whether or not something of actual value is created or if people actually want it.
The point literally may be that the get-rich-quick-type founders who were doing NFTs have now pivoted to doing something in AI.
I know at least 2-3 people that fit that profile.
I think the point is that many of the individuals involved in hyping NFTs moved on to hyping projects in AI. Even if there's immediate real world utility in AI, it's reasonable to approach the space cautiously if you have concern over the demographics contributing to a significant portion of it.
Except for a16z who are multi-track-grifting with both at the same time, and trying to find ways to put crypto in AI, or AI in crypto, or something.
Can you expand on this? I see this brought up a lot but if they don’t return capital they’ll have to shut down?
They are big enough that they basically make the market in venture.
The fact that even they couldn't force much interest in web 3.0 should tell you what a bad idea it really is.
They are huge but only like 4% of the entire VC market so not necessarily enough to substantially move it?
They are held in very high regard and are very well connected so other VCs will throw money at their portcos.
Probably not hard to return the fund when Coinbase is in their portfolio.
Do you know what round / multiple they got?
What is a16z?
> AH Capital Management, LLC (commonly known as Andreessen Horowitz, or a16z) is an American privately held venture capital firm, founded in 2009 by Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz.
$46B under management, so one of the larger players.
It was a monkey business, wasn’t it. /s
Digital art and NFT's are not synonymous. I know many digital artists who never bothered with them and could see the triviality. Unsurprisingly many art haters use this as a way to subtly reinforce their bias.
I'd say it also revealed to a lot of lay people that the traditional high end art market is basically the same as NFTs. The value is purely in the scarcity and having enough other people paying into it to create inflated values far beyond the utility of the product itself. Even super famous paintings like the Mona Lisa aren't really worth much as art - we can create equally good reproductions, but those don't have scarcity so they don't have value beyond the work it takes to create them.
You can examine the Mona Lisa to study Leonardo's actual brush strokes, materials, underpainting, etc. It's hard to make an exact copy of it that can provide the same insight, though high-resolution 3-d scans (including x-ray/MRI/etc.) could help.
However, some artwork is lost to time and all we have are copies. Those copies may have lost important features from the original work, though they may provide additional insight into the artists who created the copies.
With digital works, one can usually trivially create an exact copy.
Don't confuse NFT gambling with Bitcoin. The former is a dying craze as the gamblers move onto something else. The latter is at all-time-highs, for the obvious reason that a digital replacement for gold is clearly useful, and Bitcoin is the obvious leader in that market category.
Indeed, for certain use-cases Bitcoin is competing with Christies too: a lot of the fine art market is actually about storing and moving value. Not about the art.
Hope they backed up the seed phrase for the Art Department before deleting it.
> The company will continue to sell digital art within the larger 20th and 21st Century Art category
Related:
The Storm Hits the Art Market
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45175628
https://archive.is/RrmAF
one interpretation is that they're not interested in digital art
the other interpretation is that digital art has become contemporary art
I like the latter
They’re folding the nft department into contemporary art. But I wouldn’t say the first interpretation is invalid either.
it is the latter, they are continuing to sell digital art and NFTs and they realized their “specialists” didn't have specialized knowledge to justify a separate division
It just takes slower people longer to see the simple similarities to what they already do
regarding the catalyst for consolidating at Christie’s, the whole art market is following a similar downtrend in price and volume as the NFT market since 2022, there was an article about fine art and the contemporary market here the other day
Art is always a lagging indicator of loose monetary policy. Same time interest rates shot up.
NFT's continue to draw many talented artists. The scene is thriving.
Which artists?
Adrian Pocobelli has a daily vlog where he shows different artists' latest works. Just watch a random video and jump around to different timestamps. There's some really really cool stuff out there.
https://youtube.com/@pocobelli?si=jq5n5-7CRzUfLz5I