9 ms·

One of the "smells" that gives away a quacky ranter is they speak in impassioned, "Why doesn't everyone understand this?" tones, but in fact their argument just

One of the "smells" that gives away a quacky ranter is they speak in impassioned, "Why doesn't everyone understand this?" tones, but in fact their argument just doesn't flow. If Zitron's argument were as solid as he keeps saying it is, you would read it and understand it and see that it is solid. He would begin somewhere–statistics on AI demand, say–and then walk the calculations carefully over to the next step–maybe revenue needed for profitability by AI companies–and you could follow the argument. But no. He jumps. He leaps. He circles back. If the situation were really "Gosh why can't you see it?!"-clear, his explanation of the situation would be clear. It isn't, because it isn't.

marcus_holmes 3mo ago
I kinda get it - he's been attacked for his negative views a lot, and that tends to produce a more passionate writing style. It's a little immature, sure, but also authentically human.
Terr_ 3mo ago
> He would begin somewhere–statistics on AI demand, say–and then walk the calculations carefully over to the next step–maybe revenue needed for profitability by AI companies–and you could follow the argument. Which of the hyperlinks provided at the beginning sounded like what you wanted, and after you clicked it* how did it disappoint you? The information you are describing is stuff I would not expect anybody to repeatedly duplicate across periodic blog-posts. * (Yes, I'm being sardonic, but if you did bother to click them, then I'm legitimately interested in your answer.)
- athrowaway3z 3mo ago
  He's right that its all going to pop dramatically and catastrophically for some. But having read a bunch of his stuff, there are two things he's just plain wrong about and they make his martyrdom tone too grating. - His own objectivity - he consistently throws shade (rightfully) at the pro-AI side being financially 'required' to hold a certain world view, but is completely blind to his own claim to fame effecting him similarly. - He consistently claims AI can't be made to work, and tries to prove this by calculating with the bubble prices. Its like saying tulips could never be profitable in the middle of the mania because ships were too expensive as proven by their current price to use for shipping tulips. Add in the semi regular instance downplaying AI's usefulness contradicting my own experience and I mostly dont bother reading him anymore. Its not like I'll be surprised that shit hits the fan, and he's not going to call the 'when' any better than wallstreetbets or an octopus.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3mo ago
    Yeah, to be honest I think his take is a bit nonsense because it's so historically inaccurate. Most hugely transformational technologies in the past also resulted in giant bubbles that burst, because investors piled into lots of companies in the hope that their particular company would win out. Railroads, automobiles, telecommunications networks, the Internet, etc. etc. were all hugely important, transformational technologies that all caused giant bubbles that burst. But Ed Zitron seems hellbent on saying AI is a nothing burger, and that's why the bubble will burst. But the latter doesn't necessarily follow from the former, and indeed the examples I gave show that the exact opposite is often true. I believe that the AI bubble will burst precisely because it is such a transformational technology. AI may not live up to the ways its biggest cultists like to shout ("Feel the AGI flow through you!!!"), but similarly in the .com boom/bust there was tons of nonsense about how we'd do absolutely everything online, we were in a new "eyeball economy", whatever that meant, yada yada, yet I'd argue that in some ways the Internet was actually a bigger impact than originally envisioned, just not necessarily in the way that late 90s boosters envisioned it.
alfalfasprout 3mo ago
It's not entirely clear to me that the opposing argument is well-formed either. You constantly see numbers and statistics being wildly mis-used or overextrapolated.
sigmoid10 3mo ago
I particularly enjoy reading big banners asking me to pay for a newsletter subscription if I "liked" the content. Not if I found it interesting. Not if it actually provided any value whatsoever to me. No, you just have to "like" it. In other words, it is meant to be written in an engaging way and perhaps reinforce your believes like an echo chamber or even stir up certain strong emotions. Not to convey information. So, thanks, but no. I'm sure this opinion blog is very well written, but I don't think it is more well founded than anything else in this sea of opinions that sports a bigger garbage patch than the Pacific Ocean.
- argee 3mo ago
  A big chunk of text asked for support on the basis of the article. I hadn’t read the article. I scrolled down a bit to read. A popup took up my screen, asking me to subscribe, having read essentially nothing at this point. I just left. Life is too short.
  - dolebirchwood 3mo ago
    I know the HN guidelines discourage commenting on "tangential annoyances" on a website, but I think this issue is more than just tangential and more than just an annoyance. When an author is this relentless in pushing you to sign up, there is good reason to suspect that financial motives are unduly driving an agenda. I counted 8 such instances: 1. In the sidebar 2. At the top of the article 3. Popup in the middle of the screen after just a couple of scrolls into the body 4. Several paragraphs into the article 5. At the bottom of the article 6. At the bottom of the page under the comments section 7. Popup at the bottom of the screen after scrolling to the end of the body 8. (My personal favorite) Click the "user" icon in the bottom-right corner, which you'd normally expect to open an AI chat bot these days, and (surprise) you're prompted to sign up for a paid subscription This sort of behavior just completely tanks any and all credibility this person may have.
    - shimman 3mo ago
      Of things to be upset about, an independent journalist asking readers to pay for access ranks very low. Especially compared to LLM companies that are exacerbating the climate crisis, increasing cancer rates among residents, or increasing utilities for residents. This sort of behavior completely tanks any and all credibility this commentator may have.
quater321 3mo ago
[dead]
ccamrobertson 3mo ago
Agreed. Phrases like "journalists are currently gooning over OpenAI and Anthropic" really put me off. It's a poor attempt at modern muckraking; cheeky yet offering little substance.
- dofm 3mo ago
  He's just a Brit, writing in a style we write in. Sweary, comical, red-top. The Register did it for years.
  - Kiro 3mo ago
    I don't think you know what "gooning" means. It's edgy Gen Z slang and has nothing to do with being British.
    - dofm 3mo ago
      I didn't say it was. I'm just observing that his muckraking style is part of a very long British pundit tradition. Americans have never liked it — Intel got very upset about The Register's coverage of "the Itanic". (And he's not Gen Z anyway is he; he's among the older millennials. He's appropriating it for muckraking purposes.)
    - 1attice 3mo ago
      Sure, but does that vibe invalidate the argument? What an odd time the middle of an argument is to be clutching pearls and worrying about prose quality. Style and vibes notwithstanding, is there anything in your view that wrong with the argument itself? Could a better or more polite writer have convinced you with the same shape of logic?
      - Kiro 3mo ago
        I responded to a comment about the prose. Why are you not calling out that one instead?
      - Jtarii 3mo ago
SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago
> He would begin somewhere–statistics on AI demand, say–and then walk the calculations carefully over to the next step–maybe revenue needed for profitability by AI companies–and you could follow the argument. That's exactly what the first (titled) section does?
- 0000000000100 3mo ago
  Haha thought you were referring to the upsell at the start asking to subscribe to the newsletter for $70 / year. But yes it does call out the unprecedented amount of money getting dumped into AI. What turned me off though was this paragraph: > This is a hysterical era perpetuated by liars, cowards, imbeciles, craven boosters and the easily-fooled. Those excited about generative AI are either the victim or the perpetrator of a con centered around a technology to ingratiate at the highest cost possible. That's a very bold claim. Really anyone excited about generative AI dude? That's just an absurd claim, and makes it sound like he hasn't used an LLM since GPT 3.5. It's just the language is so hyperbolic and angry that it's giving me more rant vibes that really hurt the tone and damage the (many valid) claims he's trying to make. Really tried to read through this all the way, but man I'm just not in love with this guy. I feel like the frustration is clouding his judgement. This line is another one with a fact that isn't really grounded: > so, you know, they only need to grow by 496% by the end of 2029! Which isn't wrong, but also Anthropic's revenue increased from $1 billion in Dec. 2024 to $47 billion May of 2026. Which of course doesn't guarantee that it will continue to grow at that scale, but it's clear that there is a strong demand for what they are creating. Idk, not really sure what my point is here. There are just so many facts and numbers quoted in here... It's a bit exhausting to refute a piece like this, when parts are genuinely correct, and parts are maybe subconciously exaggerated due to some emotional leaking into the argument.
  - Tanjreeve 3mo ago
    So basically you can't find fault with the numbers but you find the tone annoying?
    - LogicFailsMe 3mo ago
1attice 3mo ago
Arguments have smells but rigour demands you investigate further. Zitron's smelly prose is, ironically, just the kind of stylistic distraction that AI can help condition; the further irony is that he will one day seem to have been right, for a year or two. The money is indeed losing its mind over AI, and Zitron is a stopped clock. A correction is coming but the tool isn't going anywhere.
surgical_fire 3mo ago
His arguments on the numbers of AI are actually pretty solid. I am still to see a solid counter to what he brings up there.
lispisok 3mo ago
Oddly suspicious how this comment which was not one of the first comments which does not address the content at all but the tone skyrocketed to the top.
- hnuser123456 3mo ago
  The tone is written as abrasive to anyone who doesn't already agree, which shows this is more of an emotional opinion piece than open minded objective research. Hype cycles never last forever, but that doesn't mean all the value has been tapped by any means. The fact that modern GPUs can solve ridiculously complex high dimensional functions is a superpower in every possible field of research.
- BoggleOhYeah 3mo ago
  HN does this with every Zitron article.
cmiles74 3mo ago
I don't read Ed Zitron, aside from when he appears here on Hacker News, and I also find his tone to be over-the-top. I think we might agree on that much. These articles are lengthy but, to my understanding, Ed's idea is... * AI companies have committed to purchasing X amount of compute * Data centers are being constructed to meet this demand, they'll need to charge amount Y * AI companies do not have sufficient revenue to pay amount Y IMHO this isn't surprising, personally the only real use-case for AI that I've seen is code generation or automated sales or scam calls. This doesn't seem like a big enough market for the huge dollar amounts I'm seeing thrown around. I'm curious why you think Ed is so far off the mark on this. To me, it seems like we are headed for a big correction on the whole AI thing.
- mike_hearn 3mo ago
  Not the OP but Zitron makes clear errors: • He seems to think that the moment Nvidia release new hardware, all existing hardware becomes worthless. It doesn't and there are plenty of tokens being served by old GPUs. This makes all his calculations about how quickly datacenters have to pay off useless. • All his numbers about costs, revenues etc are guesses or attempts to work backwards from off the cuff and frequently inconsistent comments by tech executives. They could easily be very far off. • He doesn't seem to understand that datacenters have never been full of hardware on their opening day. A lot of his attacks revolve around this confusion - he learns that an opened datacenter isn't yet at full load or fully equipped with GPUs and thinks that means it's been delayed. I remember when Google first opened their facility in the Dalles, it took years for it to completely fill with machines.
  - cmiles74 3mo ago
    > All his numbers about costs, revenues etc are guesses or attempts to work backwards from off the cuff and frequently inconsistent comments by tech executives. They could easily be very far off. Agreed, but I'd argue that Ed doesn't have much else to work with. I'd like to see journalists take this tack and start asking these executives to either back up their statements or back down from them. They should be held accountable for their statements. Even if we dial down these numbers by a magnitude they are still insanely large and the AI companies do not seem to be making enough money to balance things out. > He seems to think that the moment Nvidia release new hardware, all existing hardware becomes worthless. It doesn't and there are plenty of tokens being served by old GPUs. This makes all his calculations about how quickly datacenters have to pay off useless. I agree that older hardware from Nvidia doesn't become worthless when Nvidia releases new, more powerful hardware. I have to point out that it certainly loses a great deal of value and that's not nothing. > He doesn't seem to understand that datacenters have never been full of hardware on their opening day. A lot of his attacks revolve around this confusion - he learns that an opened datacenter isn't yet at full load or fully equipped with GPUs and thinks that means it's been delayed. I remember when Google first opened their facility in the Dalles, it took years for it to completely fill with machines. Is that really the case? I mean, I read about the build out of these data centers being delayed all of the time. I read this last week and it seems roughly in line with Ed's ravings: > A JPMorgan analysis last month found that more than 60% of data-center capacity planned for completion in 2027 isn’t yet under construction, and another 7% is delayed.[0] [0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/america-s-data-center-build-out-is-falling-way-behind-schedule/ar-AA24FRDl https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/america-s-data-cen...
aagha 3mo ago
He does this on his podcast on a regular basis.
HerbManic 3mo ago
I like Ed's sense of humor, I also like that he can distill down a lot of messy details into something more cogent, especially with the money side. But, I also think he has missed the mark on a fair few things in terms of out comes. He may be proven right yet in terms of the general shape of things for some parts of the industry but also will have some big misses. My general take away usually comes down to, places like OpenAI, Anthropic and Oracle have gone in a little to hard to fast and it may hurt them long term as they struggle to make it work in terms of economics. not that they can't just it will be difficult. But places like Microsoft, Google, Meta, Apple, Amazon; they have a very long runway to endure the growing pains and make it through to a long term business that no longer burns cash.
overgard 3mo ago
Right, because markets are always rational and nobody gets greedy and ignores the skeptics until things are out of hand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
Invictus0 3mo ago
Your own iamverysmart retort also fails to point out even a single issue with his actual argumentation.
Hendrikto 3mo ago
> One of the "smells" that gives away a quacky ranter is they speak in impassioned, "Why doesn't everyone understand this?" tones, but in fact their argument just doesn't flow. Exactly what the AI evangelists are doing.

marcus_holmes 3mo ago

I kinda get it - he's been attacked for his negative views a lot, and that tends to produce a more passionate writing style. It's a little immature, sure, but also authentically human.

Terr_ 3mo ago

> He would begin somewhere–statistics on AI demand, say–and then walk the calculations carefully over to the next step–maybe revenue needed for profitability by AI companies–and you could follow the argument. Which of the hyperlinks provided at the beginning sounded like what you wanted, and after you clicked it* how did it disappoint you? The information you are describing is stuff I would not expect anybody to repeatedly duplicate across periodic blog-posts. * (Yes, I'm being sardonic, but if you did bother to click them, then I'm legitimately interested in your answer.)

athrowaway3z 3mo ago
He's right that its all going to pop dramatically and catastrophically for some. But having read a bunch of his stuff, there are two things he's just plain wrong about and they make his martyrdom tone too grating. - His own objectivity - he consistently throws shade (rightfully) at the pro-AI side being financially 'required' to hold a certain world view, but is completely blind to his own claim to fame effecting him similarly. - He consistently claims AI can't be made to work, and tries to prove this by calculating with the bubble prices. Its like saying tulips could never be profitable in the middle of the mania because ships were too expensive as proven by their current price to use for shipping tulips. Add in the semi regular instance downplaying AI's usefulness contradicting my own experience and I mostly dont bother reading him anymore. Its not like I'll be surprised that shit hits the fan, and he's not going to call the 'when' any better than wallstreetbets or an octopus.
- hn_throwaway_99 3mo ago
  Yeah, to be honest I think his take is a bit nonsense because it's so historically inaccurate. Most hugely transformational technologies in the past also resulted in giant bubbles that burst, because investors piled into lots of companies in the hope that their particular company would win out. Railroads, automobiles, telecommunications networks, the Internet, etc. etc. were all hugely important, transformational technologies that all caused giant bubbles that burst. But Ed Zitron seems hellbent on saying AI is a nothing burger, and that's why the bubble will burst. But the latter doesn't necessarily follow from the former, and indeed the examples I gave show that the exact opposite is often true. I believe that the AI bubble will burst precisely because it is such a transformational technology. AI may not live up to the ways its biggest cultists like to shout ("Feel the AGI flow through you!!!"), but similarly in the .com boom/bust there was tons of nonsense about how we'd do absolutely everything online, we were in a new "eyeball economy", whatever that meant, yada yada, yet I'd argue that in some ways the Internet was actually a bigger impact than originally envisioned, just not necessarily in the way that late 90s boosters envisioned it.

alfalfasprout 3mo ago

It's not entirely clear to me that the opposing argument is well-formed either. You constantly see numbers and statistics being wildly mis-used or overextrapolated.

sigmoid10 3mo ago

I particularly enjoy reading big banners asking me to pay for a newsletter subscription if I "liked" the content. Not if I found it interesting. Not if it actually provided any value whatsoever to me. No, you just have to "like" it. In other words, it is meant to be written in an engaging way and perhaps reinforce your believes like an echo chamber or even stir up certain strong emotions. Not to convey information. So, thanks, but no. I'm sure this opinion blog is very well written, but I don't think it is more well founded than anything else in this sea of opinions that sports a bigger garbage patch than the Pacific Ocean.

argee 3mo ago
A big chunk of text asked for support on the basis of the article. I hadn’t read the article. I scrolled down a bit to read. A popup took up my screen, asking me to subscribe, having read essentially nothing at this point. I just left. Life is too short.
- dolebirchwood 3mo ago
  I know the HN guidelines discourage commenting on "tangential annoyances" on a website, but I think this issue is more than just tangential and more than just an annoyance. When an author is this relentless in pushing you to sign up, there is good reason to suspect that financial motives are unduly driving an agenda. I counted 8 such instances: 1. In the sidebar 2. At the top of the article 3. Popup in the middle of the screen after just a couple of scrolls into the body 4. Several paragraphs into the article 5. At the bottom of the article 6. At the bottom of the page under the comments section 7. Popup at the bottom of the screen after scrolling to the end of the body 8. (My personal favorite) Click the "user" icon in the bottom-right corner, which you'd normally expect to open an AI chat bot these days, and (surprise) you're prompted to sign up for a paid subscription This sort of behavior just completely tanks any and all credibility this person may have.
  - shimman 3mo ago
    Of things to be upset about, an independent journalist asking readers to pay for access ranks very low. Especially compared to LLM companies that are exacerbating the climate crisis, increasing cancer rates among residents, or increasing utilities for residents. This sort of behavior completely tanks any and all credibility this commentator may have.

quater321 3mo ago

[dead]

ccamrobertson 3mo ago

Agreed. Phrases like "journalists are currently gooning over OpenAI and Anthropic" really put me off. It's a poor attempt at modern muckraking; cheeky yet offering little substance.

dofm 3mo ago
He's just a Brit, writing in a style we write in. Sweary, comical, red-top. The Register did it for years.
- Kiro 3mo ago
  I don't think you know what "gooning" means. It's edgy Gen Z slang and has nothing to do with being British.
  - dofm 3mo ago
    I didn't say it was. I'm just observing that his muckraking style is part of a very long British pundit tradition. Americans have never liked it — Intel got very upset about The Register's coverage of "the Itanic". (And he's not Gen Z anyway is he; he's among the older millennials. He's appropriating it for muckraking purposes.)
  - 1attice 3mo ago
    Sure, but does that vibe invalidate the argument? What an odd time the middle of an argument is to be clutching pearls and worrying about prose quality. Style and vibes notwithstanding, is there anything in your view that wrong with the argument itself? Could a better or more polite writer have convinced you with the same shape of logic?
    - Kiro 3mo ago
      I responded to a comment about the prose. Why are you not calling out that one instead?
    - Jtarii 3mo ago

SlinkyOnStairs 3mo ago

0000000000100 3mo ago
Haha thought you were referring to the upsell at the start asking to subscribe to the newsletter for $70 / year. But yes it does call out the unprecedented amount of money getting dumped into AI. What turned me off though was this paragraph: > This is a hysterical era perpetuated by liars, cowards, imbeciles, craven boosters and the easily-fooled. Those excited about generative AI are either the victim or the perpetrator of a con centered around a technology to ingratiate at the highest cost possible. That's a very bold claim. Really anyone excited about generative AI dude? That's just an absurd claim, and makes it sound like he hasn't used an LLM since GPT 3.5. It's just the language is so hyperbolic and angry that it's giving me more rant vibes that really hurt the tone and damage the (many valid) claims he's trying to make. Really tried to read through this all the way, but man I'm just not in love with this guy. I feel like the frustration is clouding his judgement. This line is another one with a fact that isn't really grounded: > so, you know, they only need to grow by 496% by the end of 2029! Which isn't wrong, but also Anthropic's revenue increased from $1 billion in Dec. 2024 to $47 billion May of 2026. Which of course doesn't guarantee that it will continue to grow at that scale, but it's clear that there is a strong demand for what they are creating. Idk, not really sure what my point is here. There are just so many facts and numbers quoted in here... It's a bit exhausting to refute a piece like this, when parts are genuinely correct, and parts are maybe subconciously exaggerated due to some emotional leaking into the argument.
- Tanjreeve 3mo ago
  So basically you can't find fault with the numbers but you find the tone annoying?
  - LogicFailsMe 3mo ago

1attice 3mo ago

Arguments have smells but rigour demands you investigate further. Zitron's smelly prose is, ironically, just the kind of stylistic distraction that AI can help condition; the further irony is that he will one day seem to have been right, for a year or two. The money is indeed losing its mind over AI, and Zitron is a stopped clock. A correction is coming but the tool isn't going anywhere.

surgical_fire 3mo ago

His arguments on the numbers of AI are actually pretty solid. I am still to see a solid counter to what he brings up there.

lispisok 3mo ago

Oddly suspicious how this comment which was not one of the first comments which does not address the content at all but the tone skyrocketed to the top.

hnuser123456 3mo ago
The tone is written as abrasive to anyone who doesn't already agree, which shows this is more of an emotional opinion piece than open minded objective research. Hype cycles never last forever, but that doesn't mean all the value has been tapped by any means. The fact that modern GPUs can solve ridiculously complex high dimensional functions is a superpower in every possible field of research.
BoggleOhYeah 3mo ago
HN does this with every Zitron article.

cmiles74 3mo ago

I don't read Ed Zitron, aside from when he appears here on Hacker News, and I also find his tone to be over-the-top. I think we might agree on that much. These articles are lengthy but, to my understanding, Ed's idea is... * AI companies have committed to purchasing X amount of compute * Data centers are being constructed to meet this demand, they'll need to charge amount Y * AI companies do not have sufficient revenue to pay amount Y IMHO this isn't surprising, personally the only real use-case for AI that I've seen is code generation or automated sales or scam calls. This doesn't seem like a big enough market for the huge dollar amounts I'm seeing thrown around. I'm curious why you think Ed is so far off the mark on this. To me, it seems like we are headed for a big correction on the whole AI thing.

mike_hearn 3mo ago
Not the OP but Zitron makes clear errors: • He seems to think that the moment Nvidia release new hardware, all existing hardware becomes worthless. It doesn't and there are plenty of tokens being served by old GPUs. This makes all his calculations about how quickly datacenters have to pay off useless. • All his numbers about costs, revenues etc are guesses or attempts to work backwards from off the cuff and frequently inconsistent comments by tech executives. They could easily be very far off. • He doesn't seem to understand that datacenters have never been full of hardware on their opening day. A lot of his attacks revolve around this confusion - he learns that an opened datacenter isn't yet at full load or fully equipped with GPUs and thinks that means it's been delayed. I remember when Google first opened their facility in the Dalles, it took years for it to completely fill with machines.
- cmiles74 3mo ago
  > All his numbers about costs, revenues etc are guesses or attempts to work backwards from off the cuff and frequently inconsistent comments by tech executives. They could easily be very far off. Agreed, but I'd argue that Ed doesn't have much else to work with. I'd like to see journalists take this tack and start asking these executives to either back up their statements or back down from them. They should be held accountable for their statements. Even if we dial down these numbers by a magnitude they are still insanely large and the AI companies do not seem to be making enough money to balance things out. > He seems to think that the moment Nvidia release new hardware, all existing hardware becomes worthless. It doesn't and there are plenty of tokens being served by old GPUs. This makes all his calculations about how quickly datacenters have to pay off useless. I agree that older hardware from Nvidia doesn't become worthless when Nvidia releases new, more powerful hardware. I have to point out that it certainly loses a great deal of value and that's not nothing. > He doesn't seem to understand that datacenters have never been full of hardware on their opening day. A lot of his attacks revolve around this confusion - he learns that an opened datacenter isn't yet at full load or fully equipped with GPUs and thinks that means it's been delayed. I remember when Google first opened their facility in the Dalles, it took years for it to completely fill with machines. Is that really the case? I mean, I read about the build out of these data centers being delayed all of the time. I read this last week and it seems roughly in line with Ed's ravings: > A JPMorgan analysis last month found that more than 60% of data-center capacity planned for completion in 2027 isn’t yet under construction, and another 7% is delayed.[0] [0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/america-s-data-center-build-out-is-falling-way-behind-schedule/ar-AA24FRDl https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/america-s-data-cen...

aagha 3mo ago

He does this on his podcast on a regular basis.

HerbManic 3mo ago

I like Ed's sense of humor, I also like that he can distill down a lot of messy details into something more cogent, especially with the money side. But, I also think he has missed the mark on a fair few things in terms of out comes. He may be proven right yet in terms of the general shape of things for some parts of the industry but also will have some big misses. My general take away usually comes down to, places like OpenAI, Anthropic and Oracle have gone in a little to hard to fast and it may hurt them long term as they struggle to make it work in terms of economics. not that they can't just it will be difficult. But places like Microsoft, Google, Meta, Apple, Amazon; they have a very long runway to endure the growing pains and make it through to a long term business that no longer burns cash.

overgard 3mo ago

Right, because markets are always rational and nobody gets greedy and ignores the skeptics until things are out of hand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

Invictus0 3mo ago

Your own iamverysmart retort also fails to point out even a single issue with his actual argumentation.

Hendrikto 3mo ago

> One of the "smells" that gives away a quacky ranter is they speak in impassioned, "Why doesn't everyone understand this?" tones, but in fact their argument just doesn't flow. Exactly what the AI evangelists are doing.