Decisively declaring long-term predictions wrong only two years later seems a little premature? E.g. a company of the size of Meta/Google/Ms may very well be d

Decisively declaring long-term predictions wrong only two years later seems a little premature? E.g. a company of the size of Meta/Google/Ms may very well be dying and still producing numbers that look like growth for the next few years. --- Also, how in the world is a Jan 2025 prediction that "I believe we’re at peak AI" getting a simple "Wrong"? How are we deciding what "peak AI" is here? --- Or, "July 2025: I am not trying to be dramatic, but it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that Cursor is going to die" -> "Wrong (Cursor gets a $60B exit)" So Cursor can't die once its been acquired? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49486172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49486172 --- "August 2025: These models have clearly hit a wall where training is hitting diminishing returns" -> "Wrong" I guess this is just trolling at this point? This is like a research paper tier question, "wrong" doesn't cut it. --- Very unimpressed with this analysis. Extremely poorly done, and pretty clearly not impartial at all. Shameful. Like, the guy does sound wrong to me, but the analysis is terrible nonetheless.