41–50 of 370 posts
I would love to replace my monitor with Apple Vision Pro for programming and productivity. I would gladly pay $1000 for that.
But at $4000 it really needs to put me in a Microsoft Flight Simulator cockpit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it though? He's more of a gushing torrent of anti-AI propaganda. He has an agenda too, it's just the opposite one.
A resolute anti-AI perspective is a breath of fresh air compared to the middle-of-the-road "AI made me 10x more productive BUT"-style comments. My professional opinion is that LLM technology doesn't work very well for software development and I'm not interested in hemming and hawing over its supposed benefits any longer.
This comment is so obviously false (in my experience) I'm wondering what sort of niche environment you're working in
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are good sources of well-argued AI skepticism, and then there's Ed Zitron.
Well he's not a developer or science guy or smart at all so in his view, AI doesn't work because sometimes it makes mistakes.
I mean you can say he’s not a “science guy” but he’s undeniably “smart”.
This is quite a short sighted analysis. I do think the valuations are quite and they would need to meet the reality, but don’t think there’s gonna be a crash or we’d ever go back to pre-AI era. It would more or less would be a correction to valuations. The future of AI would be on-device models which are as powerful as current frontier models and also I can imagine companies have their own deployments of inference of…
Something to consider: would your description also apply to the dot-com boom of the late 1990s? The internet was real, the ideas for internet business were real, and we were not going to the previous reality. But the valuations weren't quite right and a "correction" happened at some point.
When people talk about AI crash, that's what they mean. Not that AI is a hoax, but that the correction could be quite violent and have effects on the broader economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point I have yet to hear a solid argument against his arguments that use half as much evidence as he does. That isn’t to say that he’s right, that’s just to say that while he gets creative in his phrasing numbers don’t lie and I haven’t seen anyone else present competing numbers that make sense. If anyone has them to the degree with which he provides them then please, by all means, I’m interested.
Ya, there are already three pure ad hominem comments here with no examples. Zitron isn't even anti-AI per se. He clearly talks out his ass at times (like AI doesn't work for developers... which he's not saying so much anymore, I don't think) but his main talking points are around numbers and profitability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A resolute anti-AI perspective is a breath of fresh air compared to the middle-of-the-road "AI made me 10x more productive BUT"-style comments. My professional opinion is that LLM technology doesn't work very well for software development and I'm not interested in hemming and hawing over its supposed benefits any longer.
>> LLM technology doesn't work very well for software development This comment is so obviously false (in my experience) I'm wondering what sort of niche environment you're working in
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point I have yet to hear a solid argument against his arguments that use half as much evidence as he does. That isn’t to say that he’s right, that’s just to say that while he gets creative in his phrasing numbers don’t lie and I haven’t seen anyone else present competing numbers that make sense. If anyone has them to the degree with which he provides them then please, by all means, I’m interested.
[flagged]
Additionally, as another commenter has pointed out, his thoughts and criticisms are being echoed by people who actually have the money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Welcome to Ed Zitron. There is a reason this man doesn't heavily short the same companies he criticizes. Be wary of anyone that won't put their money where their mouth is.
> There is a reason this man doesn't heavily short the same companies he criticizes yes, because in order to take a short position you have to predict exactly when the bubble is going to pop, which is different from predicting that at some point it will
This is quite a short sighted analysis. I do think the valuations are quite and they would need to meet the reality, but don’t think there’s gonna be a crash or we’d ever go back to pre-AI era. It would more or less would be a correction to valuations. The future of AI would be on-device models which are as powerful as current frontier models and also I can imagine companies have their own deployments of inference of…
I think the flaw in this logic is thinking about how AI is currently used only. Yes, Opus is good enough for the task you are asking it to do, but that doesn't mean that is all you will ever need.
As AI gets better and better, it will open up new use cases that require the better performance.
> If Anthropic and OpenAI believed customers would actually pay the real cost of AI tokens, they wouldn't have to give away 20 to 40 times the amount of tokens to subscribers. One logical gap in the SemiAnalysis 40x cost of tokens versus subscription: I don't know anybody actually maxing out their account limits. Sure, if you're somehow always running stuff, you can max it out, but subscriptions like this allow peopl…