Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 1001 posts

Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

#11

Post by jmuguy »

pcstl wrote: post #5

Zitron has become the distorted reflection of the very AI boosters he criticizes and mocks. I think the worst thing that happened to him was AI skepticism becoming a political position . This gave him a captive audience - as long as he says what they want to hear , which means that he can never ever concede that he might have been wrong or that AI might actually be progressing or having successes. This is not conduci…

Its pretty clear if you listen to him now he's just (re)playing the hits for his audience. Its like MSNBC/Fox News for people who think they're too smart to fall for that.

I used to think he was just early on some of this stuff but the sheer amount of content he produces its clear he's just cashing a check.

Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

#12

Post by mdmxkxkxndn »

simonw wrote: post #3

> For any of his posts that I read, while there are numbers thrown around, the numbers don't actually connect to a coherent argument. In many cases, as we saw above, the numbers don't even really support his argument (such as an MAU decline in Facebook causing Meta financial problems which would then cause Meta to spuriously insert AI in places it doesn't belong). I suspect he's relying on people's eyes glazing over…

[dead]

Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

#13

Post by pinkmuffinere »

> February 2025: "I will keep writing this stuff until I’m proven wrong." Wrong (Zitron continues to write despite repeatedly being proven wrong)

Lol, I appreciate the sprinkling of well timed humor in an article that is mostly straightforward facts and analysis.

Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

#14

Post by tolugenius »

I've been doubting him myself (his recent articles just hedge on data centers more than anything else) but then I want to ask, are there any valid critics of AI? Not a "code is bad but it'll get better" but actual criticism in the nature of the financing, politics, etc. I think separating AI as a tool and it's capabilities and AI as product that needs to make a profit is helpful, however most people are really hedging in one camp or the other in their takes.

Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

#16

Post by irishcoffee »

gregdoesit wrote: post #2

I used to pay attention to Ed Zitron, exactly because he seemed to be someone who did the research, and looked at numbers. Until one day, I realized that seems to only look at numbers as long as it serves his agenda. When it doesn't, he looks away or makes the case for why the numbers are wrong, and shields himself from these "incorrect" numbers - or people who would point to anything suggesting that AI is not a tota…

Looking at it from an objective/historical perspective, when he first got on his high horse agents weren’t a thing, MCP was in its infancy at best, and half the code generated didn’t compile from frontier models.

From there everything split into two factions, which I’ll dub as believers and non-believers. From there, it has entirely been a cult following despite the evidence showing that models and agents have legs for software development.

FWIW my post history would show my extreme skepticism, and to an extent I still am. I think the real power of models isn’t the model at all but the harnesses.

Either way I think he lost the plot and runs on vibes himself. I also think this whole AI movement is going to have their 2000/2008 moment before the phoenix rises from the ashes.

Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

#17

Post by jrflo »

Thanks for putting this together, his writing really aggravates me and it was nice to see all of his predictions put together in one spot.

It's interesting how he has pivoted from denying that LLMs are useful to accusing frontier labs of Enron-scale fraud.

I suppose it's the natural pivot you have to make when your whole business is an anti-AI newsletter that costs $7 per month.

Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

#18

Post by simianwords »

tolugenius wrote: post #14

I've been doubting him myself (his recent articles just hedge on data centers more than anything else) but then I want to ask, are there any valid critics of AI? Not a "code is bad but it'll get better" but actual criticism in the nature of the financing, politics, etc. I think separating AI as a tool and it's capabilities and AI as product that needs to make a profit is helpful, however most people are really hedgin…

Valid criticisms of AI

- safety critics who think AI can take over the world like Yud (I find this the least credible but still valid)

- Bernie type of critics who think AI can cause widespread job losses

- Ruxandra Teslo who thinks AI can remove meaning which I feel is the most serious one [1]

What are not valid

- environmental like emissions and water usage

- AI is useless and it will take the economy with it because it is a bubble

- AI spreads misinformation and causes societal damage

- AI is trained on copyright (are we really on this side of the debate ?!)

[1] https://substack.com/@ruxandrabio/p-213699661

Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

#19

Post by amazingamazing »

The simplest argument against AI is the fact no public company appears to be making money on it, minus revenue that contributes to AI infrastructure.

Would love to see broken down counter example of public company.

So far Chegg and Duolingo have been devastated. Surely they could cut costs drastically with AI?

Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

#20

Post by baggachipz »

Hate on him all you want (he's gotten very repetitive for the sake of subscribers and reads), but the basic premise that the modern AI industry is a circular-dealing, point-of-diminishing-returns grift still holds. The bubble is here and the longer it inflates, the worse the pop will be. Sure the goalposts have moved, but the basic numbers don't math.
Post reply on HN