Live data from Hacker News

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

danluu.com

61–70 of 1001 posts

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

#61

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 becau…

I think the three valid criticisms you listed are valid, but there are other quite a few other IMO-valid criticisms of AI. Here are a few as I see them:

- AI centralizes power in the hands of capital, rendering those who can afford compute hardware vastly more capable than those who cannot and thus increasing social stratification

- AI is generally trained on the creative output of humanity without those who train it giving back proportionally (copyright "rules for thee, not for me")

- AI breaks social processes built around the idea that TRYING something is inherently a cost in time or effort, such as filing a legal claim or sending someone a threatening letter. We haven't made the social changes to punish or charge people for using every appeal/option/application, so this makes asymmetric-effort tasks like applying for a job really bad in the interim

- AI use makes it harder to develop the ability to critically think for yourself, especially among those who most need to develop that ability

- AI produces large amounts of mid-tier content, making it harder to discover exceptional human-created creative content produced after AI started to exist

- AI leads to distrust in remote communication, increasing cynicism and breaking social bonds generally. This is NOT your point about "AI spreads misinformation" - no matter whether it's true or not that AI can be used to produce misinformation, having people doubt each other is a harm

- AI demand crunches hardware and time availability for other adjacent markets, such as computer gaming, construction, 3D graphics production, etc. This harms both hobbies and professions in those fields having to cope with rising prices and lower availability of materials

- Everyone is using the same or similar AI, leading to a homogenization of culture and process across humanity. This is perhaps a mixed blessing, because humans are capricious, but less variety can be viewed as a harm

I will also say I personally hate seeing "job loss" said to mean "wealth loss" or "people starving". The goal of life isn't to have a job, it's to be well and happy. If you can be well and happy without a job, great, so it's really painful to me how people don't even see those things are not the same.

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

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while pathological liars like Musk and Altman are glossed over. You seem to live in a bubble where these people are worshipped ... :-(

gestures broadly at HN and the tech industry https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/ai-startupschool I am a realist, I understand the cult of personality, etc. Just like I wouldn't spend a moment trying to talk a Catholic out of their faith. I have no feelings on the topic, this can only last so long based on capital trajectories.

> gestures broadly at HN and the tech industry

For me, HN ist rather some kind of counterweight/counterbubble where not everybody is insanely critical and cynical about Elon Musk and Sam Altman. :-)

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

#63
post #17

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.

He LITERALLY said it is not like Enron. And repeated it.

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

#64
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…

I have the exact same feeling about him. He has built a following of people that want to hear his extra skeptical views. And even if he changed his mind about some things, he cannot admit it, as that is not what his followers want to hear from him. It's rare that people make the news and build a following by saying a very balanced, down to earth opinions... unfortunately.

> It's rare that people make the news and build a following by saying a very balanced, down to earth opinions... unfortunately.

Just gets you disliked by both sides, "certainty sells".

Some folks would prefer a confident wrong/simple answer over a "well it depends/is nuanced" answer.

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

#65
Being thorough and accurate might make you a lot of money in the stock market, but it's not a good way to get any media presence, because that demands being in front of people quite often, and basically nobody can be insightful and well researched in all topics of the day. Once you become a pundit, whether on politics or tech, and rely on eyeballs to feed you, you are going to be throwing stinkers. And at that point, you might as well just align with an audience and not care too much about whether you are predicting anything accurately.

We have people telling us the next recession being imminent all the time. Others told us that NFTs were key to the future of art. That's the pundit way. If you want accuracy, you become like Charlie Munger, have maybe 2, 3 really good insights througout your career, and hope do to well using the insights yourself, not by being a pundit

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

#66
post #63
post #17

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.

He LITERALLY said it is not like Enron. And repeated it.

I was thinking of this article where he compares OpenAI to Enron twice: https://www.wheresyoured.at/what-happens-if-openai-dies/

You're right that he doesn't explicitly say enron-scale fraud, that's just what I came away with from reading the article a while back.

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

#67

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…

Cal Newport has been interesting on the topic. But it’s also possible to read Zitron and skip his personal opinions and just follow the discussion of financing, that’s what I personally do. I don’t understand why anyone would take the commentary of an internet pundit as a set of predictions to evaluate as gospel

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

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

gestures broadly at HN and the tech industry https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/ai-startupschool I am a realist, I understand the cult of personality, etc. Just like I wouldn't spend a moment trying to talk a Catholic out of their faith. I have no feelings on the topic, this can only last so long based on capital trajectories.

> gestures broadly at HN and the tech industry For me, HN ist rather some kind of counterweight/counterbubble where not everybody is insanely critical and cynical about Elon Musk and Sam Altman. :-)

I respect the bubble here for what it is. You've found your people, I hope it helps. I am a polite guest in this tribe's town square.

Edit: I am not asking for anyone to be overly critical of those I mention. Facts and evidence are objective, feelings are subjective.

Find Your People - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44074017 - May 2025 (283 comments)

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

#70
I just remembered that before AI, I knew Zitron from ranting about IoT and consumer tech. He just appeared one day in my Twitter Timeline, claiming to be the "man on the ground" at CES (or so my memory at least)

So from that standpoint, I guess it would make sense that a personality like that would now have ended up at the AI topic.

I would like to see a comparison with predictions of the pro-AI bubble and their hit rates though. This writing feels as selective as it tries to paint Zitron as.

Post reply on HN