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

141–150 of 1001 posts

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

#141

Post by dcre »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #53
dgellow wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand the issue, cannot you ignore his commentary and just look at the numbers?

The problem is that some numbers genuinely require a critical eye. If a source tells you that the OpenAI CFO told employees July ARR exceeded the Q2 total, there are a number of serious questions to be raised on how these numbers were calculated and what the point of such a confusing comparison is supposed to be. (I think the answer has to be that ChatGPT wrote the CFO’s script, no human financial expert would think…

You're broadly right but I think you're dead wrong about the CFO statement — I think "July revenue alone exceeded all of Q2" is an extremely normal thing to say when revenue is going up at an insane rate. For example, if it was not true that June revenue exceeded March-May revenue, the point would be to show how their revenue growth has accelerated.

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

#142

Post by ai_critic »

dgellow wrote: post #101
quickthrowman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ed Zitron’s job is to convince people to pay him money to read what he writes, of course he’s going to preach to the choir, they’re paying him to do that and he knows it. This is why I always consider the agenda of an author, Ed Zitron’s agenda is to make money from subscribers who read his writing.

That’s level 0 analysis, you’re supposed to go to the next steps and not stop here…

Sometimes it really is sufficient to say "This person is a grifter and from that all else follows".

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

#143

Post by jrflo »

tootie wrote: post #102
watwut wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I haven't read every word but I don't recall him saying AI is bad or useless ever either. His refrain is that they cannot keep up with their endless spending on training and they're not reaching new markets. I look at the rapid rise and decline of OpenClaw and get the impression AI has not really found any foothold among average people.

From the OP:

August 2024: "generative AI is a dead-end technology that has peaked”

July 2024: "Generative AI models aren’t getting more energy-efficient, nor are they getting more “powerful” in a way that would increase their functionality"

Nov 2025: "the fact we're running out of high quality training data and we're hitting the walls of scaling laws, in the training paradigm, these models aren't getting better. What we're seeing today is pretty much what they're always gonna be like"

There are other examples too from his prose of talking about how they are barely useful but I don't want to dig it up

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

#144

Post by toomuchtodo »

thegrim33 wrote: post #118
hypfer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have people telling us the next recession being imminent all the time. Yeah uhm so I'm not sure if you've like seen the world recently, but uh. Yea

S&P 500 - All time high DJIA - All time high Unemployment rate - Near all time low (for last 20 years) Number of US small businesses - All time high US GDP - All time high [Sources] https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-une... https://www.sellerscommerce.com/blog/small-business-statisti... https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

Bloomberg: It Won’t Take Much to Burst the Stock Market Bubble - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-08-20/us-sto... | https://archive.today/O9sQE - August 20th, 2026

> First, the favorable impact of the artificial intelligence investment boom on economic activity and earnings will likely diminish significantly in 2027. That’s because what’s relevant for growth is how much investment is increasing, not its level. The increase in investment in 2026 will almost certainly be the peak. There aren’t sufficient resources — construction workers, electrical generation capacity, or chip manufacturing capacity - to increase investment by the same magnitude in 2027. Nor are the dominant hyperscalers likely to have the free cash flow and balance sheet capacity to sustain a bigger increase in investment in 2027 compared with 2026.

> Second, as the growth of investment spending slows, the growth in earnings of hyperscaler suppliers will falter, profit expectations will diminish and price-earnings ratios will shrink. The “picks and shovels” providers will suffer a double whammy - slower demand growth and profit margin compression. On the way up, higher demand leads to wider profit margins that sustain equity market valuations. On the way down, the outlook for earnings deteriorates quickly as the shortfall of demand relative to expectations is exacerbated by a collapse in profit margins.

> Third, as the investment cycle matures, the focus will shift to the returns that the hyperscalers are expected to earn on their massive investments. I suspect it will be difficult for the AI hyperscalers to generate sufficient revenue ($2 trillion or more per year) to generate the returns needed to justify an AI capital base that is likely to reach $5 trillion.

(I'd encourage you to read the entire piece, it was written by Bill Dudley, a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and is too much to quote in its entirety)

Nearly 25% of U.S. workers are functionally unemployed, economic analysis finds - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49403381 - August 2026 (7 comments)

42% of adults rely on their parents for financial support - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48937288 - July 2026 (274 comments)

49% of young adults live at home, up 12 points since 2019. An economist says the fallout will reshape marriage, kids, and home-buying - https://fortune.com/2026/07/09/half-young-adults-live-home-f... | https://archive.today/1uB8d - July 9th, 2026 (Federal Reserve survey: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2026-economic-we...)

The housing crisis is pushing Gen Z into crypto and economic nihilism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46079617 - November 2025 (4 comments)

Why millennials feel hopeless about the economy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46062082 - November 2025 (15 comments)

Most Americans don't earn enough to afford basic costs of living, analysis finds - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44119317 - May 2025 (9 comments) [Report: https://www.lisep.org/mql]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statist...

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

#145

Post by brawnAgain »

His biggest error was the blanket rage against "AI" when it should have been focused on LLMs and data centers.

AI is a big field. Hating on AI is like hating food because you don't like broccoli.

Robotics AI that replaces high risk labor and even low risk repetitive stress labor is nothing but a win for humanity.

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

#146

Post by nateglims »

simianwords wrote: post #78
Retr0id wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is invalid about the environmental angle? (aside from the dubious water claims)

Here's what I find invalid about environment angle. I fundamentally don't think it is wrong to increase emissions as long as you consider the tradeoffs and externalities. Every single action you do in life has externalities - if you start opposing all of them then what really is your point? You just hate people doing stuff. If you think emissions are so harmful, try putting a number to it. I implore you to do the exe…

You are making claims for why you think the emissions are worth it but I don't see how this makes concerns about emissions invalid. Even water usage, while blown out of proportion, can be a rational concern if you have a fossil fuel power station.

You can just flip this around and ask why is slowing down AI to control emissions harmful? What numbers that don't make tail risk claims are you providing for this?

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

#147

Post by sfblah »

inferniac wrote: post #138
sfblah wrote: post #99

I don't think Zitron is wrong, exactly. He's just early. There are a lot of analysts who have faced the same criticism over the past 10-15 years. IMO the issue is that they fail to understand the staggering size and scope of the government fiscal + monetary interventions across those years. Essentially, the government has jammed all the risk into the future to repeatedly rescue near-term results. I think something si…

No, hes been extremely wrong multiple times, he should not be treated seriously Its silly to say hes just early, when his predictions give specific timelines that don't work at all - "so egregious that I am surprised it's not some kind of financial crime to say it out loud" — on OpenAI forecasting $11.6B for 2025 ( https://www.wheresyoured.at/exclusive-openai-financials/ ) actual: $13.07B. source is his own scoop ( h…

I think it's fair to call his specific predictions "early." I'm saying his timelines are too short. Like almost all bearish market commentators, he doesn't understand the scope of the government stimulus. This is a systemic problem in market commentary. But, don't kid yourself. If the US stops massive deficit spending, a lot of what Zitron's saying moves forward on the timeline.

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

#148

Post by dgellow »

ai_critic wrote: post #142
dgellow wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s level 0 analysis, you’re supposed to go to the next steps and not stop here…

Sometimes it really is sufficient to say "This person is a grifter and from that all else follows".

It’s fine if you do not want to engage with the person‘s work, but source of revenue is just one component to evaluate if someone is grifting

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

#149

Post by ai_critic »

qw2817 wrote: post #135

Examining Dan Luu's predictions would be harder since he doesn't even date his articles. Was this hit piece prompted by Zitron being mentioned in the tech scene lately? https://lwn.net/Articles/1091245/ I don't know. If you post walls of text and ramble on like Luu, perhaps you are sitting in a glass house?

Luu kinda has a reputation for knowing his shit, for over a decade now. He's not a checks notes games journalist larping as economist, but he does all right.

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

#150

Post by astrange »

Borealid wrote: post #61
simianwords wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> - 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

Looks to me like I can run Claude Code without being able to afford my own datacenter.

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

That it does, but I think the real social evil is bad recommender systems. eg YouTube is basically on a mission to drive me insane because it literally only recommends me a) reviews of espresso machines b) video essays by autistic people about Mario 64 c) PBS scienceslop about how quantum physics is super mysterious. None of these are even what I watch, but they're also not what I want to watch.

Post reply on HN