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

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

Post by arctic-true »

sfblah wrote: post #158
arctic-true wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly right. Now, that does mean something about Zitron: he’s a pundit, not an expert or a forecasting genius. You could point to any number of analogous booster types. Twitter/X somehow loves pushing these people onto my recommended feed. I remember reading breathless threads about how o3 was going to single-handedly end white collar work. There are just more of that sort of person, so none of them in part…

In my experience, people who make fun of AI's ability to eliminate white-collar work are exactly the same people who are white-knuckling it, hoping they can make another $300k next year to buy that Rivian. People who don't need a salary look at the situation more objectively and, in general, can see that a lot of white-collar work is in peril.

I think that is tied to the general trend that people see themselves as far less replaceable than others. And I’m not sure that people who don’t need a salary are exactly objective about it - unless you mean people who live off the state or something, those are people who need their capital reserves to continue to appreciate in order to sustain their lifestyles, and are thus relying on the destruction of white collar work to justify the valuations of the technology companies which are underpinning the strength of the markets. It’s like saying in the 19th century that only the propertied classes should be allowed to make decisions about labor policy, because the laborers themselves have their judgment clouded by their position.

But I take your point, and I only brought up the o3 example to emphasize that people on both sides of the booster/doubter debate can be prisoners of the moment. There are boosters eternally convinced that the utopia (or armageddon, for the doomer-inclined) is either already here or imminent, and there are doubters eternally convinced that we have reached the peak. One of them will eventually be right, but neither has been yet. You can’t fault one of them for calling their shot if you’re not willing to see it happening on the other side.

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

#192

Post by dcre »

tovej wrote: post #165
dcre wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If he meant that he would've said July revenue, not ARR. ARR means it's multiplied by twelve.

She, and we do not have the direct quote. It's a paraphrase, and the report can't seem to decide whether they're talking about revenue or growth. If she was talking about growth, "the ARR growth in July exceeded the ARR growth of Q2" is perfectly coherent.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/29/openai-cfo-sarah-friar-tells...

OP is way overinterpreting something we don't even have verbatim in a way that unfortunately resembles what they're rightly accusing Zitron of.

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

#193

Post by skybrian »

DonsDiscountGas wrote: post #161

Consider two propositions: P1. AI is useful powerful and (P1a) will continue to get more useful and powerful at the same rapid pace it's been improving 2. AI companies are very profitable, and (P2a) will be wildly profitable (eg $30T TAM) in the next few years These are completely separate. But in practice people seem to be either proAI (both true) or anti AI (both false). P1 is clearly true and I find it hard to tak…

I can certainly see one happening without the other, but I'd expect P1 and P2 to be correlated at least some of the time?

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

#194

Post by VCFundedGenYer »

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…

No? He's been pretty spot on.

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

#196

Post by MarkusQ »

dgellow wrote: post #147
ai_critic wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

From the article "A more common defense is to say, just in general, people attack Zitron because of Y (usually his style), but they never address his points."

The article "engages with Zitron's work"; the post you responded to merely extended the discussion to speculate on why Zitron might be producing it.

(btw, for the record, I'm an AI-hype skeptic and _also_ an AI-head-in-sand skeptic; as far as I can tell, both sides are full of malarkey.)

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

#197

Post by dcre »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #190
dcre wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"July revenue alone exceeded all of Q2" would be a very normal thing to say, but you're skipping over some of the words. Unless revenue is sharply dropping, annualized recurring revenue in any month will exceed the revenue incurred in any quarter, because it's an annualized figure. I think the most likely explanation is that the CFO misspoke and intended to say something more like your quote, or perhaps she spoke cor…

But you are using the misquote to do the thing Zitron does that you hate! I don't get it!

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

#198

Post by watwut »

simianwords wrote: post #18
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 becau…

Basically, all criticism of issues that affect real people is invalid per you.

> environmental like emissions and water usage

There is real crisis with warming this year, yes the plan to consume staggering anounts of energy and make environment worst in the process is valid criticism.

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

If it turns out to be true, a lot of innocent people get hurt. Valid.

> AI spreads misinformation and causes societal damage

As valid as criticism of facebook was valid the whole time. And yes, facebook made world into worst place.

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

100% valid.

> safety critics who think AI can take over the world

Not valid, that is bullshit. If you think the word is wrong suggest polite word that says the same.

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

#200

Post by maxglute »

ant_li0n wrote: post #188
maxglute wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? AFAIK, his arguments based around the economics remains the same, he just seems increasingly dramatic and exacerbated, which is understandable when you realize industry + ecosystem (politics/reporting) is tulip mania delulu and insists 1+1=100, or 30 trillion, or whatever. His position isn't based on AI progress - it's based on AI economics, at this point he can be an obnoxious rationalist slamming flat earthers…

(edited to remove snark) Your comment seems to miss the point that the article does not (necessarily) have a problem with Zitron being insufferable/annoying/smug. It's that his predictions are verifiably wrong. It's one thing to be annoying and right. Zitron is annoying, but not right.

Yes? What happened to FAANG in last 3 years, they cut a fuck load of jobs, the raised rent/prices, then inflation, then experience surge in new category AI. 1 + 2, i.e. squeezing rock has limits. 3 is fundamentally not sustainable, i.e. AI revenue gap order of magnitude relative to spend. This like debt crisis, there's lot of levers to burn to maximize extraction and make ledger look good short term, but is fundamentally not long term sustainable. Articles arguing over minutiae / short term accuracy pointless, market can stay irrational than one can stay liquid blah, blah - I mean its useful for investing - but when talking about long term predictions he's just stating the obvious, the financials don't make sense within the business cycle current players are operating in.

Like one can believe AI is speciation event technology eventually, but still given actual constraints, i.e. literally not enough investors for $$$, not enough hardware, not enough infra over xyz time horizon that these companies carrying stupendous debt and mathematically guaranteed stranded / deprecated compute infra is only digging themselves deeper vs future competitors. Sure AI can eventually capture 30% of GDP and knowledge worker's life time achievement is worth a few $100 of compute or a few pennies in thinking sand. But ultimate winners is probably going to be some future startup that pays pennies for thinking sand not incumbent who paid magnitude more and simply can't operate profitably due to balance sheet.

Post reply on HN