Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
They haven’t allowed a recession to happen since ~2009 when they massively inflated their way out of the worst of the last one. Learned to have the cake and eat it too. The only problem is after a few rounds of this the currency becomes worthless, and we’re well on our way. Inflation is a major component of those numbers rising.
How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?
701–710 of 1001 posts
Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?
#702Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Well, unless of course you want to train your own LLM, or do some biochemistry (and increasingly just regular health stuff) or cybersecurity. These capabilities are not made available for plebs like you or I.
Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?
#703Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?
#704One thing I’m observing in these comments is a willingness of folks to project their own predictions onto Ed’s statements when validating their plausibility. Eg. “I think he’s wrong about the timing but I do expect AI companies to go to zero.” You can do that, but then you’re no longer discussing his predictions. You’re discussing your predictions, and your own positioning. Those differ from Dan’s essay, which engage…
Some guy wrote that he’s grumpy because he couldn’t sleep and decided to dunk on an internet personality he doesn’t like, it’s not the ceremonial placement of the ur-kilogram
Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?
#705Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.h…
It's my fault. I'll follow the rules more carefully.
Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?
#706This kind of back and forth reminds me of the Dot Com bubble circa 1999. There were endless articles saying that the internet was a new golden era for mankind and that the hyperbolic company valuations were justified; the detractors cried bullocks. I use AI every day as I assume everyone else on Hacker News does. Will the S&P 500 drop 20%? I have no idea. If you know, please let me know so I can adjust by 401K.
Eh, not to be rude/crass... but that would be inaccurate, if not hopeful. Myself and others don't, despite mandates; in fact, I aim to see this 'left behind' promise we heard years ago. Short of writing the at-will employment paperwork for HR myself, I'm not seeing it.
Escalations continue to fill my days. Turns out, people are somewhat correct: results matter. I'd say moreso than the tools we 'choose' (or skip, in this case). My null on the token scoreboard remains unnoticed/inconsequential, the work I've done has not.
All to raise a bit of timeless advice from Wu-Tang: diversify.
Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?
#707Earlier 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.
Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?
#708One thing I’m observing in these comments is a willingness of folks to project their own predictions onto Ed’s statements when validating their plausibility. Eg. “I think he’s wrong about the timing but I do expect AI companies to go to zero.” You can do that, but then you’re no longer discussing his predictions. You’re discussing your predictions, and your own positioning. Those differ from Dan’s essay, which engage…
Why is Zitron’s repute evaluated entirely on the basis of failed predictions? Predictions are incredibly hard. AI enthusiasts and thought leaders have made so many demonstrably incorrect predictions it’s hard to keep track. Based on this metric, Altman and Amodei should never be taken seriously again.
Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?
#709Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The prediction was early, overestimated how long of a tail RIM would experience, but how wrong was it? Was the prediction of some utility? Wrong enough that the utility is seriously diminished. Predicting a specific quantity dropping to a specific level at a specific date is a lot more valuable than saying “those guys are cooked”. And even if some minuscule utility existed: why should predictors be so coddled by th…
RIM is dying now -> useful for stock trading RIM is dying in the next four years -> useful for life planning. Anyway, i just wanna get on record that i predict an ai bubble pop event in the next 12 months.
If it happens on Sep 2nd 2027 you'd be wrong though.
Re: How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?
#710Danluu claims Ray Kurzweil's predictions are wrong. I asked > list 50 predictions by Ray Kurzweil that he made before 2005, the date he made the prediction, and whether to not his prediction was correct. If it was correct, give some proof. Of the 50 that were listed, 43 were correct, 7 incorrect.
You "asked"? Who (or more likely, what) did you ask? Dan Luu's analysis of Kurzweil is in this article: https://danluu.com/futurist-predictions/ In the "Appendix: detailed information on predictions" he lists the predictions, and their truth or lack thereof. He was using a list on Wikipedia: https://web.archive.org/web/20170225013846/https://en.wikipe... For example Kurzweil apparently predicted in 2019 that: > Blind…
If someone predicts in 1999 predicts self driving cars by 2020 and it happens in 2030. That seems different than predicting something we see no indication of ever happening. Like if they predicted 2020 and it happened in 2021 is that a fail. To me, no. The prediction is that the tech will exist at or around that date, not that the date is exact. Claiming it's a fail for being 1 second late is not a rational position and not at all in the spirit the predictions were made.
There's also issues like being directionally correct. Example: Someone says computers will be in everything. You can say "there's no computer's in fruit!, FAIL!" or you can look at the explosion of IoT devices and decide it was mostly right?
I get 17% correct if you're absolutely strict, 64% correct if you're charitable
2009
* Most books will be read on screens rather than paper.
The charitable interpretation is that most reading happens on screens, not paper. This is true today.
* Most text will be created using speech recognition technology.
False
* Intelligent roads and driverless cars will be in use, mostly on highways.
False in 2009, False in 2026 but directionally true. If you live in an area with Waymo you see them all time. I've driven down Olympic Blvd in Los Angeles and had my car surrounded by 5 Waymo cars at once. So is this false because it didn't happen by 2009 or is at least directionally true because it's happening, we see evidence of it happening, vs if we saw zero evidence then we could 100% say it's false.
* People use personal computers the size of rings, pins, credit cards and books.
rings, pins and credit cards, no, books, true. Smartphones are smaller than books. Maybe you could make the argument those are not personal computers. I think that is debatable. Even then, you can by PIs or Mini-PCs that are book size.
* Personal worn computers provide monitoring of body functions, automated identity and directions for navigation.
Arguably true. phones provide directions for navigation and are worn in pockets. Fitbits came out only a few years later. Id is not automated though.
* Cables are disappearing. Computer peripherals use wireless communication.
Arguably true. most laptops, all phones, most mice, keyboards, joypads, etc. are all wireless.
* People can talk to their computer to give commands.
False/True. Was possible was not common. That said, Siri shipped in 2011 so 2 years off.
* Computer displays built into eyeglasses for augmented reality are used.
False if you mean mainstream.
* Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video.
Face ID shipped in 2017. Is that to far off?
* Three-dimensional chips are commonly used.
I'm not sure what this means.
* Sound producing speakers are being replaced with very small chip-based devices that can place high resolution sound anywhere in three-dimensional space.
False,
* A $1,000 computer can perform a trillion calculations per second.
True, happened in 2008 with the ATI Radeon HD 4850
* There is increasing interest in massively parallel neural nets, genetic algorithms and other forms of "chaotic" or complexity theory computing.
Happened in 2012 so 3 years off
* Research has been initiated on reverse engineering the brain through both destructive and non-invasive scans.
Based on the actual words, this is true and was true before the prediction.
* Autonomous nano-engineered machines have been demonstrated and include their own computational controls.
False
...continued...