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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by GolfPopper »

sarjann wrote: post #301
mxschumacher wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

valuation gains on investments are one-offs, not signs of sustained improvements in profitability that would warrant higher market caps when those valuation gains are in turn the result of circular financing schemes (a bakery giving out money so that people buy bread from it), we're getting to a dangerous situation

Circular financing is an issue if the wealth accumulation stays in the chip -> model provider ecosystem. However it seems like the labs are making quite a lot of revenue from the chips (customers).

The chips are being hyped as futures investments. I.e. https://www.silicondata.com/blog/gpu-futures

It seems like investing in tulip bulb futures to me.

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

#732

Post by noobermin »

jen729w wrote: post #659
emp17344 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does everyone else, including prominent AI enthusiasts and tech CEOs. And most of those predictions are wrong, because predictions are really hard.

But this doesn't excuse Ed making a living from awful predictions, surely? If you realise you're bad at something it seems immoral to keep charging people for it.

So Altman and Amodei should retire?

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

#735

Post by layoric »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #607
layoric wrote: post #562

This critique is leaning really hard on their interpretation of "dying". They take the literal company is going to fail type of dying where as I have always taken it the same way he has presented it in his "rot-economy" context. They can remain financially "successful", but more and more people hate their products, their products are getting worse, their products are "dying". Google Search is still a good example, th…

>tech giants need AI to continue to grow You mean increase the -$2.50 lost for every $1 in revenue, or the $2Tn in debt disclosed 60 pages into the reports as a footnote. Let us be clear, the only "growth" is in the LLM ectoparasite living rent free in peoples imaginations. The fact is when (not if) the peak of inflated LLM use-case expectations corrects, a lot of the industry won't survive. Facebook has a founders-s…

I should have been clearer, "tech giants need something to meet their growth expectations, AI is currently that something". I completely agree this is all going to end badly, and AI has made these tech giants grow their market cap, which is what they seem to care almost solely about. I don't think the crash will be the end of Google/Microsoft/Meta/Amazon as companies, I do think it will be the end of OpenAI cause of the insane financial commitments they have, and I think Nvidia will drastically shrink, but this will all likely take longer than I'd like.

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

#736

Post by chii »

agentultra wrote: post #586
jxcole wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If many people hated their products, they wouldn't use them. If they didn't use them they would not be financially successful. Google is not dying just because you personally have a feeling the results are worse than before and there is no definition of dying that would be consistent with Google's current state. If Google were to die they would die the way Yahoo did, because a competitor was demonstrably better than…

> If many people hated their products, they wouldn't use them This might be true in a true, free market without monopolistic collusion and the abandonment of antitrust regulation and enforcement in the US. In many cases people don’t switch to something else because there isn’t an alternative. Or because they don’t know how to change the defaults that come installed on their computer. Or they get a big scary warning i…

> In many cases people don’t switch to something else because there isn’t an alternative.

no, they have an alternative - abstinence. And yet, large majority overwhelmingly chooses not to abstain. Therefore, it does not matter what they say, because actions are the truth.

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

#738

Post by gavinsyancey »

kennywinker wrote: post #697
scared_together wrote: post #666

Earlier 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.

> Anyway, i just wanna get on record that i predict an ai bubble pop event in the next 12 months.

Certainly possible, but I feel like you're very much going out on a limb predicting anything that soon. The market can stay irrational for a surprisingly long time if there's enough money floating around.

But I would be stunned if we don't have an AI bubble pop sometime in the next decade.

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

#739

Post by mschuster91 »

johnbarron wrote: post #721
achompas wrote: post #334

One 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…

>> Those differ from Dan’s essay, which engages with the literal text of Ed’s numerous predictions during 2024 and 2025 which are demonstrably invalidated by their measurable outcomes. Dan Luu did not engage on anything more, than a disorganized wall of text, ranted like a teenager using toxic personal attacks, while obsessing over calendar errors and a placeholder in a spreadsheet. If this is what passes here for a…

> It took years to take down Maddoff, and more to take down Bear Stearns. It will take maybe 5 - 10 years of "Ed Zitron is wrong posts here" until Anthropic and OpenAI have to be bailed out by the US government, but the day of reckoning will come.

Unfortunately, the market can stay irrational (far) longer than you can remain solvent.

In any case... I doubt Anthropic, OpenAI and xAI have any kind of moat that can justify a bailout. There is nothing truly unique either of these three possess, and certainly not against the free competition mostly from China or from Facebook that anyone can self-host.

Who will get the bailouts instead is the pension funds and other investment vehicles that have been force-fed crap AI stock like foie gras geese.

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

#740

Post by janalsncm »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #13

> 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.

Oh nice, I came here and made a very similar comment. I like the Easter eggs that reward readers who are paying attention.
Post reply on HN