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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by lstodd »

mschuster91 wrote: post #740
johnbarron wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 just…

> Who will get the bailouts instead is the pension funds and other investment vehicles

It's the same thing in the end. Bailouts don't come from outer space, we all pay for delusions of few.

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

#762

Post by ashkankiani »

This isn't a serious analysis of the actual thesis or any of the predictions in any meaningful way. I learned almost nothing from this shallow wall of text. It seems overly focused on "predictions" instead of the ideas behind the predictions, i.e.

- the existence and severity of the financial AI bubble

- the claimed efficacy of AI in terms of its utility vs the actual observed utility

- whether the net good provided by AI outweighs its very heavy costs

I find the section of listing a bunch of selected "predictions" and just saying "Wrong" to elucidate very little. Not that a sentence is sufficient to provide explanation, but Dan stops even doing that bare minimum partway through and just saying "Wrong" full-stop. The reasoning is left up to the reader I guess?

How is it wrong? What was the actual thesis behind it? Is the underlying idea wrong or just the specifics on execution? Was there undetermined factors that mled to the wrong prediction? What can we learn from those factors in order to update our model?

We saw that even though the underlying financials in 2008 were trash and lots of people knew they were trash, things didn't quite collapse in the time frame or way we expected, because an unknown part is how much shenanigans companies can do to extend the runway.

As an example, credit ratings agencies didn't drop ratings to match reality because of customer relation incentives, which is a factor that is not easy to account for and strongly affects the timing of the collapse.

I find the positive reactions to this blog to be confusing. I feel like I learned nothing at all, which makes sense considering under "why write this?" he says "I got four hours of sleep and my brain wasn't good for much of anything and I saw someone posted a screenshot of a reddit post dunking on Ed Zitron's prediction record."

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

#763

Post by agsgf »

RandomLensman wrote: post #758
johnbarron wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

What do you mean by "take down Bear Stearns"? Btw., projections are just that - projections and I am not sure Acemoglu proved things mathematical (as in a mathematical proof) but rather within the context of a model/assumptions. That financial markets/innovation can outpace the actual innovation is also not some new insight, but that alone doesn't necessarily make for a useful prediction.

Bear Stearns was the first bank to collapse in the 2007-2008 subprime mortgage crisis, also known as the housing bubble.

That bubble was also manufactured by reckless financial engineers.

And those who warned early were ridiculed:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/who-is-nouri...

"When he spoke of an impending housing crash at the International Monetary Fund that year, the audience chuckled, the New York Times reported."

'"He sounded like a madman in 2006," IMF economist Prakash Loungani told the Times, after inviting Roubini to the IMF conference that year. "He was a prophet when he returned in 2007."'

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

#764

Post by philipwhiuk »

GaryBluto wrote: post #432

I've come to see Ed Zitron's dramatic predictions as reminiscent of a trend I noticed on YouTube a while back; Whenever you'd look up anything pertaining to China's future, you'd inevitably find your screen plastered wall to wall with thumbnails of a photoshopped Xi Jinping, tears streaming down his face, next to large impact font text reading "CHINA WILL COLLAPSE IN X DAYS", with X varying from 1 to 30. Much like Ed…

Or Trump/Fox saying the Iran special military operation will be over in X days? Or Putin/Russia saying the Ukraine special military operation will be over in X days?

Let's not pretend they didn't get it from somewhere.

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

#765

Post by locallost »

Thank you. It's difficult to call Zitron right or wrong because he is merely grabbing the attention and clicks of AI sceptics and people afraid of any change. Patrick Boyle is another example with his constant stream of everything is broken videos, from AI to EVs.

I am not all in on AI, but the discussion requires nuance. Zitron does not have it because he is interested in attention and not discussion. The article deconstructs his antics really well. So again thank you. I really appreciated this part

> To make the case that these things are dying, he pulls on minor issues that are not positioned to cause the very large changes he suggests are about to occur. For Meta, he cited some kind of alleged MAU drop for Facebook. Rather than use Meta's own MAU figures or any kind of revenue or profit numbers, he seems to have used numbers from Similarweb. My experience with 3rd party tracking numbers like this is that they're quite inaccurate and generally useless for anything other than a rough order of magnitude comparison, making the Zitron's cited decline meaningless. FB stopped reporting MAU publicly in December 2023, but most estimates have FB MAU increasing over time and the numbers Meta does report show generally increasing usage over time for their products; Zitron cherry-picked an outlier low estimate to make his point.

Yes he is a classic cherry picker.

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

#766

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

DonsDiscountGas wrote: post #162

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 imagine an Ed Zitron in 1840 arguing that trains and steam engines are useless - or even a scam - because railroad investment was a bubble (which it was).

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

#767

Post by philipwhiuk »

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…

On that basis Musk and Altman should be ignored almost completely. Just because timelines are wrong doesn't make them not worth listening to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...

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

#768

Post by saberience »

reticulates wrote: post #567
chrisco255 wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of startups are not funded by OpenAI or Anthropic. They are not a significant source of venture capital. Meanwhile, OpenAI is pulling in $40B+ per year and Anthropic $65B+ per year. You are mixing up valuations with liquid cash and you're also making sweeping statements about how those startups are spending their cash. A majority of a raise is not spent on AI compute. Situational Awareness blew up b…

You’re applying pre-AI investing to a post-AI world. Yes, a decade ago, a startup raised money and spent 90% of it on people. The people built software which had incredible margins. Build it and then print money for ever more. That’s not the case any more, these startups no longer have incredible margins, they’re not collecting $100/m per user and banking $99 of it. They’re collecting $1000 and sending $999 of it to…

This is so completely wrong and deluded I’m not sure where to start.

I work with AI startups and scale ups on a regular basis as well as plenty of more old school companies, all of whom are spending money on AI models, because they are getting insane value from them.

This idea of the revenue for OAI and Anthropic coming from “circular financing” is just bizarre wishful thinking coming from AI doomers with zero financial literacy.

The revenue numbers reported by AI companies (not just OAI and Anthropic) isn’t being driven by Nvidia at all, in fact, the numbers wouldn’t add up if you thought that was the case. The revenue being brought in by AI companies is far, far higher than the sum of any investments from Nvidia.

The AI doomers just can’t handle the idea that AI is actually incredibly valuable and every company is using it and increasing their use of it every month.

And yes, I see this every day in my job and with every company I work with.

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

#769

Post by root-parent »

mschuster91 wrote: post #740
johnbarron wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 just…

On interest rates I guess this is one of the concerns:

"AI “definitely is, in the short and medium run, a force that increases both natural rates and potentially price pressures,” Arellano said. But other shifting pieces of the U.S. economy appear to be significantly offsetting the effect of AI investment, for now. If accelerating AI investment were to outpace the residential slowdown—or if rates were to fall and residential investment rebound—spiking aggregate investment would mean strong demand and even more upward pressure on rates."

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2026/how-is-ai-influe...

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

#770

Post by iamacyborg »

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

Now look at what’s happening in the bond markets
Post reply on HN