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

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821

Post by reticulates »

tjoff wrote: post #815
reticulates wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re: substituting with cheaper models. I think some people here are oblivious to how much of Anthropic and OpenAI’s usage is artificial. Take this one example of a user with 15 Codex subscriptions ($3k) generating $60k in API-equivalent usage per month: https://hraness.com/writing/my-girlfriend-asked-me-why-i-hav... “there’s a once in a lifetime discount happening at the OpenAI Intelligence Depot, and I brought 15 sho…

Why do everyone assume they are subsidized? When we seemingly have no idea what it costs? Maybe average subscription is breaking even and token spend is pretty much pure profit? Case in point, claude code seems hell bent on increasing usage at all cost. Which makes sense in the growing phase (get people hooked) but it does not make sense given the hardware shortage. So, which is it?

Anthropic admitted last year to losing money on inference, it had negative margins. The margins have improved and are now positive but there’s still a significant cost. If plans aren’t being subsidized it would mean that the margin on inference is ~99%+ which would mean OpenAI and Anthropic should be wildly profitable but both are still losing money. So, it’s mathematically impossible that they’re not subsidizing plans.

The most widely accepted estimates (though I disagree with them) are that Anthropic’s margin on API inference is ~70% from which people extrapolate what their token usage would cost via the API and compare that to what their plan costs.

https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/anthropic-3q26-profit-...

(edit: better link https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/anthropic-growth-and-b...)

re: increasing usage with resets, it’s because they’ve overblown usage and need to show that usage is growing ahead of the IPO. They’re increasing usage on fixed price plans without increasing the cost, the only plausible explanation is they have unused capacity. If they were capacity constrained then the last thing they would do is give away more usage for free.

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

#822

Post by pydry »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #790
coldtea wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can do that, but then you’re no longer discussing his predictions. You’re discussing your predictions, and your own positioning. Depends if you care about the "prediction" part or if you care about the assessment of the situation (regardless of date). If someone in 2000 said "the subprime mortgages market is a bubble and will blow no later than 2003", they got the prediction wrong, but their assessment would be…

Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. You can say "AI will be able to _____" and be right 99.9 times out of 100, but the question is when. You can say "The AI market will go to 0" and be at least directionally right eventually. But none of it matters if you get the timing wrong.

>Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything.

I dont think Zitron has predicted anything 5 years too early. 1 or 2 at the outside is probably the limit.

I remember during the original internet boom the people who were given the most shit were the ones who predicted the bubble popping a year or two early.

Zitron fits quite neatly in this category: most of the predictions of his Ive seen that are "wrong" are things which could still happen and things where he gave wrong timelines.

Realistically identifying a bubble and the stupidity associated with it just requires an ability to do the research and see through bullshit. identifying even roughly when it will pop really needs a crystal ball. Mass human delusions do not collapse in a predictable way.

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

#823

Post by xgulfie »

xgulfie wrote: post #390
solid_fuel wrote: post #280

I would be interested in seeing a similar list of predictions from Altman, Amodei, etc with annotations about how many have come true. Ed Zitron is a blow hard and frequently overstates things to the point where it is hard to take seriously, but so are the AI industry leaders. I have heard multiple breathless press releases warning that the end of white collar work is "just 6 months away" and that people not using th…

Here's an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...

I'm curious about why this got downvotes for literally answering the question

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

#824

Post by randallsquared »

emp17344 wrote: post #429
mvdtnz wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever listened to Zitron speak? He's not exactly the type to hedge his predictions behind careful language about how hard predictions are. He makes every one of these predictions with absolute confidence and conviction.

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

Predictions being hard is what makes them valuable as a check on insight and accuracy!

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

#825

Post by jen729w »

noobermin wrote: post #732
jen729w wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I was thinking about this as I walked earlier.

People who "make predictions" are like psychics. Unless those predications are uncannily good – in which case we call that person an analyst – we can assume that the person is either wilfully lying, or that they're stupid.

Ed's predictions have so far failed to come true. I don't think he's stupid (but I might be wrong). That leaves me feeling like he's the psychic who knows exactly what they're doing. They're telling a gullible audience a story they want to hear because it's a nice way to earn a living.

Comparing him to the CEOs of companies who produce incredibly useful products used by millions is facile nonsense.

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

#826

Post by unsupp0rted »

pydry wrote: post #822
unsupp0rted wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. You can say "AI will be able to _____" and be right 99.9 times out of 100, but the question is when. You can say "The AI market will go to 0" and be at least directionally right eventually. But none of it matters if you get the timing wrong.

>Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. I dont think Zitron has predicted anything 5 years too early. 1 or 2 at the outside is probably the limit. I remember during the original internet boom the people who were given the most shit were the ones who predicted the bubble popping a year or two early. Zitron fits quite neatly in this category: most of the predictions of his I…

My recollection is a couple years before it popped everybody (except tech CEOs going public or investing tens of millions in dog food delivery infrastructure) was in disbelief it hadn't happened yet

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

#827

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #804
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I've noticed is that since LLMs came out, scientific papers with poor English have essentially disappeared. Just one of the many ways that AI is changing the world. People are using AI in all kinds of fields.

Oh c’mon. You must be trolling. Great, now we have have scientific papers with formally correct English, but data and sources of which are fabricated and most of the paragraphs are utter nonsense. And publications are drowning on these. Oh thanks for changing the world!

AI has been great for scientific research. It writes code, it can help solve difficult mathematical problems, you can bounce ideas off of it, you can learn background info on a scientific question quickly, etc.

I haven't noticed any uptick of trash papers in quality journals, or even on the arXiv. I know submissions are way up to all the journals, but peer review appears to still be working to filter out obvious junk.

And yes, papers being written in understandable English is important. Most scientists around the world are not native speakers of English, and now they can all suddenly write in perfect English.

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

#828

Post by knaeckeKami »

huurtehoog wrote: post #819

Every transaction in the financial market is a bet with two sides with opposite beliefs. I don't get why people make such a big deal off bears and bulls. Everyone is on one of these sides at every investment they make or liquidate.

Zitron does not seem to put his own skin in the game by going short though - He sells bearishness via his substack, podcasts and media appearances.

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

#829

Post by pydry »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #826
pydry wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Predicting things 5 years too early is often as useless as not predicting anything. I dont think Zitron has predicted anything 5 years too early. 1 or 2 at the outside is probably the limit. I remember during the original internet boom the people who were given the most shit were the ones who predicted the bubble popping a year or two early. Zitron fits quite neatly in this category: most of the predictions of his I…

My recollection is a couple years before it popped everybody (except tech CEOs going public or investing tens of millions in dog food delivery infrastructure) was in disbelief it hadn't happened yet

yeah I also remember a lot of talk about the bubble for 18 months to 2 years before it actually popped.

i think we're in that (quite long) stage with AI right now where most halfway smart people "know" but they're still invested due to the greater fool theory and still talking their book.

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

#830

Post by ayden93638 »

pydry wrote: post #829
unsupp0rted wrote: post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My recollection is a couple years before it popped everybody (except tech CEOs going public or investing tens of millions in dog food delivery infrastructure) was in disbelief it hadn't happened yet

yeah I also remember a lot of talk about the bubble for 18 months to 2 years before it actually popped. i think we're in that (quite long) stage with AI right now where most halfway smart people "know" but they're still invested due to the greater fool theory and still talking their book.

[dead]
Post reply on HN