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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by scared_together »

rtpg wrote: post #966
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…

I think this is a legit read about the utility. > why should predictors be so coddled by their observers? I suppose that in the RIM example the predictor correctly identified causes and concerns. The timelines are off. But highlighting the causes are interesting to me, as a datapoint. If someone says "hey there's a problem here", you can somewhat independently look at the problem and validate its seriousness on your…

If the causal analysis is the real value, then it could be presented without a prediction, or at least without a specific prediction.

In 2024, if Ed Zitron presented all his analysis of AI companies without the specific “model capabilities have peaked this year” style statements that Dan Luu scrutinized, that would be more honest and provide the value you are looking for.

Similarly for the RIM example nobody would have to claim that RIM would fail in a particular year, or that “RIM is cooked”, they could present their data about the present without any projection.

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

#972

Post by 6510 »

My take would be that people have no idea what is going on today, as time expires history drifts further away from clueless to the absurd... and now you want to do the future? Whatever you say, we should at least completely ignore what your audience wants to hear. Whatever is left could be correct but only by accident. This is what the future will be like... or wait...

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

#973

Post by tccole »

zahlman wrote: post #960
tccole wrote: post #867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree with your conclusion. It’s like Michael Burry, he’s gotten 10 of the last 2 economic crashes right.

How many people in the financial space recognized Burry's name before 2008?

Pretty much none, but he’s been saying the sky is falling for the last decade.

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

#974

Post by fulafel »

sdenton4 wrote: post #673
fulafel wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought in the post Ed was being evaluated based on all his predictions, and it turned out all of them were wrong. Most people will read the post as going over all the falsifiable predictions and none of them panning out, since after the chronological prediction list it says "After this point, most further predictions that I saw were either non-falsifiable or resolve in the future". If Dan is reading maybe he can c…

The list is chronological; as it nears the present, the predictions actually refer to the future, and are thus not yet resolved.

Yes it's chronological but no it doesn't have unresolved items nearer the present:

The last 5 ones in the list read "Wrong" and seem reasonable. The first thing after the list is "After this point, most further predictions that I saw were either non-falsifiable or resolve in the future".

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

#975

Post by jesterson »

simonw wrote: post #3

> For any of his posts that I read, while there are numbers thrown around, the numbers don't actually connect to a coherent argument. In many cases, as we saw above, the numbers don't even really support his argument (such as an MAU decline in Facebook causing Meta financial problems which would then cause Meta to spuriously insert AI in places it doesn't belong). I suspect he's relying on people's eyes glazing over…

> gets hold of leaked numbers that nobody else has, for example - but he then wraps those numbers in his own extremely biased commentary.

You can think of yourself and draw your own conclusions (or we have completely lost the aptitude since "ai" started off?). You don't have to agree with Ed, or even follow his conclusions.

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

#976

Post by aurareturn »

thoughtpeddler wrote: post #897
aurareturn wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ed Zitron is a grifter. Period. I highly doubt he believes any of the stuff he writes himself. He plays a role in society which is the role that tells people AI is going to fail so those who don't participate in or benefit from AI feel better. They sign up to his subscriptions and pay him money to confirm their own bias. If you look at the sub reddit r/betteroffline where these people gather and worship Zitron, most…

Doesn't it say something about our society that (a) it's known (at least among smart people, however 'smart' is defined) that AI is going to take away jobs, and (b) the way its treated is that people gather to online discussion forums to worship someone saying the thing that will replace their jobs isn't going to do it (but in actuality, eventually will)? In other words, who's actually doing anything to help the peop…

Why do you think there is no one or nothing that is helping people who lose their jobs?

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

#977

Post by simonw »

jesterson wrote: post #975
simonw wrote: post #3

> For any of his posts that I read, while there are numbers thrown around, the numbers don't actually connect to a coherent argument. In many cases, as we saw above, the numbers don't even really support his argument (such as an MAU decline in Facebook causing Meta financial problems which would then cause Meta to spuriously insert AI in places it doesn't belong). I suspect he's relying on people's eyes glazing over…

> gets hold of leaked numbers that nobody else has, for example - but he then wraps those numbers in his own extremely biased commentary. You can think of yourself and draw your own conclusions (or we have completely lost the aptitude since "ai" started off?). You don't have to agree with Ed, or even follow his conclusions.

Like I said, "This makes it much harder to evaluate how credible the new information is."

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

#978

Post by unsupp0rted »

pydry wrote: post #830
unsupp0rted wrote: post #827

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.

I'm invested because I "know" it'll pop and I also "know" it'll eventually work and revolutionize everything.

What do I have to lose? I'm just going to get decrepit and die anyway if it doesn't work out.

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

#979

Post by kennywinker »

stymaar wrote: post #708
kennywinker wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. If it happens on Sep 2nd 2027 you'd be wrong though.

Next 12 months: Oct 2026, Nov 2026, Dec 2026, Jan 2027, Feb 2027, Mar 2027, Apr 2027, May 2027, Jun 2027, Jul 2027, Aug 2027, Sep 2027.

So, if we're being pedantic, I'm not wrong until Oct 1st 2027 or later. But I'm also wrong if it happens this month ;)

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

#980

Post by jesterson »

simonw wrote: post #977
jesterson wrote: post #975

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gets hold of leaked numbers that nobody else has, for example - but he then wraps those numbers in his own extremely biased commentary. You can think of yourself and draw your own conclusions (or we have completely lost the aptitude since "ai" started off?). You don't have to agree with Ed, or even follow his conclusions.

Like I said, "This makes it much harder to evaluate how credible the new information is."

I still fail to see the problem here. If you disagree with numbers / conclusions he makes, I would be happy to hear/read your opinion on that (no sarcasm at all).

It makes me a bit concerned seeing how many people say oh he is this and that so I wouldn't even read or help him. For G'ds sake, what happened to healthy discussions? If you disagree, lets just share opinions and let people judge. But if we just recuse ourselves from it, it will let opinions unchallenged.

Post reply on HN