Offtopic - The success of coding agents must be Ed Zitron's nightmare. He has been a perpetual bear
Ed Zitron loses his mind annotating an AI doomer macro memo
101–110 of 130 posts
Re: Ed Zitron loses his mind annotating an AI doomer macro memo
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a point and click code machine, but it's laughably wrong to say they just churn out laughably wrong code.
Half of developers are below average. Half of developers say that the code Ai produces is amazing. Would you like a venn diagram?
Re: Ed Zitron loses his mind annotating an AI doomer macro memo
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you actually read the articles he made going through the finances of these companies? He definitely has a bone to pick, but his numbers don't lie. The amount of return these AIs need to give due to the amount of spend is so ridiculous that unless they really do automate most jobs, they're screwed. There's a reason these companies only post AI revenue now, not profit.
Bubble doomerism is nothing novel. As is always the case, he's right vertically and wrong horizontally. Serious people in serious publications still speculated that the internet was a fad and would be over soon as late as 2008. OpenAI will collapse, almost certainly. Anthropic might get by if they can make it to IPO before it all comes tumbling down. Google will buy up all the datacenters in a fire sale like they did…
Rare opportunity for me to actually downplay frontier AI for a change. We can do a lot better. I think the next 6 months will be a stream of releases that shall leave all the current models in the dust. Opus 4.6 will be no more relevant than 3.5 Sonnet.
If this is the case, all bubble talk will have to be re-evaluated.
Re: Ed Zitron loses his mind annotating an AI doomer macro memo
#104I've also heard Cory Doctorow recently offer a similarly dismissive view, describing AI as "just statistics".
> I've also heard Cory Doctorow recently offer a similarly dismissive view, describing AI as "just statistics". Well, AI partisans have applied grandiose terms like "thinking," "intelligence," and "soul" to these machines. It's not wrong to push back and remind people what they really are.
So I guess we all agree, except that some people think "just statistics" is derogatory phrasing!
Re: Ed Zitron loses his mind annotating an AI doomer macro memo
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've also heard Cory Doctorow recently offer a similarly dismissive view, describing AI as "just statistics". Well, AI partisans have applied grandiose terms like "thinking," "intelligence," and "soul" to these machines. It's not wrong to push back and remind people what they really are.
Well, if you look into the current scientific consensus on human cognition, our intelligence is also "just statistics." So I guess we all agree, except that some people think "just statistics" is derogatory phrasing!
Re: Ed Zitron loses his mind annotating an AI doomer macro memo
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It could be that OpenAI is subsidising their models by _fifty times_. Do you really think they are doing that? Possibly. I don't know. It could be unfeasible to increase prices so much whenever a new model was released. Any assumption made here is based on vibes. I see no reason to drop my skepticism. > Its easier to just admit that technological advances helped decrease the cost instead of coming up with more comp…
>It could be unfeasible to increase prices so much whenever a new model was released. This means you have no idea what I have been saying. A new model is costlier, but they release mini versions of old models that are way cheaper and compete with older models. GPT 5 mini is way cheaper than GPT 4 but around the same performance GPT-5 mini: Input tokens: ~$0.25 per 1 M Cached input: ~$0.025 per 1 M Output tokens: ~$2…
If that's the truth, then originally they were subsidizing their models by the same factors.
This is not a great argument no matter how you cut it. And even then I would need to see evidence that this is true.
> all the investors are stupid and they still invest in openai despite unprofitability
Much to the opposite, those people are very smart. OpenAI can be extremely unprofitable and they can still profit massively through an exit event.
> employees of openai and anthropic who have claimed that the unit costs are not high are also lying
Possibly? Especially if they are in the position to profit in the case of an exit event, they would have every incentive to paint a rosier picture about the company.
> all other providers are in on the lie
I have no idea who you are talking about.
> the chinese models like Deepseek is also in on the lie by posting research that is not plausible
As I previously stated, I have no idea if Deepseek is profitable. By the looks of things, neither do you. Mentioning Deepseek's research is a non-sequitur.
> the fact that you can run models in your laptop today that beat previous years models is also not enough
This has no bearing on the cost of inference.
Re: Ed Zitron loses his mind annotating an AI doomer macro memo
#107I've started to feel like Ed Zitron is actively hurting people I care about. I'm lucky to have worked in the field for a long time, and be able to spend a lot of tokens. In the last month it's become clear to me that the tech works. The science is done, and what's left is engineering. There are a lot of risks and mitigations and theory to build, but it's all solvable. The tech isn't mature, but neither was the Intern…
And let it be clear that nobody is being "actively hurt" by legitimate economic/business grievances. This is victim-blaming and disgusting rhetoric.
Re: Ed Zitron loses his mind annotating an AI doomer macro memo
#108Here goes:
The Epoch data everyone keeps citing measures the price per token charged to API customers. That's the sticker price. It tells you nothing about whether the business is viable, because the existential risk for AI companies isn't the marginal cost of running a query. It's the upfront capital expenditure on chips and datacenters, committed years before you know what demand looks like.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei spelled this out in his Dwarkesh interview. Here's the short version: 1. Data centers take 1-2 years to build out. 2. Each gigawatt costs roughly $10-15B per year. 3. The industry is currently at ~10-15 GW, scaling roughly 3x annually. 4. By 2028, ~100 GW. By 2029, ~300 GW. 5. We're talking multiple trillions per year in committed infrastructure spend across the industry.
Now NVIDIA's Q4 earnings [1], which printed today: 1. $68.1B in quarterly revenue, $62.3B from data center alone. 2. Full-year: $215.9B, up 65% YoY. Guiding $78B next quarter. 3. Someone is writing those checks. Those checks are not refundable.
Dario, who believes we're 1-3 years from a "country of geniuses in a data center," described his own demand prediction as a "hellish" problem.
His exact framing: If this revenue comes in at $800B instead of $1T, "there's no force on earth, there's no hedge on earth" that could stop him from going bankrupt if he'd bought compute at the higher projection.
He's at ~$10B annualized revenue today, and he won't commit to buying at the scale his own thesis demands, because being off by a single year is fatal.
This is the actual argument (I'm not saying this is Ed's argument, but this is the argument against these companies). Not "inference tokens are expensive."
The argument is structural: these companies must pre-commit billions in non-recoverable CAPEX based on demand projections that are, by the CEO's own admission, a coin flip.
The gross margins on serving tokens might be great. But the training spend for next-gen models grows exponentially, and it has to be funded before that model earns a dollar.
The Epoch chart measures what customers pay per token. It doesn't measure the $215.9B NVIDIA invoice those customers collectively funded this year, or that these chip purchases are one-way bets against future demand that may or may not materialize.
Inference costs going down 20x is wonderful for consumers. It tells you almost nothing about whether the companies making those chips, or the companies buying them, will survive the demand prediction gauntlet.
And if we're being honest, the Epoch data showing 9x to 900x price drops per year should make you more nervous, not less, because it means the asset you bought last year is depreciating at a rate that makes used cars look like gold bars.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1E9IZfvGMA&t=2298s [1] https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-announces-financia...
Re: Ed Zitron loses his mind annotating an AI doomer macro memo
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Search is currently unavailable when logged out"
He has this thing where he tries to involve people in his ABDL roleplay without consent.
You guys spent a decade crying wolf about how everything is literally sexual assault and now you wonder why conservatives are being so successful cracking down on sexual deviance using fabricated accusations. You reap what you sow.
Re: Ed Zitron loses his mind annotating an AI doomer macro memo
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've also heard Cory Doctorow recently offer a similarly dismissive view, describing AI as "just statistics". Well, AI partisans have applied grandiose terms like "thinking," "intelligence," and "soul" to these machines. It's not wrong to push back and remind people what they really are.
Well, if you look into the current scientific consensus on human cognition, our intelligence is also "just statistics." So I guess we all agree, except that some people think "just statistics" is derogatory phrasing!