AI is too expensive • Hacker News Board

Re: AI is too expensive

#161

Post by ant_li0n » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

dw_arthur wrote: post #109

Analemma_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said this in the last Ed Zitron article too, but it's more than just having an axe or grind or acting in bad faith (though those are both true as well). He's a completely standard example of audience capture: there's huge demand right now for "AI is a scam" takes, fulfilling that demand is how he makes his living, and he can't abandon it without losing his audience no matter what the facts on the ground do. All he…

I don't understand his audience still being in denial about what is coming. There may not be a job apocalypse but there is a decent chance tough times are ahead. Eventually, his audience may turn into outright Luddites. If that happens I sort of hope they don't stop at data centers/AI and go for the whole project of the Internet.

Yeah I don't disagree with him on a lot of the substance, but it's more about the tone of his writing (there's like 20+ exclamation marks in that article). Listening to his podcast, he is even more insufferable. It just has a feeling of "preaching to the choir", and as the parent commenter stated, it gives you a feeling that he is following where the wind is blowing.

I dunno, I guess I just don't like him.

Re: AI is too expensive

#162

Post by lucketone » Fri, May 22, 2026, 6:44 AM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #158

lucketone wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Track record would matter if we would need to trust him. (E.g. he knows some hidden insider data which stays secret, while he shares only a conclusion without must justification) Track record is not relevant if it is a prediction with all the arguments laid out in the open. Which is our situation closer to?

Facts can be cherry picked. As an example of Ed's stuff see: >Anthropic Is Bleeding Out ...Anthropic is very likely losing money on every single Claude Code customer, and based on my analysis, appears to be losing hundreds or even thousands of dollars per customer. (Ed, 10 months ago) https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropic-is-bleeding-out/ vs >Mind-Blowing Growth Is About to Propel Anthropic Into Its First Profitable…

> expects

Is bearing a lot load here.

It is a press release with a goal to create hype.

I.e. it has no relation to “facts”

… unless they would also share underlying numbers (e.g. cost/profit per customer, and why they think some things will increase)

Re: AI is too expensive

#163

Post by voidstitch » Mon, May 25, 2026, 7:51 AM UTC

luk212 wrote: post #80

A lot of the current AI economics seems to depend on three assumptions being true at once: 1. inference costs fall fast enough 2. usage grows into very large recurring revenue 3. customers don't cut once handed the bill We should draw a distinction between "AI is valuable" and "AI justifies its current investment levels." There's real productivity value in AI, especially for things like search, boilerplate, tests, re…

[flagged]

Re: AI is too expensive

#164

Post by elcapithanos » Wed, May 27, 2026, 6:30 AM UTC

czhu12 wrote: post #36

I really respected Ed Zitron, but I feel like he's very much lost the plot on AI. Scroll back not too far and he was publishing criticisms that no one wants to spend actual money AI. Anthropic has shattered all notions of that since then. Then there was the idea that even if people want it, we have way too much GPU capacity to ever be saturated. Now almost all providers are hitting limits. Now, its the next iteration…

why does it sound like the crux of your argument against Ed is "why is he evolving his position"? Are we supposed to respect someone less for not being dogmatic and holding onto an opinion against mounting evidence?

Re: AI is too expensive

#165

Post by bauldursdev » Wed, May 27, 2026, 7:43 PM UTC

ragall wrote: post #150

bauldursdev wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really an AI-futurist or anything, I think the truth is between the extremes, but it seems like a lot of people who are ideologically against AI just move the goal posts whenever a new development is made. They also seem to operate under the assumption that whatever the current state of the technology is is as good as it will ever be. "it can't even do x today, so it'll never be good".

You mean just like all AI maximalists that keep pushing the date of AGI to anywhere between "next year" and "10 years from now" ?

Yeah it's the same thing. No shortage of uninformed opinions on each side (not like I know WTF is going to happen, but at least I don't go around presenting my uninformed beliefs as fact).