5 ms·

In late 2021, Ed Zitron wrote (on Twitter) that the future of all work was "work from home" and that no one would ever work in an office again. I responded: "I

In late 2021, Ed Zitron wrote (on Twitter) that the future of all work was "work from home" and that no one would ever work in an office again. I responded: "In the past, most companies have had processes geared towards office work. Covid-19 has forced these companies to re-gear their processes to handle external workers. Now that the companies have invested in these changed processes, they are finding it easier to outsource work to Brazil or India. Here in New York City, I am seeing an uptick in outsourcing. The work that remains in the USA will likely continue to be office-based because the work that can be done 100% remotely will likely go over seas." He responded: "Pee pee poo poo aaaaaaaaaaa peeeeee peeeeee poop poop poop." I don't know if he was taking drugs or what. I find his persona on Twitter to be baffling.

thereitgoes456 1y ago
He was wryly communicating, "your argument was so stupid I don't even need to engage with it". In my experience he has a horrible response to criticism. He's right on the AI stuff, but he responds to both legitimate and illegitimate feedback without much thoughtfulness, usually non-sequitur redirect or ad hominem. In his defense though, I expect 97% of feedback he gets is Sam Altman glazers, and he must be tired.
- tptacek 1y ago
  Is he right on the AI stuff? Like, on the OpenAI company stuff he could be? I don't know? But on the technology? He really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    > But on the technology? He really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. That puts him roughly on-par with everyone who isn't Gerganov or Karpathy.
- nemothekid 1y ago
  He's right on the AI stuff? How do you figure that? As far as I can tell, OpenAI is still operating. It sounds like you agree with him on the AI stuff, but he could be wrong, just like how he was wrong about remote work. I'm actually more inclined to believe he's wrong if he gets so defensive about criticism. That tells me he's more focused on protecting his ego than actually uncovering the truth.
  - JohnMakin 1y ago
    The fact that OpenAI is still operating and the argument that it is completely unsustainable are not two incompatible things.
    - nemothekid 1y ago
      Wether or not OpenAI is sustainable or not is only a question that can be answered in hindsight. If OpenAI is still around in 10 years, in the same sort of capacity, does OP become retroactively wrong? My point is, you can agree that OpenAI is unsustainable, but it's not clear to me that is a decided fact, rather than an open conjecture. And if someone is making that decision from a place of ego, I have greater reason to believe that they didn't reason themselves into that position.
      - JohnMakin 1y ago
        The fact they are not currently even close to profitable with ever increasing costs and the sobering scaling realities there is something you could consider, and if you do believe they are sustainable, then you would have to believe (in my opinion, unlikely scenarios) they will somehow become sustainable, which is also a conjecture. Seems a little unreasonable to point out “they are still around” as a refutation of the claim they aren’t sustainable when, in fact, the moment the investment money faucet keeping them alive is turned off they collapse and very quickly.
      - johnnienaked 1y ago
        No, it's a question answerable now. If you're losing twice as much money as you're making, the end of your company is an inescapable fact unless you turn that trend around. What Zitron points out, correctly, is that there currently exists no narrative beyond wishful thinking which explains how that reversal will manifest.
karel-3d 1y ago
I generally don't agree with him on much; it's just nobody really talks about how much money those companies burn, and are expected to burn, in bigger perspective. For me 10 billion, 100 billion and 1 trillion are all very abstract numbers - until you show much unreal 1 trillion is.
- tim333 1y ago
  It helps if you divide by the world population. Say ~10bn for this purpose so that's $1, $10 or $100 per head roughly.
Andrex 1y ago
> "Pee pee poo poo aaaaaaaaaaa peeeeee peeeeee poop poop poop." Attach your name to this publicly, and you're a clown. I don't know why the world started listening to clowns and taking them seriously, when their personas are crafted to be non-serious on purpose. Like I said, clowns.

thereitgoes456 1y ago

He was wryly communicating, "your argument was so stupid I don't even need to engage with it". In my experience he has a horrible response to criticism. He's right on the AI stuff, but he responds to both legitimate and illegitimate feedback without much thoughtfulness, usually non-sequitur redirect or ad hominem. In his defense though, I expect 97% of feedback he gets is Sam Altman glazers, and he must be tired.

tptacek 1y ago
Is he right on the AI stuff? Like, on the OpenAI company stuff he could be? I don't know? But on the technology? He really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  > But on the technology? He really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. That puts him roughly on-par with everyone who isn't Gerganov or Karpathy.
nemothekid 1y ago
He's right on the AI stuff? How do you figure that? As far as I can tell, OpenAI is still operating. It sounds like you agree with him on the AI stuff, but he could be wrong, just like how he was wrong about remote work. I'm actually more inclined to believe he's wrong if he gets so defensive about criticism. That tells me he's more focused on protecting his ego than actually uncovering the truth.
- JohnMakin 1y ago
  The fact that OpenAI is still operating and the argument that it is completely unsustainable are not two incompatible things.
  - nemothekid 1y ago
    Wether or not OpenAI is sustainable or not is only a question that can be answered in hindsight. If OpenAI is still around in 10 years, in the same sort of capacity, does OP become retroactively wrong? My point is, you can agree that OpenAI is unsustainable, but it's not clear to me that is a decided fact, rather than an open conjecture. And if someone is making that decision from a place of ego, I have greater reason to believe that they didn't reason themselves into that position.
    - JohnMakin 1y ago
      The fact they are not currently even close to profitable with ever increasing costs and the sobering scaling realities there is something you could consider, and if you do believe they are sustainable, then you would have to believe (in my opinion, unlikely scenarios) they will somehow become sustainable, which is also a conjecture. Seems a little unreasonable to point out “they are still around” as a refutation of the claim they aren’t sustainable when, in fact, the moment the investment money faucet keeping them alive is turned off they collapse and very quickly.
    - johnnienaked 1y ago
      No, it's a question answerable now. If you're losing twice as much money as you're making, the end of your company is an inescapable fact unless you turn that trend around. What Zitron points out, correctly, is that there currently exists no narrative beyond wishful thinking which explains how that reversal will manifest.

karel-3d 1y ago

I generally don't agree with him on much; it's just nobody really talks about how much money those companies burn, and are expected to burn, in bigger perspective. For me 10 billion, 100 billion and 1 trillion are all very abstract numbers - until you show much unreal 1 trillion is.

tim333 1y ago
It helps if you divide by the world population. Say ~10bn for this purpose so that's $1, $10 or $100 per head roughly.

Andrex 1y ago

> "Pee pee poo poo aaaaaaaaaaa peeeeee peeeeee poop poop poop." Attach your name to this publicly, and you're a clown. I don't know why the world started listening to clowns and taking them seriously, when their personas are crafted to be non-serious on purpose. Like I said, clowns.