6 ms·

Didn't Ben Evans previously shill for bitcoin, which is now omitted in the graphs for "disruptive technologies"? This is a marketing Gish Gallop talk that pret

by 2817635 5mo ago

Didn't Ben Evans previously shill for bitcoin, which is now omitted in the graphs for "disruptive technologies"? This is a marketing Gish Gallop talk that pretends to invalidate counterarguments with a couple of fantasy graphs.

benedictevans 5mo ago
[flagged]
- tovej 5mo ago
  Why do you need this persons name?
  - adamtaylor_13 5mo ago
    The implication is that it's a bot saying this, not a person.
    - tovej 5mo ago
      Doesn't seem like a bot, and even if it were, the critique is germane. Calling for a name is a little threatening.
      - benedictevans 5mo ago
        Looking at a 80 slide deck and saying that the charts are 'fantasies' is not a germane criticism at all. it's handwaving.
        tovej 5mo ago
        One of the graphs has two series: net revenue for one company, gross revenue for another. Absolutely ridiculous. And that's just one example. You also haven't adjusted for inflation in your graphs that span multiple decades. Not to mention that the graphs themselves are not related to what you're discussing most of the time. You're just pointing at random historical developments and seemingly claiming they imply something for AI. They don't. Also you don't name your sources. You just say "Companies" for most of them. Or a single name. Ridiculous. Those are not sources. You should identify the documents. This is incredibly low quality work. A college freshman would do better.
        benedictevans 5mo ago
        All of these points are simply wrong. I charted the revenue reported by Anthropic and OpenAI as gross and net because those are the numbers they disclose. Anthropic does not report net revenue nor give us any way to calculate that, and the same in reverse for OpenAI. It would be great if we had GAAP revenue, but we don't. This is what we have, and it still tells an important story. What are we supposed to do - just not show the data? All of the charts indicate whether they are adjusted for inflation. There is no rigid convention on this, but the general practice is that you don't adjust up to maybe 20 years and generally do convert for more than that, unless inflation itself is under discussion, which it is not here. Meanwhile, the text on each slide explains the purpose of the comparison. None of them are random. Every chart is correctly sourced exactly as you will see it in any other piece of financial or industry research. It is not industry practice to cite specific documents or provide footnotes. You've clearly just never seen any industry or financial analysis before, and are unfamiliar with basic and universal conventions that run back decades. That's fine. Being rude about it is not.
        tovej 5mo ago
        It is not industry practice to actually give the sources then? Just list vague names in a short "Sources:Companies" note? I now see the inflation indication as well. Which is not on the y-axis label, but in the "Sources:"-note. I will concede that. But what the hell my guy, why is it down there. If "financial analysis" is less rigid in sourcing requirements than grade school, what are you guys even doing. If you have the source, it's not very difficult to make a bibliography (or even write the year/publication with the author/publisher), and not doing so only serves to hinder the reader. If this is industry standard it means your entire industry is terrible at sourcing, does not want the reader to verify claims, or both. And I've also definitely seen financial slide decks with actual sources cited. So I'm inclined to hope there are people in your industry who actually respect the reader's time. Here's some more picks (and some more reasons you should list your sources): Your graphs based on surveys don't report error margins. You never list what a 100% is very precisely (what's the sample/population). In one graph, you don't label the y-axis at all (except for a 0 at the bottom)! And finally, I was rude, yes. But I was only matching your energy. And I did show constraint there. I didn't make a veiled threat, did I?
    - asrqwj 5mo ago
      No it isn't. The implication is that pro-AI people can take revenge. He knows he is secure with his opinions. He even paraphrases Andreesen's title "software will eat the world". He has repeatedly appeared at a16z. It is very secure to be pro-AI while the rest has to resort to unregistered typewriters like in the Soviet Union.
      - benedictevans 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        shruubi 5mo ago
        You are absolutely not a "random person on the internet", you are a very public figure with the wealth and influence available to you that could allow you to take revenge on someone who says something you don't like in real, life-altering ways. Now, I'm not saying that you would do that, but it is a shocking lack of self-awareness to think of yourself as a random person on the internet.
        benedictevans 5mo ago
        This is hilarious. What am I going to do? Hire a hitman? if you’re going be a dick on the Internet, you should be a dick using your real name. I don’t think that’s a threat.
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
- dwa3592 5mo ago
  not to be too pedantic but sourced doesn't usually mean accurate. sourced can very well be fantasy. it will be a 'sourced fantasy' in that case or hallucination if you used a LLM.
  - benedictevans 5mo ago
    Sure. So which chart does our anonymous coward think is a fantasy, and why?
- hansmayer 5mo ago
  Yeah, beyond this mumbo-jumbo non-answer of yours, did you or did you not push crypto? Because if you did...it could kind of not speak for your analytical competence.
  - benedictevans 5mo ago
    'these charts are fantasies' is a non-criticism from an anonymous moron. If there is an actual criticism of an actual point, make it. Back when people were interested in Blockchains, I explained why people in tech were interested. I'm happy to explain that again now, if anyone cared. If someone thinks that's bad, they're a fool.
    - hansmayer 5mo ago
      Blockchain as a technology was something a lot of people were interested in. I am curious about Bitcoin - the monopoly money of the real world. The questions was simple: did you, or did you not, promote Bitcoin? Anyone who would promote a fake, un-regulated "currency" would not be someone whose opinion I care about.
  - cindyllm 5mo ago
    [dead]
- tokai 5mo ago
  Hah wow, what a way to confirm what he posted.
- lorecore 5mo ago
  It is an indisputable fact that you spent years shilling crypto. Why even deny that or threaten(!) someone pointing it out? It was/is a huge, verifiable chunk of your public output.
  - benedictevans 5mo ago
    No, it's a really stupid lie. You can look at all my essays and presentations online. I've spent some time discussing why people are interested in blockchains as software platforms, and what would be good and bad arguments around that. But I've never suggested anyone buy a token - indeed, I was pretty vocal in pointing to speculative bubbles and silly ideas, like NFTs.
    - lorecore 5mo ago
      Here you go: https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2018/11/01/benedict-evans-cryptocurrencies/ https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2018/11/01/benedict-evans-cryptoc...
      - benedictevans 5mo ago
        Nope. This is the exact quote. Crypto today has a lot in common with both the internet in 1993 and the internet in 1999. Huge potential with few of the use cases invented yet, combined with froth, scams and delusion. This makes it easier to dismiss (“useless AND a scam!”). But dismissing crypto as a useless scam is much like looking at Usenet, Cuecat and Boo .com and dismissing the internet. It mistakes applications for the enabling layer. Looking at crypto and only seeing the scams is like looking at the internet in 1999 and only seeing the bubble. Looking at crypto and seeing no use cases is like looking at the internet in 1993, when the web was 3% of traffic Another parallel: 1993 - people complaining the term should be internets, not internet 2018 - people complaining 'that's not what crypto means' You could argue I was wrong and blockchain's potential never turned into anything much. It actually has become a huge deal as plumbing in the finance industry, but not much else. But so what? This was an interesting tech that hasn't really worked out. Welcome to the tech industry.
- grey-area 5mo ago
  Unflagged as I don't feel this comment deserves to be flagged. The call for reposting with a real name is unnecessary though - if an internet comment is incorrect or overstates the case, just reply to correct it or ignore it.

by 2817635 5mo ago

benedictevans 5mo ago

[flagged]

tovej 5mo ago
Why do you need this persons name?
- adamtaylor_13 5mo ago
  The implication is that it's a bot saying this, not a person.
  - tovej 5mo ago
    Doesn't seem like a bot, and even if it were, the critique is germane. Calling for a name is a little threatening.
    - benedictevans 5mo ago
      Looking at a 80 slide deck and saying that the charts are 'fantasies' is not a germane criticism at all. it's handwaving.
      - tovej 5mo ago
        One of the graphs has two series: net revenue for one company, gross revenue for another. Absolutely ridiculous. And that's just one example. You also haven't adjusted for inflation in your graphs that span multiple decades. Not to mention that the graphs themselves are not related to what you're discussing most of the time. You're just pointing at random historical developments and seemingly claiming they imply something for AI. They don't. Also you don't name your sources. You just say "Companies" for most of them. Or a single name. Ridiculous. Those are not sources. You should identify the documents. This is incredibly low quality work. A college freshman would do better.
        benedictevans 5mo ago
        All of these points are simply wrong. I charted the revenue reported by Anthropic and OpenAI as gross and net because those are the numbers they disclose. Anthropic does not report net revenue nor give us any way to calculate that, and the same in reverse for OpenAI. It would be great if we had GAAP revenue, but we don't. This is what we have, and it still tells an important story. What are we supposed to do - just not show the data? All of the charts indicate whether they are adjusted for inflation. There is no rigid convention on this, but the general practice is that you don't adjust up to maybe 20 years and generally do convert for more than that, unless inflation itself is under discussion, which it is not here. Meanwhile, the text on each slide explains the purpose of the comparison. None of them are random. Every chart is correctly sourced exactly as you will see it in any other piece of financial or industry research. It is not industry practice to cite specific documents or provide footnotes. You've clearly just never seen any industry or financial analysis before, and are unfamiliar with basic and universal conventions that run back decades. That's fine. Being rude about it is not.
        tovej 5mo ago
        It is not industry practice to actually give the sources then? Just list vague names in a short "Sources:Companies" note? I now see the inflation indication as well. Which is not on the y-axis label, but in the "Sources:"-note. I will concede that. But what the hell my guy, why is it down there. If "financial analysis" is less rigid in sourcing requirements than grade school, what are you guys even doing. If you have the source, it's not very difficult to make a bibliography (or even write the year/publication with the author/publisher), and not doing so only serves to hinder the reader. If this is industry standard it means your entire industry is terrible at sourcing, does not want the reader to verify claims, or both. And I've also definitely seen financial slide decks with actual sources cited. So I'm inclined to hope there are people in your industry who actually respect the reader's time. Here's some more picks (and some more reasons you should list your sources): Your graphs based on surveys don't report error margins. You never list what a 100% is very precisely (what's the sample/population). In one graph, you don't label the y-axis at all (except for a 0 at the bottom)! And finally, I was rude, yes. But I was only matching your energy. And I did show constraint there. I didn't make a veiled threat, did I?
  - asrqwj 5mo ago
    No it isn't. The implication is that pro-AI people can take revenge. He knows he is secure with his opinions. He even paraphrases Andreesen's title "software will eat the world". He has repeatedly appeared at a16z. It is very secure to be pro-AI while the rest has to resort to unregistered typewriters like in the Soviet Union.
    - benedictevans 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - shruubi 5mo ago
        You are absolutely not a "random person on the internet", you are a very public figure with the wealth and influence available to you that could allow you to take revenge on someone who says something you don't like in real, life-altering ways. Now, I'm not saying that you would do that, but it is a shocking lack of self-awareness to think of yourself as a random person on the internet.
        benedictevans 5mo ago
        This is hilarious. What am I going to do? Hire a hitman? if you’re going be a dick on the Internet, you should be a dick using your real name. I don’t think that’s a threat.
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
dwa3592 5mo ago
not to be too pedantic but sourced doesn't usually mean accurate. sourced can very well be fantasy. it will be a 'sourced fantasy' in that case or hallucination if you used a LLM.
- benedictevans 5mo ago
  Sure. So which chart does our anonymous coward think is a fantasy, and why?
hansmayer 5mo ago
Yeah, beyond this mumbo-jumbo non-answer of yours, did you or did you not push crypto? Because if you did...it could kind of not speak for your analytical competence.
- benedictevans 5mo ago
  'these charts are fantasies' is a non-criticism from an anonymous moron. If there is an actual criticism of an actual point, make it. Back when people were interested in Blockchains, I explained why people in tech were interested. I'm happy to explain that again now, if anyone cared. If someone thinks that's bad, they're a fool.
  - hansmayer 5mo ago
    Blockchain as a technology was something a lot of people were interested in. I am curious about Bitcoin - the monopoly money of the real world. The questions was simple: did you, or did you not, promote Bitcoin? Anyone who would promote a fake, un-regulated "currency" would not be someone whose opinion I care about.
- cindyllm 5mo ago
  [dead]
tokai 5mo ago
Hah wow, what a way to confirm what he posted.
lorecore 5mo ago
It is an indisputable fact that you spent years shilling crypto. Why even deny that or threaten(!) someone pointing it out? It was/is a huge, verifiable chunk of your public output.
- benedictevans 5mo ago
  No, it's a really stupid lie. You can look at all my essays and presentations online. I've spent some time discussing why people are interested in blockchains as software platforms, and what would be good and bad arguments around that. But I've never suggested anyone buy a token - indeed, I was pretty vocal in pointing to speculative bubbles and silly ideas, like NFTs.
  - lorecore 5mo ago
    Here you go: https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2018/11/01/benedict-evans-cryptocurrencies/ https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2018/11/01/benedict-evans-cryptoc...
    - benedictevans 5mo ago
      Nope. This is the exact quote. Crypto today has a lot in common with both the internet in 1993 and the internet in 1999. Huge potential with few of the use cases invented yet, combined with froth, scams and delusion. This makes it easier to dismiss (“useless AND a scam!”). But dismissing crypto as a useless scam is much like looking at Usenet, Cuecat and Boo .com and dismissing the internet. It mistakes applications for the enabling layer. Looking at crypto and only seeing the scams is like looking at the internet in 1999 and only seeing the bubble. Looking at crypto and seeing no use cases is like looking at the internet in 1993, when the web was 3% of traffic Another parallel: 1993 - people complaining the term should be internets, not internet 2018 - people complaining 'that's not what crypto means' You could argue I was wrong and blockchain's potential never turned into anything much. It actually has become a huge deal as plumbing in the finance industry, but not much else. But so what? This was an interesting tech that hasn't really worked out. Welcome to the tech industry.
grey-area 5mo ago
Unflagged as I don't feel this comment deserves to be flagged. The call for reposting with a real name is unnecessary though - if an internet comment is incorrect or overstates the case, just reply to correct it or ignore it.