5 ms·

Agreed. Phrases like "journalists are currently gooning over OpenAI and Anthropic" really put me off. It's a poor attempt at modern muckraking; cheeky yet offer

Agreed. Phrases like "journalists are currently gooning over OpenAI and Anthropic" really put me off. It's a poor attempt at modern muckraking; cheeky yet offering little substance.

dofm 4mo ago
He's just a Brit, writing in a style we write in. Sweary, comical, red-top. The Register did it for years.
- Kiro 4mo ago
  I don't think you know what "gooning" means. It's edgy Gen Z slang and has nothing to do with being British.
  - dofm 4mo ago
    I didn't say it was. I'm just observing that his muckraking style is part of a very long British pundit tradition. Americans have never liked it — Intel got very upset about The Register's coverage of "the Itanic". (And he's not Gen Z anyway is he; he's among the older millennials. He's appropriating it for muckraking purposes.)
  - 1attice 4mo ago
    Sure, but does that vibe invalidate the argument? What an odd time the middle of an argument is to be clutching pearls and worrying about prose quality. Style and vibes notwithstanding, is there anything in your view that wrong with the argument itself? Could a better or more polite writer have convinced you with the same shape of logic?
    - Kiro 4mo ago
      I responded to a comment about the prose. Why are you not calling out that one instead?
    - Jtarii 4mo ago
      It shows that the author has a strong negative emotional reaction towards AI which likely influences his opinions and impartiality. He is preaching to the choir, if you already hate AI you will love the article, if you don't hate AI already you will find the article insufferable.
      - 1attice 4mo ago
        Well, we don't have to speculate as to whether there is some sort of emotional taint on Zitron's thinking; it's shot through. But again, that does nothing to damage or offset _the argument_, which is available for your inspection and consideration, and you, as a thinking person, are handily capable of vetting. :) There is no need to use a heuristic; you have the thing itself.
        Kiro 4mo ago
        It absolutely damages the argument. Not sure why you think your question is a gotcha.
        1attice 4mo ago
        Think back. Has there ever been a time when you were both correct and angry? Would an angry Pythagoras' theorem be wrong, simply by virtue of his anger?
        dofm 4mo ago
        He was a bit bonkers anyway. But maybe: The square of the hypotenuse — you multiply it by its bleedin' self — is LITERALLY equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Again. Multiply each of the other sides BY THEMSELVES, and then add them together. It's that bleedin' simple Jim Cramer could do it. That number is the same as the square of the hypotenuse, no matter what idiot CEOs think.
        1attice 4mo ago
        ...and as horrible as that writing is, Pythagoras would have still been telling you a true thing. So too, Zitron?
    - ElProlactin 4mo ago
      > Could a better or more polite writer have convinced you with the same shape of logic? If you're writing in an attempt to convince people of something, isn't how you deliver the message of critical importance? This is basic Sales 101. The way you sell (products, services, ideas, etc.) is directly related to how successful you are.
      - sumeno 4mo ago
        He is not writing his blog to convince people, his primary audience already agrees. That doesn't make him wrong.
        ElProlactin 4mo ago
        > He is not writing his blog to convince people, his primary audience already agrees. He's selling a paid newsletter, so at least one of his motivations is to make money. His target subscribers are certainly people who lean towards his viewpoint but he still needs to do some convincing because the market of people who are open if not warm to his thesis is much bigger than the market of people who already share his thesis. > That doesn't make him wrong. I think it's way too early for anyone pontificating about AI, the economics of AI, etc. to be declared "wrong" or "right". This is going to take years, if not decades, to play out.
        watwut 4mo ago
        Subscription based writing is all about writing for audience that agrees. Yes it creates bubbles, but economic of it is "people paying to read stuff they agree with".
        ElProlactin 4mo ago
        I think this author makes a number of good points. So I'm part of that audience "that agrees" to a large extent. But I would never consider subscribing to this newsletter and the biggest reason is the writing style/tone. I find it unpleasant. So even when people agree with you, you can lose them by being abrasive, unpleasant, unlikable.
- oytis 4mo ago
  I'm not a Brit, but I do enjoy British culture, including writing. I haven't been able to read any of Ed's rants to the end despite generally being on the cautious side towards LLMs
- Der_Einzige 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]

Agreed. Phrases like "journalists are currently gooning over OpenAI and Anthropic" really put me off. It's a poor attempt at modern muckraking; cheeky yet offering little substance.

dofm 4mo ago

He's just a Brit, writing in a style we write in. Sweary, comical, red-top. The Register did it for years.

Kiro 4mo ago
I don't think you know what "gooning" means. It's edgy Gen Z slang and has nothing to do with being British.
- dofm 4mo ago
  I didn't say it was. I'm just observing that his muckraking style is part of a very long British pundit tradition. Americans have never liked it — Intel got very upset about The Register's coverage of "the Itanic". (And he's not Gen Z anyway is he; he's among the older millennials. He's appropriating it for muckraking purposes.)
- 1attice 4mo ago
  Sure, but does that vibe invalidate the argument? What an odd time the middle of an argument is to be clutching pearls and worrying about prose quality. Style and vibes notwithstanding, is there anything in your view that wrong with the argument itself? Could a better or more polite writer have convinced you with the same shape of logic?
  - Kiro 4mo ago
    I responded to a comment about the prose. Why are you not calling out that one instead?
  - Jtarii 4mo ago
    It shows that the author has a strong negative emotional reaction towards AI which likely influences his opinions and impartiality. He is preaching to the choir, if you already hate AI you will love the article, if you don't hate AI already you will find the article insufferable.
    - 1attice 4mo ago
      Well, we don't have to speculate as to whether there is some sort of emotional taint on Zitron's thinking; it's shot through. But again, that does nothing to damage or offset _the argument_, which is available for your inspection and consideration, and you, as a thinking person, are handily capable of vetting. :) There is no need to use a heuristic; you have the thing itself.
      - Kiro 4mo ago
        It absolutely damages the argument. Not sure why you think your question is a gotcha.
        1attice 4mo ago
        Think back. Has there ever been a time when you were both correct and angry? Would an angry Pythagoras' theorem be wrong, simply by virtue of his anger?
        dofm 4mo ago
        He was a bit bonkers anyway. But maybe: The square of the hypotenuse — you multiply it by its bleedin' self — is LITERALLY equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Again. Multiply each of the other sides BY THEMSELVES, and then add them together. It's that bleedin' simple Jim Cramer could do it. That number is the same as the square of the hypotenuse, no matter what idiot CEOs think.
        1attice 4mo ago
        ...and as horrible as that writing is, Pythagoras would have still been telling you a true thing. So too, Zitron?
  - ElProlactin 4mo ago
    > Could a better or more polite writer have convinced you with the same shape of logic? If you're writing in an attempt to convince people of something, isn't how you deliver the message of critical importance? This is basic Sales 101. The way you sell (products, services, ideas, etc.) is directly related to how successful you are.
    - sumeno 4mo ago
      He is not writing his blog to convince people, his primary audience already agrees. That doesn't make him wrong.
      - ElProlactin 4mo ago
        > He is not writing his blog to convince people, his primary audience already agrees. He's selling a paid newsletter, so at least one of his motivations is to make money. His target subscribers are certainly people who lean towards his viewpoint but he still needs to do some convincing because the market of people who are open if not warm to his thesis is much bigger than the market of people who already share his thesis. > That doesn't make him wrong. I think it's way too early for anyone pontificating about AI, the economics of AI, etc. to be declared "wrong" or "right". This is going to take years, if not decades, to play out.
        watwut 4mo ago
        Subscription based writing is all about writing for audience that agrees. Yes it creates bubbles, but economic of it is "people paying to read stuff they agree with".
        ElProlactin 4mo ago
        I think this author makes a number of good points. So I'm part of that audience "that agrees" to a large extent. But I would never consider subscribing to this newsletter and the biggest reason is the writing style/tone. I find it unpleasant. So even when people agree with you, you can lose them by being abrasive, unpleasant, unlikable.
oytis 4mo ago
I'm not a Brit, but I do enjoy British culture, including writing. I haven't been able to read any of Ed's rants to the end despite generally being on the cautious side towards LLMs
Der_Einzige 4mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]