3 ms·

I'm seeing this guy everywhere. He was on Bloomberg a day ago and then on another channel and now here. I'm curious why there are not more people like him voici

I'm seeing this guy everywhere. He was on Bloomberg a day ago and then on another channel and now here. I'm curious why there are not more people like him voicing their concerns. Makes you wonder if he is completely wrong.

comeonbro 2mo ago
He's the Gary Marcus for this stage of the popularized denial.
no_multitudes 2mo ago
His history of predictions about LLMs is not great and he generally seems ideologically committed to pretending they're almost useless and teetering on the edge of collapse. For example, this article claims: "Every single story you’ve read about the “incredible growth” of these cloud platforms is an embarrassing misread of three companies that are misleading investors that will more than likely be forced in the next year or two to have to restate revenues, cut remaining performance obligations, and admit that they’ve drastically overbuilt capacity. " In july 2024, Zitron wrote at length about how the economics of OpenAI were likely to collapse in the next 1 to 2 years [1]. It seems like the nearly inevitable collapse of generative AI is always 1 to 2 years away, but it's just the details of the intricate financial argument that change. [1]: https://www.wheresyoured.at/to-serve-altman/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/to-serve-altman/
- an0malous 2mo ago
  He said: > I am hypothesizing that for OpenAI to survive for longer than two years, it will have to (in no particular order): And listed various things like a technological breakthrough or more fundraising. I would bet he’s right that they’ll fundraise by the end of the year if they can’t IPO and pass the bag to retail investors. What the AI bulls don’t seem to understand is that AI could be a great technological achievement AND an impending economic collapse because the valuations of these companies are absurd, basically requiring them to fulfill 10% of the country’s GDP within the next couple years. The achievements are impressive but vastly outpaced by the mania.
  - no_multitudes 2mo ago
    For the record, I agree that the generative AI industry might collapse. But I think Ed Zitron is ideologically committed to this belief in a way that is not a reflection of the evidence, and doesn't seem to update this belief based on new evidence. >What the AI bulls don’t seem to understand is that AI could be a great technological achievement AND an impending economic collapse This doesn't seem to be Ed Zitron's position, though. He is always minimizing the use cases of AI, and seems to think virtually all of the demand is due to the technology industry manufacturing consent.
    - dgellow 2mo ago
      The fact there are use cases or not for AI is pretty much irrelevant to his overall points. You can disagree on that specific thing but the thesis regarding what is fueling the bubble is pretty well documented by now
    - jackb4040 2mo ago
      This is his position, he doesn't have time to say it on corporate media that give him 5 minutes but he starts basically every podcast with (paraphrasing) "LLMs are rightfully a boring several-hundred-million-dollar business that will be important in some industries like coding but the vast majority of the population won't care about".
      - dwaltrip 2mo ago
        He has admitted to being grotesquely wrong about LLMs being useful?
        jackb4040 2mo ago
        I'm providing you with factual information and encouraging people to engage with his long-form content and not just caricatures and hostile MSM segments. Whether you do so is up to you, I'm not interested in sparring.
- pydry 2mo ago
  >In july 2024, Zitron wrote at length about how the economics of OpenAI were likely to collapse in the next 1 to 2 years [1]. One of my clearest memories of the first tech bubble was of a number of people who accurately identified that it WAS a bubble and then predicted it would go pop 12-18 months before it did. They attracted plenty of scorn and derision for being 80% right from people who were 100% wrong. Some also lost a bunch of money - short selling really explodes in your face if you time it badly. It's not enough to know that it is a bubble, you have to be able to know when market sentiment will finally turn which is a gigantic gamble.
  - senderista 2mo ago
    "I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of men" -- Isaac Newton
  - jackb4040 2mo ago
    Is that the prediction they're claiming is "wrong"? The year's nowhere near out yet.
    - pydry 2mo ago
      well, it is over 2 years since July 2024
jlamberts 2mo ago
I think it's mostly that he's a vocal critic of AI/big tech at a time when much of the public is anti-AI and anti-big-tech, so his message is resonating with people and he's popular.
an0malous 2mo ago
There’s also Michael Burry and Gary Marcus, and you can sort of infer Warren Buffett believes the market is frothy
- derektank 2mo ago
  Didn’t Warren Buffett just approve a $10B investment in Google?
  - tim333 2mo ago
    His company also holds $31B worth. He seems to have quite a nuanced take that AI is a big deal but it's tricky to figure who will profit. https://www.thestreet.com/investing/warren-buffett-alphabet-goog-stake-ai-capex https://www.thestreet.com/investing/warren-buffett-alphabet-...
abirch 2mo ago
In order to be invited on TV you must be entertaining first. You don't have to be correct in order to appear more times. Personally I'm of the mindset that the current AI prices are too rich and that AI is very useful. Much like high speed internet in 2000. The prices were too high but the services themselves are great.
watwut 2mo ago
> 'm curious why there are not more people like him voicing their concerns. I have seen such people - notably Jim Chanos. But, Zitron was vocal at the time where fawning over AI companies was basically mandatory everywhere else. He was the one bringing in numbers and, well, passion rather then fear when arguing that point. On security, Brucr Schneier was also calling AI threat claims overblown repeatedly.
dgellow 2mo ago
He has been on the topic since a while, and has been recently picking up steam as the discourse on AI sustainability is shifting. But he’s not alone at all, quite a lot of economists have been discussing the exact same points he makes. He’s mostly gathering information and publishing
comeonbro 2mo ago
There is a lot of demand for AI denial, but nearly everybody who is capable of writing even semi-coherently on the topic recognizes AI denial in general as cope, and has too much moral dignity to propogate their coping denial for personal gain. So the ~one guy who doesn't gets around.

comeonbro 2mo ago

He's the Gary Marcus for this stage of the popularized denial.

no_multitudes 2mo ago

His history of predictions about LLMs is not great and he generally seems ideologically committed to pretending they're almost useless and teetering on the edge of collapse. For example, this article claims: "Every single story you’ve read about the “incredible growth” of these cloud platforms is an embarrassing misread of three companies that are misleading investors that will more than likely be forced in the next year or two to have to restate revenues, cut remaining performance obligations, and admit that they’ve drastically overbuilt capacity. " In july 2024, Zitron wrote at length about how the economics of OpenAI were likely to collapse in the next 1 to 2 years [1]. It seems like the nearly inevitable collapse of generative AI is always 1 to 2 years away, but it's just the details of the intricate financial argument that change. [1]: https://www.wheresyoured.at/to-serve-altman/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/to-serve-altman/

an0malous 2mo ago
He said: > I am hypothesizing that for OpenAI to survive for longer than two years, it will have to (in no particular order): And listed various things like a technological breakthrough or more fundraising. I would bet he’s right that they’ll fundraise by the end of the year if they can’t IPO and pass the bag to retail investors. What the AI bulls don’t seem to understand is that AI could be a great technological achievement AND an impending economic collapse because the valuations of these companies are absurd, basically requiring them to fulfill 10% of the country’s GDP within the next couple years. The achievements are impressive but vastly outpaced by the mania.
- no_multitudes 2mo ago
  For the record, I agree that the generative AI industry might collapse. But I think Ed Zitron is ideologically committed to this belief in a way that is not a reflection of the evidence, and doesn't seem to update this belief based on new evidence. >What the AI bulls don’t seem to understand is that AI could be a great technological achievement AND an impending economic collapse This doesn't seem to be Ed Zitron's position, though. He is always minimizing the use cases of AI, and seems to think virtually all of the demand is due to the technology industry manufacturing consent.
  - dgellow 2mo ago
    The fact there are use cases or not for AI is pretty much irrelevant to his overall points. You can disagree on that specific thing but the thesis regarding what is fueling the bubble is pretty well documented by now
  - jackb4040 2mo ago
    This is his position, he doesn't have time to say it on corporate media that give him 5 minutes but he starts basically every podcast with (paraphrasing) "LLMs are rightfully a boring several-hundred-million-dollar business that will be important in some industries like coding but the vast majority of the population won't care about".
    - dwaltrip 2mo ago
      He has admitted to being grotesquely wrong about LLMs being useful?
      - jackb4040 2mo ago
        I'm providing you with factual information and encouraging people to engage with his long-form content and not just caricatures and hostile MSM segments. Whether you do so is up to you, I'm not interested in sparring.
pydry 2mo ago
>In july 2024, Zitron wrote at length about how the economics of OpenAI were likely to collapse in the next 1 to 2 years [1]. One of my clearest memories of the first tech bubble was of a number of people who accurately identified that it WAS a bubble and then predicted it would go pop 12-18 months before it did. They attracted plenty of scorn and derision for being 80% right from people who were 100% wrong. Some also lost a bunch of money - short selling really explodes in your face if you time it badly. It's not enough to know that it is a bubble, you have to be able to know when market sentiment will finally turn which is a gigantic gamble.
- senderista 2mo ago
  "I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of men" -- Isaac Newton
- jackb4040 2mo ago
  Is that the prediction they're claiming is "wrong"? The year's nowhere near out yet.
  - pydry 2mo ago
    well, it is over 2 years since July 2024

jlamberts 2mo ago

I think it's mostly that he's a vocal critic of AI/big tech at a time when much of the public is anti-AI and anti-big-tech, so his message is resonating with people and he's popular.

an0malous 2mo ago

There’s also Michael Burry and Gary Marcus, and you can sort of infer Warren Buffett believes the market is frothy

derektank 2mo ago
Didn’t Warren Buffett just approve a $10B investment in Google?
- tim333 2mo ago
  His company also holds $31B worth. He seems to have quite a nuanced take that AI is a big deal but it's tricky to figure who will profit. https://www.thestreet.com/investing/warren-buffett-alphabet-goog-stake-ai-capex https://www.thestreet.com/investing/warren-buffett-alphabet-...

abirch 2mo ago

In order to be invited on TV you must be entertaining first. You don't have to be correct in order to appear more times. Personally I'm of the mindset that the current AI prices are too rich and that AI is very useful. Much like high speed internet in 2000. The prices were too high but the services themselves are great.

watwut 2mo ago

> 'm curious why there are not more people like him voicing their concerns. I have seen such people - notably Jim Chanos. But, Zitron was vocal at the time where fawning over AI companies was basically mandatory everywhere else. He was the one bringing in numbers and, well, passion rather then fear when arguing that point. On security, Brucr Schneier was also calling AI threat claims overblown repeatedly.

dgellow 2mo ago

He has been on the topic since a while, and has been recently picking up steam as the discourse on AI sustainability is shifting. But he’s not alone at all, quite a lot of economists have been discussing the exact same points he makes. He’s mostly gathering information and publishing

comeonbro 2mo ago

There is a lot of demand for AI denial, but nearly everybody who is capable of writing even semi-coherently on the topic recognizes AI denial in general as cope, and has too much moral dignity to propogate their coping denial for personal gain. So the ~one guy who doesn't gets around.