5 ms·

Ah, forgive me, I’d thought with the way you were attacking his work that you had more of an idea of what his consistent line of reasoning was. The numbers I’v

Ah, forgive me, I’d thought with the way you were attacking his work that you had more of an idea of what his consistent line of reasoning was. The numbers I’ve provided are the basis for just about every article he has written regarding the AI industry with his main point being that the spend is unjustified and unsustainable and more importantly unwarranted considering the usefulness and returns (which are not small but in no means justify the enormous estimates of profitability being assumed by these companies). So, no sleight of hand, just an assumption that your acidic regard for his work was rooted in having read it. So, do you care to provide a rebuttal to the article or his main point about profitability? I don’t imagine calling his theory “obviously nonsense” was as far as your reasoning went. Care to expand on it?

jsnell 2mo ago
> So, do you care to provide a rebuttal to the article No, I already explained why rebutting the whole article is impractical. I might have been ok doing so for a single argument just as a demonstration, but your unwillingness to point out the most compelling and impactful argument of this article makes it pretty clear there was no point to it. It was 10k words of padding. > or his main point about profitability A message ago the main point was about revenue growth. Now it has shifted to profitability. So, no, I'm not going to waste time rebutting an ill-defined, second-hand, moving target argument either. > I don’t imagine calling his theory “obviously nonsense” was as far as your reasoning went. Care to expand on it? It's nonsense by definition? The claim is that companies have too low a revenue to pay for their compute spending commitments, and growing super fast can't fix that problem. Super fast revenue growth is exactly what solves the problem of revenue being too low! It's a very strange thing to assert, but it's what he did assert, and it's the only bit of this article that's even close to what you claim is his main point. ("Oh, but super fast growth can't happen because of blah blah blah as explained in some other article", you'll say. Maybe so. But blah blah blah is not what Zitron wrote in this article, in this one he wrote that revenue growth won't solve the problem of low revenue. Rebutting a 10k word ramble is merely impractical. Rebutting an amorphous blob of 1M contradictory words is impossible, there's always going to be some explanation about how what he really meant is somewhere else.)
- ofjcihen 2mo ago
  Haha…So, to be clear, I was giving you the option to respond to his main, consistent argument as a courtesy because you didn’t want to respond point by point. I see though that you don’t seem to want to do that either. It’s more that you just really don’t want him to be right is what I’m gathering, which is fine honestly. I’m confused by your distaste for what he’s saying though. The failure of OAI or Anthropic doesn’t mean AI is bad or goes away, just that cheaper/local models turned out to be the right price point. Do you have some specific desire to see these two labs succeed?
  - minimaxir 2mo ago
    You are cleanly demonstrating why people don't respond to these arguments: it's a waste of time for everyone involved because the goalposts always move.
    - ofjcihen 2mo ago
      Nah, these goalposts have stayed exactly where they began. I just don’t think anyone here actually has an argument against him. I’ll be glad to hear any argument at this point but if we don’t have one yet (other than “he’s wrong because I have a side business selling AI products/services”) I don’t think one is coming.

jsnell 2mo ago

> So, do you care to provide a rebuttal to the article No, I already explained why rebutting the whole article is impractical. I might have been ok doing so for a single argument just as a demonstration, but your unwillingness to point out the most compelling and impactful argument of this article makes it pretty clear there was no point to it. It was 10k words of padding. > or his main point about profitability A message ago the main point was about revenue growth. Now it has shifted to profitability. So, no, I'm not going to waste time rebutting an ill-defined, second-hand, moving target argument either. > I don’t imagine calling his theory “obviously nonsense” was as far as your reasoning went. Care to expand on it? It's nonsense by definition? The claim is that companies have too low a revenue to pay for their compute spending commitments, and growing super fast can't fix that problem. Super fast revenue growth is exactly what solves the problem of revenue being too low! It's a very strange thing to assert, but it's what he did assert, and it's the only bit of this article that's even close to what you claim is his main point. ("Oh, but super fast growth can't happen because of blah blah blah as explained in some other article", you'll say. Maybe so. But blah blah blah is not what Zitron wrote in this article, in this one he wrote that revenue growth won't solve the problem of low revenue. Rebutting a 10k word ramble is merely impractical. Rebutting an amorphous blob of 1M contradictory words is impossible, there's always going to be some explanation about how what he really meant is somewhere else.)

ofjcihen 2mo ago
Haha…So, to be clear, I was giving you the option to respond to his main, consistent argument as a courtesy because you didn’t want to respond point by point. I see though that you don’t seem to want to do that either. It’s more that you just really don’t want him to be right is what I’m gathering, which is fine honestly. I’m confused by your distaste for what he’s saying though. The failure of OAI or Anthropic doesn’t mean AI is bad or goes away, just that cheaper/local models turned out to be the right price point. Do you have some specific desire to see these two labs succeed?
- minimaxir 2mo ago
  You are cleanly demonstrating why people don't respond to these arguments: it's a waste of time for everyone involved because the goalposts always move.
  - ofjcihen 2mo ago
    Nah, these goalposts have stayed exactly where they began. I just don’t think anyone here actually has an argument against him. I’ll be glad to hear any argument at this point but if we don’t have one yet (other than “he’s wrong because I have a side business selling AI products/services”) I don’t think one is coming.