I subscribe to Ed's newsletter and I wholeheartedly agree that his overall assessment of AI's capabilities does not align with mine, as someone who uses it heavily in my job day-to-day. I personally never found that aspect of his thesis to be that compelling to begin with, it's certainly not why I paid for his newsletter.
It's his financial reporting, which asks some really hard, important, and very necessary questions about the largest private investment event in human history, that has given him the reach that he has now. For a lot of folks (particularly investors), the financial side of AI is far more important than the assessment/viability side, and that's fine.
But if this all ends up in financial collapse in a few years (and I, unfortunately, believe that is the most likely outcome based partially on Ed's reporting), then he's not going to be remembered for his inaccuracies on the capability of AI, he'll be remembered for asking the obvious questions years before anyone in mainstream finance media dared to ask.
Thanks for actually reading and sussing out the nuance here. This is a good take. I agree his financials teardown is directionally correct and I'm glad he's in this space to call it out.
It would makes sense if it was "AI" written: Zitrin is a huge thorn in the side of "AI". Written screeds against Zitron are a form of immune system response.
I subscribe to Ed's newsletter and I wholeheartedly agree that his overall assessment of AI's capabilities does not align with mine, as someone who uses it heavily in my job day-to-day. I personally never found that aspect of his thesis to be that compelling to begin with, it's certainly not why I paid for his newsletter.
It's his financial reporting, which asks some really hard, important, and very necessary questions about the largest private investment event in human history, that has given him the reach that he has now. For a lot of folks (particularly investors), the financial side of AI is far more important than the assessment/viability side, and that's fine.
But if this all ends up in financial collapse in a few years (and I, unfortunately, believe that is the most likely outcome based partially on Ed's reporting), then he's not going to be remembered for his inaccuracies on the capability of AI, he'll be remembered for asking the obvious questions years before anyone in mainstream finance media dared to ask.
Thanks for actually reading and sussing out the nuance here. This is a good take. I agree his financials teardown is directionally correct and I'm glad he's in this space to call it out.
> "Ed Zitron Was Wrong About AI. [The Argument Keeps Moving.]"
Unless I am missing some poor attempt at satire here, this article is completely 100% AI generated, which is where I stopped reading.
You can check the linked youtube video, I transcribed then wrote the article around what I said in the vid.
I used Pangram on the text of the article and it said it is 100% AI generated.
The title didn't help either.
Pangram, the AI-powered AI detection tool? Well if AI says it it must be true!
Anyways, subtle plug you at least got one search hit from me on this tool nobody has ever heard of before.
It would makes sense if it was "AI" written: Zitrin is a huge thorn in the side of "AI". Written screeds against Zitron are a form of immune system response.