>> Those differ from Dan’s essay, which engages with the literal text of Ed’s numerous predictions during 2024 and 2025 which are demonstrably invalidated by their measurable outcomes.
Dan Luu did not engage on anything more, than a disorganized wall of text, ranted like a teenager using toxic personal attacks, while obsessing over calendar errors and a placeholder in a spreadsheet. If this is what passes here for a smart engineer...Lets analyze his post in a more logical and analytical way:
- His entire argument is based on the naive logic that because LLM execution speeds or benchmarks marginally improved over the last 24 months, the entire trillion dollar investment cycle is justified. A short window of venture subsidized chip buying...tells you absolutely nothing about the multi decade debt structures, physical infrastructure depreciation, and power grid constraints that dictate whether a capital heavy business model survives.
- While he whines about Zitron numbers, fails to provide a single! macro level equation to address the real financial threat. NYU finance professor Aswath Damodaran for example, explicitly warned that the current AI build out is an asset heavy, debt funded run up backed by private capital markets. Unlike the dotcom boom which was equity funded and contained to tech shareholders today AI infrastructure burdens companies with a massive $80 billion in CapEx per gigawatt, meaning a monetization correction will trigger widespread systemic debt distress and loan defaults across the real economy.
- Luu and this HN crowd, today in a mob mood...completely ignore the highly unstable plumbing of the sector growth metrics. Patrick Boyle is a quantitative finance professor and former hedge fund manager, and has meticulously mapped out the mutual dependence the entire AI boom. Big Tech companies are pouring massive venture pools into AI startups, which are then contractually bound to hand that cash right back to the hyperscalers to buy cloud compute. Analysts have identified more than $800 billion in these arrangements:
- The worst of Luu logical failure, is ignoring ( on purpose? ) were Zitron numbers come from! They come from some very disciplined institutions, which Luu completely ignores. Citigroup quantitative analysts project cumulative global AI CapEx hitting $9 Trillion through 2030, with maximum global AI revenues ( not profit...) covering less than 30% of that expenditure.
- To break even on the physical infrastructure currently under construction, the AI sector needs to generate over $2 Trillion in annual end user revenue by 2030. Total actual revenue generated across the ENTIRE global AI sector today sits at a fraction, around $150 billion.
- Anthropic in a hysterical push, to make it to public markets, before the bubble bursts, recently claimed their addressable market is 30 trillion... the whole of US economy. Are we getting a post from Luu on that? This of course this ignores that MIT Professor and Nobel Laureate, Daron Acemoglu, mathematically proved that while 20% of all labor tasks are exposed to AI, only about 5% can be automated profitably due to upfront enterprise systems integration and the high financial burden of constant human in the loop verification.
- Dismissing the AI bubble thesis, because you found a spreadsheet typo in a newsletter, and ignoring the other voices who are aligned with Zitron core premise, means you are also dismissing the research of a Nobel Laureate in economics, the Dean of Valuation, veteran hedge fund managers, Barclays, S&P Global, and Citigroup. Arguing that "the models are hitting benchmarks" while ignoring that the physical balance sheets and enterprise budgets cannot support a multi trillion dollar infrastructure build out, is exactly the type of Dunning Kruger this corner excels at....
Ed Zitron is correct, despite the clumsiness or unpleasantness of his message delivery, and this community reaction, will be an historical record of the AI bubble crowd madness.
It took years to take down Maddoff, and more to take down Bear Stearns. It will take maybe 5 - 10 years of "Ed Zitron is wrong posts here" until Anthropic and OpenAI have to be bailed out by the US government, but the day of reckoning will come. The end of this universe is all tax payers will own a piece of AI and will pay for it with increased interest rates for the next 25 years...
> the naive logic that because LLM execution speeds or benchmarks marginally improved over the last 24 months, (...)
"Marginally improved"? Are you really going to sit there tell me that an appropriate way to sum up the difference between the AI we had access to in Sep 2024 and the AI we have access to now, is "the benchmarks marginally improved"?
Btw., projections are just that - projections and I am not sure Acemoglu proved things mathematical (as in a mathematical proof) but rather within the context of a model/assumptions.
That financial markets/innovation can outpace the actual innovation is also not some new insight, but that alone doesn't necessarily make for a useful prediction.
"When he spoke of an impending housing crash at the International Monetary Fund that year, the audience chuckled, the New York Times reported."
'"He sounded like a madman in 2006," IMF economist Prakash Loungani told the Times, after inviting Roubini to the IMF conference that year. "He was a prophet when he returned in 2007."'
The post is titled “How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?” not “How accurate will Ed Zitron’s AI skeptic predictions be in the future?” or “Is the entire AI industry build out justified?”
If Patrick Boyle, Aswath Damodaran, and Daron Acemoglu have more accurate reporting and predictions about the upcoming decline of the AI industry, maybe those are voices who should be elevated over Zitron.
> It took years to take down Maddoff, and more to take down Bear Stearns. It will take maybe 5 - 10 years of "Ed Zitron is wrong posts here" until Anthropic and OpenAI have to be bailed out by the US government, but the day of reckoning will come.
Unfortunately, the market can stay irrational (far) longer than you can remain solvent.
In any case... I doubt Anthropic, OpenAI and xAI have any kind of moat that can justify a bailout. There is nothing truly unique either of these three possess, and certainly not against the free competition mostly from China or from Facebook that anyone can self-host.
Who will get the bailouts instead is the pension funds and other investment vehicles that have been force-fed crap AI stock like foie gras geese.
On interest rates I guess this is one of the concerns:
"AI “definitely is, in the short and medium run, a force that increases both natural rates and potentially price pressures,” Arellano said. But other shifting pieces of the U.S. economy appear to be significantly offsetting the effect of AI investment, for now. If accelerating AI investment were to outpace the residential slowdown—or if rates were to fall and residential investment rebound—spiking aggregate investment would mean strong demand and even more upward pressure on rates."
If Ed Zitron was merely saying that there is a AI bubble on the markets that will ultimately collapse even if we're not exactly sure when and how, then such prediction would be less interesting but also much harder to disprove.
But that's not what he's saying. He's making very specific claims that are indeed proven wrong. You can't honestly say he's correct, and the burst of an AI bubble will not be a reckoning.
You will see, they will change both laws and expectations, to say its normal for software to always have terrible bugs. You can always solve a problem by lowering your expectations. :-)
Well, they at least say that one is obligated to address bugs in a timely manner (where "not widely exploitable; won't fix" is a perfectly valid resolution).
That has been proven not to work and a variation of the "make no mistakes" meme. What about the lawyer doing the actual work, he/she is being paid for?
?! It does work but you need separate (sub)agents (and potentially loop it until the reviewer agent finds nothing). You also need to set it up a bit so all citations mentioned are easy to identify. Ideally this is also done programmatically, ie parse text find citations and ensure they say what you think they say (llm part).
If you spent your whole career inside one corporate ecosystem...do not confuse your rank in that hierarchy, with your rank in the profession. By looking at the some comments here, many are doing that.
It does matter. His airplane has to make more and zigzags, to avoid any airspace where he can be arrested. And he is only one mechanical fault away from landing in a place who will extradite him to The Hague...
Dan Luu did not engage on anything more, than a disorganized wall of text, ranted like a teenager using toxic personal attacks, while obsessing over calendar errors and a placeholder in a spreadsheet. If this is what passes here for a smart engineer...Lets analyze his post in a more logical and analytical way:
- His entire argument is based on the naive logic that because LLM execution speeds or benchmarks marginally improved over the last 24 months, the entire trillion dollar investment cycle is justified. A short window of venture subsidized chip buying...tells you absolutely nothing about the multi decade debt structures, physical infrastructure depreciation, and power grid constraints that dictate whether a capital heavy business model survives.
- While he whines about Zitron numbers, fails to provide a single! macro level equation to address the real financial threat. NYU finance professor Aswath Damodaran for example, explicitly warned that the current AI build out is an asset heavy, debt funded run up backed by private capital markets. Unlike the dotcom boom which was equity funded and contained to tech shareholders today AI infrastructure burdens companies with a massive $80 billion in CapEx per gigawatt, meaning a monetization correction will trigger widespread systemic debt distress and loan defaults across the real economy.
"Aswath Damodaran: Big Tech Has No Idea How AI Pays Off" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49229981
- Luu and this HN crowd, today in a mob mood...completely ignore the highly unstable plumbing of the sector growth metrics. Patrick Boyle is a quantitative finance professor and former hedge fund manager, and has meticulously mapped out the mutual dependence the entire AI boom. Big Tech companies are pouring massive venture pools into AI startups, which are then contractually bound to hand that cash right back to the hyperscalers to buy cloud compute. Analysts have identified more than $800 billion in these arrangements:
"Why Wall Street is ignoring big tech's debt" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49230630
- The worst of Luu logical failure, is ignoring ( on purpose? ) were Zitron numbers come from! They come from some very disciplined institutions, which Luu completely ignores. Citigroup quantitative analysts project cumulative global AI CapEx hitting $9 Trillion through 2030, with maximum global AI revenues ( not profit...) covering less than 30% of that expenditure.
- To break even on the physical infrastructure currently under construction, the AI sector needs to generate over $2 Trillion in annual end user revenue by 2030. Total actual revenue generated across the ENTIRE global AI sector today sits at a fraction, around $150 billion.
- Anthropic in a hysterical push, to make it to public markets, before the bubble bursts, recently claimed their addressable market is 30 trillion... the whole of US economy. Are we getting a post from Luu on that? This of course this ignores that MIT Professor and Nobel Laureate, Daron Acemoglu, mathematically proved that while 20% of all labor tasks are exposed to AI, only about 5% can be automated profitably due to upfront enterprise systems integration and the high financial burden of constant human in the loop verification.
"A new look at the economics of AI" - https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/a-new-look-eco...
- Dismissing the AI bubble thesis, because you found a spreadsheet typo in a newsletter, and ignoring the other voices who are aligned with Zitron core premise, means you are also dismissing the research of a Nobel Laureate in economics, the Dean of Valuation, veteran hedge fund managers, Barclays, S&P Global, and Citigroup. Arguing that "the models are hitting benchmarks" while ignoring that the physical balance sheets and enterprise budgets cannot support a multi trillion dollar infrastructure build out, is exactly the type of Dunning Kruger this corner excels at....
Ed Zitron is correct, despite the clumsiness or unpleasantness of his message delivery, and this community reaction, will be an historical record of the AI bubble crowd madness.
It took years to take down Maddoff, and more to take down Bear Stearns. It will take maybe 5 - 10 years of "Ed Zitron is wrong posts here" until Anthropic and OpenAI have to be bailed out by the US government, but the day of reckoning will come. The end of this universe is all tax payers will own a piece of AI and will pay for it with increased interest rates for the next 25 years...
reply