Posted by jatins 13 hours ago
I have heard multiple breathless press releases warning that the end of white collar work is "just 6 months away" and that people not using the latest Mythos/Fable/Whatever model will be hopelessly left behind.
Is he, though? It seems to me that a lot of his predictions were surprisingly close to the mark, especially given how long ago they were made.
Looking back, he’s great at selling a future of possibility as long as you don’t track all the errors.
> Later in Kurzweil's article, he says:
> > "So what does the future hold? By 2019, we will largely overcome the major diseases that kill 95 percent of us in the developed world, and we will be dramatically slowing and reversing the dozen or so processes that underlie aging."
> [...] I really do expect to put cancer, heart disease, the major infections, and the degenerative disorders in their place. But do I expect to do it by 20-flipping-19?
It's hard to be optimistic when it's been those 13 years plus another 7 and somehow measles is back again, although I admit that's one isn't a pure technology-problem.
[0] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ray-kurzweil-s-fut...
If you scroll to the appendix he grades individual predictions.
One of Kurzweil's close-but-no-cigar failed predictions was "neural nets and genetic algorithms," killed off by the conjunction and being a couple years too early (2009 for increasing interest, and 2019 for wide use).
We've got things like 2009 - "Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video. No." And ok, sure, but that has happened by 2026 and we have more than 2000 years of recorded history of people making predictions.
I don't think that situation reflects at all badly on Kurzweil except that he doesn't explicitly say he has a 15 year error bar. Which, yes, technically inaccurate, but it seems quite likely nobody would be talking about him if he spent that much time exploring the minor caveats.
And hitting him for the "and genetic algorithms" is verging on pedantry. Ok so genetic algorithms aren't a civilisation-level success that appears to be reshaping the fate of the species in the same way neural nets are. He was right that learning systems were going to be huge and he was off on a detail.
I'd say that 7% accuracy is on the low side and 86% on the high side. Looking through the list I'd put it more at 50-60% personally. For me that still means that I'd much rather hear about what he has to say about the potential future than most other people.
It's very easy to say 'person X made a highly specific testable prediction, while respectable people said nothing like it would ever happen, and it only 90% happened, so person X was a fool unlike all the respectable people', but it's a trap. In reality Kurzweil was directionally correct about most things, overspecified the details, and had optimistic timelines in the way that everyone has optimistic timelines about everything.
I encourage anyone interested in this to read On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt, the best popular philosophy work in a long time.
Both Altman and Zitron are the opposite of Frankfurt’s bullshitter, because they both appear to evince genuine care for the truth value of their position.
(Frankfurt is very subtle about this, in that he distinguishes the kind of performative lying you’re suggesting as distinct in moral and rhetorical content from bullshitting. The liar wants you to believe a specific thing; the bullshitter wants to regale you.)
(Frankfurt’s characterization of the bullshitter rests on not just the truth value being absent, but also on the bullshitter’s misrepresentation of what he’s “up to.” I don’t feel that either Zitron or Altman is misrepresenting what they’re getting up to.)
Do you think misrepresentation has to be consciously deceptive? That it feels insincere to the person doing it?
(I have to admit a bias when it comes to Frankfurt: I don’t think On Bullshit is that convincing. In particular, I think Frankfurt doesn’t do a good job of motivating the connection between bull sessions and bullshit in his strong sense, and many of his examples - like the Pascal/Wittgenstein one - don’t demonstrate misrepresentation either.)
I can't really judge Zitron, but when it comes to Altman, I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at that assessment. In my view, he's clearly dishonest. I’ll remind you of his attempt to use government intervention to erect barriers to market entry for his competitors. Or his claims about AGI being just around the corner—claims that haven’t come true so far and were clearly aimed at investors. I’ve never heard a single statement from this man that struck me as honest.
The rest is noise, I don't care what minor predictions he was wrong about, he called the big trend back when nobody else could make a trendline.
The question is whether he sincerely believes his own predictions or if he cynically is aware that you can create a career for yourself being a guy who says bombastic clickbait-worthy things people emotionally want to be true, instead of measured assessments of reality.
Problem is, you wouldn't know Ed Zitron's name if every piece he wrote basically said "AI might be a bit overhyped short term but will have lasting economic impacts." Booooorrrring.
The reverse is also true. OpenAI and Anthropic aren't going to get much media attention if they don't make silly claims like "all white collar jobs gone in 2 years."
And no, this isn't a new problem due to "the algorithm." Media has always been like this. Zitron is just another Peter Schiff with younger skin. The problem is human nature in general.
Hence why AI isn't going to kill media. We don't actually want sober, rational assessments of all available information from hyper-intelligent LLMs. This is unsatisfying. We want emotional validation, drama, adversarial identity and spectacle. Truth is rarely what we are seeking.
"Correct" is not the word you're looking for here. More like "very effective". His strategy for manipulating human attention is very effective, but the correctness of his strategy isn't relevant here, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.
Autistically pretending the world is rational and not factoring this in is just as false as Zitron’s predictions.
Swapping those words changes nothing about that sentence.
https://danluu.com/futurist-predictions/#:~:text=flowing%20i...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Except that the AI industry leaders actually have skin in the game/are in the trenches and competing in the market. Ed Zitron wants you to subscribe to a newsletter so that you can read doom and gloom and...?
If you invested based on his advice, you'd have missed huge gains and/or lost money.
And I say this as a person who thinks most of the "AI industry leaders" are ethically questionable, at best, and ethically bankrupt, at worst, and that the stock market should be approached with caution due to valuations.
Both Zitron and AI execs have good points, but both are trying to sell you something. The murky truth lies between the two extremes.
IMHO, having Zitron around is a counter to the AI leaders. Is he the best? No. Is he the loudest? Yes.
We can debate whether the level of investment in AI is excessive and what any malinvestment will eventually cost when the market has to recognize it.
But Zitron is selling you a $70/year subscription to a newsletter that constantly reminds you that AI is a bubble and the technology is worthless. The AI people aren't selling you the same thing Ed is.
And let's be honest here: it's not like Zitron has any credentials of substance that are relevant. He's not an accountant and constantly demonstrates that he can't read a balance sheet or financial statement, doesn't understand basic account principles, etc. He's not a technologist, so he can't speak credibly to AI tech and how it's being used. He never worked in AI, even in a non-tech role, so he has no first-hand experience that's unique.
Basically, he's a former PR shill who, from what I can tell, saw an opportunity to profit by hitching himself to the AI zeitgeist as a naysayer.
I'm sure his grift is keeping his bills paid, but anyone taking action based on his doom and gloom thesis has missed out on one of the biggest investment opportunities in history. And just to be clear: this is not to say that stocks will go up forever, that valuation concerns aren't legitimate, or that there aren't aspects to AI infrastructure financing that are a bit concerning. But if you had ignored Ed from the minute he started whining and sold all of your AI investments tomorrow, you'd be much wealthier.
So, much like current US politics, we're left with hype on both sides. That's all that gets the clicks/attention, and little balanced analysis in the middle.
Zitron is one of the loudest voices and he attracts attention because his thesis is so black and white: it's all a scam, there's no value, it's all going to $0, the sky is falling.
As a PR shill, he was obviously clued in to the fact that a lot of people prefer black and white, oversimplified and bombastic theses. To buy into Zitron's ideas (and pay him $70/year), you don't need to understand how AI works. You don't need to understand the difference between capex and opex. You don't need to know how to read a balance sheet or financial statement. All you need to do is believe that everything is a massive fraud.
I'd like to see an example of this.
I think Altman and Amodei have been quite sober with their actual predictions. They've said things like "models can now do white collar work" but haven't yet said it is the end of white collar work.
The closest actual quote to this was in In March 2025, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei told a Council on Foreign Relations audience that AI would be writing 90 percent of code in three to six months, and essentially all of it within twelve months.
I think that he underestimated how long it takes for technology to get uptake but in terms of capabilities he was perhaps 6 months out. I'd say that Fable class models are definitely capable of writing essentially all software, and that was released June 2026.
> In a remarkable interview with Y Combinator in November 2024, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, shared a vision that could redefine the technological landscape as we know it. Altman confidently revealed that OpenAI has a clear roadmap for achieving AGI by 2025.
https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/chatgpt/sam-altman-claims-agi-i...
Now Altman is claiming it'll be this year for sure: https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/sam-altman-makes-bold-a...
> Altman claimed that AGI could be achieved in 2025 during an interview for Y Combinator, declaring that it is now simply an engineering problem. He said things were moving faster than expected and that the path to AGI was "basically clear."
"AGI" isn't a useful term because - as noted in the article you linked - people disagree about what it means. Also his actual claim here seems to have been that the path to AGI was "basically clear."
That isn't a prediction that can be falsified.
> Altman claimed that AGI could be achieved in 2025 during an interview for Y Combinator, declaring that it is now simply an engineering problem. He said things were moving faster than expected and that the path to AGI was "basically clear."
He was wrong that AGI was "now simply an engineering problem".
He was wrong that the path to AGI was "basically clear".
And if you want to play definition games and start waving your hands around and accept the claim "oh well actually we don't really know how to define AGI now", then he was wrong to claim that the path to AGI was "basically clear"!
Even if you play that game, it's still simple: either he was wrong about the path being clear, or he was wrong about the destination being clearly definable. That's still being wrong.
> He was wrong that the path to AGI was "basically clear".
Why do you say that?
For context, Jensen Huang says:
> "For many tasks, we could say that we’ve already achieved AGI... I think of all of those milestones…they’re kind of senseless at this point.[1]
Even if you disagree with that, Altman's statement seems more about the idea that "more data + more compute + transformer based neural networks" will get us to something called AGI.
I think that statement is true. I guess you don't.
> if you want to play definition games and start waving your hands around and accept the claim "oh well actually we don't really know how to define AGI now", then he was wrong to claim that the path to AGI was "basically clear"!
No - because I think his and Jenson's definition means we have achieved AGI.
So it goes back to my point: this isn't falsifiable.
[1] https://mashable.com/tech/nvidia-ceo-jensen-huang-says-agi-a...
Because he was wrong. That's how it works.
> For context, Jensen Huang says:
>> "For many tasks, we could say that we’ve already achieved AGI... I think of all of those milestones…they’re kind of senseless at this point.[1]
This statement is nonsense. It's Artificial General Intelligence that was promised. Not Artificial Some Things Intelligence.
> Even if you disagree with that, Altman's statement seems more about the idea that "more data + more compute + transformer based neural networks" will get us to something called AGI.
His statement was wrong. I don't care what other ideas you want to read into it, he was incorrect about AGI arriving in 2025. That's all there is to it. Twist it into a knot and smear butter on it if you want, wrong is wrong.
> No - because I think his and Jenson's definition means we have achieved AGI
Yeah they can twist definitions all they want. I don't really care. We have seen that LLMs and transformers have not delivered AGI, and they certainly didn't deliver it in 2025.
> His statement was wrong. I don't care what other ideas you want to read into it, he was incorrect about AGI arriving in 2025.
No
Sam Altman never claimed we'd get AGI in 2025. That is Tom's Hardware incorrect headline.
Altman's quote is:
"I felt like we actually know what to do like I think from here to building an AGI will still take a huge amount of work there are some known unknowns but I think we basically know what to go what to go do and it'll take a while it'll be hard but that's tremendously exciting I also think on the product side there's more to figure out but roughly we know what to shoot at and what we want to optimize for that's a really exciting time.."
See here: https://youtu.be/xXCBz_8hM9w?t=2327
It's not Altman's fault that people misreported him.
Zitron and a whole lot of people on HN were trying to claim this was a nothingburger or at least no more important than the invention of IDEs up until Dec 2025, and then all of a sudden everyone quietly shifted what the "reasonable" opinion was. If I were those people, I'd spend more time taking a look at what was wrong with my priors than look outward.
> .... and in 12 months, we might be in a world where the ai is writing essentially all of the code. But the programmer still needs to specify what are the conditions of what you're doing; What is the overall app you're trying to make; What is the overall design decision; How we collaborate with other code that has been written; How do we have some common sense with whether this is a secure design or an insecure design. So as long as there are these small pieces that a programmer has to do, then I think human productivity will actually be enhanced
I think one of Zitron’s problems is that his moral righteousness has blinded him to how embarrassingly incorrect he is about the AI space.
It’s similarly hubristic with the benefit of shielding from his adversarial framing.
His core observation is that the unit economics of openAI and anthropic don't actually yield enough profit to pay off the huge debts that these two companies have incurred, and that as a result all the debt they've taken on will have to be written off which will trigger "the hyperscalers" to themselves suffer huge losses (likely wounding google and microsoft and destroying oracle).
He is rather more negative about the utility of LLMs than lots of other people (myself included); but his overall view of
1. they're not completely trustworthy
2. they're really expensive to train
3. it isn't obvious that anyone's willing to pay the full freight for the resulting product
4. lots of large orgs "that should know better" have gone far down the LLM "AI" road because they're looking for "the next big thing" when they should be pivoting to "mature, stable" companies instead of "hypergrowth" companies.
5. there's lots of debt and obligations and no obvious way for all of it to be paid off from revenues from openai / anthropic.
Elsewhere, people have pointed out that many of the "FAANG" companies have shed lots of people and driven lots of profits, largely on the back of internal use of LLM tools. That doesn't necessarily contradict the skepticism that anthropic and openAI will succeed, and given all their obligations, if they fail it'll be a big mess.
But again, big Z doesn't do himself any favors when he rants about "failsons" or whatever.
Like they're digging a gigantic hole and Ed's up the top saying if you keep digging the hole will collapse (+ a whole lot of unnecessary swearing), and then a bunch of people jump into the hole to brace it and say "nuh uh, see we can keep digging" but really it's just postponing the inevitable and increasing the number of people who will be destroyed when it all crashes down
I'd be amazed to see a source proving that statement. There's never been a retraction around the AGI claims for example as far as I'm aware.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QMhtTO3u61A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_ueDUrkOlQ
Examples of acknowledging he was wrong
Zitron continues to boast of a predictive record entirely unblemished by accuracy.
Apart from every software engineer I know building almost completely with AI now there have been numerous projects posted on HN that are AI coded.
There's also Claude desktop which is famously all AI built and very widely used.
Yes, all of which are toy projects and get criticized every time they are posted. On actual serious projects, not someones pet home project, I've only seen "vibe coding" used in very low risk places like small UI components. And even then they are generally heavily tweaked after the fact.
My anecdotal personal experience seem to agree with the general sentiment I see here on HN. Some people or companies do it, but with generally heavy criticism.
- that you don't know most people in the world
- that some of the people you know are using these tools because they were forced
?
Of course.
To be clear, the claim was "all software is still built by humans coding"
I know this all software claim is false because I've seen it. Proof by example.
> that some of the people you know are using these tools because they were forced
Irrelevant to that claim.
Even the creator of Claude code agrees with the sentiment that you can’t vibe code production software. [1]
1 https://www.businessinsider.com/claude-code-creator-vibe-cod...
A lot of infra is vibe coded nowadays too.
Even prototypes are contributing to the speed of software development. Many people vibe code throwaway dashboards around the main platform which gives a lot of insights.
That's not a credible scenario. Developers can either make changes by hand, or by asking an LLM, which is the common process when there is a downstream failure. Humans dont metaphorically throw their hands up and say "well the tool doesn't meet our expectations at every scale so we're not going to use it". Granted, most developers scale back how much they rely on it based on experience (good and bad).
I won't generalize, but it's very rare for me to need code as most of my diffs are either boilerplate (generated with a tool or copied from docs or samples) or core logic that is mostly the translation of some design that I've already spent hours or days on. My core issue has always been incomplete specs from Product or incomplete docs for some tool/sdk/library (alleviated by having access to the source code).
Generated code is just not that useful, especially when designing the core architecture of a new project. And later it's not that useful either as the specs (why and how) is more valuable than any code (what).
> many industries that don't trust machine generated code in general.
I don’t live on a coast and I have a large and broad social network. I don’t know anyone who still mostly codes by hand except the small amount needed to preserve some aspect of their skills. I’m sorry to say that if I did I’d consider them foolish. Even a very restrictive workflow where you used an LLM to specify granular edits you intend to make is vastly faster than doing it by hand. And the level of test coverage and depth you can achieve now is simply life-changing.
It’s much more likely that you are not a professional, or you are the one in a bubble.
I have come to understand that LLM generated code, even when carefully reviewed, ends up being hard to review as time progress.
This is because when you are coding yourselves, you get a first hand sense of the complexity creeping in. Then you refactor some stuff to keep complexity in check. LLMs does not "feel" such friction, and will happily keep adding on complexity until meaningful reviews are impossible beyond a certain point.
At this point, you need an LLM to review the changes and at that point, all bets are off.
Any that value correctness over speed. Banking, safety critical embedded work, aerospace work, etc.
> Why wouldn’t careful human code review and extensive test coverage suffice?
Because anyone who has been in the industry for a while knows that code review is not a substitute for intentionality and understanding when writing the code. To properly validate a change you must fully understand the intention behind it and the design at play, and then check the changes made against the system design. That is best done by a human subject matter expert (this is the role which software developers have traditionally filled, for anyone new to the industry).
> I work in one of the most conservative and highly regulated industries in the country. My company and every single one of my peer companies I have knowledge of has transitioned to almost exclusively 100% LLM-generated code (with plenty of human review).
That's called "being in a bubble".
> I don’t live on a coast and I have a large and broad social network. I don’t know anyone who still mostly codes by hand except the small amount needed to preserve some aspect of their skills. I’m sorry to say that if I did I’d consider them foolish.
And I think it's foolish to let your coding and critical thinking skills atrophy like this, but you do you.
> It’s much more likely that you are not a professional, or you are the one in a bubble.
Not even worth a reply.
> That's called "being in a bubble".
I have connections in most of the industries you named and I can promise you that they are no different. I don’t particularly care whether you believe me, but I encourage you to self-examine to understand whether what you are saying is what you would like to be true (I do too!) or whether it actually is.
You are literally talking with a professional developer who is telling you that they don't use LLMs to write their code and that they have connections who also continue to do this work manually.
I don't particularly care whether you believe me either, but I encourage you to take a look around - your initial claim that coding has been automated across the industry is incorrect and you seem to be in denial about that for some reason. You should question where your priors are coming from, and remember that just because your circle is comprised of people who are heavily using LLMs does not mean the entire industry is that way.
I apologize for questioning your professionalism and wish you all the best. Truly.
I can see in the future in school or on the job. Oral testing is coming back. You’re gonna have to explain everything you are doing at some point to your teacher/boss or to a panel of your peers in detail.
And of course it really has changed everything! But that was not all that a lot of people were prognosticating.
No such mechanism for social media personalities. You can be wrong 90% of the time, and your audience will still praise you for the 10% of the time you were right.
This is not a comment directly at you, because I understand where you're coming from, but I think this attitude shows how far leadership and our expectations of the professional class in America have deteriorated.
My expectations are inverse to yours. I don't care if a commentator makes a claim that's wrong, if they keep being wrong people will stop listening. (In theory. Jim Cramer still has a job so who knows, really.) I certainly don't expect a commentator to have accurate internal information about a company.
CEOs on the other hand should be expected to be honest and accurate in their claims. The information a CEO shares should be accurate so that investors can make informed decisions. Instead, we seem to accept CEOs who act as salesmen first and leaders last.
If a CEO claims a product will be out later this year, and the stock goes up, then they announce actually things are delayed, and the stock still goes up, what is actually being rewarded here?
The fact that you're holding him to a higher standard than fabulously compensated professional c-suite officers whose products are used in matters of life and death is... kinda weird?
Altman and friends are mainly actually making and delivering AI. If they also hype their timelines/valuations, they also seem to make directional progress on the goals.
Zitron’s problems are more subtle. He benefits financially from his own claims, while also touting his impartiality and capacity for objective thought.
To pick a specific piece of public information to support my claim: the previous SVP of ads quit immediately before the coup to start a subscription based search engine.
One nonpublic piece of information: basically every member of search leadership was pushed out within two years of his ascension.
But this article is not nearly as impartial as it claims to be. It interprets all Zitron's claims in a narrow and overly-literal way. Missing the point and refuting a technicality.
For example, looking at the last 3 year's revenue/profit growth. This tells us nothing without looking at a larger context. Has revenue growth slowed down? Have profit margins compressed? What makes up the income and has that changed? Etc.
I think anyone being intellectually honest understands that these tables alone don't refute Zitron's claims that big tech are "dying and thrashing around" which is something that could take many years and easily hide under these kind of top line / bottom line numbers. (Maybe further analysis would refute the claim, but that analysis is not present here.)
Or Zitron's claims that AI capabilities are "reaching the upper limits" back in 2024. I don't think even Zitron would disagree that AI capabilities have grown since then, but that doesn't refute his point. How long the "reaching" takes and how wide the "upper limits" are is completely up to a subjective interpretation, which this post makes no attempt to even explore.
By all means dunk on futurists. But at least steelman their positions or you look just as biased as them. (Although maybe I am off base and this bias is meant to be clear from the start by admitting to pro-AI predictions all the way back in 2015.)
On the overly-literal / narrow thing, I think thats the culture around evaluating predictions overall. Like, all those posts around christmas where people make predictions and evaluate how last year went. The rigor is the norm.
I'll quibble with the term rigor. I think the article contains the strictness that word implies, but not the thoroughness.
I don't care if the claims are correct or incorrect. I just think the tone of the article is dishonest about its own impartiality and fairness, because it doesn't even attempt to interpret the claims in any way except the least favorable. If you want to be persuasive, you should refute a claim using the most favorable interpretation of that claim possible -- this does the opposite.
Look at his incentives. It makes more sense.
A lot of people desperately want AI to be a nothingburger. Thus, they will seek a second opinion that just so happens to line up with their existing one. Wishful thinking at its finest.
I’m going to be so happy once these morons ipo. No point in running the ai spam accounts at that point.
I think the worst thing that happened to him was AI skepticism becoming a political position. This gave him a captive audience - as long as he says what they want to hear, which means that he can never ever concede that he might have been wrong or that AI might actually be progressing or having successes.
This is not conducive to good prediction long-term - rather it leads one to a state of cognitive dissonance where one's chosen enemies must be simultaneously terrifyingly powerful and incompetent dunces. The propagandist's disease.
Luu's post includes a (long!) list of specific predictions that aren't "exacerbated"; they're simply wrong.
Luu's point isn't that AI is going to succeed or that the "AI bubble" will never pop. It's that these predictions are all wrong. If you agree "directionally" with Zitron, all that means is that you're skeptical of AI. That's a totally reasonable position to have, but it has nothing to do with whether Zitron's predictions are good or bad.
No, the whole thesis is XYZ likely fail because REVENUE RECORDS is not enough to dig out of hole relative to MAGNITUDE MORE SPEND. Saying Zitron wrong because XYZ made $2 for every $10 it spends revenue needed to justify spending. Fixtaing on the $1-$2 is misdirection/innumeracy, the thesis is in reaching the $10 relative to time, i.e. that $2 has to be $10 in X time, but the current velocity suggest it will not be.
I agree with Zitron directionally on accounting, I in fact disagree with him on AI... I am extremely AI pilled, i.e. I think there is a future where AI is worth trillions and will capture large swatch of economy. The transformation will be extreme, unlike any past revolutions... but the accounting suggest that future isn't coming in time to rescue current AI incumbents from finance blackhole, which some may survive, i.e. bail outs, nationalization... but the $$$ suggest however we get there, there will likely be massive $$$ corrections involved irrespective of adoption.
Someone in deep debt backstopping with maxing credit cards is not dunking on outside observer saying this arrangement ultimately not sustainable. The article is nitpicking over short term micro/liquidity when ultimate macro/solvency. Now maybe there's plenty of credit cards to max out, but systematically someone is going to end up holding the bag, and politically that could be public socializing costs. If folks want to use article to dunk on Zitron short term forecasts, it's whatever, but I think important to point out it doesn't refute his long term thesis around fundamentals, which again does not mean fundamentals cannot be overridden by non market means, but that's also a crux of the long term thesis - in lieu of correction/market clearing, we're going to see non market interventions to save current model from its fundamentals.
It could be "tulip mania" or it could be "the internet".
Luu analyzed the numbers instead of just reacting to hype.
Specifically:
>> Oct 2024: OpenAI's forecast of $3.7B revenue in 2024 and $11.6B in 2025 and $100B in 2029 are absurd, "a statement so egregious that I am surprised it's not some kind of financial crime to say it out loud"
> Wrong (2025 goal exceeded, 2029 TBD but not an egregious financial crime level of implausible)
>> February 2025: Anthropic making $34.5B in revenue 2027 is "is laughable on many levels, chief of which is that OpenAI, which made around twice as much revenue as Anthropic did in 2024, barely made a billion dollars from API calls in the same year."
> Wrong (whether or not they make that in 2027, their 2026 ARR greatly exceeding that makes the 2027 estimate non-laughable)
The numbers being cited is ~100B is well within accounting/ledger maxxxing tricks relative to current pool of investment. Luu is not analyzing number's he's just listing and believing numbers, and analytically entirely avoids the core Zitron thesis... once you tap out of easy investor $$$, FAANG warchest, accounting tricks... where is the rest of the order magnitude more $$$ that justifies existing spent relative to time frame coming from?
[1] is a reasonable discussion of DC cost models, which calculates depreciation as part of the annual cost.
> here is the rest of the order magnitude more $$$ that justifies existing spent relative to time frame coming from?
That money comes from long term debt (ie bonds by public companies[3]) and new investment into neo-cloud companies (ie, IPOs like 4).
The justification comes revenue. Eg, the NScale IPO above[4] has $51B in long term contracted revenue with an annual run rate of $500M.
[1] https://epoch.ai/data-insights/ai-datacenter-cost-breakdown
[2] https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/united-states/insights/d...
[3] eg https://www.yondrgroup.com/newsroom/press-release/yondr-secu... (but you'll find lots of similar bonds issued)
[4] https://dealroom.co/news/143730-nscale-eyes-september-us-ipo...
You understand that this doesn't follow at all right?
The intermediaries margins can compress.
> opex low - capex premium is ridiculous right now
What does "capex premium" even mean?
Of course you spend more on capex when you build a data center than opex!
High capex matches the expected business model. If opex was high then everyone would be worried!
Investors exuberantly build $10 of housing when there is $5 of demand, builders extract $8, when they normally extract $2 under normal margins, builders raking it, but arrangement is net loses vs world where investors build same housing for $4 and make a profit. Intermediaries margins can compress but what they already extracted for current build out is already built in balance sheet.
>What does "capex premium" even mean? >Of course you spend more on capex when you build a data center than opex!
No. Historically DC opex > capex, i.e. 60-80% goes towards power... because hardware costs were relative low % of TCO. Historically without delulu AI demand, IC producers capturing much less margin and TCO of DC was much lower than it is now. It's not opex vs capex it's TCO. AI is paying $10 vs $4, when demand is $5, $10 isn't sustainable, $4 is.
Now builders will be fine in case of crash, they'll compress margins for next round of buildouts, i.e. bubble bursts, current spend proves not sustainable. This is where the crux of argument is...
Future investors post crash when margins revert towards mean will be spending $4 to supply $5+ of demand. And due to nature of compute deprecatiion (i.e. tulips) they will have more efficient hardware with less opex/capex TCO per unit of compute, with much more sustainable balance sheet. The builders are still fine with their $2 margins, it sucks its not $8. But that leaves the current investors who spent $10 with stranded assets that are not competitive with more efficient $4 future build out, i.e. current investors have balance sheet black hole that cannot compete with none bubble market force.
This does not mean AI is doomed, it just means incumbents from current tranch of bubble driven, stupid high TCO build out is most likely doomed relative to future entrants. Unless incumbant has unassailable moat, or other hedge/cards (i.e. political bailout/intervention). That is the actual argument, Zitron is saying current ecosystem economics not sustainable, not that there is not a future model that isn't sustainable. But it does mean a lot of current players are balance sheet zombies, who _should_ die. But a reasonable disagreement is reality is size of bubble + contagion risk + influence of incumbents i.e. trillion dollar companies is such that they have non market lever (i.e. politics) to save themselves... but someone else is going to be doing the paying for a model that is net loss.
Counterargument: As advancements in transistor densities slow down, the rationale for increasing depreciation cycles makes more sense. As the performance gap between new & 5-year-old hardware continues to shrink, then the need to replace older hardware similarly shrinks, justifying longer depreciation cycles.
The economic logic is if current spend vs revenue gap is not sustainable... hardware prices / margins will revert towards mean. That $10 hammer will be compared against a $2 identical hammer (margin reversion/compression)... or worse, a $3 future hammer that does $4 / past $20 of work. The future player who only paid $2 can charge much less... i.e. simply paying $10 limits ability to price competitively. The future player who pays $3 has 50% more compute than incumbent who paid $10. The important DC TOC consideration, is in world where DC cost regress towards mean, opex > capex... so merely continuing to use that old $10 hammer is losing MORE than buying a $3 better hammer, i.e. the asset is economically stranded, it is COSTING MORE to run old hardware than simply buying new hardware. It's MORE than economically useless and $10 past purchase price not just sunk cost but dragging down balance sheet as amortized liability aka it is full write down / loss.
e.g. when he suggested Anthropic may be fudging their revenue numbers / projections - which was actually due to him making some careless mistakes in a spreadsheet
Like one can believe AI is speciation event technology eventually, but still given actual constraints, i.e. literally not enough investors for $$$, not enough hardware, not enough infra over xyz time horizon that these companies carrying stupendous debt and mathematically guaranteed stranded / deprecated compute infra is only digging themselves deeper vs future competitors. Sure AI can eventually capture 30% of GDP and knowledge worker's life time achievement is worth a few $100 of compute or a few pennies in thinking sand. But ultimate winners is probably going to be some future startup that pays pennies for thinking sand not incumbent who paid magnitude more and simply can't operate profitably due to balance sheet.
His point isn't that Google or Meta are doing well or have bright futures. Luu is generally critical of tech giant engineering and product culture. He's critical of Google in particular in this very article.
But the point of the article is that it's not enough to have directionally satisfying vibes. If you made concrete forward-looking predictions and they're catastrophically wrong, that matters. If you make backwards-looking predictions that were literally wrong the moment you published them, that matters even more.
"Did you read the article" is a frowned-upon response on HN. The better way to write that kind of response, per the guidelines, is "the article mentions that". So: the article mentions that.
> it's not enough
It's enough for some of us, like his broad predictions that work on timescale of business cycles seem directionally correct. Even considering we're dealing with fast hardware deprecation cycles it will take years to play out especially with investors and incumbents burning through accumulated war chest. Luu seem oblivious to notion that companies with trillions in market cap can certainly out manipulate fundamental short / medium term market sanity. Part of Zitron's rant I find similarly compelling is the danger of dismissing directionally "satisfying" vibes because $$$ can capture reporting distort reality, which is only going to lead to bigger/more painful correction because directionally "correct" was dismissed as merely directionally "satisfying."
If my cousin kept ranting about my other cousin was going to go bankrupt and fail and it was 3 years later and their income was up 2x I think I’d stop listening.
I worked at Google from 2016 to 2022 and agree with everything he says and you say, modulo the companies who are 2-3x on revenue and profits are going to 0. I worry that both of you have found a real problem but misattributed it, and insisting emotional arguments are the same as rational prevents you from participating in real fixes (ex. metas problem isn’t AI, it’s that they have a god-king CEO who cannot be deposed and monopoly profits. Imagine a twin of you and Zitron but instead of AI it’s 2020-era VR. If they weren’t focused on how their emotional argument was fine, they’d be your compatriots in noticing something’s off in Big Tech. Instead, we don’t hear about them because that battle was fought and lost years ago, and they lost credibility due to imagining Meta was going to 0)
He is not, though. He precisely points to imprecise predictions, decontextualize them so he misses the point of the ones this thread is focused on, analyzes them with even less precise rationales that don't really rebut the prediction, and points suggestively (enough that you seem to have got that suggestion) that this rebuttal destroys the main prediction of every Zitron piece, while saying otherwise several times at the end of the rationale.
Zitron's predictions aren't all very good, but this article isn't either.
But Zitron isn't just blogging about how we're in a bubble. The assertions he makes are not minutiae, he basically continuously says that all the big SW firms are walking corpses. He's not having a rational conversation about the long term prospects for companies who invest in AI. There is a population of people who (rightfully) hate Google et al and want them to fail, and he just stokes their anger and frustration.
He doesn't add anything substantial, and (as the article indicates), even when he brings economic figures into the conversation, he's frequently wrong or misrepresents them.
You think we are in a bubble and that AI won't pay off for the companies investing in it.
While I'm sure there will be companies that invest badly the problem with your prediction is that the public hyperscalers (Google, Amazon and MS especially) are already seeing returns from their AI investments.
Look at the revenue growth - that is actual dollars coming through the door.
...huh? How is it "not rational"? He's saying that, based on the financial information available, it appears AI doesn't actually make very much money given the capital investments. To the point that there may never be AI ROI.
I'm not sure how much this or that "prediction" matters. His arguments would be just as strong without them, perhaps stronger because they wouldn't give folks like Luu something to snipe at.At this juncture, the analysis seems sound. AI costs an absolute fortune and appears to make very little money, comparatively.
Is that irrational? IDGI. One needs look no further than Oracle to see a company in dire financial straits.
Oracle had record revenue and profit in the most recent quarter.
That's quite a long way from "dire financial straits"
https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/07/01/oracle-outl...
It seems like the author of this piece hasn't.
He says:
> Stock market bettors aren't sure they like these odds. The company's stock is down more than 40 percent in the last month
The stock is down because of the increased interest load and the impact of that in the next couple of quarters, not because of doubts over Oracle's viability.
If there were significant doubts over its viability it would be down a lot more than 40%!
- They've all been compelled to build the same horribly expensive AI infra, to serve similar models that have no ability to lock-in customers
- Google Search has to compete with LLMs
- Meta hasn't demonstrated a credible argument on how they're planning to use AI. AI 'friends' would kill their business model. Their saving grace ironically is that people absolutely hate interacting with AIs. Same goes for other AI assistants.
- Hyperscalers have to compete for the same hardware as AI companies, driving their costs up
- AI turned out to be excellent at both porting software to more optimized stacks and deleting the 'prestige' of building these ultra-inefficient microservice containerized stuff. I haven't read a single article about somebody bragging about this stuff. When it comes to tech (which is not AI), usually its about Zig, Rust and going native.
- So if customers really start feeling the heat of rising costs, they have a realistic path of optimizing their compute usage by using AI to rewrite the worst-offending components. I think one of the few things in which AI has demonstrated measurable economic value is rewriting software in Rust to be more efficient
Emphasis added, since having a horribly expensive AI infra allows offering enterprise contracts, which is a form of lock-in and has been pretty lucrative for GCP/Azure/AWS.
No. Net income is up quite a bit and profit margins maintained at Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Amazon. Meta net income is flat, but they are maintaining profit margins.
We'll see when they go public. Until then all these press releases are strategic messaging...
Of course not, but private investors get to see their books and investors are lining up to invest.
If you take this to be his argument, then dan’s numbers are more consistent ed’s claim.
This is about as far from "tweaking their numbers" as you can get. It's a standard way infrastructure-heavy industries structure their investments and people would be asking questions if they didn't do this!
> hyperscalers opted to lengthen the depreciation timelines of their GPUs.
Yes and so they should! GPU depreciation timelines used to be 3 years!!
Google is famously still running 10 year old TPUs at 100% utilization, and 10 year old H100s are worth more now on the second hand market than they were when they were bought.
H100 spot prices have only dropped from $5 in May 24 to $3.20 now despite the release of the B200: https://semianalysis.com/gpu-pricing-index/
Well, it's enough to throw off standard EBITDA accounting and allow firms to report fictional earnings numbers. A standard story has been that companies have beat their Q3 estimates, only for their stocks to go down.
I'm pretty sure your claim about TPUs is similarly exaggerated, only a v1 (barely) qualifies and would have no utility today.
I think I was talking about A100 prices (which are still only 6 years old) and conflated a few different things there.
But A100 rental prices have climbed since 2024 (as far back as free account records show on https://semianalysis.com/gpu-pricing-index/).
Coreweave has announced they will keep A100s in use until 2029 which will be 9 years old then. I think that is where I got the 10yo number I had in my head.
On TPUs, I was also wrong on that, but less so. The quote is:
"seven and eight-year-old TPUs have 100 percent utilization."[1]
That was last year, so 8 or 9 year old TPUs now (assuming it is still true). Slight exaggeration there and I wish I'd looked it up before posting.
Despite this, my point (that 3 year depreciation schedules for GPUs was too short) remains correct I think.
[1] https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/google-says-tpu-d...
He has built a following of people that want to hear his extra skeptical views. And even if he changed his mind about some things, he cannot admit it, as that is not what his followers want to hear from him.
It's rare that people make the news and build a following by saying a very balanced, down to earth opinions... unfortunately.
Just gets you disliked by both sides, "certainty sells".
Some folks would prefer a confident wrong/simple answer over a "well it depends/is nuanced" answer.
I listened to one Zitron interview on YouTube and my home page was immediately crammed full of similarly foamy-mouthed AI critics. (As well as plenty more Zitron.) And it's suggested some people with un-nuanced pro-AI takes, too. But what the algorithm has never, not even once, given me is a sober voice that calls attention to the nuances.
Humans are built for fighting and killing the rival tribe, not for pondering whether the other tribe might actually be correct. We are exceptional for even being able to overcome ourselves enough that the outcome of "fighting and killing" can be minimized in the large.
I don't think that's true - over the years he's changed his mind from "LLMs are useless slop machines" to "LLMs can be useful when applied wisely".
For instance in "The AI Hater's Manifesto" he says:
> It just came to me — the problem that I have with most people using LLMs is the delineation between outsourcing work and outsourcing thought. Those using LLMs to write little scripts or BQL code on a Bloomberg Terminal are inoffensive. [...] A tool being used as a tool to do tool things — in many cases involving the LLM writing a little 30-line Python script! — is not a problem, though it’s also not a trillion-dollar industry that needed to steal everybody’s art and writing.
Similarly, in "The More You Buy, The More You Lose":
> Sidenote: The only truly useful use case I’ve found is on the Bloomberg Terminal’s ASKB feature, which takes natural language and turns it into BQL code to make requests of Bloomberg’s datasets. It’s genuinely useful!
You can perhaps say that he underestimates what the technology is capable of (or, conversely, that other people overestimate LLMs) - but that's a different kind of conversation.
And if you take it as a given that AI will never be any better than ~~now~~ a year ago, and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot or a liar, then that pretty much demands that the entire AI economy must be as fraudulent as he imagines. Which, while it serves his purpose of serving up AI-skeptic invective slop well, doesn't actually model what's going on, which is speculative investments that have the potential to generate extraordinary returns.
The other...
EDIT: I do find it amusing when I write these types of comment, then suddenly realize the irrational man childs of the far right nationalist republic ethnostatists think they're the rational ones.
It is a political issue in the sense that the discussion around AI can't avoid material and cultural issues. Ed Zitron definitely has an ax to grind and I'm personally turned off by his hyperbole, but I don't think something being a political issue means it's not worth discussing. I've also noticed the pro-AI crowd pivot to accusing people of not having actual reasons for hating AI, being victims of Chinese propaganda, etc as a way to avoid actually talking about specific issues that people have about AI and DCs.
I'm not even sure it's political. I think it might be a religion now. He doesn't think that AI is bad, he believes that AI is bad.
Ultimately one cannot separate technology or science from politics, it's inherently political
I'm not sure I have the force of will to not succumb to it. I think the only way to avoid it is to be so sure of the thing you are doing that the audience reaction is not the key metric by which you measure your success.
Ideally we would reward expert opinions on track-record, instead of how they make us feel. But we don't. Also ideally, the expert's conclusion wouldn't impact their ability to pay the rent (as long as it's correct), but again, that's not the world we live in.
I've got some bad news for you.
Things can look stupid when we don't understand them, but there has to be some intelligence somewhere at some point even if the arrival of wealth then suffocates it with sycophants. If Musk or Trump or GWB were all *merely* the idiots they're often mocked as being, chances are we'd never have even heard of them. They almost certainly weren't even "merely average".
Now, stupidity that arrives after the bank balance reads a billion dollars, that's terrifyingly powerful.
Instead, the smarter rich people stay out of the press. And the only reason we hear about them is because they were always very stupid.
2. You don't understand. Trump is successful because of his stupidity, selfishness, and vile behaviour. Not despite it. In 2016, the Republican primary field had 20 or so candidates on a wide range of reasonableness. Trump crushed them all, because he most represents the average Republican voter. If he were more intelligent, or if he cared more about anyone other than himself, they would not have voted for him. His arrogance, lack of intelligence and morals is quite literally his strength because it's what makes him so relateable to the American masses.
The other is that you are in a bubble and have been convinced that the leadership of the world’s premier superpower are below average intelligence, along with 70-80 million voters. The former is not something an intelligent person would believe, you have thrown out serious analysis for political theatre and memes and should rethink how you view the world. Now stop to consider that maybe actually half the country has a totally different worldview, and that their leadership, having reshaped global politics, is actually full of intelligent people who are cold and calculating. I know it’s harder to stomach, but just consider it for a moment.
Being propagandized into extremism does not require anyone to be a total idiot.
Everyone is susceptible to propaganda and populism.
I think he will be remembered for the decline and the loss of influence by America across the world that will be his legacy.
Irrational means stupid.
Stupid can win for a very long time, and in the end the "loss" is born mostly by bag-holders.
They're not infallible, but modelling them as complete idiots that just happened to get lucky is also... Not really consistent with reality, as far as I can tell. These people might not be good people, but they're good at playing a certain kind of game.
but it's subtly different, because incompetence is not weakness.
It's pretty clear in how people talk about billionaires: They must somehow conclude that the people most successful within a system that rewards certain things are not competent because the things the system rewards are not what they think the system should reward (it is fine to believe the system rewards the wrong things, but people walk straight into denying that those people have skill even within the system, or they claim that skill within the bounds of the system does not reflect any "real" skill - totally ignoring that elites tend to stay elites even through, say, Communist uprisings).
Hence how someone can say that Musk is "dumb" with a straight face.
It's the grown-up version of nerdy kids hating "the jocks" in high school. We're all just a bunch of dumb kids. Maybe obsolete children, but still children when it counts.
That said, Elon Musk celebrated cutting funding that fed starving children and supported cancer research by waving around a chainsaw on stage. The richest man on earth did this because he wanted lower taxes... for himself.
When Anubis weighs his soul against the feather it's likely to completely destroy the scale.
I hate him because he is a cartoon villian, who when given enough wealth to feed the world chose to punch down instead of lifting up.
This is why I always consider the agenda of an author, Ed Zitron’s agenda is to make money from subscribers who read his writing.
The article "engages with Zitron's work"; the post you responded to merely extended the discussion to speculate on why Zitron might be producing it.
(btw, for the record, I'm an AI-hype skeptic and _also_ an AI-head-in-sand skeptic; as far as I can tell, both sides are full of malarkey.)
I used to think he was just early on some of this stuff but the sheer amount of content he produces its clear he's just cashing a check.
20 bucks subscription a month, dario, you ain't fooling anyone with above-room-temperature IQ (Celsius). Even the expensive subscriptions - we know that's not the real price. And the limits, bumping up prices every two weeks and so on, just to keep the lights on while draining investors... Zitron's claims are pretty impossible to deny: the moment those companies go public, the real prices will need to come out of the shadows and end up on your monthly bill.
At the same time I fail to see the real world benefit to this, even in software: it's like comparing Lego (before they began their anti-consumer bs) to cheap Chinese toys. The moment you look at them side-by-side, you know which one is a premium product and which one is a cheap Chinese toy. While I have been a big supporter of open source since I was a child, I was never biblical about using open source - if some proprietary piece of software does a better job than the open source one - fine, take my money. Not anymore. I see the abysmal state of cyber-security as a direct consequence of slop. Slop-written code, slop-reviewed code, tests pass(also slop), ship it. Yeah, I'm not trusting you with my data, the hell with that, I'm self-hosting everything, adios. And I sure as hell don't trust the ai-bros for anything either.
And there's another thing: Microsoft was clear about it: github is constantly down because they can't handle the load. App stores are bumping up developer fees. Anyone can slop together a todo app(which was never hard to begin with). It's still a winner-takes-all economy - no one is going to install a todo app and migrate from Google/Apple just because. So the 1000 todo apps released daily will simply be a hole in the pocked of the people who slopped them together and another reason to be paying 500 bucks for 64 gigs of ram and another 500 bucks for a 2tb nvme. Raspberry pi's started off as educational platforms for 35 bucks and their commitment was to keep them at those prices. That aged well, right? If I decide to upgrade my uconsole, I have to pull out another 350+ bucks for a raspberry pi. All thanks to the sloppification. The bubble can't pop soon enough and frankly I don't care what it takes down with it.
Also, Google's recent profits are boosted from including SpaceX. $94.18 billion.
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/google-par...: On Aug. 6, Alphabet filed its 13F with regulators covering its second-quarter trading activity. Given that SpaceX went public on June 12, Google's parent company is now required to include its SpaceX holdings in its quarterly 13F.