← Back to context

Comment by jsnell

4 hours ago

You're biasing for quantity of argument vs. quality of argument. That's Zitron's MO: writing 10k word rambles that cover 20 topics, ostensibly with tons of links to sourcing, but with most of the sources not actually saying what Zitron implies they do.

Nobody has the patience to read a comprehensive point by point rebuttal to any of it, it's just too tedious.

You say "numbers don't lie". But they do, when the numbers being presented have been adversarially chosen. You just find numbers (no matter how low quality) that fit the chosen narrative, you throw out the numbers (no matter how high quality) that rebut it. If you're trying to predict the future, you can't afford that of bias. If you're an anti-AI grifter, you can't afford to not have that bias, your entire livelihood depends on only showing things that support the narrative.

3 comments

jsnell

Reply
ofjcihen  4 hours ago

So I’ve heard this argument before but I’ve not even seen someone demonstrate HOW the numbers are “adversarial”.

This is the crux of my argument: Zitron provides numbers and he provides a lot of them sourced from reliable and trustworthy sources. He provides counterarguments to numbers-sparse arguments by using even more actual, real numbers with a logical theory formed from them.

This should make it rather easy to dispute his claims, no? So then where are the equally rational disputes?

  • jsnell  3 hours ago

    Some of his numbers are rebutted all the time. It doesn't matter, because he will just ignore the rebuttals and just keep repeating the invalid or irrelevant numbers. For example, a few months ago he did some bad math with a broken spreadsheet to prove that Anthropic's ARR numbers had to be incorrect. That was quickly rebutted[0], but Zitron continued repeating the argument anyway.

    Just this article has a dozen instances of numbers being used to prop up the argument. They're mostly irrelevant to whatever argument Zitron is trying to make at the time. Some others are straight up misrepresentations. HN really is not a good forum for point by point rebuttals for that many cases. Do you think there's a particularly high impact use of numbers in this article?

    [0] https://x.com/binarybits/status/2034376359909130249