Comment by emp17344
8 hours ago
Why is Zitron’s repute evaluated entirely on the basis of failed predictions? Predictions are incredibly hard. AI enthusiasts and thought leaders have made so many demonstrably incorrect predictions it’s hard to keep track. Based on this metric, Altman and Amodei should never be taken seriously again.
Years back John C. Dvorak talked about predictions. He's was being ridiculed for his comment that there was "no evidence that computer users would want to use a mouse" (which was sort of true at the time). One of his point was that he had made a crazy amount of predictions on various topics, some came true, many didn't. People just remember the one you got right, and the ones you got horribly wrong.
Ed Zitron is just one AI crash away from being known as the guy who saw this coming. Everything else he has said can be completely wrong, he just needs to be somewhat correct on a minor crash.
Correctly predicting nine out of the last five recessions.
I thought in the post Ed was being evaluated based on all his predictions, and it turned out all of them were wrong.
Most people will read the post as going over all the falsifiable predictions and none of them panning out, since after the chronological prediction list it says "After this point, most further predictions that I saw were either non-falsifiable or resolve in the future".
If Dan is reading maybe he can clarify?
The list is chronological; as it nears the present, the predictions actually refer to the future, and are thus not yet resolved.
What else would his repute be based on? Maybe telling retrospective truth? Per the article, he does terribly by that metric as well.
Have you ever listened to Zitron speak? He's not exactly the type to hedge his predictions behind careful language about how hard predictions are. He makes every one of these predictions with absolute confidence and conviction.
He speaks with all the conviction of a classic "Fire and Brimstone" preacher. Someone for whom the only metric is stirring emotion, not accuracy of statement.
Apparently that's necessary and sufficient for getting views. In these interesting times when the future is very uncertain we like to hear people speaking with certainty about the future. Especially people who appear to not be paid for it.
Can he predict the future? No. Can he pretend to be able to predict the future? Yes.
So...Ellsworth Toohey?
So does everyone else, including prominent AI enthusiasts and tech CEOs. And most of those predictions are wrong, because predictions are really hard.
But this doesn't excuse Ed making a living from awful predictions, surely?
If you realise you're bad at something it seems immoral to keep charging people for it.
The difference is that Altman and Amodei are doing something else besides making predictions that turn out to be wrong. Most obviously, they're running tech companies that are changing the way entire industries operate. We put a lot of weight on that in evaluating them.
What else is Zitron doing that he could be evaluated on, besides making predictions that turn out to be wrong?
I ask again, have you ever heard Zitron speak? The way he presents himself has absolutely nothing in common with any tech CEO or AI enthusiast I have ever seen.
And we're used to insulting and making fun of the prominent members of those circles too, see: "Scam Altman", the large variety of jokes about Musk's timelines, comments about Dario waking up in a cold sweat whenever a powerful new open weight model drops, the "AGI achieved" meme etc.
1 reply →
Both can be bad, and I think people take issue with intentionally projecting false or irresponsible confidence (lying).
Zitron twists and misreports a lot of facts where they should know better.
CEO hypemen knowingly conflate Ambitions for certainty