Comment by johnbarron
1 month ago
>> 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.
"Aswath Damodaran: Big Tech Has No Idea How AI Pays Off" - 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...
> 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"?
What do you mean by "take down Bear Stearns"?
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.
Bear Stearns was the first bank to collapse in the 2007-2008 subprime mortgage crisis, also known as the housing bubble.
That bubble was also manufactured by reckless financial engineers.
And those who warned early were ridiculed:
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/who-is-nouri...
"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."'
I am fully aware of the GFC, but not sure what "take down" should mean there in relation to Bear.
Not everyone who spoke about house price risk was ridiculed, btw.
2 replies →
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."
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2026/how-is-ai-influe...
> Who will get the bailouts instead is the pension funds and other investment vehicles
It's the same thing in the end. Bailouts don't come from outer space, we all pay for delusions of few.
[dead]
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 maybe right, but why don’t you put your prediction in Metacalculus or a prediction market. Thats what they are for.