> But time passes and situations evolve. Ed Zitron, though, clearly does not.
> Over the last two years, he has called the top repeatedly: The AI bubble was definitely about to burst here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. His conclusion hasn’t changed, but his arguments have.
> The 2024 and 2025 articles make, basically, the business case against AI: that companies aren’t really using it, it isn’t adding value, and AI investors are betting that will change before they run out of cash. In 2026, the focus is much more on alleging widespread, Enron- or FTX-tier outright fraud.
> This is basically an admission that he can’t make the case in terms of the economics anymore. And in deciding how seriously to take his case in 2026, I think it’s valuable to read it in parallel with his case from 2024 and 2025.
Say what? This is exactly the progression that you'd expect if there was, in fact, outright fraud going on.
* Someone claims to be able to do <impossible thing>
* Critic call them on it
* Rather than folding, the hype machine grows and they start claiming to be doing the thing
* The critics start accusing them of fraud
Also, I note, it's a cute trick to start of claiming "time passes and situations evolve. Ed Zitron, though, clearly does not" and then in the next paragraph object that "his conclusion hasn’t changed, but his arguments have".
I don't have a pony in this race and don't know who Ed Zitron is, but this article makes me suspect he's correct. Acting as if going from "they are wrong" to "they are wrong and lying" is "losing the plot" is anti-convincing.
[edit]
The ending is much stronger:
> I don’t actually think we need less skepticism in AI world. These companies are, indeed, run by people who are not very trustworthy, who often contradict each other or oversell their products.
> And the things they say they’re trying to do are outrageous; people have every right to object to it. Skepticism is more than warranted.
> But we desperately need better skepticism.
In that spirit, I would like to offer this observation. The one substantive difference the author highlights is the claim that generative AI is now offering value that renders the claims that it's all fraud questionable. I would argue that the value it offers is effectively plagiarism-as-a-service, and, just as with the infinite energy machines that secretly harvest power from the wiring of the building, compatible with the notion of fraud.
ForHackernews•9m ago
I'm not familiar with Ed Zitron but failing to call the top of a bubble doesn't mean you're wrong about it being a bubble. People who were calling out the housing bubble in the 2000s were "wrong" right up until they were right. e.g. from 2006 https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/02/opinion/no-bubble-trouble...
My own feeling is that it is a bubble: AI models are the new virtual machines. They will become commodified and low-margin hosting providers will dominate the market. Investors in OpenAI/Anthropic will lose their shirts.
MarkusQ•13m ago
> Over the last two years, he has called the top repeatedly: The AI bubble was definitely about to burst here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. His conclusion hasn’t changed, but his arguments have.
> The 2024 and 2025 articles make, basically, the business case against AI: that companies aren’t really using it, it isn’t adding value, and AI investors are betting that will change before they run out of cash. In 2026, the focus is much more on alleging widespread, Enron- or FTX-tier outright fraud.
> This is basically an admission that he can’t make the case in terms of the economics anymore. And in deciding how seriously to take his case in 2026, I think it’s valuable to read it in parallel with his case from 2024 and 2025.
Say what? This is exactly the progression that you'd expect if there was, in fact, outright fraud going on.
* Someone claims to be able to do <impossible thing>
* Critic call them on it
* Rather than folding, the hype machine grows and they start claiming to be doing the thing
* The critics start accusing them of fraud
Also, I note, it's a cute trick to start of claiming "time passes and situations evolve. Ed Zitron, though, clearly does not" and then in the next paragraph object that "his conclusion hasn’t changed, but his arguments have".
I don't have a pony in this race and don't know who Ed Zitron is, but this article makes me suspect he's correct. Acting as if going from "they are wrong" to "they are wrong and lying" is "losing the plot" is anti-convincing.
[edit]
The ending is much stronger:
> I don’t actually think we need less skepticism in AI world. These companies are, indeed, run by people who are not very trustworthy, who often contradict each other or oversell their products.
> And the things they say they’re trying to do are outrageous; people have every right to object to it. Skepticism is more than warranted.
> But we desperately need better skepticism.
In that spirit, I would like to offer this observation. The one substantive difference the author highlights is the claim that generative AI is now offering value that renders the claims that it's all fraud questionable. I would argue that the value it offers is effectively plagiarism-as-a-service, and, just as with the infinite energy machines that secretly harvest power from the wiring of the building, compatible with the notion of fraud.