The AI Industry Is Lying to You(wheresyoured.at)
wheresyoured.at
The AI Industry Is Lying to You
https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-ai-industry-is-lying-to-you/
145 comments
> It seems like he can write whatever.
Not incidentally, he's a PR guy by trade--who still runs his own PR firm! And that firm has done PR for AI companies!
https://archive.ph/2025.10.27-195752/https://www.wired.com/s...
I'm firmly on the skeptic side of the AI skeptic/booster divide, but I wish we had better mouthpieces on the skeptic side. I get the feeling that Zitron is more concerned with getting his newsletter numbers up than anything else.
Not incidentally, he's a PR guy by trade--who still runs his own PR firm! And that firm has done PR for AI companies!
https://archive.ph/2025.10.27-195752/https://www.wired.com/s...
I'm firmly on the skeptic side of the AI skeptic/booster divide, but I wish we had better mouthpieces on the skeptic side. I get the feeling that Zitron is more concerned with getting his newsletter numbers up than anything else.
Agreed. I'm trying to speak up about this more as an engineer https://youtu.be/cJYAK6csXso
I've had to reread the first tweet a bunch, but I don't think Ed is wrong there.
As far as I can tell, in February Anthropic projected their 2026+ annual revenue at $14 billion dollars, based on a month long period. If you added the numbers presented together for the 3 years of time, you would end up at $6 billion dollars of revenue.
But, a month later in a court document they only mention "exceeding $5 billion dollars". For the entire time the company has been in business.
Additionally, the month long period with ~1B would account for a fifth of the total revenue. That's eyebrow raising.
As far as I can tell, in February Anthropic projected their 2026+ annual revenue at $14 billion dollars, based on a month long period. If you added the numbers presented together for the 3 years of time, you would end up at $6 billion dollars of revenue.
But, a month later in a court document they only mention "exceeding $5 billion dollars". For the entire time the company has been in business.
Additionally, the month long period with ~1B would account for a fifth of the total revenue. That's eyebrow raising.
I meant this one for arithmetic https://x.com/binarybits/status/2034378777745141799
Right. I went through and re-did the sheet myself and yeah, it's not great. Incidentally I got to $4.5B myself.
I personally think the fact that it's an indie reporter like Ed Zitron diving into this says a lot about the state of tech media broadly. Reminds me a bit of how sports journalism works nowadays: nobody wants to call out industry leaders for fear of losing access, because losing access is career suicide.
[deleted]
False. The current mainstream media outlets are by far the more anti technology than pro. It is unclear why you think journalists fear losing access when the status quo is opposing tech.
Respectfully disagree. Frontier lab CEOs have had incredible media access the last 4 years, making huge claims to the press without a lot of pushback or difficult questions. There's obviously no way to give some quantifiable metric on it, and reasonable people can disagree.
But Zitron frequently points out the inconsistencies in these data center deals, noting that companies like OpenAI and Anthropic make these announcements without a formal contract in place, companies like Oracle get a stock bump off of the news, and then we all find out from the mainstream press months later that the deal was never done and in fact may not even be happening anymore.
That's not really behavior you'd expect to see from a vehemently anti-tech press. They're happily making news to boost stock prices short-term, essentially acting as mouthpieces for large shareholders.
But Zitron frequently points out the inconsistencies in these data center deals, noting that companies like OpenAI and Anthropic make these announcements without a formal contract in place, companies like Oracle get a stock bump off of the news, and then we all find out from the mainstream press months later that the deal was never done and in fact may not even be happening anymore.
That's not really behavior you'd expect to see from a vehemently anti-tech press. They're happily making news to boost stock prices short-term, essentially acting as mouthpieces for large shareholders.
The sibling comment is dead, which is unfortunate because it's accurate, and brings at least some data that matches what I've anecdotally observed. I can't find a single article in my news feed that is overwhelmingly positive about AI. Any article that is even slightly editorialized mentioning anything positive about AI typically follows it with any of the same litany of risks -- hallucinations, jobs, deepfakes, environment, energy, that MIT report or that METR study, etc. etc.
It is not surprising that media is largely biased against AI, considering they see this technology as a) disintermediating them, and b) built by stealing their content. And since AI is doing this across a large number of professions, like artists and engineers, they find a willing audience for engagement.
It is not surprising that media is largely biased against AI, considering they see this technology as a) disintermediating them, and b) built by stealing their content. And since AI is doing this across a large number of professions, like artists and engineers, they find a willing audience for engagement.
I disagree. I find popular media to be grossly negligent in their lack of skepticism. They love regurgitating pie-in-the-sky claims for clicks.
simianwords(1)
If you watch any interviews with anyone who has power in tech, they're exclusively asked the most soft ball questions imaginable to make them look better.
The media DOES occasionally say negative things about tech. But of what they say, they scratch, like, 1% of the bad stuff. And they make excuses and let people off easy.
It's very similar to how the media is overly sympathetic to Trump. Yes, Trump is critiqued - but everything he says is interpreted in the least crazy way possible, even though he is a lunatic. MSNBC and co will even go as far as fabricating reasoning for Trump's actions when he doesn't provide any - and it's good reasoning!
The media DOES occasionally say negative things about tech. But of what they say, they scratch, like, 1% of the bad stuff. And they make excuses and let people off easy.
It's very similar to how the media is overly sympathetic to Trump. Yes, Trump is critiqued - but everything he says is interpreted in the least crazy way possible, even though he is a lunatic. MSNBC and co will even go as far as fabricating reasoning for Trump's actions when he doesn't provide any - and it's good reasoning!
I briefly listened to one of his podcasts, but the over-the-top, worst-interpretation-possible coverage was just... bleh.
I'll plug my own content as a response to Ed. I have worked in engineering for a while now. I did code and continue to. How a PR guy has become the face of this story is beyond me https://youtu.be/cJYAK6csXso
FWIW I have been trying to interview Ed about this for ages but he has ignored all of our requests.
FWIW I have been trying to interview Ed about this for ages but he has ignored all of our requests.
His articles conflate quality with quantity. An aggressive edit with a more coherent structure would improve the message and sound less like a stream of consciousness rambling. Advertising his newsletter as "over 7000 words" is like bragging about LOC, it's an impressive number but doesn't itself indicate whether it's a necessary amount or if it's useful.
Unfortunately though I can't really find anyone else looking at this same information, so for now I have to wade through these newsletters to pick the gold from the shit
Unfortunately though I can't really find anyone else looking at this same information, so for now I have to wade through these newsletters to pick the gold from the shit
Ed can come across as agitated and shrill, and I never stop picturing him as exactly like Jude Law's character in Contagion. But. He's still an important counterpoint to the unexamined mainstream junk, which says more about the world than about him or his style. As we've seen play out with other areas of discourse, the middle shrinks, we're forced into a dialectic tug of war between absurdly polarized extremes, and it all comes to crisis. We might rediscover caution, epistemic humility, compromise and middle-ground, but only after rising absurdity and then some kind of punishment
You make good points at the end but I don't know why it is important to be unprincipled about it?
> He's still an important counterpoint to the unexamined mainstream junk, which says more about the world than about him or his style.
> He's still an important counterpoint to the unexamined mainstream junk, which says more about the world than about him or his style.
> I don't know why it is important to be unprincipled about it?
Well, making new mathematical errors while trying to point out someone else's math errors isn't unprincipled. Even in the face of errors, it's implicit that things like transparency and data-driven decisions are considered desirable.
The next point is superficial, but I think you'll find that it tracks in general. Consider 3 headlines and how much discourse really boils down to this type of messaging: "AI can make you rich!" vs "Use AI or be left behind!" vs "AI Industry is Lying to You".
The substance behind the headlines may or may not tell you something true about the world. At the same time, only the last headline/content seems even remotely concerned with principles, implying in this case that lying is bad. The other two are just seeking to spur interest and motivation with greed or with fear.
Well, making new mathematical errors while trying to point out someone else's math errors isn't unprincipled. Even in the face of errors, it's implicit that things like transparency and data-driven decisions are considered desirable.
The next point is superficial, but I think you'll find that it tracks in general. Consider 3 headlines and how much discourse really boils down to this type of messaging: "AI can make you rich!" vs "Use AI or be left behind!" vs "AI Industry is Lying to You".
The substance behind the headlines may or may not tell you something true about the world. At the same time, only the last headline/content seems even remotely concerned with principles, implying in this case that lying is bad. The other two are just seeking to spur interest and motivation with greed or with fear.
I don't know what you are trying to say. I do believe both that AI can make you rich and that one should use AI or be left behind. Much the same way we can say the same thing about internet.
> The other two are just seeking to spur interest and motivation with greed or with fear.
It just seems like your opinion but even in that case I don't see why we are talking about intention? Ultimately the world would be better if one just said truth so there's no excuse for this
> The other two are just seeking to spur interest and motivation with greed or with fear.
It just seems like your opinion but even in that case I don't see why we are talking about intention? Ultimately the world would be better if one just said truth so there's no excuse for this
If you're interested in truth and not principles, why do you bring up principles? If you're interested in principles, why do you expect them from skeptics but not from boosters?
> If you're interested in truth and not principles, why do you bring up principles?
Principles are not the same as intention though. Even if some articles are biased and have certain intentions, I don't mind if they are principled and stick to truth.
I expect principles from both. I don't expect non biased reporting however. I guess you are conflating them.
Principles in this case is to own mistakes, correct them and value truth and yes I do expect boosters to own mistakes. Your first two examples don't show lack of principles - they just show bias and intentions.
Principles are not the same as intention though. Even if some articles are biased and have certain intentions, I don't mind if they are principled and stick to truth.
I expect principles from both. I don't expect non biased reporting however. I guess you are conflating them.
Principles in this case is to own mistakes, correct them and value truth and yes I do expect boosters to own mistakes. Your first two examples don't show lack of principles - they just show bias and intentions.
I've listened to his podcast a couple of times. I never use this term but for Ed I make an exception: he is a hater. He is making a living out of being a hater.
He's a PR professional who has literally worked for AI companies, and it feels more like he's chasing newsletter engagement than making a coherent argument. The agitated ranting definitely overshadows the rest.
> Here's an example [1] of him fumbling on simple arithmetic.
If you read just the _next_ paragraph after what this Timothy B. Lee conveniently screenshoted, you will find Ed Zitron saying this:
--- The exact quote from the affidavit is that “...[Anthropic] has generated substantial revenue since entering the commercial market—exceeding $5 billion to date,” and while boosters will say “uhm, it says “exceeding,” if it were anything higher than $5.5 billion Anthropic would’ve absolutely said so. ---
I checked archive.org and Ed's article wasn't edited and it was saying that from the very beginning so I can only assume malicious misinformation presented by the X'er. So, you are saying he fumbled at simple arithmetic while showing the source which skips the half where he is absolutely correct in his arithmetic and even foresees what the "boosters" will claim.
If you read just the _next_ paragraph after what this Timothy B. Lee conveniently screenshoted, you will find Ed Zitron saying this:
--- The exact quote from the affidavit is that “...[Anthropic] has generated substantial revenue since entering the commercial market—exceeding $5 billion to date,” and while boosters will say “uhm, it says “exceeding,” if it were anything higher than $5.5 billion Anthropic would’ve absolutely said so. ---
I checked archive.org and Ed's article wasn't edited and it was saying that from the very beginning so I can only assume malicious misinformation presented by the X'er. So, you are saying he fumbled at simple arithmetic while showing the source which skips the half where he is absolutely correct in his arithmetic and even foresees what the "boosters" will claim.
I think you should focus on the claims in this article. There are plenty of principles espoused within.
Smearing his character without directly addressing those just stinks the place up.
Smearing his character without directly addressing those just stinks the place up.
There's throwing mud and then there's pointing out the mud already flung all over the walls
And yet, the figures are the figures.
I don't trust anonymous online mudslingers when I've seen the salaries of some of the midlevel AI roles. It all stinks.
Worse yet: this person points to one article he disfavours and uses that as sufficient context to slander. And what is being called mud, on the writer's part, I see as just a little dust.
It stinks. Answer the figures.
I don't trust anonymous online mudslingers when I've seen the salaries of some of the midlevel AI roles. It all stinks.
Worse yet: this person points to one article he disfavours and uses that as sufficient context to slander. And what is being called mud, on the writer's part, I see as just a little dust.
It stinks. Answer the figures.
I have been burned in the past by siding with people who give kitchen-sink type of arguments. So I would not bet my money on things he says.
That being said. Since COVID there seems to be an ongoing and worsening DOS attack. Everybody who have access to media are lying. And we know they are lying! The craziest part is not only that they are getting away with it (so far at least), but this is becoming embraced, standardized and legalized. Which is fucking crazy.
I like listening to Ed's interviews, mainly because he is DOSing back.
That being said. Since COVID there seems to be an ongoing and worsening DOS attack. Everybody who have access to media are lying. And we know they are lying! The craziest part is not only that they are getting away with it (so far at least), but this is becoming embraced, standardized and legalized. Which is fucking crazy.
I like listening to Ed's interviews, mainly because he is DOSing back.
Something I heard a person say recently:
> Isn't it weird how there is no huge industry pushback on all this new AI datacenter power need, as there was about electrifying vehicles?
> Isn't it weird how there is no huge industry pushback on all this new AI datacenter power need, as there was about electrifying vehicles?
Almost as if that "industry pushback" argument was not made in good faith? I wonder who would be against electric vehicles?
> I wonder who would be against electric vehicles?
The fossil fuel industry ?
The fossil fuel industry ?
And car companies, who made the classic “holding back the tide” strategic blunder and basically created Tesla, BYD, and others.
Turns out the market routes right around slow movers.
Turns out the market routes right around slow movers.
What!? As if to suggest! An assertion most improper!
Was there a big industry push back against looms, tractors, computers, or the internet?
Tractors didn't get it because about the time they became useful for most farmers WWII was pushing the need for less men on the farm so they could go to war. There were tractors before then, but the previous ones had big negatives if you were not a much larger farm than most were then.
miltonlost(3)
There used to be a social contract, but now there are so many people that it's a problem that there is no work for the displaced. The leverage between the very small number of people with vast amounts of capital and a large number of people with very little capital or leverage - this is a societal dynamic that has existed before in the world. There is historical precedent for this, and it's probably worth paying very close attention to what comes next if you are a very wealthy person pushing against all forms of wealth redistribution.
Someone please correct my math.
The article says 240 Gigawatts of capacity is allocated for AI datacenters.
New York City draws about 10 Gigawatts in the hottest months of the year due to extra load from AC use.
So am I understanding correctly that these people want to foist upon the power grid 24 NYCs?
The article says 240 Gigawatts of capacity is allocated for AI datacenters.
New York City draws about 10 Gigawatts in the hottest months of the year due to extra load from AC use.
So am I understanding correctly that these people want to foist upon the power grid 24 NYCs?
It's probably more correct to say that there are some people who project that 240GW of additional power will be required by data centers in the near future.
Yes, that number is absurd, and data centers will certainly need to make do with less, regardless of actual requirements.
Yes, that number is absurd, and data centers will certainly need to make do with less, regardless of actual requirements.
That also fails to take efficiency and cost optimization into account.
Just parsing out salutations and please/thank you from AI requests reduces utilization and that’s not really even intense optimization.
Earlier today on the radio I heard Houston TX was 20 GW at peak load.
Texas is [d]oing its best to build as many datacenters & power plants as possible. They were describing it as "Texas will have more datacenters than anyplace else in the world." This was public radio, but everybody's taking a hit on the ol' AI pipe nowadays.
Texas is [d]oing its best to build as many datacenters & power plants as possible. They were describing it as "Texas will have more datacenters than anyplace else in the world." This was public radio, but everybody's taking a hit on the ol' AI pipe nowadays.
Which running 24/365 would correspond to about half of total electricity consumption of USA...
At cost of 0.01 per kwh would be 21 billion... And electricity generally is not that cheap everything considered...
At cost of 0.01 per kwh would be 21 billion... And electricity generally is not that cheap everything considered...
[deleted]
I’ve never thought of it in terms of “how many new metropoli(sp) are being added”, but it seems like a deceny unit of measure. If we use the average of 6gw, we’re adding essentially 40 nyc’s.
I'm at a loss as to how some of these projects got funded in the first place. Anyone funding these should have had the perspective to see that there isn't enough power for them. Anyone funding them should have had the perspective to see that by the time power could come online for even a significant fraction of them, the depreciation and interest costs should have murdered the company trying to do it, especially if their solution to that problem is the oh-so-21st century solution of "solving" the problem of losing money by levering up. It does no good to go out of business entirely in 2027 to make the phat buxx in 2030, which seems to be the best case scenario for this space as a whole.
The other question I have is... who exactly is doing all of 1. Using AI right now 2. Making substantial money on it or getting real value and 3. Capacity constrained? Who is actually going to productively soak up all this capacity? It seems to me that bringing all this stuff online can't really make things much cheaper than they are now because the fixed costs aren't going anywhere, and if anything, trying to jam so many projects through all at once just raises those fixed costs even higher. It's not like they triple data center capacity (and increasing AI capacity by, what, 10x? 20x?), stick them full of AI systems, and into that 10x+ greater AI capacity they can sell it at the prices they are now. Higher capacity would crash the selling price but the costs would be as high or higher than now.
I am at a complete loss as to how the numbers are supposed to work here. You can't build a company in 2026 on the economy and tech infrastructure of 2036 anymore than it worked to build a company in 1999 on the economy and tech infrastructure of 2019, no matter how rosy the numbers look on the projections based on conveniently ignoring the fact the company passes through "death" in a year and half. Everything promised in 1999 happened, but trying to artificially accelerate it onto Wall Street's time line burned money by the billions. I'm sure 2036 will have lots of AI in it, but you can't just spend money to bring it forward 10 years by sheer force of will. It has to happen at its own pace.
The other question I have is... who exactly is doing all of 1. Using AI right now 2. Making substantial money on it or getting real value and 3. Capacity constrained? Who is actually going to productively soak up all this capacity? It seems to me that bringing all this stuff online can't really make things much cheaper than they are now because the fixed costs aren't going anywhere, and if anything, trying to jam so many projects through all at once just raises those fixed costs even higher. It's not like they triple data center capacity (and increasing AI capacity by, what, 10x? 20x?), stick them full of AI systems, and into that 10x+ greater AI capacity they can sell it at the prices they are now. Higher capacity would crash the selling price but the costs would be as high or higher than now.
I am at a complete loss as to how the numbers are supposed to work here. You can't build a company in 2026 on the economy and tech infrastructure of 2036 anymore than it worked to build a company in 1999 on the economy and tech infrastructure of 2019, no matter how rosy the numbers look on the projections based on conveniently ignoring the fact the company passes through "death" in a year and half. Everything promised in 1999 happened, but trying to artificially accelerate it onto Wall Street's time line burned money by the billions. I'm sure 2036 will have lots of AI in it, but you can't just spend money to bring it forward 10 years by sheer force of will. It has to happen at its own pace.
> The other question I have is... who exactly is doing all of 1. Using AI right now 2. Making substantial money on it or getting real value and 3. Capacity constrained?
Almost all enterprise users for one. At least from what I have seen it is a massive productivity boost for coding and general research. If the costs were ~4x lower, we would be able to do much much more with them. Building datacenters will reduce the cost because increasing supply would reduce the cost.
> It's not like they triple data center capacity (and increasing AI capacity by, what, 10x? 20x?), stick them full of AI systems, and into that 10x+ greater AI capacity they can sell it at the prices they are now. Higher capacity would crash the selling price but the costs would be as high or higher than now.
This is false. Part of the costs are unit costs which are really high margin. I think the margins are around 50% to 60%. By increasing the capacity, the are bound to make even more profit.
But the other part is reflecting the lack of capacity.
Almost all enterprise users for one. At least from what I have seen it is a massive productivity boost for coding and general research. If the costs were ~4x lower, we would be able to do much much more with them. Building datacenters will reduce the cost because increasing supply would reduce the cost.
> It's not like they triple data center capacity (and increasing AI capacity by, what, 10x? 20x?), stick them full of AI systems, and into that 10x+ greater AI capacity they can sell it at the prices they are now. Higher capacity would crash the selling price but the costs would be as high or higher than now.
This is false. Part of the costs are unit costs which are really high margin. I think the margins are around 50% to 60%. By increasing the capacity, the are bound to make even more profit.
But the other part is reflecting the lack of capacity.
"Building datacenters will reduce the cost because increasing supply would reduce the cost."
That's great for us users but I'm talking from the point of view of the people trying to make money on the data centers.
"This is false. Part of the costs are unit costs which are really high margin."
Can you explain how everybody throwing their money at nVidia lowers the costs? When they are already apparently at max capacity?
Everybody trying to build a data center at once raises the costs of the data center. Everyone competing for power has already raised power prices and we've barely begun bringing this stuff online. Everyone demanding multiples of what nVidia is producing means nVidias isn't going to reduce prices any time soon.
Your use of "even more profit" also implies that you think that the AI world is making lots of money? nVidia is making lots of money. To a first approximation, everybody else involved has lost billions. Maybe not Apple. But everyone else you can name is deep in the negative on AI.
That's great for us users but I'm talking from the point of view of the people trying to make money on the data centers.
"This is false. Part of the costs are unit costs which are really high margin."
Can you explain how everybody throwing their money at nVidia lowers the costs? When they are already apparently at max capacity?
Everybody trying to build a data center at once raises the costs of the data center. Everyone competing for power has already raised power prices and we've barely begun bringing this stuff online. Everyone demanding multiples of what nVidia is producing means nVidias isn't going to reduce prices any time soon.
Your use of "even more profit" also implies that you think that the AI world is making lots of money? nVidia is making lots of money. To a first approximation, everybody else involved has lost billions. Maybe not Apple. But everyone else you can name is deep in the negative on AI.
> To a first approximation, everybody else involved has lost billions.
"Lost" implies they have nothing to show for it. But they do. Depending on who you're looking at, they have data centers, GPUs, as well as billions in revenue and hundreds of millions of users, both rapidly growing. We can't say anything is "lost" because these are investments, and will only be sunk costs if nobody ever makes money.
But people are already making money. The big names are in a growth stage, so their spending is far outpacing their returns, but if you look beyond, people are making a ton of money on AI, which bodes well for these investments. Some data points:
1. AI startups are growing revenue at a record pace, as confirmed by three separate groups adjacent to them -- investors, enterprise purchase decision makers, and Stripe (which processes their payments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46730182
2. AI is creating a boom in mobile apps, including a surge in revenue -- https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/21/consumers-spent-more-on-mo...
So much that Apple made a billion more just from their App Store cut: https://www.macrumors.com/2026/03/20/apple-made-nearly-900m-...
3. AI agents boosting holiday sales: https://www.salesforce.com/news/stories/2025-holiday-shoppin...
Keep in mind we are only ~3 years since ChatGPT kicked this whole thing off
"Lost" implies they have nothing to show for it. But they do. Depending on who you're looking at, they have data centers, GPUs, as well as billions in revenue and hundreds of millions of users, both rapidly growing. We can't say anything is "lost" because these are investments, and will only be sunk costs if nobody ever makes money.
But people are already making money. The big names are in a growth stage, so their spending is far outpacing their returns, but if you look beyond, people are making a ton of money on AI, which bodes well for these investments. Some data points:
1. AI startups are growing revenue at a record pace, as confirmed by three separate groups adjacent to them -- investors, enterprise purchase decision makers, and Stripe (which processes their payments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46730182
2. AI is creating a boom in mobile apps, including a surge in revenue -- https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/21/consumers-spent-more-on-mo...
So much that Apple made a billion more just from their App Store cut: https://www.macrumors.com/2026/03/20/apple-made-nearly-900m-...
3. AI agents boosting holiday sales: https://www.salesforce.com/news/stories/2025-holiday-shoppin...
Keep in mind we are only ~3 years since ChatGPT kicked this whole thing off
> That's great for us users but I'm talking from the point of view of the people trying to make money on the data centers.
Why wouldn't they make money if they are the ones on whom money is thrown at?
> Can you explain how everybody throwing their money at nVidia lowers the costs? When they are already apparently at max capacity?
Increasing supply lowers the cost, I'm unsure which part of this is surprising.
> Your use of "even more profit" also implies that you think that the AI world is making lots of money? nVidia is making lots of money. To a first approximation, everybody else involved has lost billions. Maybe not Apple. But everyone else you can name is deep in the negative on AI.
The companies using AI are making money out of it. OpenAI will make money in the future but are losing it because of R&D and training.
Why wouldn't they make money if they are the ones on whom money is thrown at?
> Can you explain how everybody throwing their money at nVidia lowers the costs? When they are already apparently at max capacity?
Increasing supply lowers the cost, I'm unsure which part of this is surprising.
> Your use of "even more profit" also implies that you think that the AI world is making lots of money? nVidia is making lots of money. To a first approximation, everybody else involved has lost billions. Maybe not Apple. But everyone else you can name is deep in the negative on AI.
The companies using AI are making money out of it. OpenAI will make money in the future but are losing it because of R&D and training.
> At least from what I have seen it is a massive productivity boost for coding and general research
Are companies release more software with less developers? If the answer is no, then the productivity has not improved. It might SEEM like it improves because you're able to produce more code and you spend less time programming, but that might not be the case in actuality.
From what I've seen, AI is very good and very popular but it hasn't improved programming productivity in a meaningful way. The bottlenecks are unchanged so writing more code faster doesn't help anything. A lot of companies let a lot of employees go due to AI, and their product velocity has noticably gone down and their quality is noticably worse.
Are companies release more software with less developers? If the answer is no, then the productivity has not improved. It might SEEM like it improves because you're able to produce more code and you spend less time programming, but that might not be the case in actuality.
From what I've seen, AI is very good and very popular but it hasn't improved programming productivity in a meaningful way. The bottlenecks are unchanged so writing more code faster doesn't help anything. A lot of companies let a lot of employees go due to AI, and their product velocity has noticably gone down and their quality is noticably worse.
In xAI's case, they've gotten gas turbines installed on site with which to make up the electricity generation shortfall onsite. It's unclear exactly how long that short term solution is going to be there, but probably quite a while.
An analysis of datacenter commitments and GPU purchasing through how much power they will demand vs how much is available.
As someone who only has a passing interest, there isn't anything distilled enough in this article for me to comment on as the central point. Everyone seems to be reporting impossible numbers, and buying dramatically more hardware than they can install in a reasonable timeframe given the pace of the industry.
As someone who only has a passing interest, there isn't anything distilled enough in this article for me to comment on as the central point. Everyone seems to be reporting impossible numbers, and buying dramatically more hardware than they can install in a reasonable timeframe given the pace of the industry.
Pointed and excellent.
But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for introspection from that camp. It seems that AI maximalists, like so many other players these days, see it as end-game time. There are no bounds or rules: pick a side, and go. And then eat the rest.
Sure, not everyone sees it this way. There are highly competent, human actors working in their joy toward a better way forward with all of it. But I don't think you'll find that spirit unbridled inside any profit-seeking corporation of any significant standing (though I would be happy to be proven wrong). If it existed there, it is being choked out by selfishness and survivalism.
And then there's Thiel and ilk waxing eschatological, adding a whole other layer to the scheme.
But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for introspection from that camp. It seems that AI maximalists, like so many other players these days, see it as end-game time. There are no bounds or rules: pick a side, and go. And then eat the rest.
Sure, not everyone sees it this way. There are highly competent, human actors working in their joy toward a better way forward with all of it. But I don't think you'll find that spirit unbridled inside any profit-seeking corporation of any significant standing (though I would be happy to be proven wrong). If it existed there, it is being choked out by selfishness and survivalism.
And then there's Thiel and ilk waxing eschatological, adding a whole other layer to the scheme.
Railroads, e-commerce, and AI - all useful, all were (or may be) credit/stock bubbles. Railroads however have a much better depreciation schedule than GPUs.
He isn't arguing that AI is useless. Only that Nvidia is propping up a massive financial deck of cards and that all the giant numbers being tossed around are fantasies.
> He isn't arguing that AI is useless.
This is what he said in 2024
-----
The “iPhone moment” wasn’t a result of one thing, but a collection of different bits that formed an obvious whole — one device that did a bunch of things really, really well.
LLMs have no such moment, nor do they have any one thing they do well, let alone really well. LLMs are famous not for their efficacy, but their inconsistency, with even ardent AI cultists warning people not to trust their output
https://www.wheresyoured.at/never-forget-what-theyve-done/
This is what he said in 2024
-----
The “iPhone moment” wasn’t a result of one thing, but a collection of different bits that formed an obvious whole — one device that did a bunch of things really, really well.
LLMs have no such moment, nor do they have any one thing they do well, let alone really well. LLMs are famous not for their efficacy, but their inconsistency, with even ardent AI cultists warning people not to trust their output
https://www.wheresyoured.at/never-forget-what-theyve-done/
It’s supply and demand, as long as the demand is there the numbers can be maintained
i see him brag about how long these astroturf joints are on bluesky. had been a while since i'd tried to actually scroll through one and it makes sense now: so much more space to spawn subscription promos. better offline indeed
Very good points.
My current model for understand for how AI will scale out is that we'll move through the following choke points:
AI chip makers -> Data center infra and construction -> regional power companies
Right now we're firmly in the "AI chip makers" part of the expansion, with everything else in the beginning stages. AI is useful, but whether it's hyped or not, it's hard to deny that not being able to build and power data centers will impact how this plays out.
My current model for understand for how AI will scale out is that we'll move through the following choke points:
AI chip makers -> Data center infra and construction -> regional power companies
Right now we're firmly in the "AI chip makers" part of the expansion, with everything else in the beginning stages. AI is useful, but whether it's hyped or not, it's hard to deny that not being able to build and power data centers will impact how this plays out.
It makes sense that data centres in the US can't be built at a rate to keep up with the many announcements of new capacity that are happening. It's a worry how obfuscated the numbers are, and that the hyperscalers aren't breaking out the numbers in their statutory reporting.
Its true this article isn't the most concise, but it might not deserve the flagging that people are giving it on here.
Its true this article isn't the most concise, but it might not deserve the flagging that people are giving it on here.
The article takes an odd turn in the second half and seems to veer from a very interesting deep-dive into how a lot of backlogged US data center production may correlate with GPU "slippage" via questionable resellers and GPU rental outfits to China
The lying is not even subtle anymore. The gap between the demo and the product has never been wider and people are starting to notice.
[deleted]
I have already written a comment here, apologies. However, I have something else to say other than a hot take, about Ed Zitron:
I believe that Ed Zitron plays a very important gadlfy role in all of this.
However, if you look at his subreddit, it appears that he has created a 100% AI denier following. My gut makes me worry for them, but I wonder where the truth really lies.
For those of us involved with code, Sonnet 3.5 was a revelation, and Opus 4.5 scared the crap out of many, and converted some of us to believers in "the exponential."
Now, in other verifiable output fields like finance/spreadsheets in general, Claude is scaring even more people.
I really do respect Ed, but I feel like his schtick might make too many people complacent, thinking that this is all fake. Also, I could be wrong.
I believe that Ed Zitron plays a very important gadlfy role in all of this.
However, if you look at his subreddit, it appears that he has created a 100% AI denier following. My gut makes me worry for them, but I wonder where the truth really lies.
For those of us involved with code, Sonnet 3.5 was a revelation, and Opus 4.5 scared the crap out of many, and converted some of us to believers in "the exponential."
Now, in other verifiable output fields like finance/spreadsheets in general, Claude is scaring even more people.
I really do respect Ed, but I feel like his schtick might make too many people complacent, thinking that this is all fake. Also, I could be wrong.
> My gut makes me worry for them, but I wonder where the truth really lies.
Why worry?
Also I'm pretty sure I have seen a similar comment before
Why worry?
Also I'm pretty sure I have seen a similar comment before
> > My gut makes me worry for them, but I wonder where the truth really lies.
> Why worry?
Because, instead of telling people that "it's all a bubble," while he might be partially correct, he is still creating a confirmation bubble following. He is creating a denialist community, where as his followers might be best served by learning how to use the tools.
I am not sure about any of this.
Why worry? Because if he is wrong, then there is a chance that we will be killing the animals in our zoos, to feed the people. This is something that really happened during the last "great depression."
I worry about the plight of my fellow man as it affects me.
> Why worry?
Because, instead of telling people that "it's all a bubble," while he might be partially correct, he is still creating a confirmation bubble following. He is creating a denialist community, where as his followers might be best served by learning how to use the tools.
I am not sure about any of this.
Why worry? Because if he is wrong, then there is a chance that we will be killing the animals in our zoos, to feed the people. This is something that really happened during the last "great depression."
I worry about the plight of my fellow man as it affects me.
> Because, instead of telling people that ...
I meant to write:
> Because, he tells people that "it's all a bubble," while he might be partially correct, he is still creating a confirmation bubble following. He is creating a denialist community, where as his followers might be best served by learning how to use the tools.
I meant to write:
> Because, he tells people that "it's all a bubble," while he might be partially correct, he is still creating a confirmation bubble following. He is creating a denialist community, where as his followers might be best served by learning how to use the tools.
I still don't see what the big deal is. If LLMs are (or become) all they're cracked up to be, it shouldn't matter whether someone "learns to use the tools" today or tomorrow or five years from now. In fact they should become much easier to use as they become more intelligent, you shouldn't need all these fancy prompting strategies anymore.
(Reminds me of search engines. People who really knew how to search for things honed that skill over a period of time, only for those skills to become irrelevant now that search engines are much smarter.)
I guess my point is - why must the technology insist upon itself? Evangelizing for people to use it when they don't want to, just sounds cultish. If it's useful, people will eventually use it - like any other new technology. If someone doesn't find it useful yet, maybe they just don't work in a field that AI is good at yet.
(Reminds me of search engines. People who really knew how to search for things honed that skill over a period of time, only for those skills to become irrelevant now that search engines are much smarter.)
I guess my point is - why must the technology insist upon itself? Evangelizing for people to use it when they don't want to, just sounds cultish. If it's useful, people will eventually use it - like any other new technology. If someone doesn't find it useful yet, maybe they just don't work in a field that AI is good at yet.
I agree with what you’ve said. If you want to see what is cultish, look at the subreddit the post is talking about. It’s denialism and not healthy behavior.
I think these schizophrenics are stuck in a loop.
The obvious answer to the power problem will be to have the AI design massively parallel exercise bicycle/electrical generator plants that can be powered by all of the people laid off by the AI.
A literal "virtuous cycle", if you will.
A literal "virtuous cycle", if you will.
Why bicycle? A bath with tubes connected directly to a human body would be much better solution ;)
Too much loss and inefficiency. An in vitro ATP fuel cell feed with glucose would be more convenient with the right enzymes… but wait… glucoses will comes from plants and their own ATP uses sunlight as fuel. Replicating that would be much more cost effective than growing plants to feed animal-based ATP. Just as with food, animal intermediaries are inefficient.
> I’m comfortable estimating that North American data center absorption — as the IT load of data centers actually turned on and in operation — was at around 3GW for 2025, which would work out to about 3.9GW of total power.
> And that number is a fucking disaster.
To me that number is reassuring. I was worried that all this Sam Altman plans to build 12GW per month stuff was going to fry the planet.
If the whole lot so far runs on less than one Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant then that actually seems kind of reasonable. Also I'm skeptical the path to AGI is ever larger data centers - there seems much that could be done in terms of better algorithms and design. I don't think human brains update every neural connection for each word when training which is probably partly why they get by on 20W rather than 20KW.
> And that number is a fucking disaster.
To me that number is reassuring. I was worried that all this Sam Altman plans to build 12GW per month stuff was going to fry the planet.
If the whole lot so far runs on less than one Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant then that actually seems kind of reasonable. Also I'm skeptical the path to AGI is ever larger data centers - there seems much that could be done in terms of better algorithms and design. I don't think human brains update every neural connection for each word when training which is probably partly why they get by on 20W rather than 20KW.
Sigh.
I see another impassioned, fervent cry daily about how it’s all going to collapse like a house of cards (as if smart money doesn’t know it and some podcaster is the first to realize data centers take a long time to build).
But unless I missed something, I didn’t see him disclose any financial positions that would indicate him betting on the collapse he is so clearly calling for.
I think that should be required to take any of these articles seriously - if your portfolio doesn’t reflect your stated opinions, your stated opinions aren’t what you really believe.
I see another impassioned, fervent cry daily about how it’s all going to collapse like a house of cards (as if smart money doesn’t know it and some podcaster is the first to realize data centers take a long time to build).
But unless I missed something, I didn’t see him disclose any financial positions that would indicate him betting on the collapse he is so clearly calling for.
I think that should be required to take any of these articles seriously - if your portfolio doesn’t reflect your stated opinions, your stated opinions aren’t what you really believe.
these sorts of "your opinions must be financialized to be valid" takes are the equivalent of the middlebrow dismissal.
"Smart money" is an illusion that only holds up until they do something in an area you're familiar with. Many _many_ financiers know about finances and fuckall about anything else.
The claims and citations in the article stand on their own, without the additional burden of trying to make a bet based on facts in a rigged game based on mob mentality. How does one even bet against private equity data center deals??
"Smart money" is an illusion that only holds up until they do something in an area you're familiar with. Many _many_ financiers know about finances and fuckall about anything else.
The claims and citations in the article stand on their own, without the additional burden of trying to make a bet based on facts in a rigged game based on mob mentality. How does one even bet against private equity data center deals??
Billions in data center deals are being done in public markets. It wouldn’t be even remotely hard to bet on. He literally called for NVIDIA GPU spending to decline. He also said he believes the true consequences of AI are the destruction of the tech industry’s software stack.
If he believed any of this, there are myriad opportunities to put his money where his mouth is. But I have a feeling the author doesn’t believe it enough to do so. Which tells me all I need to know about his own opinion of his work.
He used the f- word 11 times to describe a catastrophe in the making. This is engagement bait.
Come on, man. How can you defend someone who wrote this:
> every executive forcing their workers to use AI is a ghoul and a dullard, one that doesn’t understand what actual work looks like, likely because they’re a lazy, self-involved prick.
That’s the scion exposing the deep state AI house of cards?
If he believed any of this, there are myriad opportunities to put his money where his mouth is. But I have a feeling the author doesn’t believe it enough to do so. Which tells me all I need to know about his own opinion of his work.
He used the f- word 11 times to describe a catastrophe in the making. This is engagement bait.
Come on, man. How can you defend someone who wrote this:
> every executive forcing their workers to use AI is a ghoul and a dullard, one that doesn’t understand what actual work looks like, likely because they’re a lazy, self-involved prick.
That’s the scion exposing the deep state AI house of cards?
You can really tell who remembers 2008 and who doesn't from comments like this
Ever heard the phrase "the market can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent"?
Wait, who should I be routing for ?
So, who is the grifter here ?
Everybody’s lying to me. Haven’t you heard: lying is a virtue now.
babelfish(4)
Ah yes, now that the rails are all built what could we possibly do next?
But Ed Zitron is not it. Here's an example [1] of him fumbling on simple arithmetic. He's also perpetually bearish without any sense of principles on his message.
This is what he wrote in 2024 [2]
> You can fight with me on semantics, on claiming valuations are high and how many users ChatGPT has, but look at the products and tell me any of this is really the future.
I think the industry really needs someone better with principles.
[1] https://x.com/binarybits/status/2034376359909130249
[2] https://www.wheresyoured.at/never-forget-what-theyve-done/
Edit: here's another example https://x.com/blader/status/2031216372169191678
I get that people make mistakes but it really does seem like there are no principles behind the guy. It seems like he can write whatever.