this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
21 points (88.9% liked)

Technology

87773 readers
3399 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
21
How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been? (danluu.com)
submitted 1 day ago by beep@piefed.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1374245/how-accurate-have-ed-zitron-s-ai-skeptic-predictions-been

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 8 points 21 hours ago

Typical "centrist" playbook. This guy is an AI booster pretending to be on the fence with no vested interest.

I have no particular financial interest in AI companies. I own whatever the standard share of them is via boring index funds. I have some seed stage investments, but just due to the timing and what's gotten big, that part of my portfolio is underweight on AI.

Oh just a few seed stage investments, I'm barely even a venture capitalist, bro. My portfolio is light on AI, bro. These people live in a world where they think we're all seed-stage investors.

And I'm not even going to address the flaws in his arguments because as soon as he pulls up revenue numbers and completely fails to mention the circular investments that are goosing the numbers you know that this is a disingenuous piece.

But it's often pretty hard to address that, because every article he writes is a 10k word gish gallop.

Yeah, that sounds familiar.