I find it difficult to separate this piece’s tone from its content. The tone puts me off and makes it hard for me to judge it on its merits, despite some of the arguments seeming sound and well supported.
Agreed. If the arguments seem sound and well supported, then all we can do is attack the tone.
Ed's posts are peak preaching to the choir, they're usually factually correct but he is really bad at convincing anyone who doesn't already strongly agree with him.
Agreed. I am open to the possibility of the bubble bursting or whatever, but this piece is like 3,000 words and cites everything as evidence the sky is falling. It's just as bad as the pro-AI grifters, just in the other direction.
Does the truth normally lie somewhere in the middle of it all?
Given the way tone has been intentionally abused, particularly in this industry, I’ll take a few f bombs and the truth.