I don't know if Ed Zitron is right about allhis analysis, but it's nice to have an alternative, well-argued narrative to the gushing torrent of AI company propaganda.
There are good sources of well-argued AI skepticism, and then there's Ed Zitron.
Cal Newport is another great person to follow on this and I think he understands the CS fundamentals much better.
The entire internet is full of anti-AI discussion and a straight up disbelief in any chance of success.
Implying there is a "gushing torrent" of pro AI narrative is bizarrely out of touch. We both know this isn't true.
The vast majority of what I see out there is relentlessly negative about AI. It is kind of absurd to call this the "alternative" unless the implication is that the rest of AI skeptical writing is not "well-argued."
75% of comments on every article you read about AI on hacker news is talking about the bubble. But everyone thinks the bubble talk is contrarian.
Is it though? He's more of a gushing torrent of anti-AI propaganda. He has an agenda too, it's just the opposite one.
I find it weird/funny you are getting so many hate responses towards Ed, still no counter-arguments at all. When asked why he is wrong, they vanish. From the outside it looks like a coordinated campaign to try to discredit him.
Happy to read why is he wrong, and change my mind, as long as the arguments provide the same level of analysis he provides.
Read a little more of what he's written before you praise him, so you don't end up looking as dumb as I did.
Ed may be right about some of his claims, but he is 100% a crank, and he makes so many incoherent claims I'd say that if he's right, it's in the nature of a broken clock.