At this point I have yet to hear a solid argument against his arguments that use half as much evidence as he does.

That isn’t to say that he’s right, that’s just to say that while he gets creative in his phrasing numbers don’t lie and I haven’t seen anyone else present competing numbers that make sense.

If anyone has them to the degree with which he provides them then please, by all means, I’m interested.

Well he's not a developer or science guy or smart at all so in his view, AI doesn't work because sometimes it makes mistakes.