You’re implying that Apollo is biased, but the thing you’re quoting is a very brief report on publicly available research. This is the entirety of the article:

“The US Census Bureau conducts a biweekly survey of 1.2 million firms, and one question is whether a business has used AI tools such as machine learning, natural language processing, virtual agents or voice recognition to help produce goods or services in the past two weeks. Recent data by firm size shows that AI adoption has been declining among companies with more than 250 employees, see chart below.”

Two questions:

1) What does that chart show today? (Genuine question. I’m curious and don’t know where to find it.)

2) Regardless of what it shows now, why do you think Apollo reporting on it is noteworthy?

For being one of the biggest AI boosters on HN, you'd really think you could make a stronger case than "Apollo is bad because they observed and reported on a fact". It wasn't a prediction, so there's nothing to "hold up very well".

It was an accurate fit for the data, not a long term prediction.

[flagged]

I don’t think I’d judge someone offering a prediction the same way I’d judge an observation of what’s already happened. It’s implied that guesses about the future are uncertain in a way that statistics about the present are not.