[credit_guy]

It's a good analysis, but I am not sure why you are spending time doing this. People who care about your company (investors, users, partners etc) are probably sufficiently familiar with AI to disregard shallow analyses like Ed Zitron's one. You know the saying: a fool can throw a stone in a pond and 100 wise men can't take it out. It's not worth spending time debunking these pieces.

[tudorizer]

Most likely tickling an own itch. Also to validate/invalidate if sanity wasn't lost.

Plus, Ed's articles have been circulated in some investment groups and nobody expressed a clear counter-point.

PS. I wasn't familiar with that saying.

[dazamarquez]

I would say this article is very shallow. Zitron criticizes what he calls the AI bubble from multiple angles, it's not just "they will never be profitable" — and I agree this would be a wild claim. Even in the worst-case scenario where AI is a giant con, as Zitron paints it, they might just become profitable if they can con enough people. I also don't expect people with a stake in any of this to read Zitron's posts and immediately stop doing what they're doing. That would be silly. I don't think Zitron writes for them, and that what he writes needs "debunking". For how I see it, Zitron mainly advocates for a more critic journalism. Regardless of whether he's right or wrong, he does attempt to critically report on AI.

[tudorizer]

Right, but critiquing with the right perspective is important. Statements about making a loss must contain the entire economic picture, otherwise they simply aren't true at some point.

A business can't be scrutinized unless the units of economics are understood.