[lucketone]

Track record would matter if we would need to trust him. (E.g. he knows some hidden insider data which stays secret, while he shares only a conclusion without must justification)

Track record is not relevant if it is a prediction with all the arguments laid out in the open.

Which is our situation closer to?

[tim333]

Facts can be cherry picked. As an example of Ed's stuff see:

>Anthropic Is Bleeding Out ...Anthropic is very likely losing money on every single Claude Code customer, and based on my analysis, appears to be losing hundreds or even thousands of dollars per customer. (Ed, 10 months ago) https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropic-is-bleeding-out/

vs

>Mind-Blowing Growth Is About to Propel Anthropic Into Its First Profitable Quarter The startup expects a 130% revenue surge to $10.9 billion in the June quarter and its first operating profit, defying skeptics of the AI boom (wsj, yesterday)

If you look at Ed's piece there the facts are correct but he just moans about costs and ignores the growth. Most of his stuff is kind of like that.

[lucketone]

> expects

Is bearing a lot load here.

It is a press release with a goal to create hype.

I.e. it has no relation to “facts”

… unless they would also share underlying numbers (e.g. cost/profit per customer, and why they think some things will increase)