[pllbnk]

I don't know what it is but I feel there is some sort of logical fallacy here.

Ed Zitron is an analyst. His viewpoint is that AI is bad for whatever reasons and he does his job by trying to uncover those reasons and does a solid work. He presents a lot of insider knowledge that would otherwise be left unheard.

What are his alternatives? To stop claiming that AI is bad and pivot to "AI is good" writing? To quit writing entirely? To continue writing but in the beginning of each article list the things that he was wrong about in the past? What if it's too early for the things that seem to have been predicted incorrectly by him to materialize and in the end he will appear correct?

I think it's a benefit for society to hear the other side. There are plenty of pro-AI advocates.

[tptacek]

He could stop confidently opining about things he clearly doesn't have even a surface-level understanding of. He also employs a tactic beloved of Internet trolls: he writes extremely long posts to stud his bogus claims in; his readers only need the "vibe" of his pieces to get the value they came from, but actually discussing them requires you to get a pickaxe and shovel and start digging. It would be one thing if he'd evinced technical competence over the last year, but he has done the opposite: some of what he's written about software development makes it really clear he's got basically no exposure to it.

It's a bad combination. There are better AI skeptics to follow. Endorsing Zitron, though, has become a "tell".

[raincole]

An analyst shouldn't have a conclusion carved in stones and work backwards to support said conclusion, for the starter.

[shalmanese]

That’s not an analyst, that’s a pundit. An analyst can have a clear point of view that is different from yours and, very far off the consensus in any direction. But the value of an analyst is they have a consistent point of view that they apply to any situation and flag as their point of view evolves.

A pundit starts from a pre-declared conclusion and works backwards to generate the argument. An analyst lets the conclusion be dictated by the analysis.