[dghlsakjg]

His numbers are based on sources that he says he doesn’t trust, which is quite interesting. While he may be directionally accurate (eg. The revenue needed to match the spend seems lofty at best) he seems to be mixing and matching numbers to create a worst case scenario that doesn’t necessarily line up with reality. Combined with his complete unwillingness to be open minded about anything even tangentially related to AI, and I can’t take him that seriously.

Publications love a doom and gloom rant, which is why he seems to have built an entire career on hysterical anti-ai screeds. It doesn’t mean that he’s right though.