| Grandparent comment’s primary claim was that Ed has frequently claimed untrue things in the past and so questioned why people would continue going to such a source, but your reply didn't seem to address that at all? Someone else separately linked Ed’s 2024 claims [1] that: A. AI revenue had about already maxed out. B. AI's output accuracy was already about as high as it would ever be C. AI users were already declining or was as high as it would ever be. So we have 3 2024 claims about whether AI was already the biggest/best it would ever be, and whether AI usage was even already shrinking. All ended up being the opposite of true. Have you looked at whether Ed’s previous claims that went against popular AI views and are testable ended up being true or not? Does it matter whether an author’s claims like that are true or not for whether you will continue consuming them? If straightforward claims like the above are so easily disprovable, what makes you believe that he isn't cherry-picking other stats in order to spread misinformation or disinformation, as the individual stats he points to might even be completely true, but if they are cherry-picked, they may be more misleading than elucidative? If someone has a multi-year history of frequently spreading false claims, should we trust their predictions about future events more than other sources? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48447549 |