[tptacek]

I don't have a direct opinion about Zitron's economic takes. I don't have a stake in that argument, I don't do financial planning for inference providers or training, I'm open to a variety of arguments, in either direction, about viability.

But I have direct subject-matter expertise with software engineering, and too much of what Zitron has to say about AI-mediated software development is clownish. Not wrong (everyone's wrong all the time), but literally risible. I can't get past that.

My thing is: there are smart people doing analysis with skeptical takes. Zitron gets cited because he has a business engine going revving people up and arming AI skeptics with (what I believe to be) Gish Gallup takes. It's profitable for him, and I don't begrudge him, but when people I otherwise respect cite Zitron it makes me sad: Zitron is going to make fools out of them. Cite better skeptics!

[dragontamer]

For all of Zitrons faults, he has workable numbers that a can be used and cited in arguments.

[tptacek]

I believe that he might, but anything valuable he says will be said better and more credibly by someone else.

[dragontamer]

> someone else.

> Cite better skeptics!

You are welcome to share any that you know.

[tptacek]

Gary Marcus is the cite I usually give.