This guy has zero zip nada null AI background. He is a videogame reviewer and PR guy. He is a pure influencer feeding on the AI backlash he helped to create.
He has been predicting a crash for how many years now? And while I can totally see Anthropic and OpenAI going through some things on the way to post-IPO FMV, those things do not include AI going away. It truly doesn't matter whether closed source Frontier lab models are spewing tokens or large foreign open weight models are doing it, the token factories will be just fine, and that's really all I care about.
The question to me is why the media favors influencers like this over practitioners.
And it's not like there aren't more balanced takes out there, here's just one...
One, very over-leveraged and risk-thirsty speculative vehicle crashed and burned during its first market cycle of bullishness the first time there was a reasonable pullback. Hedge funds in general got a boost from this implosion.
If your comment is referring to situational awareness, its due to 4x leverage. leverage is always risky. AI/semis are still doing extremely well (over last 2 years) despite the recent dip
This is the most misquoted bit in that whole fiasco. He apparently had to sell every liquid thing in the portfolio. What’s left is allegedly just some highly illiquid paper assets that they’ve also been trying to unload. The present value of those is iffy at best and may well also plummet before they can be cashed in. That “80%” can’t be realized right now in any traditional sense.
No matter how you slice it the whole sequence of events last week was an unmitigated disaster. He’ll likely never manage other people’s money ever again.
He was lucky to be managing any money at all, the West Coast smiling upon him did not translate into East Coast excitement:
> When this star of San Francisco arrived in New York during his fund-raising tour around last summer, however, he received a relatively cool reception, according to three people from whom he tried to raise money, who declined to be identified talking about a private fund. They said they viewed him as a lightweight and a one-hit wonder. The asset management colossus Blackstone, the world’s largest investor in hedge funds, passed on investing, according to two of those people.
> One wealthy New York investor who did take the meeting welcomed Mr. Aschenbrenner into his downtown office, and then gave him a grilling, according to the investor, who declined to be named publicly because he had agreed to keep the contents of the fund’s pitch private.
> What was Mr. Aschenbrenner’s plan if the A.I. revolution didn’t pan out quite as hoped? The hedge-fund founder had no detailed response, the investor recalled. Mr. Aschenbrenner simply truly believed it would all work out.
> No matter how you slice it the whole sequence of events last week was an unmitigated disaster.
It actually wasn't an unmitigated disaster. He was overleveraged and apparently had the dumbest hedges (he was long AI and short software and when AI was down software was up so his hedges didn't hedge).
Citadel swooped in and bought the public equity portfolio. That's the definition of mitigated. There was no propagation of the fund's losses to other financial institutions. This made for great headlines but it was a nothingburger as far as markets are concerned.
> He’ll likely never manage other people’s money ever again.
He didn't close the fund so he's still managing other people's money. And while nothing about his profile would ever persuade me to be his LP, you're underestimating the fact that a pristine track record isn't required to raise money. Given this kid's profile and the fact that he made an obvious mistake (even if it was big), there are probably people out there who still have an appetite for parking money with him.
Ed Zitron is enjoyably mouthy and rude about AI and AI people, but it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that someone most people have never heard of helped create the AI backlash. He is just putting it into words.
You know what created the AI backlash as well as anyone, and it is: AI and AI people.
If e/acc voices were not so abrasively, obtrusively YOLO about their technology, if their entire take on what they earn millions to do was not so easily reduced to “yeah it sucks that your job will go away, learn AI I guess LOLz” then there would be far less to have a backlash against.
Being lectured about the future by people who do not have a fucking business plan for how they will repay a trillion dollars and who might actually crash the economy does tend to grate on the nerves of the reality-based. Being told again and again that we will be ruled over by two firms that ultimately amount to the corporate equivalent of trust fund kids, that is annoying.
If you want to convince people otherwise, find an analyst who is not churning out AI slop.
As to the “predicting it for years” thing, the first correct-with-specifics predictions of the subprime crisis were published in 2004, by a pretty fringe outlet (karmabanque) and its author, Max Keiser. I remember not being shocked at all when it finally happened, or being shocked at LIBOR rigging. Because Max
Keiser presented his reasoning on his crazy radio show, and told his listeners what signs to look out for.
If someone is right for the right, well-informed reasons and presents that reasoning, it doesn’t always matter all that much if their background is unconventional. They tend to be dismissed, and they were back then. “People will always need houses” is what we were told, as if that was enough to ward off massive structural problems.
1) Doesn’t make him wrong, and his thesis is looking more and more correct every day
2) The bullish AI side is full of grifters and folks that were block-chain and NFT “experts” before they became AI “experts.” 99% of the folks in AI know almost nothing about AI apart from thinking it’s cool and having played around with it a bit.
The folks that correctly call BS on a thing tend to not be deep in the thing. Thats how they see things that are completely obvious to anyone but those so deep in they can’t see what’s right in front of them. That’s playing out big time right now with AI.
The only folks that don’t see a massive AI bubble ready to burst right now are those that have drunk so much Kool-Aide that they long since stopped having any clarity in judgment.
The implosion of “situational awareness” last week due to a complete lack of situational awareness that most Wall St pros called total amateur hour is a textbook case of this unfolding.
He doesn't need AI background to commentate on financials. Your post reads like a personal attack. His record talking about stock market doesn't matter either. There is about 0 information in anyone talking about what stock market is going to do.
So his point is that big % of cloud revenue of Microsoft/Google/Amazon come from companies that:
1)are very unprofitable
2)need to raise staggering amount of capital to survive
3)are financed by their suppliers and that money is circling back to them
Your counter-argument is this:
>> It truly doesn't matter whether closed source Frontier lab models are spewing tokens or large foreign open weight models are doing it, the token factories will be just fine, and that's really all I care about.
This might be true but there are 2 majors questions here. One is exposure to Anthropic/OpenAI. If they go bust/can't IPO at expected price it's a big loss hyperscalars will need to admit. The second question is how much of that cloud revenue comes from training. This part of the demand is going shrink or disappear in the bad scenario.
I don’t see how “This guy has no experience in the field he is actively commentating on. None of his predictions have come to pass.” is an ad hominem. The critiques are directly relevant to the subject matter.
Would you expect someone in the AI industry to predict the collapse of the AI industry?
I'm sure there weren't a ton of bankers predicting the mortgage collapse of 2008 but I, a young programmer of mortgage software could see something was weird (but didn't realize that it wasn't the norm).
Fully possible to square those two things. Like, if you were young and you knew even trivial things about how much your parents or relatives earned, you might have thought “how can they afford this new house” but then see others getting new houses and assume that your own limited knowledge is at fault, when in fact the situation was a mix of irrational exuberance, ignorance, greed, head-in-the-sand avoidance, blind eyes turned to fraud, and absurd rates of commission and mis-selling, and your naïve common sense interpretation was correct.
In retrospect it seems that one of the hallmarks of a property boom is people being persuaded they can afford mortgages they can't, or persuaded to round up, pad their application, and willing naïve people lining up to be sold stuff they can't afford, out of an urge to take advantage of what is being sold as a golden opportunity.
In this bubble, one of the hallmarks is CEOs pressuring employees to use AI, urging suppliers to sell them AI solutions they can report to their investors, etc.; people are eager to buy things with fully unproven value out of an urge to take advantage of what is being sold as a golden opportunity.
So in a couple years now, AI will be as gone as cabbage patch kids and pet rocks?
IMO that's anti-AI Psychosis, the evil twin of believing GPT-4o was sentient. And a really bad case of it is labeling anyone who disagrees with you in any way as having AI Psychosis for doing so. And your first line sounds exactly like that to me.
IMO coding agents alone have made AI viable. Healthcare applications have done the same, but coding agents will print money as the cost of tokens drops, and it is dropping. In the meantime, max plans are obviously subsidized, but as long as most of their holders don't token max, they are the netflix of AI until that changes.
We needed OpenAI and Anthropic to get us there, but we're there now, and they need to adjust or they will be reduced to glorified neoclouds in the long run. I also predict publicly traded companies that are AI-first with huge PE ratios will go through some things. What I will not do is even try to pin a date on that. The market can stay irrational longer than any of us can stay solvent. But I wouldn't worry so much about companies with high gross margin and PE ratios of 40 or less. Time in the market beats timing the market and all that.
TBF my realtor was telling me about the "Got a pulse? Here's your mortgage!" issue starting in late 2004 after a bizarre conversation with his favorite loan agent after she had done too many tequila shots and started blabbing about basically giving loans to anyone. 100% true story. But again, good luck timing the crash.
> So in a couple years now, AI will be as gone as cabbage patch kids and pet rocks?
> IMO that's anti-AI Psychosis, the evil twin of believing GPT-4o was sentient.
IMO that’s a particularly scraggly straw man. Even Ed Zitron, who we can stipulate is among the most cynical, thinks that some value will be left after the bubble either deflates or bursts.
So some value, but how much value? You clearly don't like the idea there are some businesses in the AI mix that will continue making money and/or diversify their divisions to cover for any losses they suffer during this hypothetical crash or I wouldn't be getting downvoted for it. META, for example, is running a gross margin of 80% or so right now. You really think they're in trouble?
So really, after all of these companies are wiped off the map because the bubble popped and they went broke, what will be left? Let's get specific here. Let's make some hard falsifiable predictions.
I predict bumpy IPOs for Anthropic and OpenAI, maybe even ending in acquisition instead. I predict anything with a PE over 100 is in trouble. But I also predict anyone with a PE of 40 or less is going to be just fine. Like Michael Burry said, just like Cisco, now running a PE in the high 30s after going through some things. Finally, coding agents are here to stay and they will only get better and cheaper, but they are unlikely to replace common sense meatbags.
> You clearly don't like the idea there are some businesses in the AI mix that will continue making money and/or diversify their divisions to cover for any losses they suffer during this hypothetical crash or I wouldn't be getting downvoted for it.
Me? I didn't downvote you for it and you are projecting a lot onto me without a sound basis.
Either way, my predictions are all personal, because as someone with his own problems I don't really have the spare energy to give a fuck what happens to the US economy or its tech industry. In practice for the rest of the world, I think it will all be dwarfed by the USA's failings in the Strait of Hormuz.
Though as a man in his fifties who has spent his life in the tech industry, I am slightly invested in the possibility of Larry Ellison's humiliation. Bring that on.
This is a bit of a doomer article, but quite honestly, 200 billion dollars a year on a 30 billion dollar a year business that is growing does not really sound as bad as the author makes it out to be, especially when that business consists of growth startups that are currently primarily concerned with completely automating your current revenue stream.
The obvious way to recoup spend is to grow, rugpull by cranking up costs 6x and reducing inference cost by half (highly achievable with improved silicon and technology), then simply fire a large percentage of software engineers. From that perspective the current behavior is a bit wicked but downright logical.
And having two whale customers is not really out of the ordinary for any software company... it's just the scale that is staggering.
The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor. If you don't have a monopoly, you cannot rugpull and 6x the costs on the consumer.
Ironically, the actual thing that will likely kill OpenAI is ACTUAL OPEN AI.
> The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor.
I disagree that "the entire endeavor" is inherently doomed for Anthropic and OpenAI. There will always be a very top end of the market running humongous models (like the recently-teased OpenAI Astra and perhaps including future versions of the existing Claude Mythos) that's too large-scale to be successfully commoditized, and that's exactly where the ongoing investments in AI datacenter compute and model training are most likely to pay off at some point. Video generation is another emerging AI area that seems to require large-scale compute, though the value proposition is definitely iffy there.
It seems like user numbers are stagnating, and the ad play isn't working out so far. Where is the revenue growth coming from? I don't think API can be the answer, because API has absolutely no switching costs.
> The obvious way to recoup spend is to grow, rugpull by cranking up costs 6x
Presumably, that was the plan, but I don't see how that can possibly work with how quickly the Chinese models caught up.
> The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor.
Not in this specific article but Ed Zitron has been talking about open models quite a lot
> The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor.
So much this. I've never touched the Chinese models (no particular reason) but it is having an impact as the frontier companies are pushing the price down as a defensive measure. Is this pulling forward what would have happened eventually? No idea.
It is unclear how effective anyone beyond China and Mistral have been at developing cheaper, capable models. It is an expensive business. I'd be curious if anyone had any thoughts on that
> The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models.
The monopoly will likely then shift from the model to the compute, i.e. who has the GPUs to serve inference at scale from the open weight models. The cloud compute giants have basically bought everything that Nvidia, Broadcom etc. have to offer.
Currently, the inference margins are shared between the cloud giants and OpenAI/Anthropic. But if training great models becomes easier for some reason, the cloud giants benefit. Then they'll have used the OpenAI/Anthropic revenue and spending commitments to grow their cloud business, and then can serve other models and make even more money.
Given that OpenAI and Anthropic are private, I don't think there is any risk to retail investors in this scenario.
AI not turning out to be so useful, and OpenAI/Anthropic not being able to pay their bills is the correct failure scenario i think, as identified by the author.
The hyperscalers already had the compute monopoly. They just spent a bunch of money on even more compute. Compute is OK because it's reasonably general purpose to reallocate for what comes after chatbots (e.g. consumer robotics which is reasonably likely to take off in the next 4 years).
> The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor.
OpenAI and Anthropic investors yes, however open weight models are good for cloud providers. They can turn the two large customers into direct ai services that can be spread across many customers and reduce the cloud providers overhead on ai services.
unironically sama is probably one of the most honest players here after all, he is burning money and if/when they have achieved AGI they will ask it in how to make money. its a different investor incentive story than trying to monetize into profitability right now that is indeed doomed to fail against china. Having no idea but a vision achieved is rrquired to be met to have those returns is actually the honest part here.
If Altman seriously believes his role is to create AGI then ask how to make the company profitable, he should get removed from his position of leadership asap. That’s crazy territory.
It’s a grift, “AGI will save us” is the same as Musk’s “Mars colony”, it’s not supposed to ever happen, it’s supposed to be a goal post they ever move further
He said the following in 2019, at a StrictlyVC event, “The honest answer is we have no idea, we have never made any revenue, we have no current plans to make revenue, we have no idea how we may one day generate revenue. We have made a soft promise to investors that once we've built this sort of generally intelligent system, basically we will ask it to figure out a way to generate an investment return for you.
It sounds like an episode of Silicon Valley it really does I get it, you can laugh, it's all right, but it is what I actually believe is going to happen”
Whether or not that’s his current view, who knows, but everyone who’s invested in OpenAI since should have known that this was at least part of his mental model.
Several top level comments are attacks on the author’s credibility that do not engage the substance of the piece at all. I think the fundamental problem for people on all sides of the various debates surrounding AI is that “AI is a powerful, transformative technology” and “Anthropic and OpenAI are both doomed, and this poses risks to the broader economy” are compatible statements of fact. Just because you believe (1) does not justify dismissing (2) out of hand.
(2) is the point of this article. OAI and Anthropic are spending by far the most money of anyone in the space, as the article rightly notes, but they have no path to becoming profitable, meaning they cannot occupy that position forever. The other entities that rely on their spending to support their own margins - in this case the major cloud providers - are vulnerable to revenue collapse if OAI and Anthropic fail.
The premise most would disagree with is that the labs have no path to profitability. Two points support this: demand for inference is functionally infinite, or at least is so great that it is not meaningful to discuss its limits; and the labs are profitable on inference and are only taking losses to compete with one another. Some would extend this further and say that once the tech is good enough it will be able to drastically reduce their costs by some combination of speeding up research and creating efficiencies to reduce compute spend.
These are valid criticisms. But “AI has gotten better since he started saying ‘AI bad’” is not a reason to ignore the fact that major cloud computing providers are taking on massive new debt while becoming increasingly dependent on only two customers who face meaningful margin pressures. Unless OAI and Anthropic can find a durable moat and a means to exert pricing power, this is a serious issue going forward. That is true whether we wind up with a machine god (although we might have bigger problems in that case) or if we plateau at current capabilities.
I largely agree with this take. What gives me disquiet is that I thought more or less exactly this about Uber, and was proven comprehensively wrong. Despite burning money like a furnace on an app for taxis, it seems that anyone who invested privately made a handsome return, and they are at a profitable steady state. Is AI the same?
The cash burn is not the problem. You can’t build a big business without it. The difference is network effects. With ride sharing apps, you need a lot of drivers and riders collected on one platform. It is nearly always better, for both drivers and riders, to switch to a larger platform. Thus, it was worthwhile to spend the money to become the biggest fish. Once this was accomplished, Uber could raise prices because switching to a smaller rival would mean less availability, and thus less utility (for riders) or less earnings (for drivers).
With AI, by contrast - at least in its current state - there is no benefit to be gained from using the same model provider as somebody else. Switching is trivial for most use cases. Since they can’t capture consumers using network effects, the labs only have the levers of price and quality to pull to acquire and retain customers. To pull the price lever, they have to reduce their revenues; to pull the quality lever, they have to increase their expenditures. Indeed, they are sowing the seeds of their own demise by making inference cheaper and more efficient: since they can’t exercise pricing pressure, efficiency gains will be passed on to the consumer, which is unsustainable if your GPU debt is priced based on yesterday’s efficiency expectations.
I'm seeing this guy everywhere. He was on Bloomberg a day ago and then on another channel and now here. I'm curious why there are not more people like him voicing their concerns. Makes you wonder if he is completely wrong.
His history of predictions about LLMs is not great and he generally seems ideologically committed to pretending they're almost useless and teetering on the edge of collapse.
For example, this article claims:
"Every single story you’ve read about the “incredible growth” of these cloud platforms is an embarrassing misread of three companies that are misleading investors that will more than likely be forced in the next year or two to have to restate revenues, cut remaining performance obligations, and admit that they’ve drastically overbuilt capacity. "
In july 2024, Zitron wrote at length about how the economics of OpenAI were likely to collapse in the next 1 to 2 years [1].
It seems like the nearly inevitable collapse of generative AI is always 1 to 2 years away, but it's just the details of the intricate financial argument that change.
> I am hypothesizing that for OpenAI to survive for longer than two years, it will have to (in no particular order):
And listed various things like a technological breakthrough or more fundraising. I would bet he’s right that they’ll fundraise by the end of the year if they can’t IPO and pass the bag to retail investors.
What the AI bulls don’t seem to understand is that AI could be a great technological achievement AND an impending economic collapse because the valuations of these companies are absurd, basically requiring them to fulfill 10% of the country’s GDP within the next couple years. The achievements are impressive but vastly outpaced by the mania.
For the record, I agree that the generative AI industry might collapse. But I think Ed Zitron is ideologically committed to this belief in a way that is not a reflection of the evidence, and doesn't seem to update this belief based on new evidence.
>What the AI bulls don’t seem to understand is that AI could be a great technological achievement AND an impending economic collapse
This doesn't seem to be Ed Zitron's position, though. He is always minimizing the use cases of AI, and seems to think virtually all of the demand is due to the technology industry manufacturing consent.
The fact there are use cases or not for AI is pretty much irrelevant to his overall points. You can disagree on that specific thing but the thesis regarding what is fueling the bubble is pretty well documented by now
This is his position, he doesn't have time to say it on corporate media that give him 5 minutes but he starts basically every podcast with (paraphrasing) "LLMs are rightfully a boring several-hundred-million-dollar business that will be important in some industries like coding but the vast majority of the population won't care about".
>In july 2024, Zitron wrote at length about how the economics of OpenAI were likely to collapse in the next 1 to 2 years [1].
One of my clearest memories of the first tech bubble was of a number of people who accurately identified that it WAS a bubble and then predicted it would go pop 12-18 months before it did.
They attracted plenty of scorn and derision for being 80% right from people who were 100% wrong.
Some also lost a bunch of money - short selling really explodes in your face if you time it badly. It's not enough to know that it is a bubble, you have to be able to know when market sentiment will finally turn which is a gigantic gamble.
He has been on the topic since a while, and has been recently picking up steam as the discourse on AI sustainability is shifting. But he’s not alone at all, quite a lot of economists have been discussing the exact same points he makes. He’s mostly gathering information and publishing
In order to be invited on TV you must be entertaining first. You don't have to be correct in order to appear more times.
Personally I'm of the mindset that the current AI prices are too rich and that AI is very useful. Much like high speed internet in 2000. The prices were too high but the services themselves are great.
I think it's mostly that he's a vocal critic of AI/big tech at a time when much of the public is anti-AI and anti-big-tech, so his message is resonating with people and he's popular.
> 'm curious why there are not more people like him voicing their concerns.
I have seen such people - notably Jim Chanos.
But, Zitron was vocal at the time where fawning over AI companies was basically mandatory everywhere else. He was the one bringing in numbers and, well, passion rather then fear when arguing that point.
On security, Brucr Schneier was also calling AI threat claims overblown repeatedly.
There is a lot of demand for AI denial, but nearly everybody who is capable of writing even semi-coherently on the topic recognizes AI denial in general as cope, and has too much moral dignity to propogate their coping denial for personal gain.
100% of my income in the "employment" segment is coming from a single employer. That's an unsustainable level of concentration, showing there just isn't sufficient demand for my skills. Bubble!
Has ed zitron ever accounted for the fact that his predictions literally never come true? In most jobs such a poor track record would be disqualifying.
His predictions don’t matter… what matters is the thesis and what it is based upon. Literally nobody can predict to the month or even year when a bubble will pop. But you can identify and document that a bubble exists, and what the actors are doing.
When reading an article you’re supposed to analyze the actual thesis, not just evaluate if the person is an oracle or not
Because it’s economics, a social science. Not a physics experiment you can replicate in a lab. You do what a serious person does: look at the thesis, look at the sources, look at the numbers, and do your own analysis
This guy has zero zip nada null AI background. He is a videogame reviewer and PR guy. He is a pure influencer feeding on the AI backlash he helped to create.
He has been predicting a crash for how many years now? And while I can totally see Anthropic and OpenAI going through some things on the way to post-IPO FMV, those things do not include AI going away. It truly doesn't matter whether closed source Frontier lab models are spewing tokens or large foreign open weight models are doing it, the token factories will be just fine, and that's really all I care about.
The question to me is why the media favors influencers like this over practitioners.
And it's not like there aren't more balanced takes out there, here's just one...
https://overweightskepticism.substack.com/p/ais-cash-cushion...
Yeah, it's not like there are AI-focused hedge funds crashing and burning right now.
One, very over-leveraged and risk-thirsty speculative vehicle crashed and burned during its first market cycle of bullishness the first time there was a reasonable pullback. Hedge funds in general got a boost from this implosion.
If your comment is referring to situational awareness, its due to 4x leverage. leverage is always risky. AI/semis are still doing extremely well (over last 2 years) despite the recent dip
Its up 80% on the year. How do your investments compare?
This is the most misquoted bit in that whole fiasco. He apparently had to sell every liquid thing in the portfolio. What’s left is allegedly just some highly illiquid paper assets that they’ve also been trying to unload. The present value of those is iffy at best and may well also plummet before they can be cashed in. That “80%” can’t be realized right now in any traditional sense.
No matter how you slice it the whole sequence of events last week was an unmitigated disaster. He’ll likely never manage other people’s money ever again.
He was lucky to be managing any money at all, the West Coast smiling upon him did not translate into East Coast excitement:
> When this star of San Francisco arrived in New York during his fund-raising tour around last summer, however, he received a relatively cool reception, according to three people from whom he tried to raise money, who declined to be identified talking about a private fund. They said they viewed him as a lightweight and a one-hit wonder. The asset management colossus Blackstone, the world’s largest investor in hedge funds, passed on investing, according to two of those people.
> One wealthy New York investor who did take the meeting welcomed Mr. Aschenbrenner into his downtown office, and then gave him a grilling, according to the investor, who declined to be named publicly because he had agreed to keep the contents of the fund’s pitch private.
> What was Mr. Aschenbrenner’s plan if the A.I. revolution didn’t pan out quite as hoped? The hedge-fund founder had no detailed response, the investor recalled. Mr. Aschenbrenner simply truly believed it would all work out.
(as quoted in https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-08-03/hed..., originally from https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/31/business/situational-awar...)
Yes… the “trust me bro” vibe doesn’t play well with East Coast money
> No matter how you slice it the whole sequence of events last week was an unmitigated disaster.
It actually wasn't an unmitigated disaster. He was overleveraged and apparently had the dumbest hedges (he was long AI and short software and when AI was down software was up so his hedges didn't hedge).
Citadel swooped in and bought the public equity portfolio. That's the definition of mitigated. There was no propagation of the fund's losses to other financial institutions. This made for great headlines but it was a nothingburger as far as markets are concerned.
> He’ll likely never manage other people’s money ever again.
He didn't close the fund so he's still managing other people's money. And while nothing about his profile would ever persuade me to be his LP, you're underestimating the fact that a pristine track record isn't required to raise money. Given this kid's profile and the fact that he made an obvious mistake (even if it was big), there are probably people out there who still have an appetite for parking money with him.
Ed Zitron is enjoyably mouthy and rude about AI and AI people, but it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that someone most people have never heard of helped create the AI backlash. He is just putting it into words.
You know what created the AI backlash as well as anyone, and it is: AI and AI people.
If e/acc voices were not so abrasively, obtrusively YOLO about their technology, if their entire take on what they earn millions to do was not so easily reduced to “yeah it sucks that your job will go away, learn AI I guess LOLz” then there would be far less to have a backlash against.
Being lectured about the future by people who do not have a fucking business plan for how they will repay a trillion dollars and who might actually crash the economy does tend to grate on the nerves of the reality-based. Being told again and again that we will be ruled over by two firms that ultimately amount to the corporate equivalent of trust fund kids, that is annoying.
If you want to convince people otherwise, find an analyst who is not churning out AI slop.
As to the “predicting it for years” thing, the first correct-with-specifics predictions of the subprime crisis were published in 2004, by a pretty fringe outlet (karmabanque) and its author, Max Keiser. I remember not being shocked at all when it finally happened, or being shocked at LIBOR rigging. Because Max Keiser presented his reasoning on his crazy radio show, and told his listeners what signs to look out for.
If someone is right for the right, well-informed reasons and presents that reasoning, it doesn’t always matter all that much if their background is unconventional. They tend to be dismissed, and they were back then. “People will always need houses” is what we were told, as if that was enough to ward off massive structural problems.
This is a non-argument and your comment is currently at top of this thread. You have not rebutted a single claim Zitron makes.
You called him him an influencer, waved at "practitioners" and declared that token factories will be fine because that is your opinion.
If his analysis is wrong, identify the error.
1) Doesn’t make him wrong, and his thesis is looking more and more correct every day
2) The bullish AI side is full of grifters and folks that were block-chain and NFT “experts” before they became AI “experts.” 99% of the folks in AI know almost nothing about AI apart from thinking it’s cool and having played around with it a bit.
The folks that correctly call BS on a thing tend to not be deep in the thing. Thats how they see things that are completely obvious to anyone but those so deep in they can’t see what’s right in front of them. That’s playing out big time right now with AI.
The only folks that don’t see a massive AI bubble ready to burst right now are those that have drunk so much Kool-Aide that they long since stopped having any clarity in judgment.
The implosion of “situational awareness” last week due to a complete lack of situational awareness that most Wall St pros called total amateur hour is a textbook case of this unfolding.
He doesn't need AI background to commentate on financials. Your post reads like a personal attack. His record talking about stock market doesn't matter either. There is about 0 information in anyone talking about what stock market is going to do.
So his point is that big % of cloud revenue of Microsoft/Google/Amazon come from companies that:
1)are very unprofitable
2)need to raise staggering amount of capital to survive
3)are financed by their suppliers and that money is circling back to them
Your counter-argument is this:
>> It truly doesn't matter whether closed source Frontier lab models are spewing tokens or large foreign open weight models are doing it, the token factories will be just fine, and that's really all I care about.
This might be true but there are 2 majors questions here. One is exposure to Anthropic/OpenAI. If they go bust/can't IPO at expected price it's a big loss hyperscalars will need to admit. The second question is how much of that cloud revenue comes from training. This part of the demand is going shrink or disappear in the bad scenario.
Yes - correct. I have been saying this since this guy gained eminence.
Your example article of a “more balanced take” actually supports what Zitron is saying.
>They are two-party round-trips: a hyperscaler invests in an AI lab that is also its cloud customer, so the investment comes back as cloud revenue.
They may not label as circular financing but this is still the exact same thing he’s bringing awareness to in his article.
Too bad that take is AI slop.
Is your ad hominem attack any better?
I don’t see how “This guy has no experience in the field he is actively commentating on. None of his predictions have come to pass.” is an ad hominem. The critiques are directly relevant to the subject matter.
Would you expect someone in the AI industry to predict the collapse of the AI industry?
I'm sure there weren't a ton of bankers predicting the mortgage collapse of 2008 but I, a young programmer of mortgage software could see something was weird (but didn't realize that it wasn't the norm).
If it does come to pass, the AI version of the Big Short will be wildly entertaining
curious, what weird things did you see?
[flagged]
Fully possible to square those two things. Like, if you were young and you knew even trivial things about how much your parents or relatives earned, you might have thought “how can they afford this new house” but then see others getting new houses and assume that your own limited knowledge is at fault, when in fact the situation was a mix of irrational exuberance, ignorance, greed, head-in-the-sand avoidance, blind eyes turned to fraud, and absurd rates of commission and mis-selling, and your naïve common sense interpretation was correct.
In retrospect it seems that one of the hallmarks of a property boom is people being persuaded they can afford mortgages they can't, or persuaded to round up, pad their application, and willing naïve people lining up to be sold stuff they can't afford, out of an urge to take advantage of what is being sold as a golden opportunity.
In this bubble, one of the hallmarks is CEOs pressuring employees to use AI, urging suppliers to sell them AI solutions they can report to their investors, etc.; people are eager to buy things with fully unproven value out of an urge to take advantage of what is being sold as a golden opportunity.
So in a couple years now, AI will be as gone as cabbage patch kids and pet rocks?
IMO that's anti-AI Psychosis, the evil twin of believing GPT-4o was sentient. And a really bad case of it is labeling anyone who disagrees with you in any way as having AI Psychosis for doing so. And your first line sounds exactly like that to me.
IMO coding agents alone have made AI viable. Healthcare applications have done the same, but coding agents will print money as the cost of tokens drops, and it is dropping. In the meantime, max plans are obviously subsidized, but as long as most of their holders don't token max, they are the netflix of AI until that changes.
https://pricepertoken.com/trends
We needed OpenAI and Anthropic to get us there, but we're there now, and they need to adjust or they will be reduced to glorified neoclouds in the long run. I also predict publicly traded companies that are AI-first with huge PE ratios will go through some things. What I will not do is even try to pin a date on that. The market can stay irrational longer than any of us can stay solvent. But I wouldn't worry so much about companies with high gross margin and PE ratios of 40 or less. Time in the market beats timing the market and all that.
TBF my realtor was telling me about the "Got a pulse? Here's your mortgage!" issue starting in late 2004 after a bizarre conversation with his favorite loan agent after she had done too many tequila shots and started blabbing about basically giving loans to anyone. 100% true story. But again, good luck timing the crash.
> So in a couple years now, AI will be as gone as cabbage patch kids and pet rocks?
> IMO that's anti-AI Psychosis, the evil twin of believing GPT-4o was sentient.
IMO that’s a particularly scraggly straw man. Even Ed Zitron, who we can stipulate is among the most cynical, thinks that some value will be left after the bubble either deflates or bursts.
So some value, but how much value? You clearly don't like the idea there are some businesses in the AI mix that will continue making money and/or diversify their divisions to cover for any losses they suffer during this hypothetical crash or I wouldn't be getting downvoted for it. META, for example, is running a gross margin of 80% or so right now. You really think they're in trouble?
So really, after all of these companies are wiped off the map because the bubble popped and they went broke, what will be left? Let's get specific here. Let's make some hard falsifiable predictions.
I predict bumpy IPOs for Anthropic and OpenAI, maybe even ending in acquisition instead. I predict anything with a PE over 100 is in trouble. But I also predict anyone with a PE of 40 or less is going to be just fine. Like Michael Burry said, just like Cisco, now running a PE in the high 30s after going through some things. Finally, coding agents are here to stay and they will only get better and cheaper, but they are unlikely to replace common sense meatbags.
So what are your predictions?
> You clearly don't like the idea there are some businesses in the AI mix that will continue making money and/or diversify their divisions to cover for any losses they suffer during this hypothetical crash or I wouldn't be getting downvoted for it.
Me? I didn't downvote you for it and you are projecting a lot onto me without a sound basis.
Either way, my predictions are all personal, because as someone with his own problems I don't really have the spare energy to give a fuck what happens to the US economy or its tech industry. In practice for the rest of the world, I think it will all be dwarfed by the USA's failings in the Strait of Hormuz.
Though as a man in his fifties who has spent his life in the tech industry, I am slightly invested in the possibility of Larry Ellison's humiliation. Bring that on.
[dead]
This is a bit of a doomer article, but quite honestly, 200 billion dollars a year on a 30 billion dollar a year business that is growing does not really sound as bad as the author makes it out to be, especially when that business consists of growth startups that are currently primarily concerned with completely automating your current revenue stream.
The obvious way to recoup spend is to grow, rugpull by cranking up costs 6x and reducing inference cost by half (highly achievable with improved silicon and technology), then simply fire a large percentage of software engineers. From that perspective the current behavior is a bit wicked but downright logical.
And having two whale customers is not really out of the ordinary for any software company... it's just the scale that is staggering.
The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor. If you don't have a monopoly, you cannot rugpull and 6x the costs on the consumer.
Ironically, the actual thing that will likely kill OpenAI is ACTUAL OPEN AI.
> The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor.
I disagree that "the entire endeavor" is inherently doomed for Anthropic and OpenAI. There will always be a very top end of the market running humongous models (like the recently-teased OpenAI Astra and perhaps including future versions of the existing Claude Mythos) that's too large-scale to be successfully commoditized, and that's exactly where the ongoing investments in AI datacenter compute and model training are most likely to pay off at some point. Video generation is another emerging AI area that seems to require large-scale compute, though the value proposition is definitely iffy there.
> that is growing
It seems like user numbers are stagnating, and the ad play isn't working out so far. Where is the revenue growth coming from? I don't think API can be the answer, because API has absolutely no switching costs.
> The obvious way to recoup spend is to grow, rugpull by cranking up costs 6x
Presumably, that was the plan, but I don't see how that can possibly work with how quickly the Chinese models caught up.
> The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor.
Not in this specific article but Ed Zitron has been talking about open models quite a lot
> The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor.
So much this. I've never touched the Chinese models (no particular reason) but it is having an impact as the frontier companies are pushing the price down as a defensive measure. Is this pulling forward what would have happened eventually? No idea.
It is unclear how effective anyone beyond China and Mistral have been at developing cheaper, capable models. It is an expensive business. I'd be curious if anyone had any thoughts on that
> The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models.
The monopoly will likely then shift from the model to the compute, i.e. who has the GPUs to serve inference at scale from the open weight models. The cloud compute giants have basically bought everything that Nvidia, Broadcom etc. have to offer. Currently, the inference margins are shared between the cloud giants and OpenAI/Anthropic. But if training great models becomes easier for some reason, the cloud giants benefit. Then they'll have used the OpenAI/Anthropic revenue and spending commitments to grow their cloud business, and then can serve other models and make even more money.
Given that OpenAI and Anthropic are private, I don't think there is any risk to retail investors in this scenario. AI not turning out to be so useful, and OpenAI/Anthropic not being able to pay their bills is the correct failure scenario i think, as identified by the author.
The hyperscalers already had the compute monopoly. They just spent a bunch of money on even more compute. Compute is OK because it's reasonably general purpose to reallocate for what comes after chatbots (e.g. consumer robotics which is reasonably likely to take off in the next 4 years).
What kind of robots are we talking about? What will robots do for me five years from today?
> The actual risk that the author does not even broach upon for investors... the thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor.
OpenAI and Anthropic investors yes, however open weight models are good for cloud providers. They can turn the two large customers into direct ai services that can be spread across many customers and reduce the cloud providers overhead on ai services.
unironically sama is probably one of the most honest players here after all, he is burning money and if/when they have achieved AGI they will ask it in how to make money. its a different investor incentive story than trying to monetize into profitability right now that is indeed doomed to fail against china. Having no idea but a vision achieved is rrquired to be met to have those returns is actually the honest part here.
If Altman seriously believes his role is to create AGI then ask how to make the company profitable, he should get removed from his position of leadership asap. That’s crazy territory.
It’s a grift, “AGI will save us” is the same as Musk’s “Mars colony”, it’s not supposed to ever happen, it’s supposed to be a goal post they ever move further
He said the following in 2019, at a StrictlyVC event, “The honest answer is we have no idea, we have never made any revenue, we have no current plans to make revenue, we have no idea how we may one day generate revenue. We have made a soft promise to investors that once we've built this sort of generally intelligent system, basically we will ask it to figure out a way to generate an investment return for you.
It sounds like an episode of Silicon Valley it really does I get it, you can laugh, it's all right, but it is what I actually believe is going to happen”
Whether or not that’s his current view, who knows, but everyone who’s invested in OpenAI since should have known that this was at least part of his mental model.
https://youtu.be/gjQUCpeJG1Y?is=--fubVyvQnC8rgse
Several top level comments are attacks on the author’s credibility that do not engage the substance of the piece at all. I think the fundamental problem for people on all sides of the various debates surrounding AI is that “AI is a powerful, transformative technology” and “Anthropic and OpenAI are both doomed, and this poses risks to the broader economy” are compatible statements of fact. Just because you believe (1) does not justify dismissing (2) out of hand.
(2) is the point of this article. OAI and Anthropic are spending by far the most money of anyone in the space, as the article rightly notes, but they have no path to becoming profitable, meaning they cannot occupy that position forever. The other entities that rely on their spending to support their own margins - in this case the major cloud providers - are vulnerable to revenue collapse if OAI and Anthropic fail.
The premise most would disagree with is that the labs have no path to profitability. Two points support this: demand for inference is functionally infinite, or at least is so great that it is not meaningful to discuss its limits; and the labs are profitable on inference and are only taking losses to compete with one another. Some would extend this further and say that once the tech is good enough it will be able to drastically reduce their costs by some combination of speeding up research and creating efficiencies to reduce compute spend.
These are valid criticisms. But “AI has gotten better since he started saying ‘AI bad’” is not a reason to ignore the fact that major cloud computing providers are taking on massive new debt while becoming increasingly dependent on only two customers who face meaningful margin pressures. Unless OAI and Anthropic can find a durable moat and a means to exert pricing power, this is a serious issue going forward. That is true whether we wind up with a machine god (although we might have bigger problems in that case) or if we plateau at current capabilities.
I largely agree with this take. What gives me disquiet is that I thought more or less exactly this about Uber, and was proven comprehensively wrong. Despite burning money like a furnace on an app for taxis, it seems that anyone who invested privately made a handsome return, and they are at a profitable steady state. Is AI the same?
The cash burn is not the problem. You can’t build a big business without it. The difference is network effects. With ride sharing apps, you need a lot of drivers and riders collected on one platform. It is nearly always better, for both drivers and riders, to switch to a larger platform. Thus, it was worthwhile to spend the money to become the biggest fish. Once this was accomplished, Uber could raise prices because switching to a smaller rival would mean less availability, and thus less utility (for riders) or less earnings (for drivers).
With AI, by contrast - at least in its current state - there is no benefit to be gained from using the same model provider as somebody else. Switching is trivial for most use cases. Since they can’t capture consumers using network effects, the labs only have the levers of price and quality to pull to acquire and retain customers. To pull the price lever, they have to reduce their revenues; to pull the quality lever, they have to increase their expenditures. Indeed, they are sowing the seeds of their own demise by making inference cheaper and more efficient: since they can’t exercise pricing pressure, efficiency gains will be passed on to the consumer, which is unsustainable if your GPU debt is priced based on yesterday’s efficiency expectations.
I'm seeing this guy everywhere. He was on Bloomberg a day ago and then on another channel and now here. I'm curious why there are not more people like him voicing their concerns. Makes you wonder if he is completely wrong.
His history of predictions about LLMs is not great and he generally seems ideologically committed to pretending they're almost useless and teetering on the edge of collapse.
For example, this article claims: "Every single story you’ve read about the “incredible growth” of these cloud platforms is an embarrassing misread of three companies that are misleading investors that will more than likely be forced in the next year or two to have to restate revenues, cut remaining performance obligations, and admit that they’ve drastically overbuilt capacity. "
In july 2024, Zitron wrote at length about how the economics of OpenAI were likely to collapse in the next 1 to 2 years [1].
It seems like the nearly inevitable collapse of generative AI is always 1 to 2 years away, but it's just the details of the intricate financial argument that change.
[1]: https://www.wheresyoured.at/to-serve-altman/
He said:
> I am hypothesizing that for OpenAI to survive for longer than two years, it will have to (in no particular order):
And listed various things like a technological breakthrough or more fundraising. I would bet he’s right that they’ll fundraise by the end of the year if they can’t IPO and pass the bag to retail investors.
What the AI bulls don’t seem to understand is that AI could be a great technological achievement AND an impending economic collapse because the valuations of these companies are absurd, basically requiring them to fulfill 10% of the country’s GDP within the next couple years. The achievements are impressive but vastly outpaced by the mania.
For the record, I agree that the generative AI industry might collapse. But I think Ed Zitron is ideologically committed to this belief in a way that is not a reflection of the evidence, and doesn't seem to update this belief based on new evidence.
>What the AI bulls don’t seem to understand is that AI could be a great technological achievement AND an impending economic collapse
This doesn't seem to be Ed Zitron's position, though. He is always minimizing the use cases of AI, and seems to think virtually all of the demand is due to the technology industry manufacturing consent.
The fact there are use cases or not for AI is pretty much irrelevant to his overall points. You can disagree on that specific thing but the thesis regarding what is fueling the bubble is pretty well documented by now
This is his position, he doesn't have time to say it on corporate media that give him 5 minutes but he starts basically every podcast with (paraphrasing) "LLMs are rightfully a boring several-hundred-million-dollar business that will be important in some industries like coding but the vast majority of the population won't care about".
>In july 2024, Zitron wrote at length about how the economics of OpenAI were likely to collapse in the next 1 to 2 years [1].
One of my clearest memories of the first tech bubble was of a number of people who accurately identified that it WAS a bubble and then predicted it would go pop 12-18 months before it did.
They attracted plenty of scorn and derision for being 80% right from people who were 100% wrong.
Some also lost a bunch of money - short selling really explodes in your face if you time it badly. It's not enough to know that it is a bubble, you have to be able to know when market sentiment will finally turn which is a gigantic gamble.
"I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of men"
-- Isaac Newton
Is that the prediction they're claiming is "wrong"? The year's nowhere near out yet.
He has been on the topic since a while, and has been recently picking up steam as the discourse on AI sustainability is shifting. But he’s not alone at all, quite a lot of economists have been discussing the exact same points he makes. He’s mostly gathering information and publishing
He's the Gary Marcus for this stage of the popularized denial.
In order to be invited on TV you must be entertaining first. You don't have to be correct in order to appear more times.
Personally I'm of the mindset that the current AI prices are too rich and that AI is very useful. Much like high speed internet in 2000. The prices were too high but the services themselves are great.
I think it's mostly that he's a vocal critic of AI/big tech at a time when much of the public is anti-AI and anti-big-tech, so his message is resonating with people and he's popular.
There’s also Michael Burry and Gary Marcus, and you can sort of infer Warren Buffett believes the market is frothy
Didn’t Warren Buffett just approve a $10B investment in Google?
> 'm curious why there are not more people like him voicing their concerns.
I have seen such people - notably Jim Chanos.
But, Zitron was vocal at the time where fawning over AI companies was basically mandatory everywhere else. He was the one bringing in numbers and, well, passion rather then fear when arguing that point.
On security, Brucr Schneier was also calling AI threat claims overblown repeatedly.
There is a lot of demand for AI denial, but nearly everybody who is capable of writing even semi-coherently on the topic recognizes AI denial in general as cope, and has too much moral dignity to propogate their coping denial for personal gain.
So the ~one guy who doesn't gets around.
> The question I want to ask anyone reading this who might have invested in or in some way backed the hyperscalers and the greater AI industry:
> What is it you think you’ve gotten yourself into? Because I think you’re being sold a lie.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars of realized gains.
And the question I want to ask to anyone paying $70/year for Ed's newsletter: what has throwing the AI baby out with the bathwater gotten you?
Ironically, AI has been great for Ed Zitron.
100% of my income in the "employment" segment is coming from a single employer. That's an unsustainable level of concentration, showing there just isn't sufficient demand for my skills. Bubble!
[off topic] I'm a writer too and I know people have to make their money but
- Huge subscribe CTA at top
- In-text subscribe CTA
- scroll through that get pop up in your face full page subscribe CTA
- close that and continue scrolling to yet another subscribe CTA
was enough to make me close the page and ask my agent for a summary rather.
Has ed zitron ever accounted for the fact that his predictions literally never come true? In most jobs such a poor track record would be disqualifying.
I don’t know. LLMs are plenty often wrong, and some people seem to love them.
His predictions don’t matter… what matters is the thesis and what it is based upon. Literally nobody can predict to the month or even year when a bubble will pop. But you can identify and document that a bubble exists, and what the actors are doing.
When reading an article you’re supposed to analyze the actual thesis, not just evaluate if the person is an oracle or not
If you fervently posit a theory but its predictions fail, why would anyone believe it?
Because it’s economics, a social science. Not a physics experiment you can replicate in a lab. You do what a serious person does: look at the thesis, look at the sources, look at the numbers, and do your own analysis
And you’d consider zitron a serious person?
> In most jobs such a poor track record would be disqualifying.
Economists have entered the chat.
I’ll give him 18 months before his polemics are written with the assistance of AI and he’s holding NVDA and MU.
https://x.com/edzitron/status/1817955630784917548
[flagged]
Ed Zitron is like the living human embodiment of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, except he only talks about the one topic.
> I’d also argue that the vast majority of their capex exists to support these two load-bearing failsons.
Gotcha.