←back to thread

152 points isoprophlex | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
ai-x ◴[] No.45645581[source]
Just a reminder, Ed Zitron is neither an AI researcher, nor an Engineer, nor a Financial Analyst, nor an Economist nor an Insider and has ZERO clue in multiple dimensions (technology, investing, unit economics, growth, TAM) to analyze any of this
replies(3): >>45645624 #>>45645742 #>>45645908 #
disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.45645624[source]
Correct. And yet, he's provided some of the most level headed takes on the current LLM boom, to the point where FT Alphaville link to his analysis of the economics.
replies(2): >>45645770 #>>45646111 #
1. dist-epoch ◴[] No.45646111[source]
FT Alphaville dissed bitcoin and Tesla for 10 years. Not the greatest track record.
replies(2): >>45646363 #>>45653784 #
2. tadfisher ◴[] No.45646363[source]
As the saying goes, "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." I hope the next fad is to invest in boring companies that employ people and give steady returns, and they can stop replacing all the stores in my city with Dollar Trees.
replies(1): >>45647337 #
3. dist-epoch ◴[] No.45647337[source]
Ok, I have the perfect company for the next fad - https://www.boringcompany.com
replies(1): >>45647391 #
4. tadfisher ◴[] No.45647391{3}[source]
Ah, yes, the company famous for the next innovation in public transport: humans slowly driving Teslas through an expensive tunnel.
5. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.45653784[source]
They also dissed Fyre festival, We Work and basically all of the frauds in the last ten years. Would I use them as my only source? Of course not, but they're definitely useful and (importantly for my point), in the professional finance space.

FWIW, I personally think they're correct on both bitcoin and Tesla, but apparently people disagree.