Speaker 1: Zone Media, Hello and welcome to this week's Better Offline Monologue.
Speaker 1: I'm your host ed Zetron. Sorry about no monologue last week.
Speaker 1: I've had a very tough few months and needed a break,
Speaker 1: and honestly I'm still flagging a bit, but there's too
Speaker 1: much shit going on for me to stop talking, and
Speaker 1: I love doing this job too much anyway. Earlier in
Speaker 1: this week, I ran a newsletter that I'll likely be
Speaker 1: turning into a few episodes about how few data centers
Speaker 1: are actually getting built, and found that the vast majority
Speaker 1: of those that broke ground in twenty twenty three and
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four are yet to be completed. My working
Speaker 1: theory is now that barely any capacity is coming online,
Speaker 1: and that's why Anthropic had to buy up all three
Speaker 1: hundred megawats of Elon Musk's Colusus one data center capacity,
Speaker 1: because there are no other options out there other than
Speaker 1: the guy who said that Anthropic was misanthroopic and evil,
Speaker 1: an embarrassing insult when you could just say that Dario
Speaker 1: Amma Day sounds like he's doing Elizabeth Holmes's Steve Jobs voice.
Speaker 1: In any case, I think we're in the good old
Speaker 1: fashioned bullshit phase of the bubble. I know some of
Speaker 1: you will say, but data centers are getting built, But
Speaker 1: what you mean is that data centers are under construction.
Speaker 1: They are not, for the most part, being finished. Across
Speaker 1: every Microsoft data center announced since twenty twenty three, I
Speaker 1: found two Fairwater, Wisconsin and Atlanta, that were anything close
Speaker 1: to complete, and despite Microsoft saying that they're both operational,
Speaker 1: they're actually both stuck on the initial phases. I think
Speaker 1: there's some capacity online, but even then I'm not really sure.
Speaker 1: I saw an article in the local newspaper saying that Fairwall,
Speaker 1: Wisconsin wasn't even working. Now. Microsoft has also claim that
Speaker 1: it brought on a gigawatt of capacity in each of
Speaker 1: the last two quarters, and I think it's using a
Speaker 1: different definition of capacity than operational data centers. It's weird.
Speaker 1: It's fucking strange. I'm sorry. I know I meant to
Speaker 1: be articulate and talk about economics and some shape, but
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm kind of tired of it. We're four
Speaker 1: years in and even the largest companies in the world
Speaker 1: still describe their return on investment like the the fucking Riddler.
Speaker 1: How much capacity do you have, Satya? Why don't we know,
Speaker 1: why don't we know how much you actually made on ai?
Speaker 1: Why are you still using run rate? This is strange.
Speaker 1: What's going on? About to fall into Tucker Carlson voice there,
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, for my article, I actually reached out to
Speaker 1: Microsoft to confirm these things, and they said they get
Speaker 1: back to me last Monday, and then they just stopped replying.
Speaker 1: That's generally what people do when they're hiding something, and
Speaker 1: I'm tired of that too. I'm tired of the fact
Speaker 1: that these companies won't just give me a straight answer,
Speaker 1: or you a straight answer, or their investors a straight answer.
Speaker 1: It's frustrating. And I know you're frustrated too, dear listener,
Speaker 1: and I know you keep asking when this shit ends.
Speaker 1: I truly don't know at this point, and I'll explain.
Speaker 1: The obfuscative finances of these firms are so thoroughly mangled
Speaker 1: that it's hard to tell a fanthropic thirty billion dollars
Speaker 1: in the bank or thirty dollars. It's fundamentally impossible to
Speaker 1: understand how much money open ai actually makes, because both
Speaker 1: I and the Information have now published very different numbers.
Speaker 1: Mine are much lower, billions lower. For twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: I mean I don't have the final quarter, and I
Speaker 1: will say that I can speak to mine with complete certainty.
Speaker 1: Is these are the kind of financials that are borderline
Speaker 1: impossible to lie about, unlike investor documents, which usually well
Speaker 1: are full of them. Now, I want to be clear,
Speaker 1: I am not even accusing open ai of lying. I'm
Speaker 1: sure whatever it's handed over to investors has more asterisks
Speaker 1: on it than Cubert reading mind comp I'm sure it
Speaker 1: says that these are non gap numbers generally accepted accounting principles,
Speaker 1: which means that they could be any number of different
Speaker 1: versions of Ebittenstein's monster. It's hard to tell how much
Speaker 1: open ai is spending, which makes it harder to tell
Speaker 1: how much money it needs or when it might run
Speaker 1: out a bit. If open ai closes this entire one
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty two two billion dollar round in VideA
Speaker 1: and soft Bank are paying in three monthly chunks like
Speaker 1: a fucking Klana plan, and Amazon's thirty five billion dollars
Speaker 1: contingent on either IPO or Agi. Open air will have
Speaker 1: if they successfully do this, would have raised over one
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty billion dollars in the space of a year.
Speaker 1: And even if it doesn't, it will have raised then
Speaker 1: I seem spent most of around seventy billion dollars or
Speaker 1: more in the space of a year. That's so much money.
Speaker 1: Where's it gone? Wherever has it gone? Sammy? Do you
Speaker 1: think they know? Do you think any of these people know?
Speaker 1: Do you think they really know how their finances are doing?
Speaker 1: Because according to open Ai CFO Sarah Fisher, they are
Speaker 1: and I quote the Wall Street Journal here, not ready
Speaker 1: for the scrutiny that comes with being a public company.
Speaker 1: It's pretty worrying to me considering how much money mister
Speaker 1: Ortman is now on the hook for and how much
Speaker 1: money he's taken in. Similarly, his equally damp friend, mister
Speaker 1: Warrio amade of Anthropic is now raising at a scale
Speaker 1: unheard of other than when it just happened with open Ai,
Speaker 1: by which I mean that if it's rounds with Google
Speaker 1: and Amazon fully close, Anthropic will have raised over one
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars in the space of a year. And
Speaker 1: again it doesn't seem to want to go public. Why not,
Speaker 1: mister Amiday? What do you have to hide? What's going on?
Speaker 1: And now mister Amaday is out raising another fifty billion
Speaker 1: dollars that must close in twenty four hours. No wait, sorry,
Speaker 1: that was a few weeks ago. Now, I mean it's
Speaker 1: thirty billion to fifty billion dollars that might close by
Speaker 1: the end of the month. And yes, that is the
Speaker 1: order of the events. And again, no one, no one
Speaker 1: seems to think this is strange. No one in the
Speaker 1: media seems to seem to think this is strange. No
Speaker 1: one seems to be concerned about this at all. I'm
Speaker 1: actually kind of deeply worried about all of this because
Speaker 1: these companies may go public, and if they go public,
Speaker 1: well they're going to lose everyone's money if they invest.
Speaker 1: But if they don't go public, it's still a bunch
Speaker 1: of money that's gone into them that's just potentially gone nowhere. Anyway,
Speaker 1: this is kind of exciting, I'll admit it's kind of exciting.
Speaker 1: That's a bizarre thing to say. I know, it's strange
Speaker 1: to suggest that this might be an exciting thing because
Speaker 1: the stakes have been raised so much that eventually one
Speaker 1: or more of us is going to be proven correct.
Speaker 1: It's going to be me or the boosters. And if
Speaker 1: the boosters are right here, this is crazy. I don't
Speaker 1: think they're right at all. Gone to my head. I
Speaker 1: think Anthropic is doing some sort of very bizarre accounting,
Speaker 1: likely taking in API payments paid in advance. To explain,
Speaker 1: I think it's possible they are counting an organization paying
Speaker 1: its tokens upfront, say fifty million dollars that's likely to
Speaker 1: last twelve months, and acting is if that's a month
Speaker 1: of actual revenue, versus accounting for it spread out over
Speaker 1: twelve months, artificially inflating the run rate by a factor
Speaker 1: of over one thousand percent. To explain, AR is just
Speaker 1: month times twelve. So if they say, if fifty million
Speaker 1: dollars is meant to be spread over twelve months, counting
Speaker 1: it in a single month and multiplying, that's kind of bullshit.
Speaker 1: I don't know for certain if this is what's happening,
Speaker 1: but pre selling tokens and using it to drive up
Speaker 1: AURR is a way It makes sense. And also it
Speaker 1: is not the first time this has happened. There are
Speaker 1: plenty of startups that have done this bullshit in the past,
Speaker 1: some of them in the dot com bubble. I find
Speaker 1: the alternative a little ridiculous. Anthropic CFO Krishna Rao said,
Speaker 1: on March sixth, twenty twenty six, that Anthropic had made
Speaker 1: five billion dollars in lifetime revenue. He said, exceeding, but
Speaker 1: if it was much higher than that, he would have
Speaker 1: said a different number. If that's the case, Anthropics suddenly
Speaker 1: grew its business were a few hundred million dollars in
Speaker 1: January to a few billion dollars a month in April.
Speaker 1: This is, on an accounting basis, a step change in complexity.
Speaker 1: It's a step change in customers scale. Anthropic must have
Speaker 1: had to hire and scale at a speed that defies
Speaker 1: all logic to keep up. They've been handling so much
Speaker 1: fucking cash in their brand new at this Also, Krishna
Speaker 1: raw the CFO, got interviewed recently on one of the
Speaker 1: many Booster podcasts where they just sit there and let
Speaker 1: you say what you want for an hour, and he
Speaker 1: said that the largest user of tokens in Anthropic is
Speaker 1: their tax person. That's the one person I would never
Speaker 1: let use. In all of them, I would slap their
Speaker 1: hands if I saw them using claud I'd be very worried.
Speaker 1: But Krishna seems very excited about this. He's talking about
Speaker 1: how all of this is speeding up all of their
Speaker 1: all of our accounting. And I must be clear, when
Speaker 1: you're handling billions of dollars very suddenly coming in, you
Speaker 1: don't want to rush the fucking accounting, Krishna. You need
Speaker 1: to calm your fucking jaws a little bit. Fucking just
Speaker 1: it's so ridiculous, and it's ridiculous that I am somehow
Speaker 1: unique in the way I cover this, that I am
Speaker 1: unique in my scrutiny. I don't know why, am I mean?
Speaker 1: I do. It's much easier to not scrutinize these companies
Speaker 1: and just applaud whenever you see a big number. But
Speaker 1: I think it's letting down listeners and readers across the
Speaker 1: board to not approach this and replace of scrutiny, even
Speaker 1: if you think this will work out, even if you
Speaker 1: believe AI will be the biggest most you just thing. Ever,
Speaker 1: I think it's a detriment to your listeners and readers
Speaker 1: to not approach this with a high degree of skepticism
Speaker 1: and scrutiny because this is so much money. And here's
Speaker 1: the thing, maybe Christna's being asked, maybe there are at
Speaker 1: thirty billion, fifty billion, whoever knows there are, And it's
Speaker 1: just this amazing business, or maybe it just isn't that big,
Speaker 1: or the business isn't that good. Maybe that's what it is.
Speaker 1: Do you think do you think that that I would
Speaker 1: be very shocked if Anthropic grew from making a couple
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars in one November last year to four
Speaker 1: billion dollars in April. I'd be really fucking shocked. And
Speaker 1: I think that there is a if that is how.
Speaker 1: It's because of the largest papig ai psychosis in the world,
Speaker 1: which you'll get to in a bit. But I've had
Speaker 1: some people recently say that I am not talking about
Speaker 1: the tech enough, and I want to explain why. And
Speaker 1: it's the fact that four years into this, I'm just
Speaker 1: not sure what it is everybody's excited about. What are
Speaker 1: the big AI applications that they're changing my life? Every
Speaker 1: two days Anthropic releases some sort of new harness product
Speaker 1: for finance, law or medicine or accountancy, leading to someone
Speaker 1: stopped crashing based on the theoretical damage that Anthropics product
Speaker 1: could cause without anybody actually trying it or verifying what
Speaker 1: it does, or even explaining why it fucking maps? What
Speaker 1: is it that I am meant to be excited about.
Speaker 1: What is it that I'm meant to be impressed by?
Speaker 1: But ultimately, the reason that anthropics releasing so much stuff
Speaker 1: is it's flak. It's meant to be an impossible to
Speaker 1: pass blob of different things that create the gestalt of
Speaker 1: an indomitable company that can do anything because the markets
Speaker 1: and the media don't bother check. We hear about everybody
Speaker 1: using this shit day in day out. Why has nothing changed?
Speaker 1: What a business is doing differently? How are they different?
Speaker 1: What is different? What is it that llms are actually doing?
Speaker 1: These should not be difficult to complex questions to answer,
Speaker 1: but nobody seems to be able to give me an
Speaker 1: answer with any real clarity or specificity. Every time they do,
Speaker 1: it's a weird dance involving someone saying I now get
Speaker 1: a summary of some stuff from my open claw, or
Speaker 1: of course some sort of multi agent coding fiasco that
Speaker 1: never actually ends with functional or impressive software or anything
Speaker 1: being shipped faster and look on the coding stuff. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm just not that impressed. I speak regularly with very
Speaker 1: talented software engineers, and their reaction is it's kind of cool.
Speaker 1: I guess it's not anywhere here as good as people say,
Speaker 1: or This allows bad software engineers to do impressions of
Speaker 1: functional software engineers, which creates material risk to the stability, functionality,
Speaker 1: and security of software because people trust these people who
Speaker 1: cannot do their jobs, which has begun to decay across
Speaker 1: the board across the entire tech industry with the rise
Speaker 1: of AI coding tools. It sounds like LLM coding is
Speaker 1: a very inefficient way to sometimes speed up some things
Speaker 1: in a way that also creates a culture of overwork
Speaker 1: and either constant bullshit detection or something I call the
Speaker 1: engineer's torpor, a state where your senses are dulled and
Speaker 1: you stop giving as much of a shit into a
Speaker 1: ship breaks and you realize your eight concurrent agents are
Speaker 1: burning three hundred dollars a day of tokens and have
Speaker 1: written two and a half million lines of functional, yet
Speaker 1: brittle software designed with no intent or purpose. Like an
Speaker 1: apartment where the rooms vary in size and the number
Speaker 1: of bedrooms and the toilets are different, with varying finishings
Speaker 1: and the plumbings different room to room. I guess people
Speaker 1: could live there, but it would be a paid in
Speaker 1: the ass to run and get worse the more people
Speaker 1: that moved in. The more agency you give a coding model,
Speaker 1: the less you understand what it is you're building, no
Speaker 1: matter how intently you prompted, or how many agents you
Speaker 1: throw it in, and how weird little tweaks you make
Speaker 1: to your clawed MD file. The more that you don't build,
Speaker 1: the less that it makes sense to make. Matters worse.
Speaker 1: The more you hand over, the more rusty you're going
Speaker 1: to be at writing code. The shit isn't good enough,
Speaker 1: it's not getting good enough, and it cannot be trusted.
Speaker 1: And my evidence is that a lot of software is
Speaker 1: just kind of fucking broken all over the shop in
Speaker 1: ways that's so common that we're entirely numb to it.
Speaker 1: We are tolerant of our ship being broken or terribly designed.
Speaker 1: It was a problem before LLMS, and it's got worse since.
Speaker 1: Let me give you some examples. Sometimes my iPhone will
Speaker 1: randomly show a black scream of the pinwheel. It just resets.
Speaker 1: It's fine, it'll even keep playing my music. It's happened
Speaker 1: every iPhone for years. It sometimes it doesn't happen for months.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it happens multiple times a week. Sometimes apps just
Speaker 1: arbitrarily slow down my phone isn't hot or anything. They
Speaker 1: just slow to a crawl on Chrome when I load
Speaker 1: certain websites like tech Crunch. For some reason, my two
Speaker 1: year old MacBook Pro sixteen inch with Ultra M three
Speaker 1: core or what have you. And I said, well, look, actually,
Speaker 1: while we're live on airs. See I have sixty four
Speaker 1: gigabytes of RAM and this shit slows down because some
Speaker 1: ad cookies it doesn't like. Insane. A lot of popular
Speaker 1: video games crash regularly. The Maden franchises looked like total
Speaker 1: shit for years and is getting worse each time. The
Speaker 1: menus are incredibly slow, the Google docs, iPhone and iPad
Speaker 1: apps are so unstable I want to take away their
Speaker 1: car keys, on top of having some of the most
Speaker 1: vexing design decisions across the board, almost as if they
Speaker 1: don't know how to make things right anymore. And let's
Speaker 1: talk about all those organizations burning what ten, twenty, thirty
Speaker 1: percent or more of their headcount on tokens. This is
Speaker 1: a sickness. It is a psychosis. The amounts of money
Speaker 1: being spent are genuinely disgusting. Any company that spends anything
Speaker 1: more than five percent on their headcount on tokens is
Speaker 1: a fucking Mark, Your businesses are not getting better. Your
Speaker 1: CEOs have ai psycho. The more they speak to the
Speaker 1: machine that tells them they're the smartest, sexiest boy in
Speaker 1: the room, the more they'll be convinced that you must
Speaker 1: join them. They do not see this as annihilating money
Speaker 1: for effectively no reason. They see it as praying to
Speaker 1: a soulless, non existent god, a non spiritual god made
Speaker 1: up of more annoying math, requiring the largest amount of
Speaker 1: infrastructure spent on anything ever. It fucking sick. It is
Speaker 1: just fucking sucks. I'm not correcting that, but you'll just
Speaker 1: have to deal with that. Okay, this is what happens
Speaker 1: when every boss is a fucking business idiot who doesn't
Speaker 1: actually do any work. What do you think Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: does all day? But he walks into it, walks up
Speaker 1: to the mirror. Sometimes she looks down at his willy
Speaker 1: and goes, what are you? What do you do? What
Speaker 1: are you for? What is your concept? Or he walks
Speaker 1: into rooms and bumbles in there and he says we
Speaker 1: need to do more on the exponential, and then some
Speaker 1: wretched worm tongue like figure like boss or Adam Mursky
Speaker 1: oinks in Skar walks at one of two thousand different
Speaker 1: Vice presidents to spread his nasty, vague ideas, whatever they
Speaker 1: might actually be. If you're lucky, you might even get
Speaker 1: to deal with one of five different dysfunctional AI divisions
Speaker 1: with different ultraovs that you have to placate as Mark
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg does something with AI that seems to change every
Speaker 1: fucking week. Not to worry the Wall Street Jonal or
Speaker 1: cover it anyway. And I think that this is how
Speaker 1: a lot of Silicon Valley and a lot of businesses
Speaker 1: are being run. I think that's how Jack Dawsey acts
Speaker 1: about It's how Uber's run. Think of an app you're
Speaker 1: using right now that's anything other than okay? Do you
Speaker 1: love any app? Does anything work great for you? I
Speaker 1: like Flighty Flight, He's a good app. That's one. Even
Speaker 1: the Apple Notes app I use constantly doesn't sink right
Speaker 1: at random for no reason and has a bunch of
Speaker 1: random shit come up whenever I choose the menu. Everything's
Speaker 1: a fucking mess. Nothing is smooth or easy. I have
Speaker 1: to log into something every four minutes. I have to
Speaker 1: give somebody a two FA token every six minute. Sometimes
Speaker 1: Google just logs me out of shit for no reason.
Speaker 1: Sometimes my email client loses its access to Outlook or Gmail,
Speaker 1: and sometimes my password system hasn't saved a password and
Speaker 1: I have to reset my password. I have to go
Speaker 1: to my email and there's three fucking emails from a
Speaker 1: pizza place I visited in New Jersey fifteen years ago.
Speaker 1: And by the way, if you fucking email me and
Speaker 1: tell me, get one password, get bit worn, and get
Speaker 1: fuck you fuck off. It's so sickening that everyone thinks
Speaker 1: that there is some panacea. Oh, my app works for me.
Speaker 1: Apps do not work consistently across the board. That is
Speaker 1: a unilateral truth. One password works well for one hundred
Speaker 1: people and doesn't work well for fifty others. I've seen
Speaker 1: it with my own fucking eyes. Same with last password,
Speaker 1: same with bitworn. The state of these fucking companies is
Speaker 1: dog shit. And I know I'm going to get emails
Speaker 1: from people saying Bitwarden works, I pay for bitworn, don't
Speaker 1: like it. Bay fucking works. It's a bit better than
Speaker 1: one password. But it's like, which of these do I trust? Now?
Speaker 1: What's being saved? Where I'm sick of it. I'm absolutely
Speaker 1: sick of it. Apologies for getting heated. I know it's
Speaker 1: atypical of this show for me to rant. Now, I
Speaker 1: want to speak to if any LM coding people. The
Speaker 1: real code jock is that if you use it a
Speaker 1: bit of work. I don't care. But the people who
Speaker 1: think that this is truly the most amazing thing to
Speaker 1: any LLLM coding folks actually use software, it stinks. It's bloated,
Speaker 1: it's counterintuitive, it's slow, it's inefficient. The ten or more
Speaker 1: tracking cookies and one hundred APIs you connect to every
Speaker 1: two seconds, for some reason, have created a sludge that
Speaker 1: is making every single experience on the computer worse, doing
Speaker 1: varying degrees of k fame to impress another dickhead with
Speaker 1: two million dollars in RSUs doesn't make up for the
Speaker 1: fact that the current state of software is fucking sad
Speaker 1: and ugly across the board. Do you think the modern
Speaker 1: state of software is good? And do you think the insecure,
Speaker 1: bug ridden slop fest of openclaw is a good representative
Speaker 1: of your industry's future. You should be burning it to
Speaker 1: the ground. You should be killing open Claw. It's destroying
Speaker 1: the fabric of software. Lllms make shitty code. I don't
Speaker 1: care how it makes you feel. And I think it's
Speaker 1: made a select few people genuinely mentally ill in a
Speaker 1: way that we're yet to account for. And I don't
Speaker 1: mean random people. I mean prominent vcs and CEOs and
Speaker 1: a lot of software engineers were obsessed with this stuff
Speaker 1: who have now been irredeemably proven to be insane gullible marks.
Speaker 1: And we do not talk enough about how insane this
Speaker 1: all is. Eight hundred billion dollars more than that spent
Speaker 1: by Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta on AI so far,
Speaker 1: and for what a tech industry that has unilaterally increased
Speaker 1: its expenses across the board to varying degrees for a
Speaker 1: return on investment that's nearly impossible to actually explain, and
Speaker 1: impossible to explain in clear terms like does it make
Speaker 1: more money than ispent? It's not profitable. The state of
Speaker 1: software is arguably worse. Most products try and make you
Speaker 1: use an AI feature with questionable utility or efficacy, and
Speaker 1: some organizations actively ostracize you if you fail to use
Speaker 1: it because their CEOs have AI psychosis because their models
Speaker 1: told them they were brilliant. Every time somebody explains AI's
Speaker 1: economic value, they sound like they just got caught committing
Speaker 1: a crime and they're trying to lie their way out
Speaker 1: of it. Why does open a I need all this money.
Speaker 1: Why does Anthropic need all this money? What justification is
Speaker 1: there for any of this expenditure. I know some people
Speaker 1: want to come up with a conspiratorial reason that all
Speaker 1: of this is. Oh, it's a super secret government military
Speaker 1: thing and Trump's going to bail it out. It's all
Speaker 1: a secret government. It's all built for government, government, government, government,
Speaker 1: It's all a secret Trump conspiracy. No, stow it stop.
Speaker 1: That's not what this is. That is a comfortable way
Speaker 1: to feel smart or in control of a situation you
Speaker 1: have no control over. It is a doom saying philosophy
Speaker 1: that allows you to avoid the hard intellectual work of
Speaker 1: actually thinking of what happens when bad things happen. And
Speaker 1: it also avoids the intellectual exercise of accepting that these
Speaker 1: are a bunch of men who do not really know
Speaker 1: how to do business and are self involved cowards that
Speaker 1: only know how to follow each other. I realize it's
Speaker 1: easier to look at the world as dark, scary and say, wow,
Speaker 1: it's all a big secret plan and this is all
Speaker 1: government spying. Already happening way before LMS. Oh, it's all
Speaker 1: a big data gathering. It's all a big surveillance thing
Speaker 1: already happening way before LMS. LMS aren't even particularly useful
Speaker 1: for it. I'm sure there's some uses, but come on,
Speaker 1: Doing that makes you feel like you're smart, It makes
Speaker 1: you feel like you're ahead of the game, when in reality,
Speaker 1: the world is dark. It is scary, but it's also
Speaker 1: directionless and full of followers and cowards and people that
Speaker 1: don't know what they're fucking doing that will spend over
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars on data centers for an AI industry
Speaker 1: that does not have a future. It's a dark and
Speaker 1: scary world we live in when the mainstream media has
Speaker 1: moved away from reality. But it's a reality I live in.
Speaker 1: It's the reality you live in. But don't give these
Speaker 1: people credit. Don't give these people credit or a strategy
Speaker 1: that does not exist. In the end, you need to
Speaker 1: just ask simple obvious questions. Open AI have to become
Speaker 1: profitable at some point. How will they do so? When
Speaker 1: will they do so? Nobody has an answer, which is
Speaker 1: entirely inexcusable. For the most annoying, expensive, destructive, and wasteful
Speaker 1: bubble in history. Zitron out