Speaker 1: Zone Media. Hello and welcome to this week's Better Offline Monologue.
Speaker 1: I'm your host ed Zitron. Before I go any further,
Speaker 1: if you ever want to reach out to me with the information,
Speaker 1: contact me on signal ez itron dot seven six. That's
Speaker 1: ez or z for the Canadians and UK people out
Speaker 1: there it Ron dot seven six. I will protect your identity.
Speaker 1: Tell me all your secrets. I'd love to know them. Anyway.
Speaker 1: This week, I wanted to talk about the stuff that
Speaker 1: gets me through doing this show every week and start
Speaker 1: with the point that I was told when I was
Speaker 1: told I should do monologues as to really make them
Speaker 1: sometimes just kind of a ran about how I'm feeling.
Speaker 1: So for once, you're actually going to get one of
Speaker 1: those rather than something I pre prepare all neatly and nicely.
Speaker 1: And if it's a bit self indulgent, well, you know what,
Speaker 1: what do you think you're getting with this podcast? I'm
Speaker 1: a dramatic creature and I love it. Anyway. Today's really
Speaker 1: about what keeps me going through the grind and what
Speaker 1: I think this work can mean long term. I realize
Speaker 1: i'm literally, by the way a podcast they're talking about
Speaker 1: the computer and that there are people with significantly hardly
Speaker 1: jobs and not trying to be too dramatic, but this
Speaker 1: shit does kind of run you down a bit, if
Speaker 1: only because a large part of my work comes down
Speaker 1: to explaining at length why so many people are wrong
Speaker 1: about something in a way that may threaten our entire economy,
Speaker 1: and a lot of them are doing it, and it's
Speaker 1: quite strange. I know some of you are going to
Speaker 1: say that this is Brandalini's law, which talks about how
Speaker 1: disproving misinformation tends to require far more effort than creating it.
Speaker 1: But this is different because we live in a time
Speaker 1: where our markets have become part of a death cult
Speaker 1: of short terminism, when nothing bad ever happens until everything
Speaker 1: bad happens at once. Yeah, writing about this on some
Speaker 1: level is therapeutic. It sounds a little deranged, But in
Speaker 1: writing about forty five thousand words in the past two
Speaker 1: months for both the newsletter and the podcast, I've had
Speaker 1: my arguments and really gotten to a point where I'm
Speaker 1: finally happy with them since built building them. In April
Speaker 1: twenty twenty fourth, real ed heads out there will remember
Speaker 1: the two part episode I did about whether We'd hit PKI,
Speaker 1: where I was on steroids because I got strap throw,
Speaker 1: and I believe I threatened the computer itself, and I
Speaker 1: think I said, if I could ever find a way
Speaker 1: to give the computer a strep throw, I'd do it.
Speaker 1: I maintain that threat anyway. The upcoming three part which
Speaker 1: I'll record this weekend and will go out next week,
Speaker 1: is my guide to arguing with AI boosters, and it's
Speaker 1: allowed me to process my kind of potent frustrations with
Speaker 1: their counterintuitive, thinly sourced yet loudly crowded, pseudo arguments, and
Speaker 1: also the kind of the gas lating nature of them.
Speaker 1: And at a time when very little else feels stable,
Speaker 1: it feels nice to take the argument to people that
Speaker 1: have built media presences or small fortunes off of misleading
Speaker 1: people about what large language models are capable of. And
Speaker 1: if I could say large language model correctly at that
Speaker 1: point would feel a lot better. But I'm keeping it.
Speaker 1: I really do find this all quite reprehensible, how they
Speaker 1: emphatically and aggressively manipulate people into falling in line with
Speaker 1: the narrative that AI was the future and that what
Speaker 1: we're seeing today is just a taste of the power,
Speaker 1: rather than being obviously the result of diminishing returns and
Speaker 1: nothing ever really happening. And I genuinely feel moral outrage
Speaker 1: seeing these arguments weaponized at scale. I just don't like
Speaker 1: people being liked to. I don't like having skeptics treated
Speaker 1: with disdain, their works considered dangerous because they refuse to
Speaker 1: immediately ingest clammy Sam Altman's latest info slot. I do
Speaker 1: not like it when people are being told again and
Speaker 1: again and again to ignore their eyes and their ears
Speaker 1: about what AI can do and about whether chet GPT
Speaker 1: is really that amazing. And I do not like that
Speaker 1: so much data center sprawl has been created, so many
Speaker 1: billions have been burned, so many environs poisoned, and work stolen,
Speaker 1: so that the most expensive software of all time can
Speaker 1: propagate and to the exhausts a few hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: of venture capital and private credit dollars. And it feels
Speaker 1: good to have my work reach a certain scale and
Speaker 1: got there from telling the truth and doing so in
Speaker 1: an emotionally honest way. I mean, who the fuck knows
Speaker 1: what you actually think of me, But at least I'm
Speaker 1: genuine in doing this. It's like eleven ten at night,
Speaker 1: because this was the only time I could really get
Speaker 1: this out, not even the effort, just the emotion needed
Speaker 1: to be there. Anyway, my ranting aside, it feels good
Speaker 1: to read headline after headline that we're actually in an
Speaker 1: AI bubble because it means that on some level, the
Speaker 1: work iron people like me other skeptics are doing, even directly,
Speaker 1: it's bringing an end to this abominable waste. I do, however,
Speaker 1: believe something is growing out of this and out of
Speaker 1: these headlines and out of my work, and that's the
Speaker 1: willingness of the media to accept skepticism, to actually give
Speaker 1: space for it, and to more than just humor, but
Speaker 1: actually begin engaging with these arguments themselves. Last week's relatively
Speaker 1: despondent monologue was more a result of my exhaustion at
Speaker 1: the end of that two month, forty five thousand word fest.
Speaker 1: But the truth is that I have been on television
Speaker 1: four times in the last week and a half, done
Speaker 1: three different interviews, and I'm getting substantially more space to
Speaker 1: explain my arguments in detail. It's not me boasting. This
Speaker 1: is a good thing for everyone. This means that skepticism
Speaker 1: can truly be mainstream, and there genuinely is this shift
Speaker 1: in the mainstream, and this is one that opens the
Speaker 1: door to an entire legion of people to do this
Speaker 1: kind of meaningful, deep emotional and thorough analysis. If my
Speaker 1: ideas can be mainstream, soaken yours. You just have to
Speaker 1: be willing to keep consistent and unrelenting in your beliefs
Speaker 1: and really do a thorough job, actually really look at
Speaker 1: things in the cold, harsh light of day, be willing
Speaker 1: to be skeptical but not brash with your skepticism, and
Speaker 1: actually focus your energy on finding the truth, even if
Speaker 1: that truth isn't great. If I'm completely honest. The Premium
Speaker 1: newsletter this week, it started with me believing I had
Speaker 1: a huge scoop. By the end of it, I realized
Speaker 1: that didn't. I still find something interesting, though, because in
Speaker 1: the process of chasing this down, I learned a lot
Speaker 1: about GPUs eh. But anyway, the idea that my ideas
Speaker 1: in mainstreaming is a huge deal because it means more
Speaker 1: people are willing to consider that perhaps taking business leaders
Speaker 1: might I don't know, be full of shit. And while
Speaker 1: this is not a victory lap of any sort, I'm
Speaker 1: not taking one of those until it's time, and that
Speaker 1: will be when open aigh or anthropic finally shuts down.
Speaker 1: But the true victory here is that you have big,
Speaker 1: serious publications writing stories about things based on my work.
Speaker 1: The Wall Street Journal out of piece by Christopher Mims,
Speaker 1: And yes I did inspire it, he said up on
Speaker 1: Blue Sky, and you can look talking about the cost
Speaker 1: of inference increasing. This is a huge deal. This is
Speaker 1: a major publication being willing to talk about serious skeptical
Speaker 1: ideas that question the narrative that the entire market is chasing.
Speaker 1: And Christopher Mems he also did that great piece on
Speaker 1: data centers, sprawl and the costs and the capex. He
Speaker 1: cited Paul Kudrowski. I'll get to that in future podcast.
Speaker 1: But nevertheless, these ideas are breaking through to the mainstream,
Speaker 1: and narratives can be broken, ideas can be picked up
Speaker 1: and mainstreamed, and suddenly the world is willing to consider
Speaker 1: true skepticism. An increased presence of tech and business skepticism
Speaker 1: in the mainstream will be a net benefit to society,
Speaker 1: and it's an opportunity to hold companies accountable for the
Speaker 1: products and problems they create. I also want to be
Speaker 1: clear that I am not the first to do this.
Speaker 1: Alison Morrow at CNN has been leading tech skeptics since
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, when she was one of the few
Speaker 1: to call bullshit on the metaverse. By the way, but
Speaker 1: the level of mainstream interest I'm seeing in my work
Speaker 1: suggests that the world is finally ready to take this
Speaker 1: more big time. If I'm honest, to make this a
Speaker 1: more common thing you hear of rather than this effusive,
Speaker 1: dumb shit clapping at anything, Sam Moultman says. And I
Speaker 1: realize it seems unrealistic, but with enough public pressure, with
Speaker 1: a fundamental shift in how we cover business and technology,
Speaker 1: we can affect true change. I can't promise will change
Speaker 1: everything overnight, but that will stop every calamitous waste of
Speaker 1: money or colatomus. So I was about to say, but
Speaker 1: if we make it harder to do this financially, waste
Speaker 1: will bullshit quietly, We'll make it harder to do it
Speaker 1: again and again. And it starts with accountability. Once the
Speaker 1: AI bubble bursts, which started four years ago for me
Speaker 1: when I started covering the bullshit of the metaverse, financial
Speaker 1: crises have never been covered in this detail by the media,
Speaker 1: or at least not so widely. And though I believe
Speaker 1: the collapse of AI will be destructive for the tech
Speaker 1: and industry in our markets. I think that for the
Speaker 1: first time, I and others have cataloged the exact destructive
Speaker 1: decisions and their consequences on multiple different levels. To fully
Speaker 1: cover the AI boom does not require you just to
Speaker 1: cover finances. It doesn't require you just to cover the businesses.
Speaker 1: You have to deeply and meaningfully understand the people behind it.
Speaker 1: Fucking Casey Newton suggested, I don't do that. This Friday,
Speaker 1: I'm talking with an actual software developer about a blog
Speaker 1: you oat guy called Colton. He's fantastic, and about how
Speaker 1: the whole myth of the ten engineer doesn't really exist
Speaker 1: with AI. Talking to these people is necessary because this
Speaker 1: isn't just a movement that grew from financial misdeeds, but
Speaker 1: it grew from a tech industry that's kind of disconnected
Speaker 1: from reality. Breaking those illusions is necessary, and it's how
Speaker 1: we stop these things happening again. The Great Financial Crisis
Speaker 1: happened in a much less connective media environment of far
Speaker 1: fewer means of distribution for independent critics. The mainstream media
Speaker 1: opening their arms to business and tech skepticism is an
Speaker 1: important opportunity to explain why this happened, how the market
Speaker 1: became illogical, and what means we used to manipulate the
Speaker 1: media into telling that story. Mainstreaming and education of how
Speaker 1: narratives are built allows people to pull apart future narratives.
Speaker 1: Teaching people to be skeptical of companies selling things is
Speaker 1: a good thing and one that empowers people to make
Speaker 1: better decisions with their lives. Now, I should be clear,
Speaker 1: tech and business skepticism is not new. There have been
Speaker 1: people doing it for twenty goddamn years. What is new
Speaker 1: is the mainstream making this mainstream making financial skepticism. Mainstream
Speaker 1: can change the world, and it can make the goddamn
Speaker 1: Internet better. It can fix the tech industry at a
Speaker 1: time when I don't think the tech industry has been
Speaker 1: more shitty. And I truly love technology and it's brought
Speaker 1: me love, joy, happiness, community and success, and very little
Speaker 1: about what the current tech industry is focused upon feels
Speaker 1: like it's done in pursuit of any of those things.
Speaker 1: In fact, I don't even know what the current tech
Speaker 1: industry is focused on. There are companies doing interesting things.
Speaker 1: I like framework, I like Anchor, I like seeing things
Speaker 1: that are truly changing the world and changing the world
Speaker 1: doesn't need to be this magical, ridiculous thing. It can
Speaker 1: just be making the world a bit more fun and interesting.
Speaker 1: And I don't see anyone in big tech doing that.
Speaker 1: And I don't think thirty three percent of startup funding
Speaker 1: going to AI is actually in pursuit of making anyone's
Speaker 1: lives better, anyone more efficient, making humans better, or even
Speaker 1: if I'm fucking honest, replacing humans. I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: knows what they're doing. And I think where there are
Speaker 1: could be exceptions or on the fringes in really deep
Speaker 1: niche cases. I don't know, but I think the majority
Speaker 1: of generative AI is kind of nihilistic. It's growth for
Speaker 1: growth's sake, and it's the real detritus of the rot economy.
Speaker 1: And I think a collapse is inevitable. I hope it
Speaker 1: isn't as bad as it could be, but I think
Speaker 1: it's the inevitable consequence of taking software and hardware out
Speaker 1: of the hands of people that actually use it to
Speaker 1: do shit and putting it in the hands of management
Speaker 1: consultants like satching Adella. These companies cannot be swayed by regulation.
Speaker 1: The CEOs are too rich, their businesses are too entrenched,
Speaker 1: and thus the info poison we must use is educating
Speaker 1: as many people as possible in how to be skeptical
Speaker 1: of big text hype cycles and knowing the names of
Speaker 1: people like satching Adella and most of us Suliman at Microsoft,
Speaker 1: the people burning billions of dollars for no goddamnaries and
Speaker 1: or clammy Sam Moltman, mocking them, pointing at them, calling
Speaker 1: them what they are that changes the world, that makes
Speaker 1: things better. And I'm touched by the amount of emails
Speaker 1: I get from you. I'm genuinely blessed. I know how
Speaker 1: hokey that sounds. Whatever you know me, I'm a dramatic fellow.
Speaker 1: But I hear from so many of you that this
Speaker 1: is what you want, that you want a better tech industry,
Speaker 1: but you wont so want people to be more skeptical
Speaker 1: of this one. And I couldn't agree more. We can
Speaker 1: have a better world. I don't know how quickly we will.
Speaker 1: There are times when it doesn't feel possible, but I
Speaker 1: actually think it is. Anyway, this monologue has gone on
Speaker 1: way too long. Enjoy the three part next week, How
Speaker 1: to Argue with Nai Booster. It's based on the newsletter.
Speaker 1: It's going to be a lot of fun. Shoot me
Speaker 1: an email, go on the subreddit, dm me on Blue Sky,
Speaker 1: or throw me a slob on Goot. Thanks to zever
Speaker 1: for giving me your time. I'm