Pundit ClaimsAI claims by Gary Marcus and Ed Zitron, with the evidence

Ed Zitron Where's Your Ed At Published

Burst Damage

We recorded 35 claims from this post. 14 were checked against evidence. 21 can’t be checked. 19 more are held. Read the post at its source.

Claims from this post (35)

In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.

  1. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “The reason I’m not breaking things out much is because Google has been extremely guarded about its AI expenses. Probably because they’re really high and not making them any money.”

    What we tested: Google's AI expenses are probably very high and are not making Google any money.

  2. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “Even with $150m in funding — which is a decent amount of capital — Character.ai likely couldn’t keep the lights on for very long, thus necessitating its absorption by a larger company.”

    What we tested: Character.ai likely could not have survived long on $150m in funding, so it had to be absorbed, which shows many generative AI applications are unsustainable.

  3. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “We’re starting to see a shift — or, more accurately, a centralization — in the point of failure for AI.”

    What we tested: We are starting to see a shift, more accurately a centralization, in the point of failure for AI: away from a large, disparate group of startups and investors and onto a few companies, namely Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook and, to a much lesser extent, Apple.

    What happened: The report identifies increasing integration and partnerships involving Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Apple and Nvidia, alongside developers' reliance on cloud computing. This supports the ordinary dependence reading, while the report also recognizes that partnerships can help independent developers and improve competition. (UK Competition and Markets Authority, )

  4. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “The two most prevalent Large Language Models (outside Meta’s Llama) — OpenAI’s GPT and Anthropic’s Claude — are effectively big tech’s welfare recipients, receiving billions in cloud credits to run their extremely-expensive models without having to build out their own infrastructure.”

    What we tested: OpenAI and Anthropic depend on billions in big tech cloud credits to run their very expensive models.

  5. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “It's entirely possible that this flaw takes more than three months to resolve.”

    What we tested: The Blackwell design flaw may take more than three months to fix.

  6. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “With Blackwell representing a major leap forward in capabilities (both in terms of power efficiency and sheer compute power), this is undoubtedly a massive blow to OpenAI, as well as its competitors. On a basic level, this might delay some of OpenAI’s grander ambitions for an indeterminate time.”

    What we tested: The Blackwell delay is a massive blow to OpenAI and its competitors, and may delay OpenAI's bigger plans for an indeterminate time.

  7. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “For reasons I’ve alluded to at the start of this article, investors are getting impatient with the AI hype boom — and, more specifically, with the giant tech companies that are bankrolling it.”

    What we tested: Investors are getting impatient with the AI boom and with the big tech companies funding it.

    What happened: Morgan explicitly connects impatience to large expenditures and investors wanting corresponding revenue. Reuters identifies his firm as a Microsoft shareholder; no separate primary investor communication was located. (Reuters, republished by AOL, )

  8. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “Regardless, this article has put it very plainly: OpenAI only gets access to the latest technology as fast as Microsoft permits.”

    What we tested: OpenAI gets access to the latest hardware only as fast as Microsoft allows.

    What happened: The contemporary report establishes the exclusive cloud relationship underlying dependence on Microsoft for advanced compute. The specific primary-company passage could not be retrieved with read_page, so this report supplies the dated outcome evidence. (TechCrunch, )

  9. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “However, I believe that the collapse (or absorption) of OpenAI is the one critical sign to look for.”

    What we tested: Zitron believes the collapse (or absorption) of OpenAI is the one critical sign to look for that the generative AI bubble is popping.

  10. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Any price increases by OpenAI or Anthropic: If they start needing to make more money, they could get desperate. This will be a sign their unit economics are no longer working out with their investors.”

    What we tested: If OpenAI or Anthropic raise prices, that will signal their unit economics no longer work for their investors.

  11. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Venture capital isn’t really what’s propping up generative AI — it’s Google or Microsoft. If either of them decide it’s time to slow down investment, the boom is done, as referenced above.”

    What we tested: Google and Microsoft, not venture capital, are what keep generative AI going; if either slows investment, the boom is over.

  12. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “These are stable, revenue-generating (yet unprofitable) ancillary players that likely will need to raise in the next 12 months.”

    What we tested: Scale AI and Cohere are unprofitable and will likely need to raise money within 12 months.

  13. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “So far — and this is napkin math — I’d estimate that a total of $200 billion has been spent to get generative AI to this point, in infrastructure, in funding, in energy, in so many different meaningless ways, all to get us to the point that we have a tool that’s really good at generating things that aren’t as good as what a human could make.”

    What we tested: By a rough estimate, about $200 billion has been spent on generative AI, producing a tool whose outputs are not as good as human work.

  14. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “As I wrote last week, OpenAI needs to raise more money than anybody has ever raised in the next 12-24 months, or launch a product so significant that it blows ChatGPT out of the water — things that are unlikely, but possible.”

    What we tested: OpenAI must raise a record amount of money within 12–24 months or launch a product far better than ChatGPT, and both outcomes are unlikely but possible.

  15. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “If none of the major cloud companies — who are usually in lock-step with each other to keep their cartel-esque empires alive — change course over the next three months, we could potentially see this boom continue for another quarter.”

    What we tested: If no major cloud company changes course in the next three months, the AI boom could continue for another quarter.

  16. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “If generative AI becomes an albatross around the necks of Google, or Microsoft, or Amazon — which I believe it will — these companies will face serious pressure to curtail their investments and their capex spending.”

    What we tested: If generative AI becomes an albatross around the necks of Google, Microsoft, or Amazon (which Zitron believes it will), these companies will face serious pressure to curtail their investments and capital expenditures.

  17. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “In any case, I believe the next month will be critical to the future of the artificial intelligence boom.”

    What we tested: The month after August 5, 2024 will be critical to the future of the AI boom.

  18. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “While there is a chance we get one more round — a last gasp — it’s honestly a little tough to imagine how it keeps going even if it raises another $10 billion.”

    What we tested: There is a chance OpenAI gets one more funding round, a last gasp, but it is a little tough to imagine how it keeps going even if it raises another $10 billion.

  19. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “OpenAI may be able to raise money, but investors have no real path to liquidity, as OpenAI most assuredly won’t be able to go public, and in the process of investing will find out exactly how bad things are there.”

    What we tested: OpenAI will not be able to go public, so its investors have no real path to liquidity.

  20. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “If I had to guess, Anthropic’s most likely home would be with Amazon, which completed its $4bn investment into the company earlier this year.”

    What we tested: If Anthropic is absorbed by a big tech firm, Zitron guesses its most likely home would be Amazon.

  21. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “There’s the obvious one — OpenAI or Anthropic shutting down — but I think that’s very unlikely based on their corporate structure. OpenAI or Anthropic “collapsing” will be more like the Character.ai deal — an attempt to hide the ugly mess where a big tech firm absorbs them.”

    What we tested: OpenAI or Anthropic shutting down is very unlikely given their corporate structure; if they 'collapse', it will be more like the Character.ai deal, where a big tech firm absorbs them in an attempt to hide the mess.

  22. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “Raising a round for a generative AI company in this market is likely going to be difficult, if not impossible.”

    What we tested: In the current market, generative AI companies will likely find raising money difficult or impossible.

  23. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “Sam Altman doesn’t care about AI either. He cares about accumulating power, has been doing so for years, and will be back with another con within three years.”

    What we tested: Sam Altman doesn't care about AI; he cares about accumulating power, has been doing so for years, and will be back with another con within three years.

  24. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Yet, generative AI doesn’t actually do these things.”

    What we tested: Generative AI doesn't actually act as a 'super smart friend that knows everything about me' or automate away drudgery such as spreadsheets and documents.

  25. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “The promises of artificial intelligence will not be kept through the pursuit of generative AI, as generative AI is a dead-end technology that has peaked, one that costs too much — both financially and socially — to keep it going.”

    What we tested: Generative AI is a dead-end technology that has peaked, costs too much to sustain, and will not deliver the promises of AI.

    What happened: The benchmark operator reports verified scores of 37.6% for Opus 4.5 and 54% for a Gemini-based refinement, alongside disclosed methods and open-source solutions. These material advances contradict a categorical capability ceiling, while the report also identifies costs, narrow task coverage and possible overfitting. (ARC Prize Foundation, )

  26. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “There is no magic, no whimsy, no joy in any of these Large Language Models and their associated outgrowths. They're not helping anybody, yet their peddlers demand our fealty and our applause.”

    What we tested: Large language models and their associated outgrowths are not helping anybody.

  27. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “Fire Satya Nadella, fire Sundar Pichai, and work out a way to fire Mark Zuckerberg.”

    What we tested: Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, and Mark Zuckerberg should be fired.

  28. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “I have no idea how quickly the shift comes, but it is inevitable that this lack of big, profitable ideas leads to some form of collapse in big tech.”

    What we tested: Big tech's lack of big, profitable ideas will inevitably lead to some form of collapse, timing unknown.

  29. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “The point I’m making is that whatever estimates we have about what these companies have spent on generative AI is probably wrong by tens of billions of dollars, and the only real reliable (ish) indicator is CapEx spending, and what’s publicly reported whenever these companies make a new investment.”

    What we tested: Public estimates of big tech's generative AI spending are probably wrong by tens of billions of dollars.

  30. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “In the event that Anthropic or OpenAI is able to raise, we’ll see the cycle continue another quarter, at which point something crazy needs to happen to make any of this worth it. If these companies can raise, they’ll keep the bubble inflated, though not forever.”

    What we tested: If Anthropic or OpenAI raises money, the bubble will last another quarter, but not forever.

    What happened: OpenAI reported that it had raised new funding. This satisfies the stated antecedent. (OpenAI, )

  31. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “That $32.5 is now $195. If it wanted to have the same margins, it would need to make $105 in profit from each user. So, $300. $300 a user for a product it hasn’t even built yet.”

    What we tested: On his estimates, OpenAI's search product would need about $300 per user to match Google's search margins.

    What happened: Applying the independent margin definition to the supplied assumptions gives $195 cost, $300 revenue, and $105 profit per user annually. The dates identify when the hypothetical inputs and their mathematical implication were public; OpenStax supplies the definition, not an OpenAI financial measurement. (OpenStax, )

  32. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “To be clear, there is nothing wrong, on its face, with generative AI. It does interesting things with documents, and I fully believe there will be some low-fi version of generative AI that plugs along silently once the hyper scalers flee.”

    What we tested: Zitron fully believes some low-fi version of generative AI will plug along silently once the hyperscalers flee.

  33. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “These men do not care about their customers, they do not face true competition, and the government should break every single hyper scaler up — Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple, and Oracle, and find ways to stop them ever growing so large in the future.”

    What we tested: The government should break up every hyperscaler (Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Oracle) and stop them from growing so large again.

  34. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “Sundar Pichai and Satya Nadella must go.”

    What we tested: Sundar Pichai and Satya Nadella must be removed as CEOs.

  35. Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid

    “And it’s changing. The narrative is changing. And soon it will shift more aggressively and violently against big tech, and this is a great thing for the world, and ultimately the tech industry at large.”

    What we tested: The narrative will soon turn more aggressively against big tech.

Held from this post (19)

These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.