Why Are We Still Doing This?
We recorded 16 claims from this post. 16 can’t be checked. 8 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (16)
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.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Let’s start with a simple one: AI boosters are no longer allowed to explain what’s good about AI using the future tense.”
Our reading: AI boosters should not justify AI by pointing to future capabilities, only present ones.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“OpenAI claims it made $13.1 billion in revenue in 2025 and “only” lost $8 billion — but those numbers seem unlikely considering my report from November of last year that had OpenAI at $4.3 billion in revenue on $8.67 billion of inference costs through September 2025, and this is accrual accounting, which means these are from the quarters in question.”
Our reading: OpenAI's claim of $13.1 billion in 2025 revenue and only an $8 billion loss is probably inaccurate, given $4.3 billion revenue against $8.67 billion inference costs through September 2025.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“While I must be clear that Anthropic can limit Claude subscriptions, as can OpenAI limit ChatGPT, I doubt either can do so with precision.”
Our reading: Anthropic and OpenAI can limit subscription usage but probably cannot do so with precision.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“In both cases, Anthropic (and OpenAI, for that matter) is screwed.”
Our reading: Whether they subsidize subscribers on purpose or cannot control compute costs, Anthropic and OpenAI are in an untenable economic position on subscriptions.
No horizon
Qualifier: whether subsidizing intentionally or unable to limit compute
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“This is a huge problem for both Anthropic and OpenAI, as their scurrilous growth-lust means that they’ve done everything they can to get customers used to paying a single monthly cost that directly obfuscates the cost of doing business.”
Our reading: In chasing growth, Anthropic and OpenAI got customers used to flat monthly prices that hide their real costs, which is a huge problem for both.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Direct labor and parts are considered part of the calculation of gross margin, and spending on training — both the data and the process of training itself — are absolutely meaningful, and to leave them out is an act of deception.”
Our reading: AI labs' training costs belong in gross margin, and leaving them out (as Anthropic and OpenAI do) is deceptive.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“I also think that Anthropic and OpenAI have deliberately used their subscriptions as a means of conning the media into conceptualizing AI as far more affordable than it actually is.”
Our reading: Zitron thinks Anthropic and OpenAI have deliberately used their subscriptions to con the media into seeing AI as far more affordable than it actually is.
No horizon
Qualifier: I think
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“I think that these articles would’ve been much less positive if the reporters were even aware of the actual costs.”
Our reading: Zitron thinks the positive articles about Claude Code would have been much less positive if the reporters had even been aware of the actual costs.
No horizon
Only if: if the reporters were even aware of the actual costs
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“I know, that doesn’t mean anything, and all Block is doing is AI-washing, which is when a company uses AI as a scapegoat to justify laying people off.”
Our reading: All Block is doing with its 4000 layoffs is AI-washing, meaning it is using AI as a scapegoat to justify laying people off.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“Four fucking years of this and we’re still talking about this stuff in riddles, mostly because it’s a terrible business.”
Our reading: After four years, AI revenue at public software companies is still discussed in riddles, mostly because it's a terrible business.
No horizon
Qualifier: mostly
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“It’s a deeply cynical con. Hyperscalers like Microsoft and Meta are paying for these contracts because they don’t reflect as assets on the balance sheet, all while moving the risk onto the AI compute company — and if the AI company misses a deadline, the hyperscaler can walk away.”
Our reading: Hyperscalers sign neocloud compute contracts to keep the assets off their balance sheets and push the risk onto AI compute companies, keeping the right to walk away if deadlines slip.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Every time you report on these deals should include a timeline.”
Our reading: Every media report on a data center deal should include a realistic construction timeline.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“The problem is that the markets have AI psychosis, and thus believe anything to do with data centers is a natural winner.”
Our reading: Markets have 'AI psychosis' and therefore believe anything to do with data centers is a natural winner.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“Nevertheless, AI has become one of the largest cons in history, bought and sold based on stuff it can’t do (but might do, one day, at a non-specific time), constantly ignoring the blatant swindles and acidic economics that are only made possible with regulators and the media and the markets piloted by people that don’t know or want to know what’s actually happening.”
Our reading: AI is one of history's largest cons, sold on things it cannot do.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“If you’re excited based on the potential, you’re not excited about technology, you’re excited about marketing.”
Our reading: Excitement about AI's potential rather than its current abilities is excitement about marketing, not technology.
No horizon
Qualifier: if based on potential
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“However you may feel about Amazon as a service, its engineers are likely indicative of corporate engineering on some level, which is making me wonder if we’re not going to have some real problems in software development in the next few years as a result.”
Our reading: AI-assisted coding may cause real problems across software development in the next few years.
No horizon
Held from this post (8)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- Attribution is uncertain
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: According to people with direct knowledge, Microsoft has already set Nebius up to fail by expecting over 50MW of GB200/GB300 IT load by the end of April and at least another 150MW by the end of the year, when Nebius has only about 130MW of IT load worldwide.