[flagged]
Back when people were interested in Blockchains, I explained why people in tech were interested. I'm happy to explain that again now, if anyone cared. If someone thinks that's bad, they're a fool.
It is very secure to be pro-AI while the rest has to resort to unregistered typewriters like in the Soviet Union.
And that's just one example. You also haven't adjusted for inflation in your graphs that span multiple decades. Not to mention that the graphs themselves are not related to what you're discussing most of the time. You're just pointing at random historical developments and seemingly claiming they imply something for AI. They don't.
Also you don't name your sources. You just say "Companies" for most of them. Or a single name. Ridiculous. Those are not sources. You should identify the documents.
This is incredibly low quality work. A college freshman would do better.
I charted the revenue reported by Anthropic and OpenAI as gross and net because those are the numbers they disclose. Anthropic does not report net revenue nor give us any way to calculate that, and the same in reverse for OpenAI. It would be great if we had GAAP revenue, but we don't. This is what we have, and it still tells an important story. What are we supposed to do - just not show the data?
All of the charts indicate whether they are adjusted for inflation. There is no rigid convention on this, but the general practice is that you don't adjust up to maybe 20 years and generally do convert for more than that, unless inflation itself is under discussion, which it is not here. Meanwhile, the text on each slide explains the purpose of the comparison. None of them are random.
Every chart is correctly sourced exactly as you will see it in any other piece of financial or industry research. It is not industry practice to cite specific documents or provide footnotes.
You've clearly just never seen any industry or financial analysis before, and are unfamiliar with basic and universal conventions that run back decades. That's fine. Being rude about it is not.
If "financial analysis" is less rigid in sourcing requirements than grade school, what are you guys even doing. If you have the source, it's not very difficult to make a bibliography (or even write the year/publication with the author/publisher), and not doing so only serves to hinder the reader. If this is industry standard it means your entire industry is terrible at sourcing, does not want the reader to verify claims, or both.
And I've also definitely seen financial slide decks with actual sources cited. So I'm inclined to hope there are people in your industry who actually respect the reader's time.
Here's some more picks (and some more reasons you should list your sources): Your graphs based on surveys don't report error margins. You never list what a 100% is very precisely (what's the sample/population). In one graph, you don't label the y-axis at all (except for a 0 at the bottom)!
And finally, I was rude, yes. But I was only matching your energy. And I did show constraint there. I didn't make a veiled threat, did I?
This says far more about you than it does about me.
I never said I thought financial analysts are idiots. That's not a conclusion I made.
I gave a very reasonable reason: they want it to be more difficult to replicate the analysis. That makes sense if your goal is to make sure your work is profitable, rather than quality reporting and knowledge dissemination.
That would imply the people who set the standards (not everyone) is cynical and/or greedy. Not an idiot.
And still, presumably you are still allowed to add actual sources to financial analysis? You still failed the regular standard of good reporting on this. Your graphs also fail just regular data analysis sanity checks. There is, e.g., no thought given to whether it's even valid to compare data from two sources in one graph. You just do it.
I've spent some time discussing why people are interested in blockchains as software platforms, and what would be good and bad arguments around that. But I've never suggested anyone buy a token - indeed, I was pretty vocal in pointing to speculative bubbles and silly ideas, like NFTs.
Crypto today has a lot in common with both the internet in 1993 and the internet in 1999. Huge potential with few of the use cases invented yet, combined with froth, scams and delusion. This makes it easier to dismiss (“useless AND a scam!”).
But dismissing crypto as a useless scam is much like looking at Usenet, Cuecat and Boo .com and dismissing the internet. It mistakes applications for the enabling layer.
Looking at crypto and only seeing the scams is like looking at the internet in 1999 and only seeing the bubble.
Looking at crypto and seeing no use cases is like looking at the internet in 1993, when the web was 3% of traffic
Another parallel: 1993 - people complaining the term should be internets, not internet 2018 - people complaining 'that's not what crypto means'
You could argue I was wrong and blockchain's potential never turned into anything much. It actually has become a huge deal as plumbing in the finance industry, but not much else. But so what? This was an interesting tech that hasn't really worked out. Welcome to the tech industry.
I have always been (and remain!) bearish on crypto but it absolutely was something that couldn't be ignored a few years ago. Even if you came to the conclusion that it was bunk, there was significant enough fervor that any technologist needed to reckon with their position on it.
For example, lots of engineers proclaimed very loudly that document databases would replace the RDBMs, or that GraphQL was the future of APIs. They were wrong, as it turned out, but only with the wisdom of hindsight.
I made it very clear that I thought NFTs were a speculative bubble. I never suggested anyone should buy any crypto-related instrument. The idea that I was ‘shilling for crypto’ is something you would only say if you’re an idiot, as the OP and a few others on this thread clearly are.