I find it difficult to separate this piece’s tone from its content. The tone puts me off and makes it hard for me to judge it on its merits, despite some of the arguments seeming sound and well supported.
Don't want to ruin it but go read some old posts from the author about AI, the tone is the same and he is very much wrong.
"I believe that artificial intelligence has three quarters to prove itself before the apocalypse comes, and when it does, it will be that much worse, savaging the revenues of the biggest companies in tech. Once usage drops, so will the remarkable amounts of revenue that have flowed into big tech, and so will acres of data centers sit unused, the cloud equivalent of the massive overhiring we saw in post-lockdown Silicon Valley."
Ed Zitron. Mar 18, 2024
I’m not attacking the piece. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m not saying it’s wrong.
What I’m saying is, the tone made it hard for me to judge the arguments fairly, despite finding some of them convincing. And as much as I dislike it, persuasion does partly depend on how an argument is made.
He's in the media business... its in his interest to amp things up.
Of course that mentality is obsolete. Now we all have infinite access to perfectly correct information via the internet.
Does the truth normally lie somewhere in the middle of it all?
Usually does when you decide what constitutes extreme.
"Some people say the Sun sets at East, other people say it sets at West. The truth, of course, is certainly on the middle."