Style and vibes notwithstanding, is there anything in your view that wrong with the argument itself? Could a better or more polite writer have convinced you with the same shape of logic?
If you're writing in an attempt to convince people of something, isn't how you deliver the message of critical importance?
This is basic Sales 101. The way you sell (products, services, ideas, etc.) is directly related to how successful you are.
That doesn't make him wrong.
He's selling a paid newsletter, so at least one of his motivations is to make money. His target subscribers are certainly people who lean towards his viewpoint but he still needs to do some convincing because the market of people who are open if not warm to his thesis is much bigger than the market of people who already share his thesis.
> That doesn't make him wrong.
I think it's way too early for anyone pontificating about AI, the economics of AI, etc. to be declared "wrong" or "right". This is going to take years, if not decades, to play out.
But I would never consider subscribing to this newsletter and the biggest reason is the writing style/tone. I find it unpleasant.
So even when people agree with you, you can lose them by being abrasive, unpleasant, unlikable.
He is preaching to the choir, if you already hate AI you will love the article, if you don't hate AI already you will find the article insufferable.
Would an angry Pythagoras' theorem be wrong, simply by virtue of his anger?
The square of the hypotenuse — you multiply it by its bleedin' self — is LITERALLY equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Again. Multiply each of the other sides BY THEMSELVES, and then add them together. It's that bleedin' simple Jim Cramer could do it. That number is the same as the square of the hypotenuse, no matter what idiot CEOs think.
So too, Zitron?
I'm neither (or both, if you want - I can hate the direction its taking humanity while not hating my usage of it or opportunities it brings), and I definitely did not find his writing to be either lovable or insufferable.
I enjoyed reading it in a "smells-like-BOFH-but-in-finance" type of way.
Some of his manner reminds me also of Max Keiser's "The Truth About Markets" which I credit with telling me about the subprime crisis a couple of years before it happened, even though people thought he was insane… because he kind of is.