Decisively declaring long-term predictions wrong only two years later seems a little premature?
E.g. a company of the size of Meta/Google/Ms may very well be dying and still producing numbers that look like growth for the next few years.
---
Also, how in the world is a Jan 2025 prediction that "I believe we’re at peak AI" getting a simple "Wrong"? How are we deciding what "peak AI" is here?
---
Or, "July 2025: I am not trying to be dramatic, but it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that Cursor is going to die" -> "Wrong (Cursor gets a $60B exit)"
"August 2025: These models have clearly hit a wall where training is hitting diminishing returns" -> "Wrong"
I guess this is just trolling at this point? This is like a research paper tier question, "wrong" doesn't cut it.
---
Very unimpressed with this analysis. Extremely poorly done, and pretty clearly not impartial at all. Shameful. Like, the guy does sound wrong to me, but the analysis is terrible nonetheless.
E.g. a company of the size of Meta/Google/Ms may very well be dying and still producing numbers that look like growth for the next few years.
---
Also, how in the world is a Jan 2025 prediction that "I believe we’re at peak AI" getting a simple "Wrong"? How are we deciding what "peak AI" is here?
---
Or, "July 2025: I am not trying to be dramatic, but it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that Cursor is going to die" -> "Wrong (Cursor gets a $60B exit)"
So Cursor can't die once its been acquired? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49486172
---
"August 2025: These models have clearly hit a wall where training is hitting diminishing returns" -> "Wrong"
I guess this is just trolling at this point? This is like a research paper tier question, "wrong" doesn't cut it.
---
Very unimpressed with this analysis. Extremely poorly done, and pretty clearly not impartial at all. Shameful. Like, the guy does sound wrong to me, but the analysis is terrible nonetheless.