July 25, 2025 • 41 mins
In part three of this week's three-part Better Offline, Ed Zitron walks you through how AI agents don’t really exist, how deceitful AI marketing has become, and why everything is brittle as a result.
YOU CAN NOW BUY BETTER OFFLINE MERCH! Go to https://cottonbureau.com/people/better-offline and use code FREE99 for free shipping on orders of $99 or more.
---
LINKS: https://www.tinyurl.com/betterofflinelinks
Newsletter: https://www.wheresyoured.at/
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/BetterOffline/
Discord: chat.wheresyoured.at
Ed's Socials:
https://www.instagram.com/edzitron
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Zone Media, stop your grinnin and drop your linen. I'm
d zechron and this is better offline. Welcome to the
final part of our three part Hater's Guide to the
(00:23):
AI Bubble, where we've been talking about the growing cracks
emerging in the industry and the potential contagion to the
wider economy that are pullback in general of AI spending
will cause. And I must be clear, things are bad
the vibes A rand said. I spent the past two episodes,
and we'll spend much of this episode explaining why. But
I just want to recap something from the first part
of this series. Right now, seven companies, the Magnificent Seven,
(00:45):
account for the value of nearly thirty five percent of
all of US stocks, and the biggest of these companies
is in Nvidia, which has gotten fat off the back
of the AI bubble today a disproportionate amount of Nvidia's
revenue eighty eight percent of it is coming from the
other members of the Magnificent Seven. And there of the
enterprise GPUs designed to power the compute heavy eight A
applications that you're hearing about all day. If and when
(01:07):
they pull back, invidiabile sink so too will the other companies,
especially when it becomes evident that they've spent nearly half
a trillion dollars in two years on bugger roll. It'll
be an apocalyptic shedding of value. They won't die, but
it'll be the likes of which we haven't seen since
the dark days of two thousand and seven and two
thousand and eight for those companies. I don't know about
(01:27):
the global banking system imploding, but I also can't say
what I just I don't know. But what I do
know is tech is going to take such a precipitous
haircut that you're going to see scissor gashes in the
man's bald head. Terrible metaphor. If that sounds like a
them problem, though, and not a you problem, ask yourself,
what's in your fuah one K? Do you own any
index funds or ETFs? Are you close to retirement? And
(01:50):
how much do you enjoy eating ramen? Are you willing
to eat the same whiskers cat food as your American
short hair? I am, except I feed them a different,
better food because Babu deserves the best. But in the
last two episodes, I made the case that the generative
AI industry is unique in its capital demands and unparalleled
in the fact that no company beside in video or
consultancies are making any money from them. I can easily
(02:10):
imagine the chain of events where one big company fails,
like either because they ran out of money or because
the investors pulled back. This in turn spooks the rest
of the market, causing other companies to start seeing massive
revenue drops. And as the demand for compute drops, hyper
scalers like Microsoft, Amazon and Google massively cut their capital expenditures,
canceling data center build outs and of course slowing down
(02:31):
their GPU orders. And then Jensen Huang would have to
watch as the cash cow that made his company rich
and fat is take over a walk behind the barn
for two shots to ring out. Though I must be clear,
video isn't gonna die, None of the Magnificent seven will. However,
the first big failure, the first domino to fall, could
be any number of companies, and while I don't think
(02:52):
open Ai and Anthropic are necessarily going to be the first,
I also believe that there's an air of inevitability about
one of or both of their demises. This matter is
because these companies are for all intents and purposes the
generative AI industry. They're deeply unsustainable and unstable, and yet
they are also critical to the AI trade. Continuing, I
haven't really spent much time on my favorite subject, that
(03:15):
open ai is a systemic risk to the tech industry.
But let's recap my reporting. Open Ai and Anthropic both
lose billions of dollars a year after revenue, and their
stories do not mirror any other startup in history, not Uber,
not Amazon Web Services, and nothing. I've addressed my Uber
point before in how does open ai survive? It'll be
in this show notes. Someone always asks me about this.
(03:36):
Please stop, learn to read, learn to listen. Soft Bank
also is putting itself in dire straits simply to fund
open Ai. The steel threatens its credit ring, with SoftBank
having to take on what will be multiple loans to
fund the remaining thirty billion dollars open ai is forty
billion dollar funding round which is yet to close, and
open aiy is in fact still raising from the Middle East.
This is before you consider the other nineteen billion dollars
(03:58):
that soft Bank has agreed to contribute to the Stargate
Data Center project, money that it does not have available
at this time. But I must say, while recording this episode,
I saw some news come out and I'm just going
to read it to you and said soft Bank and
open Ai is five hundred billion AI project struggles to
get off ground. The Stargate venture introduced a white house event,
(04:19):
is now setting the more modest goal of building a
small data center by year. And I just want to say,
anyone that doubted me can suck one. I was oinking
and squawking around my room just before this when I
got this news in. I just want to say, I
just learned this news and I'm still taking it in.
I'm still taking in because it makes me so excited
(04:39):
and sad. Anyway, neither soft Bank nor open Ai has
the money for Stargate, regardless of what they built. Also,
Clammy Samy's making some interesting claims about what Stargate is.
He's claimed the Denton site, the core Weavers building is
also Stargate. This motherfucker loves lying anyway. Open A must
also convert to a for profit by the end of
twenty twenty five, all whose twenty billion dollars of the
(04:59):
remaining thirty billion dollars of funding. If it does not
convert by October twenty twenty six, it's current funding converts
to debt. It is also demanding remarkable and reasonable concessions
and Microsoft stuff like they want to reduce their rev share,
They want to reduce their their I think, their ability
to their exclusive rights to sell models. I did I
really need to do a monologue about this, and I
(05:20):
know this is technically a monologue, but nevertheless, they want
these insane things, and Microsoft is refusing to budge, and
it's willing to walk away from negotiations necessary to convert.
According to the Financial Times, and also open Ai does
not have a path of profitability, and its future, like Anthropics,
is dependent on the continual flow of capital from venture
capitalists and big tech, who must also continue to expand infrastructure.
(05:40):
I don't know how that's going to fucking happen with
Stargate going. God, I feel so good about that. Oh
I want to like bottle that up and drink it. Anyway.
Anthropic is in a similar but slightly better position. It's
set to lose three billion dollars this year on four
billion dollars of revenue. It also has no path of
profitability and recently jacked up prices on cursor, it's larger
customer has had to put restraints on clawed code after
(06:02):
allowing users to burn one hundred to ten thousand percent
of their revenue a month. These are the actions of
a desperate company. Nevertheless, Open Ai and Anthropics revenue amount to,
by my estimates, more than half of the entire revenue
of the generative AI industry, including the hyperscalers. And to
be abundantly clear, the two companies that amount to a
round half of all generative AI revenue are only losing money. Now.
(06:26):
I said a lot of this before, which is why
I'm trying not to harp on it too much. But
the most important company in the entire AI industry needs
to convert to a for profit entity from a nonprofit entity,
which has never happened before in this case, by the
end of the year or it's effectively dead. And even
if it does, Open AI burns billions and billions and
billions of dollars a year and will die without continual funding.
They have no path to profitability in anyone telling you
(06:49):
otherwise as a liar or a fantasist. And on top
of this is part of the thing about SoftBank, by
the Way and Stargate. They revealed that they've promised Oracle
thirty billion dollars a year their cloud contract. I swear
to fucking God does no one read these stories and
think does this not sound just like an egregious lie? Anyway,
(07:10):
as I wrote earlier in the year, there is really
no significant adoption of generative AI services or products. Chat
GPTs five hundred million weekly users, and otherwise it seems
that other services they struggled to get fifteen million users.
Although you could mention Google that's not a fair comparisons.
It cheated by combining Google Gemini with Google Assystem to
claim it had three hundred and fifty million active users
(07:31):
a while the five hundred million weekly users sounds and
is in fairness impressive. There's a world of difference between
someone using your product as part of their job, which
they pay for, and someone dicking around with an image
generator or a college student trying to cheat on their homework.
On top of that, now I'm recording this July twenty first,
there's an ICO story that came out today with some
bullshit vanity metrics, rope and AI. But that story said
(07:52):
the Open AI themselves had said that they have five
hundred million weekly active users. Now here's the crazy thing.
That five hundred million number. That from March. That's and
March now, but I came from an open AI funding announcement.
Have they platowed stick around? I'm going to find out.
But this is all worrying on so many levels, chief
of which is that everybody has been talking about AI
(08:12):
for three goddamn years, and everybody has said AI and
every earnings and media appearance, exhausting fucking blog posts, and
we still can't scrape together the bits to make functional industry.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Now.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
I know some of you will probably read this in
point to chat gipt's users, and I quote myself writing
in my newsletter make fun of them, which also read
for this podcast. Chat gpt is allegedly five hundred million
weekly hatieth users and by the last count, only fifteen
point five million paying subscribers, an absolutely futrid conversion rate,
even before you realize that the actual conversion rate would
be monthly active subscribers, which is how any real software
(08:43):
company actually defines its metrics. By the fucking way, Why
is this impressive? Because it grew so fast it literally
had more pr and more marketing and more attention and
more opportunities to sell to more people than any company
has ever had in the history of anything. Every single
industry has been told to think about AI for three years,
and they've been told to do so because of a
company called open Ai. There isn't a single goddamn product
(09:03):
since Google or Facebook bes's had this level of media pressure,
and both of these companies launched without the massive amount
of media and social media that we have today. CHADGBT
is a very successful growth product and an absolutely horrifying business.
They're a banana republic that cannot function on their own.
They do not resemble Uber, Amazon, Web Services or any
other business in the past other than we work the
(09:24):
other company that SoftBank spent way too much money on,
and outside of chad GBT, there really isn't anything else.
But before I wrap up this three parter and I'm tired,
and I imagine you are too, I do want to
address something. I want to address the kind of both
sides thing that everyone's doing, and I think we all
need to do way less of this because at this
point it's kind of silly. Yes, Generati, if AI has functionality,
(09:49):
there are coding products and search products that people like
and some even pay for them. As I have discussed
across this series and I said discuss there, but I'm
keeping going and across countless podcasts and newslayers. None of
these companies are profitable until one of them is profitable,
really profitable sustainably, so generative AI based companies are not
real businesses in any case. The problem isn't so much
(10:10):
that l elms don't do anything, but that people talk
about them doing things they can't. The use of the
word agent is a deliberate attempt to suggest that l
elms are autonomous, and any and all stories about AI
replacing jobs are intentionally manipulative attempts to boost stock valuations
and suggests that models are capable of replacing human workers
at scale, which they are not. Allison Morrow of CNN,
who's been on the show a few times, also has
(10:31):
an excellent piece on this, which I've linked to in
the show notes. As I discussed in my newsletter Sincerity
Wins the War, which I've also linked to, this is
one of the most egregious failures of the tech media
I've ever seen, willingly pushing warrio Amma days outright making
up of stuff. No one asked him if that if
the stat he said ten to twenty percent white collar unemployment,
if I started lying, I just really want to be
(10:53):
clear about something. If I went on this podcast and
I just fucking made up stats, if I was just like, yes,
seventy five percent of all generative ais CEOs, literally they
love kicking puppies, they love drop kicking puppies, you'd get
mad at me. Right. What's the difference between that and
Wario Ama Day saying twenty percent white collar and unemployment.
There is none. They're both lies. And I don't know
(11:15):
why I'm doing the dog kicking one, but it's just
an example. We move on. And as a side note,
the discussion also of the term AGI artificial general intelligence,
and every acceptance of it is an attempt to suggest
that large language models can create conscious intelligence, a fictional
concept that even Meta's chief AI scientist says won't come
from scaling up llms. Members of the media, listen to me,
(11:38):
every time you talk about the really smart engineers that
say Meta is paying one hundred million dollars two know
that you are doing free marketing for these companies when
what's really happening is people are giving tens of millions
of dollars, the guys who will work on teams that
are pursuing a totally unproven concept. It is like saying
that they are all going to see if they could.
I don't know. I was about to say the wrong
(11:59):
create the wrong trend from Rollss and Grummet, Rollis and
Wallace and Grummet. But you know those are one hundred
percent possible. I'm sure someone could build them. How about this,
They all believe they're going to hunt and kill the
tooth Fairy because the tooth Fairy is about as realistic
as agi, and if you disagree with me, emummy, I
might even read him. I should also add that the
(12:19):
use of the word singularity is similarly manipulative. These are
terms that are used to obfuscate the actual abilities of
large language models and indeed what can be built on them.
It's really frustrating because these should be really obvious tricks,
but the media keeps accepting them. And I don't want
(12:40):
to accuse anyone of being anything. I just want to
say I find it fucking disgusting. And when this all
falls apart, there will be a referendum on this. I
will not be kind or merciful to the people that
have continually pushed these narratives. I also want to add
there's another really annoying narrative that we need to get
rid of, and that's these stories models lying, cheating, and
(13:01):
stealing to reach their goals or stop themselves being turned off.
These are intentionally deceptive, as these models can and clearly
are being prompted to take these actions. To be abundantly clear,
the manipulative suggestion here is that these models are autonomous
or conscious in some way, which they're not. When I
say prompted, I mean we don't have all of the
information as to how these models were trained or prompted
(13:21):
to get these answers. They can make them do them.
They could create a model to do it. And oh anthropic,
wouldn't lie, wouldn't they, Dario Amat They went on stage
and said they'll be twenty percent unemployment from white collar labors,
and he'll claim me he said it was the future.
It's a fucking lie, absolutely ridiculous. And I believe that
the generative AI market is a fifty billion dollar revenue industry,
(13:44):
masquerading is a trillion dollar one, and the media is helping.
And underneath this troubling fact there's another one that should
give us pause. The AI trade really is not about AI.
It's not about generative AI, it's not about autonomous agents,
it's not about AGI. It's all about GPUs, and it's
incredibly brittle as a result. Now, as I've explained at length,
(14:14):
the AI trade is not one based on revenue user growth,
the effixive tools or significance of any technological breakthrough. Stocks
are not moving based on whether they're making money or AI,
because if they were, they'd be moving downward. However, due
to the ViBe's based nature of the AI trade, companies
are benefiting from the press inexplicably crediting growth to AI
with no proof that that's the case. Open AI is
(14:34):
a terrible business, But the only business worse than open
AI are the companies built on top of them. Large
language models are too expensive to run and have limited
abilities beyond the ones I'm named previously, and because everybody's
running models that all on some level do similar things,
it's very hard for people to build really innovative products
on top of them. But ultimately, this entire trade, all
(14:55):
of the AI trade, hinges on GPUs. Coreweave was initially
funded by Nvidia. They're a company that does AI data centers.
I don't want to talk about them, makes me angry,
but their IPO was funded partially buy and Video sells
the GPUs. Video is also one of their customers, and
core Weave raises debt to buy GPUs by using the
(15:17):
GPUs they've already bought as collateral, and so they get
those loans, and then they use that money to build
data centers and buy more GPUs to put in them,
which they then use as leverage to Do you see
the Do you see the problem? Do you see the
issue with that? This isn't me being polemic or hysterical,
by the way, this is quite literally what's happening and
(15:38):
how core Weave operates. If you want alarm by that,
I'm not sure what to tell you Elsewhere. Oracle is
buying forty billion dollars in GPUs for the still uninformed
Stargate Data Center project, and Meta is building a Manhattan
sized data center to fill within video GPUs. If you
believe that Meta will actually do that, which I do not.
Open AI is also Microsoft's largest as your client and
insanely risky proposition on multiple levels, not simply in the
(16:00):
fact that it's serving the revenue at cost, but the
Microsoft executives believed that open ai would fail in the
long term when they invested in twenty twenty three. According
to the information, Microsoft is in Videa's largest client for GPUs,
meaning that any changes to Microsoft's future and interest in
open AI, such as reducing its data center expansion, would
eventually hit in Vidia's revenue. Why do you think deep
(16:21):
seek shocked the market. It wasn't because of any clunky
story around training techniques or costs. It was because it's
said to the market that and Video might not sell
more GPUs every single quarter in perpetuity. Microsoft, Meta, Google, Apple, Amazon,
and Tesla aren't making much money from AI. In fact,
they're losing billions of dollars on whatever revenues they do
make from it. Their stock growth is not coming from
(16:42):
actual revenue or actual products, but the vibes around being
an AI company, which means absolute jack shit when you
don't have to users, finances, or products to back them up.
So really everything on the AI trade comes down to
in Video's ability to sell GPUs and more of them
each quarter. And this industry, if we're really honest, is
at a point where it really only exists to do
(17:02):
so genera. If AI products do not provide significant revenue growth,
its products are not useful in the way that unlock
significant business value, and the products that have some adoption
run at such a grotesque loss. It's really sad. But
I realize I've thrown a lot at you. And for
the second time this year, I've recorded the three part
podcast series. And what's great is you may think maybe
(17:24):
I took a break. Maybe no. I recorded these bad
boys back to back to back. That's why I sound
so tired and why my voice kind of I think
smooths out. I like doing this, but I needed to
say all of this. I really did because I am
genuinely really worried. We're in a bubble. If you do
not think we're in a bubble, you are not looking outside.
Apollo Global chief economist Torsten slock Killer name said it
(17:48):
last week in a research note published July sixteenth. Okay,
what he said was much worse. The difference between the
IT bubble in the nineteen nineties and the AI bubble
today is that the top ten companies in the S
and p today are more overvalued than they were in
the nineteen nineties. Slock wrote in a recent research note
that was widely shared across social media. In financial circles,
we're in a bubble. We're in a bubble general. If
AI does not do the things that it's being sold
(18:11):
as doing, and the things it can do aren't the
kind of things that create business returns, automate labor are
really do much more than one extension of a cloud
service platform. The money isn't there, the users aren't there.
Every company seems to lose money, and some companies lose
so much money it's impossible to tell how they'll survive.
Worse Still, this bubble is entirely symbolic the bailouts. And
I know I get a lot of emails about this,
(18:32):
and I'm really going to address this issue right now.
The bailouts of the Great Financial Crisis were focused on
banks and funds that have failed because they ran out
of money, and the top initiative existed to plug holes
with low interest loans. There are no few holes to
plug here, because even if OpenAI and anthropics somehow became
eternal money burners, the AI trade exists based on the
(18:53):
continued and continually increasing sale and use of GPUs. There
are limited amounts of capital, but also limited amounts of
data is to actually put GPUs, and on top of that,
at some point growth will slow at one of the
magnificent seven, at which cost time costs will have to
come down from things that lose them tons of money,
such as generative AI. I really want to be clear,
though a lot of people say, oh, it's really kind
(19:15):
of lazy doomerism. I don't appreciate it, because, like, if
you're going to be worried about something, be worried about
something that's real, you're saying, oh, Trump will just bail
them out. Oh, they'll get bailed out. Who will get
bailed out? For this fast to continue? In video? Is
thirty nine point one billion dollars of data cent revenue
in the last quarter. That means the next one needs
to be forty four and one after that needs to
be like fifty sixty eighty one hundred. This needs to
(19:38):
continue forever. Is the government going to nationalize in video?
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Is?
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Well? I guess that would take them off the market,
wouldn't it is they're just going to feed in video
fifty sixty seventy billion dollars. I guess if one of
these AI companies fail, they could give them money, but
they're just going to go ahead and fucking lose it.
What do you think they're going to do? Where does
the money go? In the Great Financial Crisis, banks failed,
you had to give the bank's money. Hedge funds failed,
you had to give money to places, and then they
(20:03):
took the money and they weren't out of money anymore.
This isn't a case where companies will run out of
money but otherwise be okay. They don't have a way
of being okay. There is no way of being okay.
If you want to be a duma. Look at the
fact that the fucking stock market is built on saling
more and more GPUs every quarter. There is no plugging
that hole. There's nothing for you to do. Oh god,
(20:26):
this guy, what isn't the cost of inference coming down? No,
you do not have proof of this statement. The cost
of tokens is going down, and that is not the
cost of inference going down. Everyone's saying this is they're
saying it because a guy once said it to them.
You do not have proof. I have more proof for
what I am saying, well, it theoretically might be going down.
All evidence points to the larger models costing more money, especially
(20:48):
reasoning having ones like Claude Opu's four. Inference is not
the only thing happening. If this is your one response
for a big bozo and a dufus and should go
back to making squeaky noises when you see tech executives
or hear my name and a podcast. It's sickening. Even
if the cost of inference is going down, on what
model exactly is it coming down on? I don't know three,
(21:09):
opus fource on it. Four. I don't think it is.
The price that the model developers are charging. By the way,
is not the price of inference. That's not the same thing.
It's not the same thing at all. I'm really sick
of this goddamn point. You can hear it in my voice.
But let's move on. So some people bring up a
six and they are these customized chips for specific options
(21:30):
to reduce the amount that these companies are spending on compute. Right.
I have a few thoughts when is this going to happen?
For example, say open aim Broadcom actually build their asick
in twenty sixteen, twenty twenty six. They won't do this,
but that's when they're meant to How many will they build?
Do they have contact contracts with companies that can actually
produce high performance silicon or there's only three of those, Samsung,
(21:51):
TSMC and SMICE which is currently sanctioned. And these companies
typically have their capacity booked well in advance. Great example
for you in Nvidia restarts that h twenty GPUs and
told customers is reported by the information that they're not
going to make more because the capacity they had at
TSMC got given away because they canceled it. Even starting
(22:12):
a production run of a semiconductor product can take weeks.
Do they have the server architecture prepared? Have they tested it?
Does it work? Is the performance actually good? Because the
information reported the Microsoft has failed to create a workable,
reliable ASIC and the one that they're going to bring
out next year is going to be still worse than
in videos. What makes open ay special? What gives them
the industry knowledge that means that they won't run into
(22:34):
these problems? The answer is nothing, absolutely bloody nothing. Anyway,
if this happens, and should be clear, it takes a
lot of money to build these chips, and they're yet
to prove that these chips be better than Nvideo GPUs
FORRAI compume they're going to have to retrofit every data
center for them. By the way, they're not just going
to plug into the same thing, these Blackwell chips, and
(22:54):
actually generally GPUs they have specialized server architecture and N
Video is a big stickler for DETAI. So we're just
going to rip up all the stuff. So this will
I assume take two minutes, because it needs to. It's
the only way. By the way, if this actually happens,
it still fucks up the AI trade because then video
still needs to sell GPUs. Jesus Christ, I'm sorry. I'm sorry,
(23:17):
And people ask, is this real? Anger? Yeah. I I
read about these things, and I read the inconsistencies in
the media, and I talk about them, and I think
of the amount of times in my life I have
had people make me feel stupid or make me feel crazy.
I'm sure many of you have had this experience too,
people that are allegedly smart, people that have positions of power,
(23:39):
people that we look to as responsible figures. And I
think about all the times that I've known I was right,
but because there was a consensus, a group ideal, you
had to kind of stick by it even if it
was something factually wrong. What I did the experience in
the past was seeing the media do it like this,
and the way in which the media has done it,
(24:01):
it's sickening. It's sickening because the people that will get
hurt will be the people whose retirements and who's just
savings are going to get lamped by this crap. And
I'm worried. I'm worried because despite all these obvious, brutal
and near on fixable problems, everybody is walking around acting
like things are going great with AI. The New York
(24:21):
Times claims everybody is using AI for everything, and I'm talking,
of course about Kevin Ruse and Casey Newton. But baby
cannot wait for when this explodes. Guys, you have no
idea how funny it's going to be. And by the way,
this is a blatant lie, one that exists to prop
up an industry that has categorically failed to deliver the
innovations of returns that it promised, yet still receives this
glowing press from a tech and business media that refuses
(24:44):
to look outside and see that the sky is red
and frogs are landing everywhere other than the frog thing.
I'm not being dramatic. Everywhere you look in the AI trade,
things are getting worse. No revenue, William's being burned, no mote,
no infrastructure play, no comparables in history other than the
dot com bubble and we work, and a series of
flagrant lies spouted by the powerful and members of the
(25:05):
press that are afraid of moving against market consensus. Worse still,
despite Nvidia's strength, in Vidia is the market's weakness through
no fault of its own. Really, Jensen Wong sells GPUs,
people want to buy GPUs, and now the rest of
the market is leading aggressively on one company selling one thing,
feeding it billions of dollars in the hopes that the
things they're buying start making them profit. And that really
(25:26):
is the most ridiculous thing. At the center of the
AI trade sits enterprise GPUs that on installation immediately start
losing the company and question money. Large language models burn
cash for negative returns to build products that all kind
of work the same way. Now, if you're gonna say
I'm wrong, sit and think carefully about why is it
because you don't want me to be right? Is it
because you think these companies will work it out? This
(25:48):
isn't anything like uber aws or any other situation. It's
its own monstrosity, a creature of hubrious and ignorance caused
by a tech industry that's out of ideas, built on
top of a one company. Really, play with me all
you want about how there are actual people using AI.
You've probably read the my AIS skeptic friends are All
Nuts blog, and if you're going to send that to me,
(26:09):
read the response from Nick Suesh First. I've linked both
in the show notes. And if you're going to say
that I don't actually speak to people who use these products,
you are categorically wrong and in denial. I'm only saying
all of this with this aggressive tone because for the
best part of two years, I've been made to repeatedly
explain myself in a way that no AI optimist has
ever been made, and I admit I resent it. I
(26:31):
have read hundreds of thousands of words, with hundreds of citations,
and still to this day, there are some people that
claim I'm somehow flawed in my analysis, that I'm missing something,
that I am somehow failing to make my case that
I haven't spoken to enough fart sniffers, that I haven't
delighted in the ideals and falsities of AGI. The only
(26:51):
people failing to make their case the AI optimists, still
claiming that these companies are making powerful AI, and once
this bubble pops, I will be asking for an apology.
(27:15):
But I must be clear, even though a lot of
things are coming true that I thought would, and I
think more will come true, I'll be proven right again
and again. I don't actually like what's happening. And I
like ending these podcasts with personal thoughts about stuff because
I'm an emotional and overly honest person. I enjoy doing
(27:35):
this a great deal. I do not, however, enjoy telling
you at length how brittle everything is. An ideal tech
industry would be one built on innovation, revenue, real growth,
based on actual business returns that helped humans be better,
and not outright lies about replacing them. All that Generative
AI has done has shown how much loss there is
in both the markets and the media and replacing labor,
(27:57):
and I must be clear, it really is the media.
There are some of you who are fucking circos and
not pointing to anyone specifically. But if you are excited
about AI replacing people, I need you to review your
biases a little bit. I need you to think about
what it is you're so excited about another aside. By
the way, all these agi artificial general intelligence conversations, they
(28:18):
love to talk about why they're scared of them, but
they never want to talk about one thing, which is,
if we make a conscious intelligence, wouldn't that have personage
and we control and manipulate this conscious being, that's slavery.
We would have been inventing a new kind of slave,
because if we are making computers that have consciousness, that's
(28:41):
what we are doing. If you don't believe this, by
the way, you just don't want to think about the truth.
But on the jobless thing, I really do believe that
there are multiple reporters if your genuine excitement when they
write scary stories about how Daria Amadasa's white collar workers
will be fired in the next few years in favor
of age. It's gross and I know I'm repeating myself,
(29:03):
but I really must be clear, be more mindful about
what you're writing, because what you're writing does not prove
this thesis at all. You're just repeating a guy's thingy,
you're repeating what a guy said, and it's sickening. But
before I move into the end of this, I also
want to address one other thing that and I'm doing this,
I'm fully going to admit because someone just sent me
an email about this and they just sent me this
(29:25):
gotcha thing where it's okay, the government just gave Department
of Defense gave two hundred million dollar contracts to open
Ai Xai Google anthropic. I believe and that somehow government
money will plug this. Well, first of all, all the
revenue is unprofitable. Second of all, no, it won't like it.
It isn't enough money they need for open Ai to
somehow become profitable. They need to need like ten billion
(29:45):
dollars of free money every year, like just given to
them with no expenditure. On top of this, there is
this weird duma of philosophy. It's like, oh, the government
will use it for propaganda. They will use it as
a cheap propaganda machine. Bec and really does propaganda. We've
done propaganda for years, every government does. There's nothing efficient
(30:06):
or cheap or even useful about it. They're already the
White House is already posting AI generated stuff. Is how
is this going to keep the industry going exactly? Who
fucking knows. But then there's this thing of oh, the
surveillance state, the generative AI. This will prop up open AI,
anthropic and the likes. It will plug into all the
data sets and go, oh, we can do shit. Even
if it does that, I don't even want to think
(30:27):
of them doing this. It's not a fucking business. It's
not going to make them that much money. There's nothing
specialist about it because all large anguish models are fundamentally
trained on the same data, not only really tweaked by
reinforcement learning and the like. It's just they'll just buy
whatever model is cheapest, or they'll put it on prem
It doesn't really And I do want to say, if
you're scared of this stuff, be scared of the real stuff.
(30:50):
Don't just assume the worst and then don't think about
it much more. If you're going to assume the worst,
assume based on facts. I want you to feel better
when you listen to this, or at least edified. And
I don't want to ever scare you. I don't really
want to tell you how to feel. Ever, it's one
of the early feedbacks on the shows. Never tell people
(31:10):
how to feel, but I want you to contact me
if you're ever worried. I'm happy to help. But also
know that these are not smart men, and things have
got out of hand, and everything I'm discussing is the
result of the rot economy thesis. I wrote in twenty
twenty three, The underlying thesis of this entire show, this
growth of all cost mindset that's driven every tech company
to focus on increasingly large quarterly revenue numbers even if
(31:34):
the products are or they're deeply unprofitable, or in the
case of generative AI both. Nowhere has this ever been
more obvious, Never has there been a more pungent version
of the rot economy than in large language models or
more specifically, transformer based models. In their relationships with GPUs,
by making everything about growth, you inevitably reach a point
where the only thing you know how to do is
(31:54):
spend money. And both l LAMBS and GPUs allow big
tech to do the thing that work before building a
bunch of days centers and buying a large bunch of
chips and paying a lot of people without making sure
they've done the critical work of making sure this would
create things that were useful or profitable, and neither seems
to be the case. As a result, we're now sitting
on top of one of the most brittle situations in
(32:16):
economic history. Our market is held up by whether four
or five companies will continue to buy chips that start
losing the money the second they're installed. And I'm disgusted
by how many people are unwilling or unable to engage
with the truth, favoring instead a scornful, contemptuous tone toward
anybody who doesn't believe that generative AI is the future.
If you're a writer that writes about AI smarmily insulting
(32:37):
people who don't understand AI, you're a shitty fucking writer
because ai't is either not that good or you're not
good at explaining what it's good. Perhaps it's both, dickhead,
And if you want to know my true agenda, it's
that I see something in generative AI, and it's boosters
that I truly dislike. Large language models, authoritativity state things
that are incorrect because they have no concept of right
(32:59):
or wrong, well really anything. They don't have concepts of concepts.
They don't think. I believe that the writers Managers and
executives that find it exciting do so because it gives
them the ability to pretend to be intelligent without actually
learning anything, to do everything they can to avoid actual work, knowledge,
or responsibility for themselves or others. There is this overwhelming
condescension that comes from fans of generative AI, the sense
(33:22):
that they know something, you've done, something they double down on.
We are being forced to use it by bosses or
services we like that now insist it's parts of our
documents or our search engines, not because it does something
or helps us, but because those pushing it need us
to use it to prove that they know what's going on.
To quote my editor Matt Hughes, generative AI is an
expression of contempt towards people, one that considers them to
(33:43):
be a commodity at best and a rapidly depreciating asset
at worst. And Matt would have said that correctly. I
haven't quite cracked why. But GENERATAI also brings out the
worst in people. By giving the illusion of labor, it
excites those who are desperate to replace the commoditize it.
By giving the illusion of education, it excites those are
too idle to actually learn things by convincing them, like
(34:03):
uber CEO Travis Kalenik, then a few minutes that they
can learn quantum physics. By giving the illusion of activity,
it allows the gluttony of business idi it's that control
everything to pretend that they're doing something. By giving the
illusion of futurity, which is David Carp's excellent term, it
gives reporters that long since disconnected from actual software and
hardware the ability to pretend that they know what's happening
(34:23):
in the tech industry. And fundamentally, it's biggest illusion is
economic activity, because despite being questionably useful and burning billions
of dollars, its neat to do so creates justification for
spending billions of dollars on GPUs and data center sprawl,
which allows big tech to send money into something and
give the illusion of growth. I really love doing this show.
(34:44):
I love it so much, but I don't enjoy it
this material. I mean, I enjoy performing it, I guess,
But what I'm talking about is pretty fucking grim. And
every week I am cataloging how people in power haven't
noticed something that's inherently a scam that's really based on lies,
and how the people responsible in the media have just
(35:07):
kind of turned away from readers in favor of doing
what they think the market wants or confirming their own
lazy biases. It's sad, and I think I'm right, and
I'm not necessarily happy about being right. And if I'm wrong,
I get asked this a lot. If I'm wrong, I
will explain why I'm wrong in great detail. I will
(35:29):
not shy away from taking accountability, because I think that
that's what you should expect from me. I'm serious. If
I'm somehow wrong here, you will hear why. I'll do
entire episodes about it. I'm serious, but I really do
not think I am, and that's why I sound kind
of downcast and alarmed what I'm describing as a bubble.
I'm one with an obvious weakness. One company's ability to
(35:50):
sell hardware to four or five other companies all to
run services that lose billions of dollars. At some point,
the momentum behind the video slows. Maybe it won't even
be sales slowing. Maybe it would just be the suggestion
that one of the largest companies won't be buying as
many GPUs. Perception matters just as much as actual numbers
and sometimes more, and a shifting sentiment could start a
chain of events that knocks down the entire house of cards.
(36:11):
Check may. I don't know when, I don't know how,
but I really really don't know how I'm wrong. And
I hate that so many people will see their retirements wrecked,
and that so many people intentionally or accidentally helped steer
the economy in this reckless, needless, and wasteful direction, all
because big tech didn't have a new way to show
quarterly growth. And that there are so many people out
(36:32):
there that love the idea of replacing workers and using
the computer to do work for them. And I hate
that so many people have lost their jobs because companies
are spending the equivalent of the entire GDP of some
European country on data centers and GPUs that won't actually
deliver any value. Sach and Adella is a fucking monster.
Fifteen thousand people laid off this year so you can
(36:53):
do more, fucking clippy, you ass wipe. If sach an
Adella somehow it hears this up, be so happy. But
my purpose here is to explain to you, no matter
your background or interest or creed or whatever way you
find my work why all of this is happening. As
you watch this collapse, I want you to tell your
friends about why, the people responsible and decisions they made,
(37:14):
and make sure it's clear that there are people responsible.
Sam Altman, Dario Ama Day, Sachin Adela, Sundar Pieshit, Tim Cook,
Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Andy Jasse have overseen a needless, wasteful,
and destructive economic force that will harmer economy, our markets,
and the tech industry writ large. And when this is over,
they must be held accountable. And remember that you, as
(37:37):
a regular person, can understand all of this. These people
want you to believe that this is black magic, that
you're wrong to worry about the billions wasted or question
the usefulness of the tools. They want you to sit
there and say, tech God away from me. I just
don't understand how the computer works anymore. How about that
the computer doesn't work anymore, that the computer regularly does
not do the things you want it to. And Generative
(37:59):
AI just the most pornographic example of a tech industry
that gave up on user interfaces, user experience, and users altogether.
You were smarter than they reckon and stronger than they know.
In A better future is one where you recognize this
and realize that power and money doesn't make a man righteous,
right or smart. These people sicken me, and if I'm
going to be honest, I think a lot of this
(38:20):
work comes down to them reminding me of people I
grew up with, people I've met throughout my life. Speecious
managers that have got there by glad handling, not through
real work or producing anything of value, but by stealing
or tricking, by throwing other people under the bus, and
in some cases, and I'm thinking of one specific fucking
person driving it themselves. These people are the ones the
(38:43):
most excited about AI. They're the ones that believe that
this technology will finally give them the ability to have
the abilities of those that work without actually having to
get off their fucking asses. And they sicken me. They
disgust me, because there is a different way of looking
at how generative AI could have been. That it enhances humans,
that it makes them able to do more things rather
(39:05):
than replacing them. That likely would have led us in
a different direction and probably wouldn't have led to the
billions of dollars of investment in this because when you
think about helping people. Suddenly the money dries up. I
sound cynical, but I've said this before. I'm a broken
hearted romantic. I hate what the tech industry has become.
But people also said that I can do this. Fucking
(39:27):
four years ago I had five years ago, had three
hundred subscribers on my newsletter on about sixty seven thousands
of people, an indeterminate amount of you. I can't say
it due to policy. Listen to this show, and that's
proof enough. I think that one idiot, worked up white
boy from London that the school teacher once said should
get used to flipping burgers can do something. I'm nobody.
(39:50):
I'm just a guy, but I've spent the time to
read this stuff and to divine meaning from this stuff,
just like you can. I hope I've helped you. That's
what I'm here to do. I love doing this, and
I feel ever grateful that I'm able to every day,
and I love all of you for listening. It takes
a lot of ever to put this out, but it
also is a choice of yours. How much time you
can you have in a day is not your choice,
(40:11):
but how you used it is. And I deeply appreciate
you've forgiving me your time. Thank you so much. This
has been the hater's guide to the AI bubble. Thank
you for listening to Better Offline.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
The editor and composer of the Better Offline theme song
is Matasowski. You can check out more of his music
and audio projects at Matasowski dot com, M A T
T O S O W s ki dot com. You
can email me at easy at Better Offline dot com
or visit Better Offline dot com to find more podcast
links and of course, my newsletter. I also really recommend
(40:51):
you go to chat dot where's youreaed dot at to
visit the discord, and go to our slash.
Speaker 1 (40:55):
Better Offline to check out our reddit.
Speaker 2 (40:58):
Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Better Offline is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 2 (41:02):
For more from cool Zone Media, visit our website Coolzonmedia
dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Zone Media, stop your grinnin and drop your linen. I'm
d zechron and this is better offline. Welcome to the
final part of our three part Hater's Guide to the
(00:23):
AI Bubble, where we've been talking about the growing cracks
emerging in the industry and the potential contagion to the
wider economy that are pullback in general of AI spending
will cause. And I must be clear, things are bad
the vibes A rand said. I spent the past two episodes,
and we'll spend much of this episode explaining why. But
I just want to recap something from the first part
of this series. Right now, seven companies, the Magnificent Seven,
(00:45):
account for the value of nearly thirty five percent of
all of US stocks, and the biggest of these companies
is in Nvidia, which has gotten fat off the back
of the AI bubble today a disproportionate amount of Nvidia's
revenue eighty eight percent of it is coming from the
other members of the Magnificent Seven. And there of the
enterprise GPUs designed to power the compute heavy eight A
applications that you're hearing about all day. If and when
(01:07):
they pull back, invidiabile sink so too will the other companies,
especially when it becomes evident that they've spent nearly half
a trillion dollars in two years on bugger roll. It'll
be an apocalyptic shedding of value. They won't die, but
it'll be the likes of which we haven't seen since
the dark days of two thousand and seven and two
thousand and eight for those companies. I don't know about
(01:27):
the global banking system imploding, but I also can't say
what I just I don't know. But what I do
know is tech is going to take such a precipitous
haircut that you're going to see scissor gashes in the
man's bald head. Terrible metaphor. If that sounds like a
them problem, though, and not a you problem, ask yourself,
what's in your fuah one K? Do you own any
index funds or ETFs? Are you close to retirement? And
(01:50):
how much do you enjoy eating ramen? Are you willing
to eat the same whiskers cat food as your American
short hair? I am, except I feed them a different,
better food because Babu deserves the best. But in the
last two episodes, I made the case that the generative
AI industry is unique in its capital demands and unparalleled
in the fact that no company beside in video or
consultancies are making any money from them. I can easily
(02:10):
imagine the chain of events where one big company fails,
like either because they ran out of money or because
the investors pulled back. This in turn spooks the rest
of the market, causing other companies to start seeing massive
revenue drops. And as the demand for compute drops, hyper
scalers like Microsoft, Amazon and Google massively cut their capital expenditures,
canceling data center build outs and of course slowing down
(02:31):
their GPU orders. And then Jensen Huang would have to
watch as the cash cow that made his company rich
and fat is take over a walk behind the barn
for two shots to ring out. Though I must be clear,
video isn't gonna die, None of the Magnificent seven will. However,
the first big failure, the first domino to fall, could
be any number of companies, and while I don't think
(02:52):
open Ai and Anthropic are necessarily going to be the first,
I also believe that there's an air of inevitability about
one of or both of their demises. This matter is
because these companies are for all intents and purposes the
generative AI industry. They're deeply unsustainable and unstable, and yet
they are also critical to the AI trade. Continuing, I
haven't really spent much time on my favorite subject, that
(03:15):
open ai is a systemic risk to the tech industry.
But let's recap my reporting. Open Ai and Anthropic both
lose billions of dollars a year after revenue, and their
stories do not mirror any other startup in history, not Uber,
not Amazon Web Services, and nothing. I've addressed my Uber
point before in how does open ai survive? It'll be
in this show notes. Someone always asks me about this.
(03:36):
Please stop, learn to read, learn to listen. Soft Bank
also is putting itself in dire straits simply to fund
open Ai. The steel threatens its credit ring, with SoftBank
having to take on what will be multiple loans to
fund the remaining thirty billion dollars open ai is forty
billion dollar funding round which is yet to close, and
open aiy is in fact still raising from the Middle East.
This is before you consider the other nineteen billion dollars
(03:58):
that soft Bank has agreed to contribute to the Stargate
Data Center project, money that it does not have available
at this time. But I must say, while recording this episode,
I saw some news come out and I'm just going
to read it to you and said soft Bank and
open Ai is five hundred billion AI project struggles to
get off ground. The Stargate venture introduced a white house event,
(04:19):
is now setting the more modest goal of building a
small data center by year. And I just want to say,
anyone that doubted me can suck one. I was oinking
and squawking around my room just before this when I
got this news in. I just want to say, I
just learned this news and I'm still taking it in.
I'm still taking in because it makes me so excited
(04:39):
and sad. Anyway, neither soft Bank nor open Ai has
the money for Stargate, regardless of what they built. Also,
Clammy Samy's making some interesting claims about what Stargate is.
He's claimed the Denton site, the core Weavers building is
also Stargate. This motherfucker loves lying anyway. Open A must
also convert to a for profit by the end of
twenty twenty five, all whose twenty billion dollars of the
(04:59):
remaining thirty billion dollars of funding. If it does not
convert by October twenty twenty six, it's current funding converts
to debt. It is also demanding remarkable and reasonable concessions
and Microsoft stuff like they want to reduce their rev share,
They want to reduce their their I think, their ability
to their exclusive rights to sell models. I did I
really need to do a monologue about this, and I
(05:20):
know this is technically a monologue, but nevertheless, they want
these insane things, and Microsoft is refusing to budge, and
it's willing to walk away from negotiations necessary to convert.
According to the Financial Times, and also open Ai does
not have a path of profitability, and its future, like Anthropics,
is dependent on the continual flow of capital from venture
capitalists and big tech, who must also continue to expand infrastructure.
(05:40):
I don't know how that's going to fucking happen with
Stargate going. God, I feel so good about that. Oh
I want to like bottle that up and drink it. Anyway.
Anthropic is in a similar but slightly better position. It's
set to lose three billion dollars this year on four
billion dollars of revenue. It also has no path of
profitability and recently jacked up prices on cursor, it's larger
customer has had to put restraints on clawed code after
(06:02):
allowing users to burn one hundred to ten thousand percent
of their revenue a month. These are the actions of
a desperate company. Nevertheless, Open Ai and Anthropics revenue amount to,
by my estimates, more than half of the entire revenue
of the generative AI industry, including the hyperscalers. And to
be abundantly clear, the two companies that amount to a
round half of all generative AI revenue are only losing money. Now.
(06:26):
I said a lot of this before, which is why
I'm trying not to harp on it too much. But
the most important company in the entire AI industry needs
to convert to a for profit entity from a nonprofit entity,
which has never happened before in this case, by the
end of the year or it's effectively dead. And even
if it does, Open AI burns billions and billions and
billions of dollars a year and will die without continual funding.
They have no path to profitability in anyone telling you
(06:49):
otherwise as a liar or a fantasist. And on top
of this is part of the thing about SoftBank, by
the Way and Stargate. They revealed that they've promised Oracle
thirty billion dollars a year their cloud contract. I swear
to fucking God does no one read these stories and
think does this not sound just like an egregious lie? Anyway,
(07:10):
as I wrote earlier in the year, there is really
no significant adoption of generative AI services or products. Chat
GPTs five hundred million weekly users, and otherwise it seems
that other services they struggled to get fifteen million users.
Although you could mention Google that's not a fair comparisons.
It cheated by combining Google Gemini with Google Assystem to
claim it had three hundred and fifty million active users
(07:31):
a while the five hundred million weekly users sounds and
is in fairness impressive. There's a world of difference between
someone using your product as part of their job, which
they pay for, and someone dicking around with an image
generator or a college student trying to cheat on their homework.
On top of that, now I'm recording this July twenty first,
there's an ICO story that came out today with some
bullshit vanity metrics, rope and AI. But that story said
(07:52):
the Open AI themselves had said that they have five
hundred million weekly active users. Now here's the crazy thing.
That five hundred million number. That from March. That's and
March now, but I came from an open AI funding announcement.
Have they platowed stick around? I'm going to find out.
But this is all worrying on so many levels, chief
of which is that everybody has been talking about AI
(08:12):
for three goddamn years, and everybody has said AI and
every earnings and media appearance, exhausting fucking blog posts, and
we still can't scrape together the bits to make functional industry.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Now.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
I know some of you will probably read this in
point to chat gipt's users, and I quote myself writing
in my newsletter make fun of them, which also read
for this podcast. Chat gpt is allegedly five hundred million
weekly hatieth users and by the last count, only fifteen
point five million paying subscribers, an absolutely futrid conversion rate,
even before you realize that the actual conversion rate would
be monthly active subscribers, which is how any real software
(08:43):
company actually defines its metrics. By the fucking way, Why
is this impressive? Because it grew so fast it literally
had more pr and more marketing and more attention and
more opportunities to sell to more people than any company
has ever had in the history of anything. Every single
industry has been told to think about AI for three years,
and they've been told to do so because of a
company called open Ai. There isn't a single goddamn product
(09:03):
since Google or Facebook bes's had this level of media pressure,
and both of these companies launched without the massive amount
of media and social media that we have today. CHADGBT
is a very successful growth product and an absolutely horrifying business.
They're a banana republic that cannot function on their own.
They do not resemble Uber, Amazon, Web Services or any
other business in the past other than we work the
(09:24):
other company that SoftBank spent way too much money on,
and outside of chad GBT, there really isn't anything else.
But before I wrap up this three parter and I'm tired,
and I imagine you are too, I do want to
address something. I want to address the kind of both
sides thing that everyone's doing, and I think we all
need to do way less of this because at this
point it's kind of silly. Yes, Generati, if AI has functionality,
(09:49):
there are coding products and search products that people like
and some even pay for them. As I have discussed
across this series and I said discuss there, but I'm
keeping going and across countless podcasts and newslayers. None of
these companies are profitable until one of them is profitable,
really profitable sustainably, so generative AI based companies are not
real businesses in any case. The problem isn't so much
(10:10):
that l elms don't do anything, but that people talk
about them doing things they can't. The use of the
word agent is a deliberate attempt to suggest that l
elms are autonomous, and any and all stories about AI
replacing jobs are intentionally manipulative attempts to boost stock valuations
and suggests that models are capable of replacing human workers
at scale, which they are not. Allison Morrow of CNN,
who's been on the show a few times, also has
(10:31):
an excellent piece on this, which I've linked to in
the show notes. As I discussed in my newsletter Sincerity
Wins the War, which I've also linked to, this is
one of the most egregious failures of the tech media
I've ever seen, willingly pushing warrio Amma days outright making
up of stuff. No one asked him if that if
the stat he said ten to twenty percent white collar unemployment,
if I started lying, I just really want to be
(10:53):
clear about something. If I went on this podcast and
I just fucking made up stats, if I was just like, yes,
seventy five percent of all generative ais CEOs, literally they
love kicking puppies, they love drop kicking puppies, you'd get
mad at me. Right. What's the difference between that and
Wario Ama Day saying twenty percent white collar and unemployment.
There is none. They're both lies. And I don't know
(11:15):
why I'm doing the dog kicking one, but it's just
an example. We move on. And as a side note,
the discussion also of the term AGI artificial general intelligence,
and every acceptance of it is an attempt to suggest
that large language models can create conscious intelligence, a fictional
concept that even Meta's chief AI scientist says won't come
from scaling up llms. Members of the media, listen to me,
(11:38):
every time you talk about the really smart engineers that
say Meta is paying one hundred million dollars two know
that you are doing free marketing for these companies when
what's really happening is people are giving tens of millions
of dollars, the guys who will work on teams that
are pursuing a totally unproven concept. It is like saying
that they are all going to see if they could.
I don't know. I was about to say the wrong
(11:59):
create the wrong trend from Rollss and Grummet, Rollis and
Wallace and Grummet. But you know those are one hundred
percent possible. I'm sure someone could build them. How about this,
They all believe they're going to hunt and kill the
tooth Fairy because the tooth Fairy is about as realistic
as agi, and if you disagree with me, emummy, I
might even read him. I should also add that the
(12:19):
use of the word singularity is similarly manipulative. These are
terms that are used to obfuscate the actual abilities of
large language models and indeed what can be built on them.
It's really frustrating because these should be really obvious tricks,
but the media keeps accepting them. And I don't want
(12:40):
to accuse anyone of being anything. I just want to
say I find it fucking disgusting. And when this all
falls apart, there will be a referendum on this. I
will not be kind or merciful to the people that
have continually pushed these narratives. I also want to add
there's another really annoying narrative that we need to get
rid of, and that's these stories models lying, cheating, and
(13:01):
stealing to reach their goals or stop themselves being turned off.
These are intentionally deceptive, as these models can and clearly
are being prompted to take these actions. To be abundantly clear,
the manipulative suggestion here is that these models are autonomous
or conscious in some way, which they're not. When I
say prompted, I mean we don't have all of the
information as to how these models were trained or prompted
(13:21):
to get these answers. They can make them do them.
They could create a model to do it. And oh anthropic,
wouldn't lie, wouldn't they, Dario Amat They went on stage
and said they'll be twenty percent unemployment from white collar labors,
and he'll claim me he said it was the future.
It's a fucking lie, absolutely ridiculous. And I believe that
the generative AI market is a fifty billion dollar revenue industry,
(13:44):
masquerading is a trillion dollar one, and the media is helping.
And underneath this troubling fact there's another one that should
give us pause. The AI trade really is not about AI.
It's not about generative AI, it's not about autonomous agents,
it's not about AGI. It's all about GPUs, and it's
incredibly brittle as a result. Now, as I've explained at length,
(14:14):
the AI trade is not one based on revenue user growth,
the effixive tools or significance of any technological breakthrough. Stocks
are not moving based on whether they're making money or AI,
because if they were, they'd be moving downward. However, due
to the ViBe's based nature of the AI trade, companies
are benefiting from the press inexplicably crediting growth to AI
with no proof that that's the case. Open AI is
(14:34):
a terrible business, But the only business worse than open
AI are the companies built on top of them. Large
language models are too expensive to run and have limited
abilities beyond the ones I'm named previously, and because everybody's
running models that all on some level do similar things,
it's very hard for people to build really innovative products
on top of them. But ultimately, this entire trade, all
(14:55):
of the AI trade, hinges on GPUs. Coreweave was initially
funded by Nvidia. They're a company that does AI data centers.
I don't want to talk about them, makes me angry,
but their IPO was funded partially buy and Video sells
the GPUs. Video is also one of their customers, and
core Weave raises debt to buy GPUs by using the
(15:17):
GPUs they've already bought as collateral, and so they get
those loans, and then they use that money to build
data centers and buy more GPUs to put in them,
which they then use as leverage to Do you see
the Do you see the problem? Do you see the
issue with that? This isn't me being polemic or hysterical,
by the way, this is quite literally what's happening and
(15:38):
how core Weave operates. If you want alarm by that,
I'm not sure what to tell you Elsewhere. Oracle is
buying forty billion dollars in GPUs for the still uninformed
Stargate Data Center project, and Meta is building a Manhattan
sized data center to fill within video GPUs. If you
believe that Meta will actually do that, which I do not.
Open AI is also Microsoft's largest as your client and
insanely risky proposition on multiple levels, not simply in the
(16:00):
fact that it's serving the revenue at cost, but the
Microsoft executives believed that open ai would fail in the
long term when they invested in twenty twenty three. According
to the information, Microsoft is in Videa's largest client for GPUs,
meaning that any changes to Microsoft's future and interest in
open AI, such as reducing its data center expansion, would
eventually hit in Vidia's revenue. Why do you think deep
(16:21):
seek shocked the market. It wasn't because of any clunky
story around training techniques or costs. It was because it's
said to the market that and Video might not sell
more GPUs every single quarter in perpetuity. Microsoft, Meta, Google, Apple, Amazon,
and Tesla aren't making much money from AI. In fact,
they're losing billions of dollars on whatever revenues they do
make from it. Their stock growth is not coming from
(16:42):
actual revenue or actual products, but the vibes around being
an AI company, which means absolute jack shit when you
don't have to users, finances, or products to back them up.
So really everything on the AI trade comes down to
in Video's ability to sell GPUs and more of them
each quarter. And this industry, if we're really honest, is
at a point where it really only exists to do
(17:02):
so genera. If AI products do not provide significant revenue growth,
its products are not useful in the way that unlock
significant business value, and the products that have some adoption
run at such a grotesque loss. It's really sad. But
I realize I've thrown a lot at you. And for
the second time this year, I've recorded the three part
podcast series. And what's great is you may think maybe
(17:24):
I took a break. Maybe no. I recorded these bad
boys back to back to back. That's why I sound
so tired and why my voice kind of I think
smooths out. I like doing this, but I needed to
say all of this. I really did because I am
genuinely really worried. We're in a bubble. If you do
not think we're in a bubble, you are not looking outside.
Apollo Global chief economist Torsten slock Killer name said it
(17:48):
last week in a research note published July sixteenth. Okay,
what he said was much worse. The difference between the
IT bubble in the nineteen nineties and the AI bubble
today is that the top ten companies in the S
and p today are more overvalued than they were in
the nineteen nineties. Slock wrote in a recent research note
that was widely shared across social media. In financial circles,
we're in a bubble. We're in a bubble general. If
AI does not do the things that it's being sold
(18:11):
as doing, and the things it can do aren't the
kind of things that create business returns, automate labor are
really do much more than one extension of a cloud
service platform. The money isn't there, the users aren't there.
Every company seems to lose money, and some companies lose
so much money it's impossible to tell how they'll survive.
Worse Still, this bubble is entirely symbolic the bailouts. And
I know I get a lot of emails about this,
(18:32):
and I'm really going to address this issue right now.
The bailouts of the Great Financial Crisis were focused on
banks and funds that have failed because they ran out
of money, and the top initiative existed to plug holes
with low interest loans. There are no few holes to
plug here, because even if OpenAI and anthropics somehow became
eternal money burners, the AI trade exists based on the
(18:53):
continued and continually increasing sale and use of GPUs. There
are limited amounts of capital, but also limited amounts of
data is to actually put GPUs, and on top of that,
at some point growth will slow at one of the
magnificent seven, at which cost time costs will have to
come down from things that lose them tons of money,
such as generative AI. I really want to be clear,
though a lot of people say, oh, it's really kind
(19:15):
of lazy doomerism. I don't appreciate it, because, like, if
you're going to be worried about something, be worried about
something that's real, you're saying, oh, Trump will just bail
them out. Oh, they'll get bailed out. Who will get
bailed out? For this fast to continue? In video? Is
thirty nine point one billion dollars of data cent revenue
in the last quarter. That means the next one needs
to be forty four and one after that needs to
be like fifty sixty eighty one hundred. This needs to
(19:38):
continue forever. Is the government going to nationalize in video?
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Is?
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Well? I guess that would take them off the market,
wouldn't it is they're just going to feed in video
fifty sixty seventy billion dollars. I guess if one of
these AI companies fail, they could give them money, but
they're just going to go ahead and fucking lose it.
What do you think they're going to do? Where does
the money go? In the Great Financial Crisis, banks failed,
you had to give the bank's money. Hedge funds failed,
you had to give money to places, and then they
(20:03):
took the money and they weren't out of money anymore.
This isn't a case where companies will run out of
money but otherwise be okay. They don't have a way
of being okay. There is no way of being okay.
If you want to be a duma. Look at the
fact that the fucking stock market is built on saling
more and more GPUs every quarter. There is no plugging
that hole. There's nothing for you to do. Oh god,
(20:26):
this guy, what isn't the cost of inference coming down? No,
you do not have proof of this statement. The cost
of tokens is going down, and that is not the
cost of inference going down. Everyone's saying this is they're
saying it because a guy once said it to them.
You do not have proof. I have more proof for
what I am saying, well, it theoretically might be going down.
All evidence points to the larger models costing more money, especially
(20:48):
reasoning having ones like Claude Opu's four. Inference is not
the only thing happening. If this is your one response
for a big bozo and a dufus and should go
back to making squeaky noises when you see tech executives
or hear my name and a podcast. It's sickening. Even
if the cost of inference is going down, on what
model exactly is it coming down on? I don't know three,
(21:09):
opus fource on it. Four. I don't think it is.
The price that the model developers are charging. By the way,
is not the price of inference. That's not the same thing.
It's not the same thing at all. I'm really sick
of this goddamn point. You can hear it in my voice.
But let's move on. So some people bring up a
six and they are these customized chips for specific options
(21:30):
to reduce the amount that these companies are spending on compute. Right.
I have a few thoughts when is this going to happen?
For example, say open aim Broadcom actually build their asick
in twenty sixteen, twenty twenty six. They won't do this,
but that's when they're meant to How many will they build?
Do they have contact contracts with companies that can actually
produce high performance silicon or there's only three of those, Samsung,
(21:51):
TSMC and SMICE which is currently sanctioned. And these companies
typically have their capacity booked well in advance. Great example
for you in Nvidia restarts that h twenty GPUs and
told customers is reported by the information that they're not
going to make more because the capacity they had at
TSMC got given away because they canceled it. Even starting
(22:12):
a production run of a semiconductor product can take weeks.
Do they have the server architecture prepared? Have they tested it?
Does it work? Is the performance actually good? Because the
information reported the Microsoft has failed to create a workable,
reliable ASIC and the one that they're going to bring
out next year is going to be still worse than
in videos. What makes open ay special? What gives them
the industry knowledge that means that they won't run into
(22:34):
these problems? The answer is nothing, absolutely bloody nothing. Anyway,
if this happens, and should be clear, it takes a
lot of money to build these chips, and they're yet
to prove that these chips be better than Nvideo GPUs
FORRAI compume they're going to have to retrofit every data
center for them. By the way, they're not just going
to plug into the same thing, these Blackwell chips, and
(22:54):
actually generally GPUs they have specialized server architecture and N
Video is a big stickler for DETAI. So we're just
going to rip up all the stuff. So this will
I assume take two minutes, because it needs to. It's
the only way. By the way, if this actually happens,
it still fucks up the AI trade because then video
still needs to sell GPUs. Jesus Christ, I'm sorry. I'm sorry,
(23:17):
And people ask, is this real? Anger? Yeah. I I
read about these things, and I read the inconsistencies in
the media, and I talk about them, and I think
of the amount of times in my life I have
had people make me feel stupid or make me feel crazy.
I'm sure many of you have had this experience too,
people that are allegedly smart, people that have positions of power,
(23:39):
people that we look to as responsible figures. And I
think about all the times that I've known I was right,
but because there was a consensus, a group ideal, you
had to kind of stick by it even if it
was something factually wrong. What I did the experience in
the past was seeing the media do it like this,
and the way in which the media has done it,
(24:01):
it's sickening. It's sickening because the people that will get
hurt will be the people whose retirements and who's just
savings are going to get lamped by this crap. And
I'm worried. I'm worried because despite all these obvious, brutal
and near on fixable problems, everybody is walking around acting
like things are going great with AI. The New York
(24:21):
Times claims everybody is using AI for everything, and I'm talking,
of course about Kevin Ruse and Casey Newton. But baby
cannot wait for when this explodes. Guys, you have no
idea how funny it's going to be. And by the way,
this is a blatant lie, one that exists to prop
up an industry that has categorically failed to deliver the
innovations of returns that it promised, yet still receives this
glowing press from a tech and business media that refuses
(24:44):
to look outside and see that the sky is red
and frogs are landing everywhere other than the frog thing.
I'm not being dramatic. Everywhere you look in the AI trade,
things are getting worse. No revenue, William's being burned, no mote,
no infrastructure play, no comparables in history other than the
dot com bubble and we work, and a series of
flagrant lies spouted by the powerful and members of the
(25:05):
press that are afraid of moving against market consensus. Worse still,
despite Nvidia's strength, in Vidia is the market's weakness through
no fault of its own. Really, Jensen Wong sells GPUs,
people want to buy GPUs, and now the rest of
the market is leading aggressively on one company selling one thing,
feeding it billions of dollars in the hopes that the
things they're buying start making them profit. And that really
(25:26):
is the most ridiculous thing. At the center of the
AI trade sits enterprise GPUs that on installation immediately start
losing the company and question money. Large language models burn
cash for negative returns to build products that all kind
of work the same way. Now, if you're gonna say
I'm wrong, sit and think carefully about why is it
because you don't want me to be right? Is it
because you think these companies will work it out? This
(25:48):
isn't anything like uber aws or any other situation. It's
its own monstrosity, a creature of hubrious and ignorance caused
by a tech industry that's out of ideas, built on
top of a one company. Really, play with me all
you want about how there are actual people using AI.
You've probably read the my AIS skeptic friends are All
Nuts blog, and if you're going to send that to me,
(26:09):
read the response from Nick Suesh First. I've linked both
in the show notes. And if you're going to say
that I don't actually speak to people who use these products,
you are categorically wrong and in denial. I'm only saying
all of this with this aggressive tone because for the
best part of two years, I've been made to repeatedly
explain myself in a way that no AI optimist has
ever been made, and I admit I resent it. I
(26:31):
have read hundreds of thousands of words, with hundreds of citations,
and still to this day, there are some people that
claim I'm somehow flawed in my analysis, that I'm missing something,
that I am somehow failing to make my case that
I haven't spoken to enough fart sniffers, that I haven't
delighted in the ideals and falsities of AGI. The only
(26:51):
people failing to make their case the AI optimists, still
claiming that these companies are making powerful AI, and once
this bubble pops, I will be asking for an apology.
(27:15):
But I must be clear, even though a lot of
things are coming true that I thought would, and I
think more will come true, I'll be proven right again
and again. I don't actually like what's happening. And I
like ending these podcasts with personal thoughts about stuff because
I'm an emotional and overly honest person. I enjoy doing
(27:35):
this a great deal. I do not, however, enjoy telling
you at length how brittle everything is. An ideal tech
industry would be one built on innovation, revenue, real growth,
based on actual business returns that helped humans be better,
and not outright lies about replacing them. All that Generative
AI has done has shown how much loss there is
in both the markets and the media and replacing labor,
(27:57):
and I must be clear, it really is the media.
There are some of you who are fucking circos and
not pointing to anyone specifically. But if you are excited
about AI replacing people, I need you to review your
biases a little bit. I need you to think about
what it is you're so excited about another aside. By
the way, all these agi artificial general intelligence conversations, they
(28:18):
love to talk about why they're scared of them, but
they never want to talk about one thing, which is,
if we make a conscious intelligence, wouldn't that have personage
and we control and manipulate this conscious being, that's slavery.
We would have been inventing a new kind of slave,
because if we are making computers that have consciousness, that's
(28:41):
what we are doing. If you don't believe this, by
the way, you just don't want to think about the truth.
But on the jobless thing, I really do believe that
there are multiple reporters if your genuine excitement when they
write scary stories about how Daria Amadasa's white collar workers
will be fired in the next few years in favor
of age. It's gross and I know I'm repeating myself,
(29:03):
but I really must be clear, be more mindful about
what you're writing, because what you're writing does not prove
this thesis at all. You're just repeating a guy's thingy,
you're repeating what a guy said, and it's sickening. But
before I move into the end of this, I also
want to address one other thing that and I'm doing this,
I'm fully going to admit because someone just sent me
an email about this and they just sent me this
(29:25):
gotcha thing where it's okay, the government just gave Department
of Defense gave two hundred million dollar contracts to open
Ai Xai Google anthropic. I believe and that somehow government
money will plug this. Well, first of all, all the
revenue is unprofitable. Second of all, no, it won't like it.
It isn't enough money they need for open Ai to
somehow become profitable. They need to need like ten billion
(29:45):
dollars of free money every year, like just given to
them with no expenditure. On top of this, there is
this weird duma of philosophy. It's like, oh, the government
will use it for propaganda. They will use it as
a cheap propaganda machine. Bec and really does propaganda. We've
done propaganda for years, every government does. There's nothing efficient
(30:06):
or cheap or even useful about it. They're already the
White House is already posting AI generated stuff. Is how
is this going to keep the industry going exactly? Who
fucking knows. But then there's this thing of oh, the
surveillance state, the generative AI. This will prop up open AI,
anthropic and the likes. It will plug into all the
data sets and go, oh, we can do shit. Even
if it does that, I don't even want to think
(30:27):
of them doing this. It's not a fucking business. It's
not going to make them that much money. There's nothing
specialist about it because all large anguish models are fundamentally
trained on the same data, not only really tweaked by
reinforcement learning and the like. It's just they'll just buy
whatever model is cheapest, or they'll put it on prem
It doesn't really And I do want to say, if
you're scared of this stuff, be scared of the real stuff.
(30:50):
Don't just assume the worst and then don't think about
it much more. If you're going to assume the worst,
assume based on facts. I want you to feel better
when you listen to this, or at least edified. And
I don't want to ever scare you. I don't really
want to tell you how to feel. Ever, it's one
of the early feedbacks on the shows. Never tell people
(31:10):
how to feel, but I want you to contact me
if you're ever worried. I'm happy to help. But also
know that these are not smart men, and things have
got out of hand, and everything I'm discussing is the
result of the rot economy thesis. I wrote in twenty
twenty three, The underlying thesis of this entire show, this
growth of all cost mindset that's driven every tech company
to focus on increasingly large quarterly revenue numbers even if
(31:34):
the products are or they're deeply unprofitable, or in the
case of generative AI both. Nowhere has this ever been
more obvious, Never has there been a more pungent version
of the rot economy than in large language models or
more specifically, transformer based models. In their relationships with GPUs,
by making everything about growth, you inevitably reach a point
where the only thing you know how to do is
(31:54):
spend money. And both l LAMBS and GPUs allow big
tech to do the thing that work before building a
bunch of days centers and buying a large bunch of
chips and paying a lot of people without making sure
they've done the critical work of making sure this would
create things that were useful or profitable, and neither seems
to be the case. As a result, we're now sitting
on top of one of the most brittle situations in
(32:16):
economic history. Our market is held up by whether four
or five companies will continue to buy chips that start
losing the money the second they're installed. And I'm disgusted
by how many people are unwilling or unable to engage
with the truth, favoring instead a scornful, contemptuous tone toward
anybody who doesn't believe that generative AI is the future.
If you're a writer that writes about AI smarmily insulting
(32:37):
people who don't understand AI, you're a shitty fucking writer
because ai't is either not that good or you're not
good at explaining what it's good. Perhaps it's both, dickhead,
And if you want to know my true agenda, it's
that I see something in generative AI, and it's boosters
that I truly dislike. Large language models, authoritativity state things
that are incorrect because they have no concept of right
(32:59):
or wrong, well really anything. They don't have concepts of concepts.
They don't think. I believe that the writers Managers and
executives that find it exciting do so because it gives
them the ability to pretend to be intelligent without actually
learning anything, to do everything they can to avoid actual work, knowledge,
or responsibility for themselves or others. There is this overwhelming
condescension that comes from fans of generative AI, the sense
(33:22):
that they know something, you've done, something they double down on.
We are being forced to use it by bosses or
services we like that now insist it's parts of our
documents or our search engines, not because it does something
or helps us, but because those pushing it need us
to use it to prove that they know what's going on.
To quote my editor Matt Hughes, generative AI is an
expression of contempt towards people, one that considers them to
(33:43):
be a commodity at best and a rapidly depreciating asset
at worst. And Matt would have said that correctly. I
haven't quite cracked why. But GENERATAI also brings out the
worst in people. By giving the illusion of labor, it
excites those who are desperate to replace the commoditize it.
By giving the illusion of education, it excites those are
too idle to actually learn things by convincing them, like
(34:03):
uber CEO Travis Kalenik, then a few minutes that they
can learn quantum physics. By giving the illusion of activity,
it allows the gluttony of business idi it's that control
everything to pretend that they're doing something. By giving the
illusion of futurity, which is David Carp's excellent term, it
gives reporters that long since disconnected from actual software and
hardware the ability to pretend that they know what's happening
(34:23):
in the tech industry. And fundamentally, it's biggest illusion is
economic activity, because despite being questionably useful and burning billions
of dollars, its neat to do so creates justification for
spending billions of dollars on GPUs and data center sprawl,
which allows big tech to send money into something and
give the illusion of growth. I really love doing this show.
(34:44):
I love it so much, but I don't enjoy it
this material. I mean, I enjoy performing it, I guess,
But what I'm talking about is pretty fucking grim. And
every week I am cataloging how people in power haven't
noticed something that's inherently a scam that's really based on lies,
and how the people responsible in the media have just
(35:07):
kind of turned away from readers in favor of doing
what they think the market wants or confirming their own
lazy biases. It's sad, and I think I'm right, and
I'm not necessarily happy about being right. And if I'm wrong,
I get asked this a lot. If I'm wrong, I
will explain why I'm wrong in great detail. I will
(35:29):
not shy away from taking accountability, because I think that
that's what you should expect from me. I'm serious. If
I'm somehow wrong here, you will hear why. I'll do
entire episodes about it. I'm serious, but I really do
not think I am, and that's why I sound kind
of downcast and alarmed what I'm describing as a bubble.
I'm one with an obvious weakness. One company's ability to
(35:50):
sell hardware to four or five other companies all to
run services that lose billions of dollars. At some point,
the momentum behind the video slows. Maybe it won't even
be sales slowing. Maybe it would just be the suggestion
that one of the largest companies won't be buying as
many GPUs. Perception matters just as much as actual numbers
and sometimes more, and a shifting sentiment could start a
chain of events that knocks down the entire house of cards.
(36:11):
Check may. I don't know when, I don't know how,
but I really really don't know how I'm wrong. And
I hate that so many people will see their retirements wrecked,
and that so many people intentionally or accidentally helped steer
the economy in this reckless, needless, and wasteful direction, all
because big tech didn't have a new way to show
quarterly growth. And that there are so many people out
(36:32):
there that love the idea of replacing workers and using
the computer to do work for them. And I hate
that so many people have lost their jobs because companies
are spending the equivalent of the entire GDP of some
European country on data centers and GPUs that won't actually
deliver any value. Sach and Adella is a fucking monster.
Fifteen thousand people laid off this year so you can
(36:53):
do more, fucking clippy, you ass wipe. If sach an
Adella somehow it hears this up, be so happy. But
my purpose here is to explain to you, no matter
your background or interest or creed or whatever way you
find my work why all of this is happening. As
you watch this collapse, I want you to tell your
friends about why, the people responsible and decisions they made,
(37:14):
and make sure it's clear that there are people responsible.
Sam Altman, Dario Ama Day, Sachin Adela, Sundar Pieshit, Tim Cook,
Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Andy Jasse have overseen a needless, wasteful,
and destructive economic force that will harmer economy, our markets,
and the tech industry writ large. And when this is over,
they must be held accountable. And remember that you, as
(37:37):
a regular person, can understand all of this. These people
want you to believe that this is black magic, that
you're wrong to worry about the billions wasted or question
the usefulness of the tools. They want you to sit
there and say, tech God away from me. I just
don't understand how the computer works anymore. How about that
the computer doesn't work anymore, that the computer regularly does
not do the things you want it to. And Generative
(37:59):
AI just the most pornographic example of a tech industry
that gave up on user interfaces, user experience, and users altogether.
You were smarter than they reckon and stronger than they know.
In A better future is one where you recognize this
and realize that power and money doesn't make a man righteous,
right or smart. These people sicken me, and if I'm
going to be honest, I think a lot of this
(38:20):
work comes down to them reminding me of people I
grew up with, people I've met throughout my life. Speecious
managers that have got there by glad handling, not through
real work or producing anything of value, but by stealing
or tricking, by throwing other people under the bus, and
in some cases, and I'm thinking of one specific fucking
person driving it themselves. These people are the ones the
(38:43):
most excited about AI. They're the ones that believe that
this technology will finally give them the ability to have
the abilities of those that work without actually having to
get off their fucking asses. And they sicken me. They
disgust me, because there is a different way of looking
at how generative AI could have been. That it enhances humans,
that it makes them able to do more things rather
(39:05):
than replacing them. That likely would have led us in
a different direction and probably wouldn't have led to the
billions of dollars of investment in this because when you
think about helping people. Suddenly the money dries up. I
sound cynical, but I've said this before. I'm a broken
hearted romantic. I hate what the tech industry has become.
But people also said that I can do this. Fucking
(39:27):
four years ago I had five years ago, had three
hundred subscribers on my newsletter on about sixty seven thousands
of people, an indeterminate amount of you. I can't say
it due to policy. Listen to this show, and that's
proof enough. I think that one idiot, worked up white
boy from London that the school teacher once said should
get used to flipping burgers can do something. I'm nobody.
(39:50):
I'm just a guy, but I've spent the time to
read this stuff and to divine meaning from this stuff,
just like you can. I hope I've helped you. That's
what I'm here to do. I love doing this, and
I feel ever grateful that I'm able to every day,
and I love all of you for listening. It takes
a lot of ever to put this out, but it
also is a choice of yours. How much time you
can you have in a day is not your choice,
(40:11):
but how you used it is. And I deeply appreciate
you've forgiving me your time. Thank you so much. This
has been the hater's guide to the AI bubble. Thank
you for listening to Better Offline.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
The editor and composer of the Better Offline theme song
is Matasowski. You can check out more of his music
and audio projects at Matasowski dot com, M A T
T O S O W s ki dot com. You
can email me at easy at Better Offline dot com
or visit Better Offline dot com to find more podcast
links and of course, my newsletter. I also really recommend
(40:51):
you go to chat dot where's youreaed dot at to
visit the discord, and go to our slash.
Speaker 1 (40:55):
Better Offline to check out our reddit.
Speaker 2 (40:58):
Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Better Offline is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 2 (41:02):
For more from cool Zone Media, visit our website Coolzonmedia
dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Host
Ed Zitron
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.