Zone Media.

Hello and welcome to this week's Better Offline Monologue.

I'm your host ed Zitron.

Before I go any further, if you ever want to reach out to me with the information, contact me on signal ez itron dot seven six.

That's ez or z for the Canadians and UK people out there it Ron dot seven six.

I will protect your identity.

Tell me all your secrets.

I'd love to know them.

Anyway.

This week, I wanted to talk about the stuff that gets me through doing this show every week and start with the point that I was told when I was told I should do monologues as to really make them sometimes just kind of a ran about how I'm feeling.

So for once, you're actually going to get one of those rather than something I pre prepare all neatly and nicely.

And if it's a bit self indulgent, well, you know what, what do you think you're getting with this podcast?

I'm a dramatic creature and I love it.

Anyway.

Today's really about what keeps me going through the grind and what I think this work can mean long term.

I realize i'm literally, by the way a podcast they're talking about the computer and that there are people with significantly hardly jobs and not trying to be too dramatic, but this shit does kind of run you down a bit, if only because a large part of my work comes down to explaining at length why so many people are wrong about something in a way that may threaten our entire economy, and a lot of them are doing it, and it's quite strange.

I know some of you are going to say that this is Brandalini's law, which talks about how disproving misinformation tends to require far more effort than creating it.

But this is different because we live in a time where our markets have become part of a death cult of short terminism, when nothing bad ever happens until everything bad happens at once.

Yeah, writing about this on some level is therapeutic.

It sounds a little deranged, But in writing about forty five thousand words in the past two months for both the newsletter and the podcast, I've had my arguments and really gotten to a point where I'm finally happy with them since built building them.

In April twenty twenty fourth, real ed heads out there will remember the two part episode I did about whether We'd hit PKI, where I was on steroids because I got strap throw, and I believe I threatened the computer itself, and I think I said, if I could ever find a way to give the computer a strep throw, I'd do it.

I maintain that threat anyway.

The upcoming three part which I'll record this weekend and will go out next week, is my guide to arguing with AI boosters, and it's allowed me to process my kind of potent frustrations with their counterintuitive, thinly sourced yet loudly crowded, pseudo arguments, and also the kind of the gas lating nature of them.

And at a time when very little else feels stable, it feels nice to take the argument to people that have built media presences or small fortunes off of misleading people about what large language models are capable of.

And if I could say large language model correctly at that point would feel a lot better.

But I'm keeping it.

I really do find this all quite reprehensible, how they emphatically and aggressively manipulate people into falling in line with the narrative that AI was the future and that what we're seeing today is just a taste of the power, rather than being obviously the result of diminishing returns and nothing ever really happening.

And I genuinely feel moral outrage seeing these arguments weaponized at scale.

I just don't like people being liked to.

I don't like having skeptics treated with disdain, their works considered dangerous because they refuse to immediately ingest clammy Sam Altman's latest info slot.

I do not like it when people are being told again and again and again to ignore their eyes and their ears about what AI can do and about whether chet GPT is really that amazing.

And I do not like that so much data center sprawl has been created, so many billions have been burned, so many environs poisoned, and work stolen, so that the most expensive software of all time can propagate and to the exhausts a few hundred billion dollars of venture capital and private credit dollars.

And it feels good to have my work reach a certain scale and got there from telling the truth and doing so in an emotionally honest way.

I mean, who the fuck knows what you actually think of me, But at least I'm genuine in doing this.

It's like eleven ten at night, because this was the only time I could really get this out, not even the effort, just the emotion needed to be there.

Anyway, my ranting aside, it feels good to read headline after headline that we're actually in an AI bubble because it means that on some level, the work iron people like me other skeptics are doing, even directly, it's bringing an end to this abominable waste.

I do, however, believe something is growing out of this and out of these headlines and out of my work, and that's the willingness of the media to accept skepticism, to actually give space for it, and to more than just humor, but actually begin engaging with these arguments themselves.

Last week's relatively despondent monologue was more a result of my exhaustion at the end of that two month, forty five thousand word fest.

But the truth is that I have been on television four times in the last week and a half, done three different interviews, and I'm getting substantially more space to explain my arguments in detail.

It's not me boasting.

This is a good thing for everyone.

This means that skepticism can truly be mainstream, and there genuinely is this shift in the mainstream, and this is one that opens the door to an entire legion of people to do this kind of meaningful, deep emotional and thorough analysis.

If my ideas can be mainstream, soaken yours.

You just have to be willing to keep consistent and unrelenting in your beliefs and really do a thorough job, actually really look at things in the cold, harsh light of day, be willing to be skeptical but not brash with your skepticism, and actually focus your energy on finding the truth, even if that truth isn't great.

If I'm completely honest.

The Premium newsletter this week, it started with me believing I had a huge scoop.

By the end of it, I realized that didn't.

I still find something interesting, though, because in the process of chasing this down, I learned a lot about GPUs eh.

But anyway, the idea that my ideas in mainstreaming is a huge deal because it means more people are willing to consider that perhaps taking business leaders might I don't know, be full of shit.

And while this is not a victory lap of any sort, I'm not taking one of those until it's time, and that will be when open aigh or anthropic finally shuts down.

But the true victory here is that you have big, serious publications writing stories about things based on my work.

The Wall Street Journal out of piece by Christopher Mims, And yes I did inspire it, he said up on Blue Sky, and you can look talking about the cost of inference increasing.

This is a huge deal.

This is a major publication being willing to talk about serious skeptical ideas that question the narrative that the entire market is chasing.

And Christopher Mems he also did that great piece on data centers, sprawl and the costs and the capex.

He cited Paul Kudrowski.

I'll get to that in future podcast.

But nevertheless, these ideas are breaking through to the mainstream, and narratives can be broken, ideas can be picked up and mainstreamed, and suddenly the world is willing to consider true skepticism.

An increased presence of tech and business skepticism in the mainstream will be a net benefit to society, and it's an opportunity to hold companies accountable for the products and problems they create.

I also want to be clear that I am not the first to do this.

Alison Morrow at CNN has been leading tech skeptics since twenty twenty one, when she was one of the few to call bullshit on the metaverse.

By the way, but the level of mainstream interest I'm seeing in my work suggests that the world is finally ready to take this more big time.

If I'm honest, to make this a more common thing you hear of rather than this effusive, dumb shit clapping at anything, Sam Moultman says.

And I realize it seems unrealistic, but with enough public pressure, with a fundamental shift in how we cover business and technology, we can affect true change.

I can't promise will change everything overnight, but that will stop every calamitous waste of money or colatomus.

So I was about to say, but if we make it harder to do this financially, waste will bullshit quietly, We'll make it harder to do it again and again.

And it starts with accountability.

Once the AI bubble bursts, which started four years ago for me when I started covering the bullshit of the metaverse, financial crises have never been covered in this detail by the media, or at least not so widely.

And though I believe the collapse of AI will be destructive for the tech and industry in our markets.

I think that for the first time, I and others have cataloged the exact destructive decisions and their consequences on multiple different levels.

To fully cover the AI boom does not require you just to cover finances.

It doesn't require you just to cover the businesses.

You have to deeply and meaningfully understand the people behind it.

Fucking Casey Newton suggested, I don't do that.

This Friday, I'm talking with an actual software developer about a blog you oat guy called Colton.

He's fantastic, and about how the whole myth of the ten engineer doesn't really exist with AI.

Talking to these people is necessary because this isn't just a movement that grew from financial misdeeds, but it grew from a tech industry that's kind of disconnected from reality.

Breaking those illusions is necessary, and it's how we stop these things happening again.

The Great Financial Crisis happened in a much less connective media environment of far fewer means of distribution for independent critics.

The mainstream media opening their arms to business and tech skepticism is an important opportunity to explain why this happened, how the market became illogical, and what means we used to manipulate the media into telling that story.

Mainstreaming and education of how narratives are built allows people to pull apart future narratives.

Teaching people to be skeptical of companies selling things is a good thing and one that empowers people to make better decisions with their lives.

Now, I should be clear, tech and business skepticism is not new.

There have been people doing it for twenty goddamn years.

What is new is the mainstream making this mainstream making financial skepticism.

Mainstream can change the world, and it can make the goddamn Internet better.

It can fix the tech industry at a time when I don't think the tech industry has been more shitty.

And I truly love technology and it's brought me love, joy, happiness, community and success, and very little about what the current tech industry is focused upon feels like it's done in pursuit of any of those things.

In fact, I don't even know what the current tech industry is focused on.

There are companies doing interesting things.

I like framework, I like Anchor, I like seeing things that are truly changing the world and changing the world doesn't need to be this magical, ridiculous thing.

It can just be making the world a bit more fun and interesting.

And I don't see anyone in big tech doing that.

And I don't think thirty three percent of startup funding going to AI is actually in pursuit of making anyone's lives better, anyone more efficient, making humans better, or even if I'm fucking honest, replacing humans.

I don't think anyone knows what they're doing.

And I think where there are could be exceptions or on the fringes in really deep niche cases.

I don't know, but I think the majority of generative AI is kind of nihilistic.

It's growth for growth's sake, and it's the real detritus of the rot economy.

And I think a collapse is inevitable.

I hope it isn't as bad as it could be, but I think it's the inevitable consequence of taking software and hardware out of the hands of people that actually use it to do shit and putting it in the hands of management consultants like satching Adella.

These companies cannot be swayed by regulation.

The CEOs are too rich, their businesses are too entrenched, and thus the info poison we must use is educating as many people as possible in how to be skeptical of big text hype cycles and knowing the names of people like satching Adella and most of us Suliman at Microsoft, the people burning billions of dollars for no goddamnaries and or clammy Sam Moltman, mocking them, pointing at them, calling them what they are that changes the world, that makes things better.

And I'm touched by the amount of emails I get from you.

I'm genuinely blessed.

I know how hokey that sounds.

Whatever you know me, I'm a dramatic fellow.

But I hear from so many of you that this is what you want, that you want a better tech industry, but you wont so want people to be more skeptical of this one.

And I couldn't agree more.

We can have a better world.

I don't know how quickly we will.

There are times when it doesn't feel possible, but I actually think it is.

Anyway, this monologue has gone on way too long.

Enjoy the three part next week, How to Argue with Nai Booster.

It's based on the newsletter.

It's going to be a lot of fun.

Shoot me an email, go on the subreddit, dm me on Blue Sky, or throw me a slob on Goot.

Thanks to zever for giving me your time.

I'm