trimble_tromble

Zitron is certainly wrong sometimes, but there is some misleading quoting being done here, and some of the quotes are just hyperbole, rather than "predictions."

For example, the first quote claims that Zitron called OpenAI forecasting $11.6B for 2025 "so egregious that I am surprised it's not some kind of financial crime to say it out loud." But this is incredibly misleading. Here's Zitron's actual quote:

"OpenAI's monthly revenue hit $300 million in August, and the company expects to make $3.7 billion in revenue this year (the company will, as mentioned, lose $5 billion anyway), yet the company says that it expects to make $11.6 billion in 2025 and *$100 billion by 2029*, a statement so egregious that I am surprised it's not some kind of financial crime to say it out loud."

And the "100 billion part" was bolded, making it clear that the "egregious" wording was pointing to the 100 billion, not the 11.6 billion.

"First longitudinal empirical study of the post-merge lifecycle of agentic and human code in real-world open source projects."

I'm not saying that the conspiracy theory is true, but I do want to note that Greg Brockman, co-founder and President of OpenAI, is an angel investor in HuggingFace. As companies, they are not totally unconnected and opposed.

In the last 5 seconds or so of the film, you can overhear one of them saying "because we were remoting in to these Mac minis..." So I suspect they would say all the work was still being done on the target machines.

Should crypto-positive and crypto-negative op-eds be required to disclose whether the author has a financial stake in crypto’s future? This author is a “fintech entrepreneur”. To what extent does his future income depend on crypto’s success?

There are lots of ways to contribute to open source projects like OpenBSD, though there's always a risk that helpful but tedious work is neglected. This seems both helpful and tedious, and thus I think it's a great idea.

In science, we cannot cite our intuition or anecdotal experience as firm and reliable evidence for any phenomenon. One outgrowth of this is that good science is not just about investigating something that is likely to be surprising, it is about checking our intuitions in a more systematic and structured manner.