upvote
The fraud is there. Whether it surpasses Enron or not will be revealed in the future.
reply
To commit fraud you have to lie, deceive, or conceal. All of this bonkers financing is happening in broad daylight, announced to the markets, and met with rave reviews. I tend to agree with Zitron that the whole thing is a castle made of sand - not because the tech is bad or useless but because the financing, in its scope and structure, is so outlandish - but you can build a castle made of sand as long as you don’t tell anyone it’s made of steel.
reply
So far NVIDIA has been very careful, it’s not actual fraud, at least based on public information. It’s a very unstable and extremely risky bet, that is very likely to blow in the face face of AI companies, but it’s not fraud
reply
I think a lot of people (myself included) would love for it to be fraud. Because even if it's not fraud what is being done between NVidia, OAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Meta, Musk and Google is funny accounting at the very least. It's hard to take any part of what's going on seriously in the US at this point and I feel like the bigger downside to all of this is that if/when they get away with this, and there are no repurcussions for any of the big names involved, then it erodes consumer trust that much further, pushing us deeper into a state of "doesn't matter anyway, why try".
reply
Yes, you can include me too. I’m aware enough of the details to know we don’t have any proof of anything fraudulent, but that whole situation is just so disgusting
reply
Doesn't this ultimately boil down to: other people are spending their money on things I don't want them to? Which I mean, yeah I feel like this about tons of things all the time. I'm human too. But I know this is a petty part of me not a thoughtful part.
reply
Patrick Boyle had a vid specifically on whether there was Enron style fraud. The conclusion was no, though he thinks things may be a bit bubbly https://youtu.be/NufJ7g63KSY
reply
It's worth considering that it might not be 'Enron-style' fraud, because that's the best comparison have at the moment.

What event did people compare Enron to, before Enron became 'Enron'?

It's probable we're witnessing an entirely new fraud, we just don't have all of the details yet.

reply
Why? If there's no evidence of fraud, why are you imagining some new category of fraud that these companies have independently conjured up?

Suggesting that an entire industry is in cahoots to invent and participate in an entirely new fraud-like scheme, including companies that have lots of wealth and growth and much to lose from such an exposure...seems awfully conspiratorial, don't you think?

reply
There is no evidence of fraud that I have seen beyond complete speculation from the likes of Zitron. He basically just says "Look how big the numbers are! It's so big it must be fraud!"
reply
Zitron himself doesn’t call it fraud and doesn’t compare it to Enron (he said no, with his reasoning when asked in interviews, multiple times)
reply
I was thinking of this article where he compares OpenAI to enron: https://www.wheresyoured.at/what-happens-if-openai-dies/
reply
Do you mean this section?

> If you are going to look at this and say “actually it didn’t” because of its Enrontastic accounting treatment, I also need to warn you — that identical guy in the bathroom is actually a thing called a “mirror,” a reflective surface that is showing you a reflection of you, not another person who is dressed like you and copies everything you do. I can’t imagine how scared you’ve been, and hope this has helped.

That’s his weird writing style, so I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think he literally means that OpenAI is committing Enron style fraud. More of a stylistic way to say it’s a mess

reply
He also alludes to it here:

>What follows may be an Enron-Lehman Brothers hybrid, one that leaves unbelievable destruction in its wake, an avoidable systemic risk empowered and enabled by a kneecapped media industry and sell-side analysts incapable of seeing further than two quarters in the future.

He also mocks the financial statements from the companies in a way that alludes to them being fraudulent (from the OP):

> February 2025: Anthropic making $34.5B in revenue 2027 is "is laughable on many levels, chief of which is that OpenAI, which made around twice as much revenue as Anthropic did in 2024, barely made a billion dollars from API calls in the same year."

    Wrong (whether or not they make that in 2027, their 2026 ARR greatly exceeding that makes the 2027 estimate non-laughable)
> Oct 2024: OpenAI's forecast of $3.7B revenue in 2024 and $11.6B in 2025 and $100B in 2029 are absurd, "a statement so egregious that I am surprised it's not some kind of financial crime to say it out loud"

    Wrong (2025 goal exceeded, 2029 TBD but not an egregious financial crime level of implausible)
I'm realizing that he is very good at alluding to gross financial crimes without outright accusing them of it (probably as a hedge against libel or something)
reply
He LITERALLY said it is not like Enron. And repeated it.
reply
I was thinking of this article where he compares OpenAI to Enron twice: https://www.wheresyoured.at/what-happens-if-openai-dies/

You're right that he doesn't explicitly say enron-scale fraud, that's just what I came away with from reading the article a while back.

reply
I haven't read every word but I don't recall him saying AI is bad or useless ever either. His refrain is that they cannot keep up with their endless spending on training and they're not reaching new markets.

I look at the rapid rise and decline of OpenClaw and get the impression AI has not really found any foothold among average people.

reply
From the OP:

August 2024: "generative AI is a dead-end technology that has peaked”

July 2024: "Generative AI models aren’t getting more energy-efficient, nor are they getting more “powerful” in a way that would increase their functionality"

Nov 2025: "the fact we're running out of high quality training data and we're hitting the walls of scaling laws, in the training paradigm, these models aren't getting better. What we're seeing today is pretty much what they're always gonna be like"

There are other examples too from his prose of talking about how they are barely useful but I don't want to dig it up

reply
> I don't recall him saying AI is bad or useless ever either.

He does say that pretty often in interviews. That doesn’t change his thesis but that‘s one reasonable reason people dismiss him, he has often said that AI is useless when considering the externalities. And he will sometimes take a shortcut and just say „it’s useless, doesn’t do anything well“, which is of course way too simplified.

reply