What else would his repute be based on? Maybe telling retrospective truth? Per the article, he does terribly by that metric as well.
replyI thought in the post Ed was being evaluated based on all his predictions, and it turned out all of them were wrong.
replyMost people will read the post as going over all the falsifiable predictions and none of them panning out, since after the chronological prediction list it says "After this point, most further predictions that I saw were either non-falsifiable or resolve in the future".
If Dan is reading maybe he can clarify?
Have you ever listened to Zitron speak? He's not exactly the type to hedge his predictions behind careful language about how hard predictions are. He makes every one of these predictions with absolute confidence and conviction.
replyHe speaks with all the conviction of a classic "Fire and Brimstone" preacher. Someone for whom the only metric is stirring emotion, not accuracy of statement.
replySo does everyone else, including prominent AI enthusiasts and tech CEOs. And most of those predictions are wrong, because predictions are really hard.
replyAnd we're used to insulting and making fun of the prominent members of those circles too, see: "Scam Altman", the large variety of jokes about Musk's timelines, comments about Dario waking up in a cold sweat whenever a powerful new open weight model drops, the "AGI achieved" meme etc.
replyHyperbolic as those descriptions are, it’s not like they’re not sourced from reality. Sam Altman’s reputation in SV is well-established; Musk promised the roadster what, a decade ago? These guys preach a promised land of milk and honey and so many hear lap it up like dogs.
replyBoth can be bad, and I think people take issue with intentionally projecting false or irresponsible confidence (lying).
replyZitron twists and misreports a lot of facts where they should know better.
CEO hypemen knowingly conflate Ambitions for certainty