I'm subscribed to his substack because he's curmudgeonly and it's funny, and he occasionally makes good points, but he's constantly beating the same anti-hype drum. He might not get any particular facts wrong but you can count on him only focusing on the facts that let him continue to show AI through that same anti-hype lense.

How would it be possible to, say, show the reality of a forest fire's devastation while not appearing to show a bias for showing charred trees?