What about all his other articles that had f-bombs and the predictive utility of used toilet paper?

>I’ll take a few f bombs and the truth.

Don't want to ruin it but go read some old posts from the author about AI, the tone is the same and he is very much wrong.

You can disagree. Sarcastically, or otherwise. But I think you may be reading more into my comment than I put there.

I’m not attacking the piece. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m not saying it’s wrong.

What I’m saying is, the tone made it hard for me to judge the arguments fairly, despite finding some of them convincing. And as much as I dislike it, persuasion does partly depend on how an argument is made.

Have you seen his recent Bloomberg appearance? He's calm, collected, and matter-of-fact -- the complete opposite of how he presents himself on his newsletter and podcasts, but with the same argument. You wouldn't know from listening to him how spicy he usually is.

Perhaps that’s it. I would tend to agree with his position, I think, but don’t appreciate being preached to. Even less so when I agree with what’s being said.

At the /. times, there was somebody there with the best signature line. It was something like:

"Some people say the Sun sets at East, other people say it sets at West. The truth, of course, is certainly on the middle."

>Does the truth normally lie somewhere in the middle of it all?

Usually does when you decide what constitutes extreme.

Probably. Although I feel more inclined to forgive Ed in this case because it's sort of fighting fire with fire, the insanely hyperbolic and obscenely misleading drivel that's coming out of the most ardent AI boosters is continually unchallenged in the public eye. In a world where we had a more realistic view of AI/ML/LLMs, the limits to its capabilities, and the negative externalities of its widespread adoption in places where it quite frankly does not belong, then I'd be more critical of the Chicken Little sort of writing style