That’s fair, but let me ask, how do you answer the numbers that Ed provides?

Sure, Ed’s making some kind of money off of subscriptions. Yeah, he’s a personality. But to ignore the deep comparisons, numbers and data that he gathers and provides to back up his analysis feels like sticking your head in the sand.

There are other banks and financial entities that are echoing his concerns as well.

The "numbers and data" are cooked to the limits of available sources, and then twisted further by conjecture and interpretation to lend support to the conclusions they still wouldn't readily support.

As a ready-made example: the "AI models are unprofitable, API inference is subsidized, OpenAI is naked" line he keeps stressing. That doesn't seem to be likely even on the basic napkin math estimates. And is also repeatedly refuted by both AI company officials and various AI industry insiders - of varying trustworthiness, and with different incentives.

Having "the numbers" isn't the same as having objectivity, and again: I'd trust Altman to have a semblance of objectivity before I would trust Zitron.

If you only focus on ai bubble, look at google / Alphabets, Microsoft, Amazon and Metas revenue numbers. They literaly can just afford it