Always been a bit wary of Patrick. He reminds me of those people who in the 1990s/2000s would have become professional talking head guests on CNN. The older ex-academic/ex-industry guys who knew how to spin popular news stories into sound bites for the general public, while offering a veneer of authority. I'd rather get analysis from people who don't chase pop news stories for a living.

He's offering entertainment not investing advice.

But he is very entertaining and has more than a veneer of authority. His early educational YouTube videos covering topics like derivatives pricing are genuinely very good.

Is there anything he's said in particular that, given the benefit of hindsight, you feel has turned out to be misleading in retrospect?

Speaking for myself only, but if I were going to post a comment like yours on a public forum insinuating doubts about a specific person and vaguely implying their analysis is not trustworthy, I'd come armed with at least once example.

Sort his YouTube videos by date and go to his oldest videos. He didn't used to do that.

So you can blame him for that style lately, but its not all he can do.

It’s good to be weary of any YouTuber. I don’t think he’s a sensationalist. it’s not like he’s saying “don’t listen to those other people, I’ll bring you the -real- info”. And he’s sighting journalists and experts and providing references. When he introduces a framing concept it’s usually from a published book. When other commentators were telling me that big tech was hiding their debts to make their balance sheet look better, he offered a more he offered the more neutral perspective that it’s normal to count purchase agreements that way. But that spreading disclosure of information across so many places so that only the careful notice, leads to partial revelations, where being right doesn’t matter. Which seems a more useful take away than just big tech is being fraudulent about the ai bubble.

That leaves basically nobody.

100%

agree