He LITERALLY said it is not like Enron. And repeated it.

I was thinking of this article where he compares OpenAI to Enron twice: https://www.wheresyoured.at/what-happens-if-openai-dies/

You're right that he doesn't explicitly say enron-scale fraud, that's just what I came away with from reading the article a while back.

▲

tootie 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I haven't read every word but I don't recall him saying AI is bad or useless ever either. His refrain is that they cannot keep up with their endless spending on training and they're not reaching new markets.

I look at the rapid rise and decline of OpenClaw and get the impression AI has not really found any foothold among average people.

	▲	jrflo 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		From the OP: August 2024: "generative AI is a dead-end technology that has peaked” July 2024: "Generative AI models aren’t getting more energy-efficient, nor are they getting more “powerful” in a way that would increase their functionality" Nov 2025: "the fact we're running out of high quality training data and we're hitting the walls of scaling laws, in the training paradigm, these models aren't getting better. What we're seeing today is pretty much what they're always gonna be like" There are other examples too from his prose of talking about how they are barely useful but I don't want to dig it up
	▲	dgellow 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I don't recall him saying AI is bad or useless ever either. He does say that pretty often in interviews. That doesn’t change his thesis but that‘s one reasonable reason people dismiss him, he has often said that AI is useless when considering the externalities. And he will sometimes take a shortcut and just say „it’s useless, doesn’t do anything well“, which is of course way too simplified.