Sometimes it really is sufficient to say "This person is a grifter and from that all else follows".

and sometimes it isn't.

	▲	enraged_camel 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In this case, it is. Zitron does not possess even the most basic knowledge about the issues and practices he complains about. For example: https://www.crisesnotes.com/sigh-no-ed-zitron-ai-bond-issuan...

dgellow 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s fine if you do not want to engage with the person‘s work, but source of revenue is just one component to evaluate if someone is grifting

	▲	MarkusQ 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		From the article "A more common defense is to say, just in general, people attack Zitron because of Y (usually his style), but they never address his points." The article "engages with Zitron's work"; the post you responded to merely extended the discussion to speculate on why Zitron might be producing it. (btw, for the record, I'm an AI-hype skeptic and _also_ an AI-head-in-sand skeptic; as far as I can tell, both sides are full of malarkey.)