"Early" works for an open-ended bubble thesis. It does not rescue dated claims that already failed.

Google's 500 million Gemini-user goal had an end-of-2025 deadline. Zitron called it so unrealistic that Sundar Pichai should be fired. Google reported more than 650 million monthly users by October.

"AI had already peaked" is also a claim about the state of the technology at that time. Agent and coding benchmarks moved sharply after it. The fact that every technology eventually peaks does not make a past claim that it already peaked correct.

The bubble may still burst. That would validate the bubble thesis. It would not retroactively fix the prediction record.

btw Zitron has the only fan base that has come after me with doxxing and death threats so far. Truly misery loves company!

▲

Zigurd 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some numbers have a lot of squish to them. Gemini can't be called a failure. But Copilot is a flop and yet Microsoft can probably show you similar numbers to what Gemini has.

	▲	achompas 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But we’re talking about Gemini, which is one of Dan’s point: the surface area is so large that any prediction is almost laughable. Zitron’s prediction here is laughable in fact because he claims both (1) Pichai is jamming AI everywhere and (2) the 500M number is impossible. Those statements are immediately contradictory to anyone who understands the scale of Google’s products.

▲

dofm 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The bubble may still burst. That would validate the bubble thesis. It would not retroactively fix the prediction record.

If it does not burst it will be because specific efforts have been taken to deflate it in the face of concerns like those he is raising.

The bubble may not burst for example if the securitization of AI debt really happens. Then when it happens it won't be an "AI bubble" that bursts, it will be a full-on collapse of the US economy. Like when 2008 happened it wasn't really about mortgages anymore.