He's just a Brit, writing in a style we write in. Sweary, comical, red-top. The Register did it for years.

I don't think you know what "gooning" means. It's edgy Gen Z slang and has nothing to do with being British.

I didn't say it was. I'm just observing that his muckraking style is part of a very long British pundit tradition. Americans have never liked it — Intel got very upset about The Register's coverage of "the Itanic".

(And he's not Gen Z anyway is he; he's among the older millennials. He's appropriating it for muckraking purposes.)

Sure, but does that vibe invalidate the argument? What an odd time the middle of an argument is to be clutching pearls and worrying about prose quality.

Style and vibes notwithstanding, is there anything in your view that wrong with the argument itself? Could a better or more polite writer have convinced you with the same shape of logic?

I responded to a comment about the prose. Why are you not calling out that one instead?

> Could a better or more polite writer have convinced you with the same shape of logic?

If you're writing in an attempt to convince people of something, isn't how you deliver the message of critical importance?

This is basic Sales 101. The way you sell (products, services, ideas, etc.) is directly related to how successful you are.

He is not writing his blog to convince people, his primary audience already agrees.

That doesn't make him wrong.

> He is not writing his blog to convince people, his primary audience already agrees.

He's selling a paid newsletter, so at least one of his motivations is to make money. His target subscribers are certainly people who lean towards his viewpoint but he still needs to do some convincing because the market of people who are open if not warm to his thesis is much bigger than the market of people who already share his thesis.

> That doesn't make him wrong.

I think it's way too early for anyone pontificating about AI, the economics of AI, etc. to be declared "wrong" or "right". This is going to take years, if not decades, to play out.

Subscription based writing is all about writing for audience that agrees. Yes it creates bubbles, but economic of it is "people paying to read stuff they agree with".

It shows that the author has a strong negative emotional reaction towards AI which likely influences his opinions and impartiality.

He is preaching to the choir, if you already hate AI you will love the article, if you don't hate AI already you will find the article insufferable.

> He is preaching to the choir, if you already hate AI you will love the article, if you don't hate AI already you will find the article insufferable.

I'm neither (or both, if you want - I can hate the direction its taking humanity while not hating my usage of it or opportunities it brings), and I definitely did not find his writing to be either lovable or insufferable.

I enjoyed reading it in a "smells-like-BOFH-but-in-finance" type of way.

It's fully in the BOFH/The Register tradition, yeah.

Some of his manner reminds me also of Max Keiser's "The Truth About Markets" which I credit with telling me about the subprime crisis a couple of years before it happened, even though people thought he was insane… because he kind of is.

Well, we don't have to speculate as to whether there is some sort of emotional taint on Zitron's thinking; it's shot through. But again, that does nothing to damage or offset _the argument_, which is available for your inspection and consideration, and you, as a thinking person, are handily capable of vetting. :) There is no need to use a heuristic; you have the thing itself.

It absolutely damages the argument. Not sure why you think your question is a gotcha.

Think back. Has there ever been a time when you were both correct and angry?

Would an angry Pythagoras' theorem be wrong, simply by virtue of his anger?

He was a bit bonkers anyway. But maybe:

The square of the hypotenuse — you multiply it by its bleedin' self — is LITERALLY equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Again. Multiply each of the other sides BY THEMSELVES, and then add them together. It's that bleedin' simple Jim Cramer could do it. That number is the same as the square of the hypotenuse, no matter what idiot CEOs think.

...and as horrible as that writing is, Pythagoras would have still been telling you a true thing.

So too, Zitron?

I'm not a Brit, but I do enjoy British culture, including writing. I haven't been able to read any of Ed's rants to the end despite generally being on the cautious side towards LLMs