I don't really care what Zitron says or pay attention to him because it seems clear to me he has some kind of agenda.
But this article is not nearly as impartial as it claims to be. It interprets all Zitron's claims in a narrow and overly-literal way. Missing the point and refuting a technicality.
For example, looking at the last 3 year's revenue/profit growth. This tells us nothing without looking at a larger context. Has revenue growth slowed down? Have profit margins compressed? What makes up the income and has that changed? Etc.
I think anyone being intellectually honest understands that these tables alone don't refute Zitron's claims that big tech are "dying and thrashing around" which is something that could take many years and easily hide under these kind of top line / bottom line numbers. (Maybe further analysis would refute the claim, but that analysis is not present here.)
Or Zitron's claims that AI capabilities are "reaching the upper limits" back in 2024. I don't think even Zitron would disagree that AI capabilities have grown since then, but that doesn't refute his point. How long the "reaching" takes and how wide the "upper limits" are is completely up to a subjective interpretation, which this post makes no attempt to even explore.
By all means dunk on futurists. But at least steelman their positions or you look just as biased as them. (Although maybe I am off base and this bias is meant to be clear from the start by admitting to pro-AI predictions all the way back in 2015.)
Yeah, I think this is fair criticism, and I definitely felt the pointedness in the tone as well.
On the overly-literal / narrow thing, I think thats the culture around evaluating predictions overall. Like, all those posts around christmas where people make predictions and evaluate how last year went. The rigor is the norm.
I'm not familiar with the culture, but that sounds reasonable.
I'll quibble with the term rigor. I think the article contains the strictness that word implies, but not the thoroughness.
It seems to me that if they'd just about reached their upper limits in early 2024 agentic coding wouldn't be eating software development like it is now, and wasn't then.
LLMs are broader than just coding. The article states this particular Zitron claim was wrong, even at the time, because you can put an LLM on a loop until it generates code that compiles. Mitigating hallucinations (in the subset of applications with verifiable output) is not really the same as solving that category of problems outright. I could quibble about a number of things in this example alone, but that's not really my point.
I don't care if the claims are correct or incorrect. I just think the tone of the article is dishonest about its own impartiality and fairness, because it doesn't even attempt to interpret the claims in any way except the least favorable. If you want to be persuasive, you should refute a claim using the most favorable interpretation of that claim possible -- this does the opposite.