TL;DR: don’t be a dumbarse like Lvxferre. Don’t waste your time reading this text; it is not worth it. It’s basically some guy building a prediction around a big assumption.

The core claim of the article is that generative artificial¹ "intelligence"² in 2025 is roughly in the same situation as the internet in 1995. As in: back then it was impossible to predict how, and both optimists and pessimists were dead wrong on their predictions, and yet the internet did have a huge impact on our lives.

In no moment he backs that core claim up. He takes it for granted. He assumes³ that genAI will revolutionise everything, internet style. Will it? I don’t know, you don’t, he doesn’t either - nobody knows, because it boils down to future events, and only a goddamn liar (no, worse - a moron) claims to know the future in this regard.

And the fact he’s assuming is further reinforced by his claim at the end that “We’re early in the AI revolution.”.

Then he spends the a good chunk of the text trying to predict the supply and demand effects of his certainty on jobs. His analysis is interesting, but at the end of the day it’s just a big red herring - it distracts the reader from the core claim he was supposed to back up, and failed to.

Immediately afterwards, he does it again, now talking about bubbles. Same deal: interesting-ish analysis spoiled by the fact it’s a red herring, taking for granted a core claim that might be false.

The Predictably Unpredictable Future

Or: “The Moronic Oxymoron”.

no one can predict with certainty what our AI future will look like. Not the tech CEOs, not the AI researchers, and certainly not some random guy pontificating on the internet. But whether we get the details right or not, our AI future is loading.

You were so close, author. So fucking close. Then you dropped the ball by vomiting certainty one final time.

1. I’m not sure if I should be adding quotation marks around that “artificial”; here’s some food for thought regarding that.
2. The ones around “intelligence” stay, however. I’ll go further: I’m not wasting my time with anyone disingenuous (or moronic - same thing) enough to argue the current systems are intelligent, or babbling about definitions of intelligence.
3. By “to assume”, in this context, I mean “to utter certainty on what one cannot reliably know”. Such as the future. Note it’s fairly distinct from “to hypothesise” (where one acknowledges a claim might be incorrect, but is still willing to play with it). Hypotheses are good, assumptions are trash.