How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?

Dan Luu goes through roughly 30 falsifiable predictions the AI critic Ed Zitron made between February 2024 and November 2025, checks each against the record, and finds they mostly failed. The examples are specific: that we were reaching the upper limits of generative AI in February 2024, that OpenAI’s revenue forecasts amounted to financial crimes, that Gemini reaching 500M users was unrealistic and someone should be fired, which it then passed on the way to 750M.

The method is worth noting because it anticipates the obvious objection. Luu had a model assemble the prediction list without steering toward favourable or unfavourable cases, then verified each against the original posts and dropped anything tautological or unfalsifiable.

The more interesting half is not the scorecard but the reasoning patterns: cherry-picked figures that contradict the company’s own reported metrics, hero-and-villain narratives the evidence does not support, and arguments that undercut each other. His summary is that this is a gish gallop, cheap claims that each cost far more to refute than to make. Useful whichever side you are on, since the same audit would be worth running on the boosters, and the HN discussion makes roughly that point at length.