- Ed has no insider information on the accounting or strategy of these AI companies and primarily reacts to public rumors and/or public announcements. He has no education in the field or any special credentials relating to it
- The people with full information are intelligent, and are continually pouring a shit-tonne of money into it at huge valuations
To agree with his arguments you have to explain how the people investing are being fooled.. which is never brought up
The “arguments” I see about that are always some variation of “they were wrong about WeWork!”, and leave it at that. Obviously smart people can be wrong, obviously dumb money exists, but the entire VC model is that the vast majority of your ultra-risky investments will fail, so pointing to failures proves nothing.
If the vast majority of a VC’s ultra-risky investments fail (this is generally true, though usually somewhat less true at the “late-stage investments of billions” stage, hence WeWork being an interesting example), that would imply that there’s little reason to assume VCs are any good at reading financials; it won’t impact their business that much.
WeWork is IMO fairly strong evidence that SoftBank is, or at least was, either incompetent here or simply not looking at all.
> To agree with his arguments you have to explain how the people investing are being fooled
The people with insider knowledge are also the people who are financially invested in AI companies, and therefore incentivized to convince everyone else that growth will continue.
- Ed has no insider information on the accounting or strategy of these AI companies and primarily reacts to public rumors and/or public announcements. He has no education in the field or any special credentials relating to it
- The people with full information are intelligent, and are continually pouring a shit-tonne of money into it at huge valuations
To agree with his arguments you have to explain how the people investing are being fooled.. which is never brought up