You're proving my point.
Don't ask 'have you stopped beating your wife?' questions, and don't treat every argument as though your opinion is the only one any honest decent person could hold. It's bad for you.
Indeed, that's how MAGA people behave.
I can show you the problem, but I can't make you think about it. 🤷🏻♂️
There’s a lot to be angry about right now. But the risk is that you just get more and more toxic yourself, feeding off rage with an audience that’s not worth it, and in the end, what did it get you? You didn’t learn, or persuade anyone.
This is one reason I’m not active here, and don’t miss Twitter.
I don’t agree with Ben here.
But one lesson from Twitter: if you find yourself making an aggressive personal attack on someone, and then you have hundreds of anonymous idiots shouting YEAH! FUCK THAT GUY!” in your mentions, you get a big surge of dopamine, but that’s probably not good for your soul
Manually driven cars kill 30,000 people a year in America.
Not figuratively - 30,000 actual people actually killed every year.
Tell your social media intern to work on their rhetoric
I said the exact opposite
The study says that a third of people who actively use AI use AI for search.
This is circular.
Yes, I still see this attitude sometimes. It's an astonishing lack of curiosity. This whole field is full of of questions, but if someone watches this and doesn't think something important has happened, they are only fooling themselves. blog.google/innovation-a...
At this stage, people who still claim that generative AI doesn't work and is all bullshit are showing an amazing level of wilful self-deception. blog.google/innovation-a...
Also unaffected: Santa Claus, tooth fairy.
I hate AI because it makes confident assertions it hasn’t checked and also I saw a headline that says a study I haven’t read claims only 5% of AI pilots work
The way that ‘MIT study’ that supposedly claimed ‘95% of AI pilots fail’ (none of which was really supported by the analysis or methodology) still gets cited everywhere ironically tells us quite a lot about the error rate in human reasoning
It's kind of amusing that he starts by saying that people accused him of not understanding crypto, and then proceeds to demonstrate that he doesn't understand *anything* - but is quite sure that anyone with a different opinion to him is a bad person.
The interesting thing about OpenAI’s ‘code red’ is that it involves pausing product and doubling down on models, and not the reverse. OpenAI’s core strategic problem is that it has no unique product and no distribution.
There are 17 pages on resources and roughly two thirds of the entire presentation is about broader social and economic consequences. There is even a slide that literally charts the effect on jobs of automation
There is also a page on how people often say silly things about changes like this.
Keynes said “when the facts change I change my opinions“, but some people start with opinions and then choose their facts.
I am not entirely surprised that someone who rage-quit Google after publishing a paper based on made-up energy consumption data would support a book based on water consumption data that turns out to be wildly wrong.
This McKinsey chart does a pretty good job of capturing the problem in asking people or corporations "Do you use AI?" without defining 'use' or 'AI'. The US government does a survey like this. It is meaningless.
www.mckinsey.com/capabilities...
You cannot understand fragments of sentences without reading the rest of them.
I’ve never said that and I don’t think that.
I don’t understand why people invent quotes. Try engaging with what people actually say?
One effect of the splintering of Twitter is that the people building AI are mostly still there, but most of the people who think that AI is evil and stupid left to go to places like mastodon or Bluesky, where now they just talk to each other in decreasing circles of irrelevance
Twice a year, I produce a big presentation exploring macro and strategic trends in the tech industry. New in November 2025, ‘AI eats the world’.
www.ben-evans.com/presentations
It shouldn’t be a surprise that that turned into cases that didn’t get through the courts. It turned into government lawyers making fools of themselves claiming that Instagram didn’t compete with TikTok and WhatsApp didn’t compete with iMessage.
I have a lot of sympathy for the idea US competition law is too narrowly focused on low prices, and some for arguments for more competition in tech. But a lot of of this agenda was based on poor analysis & poor understanding. Remember that House anti-trust report full of basic factual mistakes?
Judge agrees it was really dumb for the FCC to claim Meta doesn’t compete with TikTok.
This case was originally thrown out because the FCC just… forgot to say what it meant when it claimed Meta was a monopoly. Market definition is the first step in a competition case and they just didn’t bother.
Who says Europe has no hyper-growth companies?
Almost done
But as Jonathan Swift tells us, you can’t reason someone out of an idea that they weren’t reasoned into. The people who would need to read the book aren’t willing to learn.
Idea: a book where each chapter explains why something lots of people believe without question is wrong.
Facebook sells your data, buybacks are bad, rent control is good, $100 Nikes cost $1 to make, foreigners pay our tariffs, you can fix deficits by cutting waste/taxing billionaires…
