 |
|
|
|||||
Ed Zitron peels off his green button-up shirt to reveal the gray tee beneath. Now properly uniformed, two cans of Diet Coke queued up before him, hes ready to record this weeks episode of his podcast, Better Offline, at audio behemoth iHeartMedias midtown Manhattan studio. The topic on this July afternoon, as usual, is artificial intelligence. One of Zitrons guests, screenwriter, director, and producer Brian Koppelman, talks about paying $200 a month for ChatGPT Pro. When Koppelman earnestly asks, Do you not think AI is mind-bogglingly great at times? Zitrons answerNo!comes so quickly it seems to spring directly from his cerebral cortex. It would have been startling if hed responded any other way. As AI has become the tech industrys principal obsession, Zitronwho runs a public relations firm that represents technology companieshas developed an unexpected side hustle as one of its highest- profile naysayers. Ive tried all of these different things, and I still cant tell you with clarity what it is thats so amazing with these products, he tells me. Countless people in and around the tech industry share Zitrons dim view of generative AIs usefulness, the billions of dollars that companies are pouring into the technology, and its voracious appetite for computing resources. But his take-no-prisoners punditry sets him apart from other noted gadflies such as cognitive scientist Gary Marcus. On Better Offline and in his email newsletter, Wheres Your Ed At, hes particularly unsparing in his appraisal of CEOs such as Metas Mark Zuckerberg (a monster), OpenAIs Sam Altman (a con man), and Microsofts Satya Nadella (either a liar or a specific kind of idiot). Zitron says that his work is motivated by [seeing] these bastards and what theyre doing, how much money theyre making doing it, and how shameless they are. He has his own name for the pursuit of growth above all other goals, regardless of its impact on customers and society at large: the rot economy. He believes the current AI boom will end in disaster. When its very obvious the money isnt there, theres going to be a big, horrible correction with tech stocksa harmful one, he declares, referring to the fallout should AI companies not ever be profitable. I say this with a degree of trepidation, because its not going to be fun. Zitrons influence in the AI conversation is palpable and still expanding. On Bluesky, where he has 169,700 followers, attorney and activist Will Stancil recently wrote, People love to say Im begging you to read something by an actual expert and they mean, specifically, Ed Zitron. Produced by Cool Zone Media, an iHeartMedia subsidiary specializing in podcasts of a progressive bent, Better Offline is regularly among the 15 most popular tech shows on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. A bustling Reddit forum spun off from the podcast attracts 74,000 people a week with links to news stories about AI and caustic, sometimes darkly funny conversations about them. Wheres Your Ed Atits name riffs on Wheres Your Head At, a 2001 song by U.K. electronic music duo Basement Jaxxhas more than 80,000 readers, about 3,000 of whom receive bonus newsletters available exclusively to subscribers who pay $70 per year and up, an option Zitron added last June. His book on tech dysfunction, Why Everything Stopped Working, is due out in late 2026 or early 2027. Yet as prolific as Zitron is, he doesnt feel remotely tapped out. As things get more brittle and chaotic, he says, theres only going to be more things for me to rifle through and explain to people. Zitron didnt set out to build a mini media empire around AI doomerism. The West Londonborn tech enthusiast, a onetime video game journalist, founded his company EZPR in New York in 2012 and went on to write two books about public relations. When he sent out his first Wheres Your Ed At newsletters, in 2019, he focused on personal interests such as gaming, his Peloton, and the NFL draft. And then he didnt get around to publishing again for a year and a half. Late in 2020, he caught COVID. Suddenly in need of activities to fill his time, he found his newsletter a welcome distraction. If Im not writing, I havent really thought through anything, he explains. So I just started writing every day. Increasingly, he turned his attention to the tech industrys ills, leading to the February 2023 piece in which he coined the term the rot economy. It quickly went viral. Over time, Zitron has found a voice that comes off as entirely uncensored. He runs his newsletters by an editorfellow Brit and tech-skeptic newsletter author Matt Hughesbut you wouldnt know it from their style and substance. One particularly operatic recent example, last Julys The Haters Guide to the AI Bubble, marshals 14,500 words of facts, figures, and spicy commentary (Salesforces claims for its Agentforce AI are a blatant fucking lie) to argue that tech giants and startups alike are wasting billions pushing products built on vibes and blind faith. He also turned The Haters Guide into a four-part Better Offline series, where his accent and dramatic flair only heighten its impact. On Reddit, one fan called him the David Attenborough of AI critique. Zitron says that his supremely pissed-off persona isnt just a schtick. Its just never come easily to me to pretend to be anything other than what I am, he stresses. His friend and fellow tech critic Molly White, author of the crypto-busting newsletter Citation Needed, agrees. Hes very passionate about the stuff that he is writing about, she says. I think it sort of consumes him and his attention. Yet the full story of his relationship with AI is more complex. Along with savaging the technology in newsletters and on podcasts, he pitches its benefits to media outlets (including Fast Company) on behalf of EZPRs clients. Startups that hes repped range from technical assessment platform CodeSignal to Nomi, which touts its chatbots ability to serve as a virtual companion, girlfriend, or boyfriend. Zitron rejects the idea that his two jobsAI basher and AI promoterpresent any fundamental tension or conflict of interest. At EZPR, he says, What Iadvocate for are companies with real purpose that do things their customers like, that build sustainable businessesbased on actualuse cases. Does his growing fame as a writer and podcaster benefit his PR firm? He allows that it helpsjournalists recognize his name and are more likely to open his emailsbut considers that a side effect. The point, he says, is to speak his mind on a topic he cares deeply about. Evidence is mounting that some of the initial exuberance over generative AI was, in fact, irrational. A recent MIT study reported that 95% of enterprise pilot programs involving the technology hadnt shown a return on investment; another from Bain says that even by 2030 the tech industry might be $800 billion short of finding enough new revenue to fund the computing resources necessary to keep up with demand for AI. Speaking with reporters in August, OpenAIs Altman admitted the existence of a bubble. Are we in a phase where investors as a whole are overexcited about AI? he asked. My opinion is yes. Nonetheless, he added that OpenAI intends to invest trillions in additional data center infrastructure. That same month, OpenAI released a new version of ChatGPT built atop GPT-5, the latest update to its large language model. Once widely anticipated as a giant leap forward, it landed with a thud once users tried it and deemed it less than transformative. To Zitron, it was a classic example of the companys puffery exceeding its product road map. Two years ago, people were talking about GPT-5 like it was going to be AI Jesus, he says. I feel that OpenAI likely had to get something out the door. Arguing that Altmans stated plans for OpenAIsuch as building 250 gigawatts of data center capacity in eight yearsare impossible, Zitron continues to press the case that the company will run out of venture funding before reaching self-sufficiency. OpenAI is not building the AI industry, as this is capacity for one company that burns billions of dollars and has absolutely no path to profitability, he wrote in an October newsletter. This is a giant, selfish waste of money and time, one that will collapse the second that somebodys confidence wavers. OpenAIs failure, he contends, could take out other companies such as cloud-computing provider CoreWeave. It would also inflict serious damage on giants such as SoftBank, which led OpenAIs $40 billion investment round last March, and Nvidia, whose chips power most of the worlds generative AI. Citing one VCs estimate that AI funding could dry up within six quarters, Zitron has said the industry could face total collapse in early 2027. Even as the industry braces for a correction, Zitrons prediction that it will effectively cease to exist makes him an outlier. I just dont think that Ed makes a strong case that this is going to happen, says Timothy B. Lee, author of the newsletter Understanding AI. You dont need to buy Altmans utopian vision of intelligence too cheap to meter to accept the possibility that AI has a future. OpenAI going under would mean it never found a way to operate at a profit, regardless of any technological efficiencies, price adjustments, or new markets yet to come. In his newsletter and on his podcast, Zitron projects an air of ferocious certitude. In person, he is willing to toy with the notion that his prognostications might not pan out. Characterizing himself as a brokenhearted romantic when it comes to tech, he says hed welcome being proven wrongand would write about it. Itll be really annoying, and I really dont think itll happen, he emphasizes. But the only way to do this [work] honestly is to be prepared for that, to be willing for that to happen. As a commentator, Zitrons stock-in-trade is the gusto with which he dismantles assessments of AI he considers invalid. Now the only question is whether hell get to say he told us soor end up being his own ripest target.
Category:
E-Commerce
To a certain point, cars are fantastic inventions making it easy to get to far-flung places, opening doors for new places to live or work or play. But there’s a tipping point when the built environment and our lives are arranged around motor vehicles where the benefits start to come undone. Building to prioritize space-hogging cars brings a long list of negative externalities. In Greek mythology, the god Dionysus granted King Midas his wish for the power to turn everything he touched to gold. Midas revels in the effortless wealthobjects, furniture, and even the ground beneath him turn to gold. The Midas touch was great right up until he wanted to eat or drink or just hug his daughter. Theres a King Midas aspect to motor vehicles, this technological gift that promised and delivered abundance until it became a curse. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"","headline":"Urbanism Speakeasy","description":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit urbanismspeakeasy.com.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","colorTheme":"green","redirectUrl":""}} Personal cars expanded opportunities like never before. Post-World War II America saw vehicle ownership explode from 25 million in 1945 to over 100 million by 1970. Having access to a family car made far-flung places viable for living, working, and playing, fueling a middle-class expansion across previously rural areas. An entire car-oriented ecosystem emerged. The promise of freedom and wealth held until cities and suburbs began optimizing for vehicle throughput instead of local access and mobility. When Everything Turns to Asphalt Like Midas discovering he couldn’t eat golden food, we’re discovering that car-dependent places can’t sustain the human activities they were meant to enable. The same infrastructure that promised connection now isolates. What began as freedom morphed into obligation. American cities now dedicate somewhere between one-third and one-half of their land area to streets, parking lots, and garages. In downtown Los Angeles, parking occupies more space than all the buildings combined. We’ve paved over so many of the destinations cars were supposed to help us reach. The economic costs of car dependency are brutal at the household level. Transportation often ranks as the second-largest expense after housing, consuming up to 30% of household income. The “drive until you qualify” phenomenon pushed families toward affordable suburban housing, only to burden them with commutes that devoured time and money. Car loan defaults have jumped 50% in the last 15 years, and in 2024, car repossessions hit the highest number since 2009. Meanwhile, the infrastructure itself demands constant funding. Roads, bridges, and parking structures deteriorate faster than municipalities can maintain them. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates a multi-trillion-dollar backlog in deferred transportation maintenance. Every lane-mile of road requires ongoing investment that property taxes in sprawling development patterns often can’t support. The Isolation Paradox Car dependence promised mobility but delivered immobility for anyone without a vehicle or unable to drive. Children lost independence because nothing is within walking or biking distance, and the elderly face isolation when they can no longer drive safely. People with disabilities, those who can’t afford vehicles, and those who simply prefer not to drive find themselves trapped in places without practical mobility alternatives. The distances themselves became barriers. When corner stores give way to big-box retailers miles away, when schools require driving rather than walking, when social spaces exist only as isolated destinations rather than chance encounters, community itself attenuates. Neighbors pass each other at 45 miles per hour on six-lane arterials rather than at 3 miles per hour on sidewalks. The “third places” that anchored community life (cafés, parks, plazas, etc.) disappeared into the car-oriented strip malls and shopping centers. The Health Toll The King Midas curse extends to our bodies. Vehicle-oriented development correlates strongly with obesity, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory illness. When walking becomes impractical and driving becomes mandatory, physical activity disappears from daily routines. Air pollution from vehicles contributes to asthma, especially in children living near major roadways. Traffic crashes kill 40,000 Americans annually, and injure hundreds of thousands more. Larger vehicles, faster vehicles, and inattentive driving create an increasingly deadly environment. Breaking the Curse King Midas eventually begged Dionysus to reverse his wish, washing away the golden touch. Like Midas, our situation is fixable. People are rediscovering that neighborhoods can be planned and designed at a human scale that welcomes motor vehicles without squashing the good life. Zoning reforms that allow mixed-use development are the single most important starting point. When someone can walk to a store, bike to work, or take transit to social activities, the car returns to being a useful tool rather than an iron requirement. But that only happens if a local government legalizes a variety of land uses in neighborhoods. Cars are fantastic inventions. The Midas predicament emerges when we optimize everything around them, when we mandate their use, and when we eliminate alternatives. A city where people can choose to drive, walk, bike, or take transit according to their needs is fundamentally different from one where driving is the only option. The Midas story ends with the king learning wisdom through suffering. Weve suffered quite a bit from the built environment. But even in real life, things can get better in the end. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"","headline":"Urbanism Speakeasy","description":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit urbanismspeakeasy.com.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","colorTheme":"green","redirectUrl":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
Below, Jon Levy shares five key insights from his new book, Team Intelligence: How Brilliant Leaders Unlock Collective Genius. Levy is a behavioral scientist. For the last 15 years, he has studied what makes leaders and teams succeed, working with everyone from Nobel laureates to Olympic captains and Fortune 500 executives. He is also the founder of The Influencers, a one-of-a-kind private dining club with thousands of members, many of whom are some of the worlds most respected leaders. Whats the big idea? Success isnt about raw talent or a single heroic leader. Its about how we align, focus, and unlock the resources within our teams. Intelligent teams create cultures that let people thrive together. Listen to the audio version of this Book Biteread by Jon himselfbelow, or in the Next Big Idea App. 1. Why star talent fails Weve been taught that the surest way to win is to gather the most talented people. But stacking a team with stars doesnt guarantee success. In fact, it often undermines it. Take the 1980 U.S. Olympic basketball team. They were just college kids, facing NBA All-Stars in a series of exhibitions. On paper, the pros should have crushed them. Instead, the college players won four out of five games, including one by 31 points. The less talented team consistently defeated the stars. Business tells the same story. Quibi was a short-form streaming platform, led by Disneys Jeffrey Katzenberg and eBays Meg Whitman. It raised nearly $2 billion, but leadership was so insulated and overconfident that they ignored feedback. The company shut down within months. Or DaimlerChrysler. In 1998, Mercedess parent company merged with Chrysler in what was billed as the perfect match of German engineering and American scale. Instead, cultural clashes and competing egos derailed the merger, wiping out billions in value. Psychologists call this the too-much-talent problem. When too many stars are in the room, cooperation breaks down and performance collapses. Skill is just the ticket to play. What really matters is how people work together. Teams win not because they have the best individuals, but because they combine their efforts into something greater than the sum of their parts. 2. The myth of the perfect leader When we think of great leaders, we often imagine someone charismatic, visionary, maybe even larger than life. But the surprising truth is that there are no universal traits of leadership. For more than a decade, Ive hosted a series of dinners. The format is simple but unusual: 12 strangers come together to cook a meal, and until we sit down to eat, nobody is allowed to talk about their careers or even share their last names. When we sit to eat, people reveal they are Nobel laureates, astronauts, Olympic captains, CEOs, and Grammy-winning musicians. Over the years, Ive connected with some of the most accomplished leaders on the planet, and what strikes me is that there is no single personality profile that is common to all these leaders. Some are introverts who prefer quiet reflection. Others are outspoken and brash. Some are methodical planners, while others thrive in chaos. If its not about personality, what makes someone a leader? The answer, by definition, is that they have followers. Leaders give us the feeling of a new and better future. So, why do we follow? The answer isnt something as easy to pin down as vision or charisma. Instead, its an emotional response. Leaders give us the feeling of a new and better future. When we interact with them, they cause us to feel that tomorrow will be better than today. But there arent any specific skills that cause this. Maybe youre brilliant at solving problems under pressure, or maybe youre the person who can think at scale and move fast. Its not about being well-rounded, it’s about your unique super skill being enough for people to believe that with you, the future is worth pursuing. Find the strengths that make you effective and use them to create a vision that others want to join. Thats what real leadership looks like. 3. The three pillars of team intelligence In the early 2000s, Lego was in serious trouble. The company had expanded into video games, clothing, and even theme parks, but in the process, it lost sight of what made it special. Lego was drowning in debt and close to bankruptcy. Thats when they brought in Jrgen Vig Knudstorp, a former McKinsey consultant with a background in organizational behavior. Knudstorp didnt try to rescue Lego by chasing bold new ideas or hiring more star executives. Instead, he focused on building the conditions that allowed the teams they already had to succeed. What he put in place mirrors what I call the three pillars of team intelligence: Reasoning: Alignment around clear goals Knudstorp got everyone back to Legos core mission of inspiring creativity through play, not distracting side ventures. Attention: Knowing when to collaborate and when to focus Lego teams had to learn when to come together intensely on critical decisions, and when to step back so designers and engineers could innovate without constant interference. Resources: Unlocking and empowering the talent already inside the company Lego had world-class designers and engineers, but their best ideas were being buried under corporate bloat and scattered priorities. By elevating and focusing those creative resources, the company rediscovered the very expertise that had always been its greatest strength. Knudstorp sold off the theme parks, cut the side businesses that drained attention, and redirected investment back into the bricks. Most importantly, he gave designers and engineers the freedom to create again. That shift produced runaway successes like Lego Star Wars, Lego Harry Potter, and Bionicle. By aligning goals, sharpening focus, and empowering internal talent, Knudstorp rebuilt Lego from the brink of collapse into the worlds most valuable toy company. Individual talent matters, but what really makes teams thrive are the systems that guide how people align, communicate, and unlock the resources they already have. 4. The super chicken problem If youve ever worked on a team full of high achievers, youve probably seen this play out. People compete for airtime, ideas clash, and collaboration takes a back seat to ego. The assumption is that more talent should always mean better results, but research shows the opposite is often true. Decades ago, biologist William Muir at Purdue University ran an experiment with chickens to test productivity. At the time, the most productive egg-laying chicken was the Dekalb XL. This was like the Ferrari of chickens. It could outlay anything, ut the focus on pure productivity during breeding led it to become violent. After all, the only way to become more productive at a certain point would be to peck other chickens to get their resources. Muir believed that you could have chickens that were very productive and humane. So, he took an average crossbred chicken, created 200 coops, and would have them work together in small groups to lay eggs. Those that laid the most eggs were rebred generation after generation. The assumption is that more talent should always mean better results, but research shows the opposite is often true. After six generations, Muir set up an experiment to see who was more productive: a coop of the super chickensthe Dekalb XLsor his kinder, gentler birds. Muirs kinder, gentler birds, bred both for prosocial behavior and productivity, beat the DeKalb XLs by a long shot. Mostly because, due to pecking each other to death, only three Dekalb XLs remained at the end of the experiment. When you stack a team entirely with stars, competition overwhelms cooperation. Studies in sports also show that teams overloaded with superstar players often underperform. The same holds true in business: Companies built around celebrity CEOs or elite hires often stumble because the team dynamic collapses under the weight of competing egos. Success is about creating conditions where people can thrive together and collaboration, trust, and shared purpose matter more than individual stardom. 5. The Miami Heat and the power of culture In 2010, the Miami Heat pulled off what looked like the greatest talent coup in NBA history. LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Boshall superstarsjoined forces. At the announcement, LeBron famously promised multiple championships. But then, they lost. Raw talent wasnt enough. The Heat had assembled the crew, but they hadnt figured out how to make them work together as a team. That changed when Shane Battier joined the roster. To this day, it would be easy not to notice that he was on the team. Battier wasnt flashy, he didnt dominate the highlight reels, and his stats looked modest. But his teammates called him a no-stats all-star because he had a unique ability to elevate everyone elses game. Even in teams stacked with stars, its often the glue players, the ones who make everyone else better, who determine success. Battier studied opponents obsessively, knew when to set the perfect screen, and often took on the toughest defensive assignments. He was even nicknamed Lego, because when he was on the court, everyone else clicked into position. His presence allowed LeBron, Wade, and Bosh to maximize their talent, and the championships followed. Even in teams stacked with stars, its often the glue players, the ones who make everyone else better, who determine success. Dont just chase superstars. Value the people who connect the pieces, create trust, and turn potential into performance. Theyre the difference between a team that stumbles and one that builds a dynasty. Enjoy our full library of Book Bitesread by the authors!in the Next Big Idea App. This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||