“The smug, condescending army of AI boosters exists to make you look away from the harsh truth — AI makes very little revenue, lacks tangible productivity benefits, and seems to, at scale, actively harm the productivity and efficacy of the workers that are being forced to use it.”
Our reading:
AI makes very little revenue, lacks tangible productivity benefits, and seems, at scale, to actively harm the productivity and efficacy of the workers being forced to use it.
Assessment: Can’t be checked
What happened
Not graded on evidence
Outcome: Can’t be checked
An opinion, a recommendation, or too vague to test. Listed, not scored.
Evidence up to . Checked .
Why
This sentence joins three claims in a polemical passage. 'Very little revenue' has no baseline: little compared with spending, with valuations, or with something else? 'Lacks tangible productivity benefits' names no measure, group of workers, or period. The harm part is openly hedged with 'seems to'. Testing it would mean choosing a revenue threshold, a productivity measure, and a period that he did not give, and any result would reflect those choices more than his words. So it is not graded.
Caveats
- Parts could become testable if split into narrower claims with a stated baseline and measure.
Evidence (0 items)
Claims like this aren’t scored, so there is no evidence to show.
How we judged it
- Kind of claim
- Observation
- Deadline
- None given. We don’t add one.
Conditions
- seems to, for the harm to workers (their words)
- at scale (their words)
Where we had to interpret
- This is a compound, rhetorical summary inside an attack on 'AI boosters'. 'Very little revenue' has no baseline, threshold, company set, or period. 'Lacks tangible productivity benefits' names no measure or population. The harm part is hedged with 'seems to'.
- Any test would need a revenue baseline, a productivity measure, and a period that he did not supply. So it is treated as not adjudicable.
We don’t grade claims like this. We only check the quote and who said it.
What would settle it
A narrower restatement, such as AI revenue compared with AI capital spending in a named year, or a named productivity measure for a defined group of workers.
We found 35 claims in this post. See them all.
Full record
Source and dates
Where's Your Ed At, The AI Industry Is Lying To You, paragraph 177.
- Said
- We read the source
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence up to
- Checked
We read this wording on 2026-10-28. The post may have been edited after 2026-03-24.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the posts we read.
: Where's Your Ed At, The AI Industry Is Lying To You
The smug, condescending army of AI boosters exists to make you look away from the harsh truth — AI makes very little revenue, lacks tangible productivity benefits, and seems to, at scale, actively harm the productivity and efficacy of the workers that are being forced to use it.
- Where
- paragraph 177
- Published
- 2026-03-24
- We read it
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Versions
- Current: Can’t be checked. Evidence up to 2026-10-28.
What happened to this record
PublishedBy us
Published after both AI reviews and the final check passed.
Held backBy us
A reviewer said our test wasn’t fair to what was actually said.