“Yet it isn’t working. Consumers don’t want this shit. They’re intrigued by the idea, then mostly immediately bouncing off of it once they see what it can (or can’t) do.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Generative AI isn't working with consumers: they don't want it, and though intrigued by the idea, they are mostly immediately bouncing off it once they see what it can or can't do.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Ed Zitron wrote it
Where's Your Ed At, There Is No AI Revolution, paragraph 207.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment wyea-wheres-the-money-7f9f29-a1
We recorded 42 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2025-02-24. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
Conditions
- mostly (scope, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- Consumers don’t want this shit
- They’re intrigued by the idea
- mostly immediately bouncing off of it once they see what it can (or can’t) do
Our interpretation
- The ordinary reading is that more than half of consumers who try generative AI promptly abandon it after their initial experience.
- 'Consumers don't want it' is read as a broad lack of sustained demand, not a literal assertion that no consumer wants it.
- 'Immediately' means following the initial trial. I do not invent a precise number of days.
- For this ongoing observation without a named reporting period, I use January 2025, the latest complete calendar month before publication.
- 'Mostly' is a prevalence threshold, not a conditional antecedent.
Counts as supported if: Representative consumer trial cohorts for the target period show that more than half promptly abandon generative AI after initial experience, with evidence consistent with low sustained demand.
Counts as contradicted if: Comparable evidence shows that a majority of consumer trial users continue using generative AI after their initial experience, undermining the asserted majority abandonment.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The January survey shows substantial satisfaction among continuing users, which weighs against a sweeping account of consumer rejection. It does not tell us how many initial users left. Later retention analysis discusses both churn and returning users, but does not establish the claimed January abandonment rate. The evidence therefore neither supports nor contradicts the specific assertion that most consumers promptly bounce off generative AI.
Limitations
- The representative survey covers US adult LLM users, not all consumers who ever tried generative AI.
- Later usage growth or retention cannot automatically settle an observation about January 2025.
- The unspecified meaning of 'immediately' limits comparisons with fixed-day retention statistics.
Evidence (2 items)
Context only: Elon University, Imagining the Digital Future Center,
Three-quarters
Why it matters here: The January 21–23 survey documents satisfaction among current US adult LLM users, complicating the broad rejection claim. Its selected user population cannot establish what proportion of everyone who initially tried AI abandoned it.
- Publisher
- Elon University, Imagining the Digital Future Center
- Kind of source
- Independent measurement
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Andreessen Horowitz,
ChatGPT’s retention curve
Why it matters here: The surrounding analysis describes early churn followed by stabilization and returning users. It is later investor analysis, not a representative January 2025 estimate of immediate consumer abandonment.
- Publisher
- Andreessen Horowitz
- Kind of source
- Secondary summary
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Representative January 2025 consumer trial cohorts or retrospective records showing the proportion who continued after initial use, including people who stopped and those who switched products.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Where's Your Ed At, There Is No AI Revolution
Yet it isn’t working. Consumers don’t want this shit. They’re intrigued by the idea, then mostly immediately bouncing off of it once they see what it can (or can’t) do.
- Where
- paragraph 207
- Published
- 2025-02-24
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment wyea-wheres-the-money-7f9f29-a1: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.