Pundit ClaimsAI claims by Gary Marcus and Ed Zitron, with the evidence

Claims checked against evidence by Ed Zitron, page 9 of 13

Deadlines are judged as of 2026-10-29. About Ed Zitron and the sources covered.

Claims checked against evidence by Ed Zitron (1230)

Each of these claims was checked against dated evidence.

Page 9 of 13: claims 801 to 900 of 1230, ordered by the date first said, newest first. To find a claim by its words, use search.

  1. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Sam Altman is nowhere near delivering a functioning agent, let alone anything approaching intelligence, and really only has one skill: making other companies risk a bunch of money on his stupid ideas.”

  2. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “According to The Information, generative AI companies have raised more than $18.8 billion in the first quarter of 2025, after investing $21 billion in Q4 2024 and $4 billion in Q3 2024 for a grand total of $43.8 billion, or a total of $370.8 billion of investment and capital expenditures for an industry that, despite being the single-most talked about thing on the planet, cannot even create a tenth of the dollars it requires to make it work.”

  3. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Less than $39 billion dollars of total revenue in the entire generative AI industry.”

  4. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “you’d see that the user numbers weren’t there outside of the 500 million people using ChatGPT, of which very few are actually paying for the product, and that the term “user” encompasses everything from the most occasional users who log in out of curiosity, to people who are actually using it as part of their daily lives.”

  5. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “agents as a concept are fucked because large language models are inherently unreliable”

  6. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Products like Word and Excel don’t need improving, but that doesn’t stop Microsoft from trying, bloating them with odd user interface choices and forcing users to fight with popups to use an AI-powered Copilot that most of them hate.”

  7. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “The difference is that OpenAI has a consumer product that loses billions of dollars, and Lockheed Martin has products that makes billions of dollars by removing consumers from the Earth.”

  8. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “No, the cost that people are being charged is going down, we have no firm data on the actual costs because the companies don’t want to talk about it, and yes, it will absolutely lower prices to compete with other companies.”

  9. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “the fact it plans to lose over a hundred billions of dollars before becoming profitable?”

  10. Assessment: MixedSaid

    “So what, OpenAI makes $12.7 billion this year, but loses $14 billion, what does that mean to you, exactly?”

    What held: The independently confirmed financial reporting places realized revenue within the contract's tolerance. This supports the revenue component only. (Financial Times, syndicated by Yahoo Finance, )

    What did not: The reported net loss is well outside the forecast's tolerance. This contradicts the loss component under the stated net-loss reading. (Ars Technica, )

  11. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “The most prominent company in the tech industry is an unstable monolith with a vague product that can only make $10 billion a year (revenue, not profit) as the very fabric of its existence is shoved down the throat of every executive in the world at once.”

    What happened: CNBC directly reports the company-disclosed $10 billion rate and identifies the included products and exclusions. No standalone primary financial statement was found. (CNBC, )

  12. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “The reality is far simpler: we have an industry that has spent nearly half a trillion dollars between its capital expenditures and venture capital funding to create another industry with the combined revenue of the fucking smartwatch industry.”

  13. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “SoftBank and Microsoft pay all of OpenAI’s bills, and the media does his marketing for him.”

  14. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “While there are absolutely some jobs being taken by AI, there is, to this point, little or no research that suggests that it’s happening at scale, mostly because Large Language Models don’t really do the things that you need them to do to take someone’s job at scale.”

    What happened: The study covers 11 exposed occupations in Denmark and finds no significant earnings or hours effects. Its literature discussion identifies narrow freelance markets as the closest existing displacement evidence; the event date marks this research entering the contemporary record. (Becker Friedman Institute, University of Chicago, )

  15. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “An aside about software engineering: I actually believe LLMs have some value here.”

    What happened: Pichai identifies the measure immediately beforehand as Google's engineering velocity improvement from AI, rather than the share of generated code. This contemporaneous company estimate supports the modest claim of some practical value. (Lex Fridman Podcast; statement by Google's CEO, )

  16. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Can you replace an accountant? No. A doctor? No. A writer? Not if you want good writing.”

  17. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “there’s yet to be proof it’s actually happening, or that AI’s taking these jobs and not, say, outsourcing.”

  18. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “Generative AI has sped up transcription and translation, which are useful for quick references but can cause genuine legal risk.”

    What happened: Whisper took about 8.5 hours against an extrapolated human baseline of 8.8 hours, providing modest support for faster transcription. Its generally usable transcriptions support preliminary-reference usefulness, although this is an inference from accuracy results rather than a direct quick-reference experiment. (International Journal of Social Research Methodology, )

  19. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “The word “powerful” is a marketing term that the media has adopted to describe something it doesn’t understand, along with the word “agent,” which means “autonomous AI that can do things for you” but is used, at this point, to describe any Large Language Model doing anything.”

  20. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “when those LLMs inevitably shit the bed, those people will be hired back.”

  21. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “The “AI is going to eliminate half of white collar jobs” story is one that’s taken hold because it gets clicks and appeals to a fear that everyone, particularly those in the knowledge economy who have long enjoyed protection from automation, has.”

  22. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “Christopher Mims of the Wall Street Journal had a story from June 2024 that talked about freelance copy editors and concept artists being replaced by generative AI, but I can find no stories about companies replacing employees.”

    What happened: This published story identifies Dukaan's displaced support employees and Lina's handling of general and account-specific questions. It also reports resolved chats, tickets, and response times; these operational claims are attributed to management, not independently audited. (Human Resources Director, )

  23. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “The products they use every day are increasingly-broken, pumped full of generative AI features that literally get in the way of what they’re trying to do, which already was made more difficult because companies like Meta and Google intentionally make their products harder to use as a means of making more money.”

  24. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “They can’t, because it isn’t happening at scale, because generative AI does not have the capabilities that people like Dario Amodei and Sam Altman repeatedly act like they do”

  25. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “generative AI does not have the capabilities that people like Dario Amodei and Sam Altman repeatedly act like they do”

  26. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Generative AI chatbots are driving people insane by providing them an endlessly-configurable pseudo-conversation too, though that’s less of a “use case” and more of a “text-based video game launched at scale without anybody thinking about what might happen.””

  27. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “and then failed because there is no proof that this is actually happening other than that which the media drums up.”

  28. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “Software engineers using LLM tools — as I talked about on a recent episode of Better Offline — are finding some advantages, but LLMs are far from a panacea.”

    What happened: The March survey of 3,500 developers and managers found widespread reported time savings from generative AI alongside substantial time lost to organizational inefficiencies. Both findings directly fit benefits coexisting with important unresolved problems. (Atlassian, )

  29. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “One that you can just ask to do some shit and know it’ll do it, and it’d also be very obvious what it could actually do, which is not the case right now. A better ChatGPT would quite literally be a different product.”

  30. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “LLMs are famous not for their efficacy, but their inconsistency, with even ardent AI cultists warning people not to trust their output.”

  31. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “At this point, no real information exists.”

    What happened: Specific intended form-factor exclusions were publicly reported before the post. The article attributes the information to Journal reporting based on an internal recording; it does not establish a finished design. (The Decoder, )

  32. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “OpenAI’s operating costs are insane, and the company has already committed to several grand projects, while also pushing deeper and deeper into the red.”

  33. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “Despite all that media and investor attention — despite effectively the entirety of the tech industry focusing on this one specific thing — we're still yet to get any real consumer product.”

    What happened: The disclosed usage establishes that Gemini was an extensively used consumer application before the post. Together with its documented functions, it supplies a counterexample. (Google, )

  34. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “We're three joyless years into this crap, and there isn't a single consumer product of note other than ChatGPT, a product that gained its momentum through a hype campaign driven by press and markets that barely understood what they were hyping.”

    What happened: Google reported substantial actual use of a consumer LLM application other than ChatGPT before the post. That is a clear counterexample under the ordinary adoption-based reading of of note. (Google, )

  35. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “On top of that, it requires more money than has ever been invested in a startup.”

  36. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “It has no moat, its models are hitting the point of diminishing returns and have been for some time, and as popular as ChatGPT may be, it isn't a business and constantly loses money.”

  37. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “It has no moat, its models are hitting the point of diminishing returns and have been for some time, and as popular as ChatGPT may be, it isn't a business and constantly loses money.”

  38. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “It has no moat, its models are hitting the point of diminishing returns and have been for some time, and as popular as ChatGPT may be, it isn't a business and constantly loses money.”

  39. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Every single tech bubble followed the same path, and that path was paved with flawed, deferential and specious journalism, from small blogs to the biggest mastheads.”

  40. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “None of these tasks are things that require you to use AI.”

    What happened: The methods describe people reading email threads and writing short and long summaries, with human-written examples and manual quality checks. This establishes human performance of message comprehension and summarization. (Association for Computational Linguistics; HTML rendering of the authors' paper, )

  41. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “And I'd argue that ChatGPT filled that void by doing the thing that people wanted Google Search to do: answer a question, even if the user isn't really sure how to ask it.”

  42. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “It also, at this point, is pretty obvious that generative AI isn't going to do much more than it does today.”

    What happened: The independently verified result demonstrates a large increase in successful abstract-reasoning task completion over the April baseline. The report also cautions that refinement harnesses are domain-specific and that benchmark-domain training may contribute to performance. (ARC Prize Foundation, )

  43. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “The expectation that generative AI will transform into something much, much more powerful requires you to first ignore the existing limitations, believing it to be more capable than it is, and also ignore the fact that these models have yet to show meaningful improvement over the past few years.”

    What happened: The original evaluation finds substantial growth in the duration of software and reasoning tasks agents can complete with 50% success. Its historical comparisons include the years preceding the post, although this is a restricted task distribution. (METR researchers, published on arXiv, )

  44. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “ChatGPT is, if I'm honest, better at processing search strings than Google Search, which is not so much a sign that ChatGPT is good at something as it is that Google has stopped innovating in any meaningful way.”

  45. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “As I wrote before, OpenAI effectively is the generative AI industry, and nothing about the rest of the generative AI industry suggests that the revenue exists to sustain these ridiculous, obscene and fantastical projections.”

  46. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Agents do not exist as a product that can be sold at that scale.”

  47. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Yes, I fundamentally believe that 500 million people a week could be using ChatGPT as some sort of search replacement, and no, I do not believe that's a functional business model, in part because if it was, ChatGPT would've been a functional business.”

  48. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “SearchGPT will be significantly more expensive to run at Google's scale than ChatGPT — both infrastructurally and in the cost of revenue, with OpenAI forced to create a massive advertising arm that currently doesn't exist at the company.”

  49. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “There seems to be little concern — or belief — that there is any kind of risk at the heart of OpenAI, a company that spent $9 billion in 2024 to lose $5 billion.”

  50. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “OpenAI requires more compute resources than anyone has ever needed, and will continue to do so in perpetuity.”

  51. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “In the event that OpenAI cannot fulfil its obligations, CoreWeave will collapse. It is that simple.”

  52. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “It's also important to note that absolutely nobody other than NVIDIA is making any money from generative AI. CoreWeave loses billions of dollars, OpenAI loses billions of dollars, Anthropic loses billions of dollars, and I can't find a single company providing generative AI-powered software that's making a profit.”

  53. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “OpenAI, as I've written before, is effectively the entire generative AI industry, with its nearest competitor being less than five percent of its 500 million weekly active users.”

    What happened: The decisive quantity is a derived weekly-user lower bound: the same day’s active users must also be active in its containing week. The reported 35 million therefore exceeds the claimed 25-million ceiling without equating daily and weekly counts. (NPR via Georgia Public Broadcasting, )

  54. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “I expect the latter cost to balloon with OpenAI's investment in physical infrastructure for Stargate.”

  55. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “If OpenAI fails, then CoreWeave fails, which then hurts NVIDIA.”

  56. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “SoftBank's exposure to OpenAI is materially harming the company.”

    What happened: JCR changed the outlook after discussing the large OpenAI commitment, Stargate and increased exposure to unlisted AI assets. This supports deterioration in the credit profile, while the same sentence confirms that the rating itself was affirmed. (Japan Credit Rating Agency, )

  57. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “As a reminder: OpenAI loses money on every single user.”

  58. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “OpenAI has become a load-bearing company for the tech industry, both as a narrative — as previously discussed, ChatGPT is the only Large Language Model company with any meaningful userbase — and as a financial entity.”

    What happened: Meta reported substantial recurring use of its AI assistant during the target period. This contradicts the ordinary reading that only ChatGPT had any meaningful userbase, without requiring a direct comparison to ChatGPT's weekly usage. (Meta Platforms, )

  59. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “OpenAI has never been forced to stand on its own two feet or focus on efficiency, and I believe the constant enabling of its ugly, nonsensical burnrate has doomed this company.”

  60. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “OpenAI has, up until this point, had fairly impressive uptime. Still, if it is running up against a wall, this streak will end.”

  61. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “In any case, assuming the deal goes as planned, CoreWeave will still burn $15 billion in 2025.”

  62. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “For this situation to work even for the next year, these companies will have to raise tens of billions of dollars just to maintain the status quo.”

  63. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “That’s no discussion of the massive, world-changing consequences of a (again, totally theoretical, no proof this exists) artificial intelligence that's as smart and capable (again, how is it capable?) as a human being.”

    What happened: The scientific synthesis describes uneven capabilities and continuing reasoning limitations rather than established general human equivalence. This supports the contextual reading when combined with the practical evaluation in e2. (International AI Safety Report, )

  64. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “which means that CoreWeave's continued ability to pay its bills is both contingent upon and absorbed by its revenue from OpenAI.”

  65. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “SoftBank is now both CoreWeave and OpenAI, and if SoftBank buckles, both CoreWeave and OpenAI are dead.”

  66. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “I can find no way to explain this other than that Microsoft has decided it doesn't want to be OpenAI's compute provider any further, and that any further expansion that OpenAI needs will be its responsibility to acquire.”

    What happened: The same paragraph expressly states that OpenAI will increase Azure consumption while adding Stargate compute. This provides a contemporaneous alternative to the claim that Microsoft had abandoned further supply growth. (OpenAI and SoftBank, )

  67. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “The ramifications of the end of hyper-growth mean a massive reckoning for the valuations of tech companies, which will lead to tens of thousands of layoffs and a prolonged depression in Silicon Valley, the likes of which we've never seen.”

  68. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “I estimate OpenAI will lose as much as $14 billion in 2025.”

    What happened: The reported annual net loss exceeds the $14 billion upper-end estimate. The article attributes much of the gap to restructuring accounting and reports a substantially smaller adjusted figure; it describes Financial Times review of the records, rather than relying solely on Zitron's conclusion. (Ars Technica, )

  69. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “I’m wary of putting too much stock into them, because they’re easily gamed, and quite often, they’re not an effective way of showing actual progress.”

  70. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “CoreWeave is set to lose $15 billion this year. Its projected revenue, according to The Information, is only $4.6 billion.”

  71. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “OpenAI's ability to pay CoreWeave is contingent on its ability to continue raising money, as it is set to lose over $14 billion in 2025.”

  72. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “It does not anticipate being profitable until 2030, and does not have any explanation as to how they will become so other than “we will build Stargate.””

  73. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “In effect, CoreWeave spends $1.43 to make $1.”

    What happened: The filing reports 2024 revenue of $1,915.426 million and net loss of $863.448 million, giving approximately $1.45 per revenue dollar. This supports the approximate loss-inclusive comparison, while correcting its arithmetic and leaving cash spending unmeasured. (CoreWeave, filing mirrored by Yahoo Finance, )

  74. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Cloud GPUs are incredibly commoditized, and the core factors of differentiation between the various players are price, availability, and the exact hardware available.”

  75. Assessment: MixedSaid

    “Converting cryptocurrency mining data centers to HPC data centers is effectively starting from scratch. There is no easy or logical way to repurpose a bitcoin miner for AI.”

    What held: The engineering discussion describes adding generators, chillers, batteries, UPS equipment, and GPU systems. It supports the claim that conversion requires substantial new equipment rather than simply putting existing Bitcoin machines to work on AI. (Core Scientific, transcript hosted by StockAnalysis, )

    What did not: The filing identifies existing infrastructure as an input to the HPC conversion, contradicting the implication that there is no practical reuse path. Separately, it describes the mining hardware as specialized SHA-256 ASICs, reinforcing the distinction between reusing a facility and reusing its mining chips. (Core Scientific, )

  76. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “Worse, despite making $1.9 billion in revenue during the 2024 financial year, the company lost $863 million in 2024, with its entire future riding on "explosive growth" that may not materialize, and even if it does, would require CoreWeave to spend unfathomable amounts of money on the necessary capex investments.”

    What happened: The overview reports the stated net loss and $1.9 billion revenue. The financial tables give revenue of $1,915.426 million and net loss of $863.448 million, which round to the claimed amounts. (CoreWeave, Inc.; filing mirrored by Yahoo Finance, )

  77. Assessment: ContradictedSaid

    “If CoreWeave makes it to IPO — and it may do so as soon as next week — it will raise about $4 billion, which might give it enough runway to continue operations for a year, but by October 2025 it’ll face upwards of $500 million of loan payments a quarter, all while trying to scale up an operation that doesn't appear to have a path to profit.”

    What happened: The announcement specifies 36,590,000 issuer shares at $40, giving CoreWeave $1.4636 billion before fees; the $1.5 billion headline includes selling shareholders. Completion is independently confirmed by e1, and neither amount approaches $4 billion. (CoreWeave, )

  78. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “While it may sell by-the-hour compute to regular companies, it's clear that that market just doesn't exist at a meaningful revenue point.”

  79. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “CoreWeave's future is one that requires an industry that has yet to show any meaningful product-market fit to grow so significantly that compute companies turn into oil companies”

  80. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “Regardless of the reason, the company selling the literal fuel of the supposed AI revolution is losing hundreds of millions of dollars doing so.”

    What happened: Reuters reports the company's 2024 net loss as $863 million, which directly meets the claimed magnitude. This is a reported company result, not a Reuters estimate. (Reuters, republished by 93-5 The Lloyd, )

  81. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “In short, CoreWeave's position is one that at the very least competes with the hyperscalers, and is both a fascinating and disturbing window into the actual money that these companies do (or don't) make, and the answer is "not very much at all."”

  82. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “The problem is that, yes, GPUs are depreciating assets, a fact that will eventually become problematic for these companies.”

  83. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “CoreWeave’s S-1 tells the tale of a company that appears to be built for collapse, with over 60% of its revenue dependent on one customer, Microsoft.”

    What happened: The filing identifies Microsoft and reports a 62% share for fiscal 2024, exceeding the stated 60% threshold. This establishes concentration, not eventual collapse. (CoreWeave, Inc.; filing mirrored by Yahoo Finance, )

  84. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “OpenAI has no path to profitability, guaranteeing it will need more cash, and right now — at the time when it needs the most it’s ever needed — SoftBank, the only company willing to provide it, has proven that it will have to go to great lengths to do so.”

  85. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Worse still, thanks to this agreement, OpenAI’s future — both in its ability to expand its infrastructure (which appears to be entirely contingent on the construction of Stargate) and its ability to raise funding — is entirely dependent on SoftBank, which in turn must borrow money to fund it.”

  86. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “It is time for investors and the general public to begin demanding tangible and direct numbers on the revenue and profits related to generative AI, as it is becoming increasingly obvious that the revenues are small and the profits are non-existent.”

  87. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “SoftBank has committed to over $40 billion of costs that it cannot currently afford, taking on as much as $24 billion in debt in the next year to help sustain one more funding round and the construction of data centers for OpenAI, a company that loses money on literally every single customer.”

  88. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “I must repeat that Microsoft will have spent over $200 billion in capital expenditures by the end of 2025.”

  89. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “As a result of the costs of running these services, a free user of ChatGPT is a cost burden on OpenAI, as is every free customer of Google's Gemini, Anthropic's Claude, Perplexity, or any other generative AI company.”

  90. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “And let’s be abundantly clear: OpenAI cannot exist any further without further venture capital investment. This company has absolutely no path to sustain itself, no moat, and loses so much money that it will need more than $50 billion to continue in its current form.”

  91. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “It doesn’t just cost more to run OpenAI than it makes — it costs the company a billion dollars more than the entirety of its revenue to run the software it sells before any other costs.”

  92. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Anthropic, like OpenAI, has no moat.”

  93. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Though Altman has promised that ChatGPT Plus and free users will eventually get access to a few Deep Research queries a month, this will only increase its cash burn further!”

  94. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “These realities — the lack of utility and product differentiation — also mean that OpenAI can’t raise its prices above the breakeven point, which would also likely make its generative AI unaffordable and unattractive to both business and personal customers.”

  95. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “OpenAI also spends an alarming amount of money on salaries — over $700 million in 2024 before you consider stock-based compensation, a number that will also have to increase because it’s “growing” which means “hiring as many people as possible,” and it’s paying through the nose.”

  96. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “OpenAI's products are not fundamentally differentiated or interesting enough to be sold separately. It has failed — as with the rest of the generative AI industry — to meaningfully productize its models due to their massive training and operational costs and a lack of any meaningful "killer app" use cases.”

  97. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Its products do not scale like traditional software, in that the more users it gets, the more expensive its services are to run because its models are so compute-intensive.”

  98. Assessment: SupportedSaid

    “People really do use them for coding, for searching defined libraries of documents, for generating draft materials, for brainstorming, and for summarizing and searching documents. These are useful, but they are not magical.”

    What happened: The survey of 9,047 workers documents actual reported use in three named categories and also reports time-saving benefits. It establishes existence, not universal effectiveness. (UiPath and Researchscape, )

  99. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “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.”

  100. Assessment: UnresolvedSaid

    “Said costs are also so severe that even paying customers lose these companies money.”