Inverse Zitron: An Investment Strategy

The argument is that Ed Zitron’s predictions are so consistently wrong that investors should treat them as signals to do the opposite. The writer says Mr. Luu reviewed 27 predictions spanning almost two years: 25 were wrong, one was possibly right, and one could not be checked. On that record, “Inverse Zitron” is presented as a better investment strategy than following Zitron’s views. The criticism extends beyond his forecasts: Zitron runs a public-relations firm, hosts a podcast, and has little programming experience, yet speaks confidently about technology and business. His repeated certainty, the writer argues, is not matched by a record of accuracy.

The writer is also troubled that respected commentators, including Cory Doctorow and Mr. Ludic, quote or host Zitron without scrutinizing his claims. In particular, Mr. Ludic accepts Zitron’s assertion that OpenAI may not have the money it says it does, despite admitting he is not focused on the economics. The writer contrasts this credulity with Mr. Ludic’s own call for commentators to face consequences when they are wrong, and argues that a 25-of-27 failure rate should prompt accountability. This has eroded the writer’s confidence in both men’s judgment. The conclusion is blunt: read Zitron’s predictions, then bet against them.