I don’t understand the title, it’s seems to be completely unrelated to the article. Godot is a game engine, the article is about AI companies.

Godot, the game engine is named after Godot, the character who is famous for eternally being anticipated but never showing up.

The article references the character, not the engine.

(I was worried that the article was spelling some kind of doom for Godot Engine too though)

Game Engine not famous, I guess :C

I think the intent was "Godot isn't going to make it," a reference to the literary character; but tweaked into incomprehensibility in order to condense the headline. Read it as "Godot isn't coming."

I don't know what "Godot" represents, in this context — AGI? A sustainable business model? — but I guess the same can be said of Beckett's Godot too. :)

Rather Beckett's Waiting for Godot (who never turns up either ...)

I'm not sure how much of this I believe, but it's at least a useful counterweight to the irrational enthusiasm around GenAI.

In particular the "scaling laws" stuff is not paying attention to the fundamentals of where the scaling is coming from, and what the bottlenecks will be.

The consistent gains in batteries and solar and wind are a much more bankable prediction, IMHO.

Zitron doesn't offer much that you have to believe. His article links to numerous facts and reports. The physics of GPUs and data centers don't rely on one's beliefs. The amounts of money spent on AI versus the non-existent profits don't require belief, just looking at financial reports.

The AI industry has cited "scaling laws" to justify the huge spending on AI, promising magic results just around the corner because of scaling. Zitron just shows that hasn't happened and that physics and economics will impose limits on scaling, likely long before the promised AGI or massive productivity gains from AI materialize.

Newer and more sources of electricity only possibly address the environmental/climate damage from AI data centers. The problems come from power consumption and cooling, not from lack of windmills or batteries. If the thought leaders in charge of spending hundreds of billions on new data centers thought renewable energy would solve the problems they wouldn't talk about building nuclear power plants.

I theorize that there will be droves of people who use GenAI as a reason not to pursue a career in tech.

If it all crashes and burns worse than 2000 then it's possible those that have tech skills will still be in demand.

There are probably too many people pursuing a career in "tech" (really software) right now. I feel bad for those who are graduating into this job market, although I don't know what a better option would have been.