Is Gen Z Completely Cooked? With Ed Elson

Anthropic

Across the shows: 9 speakers in other episodes, 9 bullish and 28 bearish calls, past 30 days

• Ed Elson · Prof G MediaBearish

  Anthropic's upbeat AI statements at the White House contradict its own S-1 extinction warnings, making them a coerced 'hostage statement'.

  Elson sees a glaring hypocrisy at Anthropic. Dario Amodei was pushed at the White House meeting to say AI is positive, yet the company's own S-1 reportedly warns AI might extinguish humanity, and an employee put a roughly 10% chance on its technology wiping out humanity. He reads Amodei's upbeat statements as a coerced 'hostage statement' to please Trump rather than an honest view, and says nobody involved actually knows what they're talking about because none of it is grounded in data.

  “Dario Amade is saying this. Meanwhile, the anthropic s one is literally saying that it might extinct humanity... Those were not honest expressions of their views of AI. That was a hostage statement.”at 19:55

• Ed Elson · Prof G MediaBearish

  Anthropic's roughly $2 trillion valuation is precarious given $8B losses and customer concentration; expect heavy selling after IPO.

  Anthropic is a roughly $2 trillion startup that racked up about $8B in operating losses last year, with two customers making up a quarter of its business. Startups have high failure rates, so the risks are enormous and its profitability and sustainability are precarious. Private-market investors are complacent and treat its dominance as a law of the universe, while public-market investors are more discerning and he expects heavy selling after an IPO, as happened with SpaceX. He would not pay $2T and sees neither Altman nor Amodei having Elon's storytelling premium.

  “I would be shocked if we don't see a significant amount of selling when they go public... I think we need to be at least real and recognize that the profitability and the sustainability of these businesses are precarious. That's not a hot take.”at 51:23

• Josh Brown · Ritholtz Wealth ManagementUncertain

  Anthropic investors should judge scale and user growth, not near-term profit, since the market is winner-take-all.

  He argues investors in Anthropic or OpenAI care about scale and user base, not 2028 profits, because these are winner-take-all markets where one company becomes the category killer and the other fades. Equity only works if the current valuation is justified by getting big enough to extract profits later, so profitability is the wrong yardstick at this stage. He also pushes back that large losses are infrastructure investment, not selling a dollar for 50 cents.

  “Why on earth would profitability be the yardstick for this stage in the game? How could it not be the land grab and who can get to 3,000,000,000 users the fastest?”at 1:03:37

NVIDIA

Across the shows: 8 speakers in other episodes, 12 bullish and 2 bearish calls, past 30 days

• Ed Elson · Prof G MediaBearish

  Jensen Huang's confident claim that young people don't need basic math is a hot take, not necessarily correct.

  Elson credits Jensen Huang with good messaging overall and says much of his AI regulation framework was directionally correct, but criticizes his confident, hot-take claims, such as saying young people don't need basic math or even to know his own address. He argues Huang should express such views with more caution, since a viewpoint stated confidently isn't necessarily correct.

  “To say as confidently as he did that you don't need to know how to do basic math in this world of AI, to me, I mean, it's a viewpoint, but it doesn't mean that he's correct.”at 24:12

• Ed Elson · Prof G MediaNeutral

  Nvidia at 16x forward earnings shows public markets price AI exposure modestly, unlike private AI labs.

  He cites Nvidia at about 16x forward earnings, treated like a consumer-staple valuation, as evidence that public markets price AI-exposed names modestly compared with private AI labs. The point supports his view that the bubble sits in private labs rather than public AI stocks.

  “Nvidia is at 16 times forward earnings. It's treated like a consumer staple valuation. This is, yeah, this is an extremely important point, which is why I believe that we don't have an AI bubble necessarily.”at 52:51

OpenAI

Across the shows: 9 speakers in other episodes, 4 bullish and 15 bearish calls, past 30 days

• Josh Brown · Ritholtz Wealth ManagementUncertain

  The OpenAI-Anthropic race is winner-take-all, so scale rather than near-term profit is the right yardstick.

  He frames the Anthropic/OpenAI race as winner-take-all, with only one of them likely to matter in ten years and the other fading like AOL or Netscape. In that world, scale and land-grab to billions of users is the right yardstick rather than near-term profitability, as with Bezos in 1998. He does not say which will win.

  “One of them is gonna win the enterprise and the consumer, and one of them is gonna be a footnote like AOL or Netscape or things that seem like they were really big deal and just faded.”at 1:03:10

• Ed Elson · Prof G MediaBearish

  OpenAI's roughly $1.5 trillion valuation is a private-market bubble with unproven profitability and unit economics.

  OpenAI is a roughly $1.5 trillion company losing billions a year with precarious sustainability. He sees an AI-lab bubble in private markets where investors are delusional and assume it always works out. He questions whether Sam Altman can tell the Elon-style story to justify the valuation, calls Altman someone who flip-flops to please the room, and wants to see a single AI company show profitability so the unit economics are proven.

  “Let's stop pretending like OpenAI and Anthropic are a given, that they're just a systemic part of our economy that are going to exist no matter what. No. They are making extremely bold bets. They are burning billions and billions of dollars.”at 1:04:45

Microsoft

Across the shows: 1 speaker in other episodes, 1 bullish and 0 bearish calls, past 30 days

• Ed Elson · Prof G MediaBullish

  Microsoft was cheap after being punished in the SaaS apocalypse, so he bought it.

  He says hyperscalers were trading pretty cheap a few months ago and that he bought Microsoft because it was punished in the SaaS apocalypse, consistent with his view that AI-exposed public names are reasonably valued compared with private labs.

  “I bought Microsoft before that because they were getting punished for this... After the SaaS apocalypse.”at 53:14

Tesla

Across the shows: 1 speaker in other episodes, past 30 days

• Ed Elson · Prof G MediaBearish

  Tesla's robotaxi still needs a front-seat person after a decade of promises, and its valuation is ridiculous.

  Musk has promised a robotaxi for over a decade and keeps kicking the can down the road. The current version still needs a person in the front seat, so it is not really autonomous. He also considers Tesla's valuation ridiculous, sustained only by Musk's storytelling.

  “I think that the valuation of Tesla is ridiculous. I think the valuation of SpaceX is ridiculous. But as you say, it's okay because he can tell the story.”at 58:04

Space Exploration Technologies

• Ed Elson · Prof G MediaBearish

  SpaceX's IPO valuation was ridiculous and got cut roughly in half, showing public-market discipline.

  He thought SpaceX's IPO valuation was ridiculous and predicted it would get cut in half, which largely happened. Buyers at around $200 sold at about $100, and it has only partly bounced back. He cites it as an example of public-market discipline.

  “I was worried about, and it's exactly what happened because that thing was, in my view, ridiculous.”at 58:20

Meta Platforms

Across the shows: 6 speakers in other episodes, 10 bullish and 3 bearish calls, past 30 days

• Ed Elson · Prof G MediaBullish

  Meta's pivot to practical consumer agents with Muse is a sensible direction; he bought the stock after its selloff.

  He bought Meta after it sold off on worries it was renting data centers and lacked its own product. He praises Zuckerberg for holding Muse until the product and safety issues were solved, and for focusing on practical consumer agents (dinner reservations, doctor's appointments) rather than frontier hype. He respects the direction though he is not super excited about it.

  “I like what Meta is doing with Muse where they're basically saying like, okay, all of this frontier stuff, let's forget about that. Let's just focus on stuff that makes your life easier.”at 59:34

Alphabet

Across the shows: 3 speakers in other episodes, 1 bullish and 2 bearish calls, past 30 days

• Josh Brown · Ritholtz Wealth ManagementBullish

  Google Gemini has effectively won the AI race because its installed base gives it built-in distribution.

  Google Gemini has already effectively won because of its installed base. It does not need new customers, since it is built into email, docs and search, so existing users adopt it easily.

  “Google Gemini will accept as a given? They won. Because they have the installed base. They don't need new customers. They just need to get their AI in use by existing customers, and that's easy.”at 1:02:27

Waymo

Across the shows: 1 speaker in other episodes, 0 bullish and 1 bearish calls, past 30 days

• Ed Elson · Prof G MediaBullish

  Waymo is a miraculous company; he has long been bullish on it and on Google.

  He has been bullish on Waymo, and therefore Google, for a long time and calls it a miraculous company. He thinks New York's effort to exclude it or avoid regulating it is ridiculous, and he views robotaxis as great.

  “I've been bullish on Waymo for a long time, which means I've been bullish on Google for a long time. I think Waymo is a miraculous company.”at 1:08:07

AI regulation & safety

• Ed Elson · Prof G Media

  The White House AI CEO meeting was performance art; it produced no meaningful AI regulation, just a rebrand of 'superintelligence'.

  Elson dismisses the White House meeting of AI CEOs as entertainment and performance art. Observers had hoped it might produce meaningful AI regulation, but nothing of substance came out of it beyond a new name for 'superintelligence.' He argues the broader AI conversation is based on hysteria and confident declarations rather than evidence or data.

  “I think that there was nothing that actually came out of it that actually mattered. We thought that maybe they were gonna come up with some level of regulation that was actually important coming out of this AI hysteria”at 18:38

• Josh Brown · Ritholtz Wealth Management

  AI regulation will arrive reactively, only after terrible events, rather than through thoughtful proactive national debate.

  Brown is cynical that a thoughtful, proactive national debate on AI policy will happen, given how polarized and dysfunctional public discourse is. He expects a series of crises, with regulation created reactively only after terrible things occur, because that is how regulation has always emerged.

  “What actually is gonna happen is terrible things are going to take place, and then we're going to pick up the pieces and create regulation. Hopefully, somebody's left alive in the aftermath.”at 35:26

• Ed Elson · Prof G Media

  AI extinction-risk probabilities are unsubstantiated opinions; government should subpoena OpenAI and Anthropic to substantiate or face fraud scrutiny.

  He calls the extinction-risk debate the dumbest conversation of the year because the probabilities (10%, 70%) are opinions with numbers attached, not evidence. If taken seriously, the government should subpoena OpenAI and Anthropic and bring them before Congress to demonstrate the basis; if baseless, it raises public deception or securities-fraud issues. He views the White House's scrappy framework as a flawed attempt at accountability, and likes that companies like OpenAI and Meta are pulling or delaying models over safety.

  “If you take their statement seriously, then you have an obligation. It is on you as the government to investigate the shit out of their claims... It means handing a subpoena to OpenAI. It means handing a subpoena to Anthropic.”at 44:04

Consumer AI products

• Ed Elson · Prof G Media

  Frequent AI use appears to lower student test scores, acting as a crutch that skips learning; approach it with evidence.

  Elson points to declining test scores in science, math and reading, widening educational inequality, and an OECD PISA analysis showing students who use AI frequently score worse than those who don't. He argues AI becomes a crutch that skips the painful process of learning, compounding years of screen addiction. He stops short of declaring AI definitively bad and calls for a thoughtful, evidence-based approach to integrating it.

  “we're already seeing that young people's brains are melting not not even because of the AI, but because of the years of screen addictions... if you're using AI daily, your... test scores on science tests is actually lower than if you were... not using”at 24:37

• Josh Brown · Ritholtz Wealth Management

  AI in education is more solution than threat, giving cheap tutoring to kids who can't afford it.

  Brown rejects the 'melting brains' narrative: his own college-age kids' cohort faces far more competitive admissions, with higher SAT averages and harder coursework than his generation. He argues cutting corners with AI is fine because it is the world these kids will work in, and that AI could be part of the solution to educational inequality by giving kids whose parents can't afford a $150-an-hour tutor intelligence at their fingertips for $10 a month, including AI-generated practice tests. He expects future curricula to revolve around LLMs.

  “AI does not only not exacerbate what you just described... What if that is part of the solution? ... use AI to tutor you because your parents can't afford a $150 an hour for a biology tutor”at 29:28

• Michael Batnick · Ritholtz Wealth Management

  It is far too early to declare AI good or bad for children's education; test-score statistics lack context.

  Batnick thinks 'AI slop' is overused hysteria and that AI is making adults more knowledgeable and productive, so he doubts it will be uniformly harmful for children. He cautions that statistics like test scores are often taken out of context without zooming out to prior trends, that it is very early, and that no one yet knows how the story plays out. He rejects declarations that AI is simply good or simply bad.

  “It's very, very early to make declarations of it's good, it's bad, it's this or that.”at 34:07

AI infrastructure & data centers

• Michael Batnick · Ritholtz Wealth Management

  Tech at 55% of US capital spending explains why top CEOs were summoned to the White House about AI.

  Batnick frames the A16Z chart showing tech at 55% of all US capital spending as the visualization of why the most powerful CEOs were summoned to the White House to discuss AI and superintelligence, treating the tech buildout as the dominant force in the economy.

  “tech is now 55% of all US capital spending. ... this really does a great job visualizing the story of why all of the most famous and most powerful CEOs in our country were at the White House yesterday talking about technology and the next wave and AI”at 16:40

• Josh Brown · Ritholtz Wealth Management

  The tech capex buildout is still accelerating, and tech could reach 80% of US capital spending.

  Citing an A16Z chart showing tech at 55% of US capital spending versus about 15% in 1960, Brown says the buildout is still accelerating, with a hockey-stick shape even from current levels. He believes tech could reach 80% of capex and that people will look back on this period as the revolution, acknowledging an end exists but isn't in sight today.

  “I know there is an end in sight, but it's not in sight today. It really... looks like it's hockey sticking even from these levels... could tech become 80% of US capital spending? Yes.”at 17:09

US consumer

• Josh Brown · Ritholtz Wealth Management

  Doom predictions about younger generations, like those once made about millennials, didn't pan out and likely won't now.

  Brown argues that pessimism about each younger generation, including the claims that they will never invest in stocks or own homes, has been made before about millennials and did not play out. As a Gen X observer he sees those earlier predictions as unfulfilled. He attributes visible youth distress largely to economic opportunity differences rather than a society-wide collapse.

  “They're never gonna invest in stocks, never gonna own homes. They're not gonna start families... And then, like, sort of, it didn't play out. Like, the millennials...”at 1:11:31

• Michael Batnick · Ritholtz Wealth Management

  Young people will ultimately be fine despite survey pessimism, though the socialism voting trend is worrying.

  Batnick believes young people will ultimately be fine despite the concerns raised, acknowledging that each generation's struggles deserve to be heard. He argues there is a disconnect between survey statistics and what he sees in person, contrasting a 'digital world' of alarming surveys with the real world, where he encounters many thriving young people. He concedes his sample may be self-selecting and that the socialism trend in voting patterns is worrying.

  “I do believe that young people will be fine... I think two things can coexist at the same time.”at 1:12:29

AI bubble & tech valuations

• Ed Elson · Prof G Media

  There is no broad AI bubble, only pockets in private-market AI labs, where investors are delusional about outcomes.

  He argues there is not an AI bubble across the board but pockets of bubble, concentrated in private-market AI labs. Private investors prize the technology and founder over financials, so pricing is not real price discovery. Public investors are more discerning, shown by delayed IPOs such as SB Energy's, and the public-private valuation gap (Nvidia at 16x forward earnings) is the evidence.

  “There is an AI bubble that is infecting only certain parts of the market, and I do believe that the private markets are where it's at right now. Because those guys are the ones who are the most delusional, in my view, about this is always gonna work out.”at 53:23

Market sentiment, positioning & volatility

• Michael Batnick · Ritholtz Wealth Management

  The market shows doubt rather than fear: VIX at 16, with AI-exposed public names at modest valuations.

  He observes there is no fear in the market, with the VIX at 16 and the average stock drifting down only slightly each day. Publicly traded AI-exposed names trade at modest valuations or even discounts, so the market shows doubt rather than fear, and any bubble question sits with private labs like Anthropic and OpenAI.

  “There's no fear in the market. The VIX is at 16... there is a lot of doubt because the publicly traded AI exposed names are trading at relatively modest, not even premiums, discounts.”at 54:38

Pharma & biotech

• Ed Elson · Prof G Media

  AI in biotech and medical discovery, such as protein design for unsolved diseases, is the most exciting application, though distant.

  He is most excited about AI in biotech and medical discovery: startups use frontier LLMs to design complex proteins that could address diseases not yet solved. He caveats that this is far into the future.

  “Something I am excited about where I think that AI could make a difference is in biotech and medical discovery... startups are using the power of those frontier LLMs, and they're using it to figure out how to create complex proteins that can solve diseases that we haven't been able to solve yet.”at 1:00:00

Bitcoin & crypto markets

• Ed Elson · Prof G Media

  Gen Z's crypto-only portfolios and sports betting reflect financial nihilism that they likely won't simply outgrow.

  Elson argues young people are not building wealth through stocks but through speculative bets. A fifth of Gen Z investors hold only crypto in their portfolios, and a quarter of young men with online sportsbooks treat betting as part of their long-term financial strategy. He sees this as a symptom of 'financial nihilism' that is unprecedented, and he doubts people will simply grow out of it.

  “A fifth of Gen Z investors, their only investment, the only thing that they own in their portfolio is crypto... Don't think people will grow out of that? I think that we've been trained really badly.”at 1:13:12

US housing

• Ed Elson · Prof G Media

  Housing affordability for young people requires building more supply, which Trump's wish for rising prices undermines.

  Elson says the way to make housing affordable for young people is to build more supply, but the administration is working against that. He says Trump explicitly stated he wants housing prices to rise to reward existing homeowners, reversing an earlier position and protecting boomers at the expense of young buyers. He also rejects rent control as a bad system, and wants a focus on supply rather than just lower rates or subsidized mortgages.

  “We should make housing more affordable... It means we have to build more housing. The trouble is the president literally just said a couple of months ago, he says, I don't want housing prices to go down. I want them to go up.”at 1:19:08

US deficit & government debt

• Ed Elson · Prof G Media

  Trump's proposed ~$1.3 trillion dividend adds irresponsibly to a $40 trillion debt, burdening young people through taxes.

  Elson criticizes Trump's proposed dividend to every American, which he calculates at roughly $1.3 trillion, on top of an already ~$2 trillion annual deficit and a $40 trillion national debt. Interest payments are now the second-largest federal expenditure, exceeding national defense. He argues young people will bear the burden through taxes that go toward servicing debt accumulated by prior generations, so adding more spending is irresponsible. He also calls DOGE a ham-handed effort at efficiency that backfired.

  “We have a $40,000,000,000,000 national debt. To me, if we care about young people... if we care about the fact that our interest payments are now our second largest expenditure, we spend more on interest than on national defense, then we don't go out and support issuing these dividends.”at 1:21:04