Naysayers in the British establishment thought the 13 colonies would come crawling back when their little experiment with democracy failed and they needed some proper aristocrats who knew what they were doing.

The space race had naysayers; the NYT printed the opinion that manned flight would take one to ten million years a week before the Wright Brothers; the iPod was lame with less space than a Nomad; SpaceX and Tesla were both dismissed when they were young; 3D printing likewise dismissed as if it was only plastic trinkets; and I've seen plenty of people here on HackerNews proclaiming that "AI will never ${x}" for various things some of which had already been accomplished by that point.

There's always a naysayer. You can use their mere existence as evidence for much, it has to be the specific arguments.

There's a difference between a naysayer and criticism. Using your iPod example, it was described as lame, in a way to dismiss it out of hand. But it did indeed have less space than a Nomad. That's valid, but ultimately unimportant, criticism.

People here are criticizing the business fundamentals of the openAI company. What are your takes on its finances? Or are you just on board, everything is great, do not look behind the curtain where we hide our five billion dollar losses?

Investment return over the last 30 years:

S&P 6x

Nasdaq 24x

Sticking your money in tech may have ups and downs but has not done badly. Also AI will be huge in a way blockchain and the metaverse were not. Also re blockchain if you'd bought bitcoin rather than some bs startup you'd have done well. Though OpenAI may be in the bs startup category... dunno.

I haven’t owned anything on blockchain in my life.

But I’m not so sure the naysayers are right about blockchain though. The ecosystem is still growing and apparently replacing cash in countries that don’t have a functional currency system.

Which is not the promise of blockchain's hype artists. "Better than using Venezuelan bolivars" is not a high bar.