wise man once said: "the devil doesnt need advocates, hell is full of them".
you can both talk your book and also sincerely believe what you say. ad hominem (or whatever the latin equivalent is of ad bookinem) is not as substantive a criticism as you make it out to be. he can be both biased and correct.
That doesn't make any sense. A lack of investment is not an investment against by any means, unless this VC invested in the concept of less spam or more workers.
VC's raise money from investors. Investors want to put their money with good VCs. If OpenAI is huge, and you missed it, that seems bad. If OpenAI flops and you strategically held off - that seems good.
VCs with deep pocketbooks, their startups, and the hardware vendors they purchased from (not to mention politicians) are heavily incentivised to believe that their value-add can't be commoditized.
If your grand dream is to dominate the market through sheer massive scale and that's what you're selling to capital, you're not exactly looking for reasons to buy less hardware and your vendor is hardly going to talk you out of it.
"It's hard to get a man to understand something when his fat valuation depends on his not understanding it"
VCs (esp those who missed out on OAI) are heavily incentivized to root for OAI to fail, and commoditize the biggest COGs item (AI models).
This guy is just talking his book.