AI bubble or babble? How to understand — and make money — on the latest tech revolution

New York Post · collected 2026-08-24 · by Ken Fisher
Read the original at New York Post ↗

Summary

The article, written in a first-person account style, argues that the widespread concerns about job losses due to AI are exaggerated. According to the author, many tech companies that laid off workers citing AI as the reason were actually over-hiring during the pandemic, not necessarily displacing human workers with AI. The author cites examples of firms like IBM and Ford rehiring for similar positions after initially making AI-driven layoffs, suggesting that AI's role in job cuts is minimal.
Written by the local model on 2026-08-24, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
54
claim-shaped sentences
Uncertain
4%
2 of 54 hedged
Leaning
Leans left
of the writing, not the subject
Publisher trust
95.1
red-flag proxy, not a credibility rating
Outlets on this story
1
Technology
Narrative spread
1
articles carrying this framing
Analyzed 2026-08-24 · how these are computed

AI analysis (generated at analysis time, not now)

Story summary

The article discusses the mixed views on artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on jobs. Some people worry that AI will lead to widespread job loss, while others believe it will create new opportunities and drive profits. Ken Fisher, author of the article, argues that the "doom-and-gloom" predictions about AI are largely unfounded. He cites the example of Leopold Aschenbrenner's hedge fund, Situational Awareness, which got into trouble with leveraged bets on AI stocks. However, Fisher claims that buying stocks based on AI speculation is not a good idea, as most information is already priced into the market. The article notes that 44% of US businesses cite AI** as their top concern for 2026, but suggests that this fear may be exaggerated.

Written for “Artificial Intelligence Boom” on 2026-08-31, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The article's own words the score was based on. Each is quoted verbatim and was checked against the article text before being stored, so you can find it in the original.
Score -0.35 Confidence high
Leaning score -0.35 for article 1975 (high confidence, 2 verified quotes) · logged 2026-08-28

Story

📰 Artificial Intelligence Boom
Technology · 1 article(s) covering the same event. This is the one the site leads with.

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans left and hedges 4% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Vibe coding has escaped the terminal different event · 100%
Platformer
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 7% hedged 7 of 101 📰 publisher trust 96
“The articles cover different topics and do not mention any shared incident or occurrence”
TIME
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 12% hedged 8 of 67 📰 publisher trust 95
“The articles are discussing different topics, with Article A focusing on the concept of eschatology and AI's future, while Article B is about making money from AI and mentions a specific person (Leopold Aschenbrenner) who is not mentioned in Article A.”
Mother Jones
⚖️ Leans left 🔴 22% hedged 15 of 69 📰 publisher trust 95
“Article A discusses Leopold Aschenbrenner's hedge fund, while Article B mentions AI researchers' existential concerns and potential policy ideas, without referencing Aschenbrenner or his fund”
AI’s Crisis of Trust. Plus. . . different event · 100%
The Free Press
⚖️ Leans right further right than this 🔴 6% hedged 2 of 35 📰 publisher trust 96
“Article B mentions multiple topics and articles within The Front Page, but does not reference Leopold Aschenbrenner or Situational Awareness hedge fund mentioned in Article A”
The Free Press
⚖️ Leans right further right than this 🔴 11% hedged 1 of 9 📰 publisher trust 96
“Article A mentions Leopold Aschenbrenner's hedge fund, while Article B discusses Stripe's declaration of AI achieving 'singularity'”
TIME
⚖️ Leans right further right than this 🔴 0% hedged 0 of 42 📰 publisher trust 95
“Article A discusses AI in general, while Article B focuses on its use in a classroom setting”
Semafor
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 33% hedged 1 of 3 📰 publisher trust 96
“Article A mentions a hedge fund called Situational Awareness and its founder Leopold Aschenbrenner, while Article B talks about Nvidia's earnings release and market capitalization, without any mention of the hedge fund or its performance.”
Zeteo
⚖️ Leans strongly right further right than this 🔴 17% hedged 3 of 18
“The articles describe different topics, events, and time periods”
National Post
⚖️ Leans strongly right further right than this 🔴 8% hedged 3 of 38 📰 publisher trust 96
“The articles discuss different topics and do not mention any shared specific happening.”
News - South China Morning Post
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 0% hedged 0 of 7 📰 publisher trust 93
“Article A discusses Leopold Aschenbrenner's hedge fund, while Article B is about a free AI course initiative in Hong Kong”

Publisher

New York Post · 35 article(s) · 0 correction(s) detected
SignalValueWeight
Correction rate 0.000 0.4
Uncertainty density 0.098 0.25
Assertive mismatch rate 0.000 0.35
No corrections detected for this publisher. That may mean careful reporting, or simply that nothing has been checked.

Who wrote this

Ken Fisher
1 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 Wrongly supposing that innovation destroys but doesn’t at the same time create – an age-old error. In 1981, economists widely warned that computers would displace workers in droves.
The only article under this byline in the corpus.

Topics

America Ford IBM Oracle Situational Awareness

Subjects

America GPE · 1× Block ORG · 1× DoorDash ORG · 1× Ford PERSON · 1× IBM ORG · 1× Jack Dorsey’s PERSON · 1× Leopold Aschenbrenner PERSON · 1× Oracle ORG · 1× Situational Awareness ORG · 1× Uber Eats ORG · 1×

Narrative

While Wall Street wagers on skyrocketing profits at artificial intelligence firms and chipmakers alike, regular joes worry about big, noisy, water-hogging data centers – not to mention their jobs.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-08-24
🔮 Wrongly supposing that innovation destroys but doesn’t at the same time create – an age-old error. In 1981, economists widely warned that computers would displace workers in droves.

Claims (54 extracted, 2 hedged)

Are you all in on AI, or are you bracing for an AI-pocalypse? asserted
you → brace → pocalypse
While Wall Street wagers on skyrocketing profits at artificial intelligence firms and chipmakers alike, regular joes worry about big, noisy, water-hogging data centers – not to mention their jobs. asserted
joes → skyrocket → centers
Many, no doubt, have been prompting their chatbots to navigate the latest convulsions. asserted
Many → prompt → convulsions
Yet AI’s future remains largely unknown – even to supposed “experts.” asserted
future → remain → experts
Take the case of Leopold Aschenbrenner – the 25-year-old “Nostradamus of AI” whose high-flying hedge fund Situational Awareness got laid low by its leveraged bets on a bumpy sector. asserted
fund → take → sector
That notable casualty notwithstanding, the doom-and-gloom AI “bubble” babbling you hear is broadly bogus, as I explained last December. asserted
I → hear → ?
Conversely, buying stocks on grandiose AI speculation and recent IPO hype amounts to peak arrogance. asserted
buying → buy → arrogance
Indeed, with every prospect ceaselessly vetted – whether it’s a headfake, a conundrum or a once-in-a-generation opportunity – knowing something that others don’t is impossible. asserted
others → vet → something
Stocks pre- asserted
Stocks → pre → ?
AI cassandras warn of fast, vast and tough-to-stomach changes – among them the widely broadcasted “jobpocalypse.” asserted
cassandras → warn → them
AI is US businesses’ top cited reason for 2026 layoffs. asserted
AI → cite → layoffs
This year’s tech job cuts have already surpassed 2025’s full-year total. asserted
cuts → surpass → total
Oracle is reportedly eyeing firings next month to offset its huge AI infrastructure debt. uncertain
Oracle → eye → debt
That’s after slashing over 20% of its workforce in its latest fiscal year. asserted
That → ’ → year
Wrongly supposing that innovation destroys but doesn’t at the same time create – an age-old error. In 1981, economists widely warned that computers would displace workers in droves. asserted
computers → suppose → droves
What happened instead? asserted
What → happen → ?
Jobs changed, workers learned new skills. asserted
workers → change → skills
Life improved. asserted
Life → improve → ?
The pattern permeates history – and will continue to do so. asserted
pattern → permeate → history
Thus far, the evidence shows that AI often spurs retraining and expanded hiring, not mass unemployment. asserted
AI → show → retraining
Globally, many firms that made AI-driven layoffs are rehiring for similar positions, including IBM and Ford. asserted
that → make → IBM
They vastly underestimated the value of human judgment and oversight. asserted
They → underestimate → judgment
Job-cutting tech firms like Jack Dorsey’s Block – which, citing AI, slashed nearly half its workforce in February – had simply over-hired post-pandemic. asserted
which → cut → pandemic
AI has become a highly convenient scapegoat. asserted
AI → become → ?
AI will change some industries greatly – others, less so. asserted
others → change → industries
Can it improve pizza or duct tape? asserted
it → improve → pizza
It may help streamline logistics for transporting and storing them. uncertain
It → help → them
Big innovations seldom include either/or scenarios. asserted
innovations → include → either
Food delivery services like Uber Eats and DoorDash surged while grocery and restaurant sales kept growing. asserted
sales → surge → Eats
Big-box stores changed retailing, then came online retail. asserted
retail → change → retailing
Yet small shops still find niches and thrive. asserted
shops → find → niches
Optimists also overrate the speed of big change. asserted
Optimists → overrate → change
First came clunky desktop dial-up. asserted
up → come → ?
It took decades. asserted
It → take → decades
These limitations, plus political pushback and chip shortages, will slow rollouts globally. asserted
limitations → slow → rollouts
Eventually, it will enable young lawyers to ditch rote tasks for more productive work. asserted
it → enable → work
Eventually, self-driving vehicles will multiply – despite early New York resistance – alleviating truck driver shortages while giving blind and disabled folks previously unfathomable independence. asserted
vehicles → drive → independence
AI will aid big financials, but replace everyone? asserted
AI → aid → everyone
Customers don’t just want expertise. asserted
Customers → want → expertise
They also want responsibility. asserted
They → want → responsibility
…and 14 more, not listed.
💬 Give feedback
🕘 History 🎫 Support