Today I had a debate with a friend about the AI bubble narrative and the financial media. He said the debt issued by AI companies would be a problem. I asked him to prove it, and he showed me an article from a financial publication. I promptly rejected it and told him I wanted to see first-source data and for him to walk me through his analysis and conclusion based on that data.

I have no opinion on whether we’re in an AI bubble in public markets. But when I’m evaluating something, I aim to come to my own conclusions. I try not to rely on interpretations from people who aren’t deeply knowledgeable or involved in the situation. For that reason, I’m a fan of finding first-source data so I can see the facts for myself, analyze them, and come to my own conclusions.

When someone is trying to convince me of something I have no opinion on or knowledge of, I want to understand their conclusions and how they arrived at them. If they cite interpretations of others (especially the media), it’s often a sign they haven’t looked at the first-source data or done their own analysis to come to their own conclusion. Naturally, I’m more skeptical in those situations. Conversely, when someone has looked at first-source data and can articulate why they reached their conclusion based on it, I’m much more inclined—even if I disagree—to listen intently with an open mind.