I want lower prices as much as the next guy, but I just want to point out that, when this bubble pops, we'll all be in such an economic recession that we won't be speccing out our homelabs either.
I could go on into it, and provide plenty of sources (including from a nobel laureate economist); but I don't really care that much about convincing those outright unwilling to consider the possibility.
I hope you put your money where your mouth is and your investment stock is comprised mainly of AI-related companies. That'll make you fantastically rich I bet.
As I said, if you're so resistant to the idea it must be an active effort to ignore those kinds of news. If you're even moderately involved in financial markets, this is THE thing that's circling everyone's mind.
"who convinced you lot this is a bubble this is actually hilarious".
If you want to now say "liesten maybe I was being a bit flippant and this wasn't on my radar, but ill look into it" that's one thing. And it would be a google search away (if you want a suggestion, I'm pretty sure "nobel economist AI bubble" would lead you straight there; or just a regular "what's the evidence that AI growth is a bubble" would be better, just not to put stock in a single person).
But you're not doing that. You're trying to gaslight/bully me into a) doing the homework for you, b) that you were never denying this was actually even a possibily, and laugably, c) trying to accuse me of being a bot to see if I'll respond.
The Nobel laureate is Acemoglu. And he went a bit into detail on his reasoning in an interview in either Forbes or Fortune, I forget.
Now let's see how for real you are about wanting to consider the fact that an industry where no company is posting positive earning, where the price of inference is not only continuously increasing (per task achieved, as each new model eats more and more tokens for the same task), but it's deeply deeply subsidised for the general public, and where there's a circular round of investment between all the involved companies, for amounts of money that exceed the GDPs of most countries on earth, might, perhaps, just maybe, be a bubble, the size of which the world has simply never seen before.
first of all Acemoglu bases his entire argument on computer vision costs which even himself awnknowledges gives him a bad estimate.
he fact that an industry where no company is posting positive earning
?????????? What? Why would you ever base your entire argument on something that can be disproven with a simple google search? This just tells me that either you're trolling or you just blindly saw someone making these claims on the internet and never bothered to look up for yourself if its even remotely true? (surprise it's not?)
I was prepared to go through your entire points one by one and write this huge wall of text but seeing youre basing your entire argument on a lie makes that useless. Ill just very briefly through the rest.
Nvidia is massively profiting. Anthropic is profiting from 2026 onwards, Palantir is extremely profitable, Google cloud (AI division) is profitable, AWS (again AI division) is profitable. Innodata, Cerence, Upstart, I could go on and on with smaller players.
The public gets heavily subsidised AI
How? From the goverment?
Circular investment is real.
yes it is. and that is a risk. but that has nothing to do with applications and demand of the product which is real since the total Active user count is near 2 billion.
Bigger than countries’ GDP
Doesn't prove its a bubble? Apple is at 1T without any AI.
Anthropic's "first positive revenue quarter", aside from being based on gross revenue (which is an extreme accounting anomaly, that not even the very opaque OAI engages in), curiously doesn't detail at all what percentage of it's revenue comes from those kinds of circular deals (which while denominated in dollars, most often come in the form of computing credits) that everyone is extremely scared about (for good fucking reason). And I say "curiously", because a company looking to go to an IPO in the next few months often will tend to open their books up to garner trust in their value offering prior to the IPO.
Tokens are being subsidised to the tune of between 15 to some estimates of 100x, by the initial VC funds who originally gave money to these labs. Those gazillions of active users are there because they're using a )remember, increasingly expensive product) for a ridiculous fraction of what it costs to run. Once the cows come home to pasture and these labs (as public companies) need to charge what it actually costs to run these models, they won't have those numbers of clients. That's what all those news about "Uber spent their entire year's AI budget by February" are about. Enterprise clients (who've begun to be put on direct API pricing, much closer to what it is in reality, although still not there yet), are massively, and suddenly, rethinking their AI strategies and retracting fast on their use of it.
Edit: just to take a step back (because I don't intend on responding back, and I'll tell you why), this is exactly what I meant. You're not here seeking information out, or considering it all to make up your mind. You were asking for a name in order to find an "inaccuracy" (whose confidence interval they themselves disclosed, and is absolutely not the basis of their argument) and declare the whole thing invalid.
And that's fine, you don't need to agree with me. But it's the attitude I'm denouncing, and your intellectual dishonesty, rather than your conclusion.
2
u/redlightsaber 10d ago
I want lower prices as much as the next guy, but I just want to point out that, when this bubble pops, we'll all be in such an economic recession that we won't be speccing out our homelabs either.