AI is funded solely by sunk cost fallacy at this point. I wonder how long it will be before investments start getting pulled back because of a lack of ROI. I can already feel the sentiment towards AI and it getting pushed in everything turning negative amongst consumers recently.
I wouldn’t have a problem if they were actually investing the money in something useful like R&D
Nearly all the investment is in data centers. Their approach for the past 2 years seems to be just throwing more hardware at existing approaches, which is a really great way to burn an absurd amount of money for little to nothing in return
AI is funded solely by sunk cost fallacy at this point.
and the us economy an gdp relies solely on ai make of that what you will.
Investment is done really to train models for ever more miniscule gains. I feel like the current choices are enough to satisfy who is interested in such services, and what really is lacking is now more hardware dedicated to single user sessions to improve quality of output with the current models.
But I really want to see more development on offline services, as right now it is really done only by hobbyists and only occasionally large companies with a little dripfeed (Facebook Llama, original Deepseek model [latter being pretty much useless as no one has the hardware to run it]).
I remember seeing the Samsung Galaxy Fold 7 (“the first AI phone”, unironic cit.) presentation and listening to them talking about all the AI features instead of the real phone capabilities. “All of this is offline, right? A powerful smartphone… makes sense to have local models for tasks.” but it later became abundantly clear it was just repackaged always-online Gemini for the entire presentation on $2000 of hardware.
The problem is there is little continuous cash flow for on prem personal services. Look at Samsung’s home automation, its nearly all online features and when the internet is out you are SOL.
To have your own Github Copilot in a device the size and power usage of a Raspberry Pi would be amazing. But then they won’t get subscriptions.
They’re investing this much because they honestly seem to think they’re on the cusp of super intelligent AGI. They’re not, but they really seem to think they are, and that seems to justify these insane investments.
But all they’re really doing is the same thing as before but even bigger. It’s not going to work. It’s only going to make things even more expensive.
I use Copilot and Claude at work, and while it’s really impressive at what it can do, it’s also really stupid and requires a lot of hand holding. It’s not on the brink of AGI super intelligence. Not even close. Maybe we’ll get there some day, but not before all these companies are bankrupt.
The dot com bubble 2.0 is on the horizon
Comparing the coming crash to the dot com crash is like comparing a rough landing to the various crashes on Sept 11th, 2001.
The dot com crash was mostly isolated in high tech. Because it was lead by the Japanese economy starting to fail, and followed by the Sept 11th attacks, the various combined crashes resulted in the S&P 500 falling by about 50% from its peak to the bottom, but it was already back up to the peak value in 2007, then the global financial crisis hit.
This bubble is much bigger. Some analysts say the AI bubble is 17x the size of the Dot Com bubble, and 4x the size of the 2007/08 real estate bubble. AI stocks were 40% of all US GDP growth in 2025, and 80% of all growth in US stocks.
Nvidia’s stock price has gone up 1700% in just 2 years. OpenAI is planning to go public on a valuation of $1 trillion despite losing vast amounts of money. Just 7 US tech companies make up 36% of the entire US stock market, and they’re all heavily betting on AI.
At least when the dot com bubble popped, it left some useful things behind, like huge amounts of dark fibre. But, the AI processors are so specialized they can’t be used for much of anything else. They also wear out, sometimes within months. The datacenter buildings themselves can maybe be repurposed to being general purpose datacenters, but, a lot of the contents will have to be thrown out.
So they “lost” $11.5B? Cool, I lost 20 bucks last week and still had to explain it to my accountant 🤭 Feels like the entire AI industry is built on “don’t worry, growth will save us”, but at some point someone has to pay the electricity bill…
No, you don’t understand. Lose money on every sale, but make up for it in volume!
If you lose enough money, you trigger an integer overflow and end up with a profit!
When I lose $11 Billion dollars, I have to go to bed without supper.
If you owe the bank $100, that’s your problem; if you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem.
The difference between 100 million and 11.5 billion is about 11 billion. If you own a bank 11 billion that’s not only that bank’s problem, it’s the economy’s problem.
It’s about 11.5 billion, really.
It’s exactly 11.4 billion, really.
Well, if you want to get exact, sure. But if we’re talking about half units, like 11 and a half billion, then 11.4 is so close to 11.5 there’s no difference and calling it just about 11 sorta implies that it’s a more significant difference IMO
