The “it’s dangerous, regulate us please” angle as an out for explaining terrible financial performance doesn’t seem to be working. The final Hail Mary pass is the “if we fail you fail” play.
However all data indicates the risk here is fairly concentrated in private markets. It will be painful but it’s unlikely to take the whole economy out with it. Some VCs are in for a world of hurt and private credit markets will lose their shirts, but the average person would see limited direct impact.
With everything going on in the datacenter space a bailout for AI seems incredibly unlikely. The general sentiment amongst the masses seems to be “let it burn.”
They will walk out only rich rather then super rich. They will talk about it as if they were poor, but nope, they will still have toms of power and money.
The question is, if this happens then how do you incentivise more R and D? Which investor would invest without the returns?
Edit: not surprisingly people don’t understand the point.
Would you rather NVIDIA and OpenAI get rich and capture the value or the public? Such a strange thing to see people rooting for the big companies.
AI is here to stay, but the market needs a big forest fire to wipe most things out. A few strong plants survive to build a better future.
It’s a cycle that keeps repeating, and we’re overdue for a big forest fire in tech.
Its like a gold rush where half of the picks are sitting in storage because there are not enough miners to wield them.
No... This is not accurate at all. AI valuations are based on high future growth. Prices could stay the same but growth slows and that could cause a crash by itself.
Why is this controversial?
If a crash unlocks capital and eases the compute price squeeze, it might be worth the pain.
There has to be a name for this fallacy.