The current AI spending spree by tech giants is historically reminiscent of the railroad and fiber-optic bubbles. These eras saw massive, redundant capital investment based on technological promise, which ultimately led to a crash when it became clear customers weren't willing to pay for the resulting products.

The US economy is not broadly strong; its perceived strength is almost entirely driven by a massive, concentrated bet on AI. This singular focus props up markets and growth metrics, but it conceals widespread weakness in other sectors, creating a high-stakes, fragile economic situation.

Current AI investment patterns mirror the "round-tripping" seen in the late '90s tech bubble. For example, NVIDIA invests billions in a startup like OpenAI, which then uses that capital to purchase NVIDIA chips. This creates an illusion of demand and inflated valuations, masking the lack of real, external customer revenue.

Before AI delivers long-term deflationary productivity, it requires a massive, inflationary build-out of physical infrastructure. This makes sectors like utilities, pipelines, and energy infrastructure a timely hedge against inflation and a diversifier away from concentrated tech bets.

A surge in business technology investment was misinterpreted as an AI-powered economic boom. It more likely reflected companies front-loading purchases of semiconductors and electronics to avoid paying impending 25% tariffs, rather than a fundamental acceleration in AI-related capital expenditure.

While the current AI phase is all about capital spending, a future catalyst for a downturn will emerge when the depreciation and amortization schedules for this hardware kick in. Unlike long-lasting infrastructure like railroads, short-term tech assets will create a significant financial drag in a few years.

The AI investment case might be inverted. While tech firms spend trillions on infrastructure with uncertain returns, traditional sector companies (industrials, healthcare) can leverage powerful AI services for a fraction of the cost. They capture a massive 'value gap,' gaining productivity without the huge capital outlay.

The massive capital rush into AI infrastructure mirrors past tech cycles where excess capacity was built, leading to unprofitable projects. While large tech firms can absorb losses, the standalone projects and their supplier ecosystems (power, materials) are at risk if anticipated demand doesn't materialize.

Historical technology cycles suggest that the AI sector will almost certainly face a 'trough of disillusionment.' This occurs when massive capital expenditure fails to produce satisfactory short-term returns or adoption rates, leading to a market correction. The expert would be 'shocked' if this cycle avoided it.