The AI race has been a prisoner's dilemma where companies spend massively, fearing competitors will pull ahead. As the cost of next-gen systems like Blackwell and Rubin becomes astronomical, the sheer economics will force a shift. Decision-making will be dominated by ROI calculations rather than the existential dread of slowing down.

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.

Major investment cycles like railroads and the internet didn't cause credit weakness because the technology failed, but because capacity was built far ahead of demand. This overbuilding crushed investment returns. The current AI cycle is different because strong, underlying demand is so far keeping pace with new capacity.

The current AI investment surge is a dangerous "resource grab" phase, not a typical bubble. Companies are desperately securing scarce resources—power, chips, and top scientists—driven by existential fear of being left behind. This isn't a normal CapEx cycle; the spending is almost guaranteed until a dead-end is proven.

The tangible economic effect of the AI boom is currently concentrated in physical capital investment, such as data centers and software, rather than widespread changes in labor productivity or employment. A potential market correction would thus directly threaten this investment-led growth.

Unlike the dot-com bubble's finite need for fiber optic cables, the demand for AI is infinite because it's about solving an endless stream of problems. This suggests the current infrastructure spending cycle is fundamentally different and more sustainable than previous tech booms.

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.

The AI boom's sustainability is questionable due to the disparity between capital spent on computing and actual AI-generated revenue. OpenAI's plan to spend $1.4 trillion while earning ~$20 billion annually highlights a model dependent on future payoffs, making it vulnerable to shifts in investor sentiment.

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.