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.
Related Insights
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.
Unlike prior tech revolutions funded mainly by equity, the AI infrastructure build-out is increasingly reliant on debt. This blurs the line between speculative growth capital (equity) and financing for predictable cash flows (debt), magnifying potential losses and increasing systemic failure risk if the AI boom falters.
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.
Major tech companies view the AI race as a life-or-death struggle. This 'existential crisis' mindset explains their willingness to spend astronomical sums on infrastructure, prioritizing survival over short-term profitability. Their spending is a defensive moat-building exercise, not just a rational pursuit of new revenue.
Unlike the speculative "dark fiber" buildout of the dot-com bubble, today's AI infrastructure race is driven by real, immediate, and overwhelming demand. The problem isn't a lack of utilization for built capacity; it's a constant struggle to build supply fast enough to meet customer needs.
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.
The risk of an AI bubble bursting is a long-term, multi-year concern, not an imminent threat. The current phase is about massive infrastructure buildout by cash-rich giants, similar to the early 1990s fiber optic boom. The “moment of truth” regarding profitability and a potential bust is likely years away.
History shows a significant delay between tech investment and productivity gains—10 years for PCs, 5-6 for the internet. The current AI CapEx boom faces a similar risk. An 'AI wobble' may occur when impatient investors begin questioning the long-delayed returns.
Michael Burry, known for predicting the 2008 crash, argues the AI bubble isn't about the technology's potential but about the massive capital expenditure on infrastructure (chips, data centers) that he believes far outpaces actual end-user demand and economic utility.
The AI infrastructure boom is a potential house of cards. A single dollar of end-user revenue paid to a company like OpenAI can become $8 of "seeming revenue" as it cascades through the value chain to Microsoft, CoreWeave, and NVIDIA, supporting an unsustainable $100 of equity market value.
