Calling this an “AI bubble” reads like pure sour grapes from folks who missed the adoption curve. Real teams are already banking gains - code velocity up, ticket resolution times down, and marketing lift from AI-assisted creative while capex always precedes revenue in platform shifts (see cloud 2010, smartphones 2007). The “costs don’t match cash flow” trope ignores lagging enterprise procurement cycles and the rapid glide path of unit economics as models, inference, and hardware efficiency improve. Habit formation is the moat: once workers rely on AI copilots, those workflows harden into paid seats and platform lock-in. We’re not watching a bubble pop; we’re watching infrastructure being laid for the next decade of products.
Things can be a bubble AND actual economic growth long term. Happens all the time with new tech.
Dotcom boom made all kinds of predictions about Web usage. That decade plus later turned out to be true. But at the time the companies got way ahead of consumer adoption.
Specific to AI copilots. We currently are building hundreds that nobody will use for every one success.
All the same arguments could be used for dot-com bubble. It was a boom and a bubble at the same time. When it popped, only the real stuff remained. Same will happen to AI. What you are describing are good use cases - there are 99 other companies doing 99 other useless things with no cost / cash flow match.
> Calling this an “AI bubble” reads like pure sour grapes from folks who missed the adoption curve.
Ad hominem.
> ignores lagging enterprise procurement cycles
Time is long gone for that, even for most bureaucratic orgs.
> rapid glide path of unit economics as models, inference, and hardware efficiency improve
Conjecture. We don't know if we can scale up effectively. We are hitting limits of technology and energy already
> Habit formation is the moat
Yes and no. GenAI tools are useful if done right, but they have not been what they were made out to be, and they do not seem to be getting better as quickly as I like. The most useful tool so far is copilot auto-complete, but its value is limited for experienced devs. If its price increased 10x tomorow, I would cancel our subscription.
> We’re not watching a bubble pop; we’re watching infrastructure being laid for the next decade of products.
How much money are you risking right now? Or is it different this time?
It’s interesting how quickly this submission disappeared from the front page, hm.
I think the only way to find an answer is to somewhat base it on faith not just pure science.
What if the future has already happened (at least some version of it) but the past has never existed like we know it? That’s why the simulation has been used.
If the “base” universe/Earth that we live in just appeared a few dozens years ago “as is” out of nowhere then the only way to make it “real” is to actually simulate the past.
Mandela effect and predictive programming are actually anomalies in favour of multiple iterations on the simulated past.
Now the question is who benefits from this and why?
The technologies from the future (which are not distinguished from magic) and antagonist - Devil/Lucifer that is not interested that we see God as the creator or maybe even furthermore to undermine God’s role or maybe even trap him in this reality.
This actually also answers the question why we don’t have a proof that God exists because someone put real huge effort to disprove it i.e. here’s a given reality, now how we came here but without God?
Apparently all efforts on this failed otherwise we would never even heard about concept of God or simulation. And it also proves that we’re indeed in “base” reality.
And because God does exist in this reality the future is not predetermined despite whatever means antagonist is using to prove otherwise.
