Technology

Dotcom was a bubble too and it popped hard with huge faillout even though the internet didn't disappear and it still was and is a revolutionary thing that changed how we live our lives.

Overvalued doesn't mean the thing has no value.

I get the thinking here, but past bubbles (dot com, housing) were also based on things that have real value, and the bubble still popped. A bubble, definitionally, is when something is priced far above its value, and the "pop" is when prices quickly fall. It's the fall that hurts; the asset/technology doesn't lose its underlying value.

I mean we haven’t figured out how to make AI profitable yet, and though it’s a cool technology with real world use cases, nobody has proven yet that the juice is worth the squeeze. There’s an unimaginable amount of money tied up in a technology on the hope that one day they find a way to make it profitable and though AI as a technology “improves”, its journey towards providing more value than it costs to run is not.

If I roleplayed as somebody who desperately wanted AI to succeed, my first question would be “What is the plan to have AI make money?” And so far nobody, not even the technology’s biggest sycophants have an answer.

The value a thing creates is only part of whether the investment into it is worth it.

It's entirely possible that all of the money that is going into the AI bubble will create value that will ultimately benefit someone else, and that those who initially invested in it will have nothing to show for it.

In the late 90's, U.S. regulatory reform around telecom prepared everyone for an explosion of investment in hard infrastructure assets around telecommunications: cell phones were starting to become a thing, consumer internet held a ton of promise. So telecom companies started digging trenches and laying fiber, at enormous expense to themselves. Most ended up in bankruptcy, and the actual assets eventually became owned by those who later bought those assets for pennies on the dollar, in bankruptcy auctions.

Some companies owned fiber routes that they didn't even bother using, and in the early 2000's there was a shitload of dark fiber scattered throughout the United States. Eventually the bandwidth needs of near universal broadband gave that old fiber some use. But the companies that built it had already collapsed.

If today's AI companies can't actually turn a profit, they're going to be forced to sell off their expensive data at some point. Maybe someone else can make money with it. But the life cycle of this tech is much shorter than the telecom infrastructure I was describing earlier, so a stale LLM might very well become worthless within years. Or it's only a stepping stone towards a distilled model that costs a fraction to run.

So as an investment case, I'm not seeing a compelling case for investing in AI today. Even if you agree that it will provide value, it doesn't make sense to invest $10 to get $1 of value.

In a capitalist society, what is good or best is irrelevant. All that matters is if it makes money. AI makes no money. The $200 and $300/month plans put in rate limits because at those prices they're losing too much money. Lets say the beak-even cost for a single request is somewhere between $1-$5 depending on the request just for the electricity, and people can barely afford food, housing, and transportation as it is. What is the business model for these LLMs going to be? A person could get a coffee today, or send a single request to an LLM? Now start thinking that they'll need newer gpus next year. And the year after that. And after that. And the data center will need maintenance. They're paying literally millions of dollars to individual programmers.

Maybe there is a niche market for mega corporations like Google who can afford to spend thousands of dollars a day on LLMs, but most companies won't be able to afford these tools. Then there is the problem where if the company can afford these tools, do they even need them?

The only business model that makes sense to me is the one like BMW uses for their car seat warmers. BMW requires you to pay a monthly subscription to use the seat warmers in their cars. LLM makers could charge a monthly subscription to run a micro model on your own device. That free assistant in your Google phone would then be pay walled. That way businesses don't need to carry the cost of the electricity, but the LLM is going to be fairly low functioning compared to what we get for free today. But the business model could work. As long as people don't install a free version.

I don't buy the idea that "LLMs are good so they are going to be a success". Not as long as investors want to make money on their investments.

LLMs can absolutely disappear as a mass market technology. They will always exist in some sense as long as there are computers to run them and people who care to try, but the way our economy has incorporated them is completely unsustainable. No business model has emerged that can support them, and at this point, I'm willing to say that there is no such business model without orders of magnitude gains in efficiency that may not ever happen with LLMs.

there's an argument that this is just the targeted ads bubble that keeps inflating using different technologies. That's where the money is coming from. It's a game of smoke and mirrors, but this time it seems like they are betting big on a single technology for a longer time, which is different from what we have seen in the past 10 years.

Proof: Agentic AI is worthless.

Sort of agreed. I disagree with the people around here acting like AI will crash and burn, never to be seen again. It's here to stay.

I do think this is a bubble and will pop hard. Too many players in the game, most are going to lose, but the survivors will be rich and powerful beyond imagining.