While I welcome the places where it is bringing value, I’m more worried about all the places it’s being shoehorned in that are a waste of money, fueling the bubble. The blast radius is going to be spectacular.
Investors don't want 5x revenue valuations, they want 30x growth.
Make 'real infrastructure' and 'housing' companies attractive products for investors to buy and they'll buy. (No idea how to do that, don't ask me! :))
That's the thing. You have to remove the unsustainable nonsense that looks like 30x growth in order for investors to be willing to invest in 5x revenue valuations.
(If you have real things that are actually producing 30x growth then that's fine, obvs.)
Maybe investors shouldn't treat inversion like casino gambling. With their capital, they could make inversions (or even their own businesses) that grow slower but steadily.
We need to kill the idea that a) this is what investors should be looking for, and b) it's even possible aside from a 1 in 1,000,000,000 fluke.
All of these economic instruments are supposed to be there to serve the needs of real human people, not just to make the wealthy even wealthier. We need to break this cycle of ever-escalating capital chasing capital, and get investment in things that will actually make people's lives better.
capitalism is kinda-sorta weaponized greed, but in a way that tries to promote competition and thus create actual value. IMHO blaming regulators for not nudging capital in the politically desirable way is appropriate: either they shouldn't be regulating because they don't know how, or they're regulating according to a hidden policy instead of whatever they say. (cue 'why not both'.)
There is no need for hedging language, it is entirely weaponized greed.
> but in a way that tries to promote competition and thus create actual value.
No, its in a way which tries to remove constraints from the power of the capitalist class, and full enable their dominion over society -- that's what drove it and how it evolved from prior systems.
The assumed existence of competition (along with other assumptions) making it optimal was a much later, after the fact attempt at rationalizing it in response to criticism, and actual attempts to promote competition were later yet reforms limiting capitalism, not part of its essence.
> capitalism is kinda-sorta weaponized greed, but in a way that tries to promote competition and thus create actual value.
In practice, capitalism itself doesn't really promote competition, but rather competition is an externally-enforced situation required to keep capitalism from going off the rails. IMHO, capitalism naturally evolves towards monopoly (otherwise antitrust laws would be unnecessary).
Are you being deliberately obtuse? In case you aren't, the answer is roads, bridges, public transportation, electrified rail, grid modernization, utility-scale storage and solar. We need these things desperately, and instead we're going to get sheds full of video cards from here to the horizon.
If you want to spend your money and time building bridges for electrified rail, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Other people clearly feel they have enough of that and would rather invest in datacenters. Who are you to say they're wrong?
I say they're wrong, and I do so in my capacity as a citizen. These large pools of capital should not be allowed to follow the whims of a handful of unelected oligarchs who have clearly lost the plot. In a functioning society, this scale of decision would not be left to the whims of international finance capital, but decided via democratic means. It's unfortunate that the last scraps of the Fordist labor truce are unraveling, because it means that I and my comrades are going to have to discipline this generation of oligarchs just like our grandparents did the last really nasty one.
This kind of absolutist individualist argument just rings more and more hollow as we see the very real consequences of that philosophy for our society.
Who am I to say they're wrong? A human being, that's who. A human being who lives in a modern society that does not have to prioritize the whims of the wealthy few over the needs of the many. We can choose to set stringent requirements on people who have that much money, and therefore power, and that is not evil. Indeed, it is the furthest thing from it.
And what happens when those people don't want to have your requirements "set" on them? Do you force those peaceful people to do your bidding with violence? Would that not make you the evil ones?
Look at the reply from the guy I was questioning. It took just two or three mild questions for him to go full Hitler, talking about how his comrades will have to "discipline" a whole generation of "oligarchs" (i.e. anyone who makes things he doesn't personally prioritize).
Collectivist thinking always leads to violence, and eventually societal failure.
If there wasn't an ongoing de facto recession, I would wager that the overvaluation of companies _would_ be at or near dot-com bubble levels. These AI companies have plenty of venture capital, but consumers are probably not as influential as they were back then. I agree we likely won't see a dotcom-like crash, but there will still be fallout that will take months to settle.
If there's no better growth story probably people have already trimmed for short term gains.
In some ways the technology companies, which such large growth, are their own consumers.
Unless they feel pressure from another growth story or a technical monetary effect, and I emphasize story because its about future returns, its unlikely.
Additionally this has grown so quickly that there is amazing talent being applied to these problems, its hard to imagine every good person has been sufficiently compensated that progress will stall.
What is missing from the picture with all these articles is the numbers. LLMs already have a few solid use cases as translators, general document processors, coding helpers ...etc. So the first question is, to what extent does this demand support the investment? Would it be enough if basically every SP500 corp provided paid LLM access to their employees? Or is the investment so big, that people are betting on less solid applications, like Agentic AI, with some non-trivial automation?
We know over the long term it is exceptionally hard to beat the market, timing the market is near impossible. Everyone keeps talking about a bubble but we don’t know how big of one it is or when/if it will pop.
You are better off being in the market than betting on an idea that you don’t know will even happen or when.
I definitely think there is over enthusiasm in the space but at the same time I am not convinced that the demand for compute has let off yet.
My take is always you could build up some cash reserve in treasuries or somewhere like that and deploy it if a pop does happen. You will miss out on the potential growth but if you wanted to participate that is one way imo.
> You are better off being in the market than betting on an idea that you don’t know will even happen or when.
This is true if you're willing to wait forever, but if you have near- and medium-term goals, you should not be investing money in the market if you believe there will be a crash. I have such goals and I'm putting my money into treasuries instead of putting more into what I believe is a very overvalued market.
Look at stocks: everything is synchronizing, for years now. Either something like 85% of stocks all go up, with a predictable difference between them (meaning, e.g. META moves about double GOOG does, whichever way it goes, up or down), or 85% of stocks all go down. SPY, VOO. And in fact the only ones that make a move to speak of are the MAG7. It isn't just that they're the fastest to rise, they're the only ones that beat the market.
Zoom out and you'll see that in recent years you can include even non-stock-market assets in this argument. Housing ... same (of course there I understand), Gold, surprisingly, same.
And that's ignoring the warnings European authorities are issuing these days. It's pretty public information at this point that European authorities expect open ("kinetic" if you will) hostilities between Germany, France and Russia to open somewhere between March 2026 and Jan 2027. That will crash the stock market. That will crash the housing market. That will probably even crash the gold market, AI or no AI. Imho, that will crash the value of fucking Trump tower. The places these warnings are coming from are very serious and not known for joking on these matters (like the German chancillary, which if anything is far too conservative, or the French department of health, which has literally never issued a warning like this)
But isn’t what in the past? The market has always over time gone up to the right.
Very serious and not joking? Ok go time the market. My point stands market timing is impossible. Historically you have always been best suited by being in the market. Could that change? Sure but I don’t think you can time that or be prepared for it.
It really depends on what exactly you want to bet on and on what timeframe. More short term bet? Puts on the AI companies or an AI ETF. Do you assume that the rest of tech stays up even if AI pops? Then you could short some AI ETF and hedge with long QQQ. (=betting that the AI subset of Nasdaq will underperform relative to the Nasdaq.
Just remember that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
Consider diversification in your portfolio. Maybe you divert a little more away from the US market, for example, which is heavily dependent on 7 stocks largely tied to AI.
Also check how diversified the instruments you choose are. Sometimes they are lot less than one will think they are. Mainly due to those 7 stocks being big component in them also.
Just knowing that the bubble will pop at some point in the future isn't enough to trade on. You'll get trounced if this is the only piece of information you have. To a first approximation, everybody knows the bubble will pop. The question is: when and how?
I'm thinking that the bubble will be the vortex caused by an abundance of power that becomes freely available locally due to the AI datacenters moving to space.
Worth listening to the entire podcast but this is a snip where he speaks about AI valuations. Somewhere in that podcast he brings up the fact that Costco is trading at double future earnings to NVIDIA, let that sink in.....
https://archive.ph/2G0uD#selection-1219.0-1219.64
This can't happen soon enough. AI is a vacuum sucking up a lot of capital and attention that could and should be put to much much better uses
We could go back to crypto and NFTs being the capital darlings?
Those did not suck up nearly the capital and attention that AI is. They were like GameStop and AMC.
But they also did not create the same amount of value that AI is. Certainly there is hype but also value is being generated.
While I welcome the places where it is bringing value, I’m more worried about all the places it’s being shoehorned in that are a waste of money, fueling the bubble. The blast radius is going to be spectacular.
On the other hand we've never invested as much in hardware & software optimization as we do now
> On the other hand we've never invested as much in hardware & software optimization as we do now
Fat lot of good that does me: all the client-side software I use is as bloated as ever.
But, you see, programmer time is expensive, hardware is cheap in comparison. Incredibly cheap when it's your user's hardware.
Like what? Do you have any insight into what money might be spent on instead?
Real infrastructure and housing
Investors don't want 5x revenue valuations, they want 30x growth.
Make 'real infrastructure' and 'housing' companies attractive products for investors to buy and they'll buy. (No idea how to do that, don't ask me! :))
That's the thing. You have to remove the unsustainable nonsense that looks like 30x growth in order for investors to be willing to invest in 5x revenue valuations.
(If you have real things that are actually producing 30x growth then that's fine, obvs.)
Maybe investors shouldn't treat inversion like casino gambling. With their capital, they could make inversions (or even their own businesses) that grow slower but steadily.
I think housing might have some potential with federal subsidies, particularly in the container scale pre-fabricated home market.
Most investors have more money invested in their house than stocks.
No.
We need to kill the idea that a) this is what investors should be looking for, and b) it's even possible aside from a 1 in 1,000,000,000 fluke.
All of these economic instruments are supposed to be there to serve the needs of real human people, not just to make the wealthy even wealthier. We need to break this cycle of ever-escalating capital chasing capital, and get investment in things that will actually make people's lives better.
Maybe markets that optimize for capital growth are just a bad way to allocate resources?
Why did we decide that return on capital investment is the metric to optimize for, at the expense of everything else?
capitalism is kinda-sorta weaponized greed, but in a way that tries to promote competition and thus create actual value. IMHO blaming regulators for not nudging capital in the politically desirable way is appropriate: either they shouldn't be regulating because they don't know how, or they're regulating according to a hidden policy instead of whatever they say. (cue 'why not both'.)
> capitalism is kinda-sorta weaponized greed
There is no need for hedging language, it is entirely weaponized greed.
> but in a way that tries to promote competition and thus create actual value.
No, its in a way which tries to remove constraints from the power of the capitalist class, and full enable their dominion over society -- that's what drove it and how it evolved from prior systems.
The assumed existence of competition (along with other assumptions) making it optimal was a much later, after the fact attempt at rationalizing it in response to criticism, and actual attempts to promote competition were later yet reforms limiting capitalism, not part of its essence.
> capitalism is kinda-sorta weaponized greed, but in a way that tries to promote competition and thus create actual value.
In practice, capitalism itself doesn't really promote competition, but rather competition is an externally-enforced situation required to keep capitalism from going off the rails. IMHO, capitalism naturally evolves towards monopoly (otherwise antitrust laws would be unnecessary).
What is "real infrastructure", exactly?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? In case you aren't, the answer is roads, bridges, public transportation, electrified rail, grid modernization, utility-scale storage and solar. We need these things desperately, and instead we're going to get sheds full of video cards from here to the horizon.
If you want to spend your money and time building bridges for electrified rail, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Other people clearly feel they have enough of that and would rather invest in datacenters. Who are you to say they're wrong?
I say they're wrong, and I do so in my capacity as a citizen. These large pools of capital should not be allowed to follow the whims of a handful of unelected oligarchs who have clearly lost the plot. In a functioning society, this scale of decision would not be left to the whims of international finance capital, but decided via democratic means. It's unfortunate that the last scraps of the Fordist labor truce are unraveling, because it means that I and my comrades are going to have to discipline this generation of oligarchs just like our grandparents did the last really nasty one.
This kind of absolutist individualist argument just rings more and more hollow as we see the very real consequences of that philosophy for our society.
Who am I to say they're wrong? A human being, that's who. A human being who lives in a modern society that does not have to prioritize the whims of the wealthy few over the needs of the many. We can choose to set stringent requirements on people who have that much money, and therefore power, and that is not evil. Indeed, it is the furthest thing from it.
And what happens when those people don't want to have your requirements "set" on them? Do you force those peaceful people to do your bidding with violence? Would that not make you the evil ones?
Look at the reply from the guy I was questioning. It took just two or three mild questions for him to go full Hitler, talking about how his comrades will have to "discipline" a whole generation of "oligarchs" (i.e. anyone who makes things he doesn't personally prioritize).
Collectivist thinking always leads to violence, and eventually societal failure.
Healthcare research to start with.
If there wasn't an ongoing de facto recession, I would wager that the overvaluation of companies _would_ be at or near dot-com bubble levels. These AI companies have plenty of venture capital, but consumers are probably not as influential as they were back then. I agree we likely won't see a dotcom-like crash, but there will still be fallout that will take months to settle.
IMO what you are describing is distributed choice vs concentrated choice.
It's one of my main arguments against a crash: why would one (1) or a few choose to do that?
Unless I misunderstand your question, isn’t the obvious answer just short-term profit?
No investor has thus far invested something they can’t yet cash out.
If there's no better growth story probably people have already trimmed for short term gains.
In some ways the technology companies, which such large growth, are their own consumers.
Unless they feel pressure from another growth story or a technical monetary effect, and I emphasize story because its about future returns, its unlikely.
Additionally this has grown so quickly that there is amazing talent being applied to these problems, its hard to imagine every good person has been sufficiently compensated that progress will stall.
I sincerely hope this would kill Oracle with their karma
What is missing from the picture with all these articles is the numbers. LLMs already have a few solid use cases as translators, general document processors, coding helpers ...etc. So the first question is, to what extent does this demand support the investment? Would it be enough if basically every SP500 corp provided paid LLM access to their employees? Or is the investment so big, that people are betting on less solid applications, like Agentic AI, with some non-trivial automation?
Why pay much when you can get bare metal China LLM without the premium?
I tried figuring out how to bet on the AI bubble popping since the circle investments - that's by the way the one thing the article does not explain.
Can someone from the dear HN financially savvy users clarify what kinds of specific bets could be placed to that avail?
We know over the long term it is exceptionally hard to beat the market, timing the market is near impossible. Everyone keeps talking about a bubble but we don’t know how big of one it is or when/if it will pop.
You are better off being in the market than betting on an idea that you don’t know will even happen or when.
I definitely think there is over enthusiasm in the space but at the same time I am not convinced that the demand for compute has let off yet.
My take is always you could build up some cash reserve in treasuries or somewhere like that and deploy it if a pop does happen. You will miss out on the potential growth but if you wanted to participate that is one way imo.
> You are better off being in the market than betting on an idea that you don’t know will even happen or when.
This is true if you're willing to wait forever, but if you have near- and medium-term goals, you should not be investing money in the market if you believe there will be a crash. I have such goals and I'm putting my money into treasuries instead of putting more into what I believe is a very overvalued market.
But isn't that in the past?
Look at stocks: everything is synchronizing, for years now. Either something like 85% of stocks all go up, with a predictable difference between them (meaning, e.g. META moves about double GOOG does, whichever way it goes, up or down), or 85% of stocks all go down. SPY, VOO. And in fact the only ones that make a move to speak of are the MAG7. It isn't just that they're the fastest to rise, they're the only ones that beat the market.
Zoom out and you'll see that in recent years you can include even non-stock-market assets in this argument. Housing ... same (of course there I understand), Gold, surprisingly, same.
And that's ignoring the warnings European authorities are issuing these days. It's pretty public information at this point that European authorities expect open ("kinetic" if you will) hostilities between Germany, France and Russia to open somewhere between March 2026 and Jan 2027. That will crash the stock market. That will crash the housing market. That will probably even crash the gold market, AI or no AI. Imho, that will crash the value of fucking Trump tower. The places these warnings are coming from are very serious and not known for joking on these matters (like the German chancillary, which if anything is far too conservative, or the French department of health, which has literally never issued a warning like this)
But isn’t what in the past? The market has always over time gone up to the right.
Very serious and not joking? Ok go time the market. My point stands market timing is impossible. Historically you have always been best suited by being in the market. Could that change? Sure but I don’t think you can time that or be prepared for it.
It really depends on what exactly you want to bet on and on what timeframe. More short term bet? Puts on the AI companies or an AI ETF. Do you assume that the rest of tech stays up even if AI pops? Then you could short some AI ETF and hedge with long QQQ. (=betting that the AI subset of Nasdaq will underperform relative to the Nasdaq.
Just remember that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
Consider diversification in your portfolio. Maybe you divert a little more away from the US market, for example, which is heavily dependent on 7 stocks largely tied to AI.
Also check how diversified the instruments you choose are. Sometimes they are lot less than one will think they are. Mainly due to those 7 stocks being big component in them also.
ProShares UltraShort Technology (REW) You are betting against Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, etc. Has a .95% expense ratio. https://www.proshares.com/our-etfs/leveraged-and-inverse/rew
Just knowing that the bubble will pop at some point in the future isn't enough to trade on. You'll get trounced if this is the only piece of information you have. To a first approximation, everybody knows the bubble will pop. The question is: when and how?
Not a single person “knows” the bubble will pop.
Many think it will.
I'm thinking that the bubble will be the vortex caused by an abundance of power that becomes freely available locally due to the AI datacenters moving to space.
Never take Wall Street at their word. They just want to take profit and buy back cheaply. It's not the bubble they're inventing; it's the pop.
Listened to Tom Lee on a Prof G Podcast and he made a lot of sense about it all.
https://youtu.be/2J_IGuA-IdY?si=uTptx9R-HMhjD9LH&t=1200
Worth listening to the entire podcast but this is a snip where he speaks about AI valuations. Somewhere in that podcast he brings up the fact that Costco is trading at double future earnings to NVIDIA, let that sink in.....
> Somewhere in that podcast he brings up the fact that Costco is trading at double future earnings to NVIDIA, let that sink in.....
English is not my first language, so let me make sure I understand: with this sentence you are suggesting that NVIDIA is undervalued, correct?
[dead]