I think you are missing the fundamental point here. The question is not really if AI has some value. That much is obvious and the exemple you give, increasing developer productivity, is a good one.

The question is: is the value generated by AI aligned with the market projected value as currently priced in AI companies valuation? That's what's more difficult to assess.

The gap between fundamental financial data and valuations is very large. The risk is a brutal reassessment of these prices. That's what people call a bubble bursting and it doesn't mean the underlying technology has no value. The internet bubble burst yet the internet is probably the most significant innovation of the past twenty years.

There's also a lot of debate over how long a GPU lasts. If a GPU loses most of it's value after 2 years because a newer model is much better/cheaper, that destroys the economics of the companies who have spent billions on now obsolete hardware.

Well it all started with usual SV style "growth hacking"(price dumping as a SaaS) of "gather users now, monetize later" by OpenAI - which works only if you attain virtual monopoly(basically dominance over segment of a market, with competition not really competing with you) over segment of the market.

The problem is no one attained that position, price expectations are set and it turns out that wishful thinking of reducing costs of running the models by orders of magnitude wasn't fruitful.

Is AI useful? of course.

Are the real costs of it justified? in most cases no.

  The question is: is the value generated by AI aligned with the market projected value as currently priced in AI companies valuation? That's what's more difficult to assess.

That said, I don't think the bubble is done growing nor do I think it is about to burst.

I personally think we are in 1995 of the dotcom bubble equivalent. When it bursts, it will still be much bigger than in November 2025.