And he's right (and the sources he points out), that some bubbles are good. They end up being a way to pull in a large amount of capital to build out something completely new, but still unsure where the future will lead.

A speculative example could be AI ends up failing and crashing out, but not until we build out huge DCs and power generation that is used on the next valuable idea that wouldn't be possible w/o the DCs and power generation already existing.

▲

foogazi 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The bubble argument was hard to wrap my head around

It sounded vaguely like the broken window fallacy- a broken window creating “work”

Is the value of bubbles in the trying out new products/ideas and pulling funds from unsuspecting bag holders?

Otherwise it sounds like a huge destruction of stakeholder value - but that seems to be how venture funding works

	▲	tim333 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The usual argument is the investment creates value beyond that captured by the investors so society is better off. Like investors spend $10 bn building the internet and only get $9 bn back but things like Wikipedia have a value to society >$1 bn.

▲

20after4 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Huge DCs and Power Generation might be useful, long-lasting infrastructure, however, the racks full of GPUs and TPUs will depreciate rather quickly.

▲

sdenton4 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I think this is a bit overblown.

In the event of a crash, the current generation of cards will still be just fine for a wide variety of ai/ml tasks. The main problem is that we'll have more than we know what to do with if someone has to sell of their million card mega cluster...

	▲	raw_anon_1111 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The problem is the failure rate of GPUs is extremely high