Remix.run Logo
badmonster 16 hours ago

He's right to question the economics. The AI infrastructure buildout resembles the dot-com era's excess fiber deployment - valuable long-term, but many individual bets will fail spectacularly. Utilization rates and actual revenue models matter more than GPU count.

35 minutes ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
martinald 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I disagree on that and covered a lot of it in this blog (sorry for the plug!) https://martinalderson.com/posts/are-we-really-repeating-the...

skippyboxedhero 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

100% of technical innovations have had the same pattern. The same thing happens every time because this is the only way the system can work: excess is required because there is some uncertainty, lots of companies are designing strategies to fill this gap, and if this gap didn't exist then there would be no investment (as happens in Europe).

Also, demand wasn't over-estimated in the 2000s. This is all ex-post reasoning you use data from 2002 to say...well, this ended up being wrong. Companies were perfectly aware that no-one was using this stuff...do you think that telecoms companies in all these countries just had no idea who was using their products? This is the kind of thing you see journalists write after the event to attribute some kind of rationality and meaning, it isn't that complicated.

There was uncertainty about how things would shake out, if companies ended up not participating then CEOs would lose their job and someone else would do it. Telecoms companies who missed out on the boom bought shares in other telecom's companies because there was no other way to stay ahead of the news and announce that they were doing things.

This financial cycle also worked in reverse twenty years later too: in some countries, telecoms companies were so scarred that they refused to participate in building out fibre networks so lost share and then ended up doing more irrational things. Again, there was uncertainty here: incumbents couldn't raise from shareholders who they bankrupted in fiber 15 years ago, they were 100% aware that demand was outstripping supply, and this created opportunities for competitors. Rationality and logic run up against the hard constraints of needing to maintain a dividend yield and the exec's share options packages.

Humans do not change, markets do not change, it is the same every time. What people are really interested in is the timing but no-one knows that either (again, that is why the massive cycle of irrationality happens)...but that won't change the outcome. There is no calculation you can make to know more, particularly as in the short-term companies are able to control their financial results. It will end the same way it ended every time before, who knows when but it always ends the same way...humans are still human.

lmm 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Also, demand wasn't over-estimated in the 2000s. This is all ex-post reasoning you use data from 2002 to say...well, this ended up being wrong.

Well, the estimate was higher than the reality, by definition it was over-estimated. They built out as if the tech boom was going to go on forever, and of course it didn't. You can argue that they made the best estimates they could with the information available, but ultimately it's still true that their estimates were wrong.

htk 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Great article, thank you for writing and sharing it!

appleiigs 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Your blog article stopped at token generation... you need to continue to revenue per token. Then go even further... The revenue for AI company is a cost for the AI customer. Where is the AI customer going to get incremental profits from the cost of AI.

For short searches, the revenue per token is zero. The next step is $20 per month. For coding it's $100 per month. With the competition between Gemini, Grok, ChatGPT... it's not going higher. Maybe it goes lower since it's part of Google's playbook to give away things for free.

ambicapter 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fiber seems way easier to get long-term value out of then GPUs, though. How many workloads today other than AI justify massive GPU deployments?

roncesvalles 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They discuss it in the podcast. Laid fiber is different because you can charge rent for it essentially forever. It seems some people swooped in when it crashed and now own a perpetual money machine.