The incentive for CEOs is announcing the plan to do something, they have no idea if they will actually be able to do it, and it probably won't matter.

This happened in the dotcom too btw. Companies built out fibre networks, it wasn't possible to actually build all the physical infra that companies wanted to build so many announced plans that never happened and then, towards the end, companies began aggressively acquiring stakes in companies who were building stuff to get financial exposure (an example was BT, which turned itself briefly into a hedge fund with a telephone network attached...before it imploded).

CEOs do not operate on the timescale of waiting and building. Their timescale is this year's bonus/share options package. Nothing else matters: announce plans to do X or Y, doesn't matter, they know they will be gone long before it happens.

I believe there is a difference between what people say publicly and what they are actually committed to doing on the ground. When all is said and done, I'll be more interested to know what was actually spent.

For example, XYZ AI company may say they are going to spend $1T for AI data centers over the next 5 years.

In actuality, I suspect it is likely that they have committed to something like $5-10B in shovel-ready projects with stretch goals for the rest. And the remaining spend would be heavily conditioned -- is power available? are chips available? is the public support present? financing? etc...

Not to mention, it's a much bigger moat if you can claim you're going to spend $1T. Who else will want to compete with you when you're spending $1T. After the dust has settled and you've managed to be one of the 2-3 dominant AI players, who is going to care that you "only" spent $100B instead of $1T. Look -- you were very capital efficient!

So, do I see it as possible that XYZ AI company could spend $1T, sure. Is it likely? No.

Hmm... "CEOs and teams" don't necessary do what's makes sense mathematically. Many, if not most of them, do whatever that sounds good to shareholders in their quarterly earnings call and ignore the reality or long term development.

If "CEOs and teams" are smart enough, they would not have overhired during 2021-2022 and then do layoffs. Who would be dumb enough to do that?

Appeal to authority fallacy.

me very smart. me go college get fancy paper. me move money out of ai stocks. flat rocks not think so well, use too much fire. me trade for shiny yellow rock instead.

What qualifies you to question this?

lol, CEOs do not do research.