I'm a big fan stylistically of what https://taalas.com/ is doing, as far as models baked into silicon. If you haven't tried their chat it's absurdly fast (and also very very dumb)

That implies to me that in the future we'll have models as good or perhaps better than the state of the art at the moment, but on hardware chips that can be put in places where you can't currently locate a datacenter, and operating at hundreds of times better power efficiency, which sounds pretty great.

Algorthmic improvements in inference could make all that kit redundant very quickly - there are already moderately capable models that can be run on phones or laptops with specifications that are currently high-end but will be mainstream in another year or so.

This will lead to a superabundance of power-hungry compute power in the hyperscalers, and it's not entirely clear what can be done to consume it all and still run at a profit unless they manage to make ever greater gains for ever more compute-hungry models that cannot be run on consumer devices, unless they refresh their hardware at ever faster and more expensive rates.

The joke about data centers used to be that their core business was selling power at a loss; this may end up being true of the hyperscalers next.

That hardware costs GW of electricity at scale. So barring major disruption in R&D you hit a cost curve cliff where new hardware is simply more cost effective even if existing hardware is free.

Some workloads may make sense running for a few hours a day during cheap solar prices on outdated hardware, but in less than a decade the value is very much hitting zero.

20 year old fiber can have another 10-20 years of useful lifespan remaining, I think compute is going to be valuable for a while but even a 7 year cycle doesn’t change much.

Most compute isn’t going to be new at a potential crash and recovery takes time.

The premise I was responding to was that the energy infrastructure would be built during the rise of the AI "bubble" and subsequently be repurposed after the collapse. If we're just connecting data centres to the grid then I don't see how that is providing any new infrastructure whatsoever. On the other hand, if we're building lots of new power plants to power the data centres (and connecting them to the grid) but then at some point the data centres are shut down, we end up with a huge glut of unneeded power.

Furthermore, to elaborate on my point above: building new power plants in tandem with data centres that demand GWs of additional power does nothing to address the needs of the grid itself. The grid is not built to handle all that new power, and the consumer electricity demand is not there anyway.