That's the financial stakes here. That's why it's all or nothing. You're spending on a level that is only justified by the bonafide machine god being ushered into existence, not productivity or coding tools (and on relatively short time horizon). So if this doesn't change the near term trajectory of humanity to a parabolic move upward there is going to be a lot of economic pain. It's not just the spending, it's that the expectations for the returns to justify them are in a relatively short period of time.

▲

danans an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> if this doesn't change the near term trajectory of humanity to a parabolic move upward there is going to be a lot of economic pain

"trajectory of humanity to a parabolic move upward" is poorly defined here. Whether we are headed to a machine god ruled scenario or "just" incredibly powerful productivity tools, there will be a lot of economic pain for some (most) and a lot of economic gain for a few.

I've yet to a see an LLM/agent-based business plan in where scaling with an order fewer workers than before LLMs is not a central part of the value proposition.

	▲	byzantinegene an hour ago \| parent [-]
		such a business plan has not yet created economic value, being able to roll out features at rocket speed is not a huge determinant of a startup's success.

▲

klodolph 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What’s your reasoning for saying that the spending level requires that level of justification?

▲

mapping365 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think these large numbers are casually thrown about, but the real meaning is mind boggling. 1 trillion dollars is the entire US defense budget - aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, health care, salaries, stealth fighters ect. The hidden AI debt alone is more than that https://asia.nikkei.com/business/technology/five-us-tech-gia... just for five tech giants (not to mention all the other smaller players like neoclouds)

▲

awongh 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Most people mean this to say that 1 trillion is a lot of money, but it still comes back to what you believe AI is- in hindsight, does 1 trillion dollars to build the internet sound like a lot or a little? (That is, spending 1 year of USA's defense budget to get the entire internet)

It comes back to your perception of what AI is because to people who say AI is glorified auto-complete won't believe that the money is worth it.

The AGI-pilled true believers who say it will end all money and result in a post-scarcity world believe literally any amount is justifiable.

Most people, me included, land somewhere in the middle- it seems like AI is a humanity-level sea change in technology and how computers work and serve us. It seems plausible that a few trillion is a reasonable amount.

▲

matwood an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

1T is big in the absolute sense, but that's simply the scale these big tech companies operate at. Go back to 2024 or 2025 and you'll see as a group they are making a net income of $400B+. The scale at which these companies do anything is just staggering.

▲

anal_reactor 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good that you made the comparison with defense budget because it's becoming evident that AI is the new "nuclear bomb". First, if you have more advanced AI than your opponent, you just hack them and the war is over before it began. I'm simplifying obviously, but the point that AI is essential to modern warfare stands. Second, even during peacetime, you can use AI to directly influence what people think, what they do, etc. in the most literal sense of this expression. We already know that people outsource thinking, relationships, and cultural expression to LLMs, and even if that wasn't the case, you can use AI to deliver to each single person hand-crafted propaganda, not to mention the previously unimaginable opportunities to spy on people.

It would be strange if the race to wield this power wouldn't result in AI getting pumped to the moon, way beyond anything that seems reasonable.

	▲	mapping365 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That could all be true, but the problem is however powerful it is, it still needs to make money for the people who invested in it who are expecting a return. The stock valuations, the bonds yields - they don't care about the power of a nuclear bomb. They want to get paid. They expect to get paid. And if they don't get what they are expecting, there will be hell to pay in the economy. There's a probably a good reason the power of nuclear weapons isn't an ETF I could buy into.

▲

refurb an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

By that measure it doesn’t sound like that much.

You’re talking about about an amount that is a 13% of the total US government spending, of which is 20% of the entire US GDP.

I’m not saying it’s insignificant but it’s only a few percent of the US GDP and it represents spending over several years.

▲

mapping365 an hour ago | parent [-]

I mean that's so far, it continues to grow exponentially larger with each quarter. The debt issuance for the first half looks to be crowding out US treasuries in the bond market - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-07-23/ai-deb... - that's an extremely large amount of debt. And it's still getting larger and larger each quarter.

▲

jaggederest 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah this is going to be north of 10 trillion by the end, I would wild-ass-guess. Inflation adjusted it's larger than the manhattan project, apollo program, works progress administration, hell, it's on par with the cold war era military buildout, or a baby world war.

▲

refurb 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I would question the idea that highly industry consolidated debt is competing with risk free debt issued by the US government. Those are two very different products.

And while the quarter by quarter growth may seem astonishing it very different saying “debt levels today are alarming” versus “if this trend continues debt levels will be alarming”

	▲	mapping365 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		So the disclosed balance sheet debt is 1.35 trillion and then the off-balance sheet debt is 1.65 trillion for a total of 3 trillion in AI debt for the 5 tech giants so far. It's multiplying every quarter and they've set investors expectations to be that this is never ending basically. But the tech giants aren't the only people spending themselves into massive debt, think of the CoreWeaves and the Nebius and the hundreds of other smaller companies. And the expectation is that there will be a near term return on all this with a healthy profit. Those five tech giants are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the amount of debt.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]