The problem is twofold. One, even a monopoly AI provider wouldn't have pricing power against its suppliers. Its suppliers are energy, semiconductors, and real estate. Semiconductors maybe they could get some leverage on but energy and real estate have plenty of other buyers. Two, there's still no evidence of a runaway scenario (ie a small lead turns into a big lead over time) and there's still no evidence that there's some resource that you can deny everyone else that they can't build your product also. You can't hoard energy, compute, memory, data, human talent, or customers.

The net effect is that the most likely scenario is if one big lab fails, they will likely all fail. Their revenues are all correlated.

To go to your dotcom comparison, the winner will be the ones picking through the assets that were written down by orders of magnitude and trying new products with the technology until one sticks to the wall. But I don't know if a dramatic crash is guaranteed either.

> The problem is twofold. One, even a monopoly AI provider wouldn't have pricing power against its suppliers. Its suppliers are energy, semiconductors, and real estate. Semiconductors maybe they could get some leverage on but energy and real estate have plenty of other buyers.

Concerning the leverage on energy and real estate: don't forget that the AI companies have quite a lot of choice where to build their data centers. So AI companies have lots of opportunities to play several parties off against each other (in particular also for real estate and energy).

"but it can stay there so long as the balance sheet doesn't deteriorate."

Uhm, what? LOL.

People dont value firms based on balance sheets fella. Have you taken a basic valuation class?

Tesla is a nice stock for traders - they like the volatility. Nobody holds Tesla as stock for investing. If you were to truly value it on an intrinsic value basis you'd have to bring in failure risk.