I think you are describing quite accurately what happened in 2008, but I don't think the parallel is as strong as you claim it is.

  > Downstream party D has no visibility that the specific uncertainty emanating from party A upstream is 100% correlated with their own risks

I'm not aware of anything like that happening right now. Do you have any examples?

▲ mannanj 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I have an example. Greater than 90% of knowledge workers in tech now are required and expected to use AI. If they aren't, their job prospects are at high risk.

That's an exposure in the Party A-Party D frame is it not?

	▲	Dylan16807 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think so. If AI gets really expensive and/or proves to be useless, those requirements will go away. And it's not the knowledge workers paying for those tokens either.

▲ bagacrap 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

yeah it's approaching the point where all risk is that AI is a bubble, and everyone is exposed to it. It's not exactly hidden, and it's not easy to escape either.

▲ franktankbank an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"Hidden"