Archive link: https://archive.ph/xTfD2

The commentary on September 29 by Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s chief investment officer, Lisa Shalett, frames the current market boom as a “one-note narrative” almost entirely dependent on massive capital expenditures in generative AI, raising questions about its durability as economic and competitive risks start to mount. Shalett’s critique came squarely in the middle of some people in the AI field — and many financial commentators around Wall Street —fretting at market exuberance and beginning to talk openly about a bubble.

In an interview with Fortune, Shalett said she was “very concerned” about this theme in markets, saying her office had broadened from a belief that the market would only bid up seven or 10 stocks to roughly 40. “At the end of the day … this is not going to be pretty” if and when the generative AI capital expenditure story falters, she said.

What’s more than a little concerning to Shalett is that one company alone, Nvidia—the most valuable company in the history of the world, with an over $4.5 trillion market cap—is at the center of a significant number of these deals. In September alone, Nvidia invested $100 billion in OpenAI in a massive deal, just days after pledging $5 billion to Intel (the Intel agreement was tied to chips, not data-center infrastructure, per se).

Fortune‘s Jeremy Kahn reported in late September on significant concerns about “circular” financing, or Nvidia’s cash essentially being recycled throughout the AI industry. Shalett sees this as a major concern and a major sign that the business cycle is headed toward some kind of endgame. “The guy at the epicenter, Nvidia, is basically starting to do what all ultimate bad actors do in the final inning, which is extending financing, they’re buying their investors.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 77 points 11 months ago (22 children)

I can't wait for the bubble to burst. The hype is so annoying. Yes LLMs are cool but they're not nearly as revolutionary as some think. They will end up as just another tool software developers can choose to make use of when appropriate.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    we are so close to General AI bro trust me

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 11 months ago (16 children)

    This is exactly what people said about cars, phones, TVs, internet, social media. New technologies dont simply vanish and if you think AI will you havent been keeping track of its evolution at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 15 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    You are blinded by survivorship bias. The technologies you name have persisted because they have turned out useful over time. Many others have not. Nobody uses any more radioactive toothpaste even if radioactive quackery was all the rage in 1920.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    LLMs are a timesaver. I have seen the uptake where I work (monitoring via DLP) as a tool, they are useful and the word amongst staff is spreading, so I doubt the tech is going away, even if it's just reduced to spitting out letters and simple power shell scripts.

    Now if it can be offered at a sustainable, profitable price (the current subscription cost per seat is ridiculous). That's another question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    That's the second problem with AI. At the moment, the industry is highly subsidized by billions of investment money. In the long run, prices will have to cover the cost and revenue expectation of investors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    And no one is willing to pay what it will actually cost. It is unbelievably expensive for results that are mediocre and absolutely useless for critical applications due to the error rate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    My main exposure to AI at the moment are our immigrant juniors using ChatGPT and friends to deliver well-sounded texts. pre-LLMs they struggled to deliver intelligible texts, we would give feedback and their language skills would improve. Nowadays they get no feedback and do not improve. Well, they could use ChatGPT to get feedback on texts they produced on their own rather than just to produce texts – but who in their right mind would increase their own workload?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    And did radioactive toothpast have hundreds of billions in investments and a million jobs dedicated to it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 11 months ago*

    The Dutch Tulip Mania of 1634-1637 certainly had a lot of investments in prices corrected for inflation, and a lot of people working at growing tulips.

    The funny thing is that by now, people do know exactly that AI is in a mega-bubble, but still think that they can grasp into that mixture of fire, whirling glass shards, and falling knives, and make a gain from the bubble.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    You're right. Tech doesn't vanish. But it becomes oversaturated constantly. The video game crash of 1983, the dot com bubble, blockchain, NFTs, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago

    Yes, usually growth is not infinite and sometimes theres crashes, but if the trend continues after a crash and far surpasses the level before, I dont call that a bubble. Look at bitcoin. It crashed a few times and every time it rises back to twice its peak. You cant call video games a bubble either, theyre more popular than ever. There are fluctuations in the market, which is perfectly normal for any investment thats not stable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    It's also what they said about Tamagochis and Furbies, so there's that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    I agree that tamagotchies were not the technical break-through of artificial life as they were sold at the time.

    On a more humourous note 😉: Who needs moaning, hungry, attention-starved tamagotchies when we all have moaning, battery-hungry, and attention-starved smartphones? Do you leave your little smart phone alone at home YOU MONSTER?

  • source
  • parent