The dot-com bubble was still very much a bubble even though the value creation potential of the internet was incomprehensibly immense
But we’re not peak AI yet in my opinion. Companies aren’t IPOing at dizzying valuations with just an idea and a few html developers.
The vast majority of the AI boom is centered around companies that were successful before the boom. Apple. Nvidia. Microsoft. TSMC. Google.
There is a question of what is even a bubble. John Cochrane did a study that showed that the value of Amazon alone justified tech stock index valuation even in 1999.
What is a "bubble" even? For me it would be self-driven cycle of upward valuation whose fundamental value never justifies the market cap in it. An industry that rises in price just a few years later to meet and then far exceed the previous valuation does not need to be a bubble. A bubble is not just a high valuation that decreases in price sometime in the future.
I'm not convinced it will happen either. Venture Capital operates on a business model that is really hard for human intuition to deal with. 1/1000 success rates require so few break out successes that, yes -- they can fund an entire sector that will, with extremely high probability, fail and still be profitable.
For each Amazon that was undervalued there were 100s of companies with stupid ideas and no revenue.
You're free to redefine words, but then a lot of people will disagree with you.
As to Cochrane, even if the value of Amazon is argued to have justified the tech sector valuation, the fact was that the tech sector valuation was not all, or even mostly, concentrated in amazon, which is why it was a bubble.