Now someone will respond about how it's just a stepping stone, and how the billions are justified by _something completely imaginary, and not invented yet, and maybe not ever_ e.g. agents.
The BigTech companies have been flush with liquidity and poured those hundreds of billions into the promising tech, and as result we got a wonderful new technology. There is not much need for those trillions in return - just look at liquidity positions of those companies, they are just fine. If those trillions come in eventually - even better.
Whilst you are correct that big tech cos do not need the return to survive, that's not how public markets work at all, and thus not how the incentives for those in charge of the companies work, and so making you actually wrong.
If investment in AI don't pan out (i do think that it will pan out, and those trillions will come) then those companies would just pour even more billions into whatever big thing/promise would come next. Rinse and repeat. Because some of those things do generate tremendous returns, and thus not playing that game is what really constitute true loss of money.
US right now is run by someone whose explicit promises, if actually implemented, have an obvious immedidiate 13-14% reduction in GDP — literally, never mind side effects, I'm not counting any businesses losing confidence in the idea that America is a place to invest, this is just direct impact.
DOGE + deportation by themselves do most of that percentage. The tariffs are a rounding error in comparison, but still bad on the kind of scale that gets normal politicians kicked out.
And yet, the markets are up.
I just want to know so that I can set a reminder and check back on your comment when the time arrives.
I think if they could find a way to make their software good, instead of bad, like it increasingly is, that would be a good use of that money.
Just as they were convinced after Covid that they needed to put hiring into overdrive.
Tech management has the collective IQ of a flock of sheep.
The whole thing is like bitcoin. There’s too many people that benefit from maintaining the collective illusion.
But I do think (and better understand) there is a failure to understand this at a higher abstraction. One part is simply "money is a proxy." This is an uncontestable fact. But one must ask "proxy for what?" and I think people only accept the naive simple answer. Unfortunately, this "is a proxy" concept is extremely generalization. Everything is an estimation, everything is an approximation, and most things are realistically intractable. We use sibling problems or similar problems to work with that are concrete, but there are always assumptions made and ignoring these can have disastrous consequences. Approximations are good (they're necessary even) but the more advanced a {topic,field,civilization,etc} gets, the more important it is to include higher order terms. Frankly, I don't think humans were built for that (though by some miracle we have the capacity to deal with it).
My partner and her dad are both economists, and one thing I've learned is that what many people think are "economics questions" are actually "business questions". I think a story from her dad makes this extremely clear. A government agency hired him to look at the cost benefit analysis of some stuff (like building a few hospitals and some other unambiguously beneficial institutions), and when he presented everyone was happy but had a final question "should we build them?" The answer? "That's not the role of an economist." The reason for this is because money can't actually be accurately attributed to these things. You can project monetary costs for construction, staffing, and bills, and you can make projections about how many people this will benefit, how it can reduce burdens elsewhere, and as well as make /some/ projections about potential cost savings. But you can't answer "should you." Because the weight of these values is not something that can be codified with any data. It is an importance determined by the public and more realistically their representatives. Very few times can you give a strong answer to a question like "should we build a new hospital" and essentially in only the extreme cases. I'll give another example. In my town there was an ER that was closed due to budget constraints. This ER was across the street to the local university, which students represent ~15% of the population. The next nearest ER? A 15 minute ambulance ride away and in the next town over. Did the city save money? Yes. Did the sister city's ER become even busier? Also yes. Did people lose access to medicine? Yes. Did people die? Also yes. Have economists put a price on human life? Also yes, but they are very clear that this is not a real life and a very naive assumptions[1]. It is helpful in the same way drawing random squiggles on a board can help a conversation. Any squiggles can really be drawn but the existence of _something_ helps create some point to start from.
[0] okay crypto bros, you're not wrong but low volatility is critical as well as some other aspects. Let's not get off topic
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/843310123/how-government-agen...