This journalist, Ed Zitron, is very skeptical of AI and his arguments border on polemic. But I find his perspective interesting - essentially, that very few players in the AI space are able to figure out a profitable business model:
A lot of "AI" investments in public markets were basically a bundle of fabless players (Nvidia), data center adjacent players (Broadcom), and some applications, whereas private/VC investment was bifurcated between foundational model players (OpenAI, Anthropic), application or AIOps oriented players (ScaleAI, Harness, etc), and rebranded hardware vendors (Cerebras, CoreWeave, Groq, Lambda).
If by AI he means foundational model companies, then I absolutely agree that there is a need to be bearish about their valuations, because they can constantly be outcompeted by domain specific or specialized models.
Furthermore, a lot of the recent "AI" IPO hype are functionally fabless hardware companies like CoreWeave or Cerebras who were previously riding high because of the previous boom in semiconductor and chip investments.
I've been fairly open about this opinion at my day job.
I personally think there is more risk on the commodity compute side because the projected multiples for a Cerebras or CoreWeave are imo unrealistic in such a margins driven market, and there was a DC funding boom that has started lagging over the past couple months, as there appears to be a bit of an overcapacity issue in compute - imo very similar to that in the mid-2000s with servers and networking players like Dell, EMC, Cisco, etc.
That said, I have a similar opinion about foundational model companies as well.
Sort of surprised this hasn't been taken down, actually.