It's not a bubble yet. Many companies are already getting direct value out of AI. The Dot com burst happened because there were lots of unsustainable business models. I don't see them as equal.
There's always some "value" in a bubble, but how does one confirm that it's enough "direct value" that the investments are proportionate?
Enormous investments should go with enormous benefits, and by now a very-measurable portion of expected benefit should have arrived...
Source that immediately refutes this claim: https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/wp-content/uploa...
> Despite $30–40 billion in enterprise investment into GenAI, this report uncovers a surprising result in that 95% of organizations are getting zero return
Yes, it is.
> Many companies are already getting direct value out of AI.
Many companies were already getting direct value out of the internet during the dotcom bubble. Bubbles do not require the absence of real value being delivered by the bubble industry, they require levels of investment that are anticipate more real value that can be delivered on a time frame for existing valuations across the industry to be sustainable.
> The Dot com burst happened because there were lots of unsustainable business models.
There are lots of unsustainable business models in the AI space, too.
If you are looking at OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic (even though they, too, may be somewhat inflated), you are making the same mistake as looking at Google (ironically) during the dotcom bubble.
> I don't see them as equal.
They aren't equal, the AI bubble is much bigger.
Name one
But still that is the ultimate survivorship bias. Is each new customer that Cursor has bringing in more money than they cost Cursor?
https://medium.com/@Arakunrin/the-post-ipo-performance-of-y-...