If anything, the GPUs are the steel that the bridge is made of. Each beam can be replaced, but if too many fail the bridge is impassible. A bridge with a 6 year lifespan for each beam is insane.
A less literal example is the conquistadors: their shovels were ships, horses, gunpowder, and steel. You can look at Spanish records from the Council of the Indies archive and any time treasures were discovered, the price of each skyrocketed to the point where only the wealthiest hidalgos and their patrons could afford to go on such adventures. I.e. the cost of a ship capable of a cross Atlantic voyage going from 100k pieces of eight to over a million in the span of only a few years (predating the treasure fleet inflation!)
Gold rushes create demand shocks, and anyone who is a supplier to that demand makes bank, regardless of whether its GPUs or “shovels”.
Today this is real estate. And it's something people keep forgetting when arguing that ${whatever breakthrough or just more competition} will make ${some good or service} cheaper for consumers: prices of other things elsewhere will raise to compensate and consume any average surplus. Money left on the table doesn't stay there for long.
In three years the current generation of GPUs will be 50% or more faster. In six years your talking more than 100% faster. For the same energy costs.
If you're running a GPU data center on six year old GPUs, your cost to operate per sellable unit of work is double the cost of a competitor.
But the point is — you don’t decommission profit generators just because a competitor has a lower cost structure. You run things until it is more profitable for you to decommission them.
H100 to GB200 saw a 50x increase in efficiency, for example.
Nvidia only advertises 25x efficiency. And that is their word...
Not necessarily. Depends entirely on the value of the transport that the bridge enables.