Like one can believe AI is speciation event technology eventually, but still given actual constraints, i.e. literally not enough investors for $$$, not enough hardware, not enough infra over xyz time horizon that these companies carrying stupendous debt and mathematically guaranteed stranded / deprecated compute infra is only digging themselves deeper vs future competitors. Sure AI can eventually capture 30% of GDP and knowledge worker's life time achievement is worth a few $100 of compute or a few pennies in thinking sand. But ultimate winners is probably going to be some future startup that pays pennies for thinking sand not incumbent who paid magnitude more and simply can't operate profitably due to balance sheet.
But Zitron isn't just blogging about how we're in a bubble. The assertions he makes are not minutiae, he basically continuously says that all the big SW firms are walking corpses. He's not having a rational conversation about the long term prospects for companies who invest in AI. There is a population of people who (rightfully) hate Google et al and want them to fail, and he just stokes their anger and frustration.
He doesn't add anything substantial, and (as the article indicates), even when he brings economic figures into the conversation, he's frequently wrong or misrepresents them.
You think we are in a bubble and that AI won't pay off for the companies investing in it.
While I'm sure there will be companies that invest badly the problem with your prediction is that the public hyperscalers (Google, Amazon and MS especially) are already seeing returns from their AI investments.
Look at the revenue growth - that is actual dollars coming through the door.
...huh? How is it "not rational"? He's saying that, based on the financial information available, it appears AI doesn't actually make very much money given the capital investments. To the point that there may never be AI ROI.
I'm not sure how much this or that "prediction" matters. His arguments would be just as strong without them, perhaps stronger because they wouldn't give folks like Luu something to snipe at.At this juncture, the analysis seems sound. AI costs an absolute fortune and appears to make very little money, comparatively.
Is that irrational? IDGI. One needs look no further than Oracle to see a company in dire financial straits.
Oracle had record revenue and profit in the most recent quarter.
That's quite a long way from "dire financial straits"
https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/07/01/oracle-outl...
It seems like the author of this piece hasn't.
He says:
> Stock market bettors aren't sure they like these odds. The company's stock is down more than 40 percent in the last month
The stock is down because of the increased interest load and the impact of that in the next couple of quarters, not because of doubts over Oracle's viability.
If there were significant doubts over its viability it would be down a lot more than 40%!
His point isn't that Google or Meta are doing well or have bright futures. Luu is generally critical of tech giant engineering and product culture. He's critical of Google in particular in this very article.
But the point of the article is that it's not enough to have directionally satisfying vibes. If you made concrete forward-looking predictions and they're catastrophically wrong, that matters. If you make backwards-looking predictions that were literally wrong the moment you published them, that matters even more.
"Did you read the article" is a frowned-upon response on HN. The better way to write that kind of response, per the guidelines, is "the article mentions that". So: the article mentions that.
> it's not enough
It's enough for some of us, like his broad predictions that work on timescale of business cycles seem directionally correct. Even considering we're dealing with fast hardware deprecation cycles it will take years to play out especially with investors and incumbents burning through accumulated war chest. Luu seem oblivious to notion that companies with trillions in market cap can certainly out manipulate fundamental short / medium term market sanity. Part of Zitron's rant I find similarly compelling is the danger of dismissing directionally "satisfying" vibes because $$$ can capture reporting distort reality, which is only going to lead to bigger/more painful correction because directionally "correct" was dismissed as merely directionally "satisfying."
If my cousin kept ranting about my other cousin was going to go bankrupt and fail and it was 3 years later and their income was up 2x I think I’d stop listening.
I worked at Google from 2016 to 2022 and agree with everything he says and you say, modulo the companies who are 2-3x on revenue and profits are going to 0. I worry that both of you have found a real problem but misattributed it, and insisting emotional arguments are the same as rational prevents you from participating in real fixes (ex. metas problem isn’t AI, it’s that they have a god-king CEO who cannot be deposed and monopoly profits. Imagine a twin of you and Zitron but instead of AI it’s 2020-era VR. If they weren’t focused on how their emotional argument was fine, they’d be your compatriots in noticing something’s off in Big Tech. Instead, we don’t hear about them because that battle was fought and lost years ago, and they lost credibility due to imagining Meta was going to 0)
He is not, though. He precisely points to imprecise predictions, decontextualize them so he misses the point of the ones this thread is focused on, analyzes them with even less precise rationales that don't really rebut the prediction, and points suggestively (enough that you seem to have got that suggestion) that this rebuttal destroys the main prediction of every Zitron piece, while saying otherwise several times at the end of the rationale.
Zitron's predictions aren't all very good, but this article isn't either.
- They've all been compelled to build the same horribly expensive AI infra, to serve similar models that have no ability to lock-in customers
- Google Search has to compete with LLMs
- Meta hasn't demonstrated a credible argument on how they're planning to use AI. AI 'friends' would kill their business model. Their saving grace ironically is that people absolutely hate interacting with AIs. Same goes for other AI assistants.
- Hyperscalers have to compete for the same hardware as AI companies, driving their costs up
- AI turned out to be excellent at both porting software to more optimized stacks and deleting the 'prestige' of building these ultra-inefficient microservice containerized stuff. I haven't read a single article about somebody bragging about this stuff. When it comes to tech (which is not AI), usually its about Zig, Rust and going native.
- So if customers really start feeling the heat of rising costs, they have a realistic path of optimizing their compute usage by using AI to rewrite the worst-offending components. I think one of the few things in which AI has demonstrated measurable economic value is rewriting software in Rust to be more efficient
No. Net income is up quite a bit and profit margins maintained at Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Amazon. Meta net income is flat, but they are maintaining profit margins.
We'll see when they go public. Until then all these press releases are strategic messaging...
Of course not, but private investors get to see their books and investors are lining up to invest.
Emphasis added, since having a horribly expensive AI infra allows offering enterprise contracts, which is a form of lock-in and has been pretty lucrative for GCP/Azure/AWS.
If you take this to be his argument, then dan’s numbers are more consistent ed’s claim.
This is about as far from "tweaking their numbers" as you can get. It's a standard way infrastructure-heavy industries structure their investments and people would be asking questions if they didn't do this!
> hyperscalers opted to lengthen the depreciation timelines of their GPUs.
Yes and so they should! GPU depreciation timelines used to be 3 years!!
Google is famously still running 10 year old TPUs at 100% utilization, and 10 year old H100s are worth more now on the second hand market than they were when they were bought.
H100 spot prices have only dropped from $5 in May 24 to $3.20 now despite the release of the B200: https://semianalysis.com/gpu-pricing-index/
I'm pretty sure your claim about TPUs is similarly exaggerated, only a v1 (barely) qualifies and would have no utility today.
I think I was talking about A100 prices (which are still only 6 years old) and conflated a few different things there.
But A100 rental prices have climbed since 2024 (as far back as free account records show on https://semianalysis.com/gpu-pricing-index/).
Coreweave has announced they will keep A100s in use until 2029 which will be 9 years old then. I think that is where I got the 10yo number I had in my head.
On TPUs, I was also wrong on that, but less so. The quote is:
"seven and eight-year-old TPUs have 100 percent utilization."[1]
That was last year, so 8 or 9 year old TPUs now (assuming it is still true). Slight exaggeration there and I wish I'd looked it up before posting.
Despite this, my point (that 3 year depreciation schedules for GPUs was too short) remains correct I think.
[1] https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/google-says-tpu-d...
Well, it's enough to throw off standard EBITDA accounting and allow firms to report fictional earnings numbers. A standard story has been that companies have beat their Q3 estimates, only for their stocks to go down.