[aeon_ai]

The author misses the deeper game: if you genuinely believe AGI is imminent, then current economic metrics become meaningless. Why optimize for revenue when the entire concept of scarcity-based economics dissolves?

The $560B for those who believe in AGI isn't about ROI using today's money-in/money-out formula; it's about power positioning for a post-capitalist transition.

Every major player knows that whoever controls the infrastructure once the threshold is crossed might control what comes after.

The "bubble" narrative assumes these actors are optimizing for quarterly returns rather than civilizational leverage.

[zmmmmm]

The problem with this is that it's entirely evidence free.

I could also say, if you truly believe nuclear fusion is imminent we will have infinite free energy and all current economic metrics are meaningless. But there is no nuclear fusion bubble. Why not? Because people don't believe nuclear fusion is imminent. But for some reason they do believe AGI is imminent - despite there being no actual evidence of that. There is probably less understanding of what is needed to close the gap to true AGI than there is to close the gap to make nuclear fusion possible.

The only distinction here is what people are willing to "believe" based on pure conjecture - which is why I class it as a true bubble.

[teeray]

> The only distinction here is what people are willing to "believe" based on pure conjecture

It’s a religion. Repent now, the AGI is coming.

[giantg2]

"The problem with this is that it's entirely evidence free."

That's more for less true for predicting any new financial trend.

If AI is making devs 20-30% more efficient, then you could invest in tech stocks if you think they can ship as much with lower overhead. The financial metrics look better if that's true.

[chromanoid]

I think the author addresses this, but dismisses it as fantasy, which constitues the bubble.