So Apollo believes in the thesis strongly enough to put billions of its own capital behind it. That sounds more like putting their money where their mouth is than a rebuttal.
Or they invested billions and it behooves them to generate justification for that investment at a time when everyone else is also building railroads, I mean data centers.
That's possible, but it's still an argument about Apollo's incentives rather than the thesis itself. By all means scrutinize anyone talking their book, but then show where the analysis is wrong. Otherwise we've moved from “Apollo is conflicted” to “Apollo must be wrong because it invested,” which is not much of an argument.