> Can you make a falsifiable prediction without moving goal posts and ambiguous timelines?
I find this demand dishonest. The inherent nature of bubbles is that you cant predict when they pop. The more they grow, the more damage they cause, but it is impossible to guess what exactly triggers the pop.
So yes, ambiguous timeline is actually correct way to phrase things. Anything else is pure gambling.
I'm a SWE and use AI all day every day. I also acknowledged the very real rollout of AI in other facets of the economy besides SWE. But a market correction is inevitable.
We are in the wild west of AI. No one truly has agentic workflows "down pat" yet. We have no idea which AI workflows, pipelines, architectures, and platforms are going to stick around long term. For all we know a kid in high school can be the one who comes up with a SWE workflow that FAANGs and the rest of the tech sector ends up adopting.
Recent numbers from Google suggest that Ed Zitron might very well be wrong about the data center build-out, which is the single biggest crux of his argument. But even if he's wrong on that, he'll still get his 15 minutes of "see I told you so" (while still being wrong) because even if the data center rollout doesn't implode from assets depreciating too quickly, a correction will still need to happen on the dirt end of the shovels. Even if you don't have too many shovels (which Ed thinks we do), you still need to be digging in the correct patch of ground to strike a gold vein. There's going to be winners and losers in this thing, and the market correction will happen once the biggest investors and hedge funds have correctly identified who the losers are.
What I can't do is provide a timeline. I don't claim to be a prophet. However, if Ed is correct on the hardware buildout, the sheeit will hit the fan once amortization schedules hit critical mass. Otherwise it will be whenever the big money learns who the winners and losers are on the implementation rollout. That can happen at any time. It's perfectly normal and is not a doomsday clock. That's why it's called a market *correction*.
I find this demand dishonest. The inherent nature of bubbles is that you cant predict when they pop. The more they grow, the more damage they cause, but it is impossible to guess what exactly triggers the pop.
So yes, ambiguous timeline is actually correct way to phrase things. Anything else is pure gambling.