After the AI Crash

Everything I read about the AI industry leads me to think there will be an AI crash. Consider the following:

  • Unsustainable Capital Expenses. It’s hard to imagine there can ever be enough revenue to pay for the huge capital investments in data centers and electronics. Several analysts have estimated that it will take $2 trillion a year in revenue to pay for the infrastructure that has already been built, and there are no believable forecasts for generating even half that much revenue. The capital needs of the industry are relentless since expensive AI data center electronics have to be replaced within five years, or less.
  • Circular Revenues. A small handful of tech firms, chip manufacturers, and AI companies are propping each other up by investing and buying from each other. If one stumbles, they might all fall.
  • Huge Debt. Much of the industry is being funded through debt, which has to eventually be repaid, instead of through equity.
  • Public Pushback. Local governments and people are increasingly pushing back hard against the creation of new data centers. Most new technologies have been welcomed by the public with open arms.
  • Increasing Corporate Skepticism. The news is full of stories of corporations that are throttling the employee use of AI since the costs to use the software are a lot higher than expected. There are many companies having second thoughts about replacing people with AI. The AI industry needs complete corporate buy-in to have any chance of succeeding, and large companies are generally still on the sidelines.
  • Diseconomies of Scale. Every new technology I can think of thrived, in part, due to economies of scale, where the larger the industry grew, the more efficient it got. AI is going in the opposite direction, where every new AI model consumes more resources than its predecessors. This may turn out to be the fatal flaw – the bigger the industry gets, the more its operating costs increase.
  • Institutional Warnings. Moody’s recently warned that high AI infrastructure spending threatens the credit of AI companies and their large tech partners. I read recently that the number one question being fielded by investment advisors is people asking how to divest from AI.

I don’t have a crystal ball to foresee the nature of the crash. It could be a total crash like the 2000 tech crash, where four out of five tech startups disappeared practically overnight. I lived in the DC area at the time, and I will never forget the rows of abandoned CLEC headquarters buildings in Northern Virginia. A crash could be milder, where a few firms disappear, with the outlooks for the survivors greatly diminished, and industry expectations are reset to something more realistic.

The reason I wrote the blog is to speculate about what happens after an AI crash. I foresee some of the following consequences of an AI crash.

  • An article in the Economist said a total crash would wipe out $20 trillion in U.S. wealth. That means wiping out the wealth of the investors in the new technology, along with a huge hit on the stock market.
  • Data center construction would stop dead, and unfinished projects would collapse. Communities that contributed to the costs of bringing data centers will end up eating those investments.
  • There will be stranded investments by electric utilities and water companies that built new infrastructure to support data centers. They won’t eat these losses, though, which will all be passed on to ratepayers in the form of higher electric and water rates.
  • A lot of vendors will be in big trouble. Companies that pivoted to supporting data center electronics, like Micron, might fold. But a lot of other vendors also would take a big hit. For example, Corning announced investments in three new fiber factories just to support data centers.
  • There have been some huge investments by carriers in middle-mile fiber to support data centers. The companies that made these investments won’t see the expected revenues.

The most interesting thing about a major crash is that it can do as much long-term good as it does short-term harm. I want to again use the analogy from the tech crash. I know of at least a half dozen CLECs that had business plans to capture 30% of the voice and data market in Atlanta. The crash cleaned them all out of the market, but without the crash they would have all failed more slowly. The tech crash brought a sense of reality to the telecom market, which still experienced phenomenal long-term growth after the original tech companies had died.

I don’t think there is any chance of AI failing as a technology. But that doesn’t mean the early developers are the ones who will see the ultimate success. Most, and maybe all of today’s players might be gone. A crash will bring financial constraints, which would mean that AI companies will have to figure out efficiency and economies of scale. If AI is ever going to be a viable technology, it has to control costs and be able to pay for itself. It’s hard to foresee today’s companies somehow reaching that point without some kind of market reset.

7 thoughts on “After the AI Crash

  1. One of the unintended side effects of this entire thing is telecom companies that now cannot build local infrastructure to support increasing demand on their FTTH networks. In our area data center bans have lumped in containers and hardened huts, making it harder to regen or upgrade switching and routing if existing facilities are already full. This is just one example, it certainly may extend to things like enterprise server rooms, cell site hut upgrades, etc.

  2. I don’t see a big AI crash for a few reasons. First AI has been positioned as a national security concern, the US government wont let it fail , and “allow” China the lead, so all sorts of public monies will be used to shore up any bubble popping. Second, AI is already used all over the place, its replacing legacy search for most queries, its used by virtually all students in all subject, and businesses while still trying to figure it out the best use cases, its just a matter of time, before they run their white collar offices with skeleton staffs, while being more productive. While I don’t see a crash, I do see a correction, mostly related to an impending economic crash do to current inflationary pressures and geopolitical strie.

  3. Spot-on analysis, Doug. The 2000 tech crash analogy is perfect.

    The fatal flaw here is the rapid hardware depreciation. Today’s hyper-expensive GPU clusters are obsolete in just 3 to 5 years. You simply can’t amortize $2 trillion in debt on hardware that expires that fast, especially when enterprise adoption is already stalling over high software costs.
    Add in the stranded infrastructure for power and water utilities and the bubble becomes undeniable.

    AI technology is here to stay and advance, but a market reset is exactly what’s needed to force some actual sanity back into the industry’s unit economics.

  4. I see multiple risks of bubble here.

    one is that our current AI can be described as nothing other than brute force. It’s pushing huge amounts of power to produce relatively low output. I suspect there will be many breakthroughs that dramatically reduce the power consumption in the coming few years that will utterly obsolete the current tech. That’s bubble 1.

    secondly, we’re nearing a point where enterprises can self-host, it’s mostly a supply chain issue at this point. These huge spends are what props up the entire ‘free AI chatbot’ industry and that can be wiped out overnight with in-house hardware. That’s bubble 2.

    Distilled/open source models are a fundamental threat to the industry. When an open source model is similar to Fable 5 in ‘smarts’ and you can do multi-agent tasks, you can scale out. And if that ‘just’ takes a ~5090 and 1.5TB of RAM, that cost becomes practical for even smaller businesses. So that is basically bubble 3.

    There’s incentive for the big players today to withhold updated tech to preserve profits. Nvidia may not be willing to introduce desktop hardware that can run today’s frontier models because that would cut deep into the ‘AI cloud’. But Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, ARM, Apple, and a slew of RISC vendors and also a number of Chinese firms all ‘know’ the basic formula and are all working on building CPUs with AI logic or NPUs etc to compete with Nvidia. So bubble 4 is essentially commoditization of the high end NPU. Many people don’t actually need dramatically more NPU/GPU performance, they just need RAM. Think about how disruptive a Mac Mini M6 with 1.5TB of RAM would be. No where near as fast as Nvidia’s offerings but the ability to run the models would be exceptionally disruptive.

  5. Pingback: What Comes After The AI Frenzy: A Market Reset Looms - AWNews

Leave a Reply