If I had to shoot from the hip and guess: 30% of the current crop of AI startups are going to make it at best. Frankly that feels insanely generous but I’ll give them more credit than I think they deserve re: ideas and actual staying power.

Many will crash in rapid succession. There isn’t enough room for all these same-y companies.

I thought a 10% success rate was the baseline for startups -- which would make your 30% estimate generous indeed.

I'm admittedly hedging my bets in both directions a bit since really none of us know anything about what's going to happen lol

Why do you say that there is no bubble? Do you feel the investment that went in to this justifies the results and returns?

The AI bubble is a thing but so was the dot com bubble. It doesn't mean the technology is useless.

Historically speaking, people saying "history won't repeat this time, it's different" have a pretty bad track record. Do we remember what the definition of "insanity" is?

This seems different to me than other hype bubbles because “the human intelligence/magical worker replacement machine isn’t in that guy’s box or the other guy’s box or even the last version of my box but it surely is in this box now that I have here for you for a price...” is just about infinitely repackageble and resellable to an infinite (?) contingent of old gullible men with access to functionally infinite money. Not sure if that’s lack of imagination or education on my part or what.

“The .com economy is a new business paradigm: the rules have changed.”

- pioneers in wrongness 25 years ago. Oft copied, but never vindicated.

That's a weird example, because they were vindicated. The .com economy really did massively change the way business is done. They just (fatally, for most of the companies) overestimated how quickly the change would happen.

Having a bubble doesn’t mean the industry entirely implodes and goes away forever or otherwise doesn’t change things. It’s often a phase.

I think a bubble implies that the industry was overvalued compared to its long term fundamental value.

Having a dip and then a return to growth and exceeding the previous peak size isn't exactly a bubble. The internet and tech sector has grown to dominate the global economy. What happened was more of a cyclical correction, or a dip and rebound.

>Having a dip and then a return to growth and exceeding the previous peak size isn't exactly a bubble.

That's exactly what a bubble is. You blow too fast and you get nothing but soap. You blow slow, controlled breaths balancing speed and accuracy and you get a big, sustainable bubble.

No one's saying you can't blow a new bubble, just that this current one isn't long for this world. It's just that the way investments work is that the first bubble popping will scare off a lot of the biggest investors who just want a quick turnaround.

A bubble's when values inflate well beyond intrinsic valuations.

You can have a crash without this having happened.

Yes, indeed. Thought I'd change "intrinsic valuations" to "rapid change in valuations".

If you deflate over time slowly (or simply slow growth expectations) you can prevent a pop. That doesn't tend to be what historically happens, though.

> to "rapid change in valuations".

Yes. This seems to be what you're doing-- carrying the metaphor too far. I believe the common use relates the asset prices to intrinsic or fundamental values.