I would also agree that the impact of AI, even in the best case scenario, will play out over years because it will take time to integrate even perfect AI into o

I would also agree that the impact of AI, even in the best case scenario, will play out over years because it will take time to integrate even perfect AI into our processes. A world running on COBOL is not going to spin on a dime and run on AI, and I don't mean that sarcastically at all. That the world still runs on COBOL is an important data point in how quickly we can move things. In fact I consider this rather obvious and borderline self-evident to a careful thinker. However, the AI stocks are priced as if they are going to reap all the benefits, if not today, then perhaps even about a month or two ago. They are priced as if the current incumbents are the inevitable inheritors of all the promises, because the AI world is going to move so quickly to reap all this supposed value that there isn't even time for other companies to move in and displace nVidia. They are priced as if that productivity curve has already started to shoot up and it's just the beginning. If the curve isn't even budging, then the AI world is going to need to be seriously, seriously repriced. If AI is going to change the world, but in five years rather than five months, and gradually rather than all at once, then the time value of money implies that the value to be captured in today-dollars is much, much smaller. In five years, nVidia's AI may be getting stomped by a startup that hasn't even been founded yet; I'd give it low odds, but meaningfully non-zero odds. Whether I'm an "AI skeptic", I don't know. But I absolutely am an AI bubble skeptic. I haven't seen any evidence that the value creation is emerging at anything like the rate the bubble pricing implies. It'll probably arrive, but a lot more gradually than the market is currently believing.