Funny how you're echoing exactly what the author said in the article > This is not precisely 2008. GPUs are not houses; take-or-pay contracts are not mortgage-

Funny how you're echoing exactly what the author said in the article > This is not precisely 2008. GPUs are not houses; take-or-pay contracts are not mortgage-backed securities; OpenAI is not a subprime borrower in Stockton, and artificial intelligence may well be the most consequential technology of the century, which is more than anyone could ever say for a McMansion in the Inland Empire. > The bear case in this piece is not that artificial intelligence will fail, or that the demand is fake, or that the technology disappoints. It is narrower: that the financing structure can break before the demand arrives, because the obligations are fixed and front-loaded in commencement while the revenue is variable and back-loaded in adoption - and a fixed obligation meeting a lagging revenue stream is a solvency problem regardless of how transformative the underlying technology turns out to be. > The industry will spend the next eighteen months debating whether artificial intelligence is a bubble, which is the wrong question, asked at the wrong layer. The technology is real; so were the houses. The question is narrower: what happens when instruments underwritten at the teaser meet their reset schedule, and who is holding the paper when the obligations cannot be met as written Ie, if you spent $10M buying a house, it doesn't matter if it will be worth $100M in the future. If you're unable to make your mortgage payments in the interim, you're going to lose everything