There’s another factor that may soon hit A.I. hard. After the hype and bubble of investment, will come the crash. Just like the Dot.com crsh crash of 2000 any new technology tends to be overhyped over invested to try to find the next “APPLE”, GOOGLE or MICROSOFT in this new technology and then the bubble pops because it was mostly based on hot air.
The LA Times today had this interesting perspective about a looming/pending AI crash
PS I am now starting to refer to AI as NLI (Natural Language Interface ) instead of AI because I see that paradigm shift as more important and long lasting.
I think there are a couple of issues worth pointing out. First is that LLMs are just that... language models. AI as a whole is bigger than just chatbots. It’s the backend intelligence driving markets, logistics, production, surveillance, defense systems, and a lot more. Reducing AI to whether GPT-5 flopped or not misses how much of it is already embedded in critical infrastructure.
Second, I see why people reach for the dot-com bubble analogy, but to me it looks a lot more like the space race. There were crashes, tragedies, and huge setbacks in the 1960s, but the trajectory was inevitable because the stakes were too high. That’s what we’re seeing now, except instead of the USSR and the US racing to the moon, it’s the US, China, Russia, and others racing toward superintelligence.
The LA Times article zooms in on Sam Altman’s big disappointment, but the bigger picture is that other LLMs are moving forward successfully, fore example Claude Opus 4.1, Gemini, plus the Chinese labs that aren’t even in the Western press most of the time. Just because OpenAI stumbled doesn’t mean the whole field is stalling.
And on the cost side. Yes, it looks overwhelming for US companies chasing profits, but that’s less true for China, which can subsidize its firms for strategic reasons. That’s what makes it feel like a geopolitical race, not a hype cycle.
I think that in the west investors are keen to see success and Altman let them down. He knows this, and that is what the media is focused on at the moment.
There’s another factor that may soon hit A.I. hard. After the hype and bubble of investment, will come the crash. Just like the Dot.com crsh crash of 2000 any new technology tends to be overhyped over invested to try to find the next “APPLE”, GOOGLE or MICROSOFT in this new technology and then the bubble pops because it was mostly based on hot air.
The LA Times today had this interesting perspective about a looming/pending AI crash
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-08-20/say-farewell-to-the-ai-bubble-and-get-ready-for-the-crash
PS I am now starting to refer to AI as NLI (Natural Language Interface ) instead of AI because I see that paradigm shift as more important and long lasting.
I think there are a couple of issues worth pointing out. First is that LLMs are just that... language models. AI as a whole is bigger than just chatbots. It’s the backend intelligence driving markets, logistics, production, surveillance, defense systems, and a lot more. Reducing AI to whether GPT-5 flopped or not misses how much of it is already embedded in critical infrastructure.
Second, I see why people reach for the dot-com bubble analogy, but to me it looks a lot more like the space race. There were crashes, tragedies, and huge setbacks in the 1960s, but the trajectory was inevitable because the stakes were too high. That’s what we’re seeing now, except instead of the USSR and the US racing to the moon, it’s the US, China, Russia, and others racing toward superintelligence.
The LA Times article zooms in on Sam Altman’s big disappointment, but the bigger picture is that other LLMs are moving forward successfully, fore example Claude Opus 4.1, Gemini, plus the Chinese labs that aren’t even in the Western press most of the time. Just because OpenAI stumbled doesn’t mean the whole field is stalling.
And on the cost side. Yes, it looks overwhelming for US companies chasing profits, but that’s less true for China, which can subsidize its firms for strategic reasons. That’s what makes it feel like a geopolitical race, not a hype cycle.
I think that in the west investors are keen to see success and Altman let them down. He knows this, and that is what the media is focused on at the moment.