I’m not sure I understand these references. The banks were too big to fail specifically because they were banks involved with the finances of every major industry and government, not simply because their (arguably specious) valuations, or even market caps, had a ton of zeroes on them. What’s the argument for OpenAI being so inherently critical and interweaved with the rest of the economy that it can’t be allowed to fail? What’s the argument for how such a bailout would result in greater economic outcomes? The banks that got bailed out continued lending and immediately resumed profitable business, how will the AI companies offer value towards such a proposition?
boccaff 32 minutes ago [-]
The value of AI and related companies on retirement funds
aurelius_v 43 minutes ago [-]
Who do you think the private credit lenders are exactly?
datakan 51 minutes ago [-]
“National security! We can’t let China win the AI race!” Or some BS
anon373839 34 minutes ago [-]
That's obviously how the AI labs are trying to position themselves. But slop generators are not integral to anything. They most definitely should be left to fail, and if the market so dictates, the hundreds of billions invested should go to zero.
surgical_fire 25 minutes ago [-]
The thing about bailing OpenAI or Anthropic is that they would need a new bailout every few months.
lbrito 2 hours ago [-]
High growth scenario and medium growth scenario (Graph 2). I feel like an idiot asking - aren't we missing some, or at least one, scenario? Is "medium growth" for the next 4 years really the worst people can think of?
oh_my_goodness 2 hours ago [-]
Financial news tends to be written for people who can fill in a lot of blanks themselves.
mohammedmsgm 2 hours ago [-]
Can't agree more, tech and finance bros have a lot in similar except when it comes to business.
anvuong 2 hours ago [-]
Essentially yes? The stock market operates entirely on the assumption that the lines will keep going up. As soon as they flatten the whole thing collapses onto itself.
Swizec 2 hours ago [-]
> Is "medium growth" for the next 4 years really the worst people can think of?
At this point anything less than "medium growth" will crash the economy. We'll have bigger problems if that happens (think 2000 or 2008)
free_bip 2 hours ago [-]
Right... So since it's a big problem, shouldn't we at least be considering it as a possibility so that we can minimize the impact?
1 hours ago [-]
therobots927 40 minutes ago [-]
No no no… that’s unecessary. Because it won’t happen.
33 minutes ago [-]
jgalt212 2 hours ago [-]
Hmm. Perhaps too similar to pre-GFC when the ratings agencies' models never accounted for scenarios where home prices went down at the national level.
GlacierFox 2 hours ago [-]
Can't you see how much money is being pumped into this lunacy? Of course it's going to succeed. Graphs for failire are such a bummer too and are bad for the economy...
desktopentree 2 hours ago [-]
if growth doesn't materialize, then the infrastructure build out plays out exactly like the dot com bubble. the biggest difference this time around is the earnings. if those fall, the rest crubmles.
oh_my_goodness 1 hours ago [-]
How are the earnings different this time? Can you add any color to that?
amazingamazing 1 hours ago [-]
Usefulness aside, I see little evidence AI is making money (profit, not revenue) for any firm whose profit doesn't come from the AI itself or the infrastructure, including supply chain. I'd love to hear a counterexample. One such example would be of a hypothetical company that does translations for payment, and with AI they now are making more profit because they use AI to do the translation rather than pay a translator.
Duolingo is such a company you would expect AI to help a lot. Surely AI could allow it to cut costs substantially. And yet, in the past year its stock is down 70% and in Q1 2026 profit has not seemed to increase compared to Q4 2025. In fact, other than Q3 of last year which had some tax shenanigans, their profit is relatively flat. Not a great look given that AI is highly disruptive to their product.
---
AI is actually insidious. Suppose you're in a competitive industry like Costco making 3% (net profit) margin. Suppose the average costco employee makes 60K. Then you come in and think it would be great to have an AI agent lets every employee ask questions of inventory to help customers. Surely if employees could use AI that could somehow make more money for Costco. Hypothetically let's say this ends up costing about the same as the basic subscription in terms of tokens. $20/employee/month Can't be that bad right?
$240 ÷ 0.03 = $8,000 (in other words, generate over 10% of their own salary in marginal additional net profit every year). Is Costco really going to generate 8K more per employee? Nope. And yet, firms like Costco who choose AI effectively just lower their own profit margins.
rainprincess 31 minutes ago [-]
I think this is a great point.
I want to add context for Duolingo because I think it's confounded by cultural conversation. Duolingo in some Q1 earnings call stated it was going to go AI-native. They were going to switch from contractors to AI. This led to a huge PR crisis, especially on TikTok, where they used to have a big online presence and GenZ influence. I'm not sure if they ever recovered the image they had after that.
They tried, and they got pushback from their consumer base.
Your Costco example makes a lot of sense to me. Right now at my company we are spending hundreds and thousands per employee, but it's not like everyone has an idea that is meant to be integrated into product. So everyone's just making more vaporware.
I do think this is the year the numbers and projections will start coming down to the ground. We can already see this with the fact that the leaders at the frontier labs have stopped talking about AGI and have started talking about token costs and just direct comparisons. It's no longer pie in the sky.
rubyfan 1 hours ago [-]
Translator services usually get paid because they offer an accreditation or certification that the humans doing the translation are trained and are not randos / computers. I could imagine these services becoming marginally more efficient but no dramatically improving profits.
blobbers 1 hours ago [-]
At least if the datacenters usage crashes, we'll have cheap power from all the infra that got built.
rogerrogerr 1 hours ago [-]
No, we won't - there's significant capex on all that infra that will have to be paid down, and we won't have datacenters to help pay for it.
steveBK123 50 minutes ago [-]
+GPUs have significantly shorter useful life spans than say, all the dark fiber laid in the 90s
dd8601fn 57 minutes ago [-]
Call me overly cynical, but I’m willing to bet we’re already footing the bill in more than a few ways.
mattas 1 hours ago [-]
Thinking out loud, is productivity the ultimate macro benefit of AI? Should we expect macro AI investment to be a leading indicator of macro productivity gains?
For example, did macro investment in factory automation predict future productivity gains?
ChrisArchitect 3 hours ago [-]
(January 2026)
mrcwinn 1 hours ago [-]
I’d rather see capital invested rather than being hoarded on a corporate balance sheet with minimal utility.
Good to see GDP growing.
doctorwho42 1 hours ago [-]
We don't have to spend it on hardware with such short use-life to spend down those dragon hoards...
The amount of money we are talking about could have given the entire US high speed commuter rail.
redwood 2 hours ago [-]
I've seen other reports that suggest the level of investment for eclipses the internet buid out in 2000 and the railroad boom more than a century earlier. I wonder if they use different ways of landing on these wildly different assessments
cperciva 2 hours ago [-]
Yes. In inflation adjusted dollars spending on AI dwarfs previous "megaprojects". But as a fraction of GDP it's fairly modest -- comparable to the Apollo Project.
It's a sign of how much the economy has grown that under "1% of GDP for a few years" now is far bigger than "over 10% of GDP for a few decades" was in the late 1800s.
https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2026e.htm
At this point anything less than "medium growth" will crash the economy. We'll have bigger problems if that happens (think 2000 or 2008)
Duolingo is such a company you would expect AI to help a lot. Surely AI could allow it to cut costs substantially. And yet, in the past year its stock is down 70% and in Q1 2026 profit has not seemed to increase compared to Q4 2025. In fact, other than Q3 of last year which had some tax shenanigans, their profit is relatively flat. Not a great look given that AI is highly disruptive to their product.
---
AI is actually insidious. Suppose you're in a competitive industry like Costco making 3% (net profit) margin. Suppose the average costco employee makes 60K. Then you come in and think it would be great to have an AI agent lets every employee ask questions of inventory to help customers. Surely if employees could use AI that could somehow make more money for Costco. Hypothetically let's say this ends up costing about the same as the basic subscription in terms of tokens. $20/employee/month Can't be that bad right?
$240 ÷ 0.03 = $8,000 (in other words, generate over 10% of their own salary in marginal additional net profit every year). Is Costco really going to generate 8K more per employee? Nope. And yet, firms like Costco who choose AI effectively just lower their own profit margins.
I want to add context for Duolingo because I think it's confounded by cultural conversation. Duolingo in some Q1 earnings call stated it was going to go AI-native. They were going to switch from contractors to AI. This led to a huge PR crisis, especially on TikTok, where they used to have a big online presence and GenZ influence. I'm not sure if they ever recovered the image they had after that.
They tried, and they got pushback from their consumer base.
Your Costco example makes a lot of sense to me. Right now at my company we are spending hundreds and thousands per employee, but it's not like everyone has an idea that is meant to be integrated into product. So everyone's just making more vaporware.
I do think this is the year the numbers and projections will start coming down to the ground. We can already see this with the fact that the leaders at the frontier labs have stopped talking about AGI and have started talking about token costs and just direct comparisons. It's no longer pie in the sky.
For example, did macro investment in factory automation predict future productivity gains?
Good to see GDP growing.
The amount of money we are talking about could have given the entire US high speed commuter rail.
It's a sign of how much the economy has grown that under "1% of GDP for a few years" now is far bigger than "over 10% of GDP for a few decades" was in the late 1800s.