OpenAI and Nvidia announce partnership to deploy 10GW of Nvidia systems

You are confusing a popular, cover my ass legal statement with market truth. Past performances absolutely are indicative of future performance the vast majority of the time. They are of course not a guarantee. Inflated price is also not a particularly good indicator of future performance. A stock generally has a high valuation for a reason.

> What do you mean to think that AI would deliver to its prices as it seems to be either only hyper applicable in tech and all other AI tech is seemingly run at a loss and I can see no way how they might force normal users when there is so much foss ai to actually pay for ai...

Google, Microsoft and others run real world AI and I doubt it is at a loss. They make a ton on money on infrastructure. OpenAI operates at a loss, but it is a private company.

> I feel like that things might fall down quicker than we think as AI is kinda scrambling through, A lot of people felt disappointed in gpt-5. Reality is settling in, but is reality settling in those magnificient 7 stocks?

You consider yourself to be an average investor, yet you disagree with the market, thus you think you are smarter than the market. This is cognitive dissonance. The market is a public consensus of the future. Stocks that are more valued have a higher price, because people are willing to bet money they will do better in the future.

This is not toolip mania, or even the dotcom bubble. Bull markets are always caused by investment cycles. Before AI it was mobile and cloud. Those were not bubbles. Neither is AI, because the real world usage is undeniable. The user growth trajectory of ChatGPT was unprecedented. Google deepmind founders got a nobel prize for their work, for something that happened just a few year prior, but was so groundbreaking it deserved it.

Also I am not some investing guru, I just listen to some great investment podcasts. The Real Eisman Playbook (Steve Eisman is the person portrayed by Steve Carell in The Big Short) and Compound and friends.

It seems that we aren't agreeing on if the market is in a somewhat bubble or not.

You say that real usage is undeniable. But to me its undeniable because its being spoon fed to you for free for SOTA models from all fronts including open source chinese models.

They are running at a loss because they are having these insane growth cycles but they have no moat to a somewhat degree.

Tell me how OPENAI or any AI company plans to be profitable and actually return great profits on what the investment is.

The thing is, that they have to constantly train and retrain the models to reach SOTA and people are realizing that they are being benchmaxxed.

Open source models are coming to a somewhat close degree and I doubt that it would be thaaat noticable for most consumers y'know?

There is no moat. Sure, maybe there is some moat in coding as I feel like that is the only thing that wasn't touched by Open source models.

Open source has sort of SOTA image models, SOTA-ish video models and what not & so anybody can try to compete with these on things like open router which is where half the api uses become because of how convoluted other apis are and how openrouter just sorta works...

I can provide you sources as well but there is a long consensus that AI doesn't really help in research thaat much.

The point is, that sure there is this great tech but its just unprofitable at the scale if you consider providing free access to the masses too.

Tell me how these companies are gonna make a consistent profit on AI without being crunched by each other's SOTA benchmaxxing and kill throat competition from China's open source models.

I genuinely wonder what "real world AI" to you is & how its turning up at a profit.

Like, okay, maybe I can agree that sure maybe inference could be made profitable if done to somewhat degree like how deepseek did but there is no way that it was worth the return in investment...

And do you know what happened? Nvidia selling the shovels, "infrastructure" got to be the most valuable company. If this isn't a bubble then why did Nvidia lose so many billions of $'s just because China released deepseek model.

Sure nvidia has regrown but are you really not going to take the past into account?

Regarding past performance quote, I think that I had also agreed in my original quote but I had mentioned past performance of something like 100 years. Computer stocks have been less time than that and this AI hype is quite new.

These companies like google etc. are integrating everything AI not because they want to but because their stock rises up when they mention AI for the most part.

I will repeat this again, my friend, but if you can tell me how the average investor is investing into a business which is going to make a profit...

How are they going to make a profit given the amount that they have invested in with degrees of no moat, it seems that entreprise is the most clear moat they have but https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaimecatmull/2025/08/22/mit-say...

Coding models might be the most profitable imo given that people want absolute best in it and they don't mind paying the price (claude code) but that is a niche of niche and that alone can't justify the amount of investment and stock prices made I suppose, not unless you believe in some sort of AGI.

How are these companies going to make a profit dude, the only way they have been for now is by their stock prices but I know that you know that it isn't sustainable, thus it becomes a sort of bubble situation.

I am an average investor, yet I am cautious of the times here, because I believe that AI just kinda came out of no where and became a mainstream word and VC's were funding things like devin which was literal BS LMAO but the amount of fear mongering there was, was crazy. So like, there was a fomo of more VC's which invested in more AI's which then made people jump into the trend to then have a scene where anything labelled with AI gets stock price to

Am I false in the above statement?

How is this not a bubble? The tech is cool but people aren't paying in stock markets to support a tech or smth, they want returns now... And once those returns stop coming in the sense that people realize this... Oops, looks like nobody want those Ai stocks anymore.

I have read the intelligent investor to a somewhat degree to then pick up on John bogle's index fund related book to realize that benjamin graham, the creator of intelligent investor would've also preferred index funds and thus my whole sentiment shifted towards realizing diversification and to maybe preventing bubbles I suppose.

Honestly, so funny because your statements could be shown in history as what people believed before the bubble burst and it would still be accurate and mine tbh can also be taken in that intepretation from the other way...

I hope you are still interested as I still love this discussion!

Here's the thing though:

Youtube has a moat. It is a social media and the networking effect runs wild on it and tbh there were a lot of other things too like (vines?) which fall.

But, can you say the same for Ai given open models?

China couldn't create an alternative to social media (in some sense?) because it requires a network effect.

But it sure can use gpu's, maybe even build their in house gpus so that they can then train on the data just as how america did and effectively price dump with no restrictions :/

Honestly, I can agree if you believe that AI Has a moat similar to social media, then sure, but I just don't believe it has a moat.

Youtube turned profit because of moat, Is there any moat in LLM's?

And if we are talking general purpose robotics/ automation, then I agree that yes its good.

But for an average investor whose investing, they are investing thinking that its sort of inevitable actual general AI when that's not the case.

From what I know, the optimizations of LLM's don't really apply to robotics, so all this funding of billions going into LLM only to pivot into robotics is a bit :/ for the investors.

IMO When I mentioned S&P AI stocks, that's exactly things like Google,microsoft,amazon which are still similar to OpenAi and anthropic, don't you think?

S&P's growth is heavily based on the calculated return that Google,microsoft,amazon are gonna be the winners of the Ai "wars", that's what I meant!!

If google says a line similar to yours that LLM's aren't the future, then you can naturally expect how the market would react.

The funny thing is, is that between your comment, I got recommended a video about AI bubble... which is accused in comments to be created by AI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37aUuoRyMhM

The tech is cool but 95% are focused on the wrong thing or smth and there is no advantage/moat and uh its still literally something like. bubble. Even in a bubble, google/amazon survived.

You can say that I should still invest because stock prices grew even after bubble bust, but they were in a deep awakening, and I feel like as an average investor I'd rather prefer some more stability knowing that there is still a condition of a bubble formation in S&P and US tech stocks atleast

These companies are using AI as a magic word. Vercel's keynote had AI esque words 42 times... LET ME REPEAT, 42 times. Vercel isn't even that AI based lol, its a react next app thingy for most people.

Still hoping you can comment! I was thinking of creating a hackernews post about involving other people in this discussion since at the day our discussion boils down to: is this a bubble?

I thought that it was common knowledge to everybody but maybe not, I can create a ASK HN: Do you think that S&P 500 / Magnificient 7 is an AI bubble right now? or smth!

Looking forward to your feedback and I had a blast in this conversation! Wish to discuss more lol!! Have a nice day, (waiting for your comment)