AI being a bubble doesn't change that it is here to stay and thus there is a need for more RAM either way. There was a railway bubble in the 1840s, but it didn't lead to trains going away, either.
The point is that while AI might stay, that an AI bubble popping will massivelys reduce demand for RAM. So any production capacity you might have built up is not able to earn back its cost.
If you think demand will break down before you can get a return on your investemtn, you should not build.
If you think of a different aspect of "the AI bububle popping", where demand for RAM does not significantly decrease, that's fine of course. But RAM demand by AI going down massively seems to be a major part of what a lot of people imagine when they talk about the bubble going away.
[−]InsidiousWombat · 2026-11-15 Sun 11:48 UTC ·
link
It will absolutely earn back the cost, just not at 10x it is now.
Even if we got back to pre-AI bubble, hell, especially if we got back to pre-ai bubble pricing, we'd see a lot of push for local AI and 32 GB+ GPUs/128GB+ SOC systems
> It will absolutely earn back the cost, just not at 10x it is now.
I put up as an example and prefaced it with me not knowing enough about the market and tech. I have not done the calculations, because I have no access to any of the relevant numbers, do not have a relevant model of the market dynamics I would expect, and do not have to suffer the losses if it doesn't play out.
It is great that you have more knowledge to be able to confidently state those things, however, I have to say I have no reason to actually believe you do.
Why would it reduce demand for RAM? Dot com bubble collapsing didn't reduce the demand for the Internet. Railway bubble collapsing didn't reduce demand for trains. And if the housing bubble would collapse it would also not reduce the demand for housing.
A bubble means something is overvalued. The stock prices will go down if the bubble pops, but not the demand.
I think your definition of a bubble is narrower than the use of most people. One possible reason for an expectation of reduced demand is that reduced investments can lead to companies having to reduce hardware investments themselves.
One example of people not sharing your definition are the many comments of the form "can't wait for the Ai bubble to burst and ram/gpus getting affordable again".
Also I am not sure about your examples. Same as the other commenter: I have no idea about the rail bubble. But I believe the dot-com bubble burst did in fact reduce demand on compute infrastructure. (Not long term of course.) eg https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2002/01/11/server-sales-...
If you look at passenger rail maps of the United States, trains definitely went away.
Passenger rail versus freight rail also demonstrates how the railroad bubble and aftermath ended up proving that not every use of rail is inherently profitable. In the long term, passenger rail is rarely profitable and almost always has to be subsidized by the state in some way with only a handful of exceptions.
If you think demand will break down before you can get a return on your investemtn, you should not build.
If you think of a different aspect of "the AI bububle popping", where demand for RAM does not significantly decrease, that's fine of course. But RAM demand by AI going down massively seems to be a major part of what a lot of people imagine when they talk about the bubble going away.
Even if we got back to pre-AI bubble, hell, especially if we got back to pre-ai bubble pricing, we'd see a lot of push for local AI and 32 GB+ GPUs/128GB+ SOC systems
I put up as an example and prefaced it with me not knowing enough about the market and tech. I have not done the calculations, because I have no access to any of the relevant numbers, do not have a relevant model of the market dynamics I would expect, and do not have to suffer the losses if it doesn't play out.
It is great that you have more knowledge to be able to confidently state those things, however, I have to say I have no reason to actually believe you do.
A bubble means something is overvalued. The stock prices will go down if the bubble pops, but not the demand.
One example of people not sharing your definition are the many comments of the form "can't wait for the Ai bubble to burst and ram/gpus getting affordable again".
Also I am not sure about your examples. Same as the other commenter: I have no idea about the rail bubble. But I believe the dot-com bubble burst did in fact reduce demand on compute infrastructure. (Not long term of course.) eg https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2002/01/11/server-sales-...
Neither does its being here to stay does not mean it is good or desirable.
In any case "It is here to stay." does not resemble a falsifiable claim. If you were wrong how could you tell?
Passenger rail versus freight rail also demonstrates how the railroad bubble and aftermath ended up proving that not every use of rail is inherently profitable. In the long term, passenger rail is rarely profitable and almost always has to be subsidized by the state in some way with only a handful of exceptions.