The Debt-Fueled AI Bubble

-

 The current AI boom is often framed as an inevitable technological revolution, but a closer look at how it is being financed tells a more fragile story. Major technology companies are borrowing at historic levels to fund AI infrastructure, even as real demand remains uncertain. In 2024 alone, companies such as Amazon, Google, Meta, and Oracle raised tens of billions of dollars each in new debt to expand data centers, buy chips, and scale AI capabilities. Total tech debt issuance has surpassed six trillion dollars. The scale of borrowing is unprecedented, especially for an industry still searching for durable, widespread profitability.

Some prominent financial voices are openly skeptical. Michael Burry, known for predicting the 2008 financial crisis, has criticized the earnings narratives surrounding companies like Nvidia, questioning whether accounting practices obscure underlying risks. Investors also point to the imbalance between massive spending commitments and comparatively modest revenue at firms such as OpenAI. Hedge funds and institutional investors have sold tens of billions of dollars in tech stocks in 2025, marking the largest tech sell off in two years. The message from parts of the financial community is clear: borrowing heavily to fund uncertain returns may not be sustainable.

Beneath the surface, adoption data raises additional questions. While some companies claim they must double AI serving capacity every six months, much of this growth appears tied to integrating AI features into existing products rather than responding to strong external demand. Surveys show that nearly two thirds of organizations remain in experimentation mode with AI and have not scaled initiatives enterprise wide. Reports from IBM suggest that only a quarter of AI projects meet expected returns and a small minority scale broadly. National adoption figures in the United States have risen from under four percent of firms to just under ten percent over the past year, but large enterprise adoption has reportedly declined since mid 2024. The gap between infrastructure build out and measurable business value remains wide.

Even real world deployments have stumbled. High profile examples such as McDonald's experimenting with AI drive through systems reveal practical and operational challenges. Much of the revenue generated by AI appears to circulate within the technology ecosystem itself, with chip makers, cloud providers, and AI labs effectively financing one another. This internal loop can create the impression of explosive growth, yet it does not necessarily reflect broad economic uptake across diverse industries.

The environmental and social costs compound the uncertainty. Expanding AI infrastructure requires enormous amounts of electricity and water, placing pressure on local grids and communities. At the same time, companies pursuing AI first strategies are laying off workers, framing automation as efficiency rather than displacement. The financial rewards of the AI surge are concentrated among technology executives, shareholders, and insiders, while ordinary workers face job insecurity and rising utility costs. The promise of shared prosperity through automation appears increasingly distant.

Political dynamics add another layer of risk. Technology companies wield significant influence over public policy, from regulatory approvals to electricity pricing and discussions about potential government backstops. Some AI firms are reportedly negotiating with governments over loan guarantees and other protections, effectively positioning AI infrastructure as too important to fail. Meanwhile, social programs face budget pressure, and taxpayers bear indirect risks through public subsidies and financial exposure without owning a proportional share of future profits.

Taken together, these trends suggest that the AI boom is driven as much by debt and momentum as by proven, widespread demand. Borrowed money is funding vast infrastructure whose returns remain uncertain, environmental costs are mounting, and adoption outside the tech sector is uneven. If expectations falter, the burden may not fall primarily on executives or early investors but on ordinary workers and taxpayers. The narrative of inevitable progress deserves scrutiny, because the financial and social stakes are now large enough to shape the broader economy for years to come.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dual Faces of Technology: Enhancing and Replacing Jobs

-
Image
Automation has been on my mind a lot lately, more immediately due to a book I read , but also because of the looming reality of artificial intelligence. To understand what's involved, making the distinction between replacing technologies and enabling technologies is crucial. As we traverse the timeline of the 20th century, we observe how each type of technology has distinctly influenced employment. Automated technologies have transformed industries by replacing manual labor with machines. Consider the automated switchboards introduced in the early 20th century. Previously, telephone operators manually connected calls using physical connectors on a switchboard. With the advent of automated switchboards in the 1920s and 1930s, many of these jobs were eliminated as calls were routed through electromechanical systems. Similarly, in agriculture, the introduction of mechanical harvesters like the combine harvester in the 1930s drastically reduced the need for manual labor. These machine...
Read more

The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor and Power in the Age of Automation (Book Review)

-
Image
In his compelling book, " The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation ," Carl Benedikt Frey offers a sweeping examination of the historical and ongoing impact of mechanization and automation on society. Starting with the onset of the first Industrial Revolution, Frey deftly navigates through the evolution of technology up to the modern age of artificial intelligence, presenting a nuanced view of how technological innovations have reshaped labor markets and power dynamics. Frey categorizes technological innovations into two types: enabling technologies, like the typewriter, which enhance worker productivity without displacing the labor force, and replacing technologies, such as robotic machinery in factories, which eliminate certain job roles altogether. This distinction forms the backbone of Frey’s analysis, as he explores the varying implications of each type of technology on different segments of the workforce. The book traces a historical patter...
Read more

Deputy Product Owners

-
Image
"The Product Owner is one person, not a committee. The Product Owner may represent the desires of a committee in the Product Backlog, but those wanting to change a Product Backlog item’s priority must address the Product Owner." - The Scrum Guide There are a lot of ways in which my approach to Scrum differs from what's in the official guide, and since that document refers to Scrum as 'immutable,' let's just call what I do 'Notscrum™.' In Scrum, there is only one product owner per team. That person is the sole person responsible for the product backlog, and the person who advocates for the work to be done. In Notscrum there is one product owner, but there can be multiple deputy product owners. Here's how it works. When my program at Viacom was first forming I met with the then-director of the Library & Archive group and learned that while he set the priorities on work done, the archivists were organized in three distinct areas with a team lead ...
Read more