Technology

3510 readers

313 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.

Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefix

Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.

Rules

1. English only

Title and associated content has to be in English.

2. Use original link

Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.

3. Respectful communication

All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.

4. Inclusivity

Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

5. Ad hominem attacks

Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.

6. Off-topic tangents

Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.

7. Instance rules may apply

If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

BrikoX@lemmy.zip

202

Wall Street’s AI Bubble Is Worse Than the 1999 Dot-com Bubble, Warns a Top Economist (gizmodo.com)

submitted 1 day ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.zip

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A chief economist at investment giant Apollo says the top ten AI stocks are more detached from reality than the tech titans of the 1990s were. His chart is a stark warning that history is about to repeat itself.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 5 points 1 day ago

Asking investment advice from a system that's designed to do nothing else but generate natural sounding language based on probabilities is pretty stupid.

That being said, what's wrong with this answer? I think it's more or less a good and balanced take.

Here's the first half of it that I left out:

spoiler

"AI" as an investment isn’t one thing—it’s more like a category of bets, ranging from hardware to software to services, each with wildly different risk profiles. So the honest answer is: yes, it can be a good investment—but only if you understand what you’re actually investing in.

Here’s why that nuance matters:

Buying Nvidia stock in 2019 was a good AI investment. Buying it now, after a 10x run-up? Much less clear—it’s priced as if they’re the sole arms dealer in a forever war.

OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. aren't publicly traded, so retail investors can't buy them directly. Instead, you get exposure via companies like Microsoft, Amazon, or other backers—meaning you’re not really investing in “AI” directly, but as part of a much broader bundle.

AI startups and ETFs are all over the place—some are thinly veiled hype vehicles chasing trends, while others are building real infrastructure (like vector databases, chip design tools, or specialized AI services). Picking the wrong one is like investing in Pets.com during the dot-com boom—it sounds techy, but the business might be garbage.

Thematic ETFs like BOTZ or ROBO give you AI exposure but are diluted by their attempt to hedge across subsectors. They tend to underperform when compared to cherry-picking the winners.