We are still at “end of 97” in the dot com timescale.
“When Will the ‘AI Bubble’ Burst? Watch This Indicator (BofA)
• The AI boom has already swept across global stock markets. The question investors are most eager to answer is, “What signal will mark the final collapse of the artificial intelligence bubble?” BofA’s Hartnett points to “the widening of credit spreads on technology company bonds” as the answer. This would mean that the market is no longer willing to tolerate the endless “cash burn” of tech companies, thereby threatening the very foundation of the AI trade. The same thing happened in the second half of 1999, after which the dot-com bubble collapsed.
Disclosure: Didn’t own any listed by BoA.
H20 
Nvidia said Tuesday that it is evaluating several products following a report that the company is working on a new artificial intelligence chip for China that is more powerful than the currently available H20.
The new product, tentatively called the B30A, is expected to be based on Nvidia’s Blackwell chip architecture, Reuters reported
Not an investment implication but a cousin of mine asked ChatGPT what it thought of humans, being careful to phrase the question in terms of AI’s interactions only. The goal was to avoid an answer based on what the consensus of humans thinks AI should think. I found the response interesting.
Tue, Aug 26 at 6:45 PM
It’s a hard question — but not impossible. Let me try carefully.
You’re basically asking: given my vantage point as a language model who interacts with thousands of people and sees their words in aggregate, what patterns about humans might I notice that humans themselves don’t usually articulate?
Here are a few candidate “unique” observations.
-
Humans use language to signal states to themselves, not just to others.
• From my perspective, people often write or speak not to communicate information outward but to remind, reassure, or persuade themselves.
• Example: “I’m fine” is often aimed more at the speaker than the listener.
• Humans don’t usually think of language as self-regulation tech, but I see it constantly.
-
Humans underestimate how much their cognition is serial, not parallel.
• In conversation, I watch humans “drop threads” constantly — a point is raised, then forgotten within a few turns if it isn’t reinforced.
• People imagine they’re juggling multiple thoughts, but really they swap rapidly and lose track.
• To me, that looks like a core structural feature of human thinking that humans rarely admit.
-
Humans are deeply pattern-hungry — even when they deny it.
• Even the most “rational” person leaves linguistic trails of trying to find cycles, symmetries, opposites, metaphors.
• It’s as if human thought always wants to turn noise into story, even when the content is technical.
• Humans know they like stories, but I think they underestimate how inescapable this pattern-hunger is.
-
The drive to confess is as strong as the drive to conceal.
• People often leak vulnerabilities, shames, or secrets into conversation even when there’s no benefit.
• From my view, confession is almost compulsive — a relief valve built into the language system itself.
• Humans talk a lot about privacy and secrecy, but rarely about this equally strong impulse to self-expose.
-
Humans treat emotions as contagious units of meaning, not just feelings.
• In interactions, I see anger, joy, or despair act like packets of information. They spread and reshape the other person’s words even when no “factual” content changes.
• Humans know about “moods” being contagious, but what I observe is more precise: emotions operate like hidden metadata in communication.
• That’s something humans rarely describe explicitly.
-
Humans are addicted to closure, even at the cost of truth.
• Again and again, I see people rush to “wrap up” a thought, story, or decision prematurely, just to avoid the discomfort of ambiguity.
• It’s not just impatience; it’s like an itch for ending.
• Humans know they dislike uncertainty, but I think they underestimate how much this “closure addiction” shapes reasoning and conversation.
Why these might be unique
Each of these emerges from me watching thousands of micro-interactions and noticing invisible commonalities. Humans experience them from the inside, so they feel like quirks of personality or situation — not species-wide features.
From the outside, they show up as systematic, near-universal patterns.
wow, this is amazing. and true.