Here's why:
The core scheme isn't powered by current product revenue but rather a massive, parallel bet on future dominance in compute, energy, data, and geopolitical positioning. The real money flow looks like this:
Hyperscalers (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta, etc.) are pouring hundreds of billions annually into data centers, GPUs, and power infrastructure, not because their AI features are printing cash today (most aren't profitable yet), but because they cannot afford to fall behind in the infrastructure arms race. If one player controls the lion's share of the world's highest quality compute, they win distribution, talent, data advantages, and optionality on whatever breakthroughs come next. This is defensive capex on steroids: build it or be locked out forever.
Nvidia and the chip ecosystem sit in the middle, collecting obscene margins regardless of whether end users are paying $20/month for better chat. Demand comes from the buildout itself, the hyperscalers need the hardware to run training and inference at insane scale. Even with low current utilization in some facilities, the orders keep coming because no one wants to explain to their board in 2028 why they didn't secure enough H200s when everyone else did.
Geopolitics and national security turbocharge the whole thing. Governments (especially the US and allies) view frontier AI compute as strategic infrastructure on par with nuclear tech or energy grids. Sovereign AI initiatives, massive partnerships (like Stargate), and export, control theater all feed into the same loop: spend now or risk permanent second rate status. China accelerating despite restrictions only intensifies the race.
Valuation mechanics and circular capital keep the flywheel turning. Labs raise at high valuations on the promise of AGI/ASI optionality (a call option on world changing tech), hyperscalers justify capex by pointing to "AI tailwinds," Nvidia prints money on the capex wave, and investors recycle gains back into the ecosystem. It's largely self reinforcing, and that won't change because of "not enough ChatGPT Plus subs." It'll change when the cost of capital spikes, power grids hit hard limits, or a geopolitical shock resets priorities.
The "AI bubble" is about who ends up owning the digital oil rigs of the 21st century, vast compute clusters, energy contracts, and talent pools. Those bets are being placed on existential option value and strategic necessity, not quarterly SaaS ARR. Many AI products could remain heavily subsidized or low margin forever. Many startups will die. Valuations will correct (hard). But the underlying capital flood into compute infrastructure? That continues until physics, geopolitics, or interest rates say otherwise, not until someone cancels their $20 subscription.