Yes

Holly cow, we've found an exception to Betteridge's Law of Headlines! Talk about burying the lede!

> This is the opposite of what happened in telecoms. We're not seeing exponential efficiency gains that make existing infrastructure obsolete. Instead, we're seeing semiconductor physics hitting fundamental limits.

What about the possibility of improvements in training and inference algorithms? Or do we know we won't get any better than grad descent/hessians/etc ?

This seems to be LLM AI slop:

The key dynamic: X were Y while A was merely B. While C needed to be built, there was enormous overbuilding that D ...

What About a Short-Term Correction?

Could there still be a short-term crash? Absolutely.

Scenarios that could trigger a correction:

1. Agent adoption hits a wall ...

The Key Difference From E:

Even if there's a correction, the underlying dynamics are different. E did F, then watched G. The result: H.

If we do I and only get J, that's not K - that's just L.

A correction might mean M, N, and O as P. But that's fundamentally different from Q while R. ...

The key insight people miss ...

If it's not AI slop, it's a human who doesn't know what they're talking about: "enormous strides were made on the optical transceivers, allowing the same fibre to carry 100,000x more traffic over the following decade. Just one example is WDM multiplexing..." when in fact wavelength division multiplexing multiplexing is the entirety of those enormous strides.

Don’t think looking at power consumption of b200s is a good measure of anything. Could well be an indication of higher density rather than hitting limits and cranking voltage to compensate

Yes or no conclusions aside (and despite its title, the article deserves better than that), the key point is I think this one: “But unlike telecoms, that overcapacity would likely get absorbed.”

Some of the utilization comparisons are interesting, but the article says 2 trillion was spent on laying fiber but that seems suspicious.