人工智能泡沫与人工智能无关
4 分•作者: AIFairy•9 天前
关于“AI泡沫”破裂的无休止争论，焦点在于ChatGPT订阅或企业API调用是否能产生足够的收入，以证明数万亿美元的炒作是合理的。但这完全抓错了重点。
即使明天所有前沿实验室，如OpenAI、Anthropic、xAI、Google DeepMind，突然间都没有了付费客户，推动所谓的“AI革命”的金融机制仍将继续运转，而且基本保持不变。
原因如下：
核心方案并非由当前的营收驱动，而是对未来在算力、能源、数据和地缘政治定位方面占据主导地位的大规模、并行的押注。真正的资金流向是这样的：
超大规模企业（微软、亚马逊、谷歌、Meta等）每年投入数千亿美元用于数据中心、GPU和电力基础设施，这并非因为他们的AI功能今天就能带来现金（大多数尚未盈利），而是因为他们无法在基础设施军备竞赛中落后。如果一家企业控制了世界上最高质量算力的最大份额，那么它就赢得了分销、人才、数据优势，以及对未来任何突破性进展的选择权。这是一种超强防御性资本支出：要么建造，要么永远被排除在外。
英伟达和芯片生态系统则处于中间位置，无论最终用户是否每月花费20美元来获得更好的聊天体验，都能获得巨额利润。需求来自建设本身，超大规模企业需要硬件来大规模运行训练和推理。即使某些设施目前的利用率较低，订单仍在不断涌入，因为没有人愿意在2028年向董事会解释，为什么他们没有获得足够的H200芯片，而其他人都获得了。
地缘政治和国家安全为整个事情提供了加速动力。各国政府（尤其是美国及其盟友）将前沿AI算力视为与核技术或电网相当的战略基础设施。主权AI计划、大规模合作（如Stargate）以及出口管制等都融入了同一个循环：现在就投入，否则就有可能面临永久性的二等地位。中国尽管受到限制，仍在加速发展，这只会加剧这场竞赛。
估值机制和循环资本维持着飞轮的运转。实验室凭借AGI/ASI选择权（对改变世界的技术的看涨期权）获得高估值，超大规模企业通过指出“AI顺风”来证明资本支出的合理性，英伟达从资本支出浪潮中获利，投资者将收益回流到生态系统中。这在很大程度上是自我强化的，并且不会因为“ChatGPT Plus订阅不足”而改变。只有当资本成本飙升、电网达到极限或地缘政治冲击重置优先事项时，情况才会改变。
“AI泡沫”关乎谁最终拥有21世纪的数字石油钻井平台，即庞大的计算集群、能源合同和人才库。这些押注是基于生存选择价值和战略必要性，而不是季度SaaS ARR。许多AI产品可能会永远保持巨额补贴或低利润。许多初创企业将会消亡。估值将会调整（大幅度）。但涌入计算基础设施的潜在资本洪流呢？它将持续下去，直到物理学、地缘政治或利率发出停止信号，而不是直到有人取消他们的20美元订阅。
查看原文
The endless chatter about an "AI bubble" bursting focuses on whether ChatGPT subscriptions or enterprise API calls will ever generate enough revenue to justify the trillions in hype. But that's missing the point entirely.
Even if every frontier lab, OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, Google DeepMind, suddenly had zero paying customers tomorrow, the financial machinery driving the so called "AI revolution" would keep spinning, largely unchanged.<p>Here's why:<p>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:<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.