Sign In
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
New Delhi: By the end of 2025, the artificial intelligence industry has remained in the news, and tech giants are investing in data centres, chip-making, and advanced algorithms like never before, in billions of dollars. Nvidia, OpenAI, and Microsoft are among the companies whose valuation has soared up, and the market has responded with a rush, creating a bubble that has sent U.S. stock indices surging to new levels. Advocates are celebrating AI as the fourth industrial revolution that will deliver radical efficiencies in industries, including healthcare and finance. However, behind the cheerfulness, there are whispers of excessive excitement, and analysts are wondering whether this mania will turn out to be like historical market manias that turned out to be calamitous.
Sceptics cite the amazing capital spending, estimated to be greater than $300 billion this year alone, as an indication of irrational investment, in which hype is running out at a faster rate than real payoff. As AI-based growth has been contributing a large percentage of the recent growth in GDP in major economies, a sharp adjustment would be felt globally. With the world markets struggling to endure inflation and geopolitical tensions, the question is, is the AI boom in itself sustainable, or are we on the verge of a reckoning that will plunge the rest of the economy into pandemonium?
An annual increase in spending on AI has been remarkable in 2025, with reports that the capital expenditures on the technology have already exceeded consumer contributions to U.S. economic growth in the first half-year of 2025. The tech giants are investing in infrastructure, such as data centres that are estimated to cost half a trillion dollars worldwide by 2026. Nvidia alone is now a market player, a significant portion of stock market value, and startups in AI and machine learning have taken up close to two-thirds of U.S. venture deal value.
But this hurry has sounded alarm bells. The price of inference is still high, and numerous AI companies are bleeding cash with no obvious ways to make money. Investors observe that 80% of AI-associated stock gains in the U.S. in 2025 follow the historic concentrated market excitement that has traditionally been the forerunner of downfalls. Unlike in the case of the artificial demand of compute power fuelled by hyperscalers such as Google and Amazon, the amount of debt taken to finance such endeavours, which may be greater than the last technology boom, may cause financial systems to stretch in case the revenues fail.
Citing the dot-com boom of the early 2000s, opponents believe that the current AI environment bears creepy resemblances: speculative valuations, pivot-crazed companies and massive infrastructure projects that are many times larger than current needs. At the time telecom companies were laying off millions of miles of untapped fibre optic cables, resulting in bankruptcies and a market crash. Likewise, the swift rise of AI has also led to governments and companies scrambling to allocate resources, though with warnings that a quarter to half of projects have no tangible results.
However, advocates of this claim jump to the conclusion that this is not just speculation. The AI compared to the empty promises of the dot-com era is over-demanded and under-supplied, with chips being sold out and real-life applications being seen in industries such as energy and materials. Physical restraints, power shortages, scarcity of rare earths, and land are causing a squeeze in the supply, not excess capacity, indicating that the market is not overpricing scarcity but is pricing in a real scarcity. Nevertheless, the fact that gains are concentrated in few stocks, similar to the Magnificent Seven, makes it susceptible to corrections.
There is a psychological divide among the analysts about the direction of AI. Pessimists, economists such as Yale, predict a burst due to unsustainable expenditures and diminishing returns to the scaling models. They caution of a lethal nexus of AI enthusiasm, commercial credit exposure, and skyrocketing debt which might trigger a bigger crash. It is a topic of speculation that the bubble may burst in 2025 and that indices such as the Nasdaq will lose trillions of dollars, but this time around the world will also be covered in the bubble.
On the opposite side, such optimists as the BlackRock investment leader Larry Fink see the inflow of capital as a necessary infrastructure investment but not a bubble and see the value of cloud computing in the long-term perspective. Venture professionals emphasise the productivity improvements of AI, whereby a single employee can perform the workload that used to be done by several individuals, and reorganise economies without causing an instant crash. This, even in the face of layoffs, which have exceeded 800,000 in the tech industry, is viewed by its advocates as an efficiency move and not a move toward decay.
The possible AI recession might spread across the world and worsen the existing vulnerabilities. As AI is expected to add 40 per cent to the U.S. GDP growth this year, a stall will cause recessions, loss of jobs in the tech-related sectors and poor consumer debt levels that will be equivalent to 2008. The emergent markets, which depend on tech exports, are vulnerable, and the issue of AI being used against humanity may be further undermined by regulation.
Besides, environmental impact (heavy energy consumption and surveillance consequences) creates strata of risk. The legacy of AI may be a ruined environment and mass unemployment through automation, in contrast to previous bubbles that left behind tangible resources such as houses or the internet infrastructure. The failure to adopt policies equitably may deter crises that have never been as big as they will be without the hedge funds' and policymakers' warning.
The debate has gone on, and investors and governments need to consider both the potential and the risks of AI. Some predict a gentle landing and a slow integration, but others anticipate a sharp correction, which would redistribute capital, perhaps to other options, such as crypto and renewables. The point is that it is necessary to identify transformative tech and short-lived speculation. The consequences to the global economy are great: a burst would refocus on sustainable growth, but at the price of short-term suffering. The future of AI will be heavily dependent on vigilance, diversified approaches, and policy measures to decide whether AI will lead to prosperity or another major crash of the century.
