Calling AI an unproven market is a wild statement. My mother and every employed person around me is using AI backed by Nvidia GPUs in some way or the other on a daily basis.
The AI market is running on VC and hype fumes right now, costing way more than it brings in. Add to that the circular financing, well, statements, in the hundreds of billions of dollars that are treated as contracts instead of empty air, and compare that to Apple, where the money is actually there and profitable, and the comparison makes sense.
It may still be profitable for TSMC to use NVidia to funnel all the juicy VC game money to themselves, but the statement about proven vs unproven revenue stream is true. It'll be gone with the hype, unless something truly market changing comes along quickly, not the incremental change so far. People are not ready to pay the full costs of AI, it's that simple right now.
Unproven in the sense that it'll become 'super intelligent', et al.
For a statistical word salad generator that is _generally_ coherent, sure it's proven.
But for other claims, such as replacing all customer service roles[1], to the lament of customers[2], and now that a number of companies are re-hiring staff they sacked because 'AI would make them redundant'[3] still make me strongly assert that Generative AI isn't the trillion dollar industry it is trying to market itself as.
Sure it has a few tricks, and helps in a number of cases, therefore is useful in those cases, but it isn't an 'earth-shattering mass-human-redundancy' technology, that colossally stupid amounts of circular investments are being poured into it which, I argue, makes fabs mostly, if not solely, dedicating themselves to AI are now in a precarious position when the AI bubble collapses.
