https://blog.robbowley.net/2025/10/12/after-the-ai-boom-what-might-we-be-left-with/ Rob Bowley Adventures In Software Development Menu Skip to content * About me After the AI boom: what might we be left with? Leave a reply Some argue that even if the current AI boom leads to an overbuild, it might not be a bad thing - just as the dotcom bubble left behind the internet infrastructure that powered later decades of growth. It's a tempting comparison, but the parallels only go so far. The dotcom era's overbuild created durable, open infrastructure - fibre networks and interconnects built on open standards like TCP/IP and HTTP. Those systems had multi-decade lifespans and could be reused for whatever came next. Much of the fibre laid in the 1990s still carries traffic today, upgraded simply by swapping out the electronics at each end. That overinvestment became the backbone of broadband, cloud computing, and the modern web. Most of today's AI investment, by contrast, is flowing into proprietary, vertically integrated systems rather than open, general-purpose infrastructure. Most of the money is being spent on incredibly expensive GPUs that have a 1-3 year lifespan due to becoming obsolete quickly and wearing out under constant, high-intensity use. These chips aren't general-purpose compute engines; they're purpose-built for training and running generative AI models, tuned to the specific architectures and software stacks of a few major vendors such as Nvidia, Google, and Amazon. These chips live inside purpose-built AI data centres - engineered for extreme power density, advanced cooling, and specialised networking. Unlike the general-purpose facilities of the early cloud era, these sites are tightly coupled to the hardware and software of whoever built them. Together, they form a closed ecosystem optimised for scale but hard to repurpose. That's why, if the AI bubble bursts, we could just be left with a pile of short-lived, highly specialised silicon and silent cathedrals of compute - monuments from a bygone era. The possible upside Still, there's a more positive scenario. If investment outruns demand, surplus capacity could push prices down, just as the post-dotcom bandwidth glut did in the early 2000s. Cheap access to this kind of compute might open the door for new experimentation - not just in generative AI, but in other high-compute domains such as simulation, scientific research, and data-intensive analytics. Even if the hardware is optimised for GenAI, falling prices could still make large-scale computation more accessible overall. A second-hand market in AI hardware could emerge, spreading access to powerful compute much more widely. The supporting infrastructure - power grid upgrades, networking, and edge facilities - will hopefully remain useful regardless. And even if some systems are stranded, the talent, tooling, and operational experience built during the boom will persist, as it did after the dotcom crash. Without openness, the benefits stay locked up The internet's long-term value came not just from cheap capacity, but from open standards and universal access. Protocols like TCP/IP and HTTP meant anyone could build on the same foundations, without permission or platform lock-in. That openness turned surplus infrastructure into a shared public platform, unlocking decades of innovation far beyond what the original investors imagined. The AI ecosystem is the opposite: powerful but closed. Its compute, models, and APIs are owned and controlled by a handful of vendors, each defining their own stack and terms of access. Even if hardware becomes cheap, it won't automatically become open. Without shared standards or interoperability, any overbuild risks remaining a private surplus rather than a public good. So the AI boom may not leave behind another decades-long backbone like the internet's fibre networks. But it could still seed innovation if the industry finds ways to open up what it's building - turning today's private infrastructure into tomorrow's shared platform. This entry was posted in Uncategorized on October 12, 2025 by Rob. Post navigation - On "Team dynamics after AI" and the Illusion of Efficiency Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Comment * [ ] Name * [ ] Email * [ ] Website [ ] [ ] Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. [Post Comment] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] Search for: [ ] [Search] Recent Posts * After the AI boom: what might we be left with? * On "Team dynamics after AI" and the Illusion of Efficiency * Why AI won't work as a software development abstraction * Does the "lethal trifecta" kill the idea of fully autonomous AI Agents anytime soon? * Maybe it wasn't the tech after all Archives * October 2025 * September 2025 * August 2025 * June 2025 * May 2025 * April 2025 * March 2025 * February 2025 * January 2025 * December 2024 * November 2024 * October 2024 * September 2024 * August 2024 * June 2024 * May 2024 * April 2024 * March 2024 * November 2023 * October 2023 * September 2023 * August 2023 * June 2023 * May 2023 * February 2022 * February 2015 * August 2013 * September 2012 * July 2012 * June 2012 * January 2012 * October 2011 * September 2011 * July 2011 * May 2011 * January 2011 * December 2010 * October 2010 * July 2010 * May 2010 * April 2010 * March 2010 * February 2010 * January 2010 * December 2009 * November 2009 * October 2009 * August 2009 * July 2009 * June 2009 * May 2009 * April 2009 * September 2008 * August 2008 * July 2008 * June 2008 * May 2008 * April 2008 Proudly powered by WordPress