The Economist has an Nvidia-Fanboy article which boils down to two paragraphs:
Yet many also see Mr Huang as a magician in a more worrying sense, fearing that he is an illusionist inflating a dangerous bubble. Through $1trn-worth of deals, Nvidia provides data-centre landlords and ai labs with cash or guarantees so that they can buy its gpus. Some call it the“bank of ai”. At the very least, Nvidia’s critics say, its financial engineering smacks of the “vendor financing” which pumped up the revenues of networking-gear makers like Cisco in the dotcom mania of 2000-01, whose collapse brought about a recession.
Look more closely, however, and the worries are mostly unjustified. If Nvidia’s bets on ai come good, they could accelerate the technology’s adoption, boosting productivity and living standards. If they misfire, the cost will fall chiefly on Nvidia’s shareholders. That is how capitalism is supposed to work.
Sounds good until you realize who the shareholders are. Every single index fund, pensions funds etc. When the AI bubble bursts, there will be carnage.
Yes, “chiefly” does very heavy lifting here. Because there are now so many companies following Nvidia’s lead and betting on AI, its failing would lead to a lot of misery.