Circularity & Virtuous Circle

"Circularity" vs. "Virtuous Circle" - which one is more believable?

The Bloomberg article offers sharp visual analysis and insights through a risk management lens. What is your reaction to the argument? ➡️ Near term: A virtuous circle seems more plausible because of scarcity (chips, power, labor, talent) ➡️ Long term: Circularity seems more plausible because of correlations (Bloomberg's visual makes this sharply clear, link in the comment)

From a risk management point of view: We are effectively stacking counterparty risk on top of technology execution risk. Today's brilliant capital allocation is simultaneously creating tomorrow's concentration risk.

The market prices AI on its growth potential. So based on the visual analysis, a risk manager would ask: What could prevent a single point of failure?

Because true diffusion depends on wide and sustained adoption, everyday users have to use this technology - consistently, and perhaps in perpetuity - to validate the multi trillion dollars capital stack.

Until then, concentration risk can be disguised as growth.

Here is what matters: Whenever you sit in boardrooms, startups, or simply as a thoughtful adopter, you have agency to support for resilience in growth. For example: • As builders → How do you design for many customers? • As buyers → How do you avoid single-vendor lock-in? • As investors → How do you reward diversification? • As adopters → How do you test multiple models?

-------- Clean Power Whisperer™ Perspectives Educational insights on risk, insurance, and capital for AI • Energy • Climate

Link: Bloomberg, 2026 AI Circular Deals (**https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-ai-circular-deals/)**

← All Perspectives · Next: Clarity is a Leadership Responsibility →