每六个月就有一波“AI泡沫论”，何时“狼真的来了”？

Group 1 - The article discusses the recurring theme of "AI bubble theory," highlighting the cyclical nature of market fears and subsequent enthusiasm surrounding AI investments [1][3] - Goldman Sachs raised concerns about the commercial returns of generative AI, questioning whether it represents a capital pit that may never yield long-term positive returns for investors [1][3] - The introduction of China's DeepSeek model, which is open-source and significantly cheaper than its U.S. counterparts, has intensified competition in the AI space [3] Group 2 - Oracle's announcement of a $300 billion cloud computing agreement with OpenAI is seen as a significant "vendor financing" deal, indicating a shift from cash-based funding to debt-driven financing in the AI sector [5][8] - Analysts have identified a structural risk where AI infrastructure development is increasingly reliant on external debt, with a projected funding gap of $1.5 trillion that private credit markets may need to fill [9][11] - The private credit market is expected to contribute approximately $800 billion to bridge this funding gap, raising concerns about the health of the private credit industry itself [9][11] Group 3 - The performance of private credit funds, such as those managed by Blackstone and Blue Owl, has been under scrutiny, with significant declines in stock prices indicating potential vulnerabilities [11][13] - The article notes that the discussion around the AI bubble is waning, with a significant drop in online searches related to "AI bubble," suggesting a possible complacency in the market [14] - Historical patterns indicate that asset bubbles do not follow a linear trajectory, and the current AI market may be experiencing similar dynamics to past bubbles [15][18]