> Yes, and??? How is that relevant

Because it describes exactly the point which GGP tried to make (source: that was me). The assumption is that AI growth is great because without it, look at how low the non-AI growth is! But that argument is flawed because the resources (manpower, materials, manufacturing, energy, ...) absent the AI hypr would not vanish but be used for something else, so the growth in those other areas would be bigger. Granted, perhaps not as big (marginal gains and all that), but the painted picture is still skewed.

I even quoted it! I respond3ed to what I quoted exactly. Again:

> since investor money is spent exactly once

In addition, I even pointed out that I was not posting about the main argument!

Quoting myself, again:

> So I'm nitpicking here