The UK has been chronically bad at providing jobs and training for its young people. I saw that 20 years ago when I was there. That is a key reason, perhaps the primary reason, for its long term productivity malaise. And the response is to lean into a technology that will make this situation profoundly worse? It's another lazy quick fix that is neither quick nor a real fix. The UK needs to invest in its people, not funnel yet more money to big tech.
Patrick Boyle had I thought a very good youtube on what's gone wrong - not enough investment in productive capital and too much propping up house prices roughly https://youtu.be/T3neJOdknqc
I really enjoy Patrick Boyle's reports. Really high information content with very little fluff. I love how he sneaks in the deadpan snarky comment every once in a while.
It's a talent pool that many big employers want to tap into across a range of skills and industries. Cambridge is the best place to do bio-science and research. That is largely because the UK provides training and opportunities to its young people.
"I saw that 20 years go" is one data point that ignores the wider statistics. I'm not sure what else you can back your argument with.
That's rather the point: the UK has been great at educating a very narrow sliver of its population, decided at 18 years old. Pointing to Oxbridge as a success story is very much like pointing to London as a world city. Yes, it's world class -- now look at the rest of the country.
These rankings are meaningless. If you actually studied in the UK, you'd notice a massive change in the last 5 years. Universities do not teach anymore (perhaps with a few exceptions), they are facilitating visas for foreign students without any expectation they'll be learning anything and nobody cares. They pass the exams barely attending any lectures. Everyone is happy, except home students who get massive debt and no actual useful skills.
To push back on this, I actually don't think the real role of a university is to teach, per se.
The real role they play is something very different to everything that comes before in education, and a bit closer to everything in the world that will ideally come after: immersion in your field of choice in an environment full of curious peers who are variously a few steps ahead of you, all the way up to world class experts in the field doing research.
Parts of your interactions there may include being actively taught relevant things, but the more important goal is to let you explore this environment and the material (yes, with a bit of structure) and in doing so figure out how to learn on your own.
You absolutely should be able to get a degree with top marks without attending a single lecture, seminar, lab, whatever, just by reading the material and interacting with those around you less formally, and never being actively 'taught' anything.
Many in fact do something approaching this, particularly in the later years of a degree.
"You absolutely should be able to get a degree with top marks without attending a single lecture, seminar, lab, whatever, just by reading the material and interacting with those around you less formally, and never being actively 'taught' anything."
So people should pay 9k a year to get a glorified piece of paper, when they essentially have taught themselves?
I mean, yes, except for the framing of paying for the piece of paper.
The piece of paper is just the evidence that you've been through a journey successfully. What you're really paying for is access to the environment that facilitates that journey.
The journey is essentially transitioning from a system which is pricipally about executing diligently on well-defined instructions, to one which is about reaching more broadly defined and often even self-selected goals by whatever means you choose.
Obviously aspects overlap, the changes come in steadily over the years of a degree, and even in the most ideal case it's still basically just practice, but the journey is supposed to develop the higher order skills that at that age you are ready to develop, and must develop to succeed 'in the wild' so to speak.
Absolutely 100% one of those higher order skills, indeed maybe the most important, is being able to self-teach whatever necessary to fill in gaps in order to do something interesting, that won't be provided for you or made easy for you in any way. You have to figure it out on your own. Just as you will have to in more or less every single challenge you encounter in the world after university.
So again, the environment in which you develop those skills (along with so many other benefits) is what you're paying for and the piece of paper, such that it is, is just the evidence you succeeded in that.
THe majority of university courses don't require one to be in the environment - e.g. medicine does in contrast.
Employers frankly don't care about that - what they care about is 'are you going to be productive?'. Therefore what Universities have failed to understand is that students don't even care about the experience anymore - they want confidence that by the time they are 21 they will be employable.
Essentially what I'm pointing at - that you are missing - is that the University system is one-dimensional whilst not addressing the issues re. the bridge to the labour market and what employers demand. Something else, something much better is necessary that re-organises and disrupts the existing university model. I actually have a solution in mind, however, it's going to cause so many prof's who just collect a pay-cheque to lose their job that it'll cause a riot so I don't see people willing to push it through.
FYI I have spoken to many CEO's across a myriad of firms of varying complexities and sizes - they all fall on the same conclusions as I've stated. They simply do not care and want people who will be productive, particularly in-line with specifics of what the job entails, from day one. There is very little patience and resource allocated towards training anymore than years-past.
I agree with most of what you're saying in this reply but I also think we're now talking about a different thing, like how well does any of it prepare you for real world jobs.
That's separate from the question of being taught, self teaching, and the combo of the two, I think. That's more to do with just the material itself and the goals you're set.
I do think though, all else being equal, in a business you're going to want to prefer people who have demonstrated the kind of higher order skill and agency to be able to adapt and self teach.
I get that in a lot of businesses the difference might not be material, stuff turnover is high, focus is practical and short term and not about how this or that graduate will develop within the business over a long period of time and so on.
But still, of two people with the requisite hard skills to get going quickly you're probably always going to favour the one who seems better able to also adapt to changes and learn new skills in a totally self directed way, right?
Particularly in today's environment - I can hardly imagine a point in history where this has broadly been more important.
I broadly agree with you, but universities have been trending in the opposite direction - becoming more like high schools - and students seem to be cheating in increasing numbers and more profoundly. Meanwhile, the cost keeps going up.
Training is one thing, but wage compression is another. Why study for many years, miss out on life if you can get warehouse job with little training and you won't be meaningfully worse off? You get smaller flat, less organic food and a car few years older than your engineer peer.
These talks about productivity always miss the elephant in the room - why people bother to show up in the first place? It's the money. If there is no money, then you can lead horse to water...
Even if you get paid well, the tax cliff at 100k-170k where it makes sense not to work and reject promotions to be eligible for childcare is outrageously stupid.
Ah yes, now we are getting to the heart of the issue.
Universities as they exist are not fit for the year 2026. THe year 1990? Yes, absolutely! The world has changed massively since then. It is less attractive to sacrifice years of earnings - which bring much greater experiences than what you get at uni + debt repayments of student loans to finance tuition fee's which have grown sharply from 3k/year to 9k/year and so on.
Given that the UK is structurally uncompetitive in industry because of extremely high energy costs, it would seem crazy to me to build a data centre here. Even if we did build plenty of data centres here, it's simply not a driver of employment. We used to have shops. Shops employed lots of people. Then we moved to out of town shopping centres, which were cheaper and employed fewer people. Then we moved to online food delivery which was more efficient and employed even fewer people. Now we're moving to data centres which are enormous and employ practically no one. You can inflate the numbers by 10x or 100x or 1000x but you're simply not going to get numbers comparable to a car production line or anything that's actually a big driver of employment.
European AI investment plans are always so timid. This article mentions a couple of investments on the order of $1.5-2.5 billion USD that their government says "would position the UK as a world leader in AI". Hard to imagine you can be a world leader in anything when investing two orders of magnitude less than your competitors.
OpenAI and Anthropic have ~40 billion yearly revenue already, and growing fast. I don't know if 10x that is the right amount to invest, but I'm pretty sure 0.1x of that is not going to cut it.
These big headline "UK investments" are always and without exception not what you might think they are. When you drill into them, which companies, what was bought, where was the profit realised, what actual _real_ R&D was funded? They balloons are easy to burst. No need to even get as far down the funnel as what products/services were brought to market, what was their adoption, and what shareholder value was created. I have seen almost 30 years of it now.
Partly it's because politicians think every dollar (pound) "invested" is the same, whether it goes on bricks and mortar or silicon or software.
UK has some of the highest priced electricity for industrial use on the planet. A result of deliberate policy choices. Who in their right mind would want to grow a vast datacentre estate there?
To build a Gigawatt AI data center in 2025 is reported to cost $35bn [1]. If you're not going to build it to top specs, why even bother. Given that this is the UK, once all the bureaucracy is done, it'll be at least 50% more expensive.
A large business is estimated to use 50MWh at £14,706 a year [2]. It'll cost in excess of £300k per year just to run electricity, not that the grid has that in spare capacity [3]. It's completely in contrast to their green energy campaign.
Then, they don't even have any kind of contract actually in place:
> Asked about the terms of the contract that Nscale had signed to build the supercomputer by the end of this year, the government did not reply directly. Instead, it said that Nscale’s entire $2.5bn investment was “not a formal contract, rather an intention to commit capital”, and “may well include equipment and capital funding”.
There's not enough serious capital invested to get this off of the ground (or even to break ground seemingly). And then there are basic questions, like:
1. Why would build a data center that is supposed to create tonnes of jobs, in a location where it costs a lot to employ people?
2. Why would you outsource your data center if you live in the US or EU, when there are better options available locally? These data centers sure as hell won't be used by British companies because the government are crushing them with tax.
3. The energy cost is far too high compared to locations with nuclear or hydro electricity generation.
This whole thing stinks. I think it's a complete and utter lie.
- coreweave used the initial investment to buy gpus and put them in existing datacenters, rather than building new datacenters from scratch
- nscale is very behind on their planned datacenter, and will miss the deadline
- coreweaves new datacenter in partnership with datavita is probably on track, but its not clear how datavita will get the 1GW of energy to run it
I lean towards AI skepticism, but these dont seem thay bad to me. My guess would be the first 2 are the promises of silicon valley velocity hurtling headfirst into european administrative process.
And the third seems like just the challenge the firm has taken on, which could be solved with huge solar plant or something. We wont know until they try. Which is ambitious but theres nothing wrong with that.
If there were credible red flags as to the demand for the supply these datacenters will generate, or the projected 47b boost to the economy if that supply were produced, then thered be real cause to doubt. Because the whole value chain might not be well thought out. And thays the part i personally am not entirely sure about.
But if thats fine then just being negative because the companies didnt meet their how ambitions is a bit cruel. And this sort of attitude will just suffocate any silicon valley style dynamism that europe might be hoping to cultivate
no-one will build AI datacentres in the UK, it has one of the highest industrial energy costs in the world. the only way anything is getting built is with govt subsidies
These "investments" are rubbish. Show either deliberate misunderstanding how economy works or incompetence. If someone invests £100bn, what do you think they expect? The money to vanish or getting nice return?
Yes, the scraps will go to interim workers, but at least £200bn will be sucked out of the UK economy back to investors, likely not willing to pay taxes.
If UK government wanted to properly invest in the AI, they would be developing chip fabs and embedding themselves in the supply chains.
It's a perfect time to build DDR5 factory, if GPUs are too large undertaking.
The distinction you're missing is between economic activity and wealth retention. Foreign investment in UK data centres generates GDP (construction jobs, some ops roles) but the productive capital and its returns accrue to foreign shareholders. This is the classic GDP vs GNI gap - Ireland is the textbook example, enormous GDP inflated by multinationals, but GNI per capita significantly lower because profits repatriate.
If a fund invests £100bn expecting 15-20% IRR, they're extracting multiples of that over the asset lifetime. That's the whole point - they're not philanthropists. The UK tax take is thin because these structures are explicitly designed for tax efficiency.
The deeper issue is where in the value chain the UK is positioning itself. Hosting someone else's compute is the low-margin end - it's being a warehouse. The high-margin positions are fabrication and supply chain. Taiwan, South Korea, and now the US via CHIPS Act understand this. They're not inviting hyperscalers to build data centres and calling it industrial strategy - they're building domestic fab capacity because that's where durable value and strategic leverage sit.
The UK is offering itself as a site rather than building itself as a participant. Those are very different things.
It's such as shame to see the country that produced the Sinclair Spectrum and so many classic gaming legends become so irrelevant in computing and gaming..
There's still stuff going on with Deepmind and Grand Theft Auto but a lot is owned by American companies these days. The UK is a bit lacking on the capital markets and the like these days.
The US is no different. All the deals seem to make sense until you take a step back and realize it's just a bunch of circular investments. This bubble bursting is going to be orders of magnitude funnier than the NFT/web3 implosion, I can't wait.
Is the US really no different? I can name at least a few US companies making a serious attempt at AI stuff, and while I haven't invested in any of them I can understand how billions of dollars are being thrown around here.
But in the UK? What UK AI orgs are there? Deep Mind is/was but they're owned by Google since a long time ago. Is there even a single large UK company taking money for AI that isn't just flagrantly scamming by any measure?
> is going to be orders of magnitude funnier than the NFT/web3 implosion, I can't wait.
When was that? Seems I missed it, the market cap of cryptocurrencies in general seems to still be around ~2.5T USD, way above what I thought an "implosion" would mean.
Oh crypto is doing fine, no issues there. NFTs however, like all the hype of pictures of monkeys selling for ridiculous amounts of money, that's the implosion I was referring to.
The "blockchain" collapse was covered up by the AI explosion, many of the NFT/blockchain things that would have died out pivoted to be AI (or AI on the blockchain!).
> many of the NFT/blockchain things that would have died out pivoted to be AI (or AI on the blockchain!).
I'm guessing you're talking about smaller projects? AFAIK, neither Bitcoin nor Ethereum have anything to do with AI, and combined they're 1.5T USD in market cap, that's not propped up by AI, is it?
Yes - the scam/hype around crypto was always on the "application" of it (or shitcoins) - BTC and ETH have just chugged along as they actually have an underlying use case.
The current government, like the last one, are just a front for funnelling income tax from the poor to the rich, and of course doing whatever the Epstein Regime wants them to do.
But yeah, we need a power-hungry datacenter more than we need proper sewerage, proper water management investment, shorter hospital wait times, decent border patrol, or some of the fucking potholes fixed!
Still, it makes a change to just giving the money to the NarcoFührer clown in Ukraine, I suppose.
> just a front for funnelling income tax from the poor to the rich,
I don't know about all the other accusations you make, but this one is pretty off the mark, considering this has been the most unpopular government amongst the rich in a while. I mean, it's Labour, what did you expect?
The UK has been chronically bad at providing jobs and training for its young people. I saw that 20 years ago when I was there. That is a key reason, perhaps the primary reason, for its long term productivity malaise. And the response is to lean into a technology that will make this situation profoundly worse? It's another lazy quick fix that is neither quick nor a real fix. The UK needs to invest in its people, not funnel yet more money to big tech.
Patrick Boyle had I thought a very good youtube on what's gone wrong - not enough investment in productive capital and too much propping up house prices roughly https://youtu.be/T3neJOdknqc
I really enjoy Patrick Boyle's reports. Really high information content with very little fluff. I love how he sneaks in the deadpan snarky comment every once in a while.
The UK has 3 of the top 10 universities in the world: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankin...
It's a talent pool that many big employers want to tap into across a range of skills and industries. Cambridge is the best place to do bio-science and research. That is largely because the UK provides training and opportunities to its young people.
"I saw that 20 years go" is one data point that ignores the wider statistics. I'm not sure what else you can back your argument with.
That's rather the point: the UK has been great at educating a very narrow sliver of its population, decided at 18 years old. Pointing to Oxbridge as a success story is very much like pointing to London as a world city. Yes, it's world class -- now look at the rest of the country.
The people who aren't graduates of those universities also matter.
They should but they don't and that's the problem.
These rankings are meaningless. If you actually studied in the UK, you'd notice a massive change in the last 5 years. Universities do not teach anymore (perhaps with a few exceptions), they are facilitating visas for foreign students without any expectation they'll be learning anything and nobody cares. They pass the exams barely attending any lectures. Everyone is happy, except home students who get massive debt and no actual useful skills.
To push back on this, I actually don't think the real role of a university is to teach, per se.
The real role they play is something very different to everything that comes before in education, and a bit closer to everything in the world that will ideally come after: immersion in your field of choice in an environment full of curious peers who are variously a few steps ahead of you, all the way up to world class experts in the field doing research.
Parts of your interactions there may include being actively taught relevant things, but the more important goal is to let you explore this environment and the material (yes, with a bit of structure) and in doing so figure out how to learn on your own.
You absolutely should be able to get a degree with top marks without attending a single lecture, seminar, lab, whatever, just by reading the material and interacting with those around you less formally, and never being actively 'taught' anything.
Many in fact do something approaching this, particularly in the later years of a degree.
Not everyone wants this though.
"You absolutely should be able to get a degree with top marks without attending a single lecture, seminar, lab, whatever, just by reading the material and interacting with those around you less formally, and never being actively 'taught' anything."
So people should pay 9k a year to get a glorified piece of paper, when they essentially have taught themselves?
I mean, yes, except for the framing of paying for the piece of paper.
The piece of paper is just the evidence that you've been through a journey successfully. What you're really paying for is access to the environment that facilitates that journey.
The journey is essentially transitioning from a system which is pricipally about executing diligently on well-defined instructions, to one which is about reaching more broadly defined and often even self-selected goals by whatever means you choose.
Obviously aspects overlap, the changes come in steadily over the years of a degree, and even in the most ideal case it's still basically just practice, but the journey is supposed to develop the higher order skills that at that age you are ready to develop, and must develop to succeed 'in the wild' so to speak.
Absolutely 100% one of those higher order skills, indeed maybe the most important, is being able to self-teach whatever necessary to fill in gaps in order to do something interesting, that won't be provided for you or made easy for you in any way. You have to figure it out on your own. Just as you will have to in more or less every single challenge you encounter in the world after university.
So again, the environment in which you develop those skills (along with so many other benefits) is what you're paying for and the piece of paper, such that it is, is just the evidence you succeeded in that.
I dont agree with that.
THe majority of university courses don't require one to be in the environment - e.g. medicine does in contrast.
Employers frankly don't care about that - what they care about is 'are you going to be productive?'. Therefore what Universities have failed to understand is that students don't even care about the experience anymore - they want confidence that by the time they are 21 they will be employable.
Essentially what I'm pointing at - that you are missing - is that the University system is one-dimensional whilst not addressing the issues re. the bridge to the labour market and what employers demand. Something else, something much better is necessary that re-organises and disrupts the existing university model. I actually have a solution in mind, however, it's going to cause so many prof's who just collect a pay-cheque to lose their job that it'll cause a riot so I don't see people willing to push it through.
FYI I have spoken to many CEO's across a myriad of firms of varying complexities and sizes - they all fall on the same conclusions as I've stated. They simply do not care and want people who will be productive, particularly in-line with specifics of what the job entails, from day one. There is very little patience and resource allocated towards training anymore than years-past.
I agree with most of what you're saying in this reply but I also think we're now talking about a different thing, like how well does any of it prepare you for real world jobs.
That's separate from the question of being taught, self teaching, and the combo of the two, I think. That's more to do with just the material itself and the goals you're set.
I do think though, all else being equal, in a business you're going to want to prefer people who have demonstrated the kind of higher order skill and agency to be able to adapt and self teach.
I get that in a lot of businesses the difference might not be material, stuff turnover is high, focus is practical and short term and not about how this or that graduate will develop within the business over a long period of time and so on.
But still, of two people with the requisite hard skills to get going quickly you're probably always going to favour the one who seems better able to also adapt to changes and learn new skills in a totally self directed way, right?
Particularly in today's environment - I can hardly imagine a point in history where this has broadly been more important.
I broadly agree with you, but universities have been trending in the opposite direction - becoming more like high schools - and students seem to be cheating in increasing numbers and more profoundly. Meanwhile, the cost keeps going up.
It's actually more like the past 10 years? (Certainly was when I was in university back 8 years ago) Maybe longer.
But, I like to reference https://marktarver.com/professor.html on the state of education in the UK.
I'm curious which countries you think are best at this?
Training is one thing, but wage compression is another. Why study for many years, miss out on life if you can get warehouse job with little training and you won't be meaningfully worse off? You get smaller flat, less organic food and a car few years older than your engineer peer. These talks about productivity always miss the elephant in the room - why people bother to show up in the first place? It's the money. If there is no money, then you can lead horse to water...
Even if you get paid well, the tax cliff at 100k-170k where it makes sense not to work and reject promotions to be eligible for childcare is outrageously stupid.
UK is finished
Ah yes, now we are getting to the heart of the issue.
Universities as they exist are not fit for the year 2026. THe year 1990? Yes, absolutely! The world has changed massively since then. It is less attractive to sacrifice years of earnings - which bring much greater experiences than what you get at uni + debt repayments of student loans to finance tuition fee's which have grown sharply from 3k/year to 9k/year and so on.
Given that the UK is structurally uncompetitive in industry because of extremely high energy costs, it would seem crazy to me to build a data centre here. Even if we did build plenty of data centres here, it's simply not a driver of employment. We used to have shops. Shops employed lots of people. Then we moved to out of town shopping centres, which were cheaper and employed fewer people. Then we moved to online food delivery which was more efficient and employed even fewer people. Now we're moving to data centres which are enormous and employ practically no one. You can inflate the numbers by 10x or 100x or 1000x but you're simply not going to get numbers comparable to a car production line or anything that's actually a big driver of employment.
> “mainline AI into the veins” of the British economy
Wow, what a terrible, yet perhaps inadvertently accurate, metaphor.
European AI investment plans are always so timid. This article mentions a couple of investments on the order of $1.5-2.5 billion USD that their government says "would position the UK as a world leader in AI". Hard to imagine you can be a world leader in anything when investing two orders of magnitude less than your competitors.
Maybe this is just what realistic and maybe even sustainable AI investment looks like.
Compared to the fever dreams playing out in the US.
OpenAI and Anthropic have ~40 billion yearly revenue already, and growing fast. I don't know if 10x that is the right amount to invest, but I'm pretty sure 0.1x of that is not going to cut it.
These big headline "UK investments" are always and without exception not what you might think they are. When you drill into them, which companies, what was bought, where was the profit realised, what actual _real_ R&D was funded? They balloons are easy to burst. No need to even get as far down the funnel as what products/services were brought to market, what was their adoption, and what shareholder value was created. I have seen almost 30 years of it now.
Partly it's because politicians think every dollar (pound) "invested" is the same, whether it goes on bricks and mortar or silicon or software.
UK has some of the highest priced electricity for industrial use on the planet. A result of deliberate policy choices. Who in their right mind would want to grow a vast datacentre estate there?
To build a Gigawatt AI data center in 2025 is reported to cost $35bn [1]. If you're not going to build it to top specs, why even bother. Given that this is the UK, once all the bureaucracy is done, it'll be at least 50% more expensive.
A large business is estimated to use 50MWh at £14,706 a year [2]. It'll cost in excess of £300k per year just to run electricity, not that the grid has that in spare capacity [3]. It's completely in contrast to their green energy campaign.
Then, they don't even have any kind of contract actually in place:
> Asked about the terms of the contract that Nscale had signed to build the supercomputer by the end of this year, the government did not reply directly. Instead, it said that Nscale’s entire $2.5bn investment was “not a formal contract, rather an intention to commit capital”, and “may well include equipment and capital funding”.
There's not enough serious capital invested to get this off of the ground (or even to break ground seemingly). And then there are basic questions, like:
1. Why would build a data center that is supposed to create tonnes of jobs, in a location where it costs a lot to employ people?
2. Why would you outsource your data center if you live in the US or EU, when there are better options available locally? These data centers sure as hell won't be used by British companies because the government are crushing them with tax.
3. The energy cost is far too high compared to locations with nuclear or hydro electricity generation.
This whole thing stinks. I think it's a complete and utter lie.
[1] https://uk.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/how-much-doe...
[2] https://www.moneysupermarket.com/gas-and-electricity/busines...
[3] https://watt-logic.com/2025/01/09/blackouts-near-miss-in-tig...
From what i gather the red flags are
- coreweave used the initial investment to buy gpus and put them in existing datacenters, rather than building new datacenters from scratch
- nscale is very behind on their planned datacenter, and will miss the deadline
- coreweaves new datacenter in partnership with datavita is probably on track, but its not clear how datavita will get the 1GW of energy to run it
I lean towards AI skepticism, but these dont seem thay bad to me. My guess would be the first 2 are the promises of silicon valley velocity hurtling headfirst into european administrative process.
And the third seems like just the challenge the firm has taken on, which could be solved with huge solar plant or something. We wont know until they try. Which is ambitious but theres nothing wrong with that.
If there were credible red flags as to the demand for the supply these datacenters will generate, or the projected 47b boost to the economy if that supply were produced, then thered be real cause to doubt. Because the whole value chain might not be well thought out. And thays the part i personally am not entirely sure about.
But if thats fine then just being negative because the companies didnt meet their how ambitions is a bit cruel. And this sort of attitude will just suffocate any silicon valley style dynamism that europe might be hoping to cultivate
no-one will build AI datacentres in the UK, it has one of the highest industrial energy costs in the world. the only way anything is getting built is with govt subsidies
Sounds a lot like Zuckerberg getting caught on a hot mike at the trump dinner about how many billion meta is investing
All made up bullshit numbers
These "investments" are rubbish. Show either deliberate misunderstanding how economy works or incompetence. If someone invests £100bn, what do you think they expect? The money to vanish or getting nice return? Yes, the scraps will go to interim workers, but at least £200bn will be sucked out of the UK economy back to investors, likely not willing to pay taxes.
If UK government wanted to properly invest in the AI, they would be developing chip fabs and embedding themselves in the supply chains.
It's a perfect time to build DDR5 factory, if GPUs are too large undertaking.
>but at least £200bn will be sucked out of the UK economy back to investors
That's not how the economy works... Nothing gets "sucked out of the economy", and certainly not a productive investment that generated that income.
The distinction you're missing is between economic activity and wealth retention. Foreign investment in UK data centres generates GDP (construction jobs, some ops roles) but the productive capital and its returns accrue to foreign shareholders. This is the classic GDP vs GNI gap - Ireland is the textbook example, enormous GDP inflated by multinationals, but GNI per capita significantly lower because profits repatriate.
If a fund invests £100bn expecting 15-20% IRR, they're extracting multiples of that over the asset lifetime. That's the whole point - they're not philanthropists. The UK tax take is thin because these structures are explicitly designed for tax efficiency.
The deeper issue is where in the value chain the UK is positioning itself. Hosting someone else's compute is the low-margin end - it's being a warehouse. The high-margin positions are fabrication and supply chain. Taiwan, South Korea, and now the US via CHIPS Act understand this. They're not inviting hyperscalers to build data centres and calling it industrial strategy - they're building domestic fab capacity because that's where durable value and strategic leverage sit.
The UK is offering itself as a site rather than building itself as a participant. Those are very different things.
Happening in the private sector too. Something like 10% of US companies are actually using AI productively, and 42% killed their GenAI pilots in 2024.
[dead]
It's such as shame to see the country that produced the Sinclair Spectrum and so many classic gaming legends become so irrelevant in computing and gaming..
Counter- (or at least more recent data-) point: Raspberry Pi, Arm.
There's still stuff going on with Deepmind and Grand Theft Auto but a lot is owned by American companies these days. The UK is a bit lacking on the capital markets and the like these days.
It's OK, we're doing badly across the board, not just computing. :-(
More than just that, so much of early "computer science" has .uk addresses associated, they had some serious chops in early software development, too.
Just multibillion?
arent they all?
The US is no different. All the deals seem to make sense until you take a step back and realize it's just a bunch of circular investments. This bubble bursting is going to be orders of magnitude funnier than the NFT/web3 implosion, I can't wait.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_bubble
Is the US really no different? I can name at least a few US companies making a serious attempt at AI stuff, and while I haven't invested in any of them I can understand how billions of dollars are being thrown around here.
But in the UK? What UK AI orgs are there? Deep Mind is/was but they're owned by Google since a long time ago. Is there even a single large UK company taking money for AI that isn't just flagrantly scamming by any measure?
I don't disagree, but I can't join you wishing for it to happen. It's going to be bad for all of us.
The longer it's delayed, the worse it will be.
> is going to be orders of magnitude funnier than the NFT/web3 implosion, I can't wait.
When was that? Seems I missed it, the market cap of cryptocurrencies in general seems to still be around ~2.5T USD, way above what I thought an "implosion" would mean.
Oh crypto is doing fine, no issues there. NFTs however, like all the hype of pictures of monkeys selling for ridiculous amounts of money, that's the implosion I was referring to.
The "blockchain" collapse was covered up by the AI explosion, many of the NFT/blockchain things that would have died out pivoted to be AI (or AI on the blockchain!).
> many of the NFT/blockchain things that would have died out pivoted to be AI (or AI on the blockchain!).
I'm guessing you're talking about smaller projects? AFAIK, neither Bitcoin nor Ethereum have anything to do with AI, and combined they're 1.5T USD in market cap, that's not propped up by AI, is it?
Yes - the scam/hype around crypto was always on the "application" of it (or shitcoins) - BTC and ETH have just chugged along as they actually have an underlying use case.
[dead]
The current government, like the last one, are just a front for funnelling income tax from the poor to the rich, and of course doing whatever the Epstein Regime wants them to do.
But yeah, we need a power-hungry datacenter more than we need proper sewerage, proper water management investment, shorter hospital wait times, decent border patrol, or some of the fucking potholes fixed!
Still, it makes a change to just giving the money to the NarcoFührer clown in Ukraine, I suppose.
> just a front for funnelling income tax from the poor to the rich,
I don't know about all the other accusations you make, but this one is pretty off the mark, considering this has been the most unpopular government amongst the rich in a while. I mean, it's Labour, what did you expect?
Yeah, parent post to yours is sensationalist astroturf garbage. Russian troll accounts call Zelenskyy a NarcoFührer.
Odd that you know what zelensky is called by the russians, are you a russian troll?
Anyway, troll, I'm sure the russians care about the UK pothole situation.