Are We in an AI Bubble?
Every time a high-profile AI company collapses, the same question resurfaces: is this all just a bubble?
The latest case study is Builder.ai—a company once valued at $1.5 billion, marketed as a breakthrough in AI-driven app development, and now in liquidation after creditors seized its cash.
The pitch was that software could be built largely by AI.
The reality was that much of the work was still done by human engineers behind the scenes.
When the gap between promise and practice came to light, the market shut down fast.
So: is this a one-off failure, or a sign that AI is in bubble territory?
What “Bubble” Actually Means
“Bubble” isn’t just hype. It has a definition in economic history.
In the dot-com bubble (1995–2000), investors poured money into internet startups at massive valuations without demanding sustainable revenue models. Companies went public on the strength of “eyeballs” and “clicks” rather than profits. When capital dried up, most collapsed.
In the housing bubble (2005–2008), mortgage-backed securities were treated as safe assets until the underlying loans proved fragile. When reality caught up, the financial system cracked.
A bubble forms when valuations detach from fundamentals—when money bets on the story, not the substance. When the narrative collapses, so does the market.
How Builder.ai Fits the Pattern
Builder.ai isn’t the entire AI sector, but it illustrates the stress points that can burst hype-driven businesses:
Overstated automation: Marketing emphasized AI, but execution still depended on human labor. That means low margins and scaling limits.
Weak financial footing: The company leaned on debt. When lenders pulled cash, operations couldn’t continue.
Governance cracks: Leadership turnover and restated revenues eroded trust with investors and partners.
None of these problems are unique to AI. They’re classic bubble markers: grand narratives, thin substance, and fragile balance sheets.
The Warning Signs We Shouldn’t Miss
Builder.ai also shows how early signals often get ignored until it’s too late:
Restated revenues → Not a bookkeeping quirk. Restatements mean prior numbers can’t be trusted. That should trigger deep scrutiny of contracts, recognition policies, and pipeline claims.
Leadership turnover tied to investigations → When founders or finance leaders exit amid governance reviews, assume material issues, not personality clashes.
Debt with sweep rights → Creditors could—and did—empty company accounts overnight. Any business on that structure is one bad covenant away from collapse.
Mismatch between pitch and delivery → Marketing “AI builds your app” while relying on hundreds of human engineers isn’t just fragile economics—it’s potential misrepresentation risk.
These aren’t quirks of one company. They’re generic red flags that executives, investors, and lawyers should always treat as serious, because they can move a business from fragile to insolvent almost overnight.
Where We Actually Are
The bigger picture looks different.
AI as a technology isn’t speculative—it’s already embedded in enterprise software, search, marketing, healthcare, and logistics.
Investment is real but uneven—funding is flowing heavily into infrastructure (chips, cloud, foundational models), while many application-layer startups are struggling to show durable economics.
Failure rates are high—MIT data suggests 95% of AI pilots never reach production. That means lots of wasted spend, but also that winners will be the few who deliver real value.
So rather than a single “AI bubble,” what we’re seeing is a filtering process. Hype companies that don’t deliver won’t survive. Businesses with strong IP, real automation, and defensible models will.
Why This Matters for Executives and Owners
Even if you’re not building the next AI startup, the fallout matters for you:
Vendor risk: If your business depends on an AI service provider, ask hard questions about automation, finances, and data rights. Builder.ai’s clients learned that “AI-built apps” were often human-built—and then the vendor disappeared.
Legal exposure: If your company uses AI to generate content, code, or data, understand who owns it and what liabilities come with it. The line between hype and fraud can become a courtroom argument.
Strategic planning: Treat AI like the early internet. Most dot-coms failed, but the internet didn’t. The survivors—Amazon, Google, eBay—rewrote entire industries.
The Key Distinction
The real question isn’t whether AI itself is a bubble. It’s whether individual AI businesses are built on fundamentals or on marketing gloss.
AI is not tulips. The technology is here to stay.
Some AI companies are tulips. They’ve wrapped services in AI branding to chase valuation. Those will break.
The challenge for executives, investors, and boards is separating the two. That means pressing for clarity on three fronts:
Automation reality – How much is genuinely machine-driven versus human labor?
Rights and risk – Who owns the data, outputs, and liabilities?
Financial durability – Does the business survive stress without collapsing?
Bottom Line
AI isn’t a bubble in the way the dot-com crash was. It’s a technological wave with bubbles inside it—companies, use cases, and valuations that will burst under scrutiny.
If you want to navigate this moment wisely, ignore the headlines about “the end of AI.” Focus instead on fundamentals: technology, rights, and resilience.
Those who do will avoid the casualties of the purge and capture the upside of the transformation that follows.
⸻
🤖 Subscribe to AnaGPT
Every week, I break down the latest legal in AI, tech, and law—minus the jargon. Whether you’re a founder, creator, or lawyer, this newsletter will help you stay two steps ahead of the lawsuits.
➡️ Forward this post to someone working on AI. They’ll thank you later.
➡️ Follow Ana on Instagram @anajuneja
➡️ Add Ana on LinkedIn @anajuneja