Business leaders and economists have long speculated that artificial intelligence is riding an investment bubble — and now Sam Altman, the man at the heart of the boom, has said so himself.

In a rare moment of candor, the OpenAI CEO told reporters over dinner in San Francisco that the AI sector is indeed overinflated, fueled by investor excitement that far outpaces the industry’s immediate fundamentals.

“Are we in a phase where investors as a whole are overexcited about AI? My opinion is yes,” Altman said, drawing a direct comparison to the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s.

Altman’s comments land at a moment when AI startups are securing record-breaking sums of capital with little more than proof-of-concept technology and small engineering teams. Venture firms, hedge funds, and sovereign wealth funds have poured billions into early-stage AI companies, sending valuations soaring to levels typically reserved for the likes of Microsoft or Alphabet.

Altman warned that this surge resembles past bubbles where “smart people get overexcited about a kernel of truth.” He pointed out that while the internet truly reshaped the world, many investors lost fortunes before the winners of that era emerged.

“That’s not rational behavior,” Altman said of today’s funding race. “Someone’s gonna get burned there, I think. Someone is going to lose a phenomenal amount of money — we don’t know who — and a lot of people are going to make a phenomenal amount of money.”

A Boom Without Revenue

Data support his warning. Nearly 500 AI startups are now valued at over $1 billion, with average valuations around $5.4 billion each, despite minimal revenues and, in some cases, no clear path to monetization. Another 1,300 young firms command valuations north of $100 million. Notably, companies founded by OpenAI alumni, such as Safe Superintelligence and Thinking Machines, have already raised billions in their first year of existence.

This investor appetite has created a paradox: while the promise of AI breakthroughs is undeniable, the financial ecosystem around them may be unsustainable in the near term. Analysts say valuations are not based on earnings or market share, but on speculative bets about who will dominate the future of artificial general intelligence (AGI).

Altman’s Balancing Act

For Altman, acknowledging the bubble does not mean doubting AI’s future. On the contrary, he stressed that, like the internet crash, any short-term correction would not erase the technology’s long-term transformative potential.

“Tech was really important. The internet was a really big deal. People got overexcited,” Altman said.

He believes AI will follow a similar path, producing extraordinary economic value even if early investors face heavy losses.

That confidence is evident in OpenAI’s own ambitions. Altman revealed that the company is preparing to spend “trillions of dollars” on building advanced data centers, a level of infrastructure investment that would rival or surpass the scale of entire national power grids. The remark underscores his belief that OpenAI must leverage today’s market boom to cement its lead before capital becomes scarce.

Lessons from the Past, Stakes for the Future

The AI bubble debate fits into a broader historical pattern: new technologies often ignite speculative frenzies before settling into more realistic valuations. The dot-com era gave birth to Amazon and Google, but also wiped out thousands of companies. Electric vehicles, blockchain, and renewable energy each saw similar cycles of hype and correction.

What makes AI different is the sheer breadth of its promised impact — from reshaping labor markets to altering geopolitics. Investors betting big on AI are not just chasing returns, but positioning themselves for what many believe is the defining technological shift of the century.

Altman’s admission thus gives voice to what many insiders have whispered: that this market cannot sustain itself at its current pace. But his trillion-dollar spending vision also signals that the most powerful players intend to ride out any crash, emerging stronger on the other side.

The Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, on Thursday, met behind closed doors with President Bola Tinubu at the Presidential Villa, commending his administration for the economic reforms she said were restoring stability to Nigeria’s economy.

Okonjo-Iweala, who described the meeting as “very good,” said the President was “gracious” to receive her shortly after she joined First Lady, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, to launch a new Women Exporters Fund. The fund, jointly managed by the WTO and the International Trade Centre (ITC) in Geneva, is designed to help Nigerian women entrepreneurs expand their businesses, create jobs, and boost household incomes, especially in the growing digital economy.

She revealed that Nigeria competed and emerged as one of only four countries selected globally for the programme. Out of a staggering 67,000 Nigerian women who applied, 146 were chosen as beneficiaries. Sixteen of these winners, under the “Booster Track,” already operate businesses that will now be scaled up with 18 months of technical and business support from the WTO, ITC, the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, and the Nigerian Export Promotion Council. Another 100 will each receive $5,000 in direct funding alongside a year of business development support, while the remainder will gain tailored assistance to strengthen their enterprises.

“This is just the beginning,” Okonjo-Iweala said, stressing the programme’s potential to diversify Nigeria’s economic base while empowering women. She explained that such initiatives not only stimulate entrepreneurship but also act as an informal safety net, enabling women to better withstand economic shocks.

On Nigeria’s economy, Okonjo-Iweala—who served as Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy under former President Goodluck Jonathan—credited the Tinubu administration with achieving a level of stability she described as a necessary foundation for growth.

“You cannot really improve an economy unless it’s stable,” she noted. “The President and his team have worked hard to stabilize the economy. The reforms have been in the right direction. The next step is growth, and alongside that, building social safety nets so those feeling the pinch of reforms can get support.”

She specifically commended the government’s key policy moves, including the removal of the petrol subsidy and the unification of Nigeria’s multiple foreign exchange windows—measures she acknowledged were difficult but essential for restoring macroeconomic balance. However, she cautioned that while reforms were crucial, they also came with short-term pain, particularly for the most vulnerable Nigerians.

To this end, she urged the Federal Government to prioritize targeted social safety nets to cushion the impact of rising living costs on poor households.

“Growth, job creation, and income expansion must go hand-in-hand with measures to protect those at risk of being left behind,” she said, adding that neglecting such interventions could weaken public support for necessary reforms.

The meeting between Tinubu and Okonjo-Iweala comes just two weeks before the expiration of her first term as WTO Director-General on August 31, 2025, and the commencement of her second term on September 1, 2025. Her historic appointment in 2021 made her the first African and first woman to lead the 164-member global trade body.

Accompanied by Trade Minister Jumoke Oduwole, Okonjo-Iweala also briefed the President on the operational framework of the Women’s Exporters Fund for the digital economy.

She emphasized that the initiative is not just about business growth but also about empowering women to “weather the storms of the economy and create jobs for themselves.”

“This is part of the thinking behind social safety nets and what we can do to support Nigerian women to contribute more to the economy and to themselves,” she said. “Sixteen of them have won what we call the Booster Track—those who already have businesses but whose operations will be scaled up with our support. Another 100 will each get $5,000 to start or strengthen their businesses with 12-month development support.”

U.S. President Donald Trump’s long-anticipated summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ended Friday without a ceasefire deal in Ukraine, setting off unease in European capitals and sparking renewed debate over America’s role in the war.

Trump struck a confident tone after the hours-long meeting, telling his supporters on social media that the talks “went very well.” But his refusal to push for a ceasefire immediately, opting instead to emphasize a broader “Peace Agreement,” underscored the fault lines between Washington, Kyiv, and European leaders.

“It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up,” Trump wrote.

The framing marks a sharp contrast with Ukraine and its allies in Europe, who view a ceasefire as an urgent necessity to stop the bloodshed while paving the way toward longer-term peace. European leaders released a joint statement insisting that “it will be up to Ukraine to make decisions on its territory” and warning that without a ceasefire, Russia retains the upper hand on the battlefield.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, excluded from the summit, responded cautiously but said he plans to meet Trump in Washington on Monday to “discuss all the details regarding ending the killings and the war.” Trump, in turn, suggested that if progress is made with Zelenskyy, he would then move toward a second meeting with Putin.

The summit also reignited a familiar debate in Europe about Trump’s approach to Russia. Since his first term in office, Trump has been accused by critics of showing unusual deference to Putin. His questioning of NATO’s value, coupled with repeated threats to reduce U.S. commitments to the alliance, has unsettled European leaders who see Washington as indispensable in countering Moscow’s aggression.

At the same time, Trump has often argued that Europe relies too heavily on American defense spending and has pushed allies to shoulder more of the burden. His latest diplomatic overture to Putin deepens the perception among some European capitals that the U.S. president is willing to cut side deals with Moscow, even if it sidelines NATO unity or Kyiv’s priorities.

Moscow seized on this moment to project victory. Putin described the talks as “very frank, meaningful and, in my opinion, this brings us closer to the necessary decisions.” Russian senator Andrei Klishas went further, declaring that “a new European and international security architecture is on the agenda and everyone must accept it.”

For Trump, the summit fits into his longstanding pattern of pursuing personal diplomacy with strongmen—whether with Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, or China’s Xi Jinping—arguing that direct leader-to-leader engagement can achieve breakthroughs where traditional diplomacy stalls. His critics, however, warn that such a strategy risks legitimizing adversaries while undermining alliances built over decades.

The stakes are particularly high in Ukraine. Without a ceasefire, Russia retains room to expand its territorial grip and test the resolve of Europe’s sanctions regime. European leaders vowed to keep the pressure on Moscow: As long as the killing in Ukraine continues, we stand ready to uphold the pressure on Russia, they said, promising to strengthen sanctions until “there is a just and lasting peace.”

The outcome of the summit means the war continues for now. Trump is betting that his personal brand of dealmaking can deliver what months of Western pressure and battlefield struggles have not: a negotiated peace. Whether that gamble pays off or deepens divisions within the West will become clearer after his meeting with Zelenskyy in Washington.