Michael Burry, the contrarian investor immortalized in “The Big Short” for his prescient bet against the housing market, issued a stark warning late Tuesday that the artificial intelligence frenzy represents a bubble of unprecedented scale—one destined to burst and drag down stocks and the broader economy, with government intervention powerless to prevent it.

In a post on X under his account @michaeljburry (branded “Cassandra Unchained”), Burry responded to a detailed critique from former hedge fund manager George Noble, who argued that OpenAI is “falling apart in real time.” Noble highlighted intensifying competition from Google’s Gemini 3, plunging ChatGPT traffic, massive quarterly losses ($12 billion in one period per Microsoft’s disclosures), talent departures, unsustainable spending on tools like Sora, and Elon Musk’s ongoing lawsuit seeking up to $134 billion.

Burry agreed emphatically, saying, “This is not surprising and will not end with OpenAI. All the capital being spent and lent by the richest companies on earth will not buy enough time—by the very definition of mania.”

He added that authorities would “pull out all the stops to save the AI bubble to save the market to save the economy,” but concluded, “The problem is too big to save, again by that very same definition.”

The remarks build on Burry’s longstanding skepticism. Since pivoting from hedge fund management to Substack commentary late last year, he has repeatedly likened the AI surge to the dot-com era. He has called OpenAI “the next Netscape, doomed and hemorrhaging cash,” criticized its projected $1.4 trillion spending over eight years as “dreamy,” and expressed surprise that ChatGPT’s launch ignited a multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure race.

Burry has positioned bearishly, including options bets against Nvidia and Palantir as “poster children” of the hype, arguing that returns on invested capital are declining and much of the spending will ultimately be written off.

OpenAI’s trajectory underscores his concerns. The company’s annualized revenue run rate surged from $2 billion in 2023 to $6 billion in 2024 and more than $20 billion in 2025, according to CFO Sarah Friar in a recent blog post. Compute capacity grew similarly, from 0.2 GW in 2023 to about 1.9 GW by the end of 2025. Yet critics like Noble point to escalating costs, diminishing returns on model improvements, user disappointment with releases like GPT-5 (described as “underwhelming” and quickly overshadowed by prior versions), and internal turmoil—including key executive exits and allegations of leadership issues.

Burry’s view aligns with other prominent skeptics. Veteran investor Jeremy Grantham, known for calling past bubbles, recently described AI as “obviously a bubble” with “slim to none” odds of avoiding a bust, comparing it to 19th-century railroads and the late-1990s internet mania. He expects leaders like Nvidia to spearhead any downturn, leaving markets “a whole lot cheaper” before eventual recovery.

However, contrasting opinions persist. Optimists such as “Shark Tank” star Kevin O’Leary and investor Ross Gerber argue AI is driving genuine productivity gains and rapid growth, far from a fleeting euphoria. Broader market sentiment remains mixed: America’s eight most valuable public companies—Nvidia, Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Broadcom, Meta, and Tesla—collectively exceed $22 trillion in market cap, all deeply invested in AI infrastructure. Yet warnings of overvaluation and circular financing (e.g., intertwined deals among hyperscalers) have intensified debates.

Burry’s latest salvo arrives amid fresh volatility in tech stocks, including recent dips tied to geopolitical tensions. His track record lends weight to the cautionary tone, though past predictions have not always timed perfectly. The success of AI buildout has so far remained speculative, casting doubts on the investments. As Burry sees it, the scale of capital deployed—trillions across Big Tech—has created a mania too vast for even extraordinary measures to contain once cracks appear.

Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang has framed artificial intelligence–powered robotics as a rare strategic opening for Europe, arguing that the continent’s deep industrial roots give it an edge in what he described as a “once-in-a-generation” technological shift.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday, Huang said Europe’s strength in manufacturing positions it to move beyond the software-centric phase of artificial intelligence that has largely been dominated by the United States. The next phase, he argued, lies in what Nvidia calls “physical AI”, systems that combine advanced machine learning with machines that can sense, move, and act in the real world.

“You can now fuse your industrial capability, your manufacturing capability, with artificial intelligence, and that brings you into the world of physical AI, or robotics,” Huang said.

In doing so, Europe has the chance to “leap past” the software era and reassert itself in a domain where it has long excelled.

His remarks come as attention across both technology and heavy industry shifts toward autonomous robotics. Advances in AI models, simulation, computer vision, and edge computing are rapidly expanding the capabilities of robots, from warehouse automation and factory floors to logistics, mobility, and humanoid systems. This convergence is reshaping long-standing assumptions about productivity, labor, and industrial competitiveness.

Europe’s industrial champions are already moving in that direction. Companies such as Siemens, Mercedes-Benz Group, Volvo, and Schaeffler have announced new robotics projects and partnerships over the past year, often combining proprietary manufacturing expertise with AI software developed by specialist technology firms. These initiatives reflect a broader recognition that robotics may become the main channel through which AI delivers tangible productivity gains in traditional sectors.

The momentum is not confined to Europe. Big Tech firms are also intensifying their push into robotics, underscoring how central the field has become to future growth narratives. Tesla chief executive Elon Musk said in September that 80% of the company’s value would ultimately come from its Optimus humanoid robots. Google’s AI division DeepMind released new robotics-focused models in 2025, while Nvidia itself announced partnerships with Alphabet in March to advance physical AI systems.

Investors are following closely. According to Dealroom, companies building robotics technologies raised a record $26.5 billion in 2025, highlighting growing confidence that the sector is nearing a commercial inflection point after years of promise and limited scale.

Yet Huang was clear that Europe’s ability to capitalize on this opportunity will hinge on a constraint that has increasingly defined the AI race: energy. He said the region must “get serious” about expanding its energy supply if it wants to support the infrastructure required for large-scale AI and robotics deployment.

Europe has some of the highest energy costs in the world, a challenge that has been compounded since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Those costs are becoming a structural disadvantage as AI systems demand vast amounts of electricity to power data centers, training clusters, and real-time inference at the edge.

Huang’s comments echoed those of Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella, who told the forum a day earlier that energy costs will be a decisive factor in determining which countries succeed in the AI era. For robotics in particular, the energy challenge is twofold: powering the cloud-based intelligence behind the machines and supporting the electrified factories, logistics hubs, and networks in which they operate.

“I think that it’s fairly certain that you have to get serious about increasing your energy supply so that you could invest in the infrastructure layer, so that you could have a rich ecosystem of artificial intelligence here in Europe,” Huang said.

That infrastructure layer is already expanding rapidly. Hyperscalers are racing to roll out AI data centers across the continent, even as grid constraints and permitting delays slow projects in some countries. Huang said the pace of investment shows no sign of easing, describing AI as the “largest infrastructure buildout in human history.”

“We’re now a few hundred billion dollars into it,” he said. “There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that needs to be built out.”

But if energy bottlenecks persist, Europe risks watching the next wave of AI-driven industrial transformation take shape elsewhere. If they are addressed, Huang’s argument is that the region could turn its traditional strengths into a modern advantage, using robotics and physical AI to anchor growth, competitiveness, and industrial relevance in the decades ahead.

Berkshire Hathaway has taken a decisive procedural step that could pave the way for a full or partial exit from one of the most uncomfortable chapters in Warren Buffett’s investing legacy, as the conglomerate registered its entire 27.5% stake in Kraft Heinz for potential sale.

The decision is seen as a carefully calibrated signal that the conglomerate, now under the stewardship of CEO Greg Abel, is reassessing one of the most uncomfortable investments in its modern history and, by extension, redefining how it deals with legacy bets that no longer fit its long-term compounding model.

The registration clears the path for Berkshire to sell some or all of its shares in the packaged food maker, even though it stops short of committing the company to an immediate exit. Markets, however, moved swiftly. Kraft Heinz shares dropped as much as 7.5% in intraday trading, underscoring investor sensitivity to any hint that Berkshire’s patient capital may finally be preparing to leave.

Kraft Heinz has long occupied an awkward place in the Berkshire portfolio. Unlike Coca-Cola, American Express, or Apple, it never evolved into a durable growth story. Since the 2015 merger of Kraft Foods and H.J. Heinz, the company’s shares have fallen about 70%, reflecting years of strategic drift, pricing pressure, and an inability to keep pace with rapidly changing consumer preferences. Demand has steadily shifted toward fresher, less processed foods, while many of Kraft Heinz’s core brands remain rooted in categories facing structural decline.

Cost inflation and supply chain disruptions added to those pressures, squeezing margins and limiting the company’s ability to reinvest aggressively in product development and marketing. While management has pushed through cost-saving initiatives and leaned on price increases to protect profitability, volume growth has remained elusive in key markets.

The financial toll has been real for Berkshire. Although dividends from Kraft Heinz have totaled billions of dollars over the years, they have not offset the collapse in the stock price. In 2024, Berkshire was forced to record a $3.8 billion write-down on its holding, a reminder that the investment continues to weigh on reported earnings and book value.

The timing of the registration is particularly telling. Greg Abel has only recently assumed the chief executive role, yet the move suggests a willingness to confront inherited decisions early rather than defer difficult calls. Morningstar analyst Greggory Warren described the filing as evidence of Abel’s desire to clean up the portfolio at the start of his tenure, signaling that sentimentality will not override capital discipline.

This approach marks a subtle shift from the Buffett era, where patience often extended for decades, even when results disappointed. Buffett himself has acknowledged the Kraft Heinz deal as a miscalculation, a rare admission from an investor whose reputation rests on long-term conviction.

“It certainly didn’t turn out to be a brilliant idea to put them together,” he told CNBC last year, adding that he was unconvinced a breakup would solve the company’s deeper issues.

That skepticism hangs over Kraft Heinz’s own restructuring plans. The company is preparing to split into two separate businesses, one focused on sauces, spreads, and shelf-stable meals, and another housing North American staples such as Oscar Mayer, Kraft Singles, and Lunchables. Management argues the separation will allow sharper strategic focus and unlock shareholder value, but investors remain cautious after a decade of underperformance.

Berkshire’s filing also revives questions about the original logic behind the merger. In 2015, Buffett partnered with 3G Capital, a private equity firm known for aggressive cost-cutting, to combine Kraft and Heinz. The bet was that scale and efficiency would revive iconic brands. Instead, relentless cost discipline arguably starved the brands of innovation, leaving them ill-prepared for shifts in consumer behavior.

3G Capital quietly exited its position in 2023 after years of trimming its stake, leaving Berkshire as the dominant long-term holder.

Analysts are careful to note that the registration does not guarantee a sale. Stifel said the filing simply gives Berkshire flexibility, allowing it to reduce its ownership without additional disclosures beyond standard quarterly filings. Any concrete change is unlikely to be visible until Berkshire reports its first-quarter portfolio activity in mid-May.

Still, the strategic implications are hard to ignore. Kraft Heinz now faces softer consumption trends in the United States and slower growth in emerging markets, dynamics that Stifel said could delay any meaningful revenue recovery even as the company continues to generate solid cash flow. The firm reiterated a hold rating and a $26 price target, reflecting skepticism about near-term upside.

For Berkshire shareholders, the episode is being watched as an early test of Abel’s capital allocation philosophy. Whether he ultimately exits Kraft Heinz entirely or trims the position gradually, the move suggests a more pragmatic stance toward legacy investments that fail to meet return thresholds. It also reinforces the idea that Berkshire, while still shaped by Buffett’s principles, is entering a phase where past mistakes are more openly acknowledged and addressed.

In that sense, the Kraft Heinz filing is not just about a food company struggling to regain relevance. It is a quiet marker of transition at one of the world’s most closely watched conglomerates.