top of page

By:

Kiran D. Tare

21 August 2024 at 4:53:13 pm

The Great Contrarian

Michael Burry made his reputation by seeing through the housing boom. Now he is turning his scepticism on AI by questioning the stories being told about it. Michael Burry has always had an uncomfortable relationship with consensus. When everyone else sees a boom, he tends to look for the balance sheet underneath it. Recently, when some of the globe’s most powerful executives began telling the public that Artificial Intelligence is something is both enormously valuable and dangerously...

The Great Contrarian

Michael Burry made his reputation by seeing through the housing boom. Now he is turning his scepticism on AI by questioning the stories being told about it. Michael Burry has always had an uncomfortable relationship with consensus. When everyone else sees a boom, he tends to look for the balance sheet underneath it. Recently, when some of the globe’s most powerful executives began telling the public that Artificial Intelligence is something is both enormously valuable and dangerously powerful, Burry’s instinct was to wonder who benefits from the story. Burry’s instinct – of saying directly that the Emperor has no clothes – has made him famous. As the physician-turned-investor immortalised in 2015 film The Big Short, Burry was one of the investors who saw the fragility of America’s housing market before the financial crisis of 2008. While Wall Street was busy packaging subprime mortgages into increasingly elaborate securities, he concluded that the loans were deteriorating, lending standards were weakening and house prices could not keep rising simply because the financial system assumed they would. This month, as some of the world’s most prominent AI executives began warning that the technology could produce catastrophic consequences unless its development was slowed, Burry again took aim at the argument. In a post on his Substack, Cassandra Unchained, he described the warnings from OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and Elon Musk as “self-serving” and suggested that the language of impending catastrophe was serving a very different purpose from public safety. Burry pulled no punches when he said that the technology’s boosters and its doomers can sometimes be selling the same product. Burry’s suspicion is that the more extraordinary AI appears, the more extraordinary its valuations become. The same behemoths then warn that AI development must be slowed, gain time and protection from their competitors. Burry’s suspicion is particularly pointed because OpenAI and Anthropic have been moving towards possible public listings at enormous valuations. Inc. reported his argument on September 16, noting his contention that AI safety warnings could provide “cover” for slowing growth and postponing IPO plans. Burry’s provocative formulation is that large language models are not themselves artificial general intelligence, and the industry’s rhetoric about slowing “AI” therefore risks confusing a specific class of technologies with a much broader hypothetical future. The current AI debate has increasingly acquired the language of science fiction when it speaks of machines that might escape human control and autonomous systems that might manipulate infrastructure. While such scenarios deserve examination, Burry asks a more mundane question: what if the companies issuing the warnings have commercial incentives that are being overlooked? It is a question characteristic of the man who became famous by reading the footnotes while everyone else watched the headline. Burry’s scepticism toward AI is not new. Since launching Cassandra Unchained in November 2025, he has made the economics of the AI boom one of its central subjects. His writings have examined what he calls “supply-side gluttony”, the enormous investment in AI infrastructure and the financial assumptions underlying the industry. He has also taken short positions against several beneficiaries of the AI boom, including Nvidia and Palantir, arguing that the market may be pricing in too much future success. In one series, The Heretic’s Guide to AI’s Stars, he has examined the accounts of Nvidia and the major hyperscalers, focusing on capital spending, financing arrangements, customer concentration, depreciation and other details that can disappear beneath the headline numbers. His argument is not simply that AI companies are overvalued. He sees familiar patterns in the rush to build infrastructure before the economic returns have been established. In June, he wrote that he had seen something similar before and compared the current AI capital flows with the exuberance of the late 1990s. Burry’s reputation has not been built on predicting every future development. Rather, it was built on being willing to ask whether the story everyone else was telling was supported by the evidence. The housing crisis taught investors that financial innovation could conceal old-fashioned bad lending. The AI boom may yet teach markets that revolutionary technology can coexist with inflated expectations and extraordinary valuations. Burry’s great talent is refusing to accept the present at face value. In a market increasingly dominated by grand claims about machines that will either save civilization or destroy it, that may be the most contrarian position of all.

This One Is About Me

2 hours ago
3 min read

This is my one hundredth column. And for the first time in all of them, I am going to write about myself. Not as the strategist who observed someone else.


Not as the professional who watched a pattern from across the room. But as the person who lived every single thing this series has been about — and who had to do the work before she could ever ask anyone else to do it.


Before I built Suave U. Before the clients and the speaking and the column you are reading right now. There was a version of me deeply unclear about what she stood for. Who showed up differently in different rooms — confident in some, invisible in others. Who knew she had something to offer but could not articulate it in a way that made people lean in rather than politely move on. I was not a different person. I was the same person living in a gap — between who I knew I was on the inside and how the world was experiencing me on the outside.


That gap never announced itself. It revealed itself slowly, in the rooms that did not go the way I had hoped. In the conversations that ended without the connection I had felt. In the quiet, creeping realisation that working harder was not the answer — because the problem was not my effort. It was my clarity. My consistency. The fact that I had never sat still long enough to ask who I was, what I stood for, and whether the version of me showing up in the world was actually the one I had chosen.


The shift did not come from a single moment. It built gradually until it became undeniable. I began with mindset — not as a concept but as a practice. I examined the beliefs I had been carrying about who deserved to be seen, whether I was enough, what kind of person could command the rooms I wanted to be in. Some had been there so long they no longer felt like beliefs. They felt like facts. Dismantling them was the most important and most uncomfortable work I have ever done.


Everything followed from there. How I communicated shifted when I became clear about what I wanted to say. How I carried myself shifted when I stopped apologising for taking up space. How I showed up online shifted when I understood that my presence there was not about performance — it was about truth. The inside had to change before the outside could reflect anything worth reflecting.


And then the congruence arrived. Not perfectly or all at once — but undeniably. The person I was in a room became the same person you would find online, in a first meeting, in a difficult one. One version. One voice. One brand — built from the inside out, exactly the way I now build it for every founder I work with.


Leads stopped being something I chased. Rooms stopped feeling like performances. The right people started finding me because I had finally become findable — not through more visibility but through more truth. That is what congruence does. It makes you magnetic without making you loud.


One hundred columns. Each one a mirror held up to a founder who already knows what needs to change — but has not yet decided to act on it. This one is the proof that the mirror works — because I stood in front of it first. If you have been reading this series and recognising yourself in it — the patterns, the gaps, the quiet cost of staying the same — I want to talk to you. Not about your business. About you. The brand you are building whether you intend to or not. And what it would look like if you built it on purpose. That conversation starts here: https://www.calendly.com/divyaaadvaani/founderbrand-audit


(The author is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

Comments


bottom of page