Big tech spends more than $1 trillion on AI infrastructure  additional $745 billion expected to be added to the figure in 2026 alone 40%

By Jowi Morales83%

7/31/2026, 9:30:34 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 25% saturation with 196 hits. Analysis detected 1,079 faulty-reasoning hits from 785 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37% and a BS Rank of 40% (19,293 of 31,901 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.50% of the article peer group.

Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft have spent more than a trillion dollars on AI infrastructure, including data centers, the chips inside them, and the power needed to run the facilities, since 2023. 
The Financial Times said that these four big companies have already hit $1.1 trillion in capital expenditure based on their latest earnings reports, and that an additional $745 billion is expected to be added to this figure just this year. 
“There is basically no end in sight for the growth in capex,” RBC Capital analyst Rishi Jaluria told the publication. 
“Investors need these companies to toe the tight line between investing in AI and not compromising the things that have made them successful.” 
This massive investment has upended several other industries  namely electricity prices and memory and storage chips. 
The massive power demand that data centers have put on the power grid has forced many U.S. utility companies to spend billions of dollars to upgrade their respective infrastructure, which they then passed on to all consumers , not just the big ones that forced the upgrade. 
This, alongside other environmental issues, has caused many Americans to push back against data center projects near their communities. 
The White House instituted the  ratepayer protection pledge  and made AI hyperscalers, utility operators, data center companies, and individual states promise that they will protect the average consumer from electricity cost increases. 
But so far, no state has taken a step to codify this pledge into law. 
Oregon actually enacted the POWER Act , which resulted in a 30% increase in the power bill of users that consumed more than 20MW while slashing the bills of residents by 1.3%, but the state did this in 2025, way before President Donald Trump called the tech giants into the White House and told them to “pay their own way.” 
The mountains of cash that these tech giants are pouring into AI are also affecting the memory and storage chip industry. 
Since these AI hyperscalers have a lot of liquidity from investors, they are willing to pay top dollar for the HBM they need to run their data centers. 
Because of this, it made sense for Micron, Samsung, and SK hynix to prioritize them over DRAM, especially as they can charge a premium for these chips and there are customers who are willing to pay at those prices. 
This resulted in a shortage of consumer memory that started in 2025  while this initially affected PC builders and enthusiasts, it has started to affect other industries that require memory as well, including cars and smartphones . 
Even Apple, which historically had huge sway over its suppliers, was forced to increase prices because of the shortages. 
Aside from skewing other industries, the massive CAPEX the big four are going into is alarming some experts, warning that the promises and contracts they’re making are leading to “hidden debt” not listed in their balance sheets . 
The amount, worth around $1.65 trillion, is annotated in their quarterly financial statements as future obligations that will only come into play as the related asset or service comes online. 
The current value is 122% of the actual debt reflected on their balance sheets, which could give investors the wrong impression that they have fewer obligations than they actually have. 
While the amount of money that the big four are spending on AI might seem dizzyingly high, we must note that these companies are raking in massive amounts of cash quarterly themselves. 
Microsoft’s latest quarterly revenue is $90 billion, while Meta made $60 billion in the same period. 
Alphabet (Google) announced revenue of nearly $120 billion, while Amazon made $200 billion. 
That is a total of nearly $470 billion for these companies in just the last quarter. 
Still, that does not mean that they can just keep on spending on AI. 
For example, even though Google’s cloud business had a revenue of $11 billion last year, its price dropped after it announced that it spent more than it made last quarter  the first time this happened in the 20 years since it went public. 
Meta is also planning to rent out its AI compute , apparently following in the footsteps of Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, which have growing cloud businesses. 
However, this announcement caused a drop in its stock price. 
“They are a bit all over the place,” SLC Management managing director Dec Mullarkey told FT. 
“For investors it’s no longer growth at any cost; they want to see the spending flowing through to results, like at the Big Three.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.2%Jowi Morales: 3.6%Tom's Hardware: 2.9%Confirmation Bias8.2%This article: 3.8%Jowi Morales: 3.0%Tom's Hardware: 1.9%Anchoring Bias3.8%This article: 8.7%Jowi Morales: 4.4%Tom's Hardware: 2.9%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 2.0%Jowi Morales: 1.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic2.0%This article: 7.6%Jowi Morales: 1.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Hindsight Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 2.0%Tom's Hardware: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Jowi Morales: 9.0%Tom's Hardware: 6.4%Framing Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 1.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 4.5%Tom's Hardware: 4.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Jowi Morales: 2.6%Tom's Hardware: 2.2%Pessimism Bias7.3%This article: 8.9%Jowi Morales: 10.0%Tom's Hardware: 5.5%Negativity Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 1.3%Tom's Hardware: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Jowi Morales: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error6.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Jowi Morales: 1.9%Tom's Hardware: 1.9%Halo Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Jowi Morales: 1.5%Tom's Hardware: 1.5%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.4%Tom's Hardware: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.0%Jowi Morales: 4.9%Tom's Hardware: 3.8%Appeal to Authority13.0%This article: 1.8%Jowi Morales: 2.6%Tom's Hardware: 1.5%False Dilemma1.8%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 1.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.6%Jowi Morales: 6.5%Tom's Hardware: 4.8%Hasty Generalization3.6%This article: 7.6%Jowi Morales: 0.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Red Herring7.6%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.8%Jowi Morales: 4.7%Tom's Hardware: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion7.8%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 25.0%Jowi Morales: 6.1%Tom's Hardware: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)25.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 1.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.3%Jowi Morales: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.5%Composition/Division3.3%This article: 2.4%Jowi Morales: 3.4%Tom's Hardware: 1.7%Anecdotal2.4%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.8%Jowi Morales: 2.4%Tom's Hardware: 2.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.8%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Jowi Morales: 2.1%Tom's Hardware: 1.9%Unattributed Quote2.9%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 1.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 6.8%Tom's Hardware: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 1.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jowi Morales: 4.0%Tom's Hardware: 2.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

785 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers12%attributed speech691writer words
Selected voice

Dec Mullarkey

60%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words43% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Unattributed Quote-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Dec Mullarkey: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.