I despise target retirement age funds for exactly this reason and I have all my 401k funding in major index funds that I do not care about beyond that on a day to day basis.

The major target retirement date funds are just "funds of funds" that are distributed across stock and bond index funds in an age appropriate allocation. e.g. https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-fun... They're generally not actively managed funds chasing bubbles.

Article is about pension funds.

401ks are self-managed, though many stick with the default investments.

The article is not strictly about pension funds. There are several mentions of individual retirement accounts.

41K’s can be self-managed. But you have to take it upon yourself to do so if you don’t, you will get dumped into a hodgepodge fund where you have the high performing and the low performing thrown together, whose purpose is to average everything out.

I didn't say anything about the management of retirement savings.

The author claims two things:

1. AI company valuations dropped because of fears that Democrats would restrict data center construction.

2. The AI industry is doomed because of unsustainable spending on data centers.

If 1 is true then investors clearly believe that the current level of spending is appropriate and any restrictions on it are harmful to long term returns.

If 2 is true and unsustainable spending continues despite a lack of RoI, then "arms race" is the only explanation for the irrationality. It is driven by the fear that if you don't spend big, you'll be part of the permanent underclass of companies.

This in turn implies a data center construction moratorium is a blessing in disguise. Everyone has an ironclad excuse to reduce financially-irresponsible but mania-driven data center investments.

Bottomline:

"Data center restrictions are bad for the industry"

and

"Data center spending is unsustainable"

are polar opposite viewpoints and imply vastly different outcomes of the current buildout.

I don't know which one is true. And like most things, I suspect the truth is in the middle. But they can't be simultaneously true.

I think 1. and 2. could both be true at the same time.

1. is claimed to have happened because INVESTORS in AI companies rerated their investment due to a threat of construction restriction 2. is a prediction about the future of how the industry will turn out

Someone who believes (2) is less likely to have been an investor to begin with and therefore didn't participate in the price rerating for (1)

I do agree with your point that a reduction in spending would have a positive outcome overall if we turn out to be in an "arms race" with a lack of ROI.

You're right 1 and 2 are different groups of people.