The AI data center boom is usually discussed as a shortage problem. There is not enough power, not enough transformers, not enough land with grid access, not enough cooling capacity, and not enough GPU infrastructure.
But infrastructure cycles have another failure mode: building too much of the wrong thing.
That concern is moving into financial markets. Reuters reported in August 2026 that U.S. AI-related corporate debt issuance had reached roughly $220 billion during the year, compared with $12.5 billion the year before. Investors were beginning to demand wider spreads as the volume of technology debt increased. The Reuters analysis did not say the boom was collapsing. It showed that capital is no longer treating every AI infrastructure requirement as an uncomplicated bet.
The uncomfortable question is whether today's capacity shortage could become tomorrow's stranded asset problem.
Data centers last longer than AI hardware cycles
A modern data center is a long-lived physical asset. Utility connections, switchgear, cooling systems, generators, buildings, and network infrastructure are financed over years or decades.
AI hardware evolves much faster.
GPU generations change, rack densities rise, cooling requirements shift, interconnect architectures evolve, and inference workloads may move toward more specialized or energy-efficient hardware. A facility designed around today's power density and thermal assumptions may need major retrofits before the building itself is old.
This is why AI data center capacity planning has to look beyond floor space. Usable capacity is constrained by power, cooling, network, hardware profiles, and operating conditions. A building can have empty rack positions and still be functionally full.
It can also have megawatts available that future hardware no longer wants in the same configuration.
The bull case remains formidable
There are strong reasons to believe more capacity will be needed.
Model training remains compute intensive. Inference demand is expanding as AI features are embedded in software, search, productivity tools, coding, media generation, robotics, and enterprise workflows. Sovereignty requirements may also push countries and regulated industries toward more regional infrastructure.
Even if individual models become more efficient, cheaper inference can increase total usage. Computing history contains many examples where efficiency improvements lowered unit cost and drove much larger aggregate demand.
Under that scenario, today's aggressive construction looks less like a bubble and more like catching up.
The risk is not simply too many megawatts
Oversupply is rarely uniform.
A facility can be valuable in one region and stranded in another. Power cost, grid reliability, water access, network connectivity, tax policy, local regulation, customer concentration, and proximity to demand all influence whether capacity remains useful.
The same is true operationally. Facilities that can support high-density liquid-cooled deployments may age differently from facilities requiring expensive retrofits. Teams that understand AI data center operations will recognize that a nominal megawatt of capacity is not interchangeable across sites.
That makes headline forecasts about global gigawatts less useful than they appear.
Debt makes wrong assumptions less forgiving
When hyperscalers finance projects from enormous operating cash flows, a weak facility can be absorbed inside a larger portfolio.
Debt changes the equation. Interest must be paid regardless of utilization, technology shifts, local opposition, or slower-than-expected AI demand. Special-purpose financing structures can also separate infrastructure from the companies ultimately consuming the compute, making risk harder to understand.
The Bank of England has already highlighted the scale of expected external financing for AI infrastructure and the growing role of debt and private credit.
None of this proves a bubble. It means capital structure deserves as much attention as GPU demand.
Build for adaptability, not one forecast
The safest answer is not to stop building. It is to stop treating one demand forecast as certain.
Developers should stress-test projects against slower utilization, changing rack density, different cooling architectures, customer concentration, higher electricity prices, delayed grid connections, and hardware replacement cycles.
The winning AI data center may not be the one with the largest announced capacity. It may be the one that can remain economically useful when the assumptions made in 2026 turn out to be wrong.
Infrastructure booms become bubbles when capital forgets that demand, technology, and financing can all change at the same time.
Originally published on the Sensaka blog.
