The article argues that the AI boom has physical public costs that should not be quietly shifted onto households and municipalities. Data centers require electricity, transmission, substations, water, land, and cooling infrastructure, while a small group of firms captures much of the upside. The case is not to stop AI investment, but to make developers pay for attributable grid, water, and local infrastructure costs in exchange for faster, clearer approvals.

It also proposes a modest, independently governed sovereign wealth fund funded by AI-linked public revenues or infrastructure-use levies. The fund would diversify public exposure, preserve fiscal capacity, and support underprovided capabilities like public-interest compute, cybersecurity and worker-transition pathways. The broader bargain is to trade a little short-term speed for better cost allocation, stronger workplace safeguards, and a public balance sheet that lets households share in AI-driven wealth.

Michael Burry has a knack for walking into the party right when the music is loudest and asking where the fire exits are.

In 2005, that meant shorting the U.S. housing market while everyone else was busy securitizing granite countertops. Today, it means betting against the AI trade while the rest of us are delighting in auto-drafted emails and AI-polished pitch decks. On paper, he is “short AI.” In practice, his long game is quieter and more elemental: water rights, water-rich farmland, water utilities.

He is betting on scarcity against a story that pretends resources are infinite.