allnewscastallnewscast
Breaking News
Gillibrand and Welch Set Fall Senate Hearing Schedule For Tariff Repeal Bill— Politics & ElectionsFederal Judge Says Trump Team Defied Mail-Voting Injunction With New USPS Rule— Politics & Electionsnews1— Politics & ElectionsGillibrand and Welch Set Fall Senate Hearing Schedule For Tariff Repeal Bill— Politics & ElectionsFederal Judge Says Trump Team Defied Mail-Voting Injunction With New USPS Rule— Politics & Electionsnews1— Politics & Elections
AI & Tech

AInews: Majority of Americans Now Say Artificial Romance Counts as Cheating

Nic Reeve8 min read
AInews: Majority of Americans Now Say Artificial Romance Counts as Cheating

On 3 August 2026, a new survey titled The State of AI Romance 2026 reported that 50.5% of U.S. adults consider a partner’s romantic or sexual relationship with artificial intelligence to be cheating, giving AInews a fresh data point in the debate over digital fidelity.

What exactly did the new survey on AI romance and cheating find?

The August 2026 survey by AI Girlfriend Coach asked U.S. adults whether they would see a partner’s romantic or sexual relationship with an AI bot as infidelity. Just over half said yes, while many of the rest still felt uneasy even if they stopped short of calling it cheating.

According to AI Girlfriend Coach’s The State of AI Romance 2026 study, fielded in August 2026 among U.S. adults:

  • 50.5% of respondents said a partner’s romantic or sexual relationship with an AI would count as cheating.
  • 21.2% said it would not be cheating but that they would be uncomfortable with it.
  • Combined, 71.7% expressed discomfort with a partner having an AI-mediated romance.

The study examined how adults view AI girlfriends, AI boyfriends and emotional attachment to digital companions, concluding that artificial partners are already reshaping ideas of loyalty and betrayal in long-term relationships.

How do these findings compare with other recent research on AI companions and infidelity?

Other surveys from 2025 and 2026 show a similar pattern: large numbers of Americans treat romantic or sexual interaction with AI as crossing a line, although they differ in whether they label it outright cheating or a lesser breach of trust.

Recent national and industry studies report the following key figures:

  • According to a 2,000-person U.S. singles survey conducted by OnePoll for dating app Plenty of Fish in 2025, 54% of respondents said romantic or emotional engagement with AI chatbots constitutes infidelity.
  • The same Plenty of Fish study found that this 54% is just one percentage point below the 55% who classify emotional bonds with another human as cheating, putting digital and human emotional affairs on nearly equal footing.
  • A study by the Kinsey Institute and DatingAdvice.com, fielded with 2,000 U.S. singles in 2025, reported that 61% said sexting or falling in love with an AI “crosses the line” in a relationship.
  • According to a breakdown of that Kinsey–DatingAdvice survey published in 2026, 32% called sexting with an AI chatbot cheating, while 29% said an AI romance itself counts as cheating.
  • A July 2026 article discussing Talker Research results said 24% of Americans consider flirting with AI a form of cheating, with the figure rising to 36% among Generation Z respondents.
  • A July 2026 analysis on romantic AI companions reported that roughly one third of Americans say a partner’s use of such a companion would count as cheating.

Taken together, the new 50.5% figure places AI romance near the top of the range of existing estimates, aligning with earlier research that shows between one quarter and just over half of Americans equate AI intimacy with betrayal.

Who is most likely to see AI relationships as cheating, and who is more accepting?

Age and gender sharply divide perceptions of AI romance. Younger adults and women tend to view AI partners as a breach of fidelity. Older adults and some young men are more open to parallel digital relationships, or see them as a way to prevent traditional cheating.

Different studies highlight these demographic splits:

  • A 2025 national study of Americans aged 18–29 found that 56% in this group say having a romantic or intimate relationship with AI is cheating.
  • In a 2025 survey about AI boyfriends and girlfriends, 25.34% of women regarded AI dating as outright cheating, compared with 18.53% of men.
  • The same AI partner survey reported that 30% of millennials see AI partners as cheating, compared with 15% of Gen Z respondents.
  • That study also noted that 17% of Gen Z males believe AI partners can help prevent cheating in human relationships, suggesting some see digital romance as a safety valve rather than a betrayal.
  • A 2025 study on “Artificial Romance” found that adults aged 60 or older were the most accepting of AI romantic relationships alongside human relationships, with 50.29% saying these parallel relationships are not cheating on human partners.
  • According to that same research, younger adults aged 18–29 were the most likely to judge simultaneous AI and human romantic relationships as cheating and unacceptable.

The August 2026 AI Girlfriend Coach survey did not publish a full demographic breakdown in its press summary, but its headline figure aligns with earlier findings that a majority of Americans either condemn AI romance outright or feel deeply uneasy about it.

Are people actually forming secret relationships with AI chatbots?

Surveys about behaviour show that AI affairs are not merely hypothetical. Young adults in committed relationships increasingly report having hidden romantic attachments to AI chatbots, often without their partners’ knowledge.

Research from Brigham Young University’s Wheatley Institute, published in May 2026, examined AI attachments among 18- to 30-year-old Americans who were dating, engaged or married.

  • According to the BYU Wheatley Institute study, one in seven partnered young adults has a secret and frequent romantic attachment to an AI chatbot.
  • A detailed summary of the same research reported that the survey covered 2,431 American adults between 18 and 30 in romantic relationships.

Separate polling on AI companions found that at least one in six American adults has interacted at least once with a romantic AI companion, while about one third said a partner’s use of such an AI would count as cheating.

These behavioural data points show that the cheating dilemma is no longer theoretical. Digital partners sit inside phones and laptops across the United States, sometimes hidden from human partners who may still assume betrayal only happens with other people.

How do Americans define cheating when technology blurs the lines?

Researchers say Americans now draw distinctions between types of AI interaction, splitting flirting, sexting and full-blown romantic attachment into different categories of moral violation. Emotional entanglement with AI appears to worry many respondents as much as physical infidelity.

Recent surveys illustrate how definitions are evolving:

  • Plenty of Fish’s 2025 survey reported that 54% of U.S. singles classify romantic or emotional engagement with AI chatbots as infidelity, almost matching the 55% who say emotional bonds with another human count as cheating.
  • A 2025 study covered by Mashable found that 33% of 2,000 American adults believe that sexting or entering a romantic relationship with AI constitutes cheating.
  • In that Mashable-reported survey, 64% of those who saw sexting or AI romance as cheating said both behaviours are infidelity, 21% believed only sexting with AI is cheating, and 15% said only a romantic relationship with AI counts.
  • The Kinsey Institute and DatingAdvice.com’s 2025 national study found that 61% of singles see sexting or falling in love with an AI as cheating, underscoring broad moral concern around digital intimacy.
  • A detailed reanalysis of those Kinsey–DatingAdvice data in 2026 highlighted that, when asked separately, 32% called sexting with an AI chatbot cheating, and 29% called an AI romance cheating.
  • Talker Research’s July 2026 survey, reported in Italian media, said 24% of Americans consider flirting with AI cheating, with the share rising to 36% among Gen Z.

These figures suggest that while outright physical betrayal with another human still dominates common-sense definitions of cheating, a growing share of Americans view emotional and sexual interaction with AI as falling inside the same moral category.

What does this mean for couples negotiating boundaries around AI in daily life?

Therapists and relationship researchers argue that couples now need to talk explicitly about AI companions, just as they might discuss social media behaviour or contact with ex-partners. Silence leaves room for mismatched expectations and sudden feelings of betrayal.

Recent commentary and clinical research highlight several practical implications for relationships:

  • According to the AI Girlfriend Coach report, the reasons people turn to AI companions appear to be “less about sex and romance than commonly assumed”, suggesting some are seeking emotional support or nonjudgmental conversation.
  • Counsellors writing in a 2025 study on artificial romance note that older adults might see AI partners as companionship that does not threaten their human relationships, which could clash with younger partners’ stricter expectations of fidelity.
  • Deseret News coverage of the BYU Wheatley Institute study described real-world couples confronting the discovery of hidden AI relationships, raising questions about whether confession and forgiveness work differently when no human third party is involved.
  • A July 2026 analysis on flirting with AI companions emphasised that at least one in six adults has tried romantic interaction with AI, meaning many couples are negotiating this issue for the first time without established social norms to guide them.
  • Radio and podcast discussions of the October 2025 cheating survey warned that younger Americans, especially those aged 18–29, are already more likely than older generations to classify AI romance as cheating, hinting at intergenerational friction inside families.

The new 50.5% figure adds weight to calls from therapists and relationship coaches who say partners should now address AI boundaries early, and revisit them as technology evolves, rather than waiting for secret digital attachments to surface during conflict.

Sources

  1. 1.openpr.com
  2. 2.datingindustryinsights.com
  3. 3.1003thepeak.iheart.com
  4. 4.nbcrightnow.com
  5. 5.mashable.com
  6. 6.phys.org
  7. 7.insights.nope.net
  8. 8.catfishfinder.org
  9. 9.deseret.com
  10. 10.news.iu.edu
  11. 11.datingadvice.com
  12. 12.prinsessa.com
  13. 13.repubblica.it
  14. 14.vantagepointdallascounseling.com
  15. 15.x.com

Read more →

Related Articles

AInews: Gemini 3.6 Flash quietly becomes Antigravity’s new default engine
AI & Tech

AInews: Gemini 3.6 Flash quietly becomes Antigravity’s new default engine

On July 21, 2026, Google rolled out Gemini 3.6 Flash across its developer stack, and the AInews community spotted the new model running inside the Antigravity IDE days before the company fully documented the change. The rollout turns 3.6 Flash into the default engine for Google’s agentic coding tools. What exactly is Gemini 3.6 Flash and when did it arrive? Gemini 3.6 Flash is Google’s latest “fast-and-cheap” large language model tier, released on July 21, 2026 as a general-availability upgrade to Gemini 3.5 Flash. It focuses on cutting token costs and latency while improving coding, knowledge work and multimodal tasks, and it launched the same day across Antigravity, the Gemini API and related developer products. Key release facts gathered from Google documentation and independent technical blogs paint a clear timeline: Release date: According to Google’s Gemini Enterprise model catalog, Gemini 3.6 Flash reached GA on 21 July 2026 . Coverage: A developer-focused blog reports the model went live simultaneously in the Gemini app, Google Antigravity, AI Studio and Android Studio on the same day. Knowledge window: That blog notes the knowledge cutoff advanced from January 2025 to March 2026 , a 14‑month jump, giving the model fresher technical and product data. Context length: The same source cites a context window of over 1 million tokens , with maximum output around 65,536 tokens . Google’s own API changelog describes 3.6 Flash as a “workhorse” tuned for more efficient reasoning and tool calls, targeting long-running coding and agent workflows rather than short chat prompts. How did Gemini 3.6 Flash first appear inside Antigravity? Gemini 3.6 Flash surfaced in Antigravity before most users saw formal documentation, after testers noticed a new model ID in the interface and shared screenshots on social media. Those early sightings triggered days of informal testing while Google iterated on the backend and finalized public release notes. Evidence of this staggered emergence comes from several independent sources: A leak-focused blog reports that a model identifier “gemini-3.6-flash-tiered” appeared inside Antigravity in the early hours of July 21, 2026, spotted by a tester working in a pre‑release environment. A developer on X (formerly Twitter) posted that “Gemini 3.6 Flash, ID ‘gemini-3.6-flash-tiered’, appeared in Antigravity a few minutes ago,” confirming that the model showed up in the tool before Google announced pricing and capabilities. Another technical article describes Google Antigravity 2.0 receiving Gemini 3.6 Flash as part of a broader update, while warning that rollout was staged: some accounts saw the new model immediately, others after a delay attributed to region and account configuration. Official Google guidance later clarified that Gemini 3.6 Flash powers the default Antigravity agent in “Gemini Managed Agents,” although developers can override the model setting through the API. What has Google changed under the hood compared with Gemini 3.5 Flash? Gemini 3.6 Flash mainly targets developers’ complaints about verbosity, token usage and slow workflows in 3.5 Flash. Google documentation and independent tests show lower token consumption, updated pricing and a more aggressive reasoning mode aimed at complex coding tasks. When placed side by side, the changes look like this: Token efficiency: A Google blog on Antigravity reports that 3.6 Flash consumes up to 17% fewer output tokens than 3.5 Flash on the Artificial Analysis Index, a synthetic benchmark designed to mimic real coding workflows. Pricing: Ars Technica’s coverage of the launch notes API pricing of $1.50 per 1 million input tokens and $7.50 per 1 million output tokens , down from $9 per million output tokens in the 3.5 Flash tier. Reasoning: A technical guide explains that “thinking mode” is enabled by default and can be given an unlimited budget, letting the model run more internal reasoning steps for hard tasks without forcing developers to manage that complexity manually. Variants: The same guide describes a “3.6 Flash Low” variant aimed at well‑scoped edits, test generation and single‑file changes, with the full 3.6 Flash reserved for heavier agentic workflows. Google’s changelog stresses that these optimizations target end‑to‑end workflows, not just single responses, by reducing tool calls and iteration loops inside agents built on top of the model. How does Gemini 3.6 Flash behave inside Antigravity for developers right now? Inside Antigravity 2.0, Gemini 3.6 Flash sits at the center of Google’s agent-first IDE. It powers code migration, refactoring and multi-user simulations while exposing configuration options to switch models or limit the agent’s reasoning budget for safety and cost control. From Google examples and third‑party write‑ups, current Antigravity behaviors include: Code migration: Google’s Antigravity blog shows 3.6 Flash handling legacy software modernization, moving old code to newer frameworks with lower latency and higher quality compared with 3.5 Flash. Interactive canvases: A Mandarin-language analysis describes Antigravity demos where 3.6 Flash builds interactive canvases and orchestrates SDK workflows, coordinating multiple tools and files from within the IDE. Multi-user simulations: The same source reports Google using Antigravity and 3.6 Flash to simulate several users editing an offline Markdown editor, stressing long-context coordination. Agent defaults: A Google AI Studio post states that Gemini 3.6 Flash is now the default engine for the Antigravity agent inside Gemini Managed Agents, with a specific agent version string linked to the preview configuration. Developers who want to stay on older models can still change the Antigravity model picker, but some community posts describe the 3.6 Flash rollout as a “forced upgrade for IDE holdouts,” reflecting frustration with changing defaults. How are early users reacting to Gemini 3.6 Flash in Antigravity? Feedback from Antigravity users is sharply mixed. Many welcome the faster backend and lower token bills. Others complain that the user-facing experience has regressed and that the model sometimes feels less precise than 3.5 Flash despite the architectural improvements. Public reactions collected across forums and blogs show the spread: An article on an AI-focused site calls Gemini 3.6 Flash a “blazing-fast backend beast” but “a frontend disaster,” citing confusing UI changes and hard-to-discover configuration options in the updated Antigravity interface. In a Google developer forum thread from late July 2026, one user warns: “Don’t use 3.6 Flash, it is faster but more dumb and stupid than 3.5 Flash,” complaining that code suggestions became more shallow while latency improved. The same forum discussion notes intermittent errors where Antigravity fails to run tasks with 3.6 Flash selected, prompting some users to roll back to previous models while Google patches issues. By contrast, multiple developers on X highlight smoother multi-file refactors and fewer tool calls, with one head‑to‑head demo from Antigravity’s official account showing 3.6 Flash modernizing legacy code faster than 3.5 Flash. The gap between backend metrics and frontend experience has become a core theme of early coverage. Google’s documentation focuses on token and latency numbers, while community testers concentrate on how those changes feel inside everyday IDE workflows. What comes next for Gemini 3.6 Flash and Antigravity users? Gemini 3.6 Flash is now a general-availability model with no announced deprecation date, and Google is treating it as the standard engine for agentic coding in the near term. Developers can expect incremental updates to Antigravity and the Gemini API rather than another immediate model replacement. Signals from Google and ecosystem coverage suggest several near-term developments: Support horizon: Google’s deprecation page lists Gemini 3.6 Flash with a launch date of July 21, 2026 and notes that no shutdown date has been set, implying multi‑year support. Rollout stability: A regional rollout explanation from a third‑party blog tells users that missing 3.6 Flash entries in the Antigravity model menu are likely due to staggered availability, not cancellation. Evaluation guidance: The same guide urges teams to run side‑by‑side comparisons, switching non‑critical projects to 3.6 Flash and diffing results against existing defaults over at least a week of real work. Enterprise integration: Google states that enterprises can access 3.6 Flash through the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform and the Gemini Enterprise app, extending Antigravity-style workflows into corporate environments. For now, Antigravity remains Google’s main test bed for agentic coding, and Gemini 3.6 Flash is the model under scrutiny. Developers are being encouraged to measure actual workflow costs and output quality, not just headline benchmarks, before committing fully to the new default.

Nic Reeve·
Intel’s AI Surge Sparks Fierce Valuation Clash as Some Models Flag 80%+ Upside
AI & Tech

Intel’s AI Surge Sparks Fierce Valuation Clash as Some Models Flag 80%+ Upside

Intel’s rapid push into artificial intelligence chips and foundry services has ignited a sharp debate over what the stock is really worth, with one widely followed narrative now implying a fair value near $500 per share — more than four times the recent market price. While mainstream analysts still cluster between roughly $90 and $120 per share, user-driven valuation models and some sales-based frameworks argue that the market is deeply underestimating Intel’s long‑term AI earnings power, leaving the stock potentially more than 80% below fair value. Where the 82% Undervaluation Claim Comes From The headline figure that Intel could be about 82% below fair value stems from a narrative used on retail‑focused valuation platforms, which apply aggressive growth and margin assumptions to Intel’s emerging AI businesses. In several recent notes, that framework points to a fair value around $500.93 per share , compared with a share price near the $90–$100 range in late August 2026. On that basis, Intel is framed as roughly 80–82% undervalued, with the gap driven by bullish expectations for x86 server CPUs, AI accelerators and foundry contracts over the next decade. These narratives typically assume: Strong, sustained growth in Intel’s Data Center and AI (DCAI) segment. High adoption of Intel’s advanced manufacturing nodes, such as 18A, by external foundry customers. AI‑linked revenue eventually commanding premium valuation multiples similar to leading GPU and cloud infrastructure providers. Critically, this $500+ fair value is not a consensus Wall Street target but a specific, scenario‑driven model that extrapolates current AI momentum far into the future. Intel’s Latest AI and Earnings Momentum The bullish valuation arguments have gained traction as Intel’s reported numbers show AI demand increasingly driving the business. For the second quarter of 2026, Intel reported revenue of about $16.1 billion, up 25% year over year , and adjusted earnings per share of $0.42, beating analyst expectations. The company’s Data Center and AI Group stood out, delivering approximately 59% year‑over‑year growth , with management noting that AI‑linked businesses grew more than 70% and now account for roughly 70% of total revenue. Intel also guided third‑quarter revenue to a range of $15.8 billion to $16.8 billion and gross margins in the low‑40% band, signaling confidence that AI‑related demand will remain robust despite broader concerns about chip valuations. On the strategic side, Intel highlighted signed foundry and advanced packaging agreements with major technology players, including Google, Nvidia, Tesla and Apple, alongside partnerships tied to its 18A manufacturing node and High NA EUV lithography. Foundry revenue rose by more than 30% year over year, although external customers still represent a small share of the segment, keeping the long‑term foundry thesis partly unproven. Mainstream Fair Value Estimates: 90–120 Dollar Range Traditional analyst research paints a far more moderate picture of Intel’s intrinsic value. Morningstar, which has repeatedly updated its Intel model in response to the AI boom, lifted its fair value estimate multiple times in 2026. Earlier in the year, analysts raised Intel’s fair value to $90 per share from $60, citing a “stunning” rise in server CPU demand and a growing AI infrastructure build‑out. Following stronger results and upgraded expectations, Morningstar later increased its fair value estimate to around $105 per share , and some commentary mentions fair value figures just above $100 as AI‑related assumptions were refined further. Other analyst summaries show valuation targets and fair value estimates clustering between roughly $88 and $115 per share , with some firms setting price targets as high as $200 but many maintaining Neutral or Hold ratings due to execution and capital‑intensity concerns. On several discounted cash‑flow (DCF) models, Intel’s intrinsic value is calculated in the mid‑80s to low‑90s per share range, only slightly above or below the current market price, implying the stock is close to fairly valued on conservative cash‑flow assumptions. Sales‑Based Models Still See Undervaluation Separate from the more conservative DCF work, some valuation frameworks focused on price‑to‑sales (P/S) multiples argue that Intel’s AI‑driven mix and size justify a richer multiple than the market is currently assigning. One such model derives a “fair” P/S ratio of about 15.1x for Intel, compared with an observed multiple closer to 13.1x at the time of analysis, suggesting the stock trades at a discount to what its AI exposure and margin profile would warrant. Another narrative points to a fair P/S ratio nearer 17.9x , versus a contemporaneous multiple around 7.6x. Under that lens, Intel looks significantly undervalued on sales even if cash‑flow‑based intrinsic value appears only modestly above the share price. These sales‑centric approaches underpin much of the “still cheap” messaging, emphasizing Intel’s potential rerating as AI revenue becomes a larger and more stable component of the business. Not All Analysts Buy the Undervaluation Story Despite the enthusiasm around AI, some research houses remain skeptical that current valuations can be justified. Early in 2026, one widely cited report called Intel “overpriced” and warned that the shares were trading more than 30% above a fair value estimate of $32 per share , based on cautious assumptions about profitability and competitive risks. Although that figure has since been raised substantially by the same provider, the earlier stance illustrates how sensitive Intel’s perceived fair value is to underlying assumptions about AI demand durability, manufacturing execution and capital allocation. Even after upgrading their models to reflect the AI boom, some analysts argue that Intel’s stock has already priced in a great deal of optimism and may struggle if AI infrastructure spending normalizes or if rivals capture outsized share of accelerator and server CPU markets. AI Capital Raise Adds Another Layer to the Debate The valuation controversy has been sharpened by Intel’s recent decision to raise a large amount of equity capital to fund its AI ambitions. In mid‑August, the company launched a stock offering initially sized at $15 billion and then expanded it to $20 billion after strong investor demand. The sale briefly pressured the share price but was interpreted by some market watchers as a sign of management’s confidence in the scale of Intel’s AI opportunity and its foundry road map. For bullish valuation frameworks, the capital raise is seen as necessary fuel for growth; for skeptics, it reinforces concerns about dilution and the high cost of competing at the cutting edge of semiconductor manufacturing. A Wide Valuation Range, Driven by AI Assumptions As of late August 2026, Intel’s fair value estimates span a remarkably wide range — from the $80–$120 band common among traditional analysts to user‑driven narratives north of $500 per share. The claim that Intel could be roughly 82% below fair value relies on the most optimistic of these models, which assume sustained AI‑powered growth and premium valuation multiples over many years. For investors, the gap underscores how pivotal AI is to the Intel story: the more confidence markets place in Intel’s ability to convert its early AI momentum into durable, high‑margin earnings streams, the more plausible the higher end of that valuation spectrum becomes.

Nic Reeve·
AI Stocks In 2026: Cooling Cloud Spend, New Leaders And The Robotaxi Push
AI & Tech

AI Stocks In 2026: Cooling Cloud Spend, New Leaders And The Robotaxi Push

AI investing moves beyond the initial boom Artificial intelligence has shifted from hype cycle to business reality, and the stock market is adjusting accordingly. After two years in which a handful of semiconductor and cloud leaders dominated returns, 2026 is bringing a more complex picture: cooling capital spending, sector rotation, and new pockets of strength in data center infrastructure and networking. Investor's Business Daily (IBD) has framed this period as an inflection point for AI stocks, urging investors to look past headline names like Nvidia and track the broader ecosystem of companies supplying chips, cloud capacity, software, and physical data center build‑out. Cloud and AI spending: still growing, but at a slower pace A key driver of AI equity performance has been massive investment by the largest cloud providers in infrastructure to support generative AI workloads. Industry estimates cited by market research and Wall Street analysts indicate that combined cloud capital expenditures by the five leading providers are on track to approach $400 billion by 2025. Growth, however, is expected to decelerate meaningfully from 2026 onward, with forecast increases in capex falling from more than 50% in the current year to under 20% in 2026 and potentially single‑digit growth by 2027 and 2028. This slowdown does not imply an end to AI investment, but it does suggest a transition from rapid build‑out to more disciplined deployment and optimization. For equity investors, that shift tends to favor companies with proven profitability and pricing power over high‑growth, cash‑burning names that depended on ever‑rising infrastructure budgets. Leadership rotates: from megacap chips to networking and data centers Early in the AI boom, the market narrative centered on a small group of companies supplying the graphics processing units (GPUs) that power large language models. Nvidia, in particular, became the emblem of the generative AI rally, with its data center revenue and share price soaring on demand for training chips. By 2026, however, several of those early winners have cooled, and some have even exhibited "death cross" technical patternsa bearish signal in chart analysis that occurs when a shorter‑term moving average falls below a longer‑term one. IBD's coverage in 2026 highlights how leadership has shifted toward less‑celebrated but strategically important players: Optical networking specialists such as Lumentum Holdings and Ciena have emerged as top performers, benefiting from surging demand for high‑bandwidth connectivity between AI servers inside and across data centers. Data center infrastructure providers like Vertiv Holdings have posted strong gains as hyperscale and enterprise customers invest in power, cooling, and racks capable of handling dense AI compute clusters. Cloud and enterprise software names tied directly to AI deploymentincluding security platforms, data analytics, and edge networkinghave seen significant appreciation, even as some core chip stocks consolidate. This rotation illustrates a broader theme: as AI implementation spreads, value is migrating along the supply chain, rewarding companies that solve bottlenecks in throughput, energy efficiency, and systems integration. Is there an AI bubble? Sentiment points to normalization Talk of an "AI bubble" was common in 2023 and 2024, as valuations of some popular names detached from near‑term fundamentals. Recent indicators suggest that bubble concerns have eased. IBD noted that searches for the term "AI bubble" on Google have fallen to their lowest levels since late 2023, signaling a shift from speculative enthusiasm to more measured interest. The price action supports that view: many of last year's top AI performers have given back a portion of their gains, while other areas of the stock marketincluding energy, materials, consumer staples, and health carehave attracted capital as investors rebalance away from concentrated tech bets. Volatility in AI names remains elevated, but the pattern looks more like a maturing theme than a classic boom‑and‑bust. Notable AI‑related stocks drawing attention in 2026 Investor's Business Daily and other market observers are tracking a wide range of companies as potential AI leaders or turnaround stories this year. Among those frequently cited: Nvidia (NVDA)  Still considered a cornerstone of AI infrastructure thanks to its GPUs and software stack. After sharp gains in earlier years and a major sell‑off tied to competitive concerns, the stock's 2025 performance has been more moderate, with investors watching closely for the next wave of product cycles and demand catalysts. Microsoft (MSFT) and Alphabet (GOOGL)  Both have integrated AI across their cloud and consumer platforms, from productivity tools to search and developer services. Their shares have climbed steadily as investors focus on how AI can deepen moats in cloud computing and software rather than simply drive short‑term revenue spikes. Oracle (ORCL)  The enterprise software and cloud provider has benefited from its role in large AI infrastructure projects, including capacity linked to OpenAI's "Stargate" initiative. Oracle's stock recorded a double‑digit percentage gain in 2025, reflecting renewed confidence in its cloud strategy. Arista Networks (ANET)  A key supplier of high‑speed networking equipment to cloud titans, Arista has seen its shares rise on the back of strong earnings and guidance that emphasize AI‑driven demand for data center switching and routing. Cloudflare (NET) and Palantir (PLTR)  These companies, focused respectively on edge networking/security and data‑driven decision platforms, have enjoyed substantial stock price increases, underscoring investor belief that AI value lies in secure, scalable delivery and real‑world analytics as much as in raw compute. Outside the best‑known names, IBD has flagged more specialized AI plays. An example is Everus Construction, a North Dakota‑based company that designs and builds advanced data centers tailored for AI workloads. Its shares have surged in 2026, and technical analysis suggests the stock is approaching a fresh buy point after rebounding from key support levels. Coverage of such names reflects investor interest in companies that profit directly from the physical expansion of AI capacity. Under‑the‑radar beneficiaries: brokers and industrials AI's reach into financial services and manufacturing is creating opportunities beyond pure technology. IBD recently spotlighted Robinhood Markets as a potential "next AI play" as the brokerage invests in automation, personalization, and new product offerings built on machine learning. At the same time, names such as Dell Technologies, Howmet Aerospace, and Cognex have been cited as stocks near technical buy points that are tied indirectly to AI, either through supplying hardware for data centers, providing components used in advanced manufacturing, or delivering machine‑vision systems that rely on AI algorithms. Robotaxis and real‑world AI deployment Beyond the data center, AI is beginning to reshape transportation. A recent development covered by IBD is the decision by Nevada regulators to grant robotaxi permits to Tesla, Waymo, and Uber, allowing them to operate autonomous ride‑hailing services in Las Vegas. The move follows years of testing and limited pilots, and it positions Las Vegas as one of the most advanced U.S. markets for commercialized self‑driving operations. For investors, robotaxis highlight how AI can evolve from software running in the cloud to a revenue‑generating service with visible urban impact. The companies involved range from pure technology players to diversified automakers and platform businesses, further blurring the line between "AI stock" and traditional sectors. What investors are watching next The central question for AI investors heading into the remainder of 2026 is whether the sector can sustain earnings growth in a more restrained spending environment. Key factors on watch include: The pace of new AI chip launches and whether they drive replacement cycles in existing data centers. Adoption of generative AI in enterprise workflows and its impact on software licensing and cloud consumption. Regulatory developments, particularly around data privacy, AI safety, and autonomous vehicles. The ability of second‑tier and infrastructure‑focused companies to maintain margins as competition increases. In its ongoing "AI News: Artificial Intelligence Trends And Top AI Stocks To Watch" coverage, Investor's Business Daily continues to emphasize disciplined stock selection, technical buy and sell rules, and diversification across the AI value chainfrom chips and cloud providers to networking, infrastructure, and real‑world applications such as robotaxis.

Nic Reeve·