That seems like a non sequitur.

He is making two arguments. One is that AI capex is starving other industries. And the other that AI capex is causing major GDP growth, attributed to both the direct investments themselves, as well as the multiplier effects.

One of those could be true. But I assert that both cannot be true at the same time. If these direct investments were going to happen elsewhere if they weren't happening for AI infrastructure then that counterfactual spending would show up in the GDP instead, as would the multiplier effect from that spending.