Answering the question most directly, of what strategy would you want given a thesis that we are at peak AI.

I do like thinking about the greeks [1] when designing a position. First, let's clarify, we want to take advantage of price drop over a time period of approx 6 to 12 months. Let's say we're thinking a price drop of perhaps 30%. With these parameters, we want a strategy that has high delta & gamma values, but minimal theta & vega values. (any stock position has values for each of the greeks. For example, in the case of long or short stock, delta is 1, theta is 0, gamma is 0, and vega is 0)

Low theta - That is to say, we want a position that will not lose value as time goes by.

Low vega - if volatility drops, we do not want to lose money.
Really if volatility changes at all - we do not want to lose money.

High Delta/Gamma - we do want the position to be responsive to price change, notably to decreases in price.

Long puts potentially have high theta, high delta, high vega. Long puts are not a good match because of high theta (and a drop in volatility hurts us, but if the price crashes, vega will help us. But, if the price crashes, then delta dominates, so we actually really don't want vega - delta is where we are making money, we are directional!)

Short stocks have delta of 1, gamma 0, theta 0, vega 0. That matches the greeks. Though, short stocks have both a maintenance requirement and an unlimited loss potential - the unlimited loss potential does not match our parameters.

Though, if we both sell and buy some puts (ie: a spread), then the overall position is the difference of the greeks. If we choose strikes that are close together, then theta & vega will be pretty close and would therefore nearly cancel. (EG: Theta of a put at $90 might be 0.35, theta at $85 might be 0.32, the overall theta of selling one and buying another is 0.03)

The difference in delta will also nearly cancel too. But, we are looking to take advantage of the difference in intrinsic value, when time has played out and there is no longer any extrinsic (AKA time) value on the contract left. Which is to say, this type of play only pays out (win or loss) near the time of expiry.

So, a narrow put spread has: low theta, low vega, low'ish delta. This is kinda the best you can do for the greeks perhaps. Very high delta positions are not very favorable unless we think the price change is happening starting from tomorrow (and in which case, we are also screwed by short term stuff, short-term, the market is totally and completely and utterly irrational). Very high delta positions are things like shorting, long puts, or buying very wide bear spreads. In all cases those are not great, either unlimited losses, or high exposure to theta (which is another way to say, they are dependent upon timing even more so than you being directionally correct)

Bottom line: a {"narrow" bear put spread} fits the parameters best (to the best of my knowledge).

The total loss/profit of buying a narrow bear put spread would be:
(A) The max loss for any long position is the cost to enter that position. Anytime you "buy", that is a long position. In this case we are buying bear put spreads, max loss is therefore the full cost of the spreads.
(B) The max profit is the price difference of the spreads minus the purchase price (for strikes that are 30% below current price, it's probably a very good return, perhaps 3x or better; that is a good return because it is extremely high risk - I would rather be the one selling that spread than the one buying them)

At this point though.. we are almost literally saying: "3 to 1 odds that NVDA will be at X price on date Y" << and that is gambling. I can't emphasize enough how that is gambling.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greeks.asp

*Disclosure* I am currently long NVDA stock, a position of less than $5000.