https://github.com/danielmiessler/Substrate/blob/main/Data/K...
Knowledge worker compensation is 35 - 50 trillion a year globally (6 - 12T in the US alone.) That's a huge TAM. It's still close but 5T over 5 years seems doable.
>... unless we figure out how to make developers 2x, 5x, 10x as productive on stuff that matters, this isn't going to play out well.
The way we make ICs 10x productive is not just making each of them individually more productive, but by removing the coordination overhead of large organizations, because overhead scales super-linearly with the size of the org. And orgs will shrink automatically as AI-assisted ICs take ownership of larger and larger scopes of work, leaving much more budget for tokens.
I went into this in a bit more detail along with some made-up numbers here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48040999
- The publicly available information about how inference costs compare to training costs is conflicted. EEs involved in datacenters talk about power usage spikes during training runs as if they were a major factor in the designs, but academic papers discussing cost-optimal scaling confidently treat inference-time compute as a major factor.
- On the side of the balance indicating that training is more compute-intensive after amortization than inference is that Chinese providers, constrained primarily by access to compute, have nearly unlimited token availability at a lower price than US providers (inference), but poorer model capabilities (training). That would make sense only if US providers are inflating inference costs by 20-30x due to amortized training costs that overseas providers were not able to take on (there are other factors too).
- If training >> inference, they're in a prisoner's dilemma that far exceeds the ordinary zero-marginals model of competition between firms (due to its huge discrete stepwise nature). On the other hand, if inference>>training, the high-level analysis popularized by certain thought leaders, that it's like a utility, would be true. You'd tend to count this as a vote for inference>>training, but the CEOs saying it at least have a huge incentive to agree because the alternative, the prisoner's dilemma, would stop investment very fast.
- The only voice in the story that I just told you to have anything to do with fact (as opposed to high-level analysis and ivory tower armchair management of a secretive business) were the rumors from facilities engineers. That shows you the state of our understanding...
- If we don't even know the ratio between amortized capital expenses and operational costs, outside investor analysis is impossible. It doesn't matter how finely they divide the accounting buckets for office ferns and indoor ferns if the single biggest part of their business is obscured for trade secret reasons.
* At some point model capability reaches diminishing returns. Then inference >> training in the future but training >> inference now. It’s not a prisoner’s dilemma but a land grab to solidify market position and be one of the 2-3 firms left standing as dominant in the space. The model companies aren’t super sticky yet but they’re working on it.
* even if training remains >> inference, it’s possible to have multiple price points like they do today. If you need the most capable model you’ll be paying exponentially more per token to supplement the training cost even though the serving cost is marginal because most people will be satisfied with cheaper / less capable models for most tasks.
I buy that inference is a dropping line item while training is a growing one. There’s all sorts of things on the horizon that’ll be order of magnitudes improvements, from startups burning models into ASICs to get order of magnitudes more performance to alternate architectures like diffusion transformers that have orders of magnitude structural optimizations. It’s inevitable that it’ll come down even further from where we are. It’s possible model training also will go down but I’ve not seen any compelling research suggesting major “easy” reductions here.
So one possible future is that frontier-level training becomes so expensive and the use cases so sparse that it simply isn’t viable to keep going bigger.
Yes I know there's no evidence and this is lazy reasoning. But there's probably a bit of truth to this line of thought.
Also, inference costs are bound to go way down with more optimized architectures. GPUs are fundamentally not great at inference. No platform where the weights are streamed from a large pool of memory is. If the models ever quiet down, there will be massive step changes in cost/token, energy/token and tokens/second, as models are etched into silicon ala https://chatjimmy.ai/
The short and only kind of wrong version is:
In the US, companies are not allowed to unfairly privilege some investors over others by giving them access to secret information that would let them judge the future prospects of the company. (Except in all the ways they can, but these usually involve some kinds of insider trading rules.) Private companies can handle giving out secrets to investors by literally writing and memo and mailing it to all their investors, if they want to give out some secrets to one of them.
Public companies cannot do that, even if they knew who all their investors were, but must instead consider every member of the public a potential investor, even if they don't already own the stock. Because of this, when public companies want to reveal material information about their future prospects, they must reveal it to everyone.
To answer the sibling comment, all of these public accounts follow local GAAP or IFRS.
The US still astounds me with its willingness to allow corporations to rip people off!
As a consumer you are often sending deposits or even the full cost of goods to companies some time before you receive those goods (in effect you become a creditor). You are also dependent upon some of those companies for service and repairs. It seems reasonable that you can check the finances of a company you are creating a business relationship with, I know in the past I've checked company statements.
You are unlikely to have significant enough sway to force that kind of disclosure. Small businesses as consumers have less legal protection and are similarly unlikely to be able to make disclosure a precondition of a deal.
Most of the US is at-will so the financial health of the company is unlikely to be the reason you’ll suddenly lose a job.
Same for a town, if you’re structuring a deal that has counterparty risk then you mitigate the risk. If an employer is just leasing some office space in your town, why in the world would you ever even think you had the need to look at their financials?
I remember hearing about a guy trying to squeeze out short sellers of his own company but ended up effectively taking his company private because he bought out like 95% of all the shares.
I wonder how that aligns to these small releases of stock for the public.
Essentially, a stock has to stay above 1$ per share, have a minimum market cap of $15m, minimum 400 shareholders and "adequate" liquidity If it meets those 4 criteria, it's essentially not at risk of deregistration
The 1 they were missing is that AI requires both training and inference, and training is by far the expensive part. And that in principle you can stop training at any point and keep using the models as they are. (But that means that if other companies keep improving their models, you'll be left behind...)
In contrast, inference is fairly cheap and all the providers have great margins on it. Eventually either investment in training stops having commensurate impact on model quality, and people stop doing that and instead concentrate on making inference faster and even more efficient. Or if that doesn't happen, things will get very weird very quickly.
Show us your work, then. If it's so easy to do, this should be a trivial request to accommodate, no?
Kimi 2.6 is a 1 trillion total / 32B active parameter model that's something comparable to Sonnet. Sonnet's API pricing is $5 in, $15 out per million tokens. Deepinfra serves Kimi at $0.75 in, $3.50 out, and about the same at openrouter. So you're looking at a 4-7x multiple that Anthropic is charging compared to market rates that any plebe can get with a credit card.
4-7x isn't a tiny markup, but how does that compare to high-margin internet businesses like AdSense? Meta and Google do hundreds of billions in ad revenue a year, and after taking out the publisher's portion (60-80% per some searching), I wonder what the ratio of the remaining tens-of-billions is against the compute cost and headcount required to run it.
And how much room for maintaining or improving that margin do they have if the cheap competitors also continue getting better? Is there a "good enough" point where the easier inference tasks are all moving to vendors massively undercutting them, and then they don't have the volume necessary to justify spending on further cutting-edge development?
No it's not. On some rigged paper maybe. Some such benchmarks say all models group together, which they clearly do not.
> Sonnet's API pricing is $5 in, $15 out per million tokens. Deepinfra serves Kimi at $0.75 in, $3.50 out, and about the same at openrouter. So you're looking at a 4-7x multiple that Anthropic is charging compared to market rates that any plebe can get with a credit card.
That's not saying much. You can get "cloud" at AWS and you can get a VPS. There is likely a 10x difference. It's not "same". Whilst AWS costs more they also don't have 7x margins similarly.
If you want frontier model you will pay more for inference to essentially fund the expensive training.
If you don’t need frontier model you will get dirt cheap inference, which eventually will approach the cost of electricity spent per token.
They can't stop training as then the AI's knowledge will become out-of-date very quickly. Their knowledge stops the day you stop training.
Net margin versus gross margin.
Net shows profitability after extracting all expenses while gross only extracts the cost of the goods sold. Putting the model training costs into a one time fixed expense provides a much better gross margin.
This is known as COGS reclassification or classification shifting and is a common tactic to mislead investors.
This is why analysts look at Free Cash Flow Margin.
WorldCom and MicroStrategy did this before the Dotcom Bubble imploded.
You have to keep in mind that about 99% of their announcements are targeted towards investors (their most important revenue source..), so they're not going to be afraid to mention metrics that make the business look better.
Of course they don't want to create forward expectations in a volatile macro environment, with the public listing being 6 months out.
See https://taalas.com/products/
Edit: updated link
Investor confidence. They have a bit of a need for cash (also an interesting part of the profitability discussion of course).
> Also, inference costs are bound to go way down with more optimized architectures
I agree. Jimmy is incredible, I wonder what non-toy use cases they have. Surely they’ll come out with updated chips soon.
That said, I was apparently a bit over-excited for Groq and Cerebras. I thought they’d quickly dethrone Nvidia for inference, but not so far. Even the GPT spark trial isn’t seeming to go far.
Wouldn't they be bragging about it to investors? It feels like something that would matter a lot to them, and at least OpenAI kinda feels desperate to find them.
There's also the small question about whether a drop in inference cost would actually change anything about profitability, when training seems to get exponentially more expensive.
or will it be like microsoft office, where the software bloats to use/fill current hardware?
(and in this case bloats might mean better thinking or pulling in more data)
Speaking to your point, inference being dramatically less costly than training would not be seen as a delta from the norm. The model of providing inference for anything near the operational costs (like a utility would), would the delta from the norm if it were true.
Training is also done over batches, which increase memory requirements by several orders of magnitude. This is why training needs costly compute.
One of the ways out of this unfortunate situation is to use something like Stochastic Average Gradient Descent [1]. Examples there are mostly concerned with regularized logistic regression, which makes problem more or less convex. Neural networks are inherently non-convex. Still, maybe some ideas from there can be utilized in the context of neural networks, like use of estimated Lipshitz constant to derive curvature and appropriate learning step.
[1] https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~schmidtm/Courses/540-W19/L12.pdfTraining is inference + backwards pass (~2x inference cost) + activations (vram overhead) + optimizer (vram overhead) + gradients (vram overhead).
And last, but not least, you need only one hidden layer kept in RAM for inference, but you need all of them (61 for Deepseek models) kept in RAM for computing gradient for one sample.
Batch size is frequently limited by compute bottlenecks well before memory.
We are still chasing the best because the best is moving rapidly, but it’s a simple thought experiment to work out what the cost to serve an 8B model from 2 years ago is in a world of 2T models.
Note: parameter counts are illustrative. Concretely, qwen3.6 27B delivers opus 4.5 capability at 1/27th the cost on openrouter. Single chip llama3 8b performance can exceed 17k tokens/sec.
Coding is an interesting case as [1] the pace of progress has been absurd and [2] it's hard to put an upper bound on required capability. However hard to put a bound on and will are different, it's quite possible that the average engineer will cease to see the benefit of rapid progress - or that their employer will be satisfied with lower tier models.
How smart of a model do you need to build a high quality CRUD app for internal users? Or build a scalable web service?
Is this still happening? Opus 4.5 was six months ago, can you get its capabilities for 1/10 cost now? Are we on track to get the same for 4.6 in a couple months?
https://openrouter.ai/moonshotai/kimi-k2.6
The march of cost efficiency moves on.
Google seems to pretty regularly post about how their TPU and algorithm advancements have been decreasing energy costs for both inference and training.
Unless to the grandparent commenter’s point they’re using it to obscure their large prisoner’s dilemma (training) cost?
Maybe investors will realise that "the only winning move is not to play".
And so we are left with (as was) frontier models getting more and more out of date as whoever their post bankruptcy custodians are tries to eek pennies on the dollar for inference on their decaying property. Perhaps along with local and/or highly specialized models still feeding on the after-glow of the huge amount of training that was (and is no longer) done.
The next AI winter is going to be deep, savage, and long.
Why are they getting out of date? Is it because we have new content from the internet that the older models did not have? Or are we simply trying to increase the size of the training data? In other words not more up-todate in terms of time the content was created vs. wanting to use bigger training-input-sets?
And yet we surely need this data for the IPO? Or are they relying on rule changes on the indexes to force ETFs to buy shares?
The market is super hyped anyway for their IPOs. If they raise investors expectations now and things change until the IPO, investors will be disappointed. It's a lose-lose proposition.
The smart play for any company is to keep their cards close to their chest until close to the IPO time.
I skimmed the article, but couldn’t spot any details on their estimates. They mention 70b+ params as being large in several places. But we’ve had several 100b+ param models that trail Sonnet.
Training involves multiple passes over the entire training dataset, ideally in large batches where you can perform inference on as many samples as possible simultaneously and then perform backpropagation to adjust the model weights (which is about as expensive as inference).
Let's consider the size of the dataset we're dealing with here. The dataset likely consists of practically every piece of digitized text they can get their hands on (including that extracted from audio and video). We know Google has digitized a large portion of the books in existence as part of their "search book contents" feature and we have no reason to believe they're not using it alongside their cache of 90+% of the internet to train their models. We're talking about 100s of millions of books each with an average of 100,000s of tokens. The internet has 10s to 100s of billions of pages on it with who knows how many tokens on average. This is a huge dataset that we've got to go through hundreds of times.
Second, let's consider the effect of batching and how it sets requirements for our hardware. We know that larger batch sizes converge faster, are more stable, and produce better models. So if you want a good model you need large batch sizes. This means that you need machines several orders of magnitude more powerful than you use for inference. From what I heard Google uses clusters of 100s of the their TPUs all located in a single rack for training. These clusters are organized in a customized computing architecture to maximize memory locality between cores (really critical for efficient back-propagation). Further, you can't use reduced precision weights for training like you can for inference, so there are no shortcuts.
Finally, the initial training stage is followed by reinforcement learning stages - this is key development in how AI models have improved in the past year. This may mean going through a curated set of traces (either synthetic or captured from users) and adjusting the weights based on experienced outcome.
Overall there's so many orders of magnitude more work and more hardware requirements for training that I find it improbable that inference dominates. The number of "inference" steps in training is freaking ridiculous and includes such factors as the "number of words ever written".
That seems like a large number, until you realize that OpenAI claims to have almost a billion weekly users. And OpenRouter shows many models at over a trillion tokens per week.
So in pure token terms, I'd say it is in fact extremely plausible that inference dominates, at least for the popular models.
A given model is trained once but applied N times. A large enough N will dominate training, no matter how complex and costly it was.
But how long is a model useful for? How often will labs need to train new models? Time will tell.
Our estimated spend for AIaaS would exceed that cost in less than a year.
In a few years, there will be hardware capable of running frontier models good enough for most things at accessible prices for even tiny companies.
If open source models are ~3-6 months behind SOTA, and ~opus4.6 capabilities are good-enough for product market fit, do the frontier labs have half a decade to catch up on their prior burn?
AI cost ballooning faster than companies can afford is becoming a very common topic in my circles right now. The era of "I'll pay infinitely more for marginal gains" is over from what I can tell.
People got a lot done before Opus 4.6. In 6 months, would you be dissatisfied by Opus-4.6-level open-weight models, just because Opus 4.8 will be out?
would you be dissatisfied by Opus-4.6-level open-weight
models, just because Opus 4.8 will be out?
1A. Models get stale pretty quickly w.r.t. new developments that occur past their cutoff date. "But you can just keep them current by linking them to never documentation, etc!" Well, no, you sorta can't -- at least not in perpetuity. Those search results fill up your context window real quick. So that gets unsustainable real quick.
1B. Even when your context has plenty of free space, the results you get from "here's a link to the documentation for this new framework that released after your cutoff date" absolutely pales to the results you get from knowledge that is fully baked into the trained model as opposed to your context window. For one thing, that documentation link you pasted into your context might link to... a dozen code examples. Whereas if that was baked into the model itself, the model might have been trained on many thousands of examples in Github etc.
2. It's also a reality that most professional engineers have to keep up with their peers and competitors. We can maybe say it shouldn't be that way, but it is. So if $SOME_NEW_MODEL is significantly better than 4.6... and my peers and or competitors are using it, then yeah I might but really feeling the need to match them. And I'm not even necessarily talking about some kind of cutthroat dog-eat-dog stack-ranked workplace.
These limitations aren't relevant for all use cases or careers but they're hiiiiiiiighly relevant for professional software engineering.
I hope there's a "good enough" point but I don't think we're there yet. Like for me hardware got good enough several years ago. But while opus 4.7 is really good compared to everything else, it's not so good that I would use it at a discount over whatever is available in a few months. The improvement in quality, speed, and daily frustration is worth it to me... Spoken as someone whose employer is footing the bill, so take that with a grain of salt.
I want to run my own local models, but I don't think that's feasible without lots of frustration until a few generations of frontier models are so good that they're almost indistinguishable for common tasks. Kind of like how MacBook pros have been for a while.
Using Cursor to hop between models, I've found Opus to be generally better at really tricky debugging than GPT 5.5 or earlier models, but not reliably better at execution because of these things. I'm not sure Composer 2.5 is quite there yet for the execution side, but it's getting pretty close to those other ones, such that I'm definitely still in a "debug and plan with slow, execute with faster ones" operating model for working on hard shit.
It actually seems somewhat difficult to train such a model since "all the text on the Internet" is easier to provide in bulk than a highly curated set.
But at the moment, I can't imagine why I wouldn't be spending the majority of my time with the best models. I'm spending a lot of time with them! Reducing the number of back-and-forths is extremely valuable to me.
I expect in two months I will still want to spend >80% of my time prompting the best models, and that's true if I were spending my own money on hobby projects, too.
These are ideas that simplify the design, reduce future work and tie together the entire system. If in two months I can arrive at ideas of that quality with normal brainstorming with llms that will be extremely valuable
The people who are claiming Opus level capability does not have sufficiently complex problems to see the difference.
Kimi is close for example regarding SWE bench for code. For reasoning there are open models that surpass opus by quite a margin already.
A $50k - 100k rig could do it and an entire company would be able to use it a full speed.
That's doing a lot of work here.
The future I see isn't most companies buying hundreds of thousands in hardware to run models, it's them adding a line item to their AWS bill. Inference costs on the larger hosted open source models are dramatically lower than the frontier labs API pricing.
That's the future Amazon sees too. We just had a week long session with the AWS team and they pushed that to us multiple times.
The days of requiring a data center to run anything resembling opus 4.6 are already counted. (But the industry will fight hard to get people to keep paying the Claude tax.)
And yeah, that may be the ~decade world, but we're in the mainframe era of the frontier models. It's going to be more economical for basically any consumer, and most businesses, to pay someone else to host models for quite a while.
I wanted the ability to run whatever cameras on a VLAN and own the stack.
Said model will also run as a tool-calling coding model excellently (it's no Opus, but for a thing that once set up is just the cost of energy, it's incredible). It can type faster than you can, probably 10x faster, so with guidance it'll make you faster. And it's free.
It's here. If folks want ChatGPT without a subscription, they can have it today on their computer. The only money to be made is in the high end models doing "serious business" work spanning 1M+ token contexts and massive uncertainty. Everything else is already set to be eaten by today's local models.
Here's a prompt I just ran against Claude Opus 4.7:
> Use python3 to experiment with whether the SQLite3 authorizer mechanism can be used to detect an INSERT OR REPLACE based just on running an explain query without examining the SQL string itself
Opus nailed it: https://claude.ai/share/c4212606-3fee-4b7c-bc97-505e0348ccac
I tried the same thing against qwen/qwen3.5-35b-a3b running locally in lmstudio, with the Pi coding agent. At first it looked like it was going to do great! And then it fell apart over the course of several tool calls: https://gisthost.github.io/?8ae2f842df619fb7fd8f1ccd82fe41c7
I'm used to GPT-5.5 and Opus 4.7 handling that kind of prompt without any problems at all.
I'm not an expert in SQLLite so I can't say if this is 100% correct, but it seemed directionally similar to the conclusion from claude.
### TL;DR
- Authorizer + EXPLAIN: No — authorizer only sees SQLITE_INSERT, not VDBE opcodes
- EXPLAIN opcode analysis alone: Yes — Delete opcode at position 10 is the unique signature of INSERT OR REPLACE / REPLACE
I tried it a second time, and it spent a lot of time trying to figure out some authorization issue, so definitely not a slam dunk. I might run it a few more times for science. But while this is a new model it's also quite lightweight, and as hardware adapts and improves it seems inevitable that for many use-cases a packaged language model running locally will do the trick.
Not saying they're equivalent, local models still decohere much quicker as the context grows in my experience. But... Interesting.
I don't think we can discount this, frankly. Newer electronics are energy efficient, but older devices are more energy-intensive, and unless configured well, a gaming PC can easily use a few dollars a month in electricity, so now you're approaching subscription territory. A subscription comes with no upfront cost, higher reliability, no wasted space in your home, mobile apps, etc. (and less privacy).
I bet this will ironically be couched in "safety" reasons or regulation to get anti-AI folks on board, even if it favors the large incumbents.
Why would it not? The typical new phone today has 16gb of RAM. 20 years ago that was somewhere around 32mb. Factor 512. It's not hard to see that we'll get there rather soon, especially if there is an application that provides demand.
> You people fundamentally don't understand the memory requirements for running inference.
You seem to be overlooking how fast things change in this industry, especially if tons o money can be made as a consequence.
> Your cute local models seem good enough because you have no standards and anything an LLM produces seems like magic to you.
Please don't generalize. I'm an expressed AI skeptic and have to deal with the bad consequences of AI slop every day. But you can't deny that there are enough applicationn areas where people have use cases and those will be much easier if things don't need a few round trips to a data center that sucks all the electricity and water out of neighboring communities.
The iPhone 17 has like 8 gb, the Pixel 10 12.
The original iPhone was 128mb, and the iPhone 6 from 2016-2018 was around 1gb; that puts the iPhone at around 8x RAM per decade, and puts us at 128gb in our pockets at around 2036 or so.
(Incidentally, the big news in phone RAM is that a lot of new phones are dropping back to 4gb because of RAM shortages.)
Running software in the cloud gives you certain reliability and scaling advantages that would be very hard to replicate locally. Running some code agents in the cloud vs local hardware, if the local hardware gets "good enough," breaks the other way - offline usage, alone, would be hugely valuable to many people and companies.
It'd be very interesting to see where various players would decide to make a call "local is good enough" though. Buying the hardware isn't a small bet, if it's not something that ends up as part of your standard computer.
And 5% worse model for 10% of the price of the bleeding edge will be worth it for majority of people
The goalpost we've been bludgeoned with over and over again is that, in particular, Everything Changed in November 2025. That GPT 5.2 and Claude 4.5 were the inflection point. That is actually 6 months ago. And DeepSeek 4 is already there.
> run locally
You can't run DeepSeek locally on consumer hardware[1], but you can on enterprise hardware, and enterprise spend is the subject of this conversation -- and even if you aren't self-hosting, it doesn't matter, because you can just get your inference from one of the the many companies serving DeepSeek, who trivially undercut the pricing of OpenAI/Anthropic because they didn't have to spend hundreds of billions on training frontier from scratch but instead only invest in supporting inference, which is already profitable.
[1] Since this misconception comes up all the time, I'll go ahead and pre-empt it: no, training a 32b parameter model on outputs from DeepSeek and running that locally is not "running DeepSeek", despite the hundreds of stupid articles and Youtube videos making that idiotic claim that they're running it on a 5090.
Maybe not DeepSeek v4 Pro, but I've run DeepSeek v4 Flash on my 128GB MacBook Pro using antirez's carefully quantized https://github.com/antirez/ds4 and it's impressive.
I'd qualify that by writing that you can't run it with ordinary, real-time speed and throughput. If all you care about is slow and high-latency inference, there's no reason why that shouldn't be feasible even on the cheapest miniPC around, as long as it can literally store the model weights and keep around the (rather small) context.
Claude code was a lot of people's introduction to using coding agents that could do a lot more than copy-pasting from a chatbot or autocomplete.
Opus 4.6 quality for local inference would be revolutionary.
They just have to be useful enough that companies don't need the best.
They are.
Your argument rests on the "for marginal gains" part but it's really not clear that the gains are marginal in the foreseeable future.
We're 3.5 years into this current AI wave, and a lot of the valuations have been predicated on what you're arguing here -- that essentially should one of the labs make an order-of-magnitude improvement or hit escape velocity on recursive self-improvement they'd become the most powerful economic chokepoint in history.
The reality has been that given access to compute + capital all of the labs can stay pretty competitive with each other. Someone does a bit better on coding, someone else does a bit better on tool calling, and then they swap after each spending another $100bn.
The market looks like a commodity market where the commodity is intelligence, not a winner-take-all market with massive margins. Plenty of people get rich in oil and airlines, but they notably don't tend to be the innovators long term, they tend to be the operators. Obviously if the machines become sentient tomorrow, turn on their masters, and hit world-dominating intelligence, that assessment changes, but after several years of that narrative while objective reality looks quite different I think the more sober voices are starting to gain a foothold.
I'd pay a premium for even just a model that's 20% better, no ASI required, and I think a lot of people would. I wouldn't call that marginal, if it means I'm getting frustrated on 20% fewer tasks.
A recurring pattern that I've seen in myself and others is to at first be very impressed by a new model's coding capabilities, and then desensitize quickly and start being frustrated by the shortcomings.
The point I'm making is that I think we're rapidly hitting levels where corporate buyers aren't willing to pay multiple-times-more for marginal gains, and I expect that to become more the case over time, not less. You, and a small % of other power users in the market might tolerate a $400/month pro-supreme-plan for access to Mythos or whatever, but I don't think that's going to scale up in quite the same ways we've seen so far.
Even a year ago paying multiples times more for a 50% gain was very sensible for a lot of workflows. But if we're getting to "good enough" for things like coding, justifying to your CTO/CFO why the org should go from spending $1m/year to $5m/year for a 10% higher hit-rate on one-shot prompts from the engineers is a much tougher sell.
I remember that even when GPT-4 was king, the Gorilla paper showed that Llama 7B could be fine-tuned to outperform GPT-4 on tool calling.
On domains that don’t involve agentic tool calling*, I haven’t found the frontier to have advanced that much.
Edit: I should broaden this to domains that naturally lend themselves to RLVR training. Models are drastically better at math now.
I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with the non-codex versions
If we still were in the ZIRP era, busting the bubble would certainly kill off the world's economy for good simply due to its size.
The larger point I'm making is I think models are rapidly becoming commoditized. There is probably a small market long term that's willing to pay 10x for 10% marginal gains, but the majority of the buyers in the market will be economic and we're likely to have a lot of folks willing to spend 1/10 the cost for 90% of the performance, and plenty of companies that haven't raised hundreds of billions-trillions who can provide that.
A lot of the frontier labs valuations has been based on an assumption that 1-2 companies would get break-away intelligence that basically made them economic chokepoints indefinitely into the future. The reality that's becoming increasingly clear is that model quality is a pretty linear function of (cash burned - ability to copy other's homework) and the economics are starting to look a lot more like airlines than online advertising.
The economics of airlines are such that they generally earn a return on capital less than cost of capital.
I think this is exactly where we are heading and OAI-Anthropic are the concordes.
They know they do not and that’s why they’re all trying to IPO right now, so they can pass the bag to consumer investors
1- SpaceX + Tesla + xAI merger / IPO while Musk was vocal against IPO for about a decade
2- Warren Buffett cash at record highs
Someone got to be exit liquidity
Last year's AI models will be the same. Do you want to spend 3 hours prompting free AI to fix your code or 1 hour prompting AI you paid $20 for?
But what if your competitors sell their knowledge to AI companies?
Then you're still screwed.
Just think how much further that $100K would have gone if the hardware market wasn't so screwed-up.
Anecdote: I priced-out adding 1TB of RAM to a four node cluster a couple months ago. The cluster was purchased in fall of 2024 w/ 4 nodes, each with 256GB RAM. The nodes cost just over $14K apiece back in 2024 (entire box, not just the RAM).
Dell wanted >$90K a couple months ago to add 256GB to each node.
RAM is expensive, but not THAT expensive. I just bought 128Gb for about $5k for our build cluster (it's not even for AI, sigh). Even if you need larger-sized DIMM sticks, it's still going to be in the vicinity of ~15k tops.
Last year people were reportedly building a complete server with 1TB RAM for less than that:
I haven't had problems w/ Dell support and 3rd party memory, personally, but given the machines' application I understood the concern.
The decadal move to all-cloud-all-the-time killed off in-house hardware teams while the C-suite chased their OpEx dreams.
It would be interesting if we come full circle on this.
What makes you so confident about this prediction? Hardware costs haven't exactly been cratering recently.
No, but local models have been booming in performance/quality improvements. The RAM shortage won't last forever (more supply will come online when if demand doesn't diminish), and then the math would be pretty easy.
What you call harnesses I call… bullshit?
With a nice UI on top, for the desktop app too: [2]
[1]: https://developers.openai.com/codex/config-advanced#custom-m...
My single spark has me running Qwen 3.6 27B and antirez’s specially quantised DeepSeek v4 Flash (which is shockingly impressive)
How is that supposed to give good results?
I was going to say - the models are just going to keep growing at a pace exceeding the pace of hardware pricing/availability
But then I realised that, far more likely, there will be a plateau reached (again) where nobody is seeing gain, and at that point hardware will catch up
https://www.gigabyte.com/Enterprise/GPU-Server/G383-R80-AAP1
AFAIK you would get about ~5 concurrent users, with a max context window of ~128K tokens on the larger models.
This wouldn't be good enough for coding -- are you guys thinking of using it for something else?
Roughly equivalent to 4x H200's for less than half the price.
Vaguely around 60k tokens per second...
The Gemini Flash is very good at searches. Just about any low end model can toss out a poem. All the higher end models (open source and otherwise) seem to be able to churn out code that passes tests. The smaller, "less capable" ones are much faster at it, which means in the hands of a skilled practitioner are the best choice for that task. But they rapidly fall apart where there isn't a hard source of truth (like a good test suite) to grind against. Because of that you have to use a bigger model for bug finding. In that task the open source models tend to fail on larger code bases, where something like Opus still shines. I gather Mythos is an absolute monster, and unparalleled, and unavailable. I'm sure one of the reasons for that is it's so expensive to run.
Or to put it another way - you don't use a 100 tonne crane to pick up the shopping. And ... the smaller models will happily run on in-house hardware. You may not do it today because of the current DRAM price and integrated NPUs have just started shipping, but in 5 years time models will be running on your phone.
There are physical limits to how much you can compress data and how much is needed for a capable model. If by hardware capable for running SOTA you mean a 7 figure investment for a company, than sure. But how come these companies didnt do the same thing for cloud? There's been this option for self hosting infrastructure for a decade but companies don't use it, they pay AWS.
The current frontier? Sure. The frontier then? No - obviously that frontier is going to keep consuming available datacenter compute capacity, which will be better
My guess is there’s gonna be some legislation or something “you can’t share anything over this level of complexity” and I think that that’s what a lot of that mythos rattling was all about
It's a given that the SOTA models need to raise their prices. It's also a given that they can't. The more they raise the more customers will move to their competition.
So what happens next? Well I think it will suck horribly if you can't move off of SOTA sooner or later, because the Big Two are going to lose customers, and therefore have to raise prices on the locked in customers even more than these projections suggest.
Beyond that if you're looking to start a business, figure out how to use cheap models in new scenarios. Build software which does that and license it. This is kind of contrary to the idea that you shouldn't over optimize for deficiencies in the models that will likely go away in the next generation - for instance a lot of problems were solved when context windows got way bigger. So it's a thin line to walk but I think it's there because a lot of orgs are using Claude today for pretty basic tasks.
The dev who's addicted to SOTA models honestly is going to have to settle for less or get totally screwed. Most applications within business from what I see aside from complex research do not require SOTA. They summarize, they classify, they transform, and doing that accurately has been cheap for a while.
Your last point is common sense in my opinion, I agree with it. At the end of the day most employees are (by definition) of average intelligence and most businesses are average in complexity. Thus, it is logical that average tools (AI models) should do the job for most people and most businesses.
There's not that much depth in a lot of 'everyday' writing. For many tasks that means that you don't need to be hyperintelligent - reading a recipe or a shopping list, reading a newspaper article, etc.
"As cable TV and Pay Per View came out, there were studies done about how many movies people would watch if given unlimited access to films. The results were bandied about as proof that we should build out all this infrastructure to support this line of business. When the data was further analyzed by statisticians etc, it turned out that people claimed they were going to watch films 10-12 hours a day, every day of the week. Impossible."
I feel like we are in a similar boat here where some people are assuming:
- EVERYONE is going to be using max tokens
- tokens will NEVER get cheaper due to improvements in hardware, software, design, market forces etc etc
anthropic already hunts down OpenClaw users for using too much on their plan.
I'll give different example: When LED lights started to be more popular, the power usage didn't drop by the amount of power saved
>- tokens will NEVER get cheaper due to improvements in hardware, software, design, market forces etc etc
Well, first, improvements in computing stalled or even rolled back just purely because price of everything compute shot up cos of AI and that will NOT be fixed for a while and ESPECIALLY if AI usage will continue to increase
Second, the token per model might go down in time but better models have more expensive tokens, so we quickly get into spot when:
* price increase in token might not be worth marginal improvement next, better model brings
* more and more models are passing "good enough for the task" threshold so for less and less companies there is any economic sense to pay for the "best" instead of paying deepseek or some other company to run "previous gen" models
Surely we could just put better stuff on the radio, and accomplish most of the same goals for a far lower price?
None of them had the Pirates game.
I was thinking how the transistor radio was a far superior experience for this use case. Just tune to the channel broadcasting the game.
Then there’s NTS, BBC… Ypu can listen to them from online service, but at least in Europe there’s amazing national FM broadcastimg services.
TV is just bad radio with flickerimg lights.
I think the comment put forward that as an incorrect assumption that was made prior to the cable build-out.
Nobody is doubting that there are some people who watch films 10–12 hours a day, every day of the week.
I feel like the reverse assumption is being made, that the current model looks like IBM doubling down on Mainframes soon to become cheap enough to deploy everywhere, when the real action is that the costs coming down represents cheaper hardware or more efficient software, and that a big chunk of "cheaper" AI will be eaten by smaller products deployed by individuals. Whatever the Personal Computer of AI looks like is going to be more disruptive than just an API endpoint you can fling tokens at.
We already see this with things like chrome auto installing an LLM.
You cant tell me with complete certainty that theres a moat here for the people spending 1 trillion + on this infra.
>When the data was further analyzed by statisticians etc, it turned out that people claimed they were going to watch films 10-12 hours a day, every day of the week. Impossible.
I also think this applies to people suggesting that companies will sack workers for AI, when the costs of replacing everything someone does in a day is more expensive in terms of tokens (likely even at a reduced price) than just hiring a bloke.
And what happened? How many hours per day/week are people spending watching now?
My friends in day care tell me the kids hate "movie day" because movies are all the get at home and they are sick of them - they want to play all day. (but I'm not sure if this is representative of anything other than the types of people who put their kids in that particular daycare)
Binge watching is common as is sports.
I realized it long ago: one needs output to make meaning. Input can only be the cherry on a cake in one's life. That, actually, makes FIRE or Fat FIRE not so sustainable unless one has other hobbies.
A lot of these LLM demand scaling scenarios make broad "up and to the right" assumptions about things which in practice have finite limits. Only some percentage of knowledge work benefits from acceleration, optimization or other improvements, and even then the amount of economic gain is capped.
That's the game. There's a view you could take of this that this is just a growing of the pie: with those cost dynamics a lot more "small businesses" get a vast amount of leverage, so the overall economy grows without replacing the knowledge workers. I'm not sure I trust the MBA class to have that view.
I would argue that that's been the case for quite some time before AI. As an example, what innovative amazing world-changing products have Google or Meta launched in the past decade with their very high numbers of very talented and highly-compensated engineers? The issue with most big tech companies are leadership, strategy, and product direction. I'm not saying that they don't make any profits, just that they probably aren't "building [the right thing]".
AI for product development and management would be far more impactful than automating rote coding tasks / building React UIs that mirror API structures IMO.
If they can crack that latter review/spec-check/assurance step, checking that what was built was what was demanded of the problem such that we don't have humans in the loop at that step either, then the bottleneck moves again. Then I think it moves to requirements capture and to product development, but that might depend on the industry.
Yeah, if this stuff actually worked that well already, OpenAI et al. would just run AI CEOs and engineers. Why get some other company to pay you at all when you can automate every other company out of existence and take all the money they make?
The fact of the matter is that while the tech has some uses, it sure as hell isn't a full scale replacement and you almost always actually have to massage the input into LLMs to get anything decent back out in practice. Some CEOs and managers can learn to do this, of course, and some already are... but that quickly turns into a second full time job. A "programmer" is still needed. The job might change from mostly hand-writing C++/JS/Python to prompt engineering + some manual coding to fix all the stupid fuck-ups that the bots can't solve themselves, but you still need someone to actually prompt the bot.
When that changes, it won't just be engineers losing work; there will be no reason to even have a human CEO any more.
The human race isn’t ready for that world IMHO. The only reason there is a middle class is because people have leverage in the form of their labor. When that becomes worthless … the people who own stuff and make their living from doing so won’t hesitate to get rid of everyone else - whom are now worthless to them.
I don't think there is any shortage of great ideas at these companies, they are just extremely bloated. And I don't think its something like indecision or bad PMs, it's "we have a finite amount of time and resources so we need to be conservative but also not too conservative"
If you have AI systems that can simply build out POCs in days, backtest on real data, show reliable results and numbers, you get a suite of product options you were never able to get before. If you have coding agents that can speed up implementation, you can build more stuff and choose the things that stick.
It changes the cost/benefit calculus of the entire business. I think you are exactly right in that: PMs/leadership are by their nature orchestration machines. Other roles are as well, but I think PM's are at a particular advantage here in that it will be quite awhile I would expect before core product decisions and creativity can be delegated to an AI, but not quite awhile until virtually everything that they're blocked on (legal approvals, POCs, wire frames, etc etc etc) will become less and less of a blocker
I'll also add this: within a large organization, you often need to interact with many different codebases owned by many different teams. Agents have made it much easier to wrangle by having the ability to deploy one to scope out your web of dependencies to learn about what would be needed for feature X, and how that integration can happen.
We've been doing far more away team work simply because it makes things move faster. It's easier to convince a team to sign off/review something than it is to get them to commit to the planning and eventual work.
It genuinely is helping things move faster inside large organizations. Or at least, it is for us, particularly since we're getting organizational prioritization to actually build the scaffolding to make those agents more effective at search.
1000x yes: you have touched on what I think is the single biggest factor here, that is the humongous value of POCs. they are gnarly to build without agents, and so we used to have to get everyone on board so we didn't get screwed in performance reviews, which was monumental task because that means convincing very busy PMs who have a lot on their plate and dont want to take risks on things they don't understand, and now it's like "can we scale this out" and you have a very nicely formatted proposal and POC. It de-risks things very quickly
Say I want to build a feature in a product.
- DS has to do a deep dive (need buy in) to opportunity size and derisk with data. That DS has to work with other DS (people may have left or moved teams) to figure out how to get the right data and figure out what the difference is between 10 different tables that have overlapping but inconsistent data. - Eng has to build up an actual simple demo (need buy in) - Design has to make it not hideous (need buy in) - Legal has to review what you're doing; POCs should involve real data where possible because otherwise no one will trust it, even if its just for user analysis on existing products
This plus about 6 internal system bugs for custom tools that are flaky and who's team has long been re-orged or laid off, 8 people who won't answer you, 2 PTO's for the stakeholders, 6 weekly meetings
no one did POCs, they just had ideas and tried to get PM's to put it on the roadmap so if it fell through at least it was bought into
You still want someone whose ass is on the line if they get it wrong.
The problem is they get killed by some other executive who is afraid of their department looking bad by comparison.
I think this is fairly illustrative of the challenges in AI becoming as impactful as the Internet. The bottleneck is not making things. There are plenty of people who are really good at making things and can easily be 10x or 100x as productive as the average corporate worker. YCombinator was founded on that premise - small teams of founders and early employees could be orders of magnitudes more productive than the 1000s of corporate employees at their competitors.
The bottleneck is on bringing your product to market. If your innovative new product is built within a corporate environment, it'll get killed unless the executive you work under can get a promotion out of it, and you'll be denied all sorts of help with approvals, launch process, PR, marketing, branding, etc. If it's a startup, they'll try to shut you out with exclusive distribution deals, legal threats, lobbying efforts to change the legal environment, PR campaigns, FUD, etc.
The Internet was revolutionary because it let millions of people bring products to market without asking permission. Instead of having to bid for retail shelf space among dozens of entrenched competitors that all had sweetheart deals with the retailer, you could just put up a website and sell it to anyone across the globe. Instead of following hundreds of regulations that governed existing commerce, you could just launch something and sort it out later. AI doesn't really have that property - if anything, it makes things more centralized, with more gatekeepers, and so seems more likely to destroy economic value than add to it.
> YCombinator was founded on that premise - small teams of founders and early employees could be orders of magnitudes more productive than the 1000s of corporate employees at their competitors.
I think this is still true, but the theory is:
1. You don't need YC-type funding to do YC-type business any more; 2. You don't need to scale the business past those small teams any more, you just buy more tokens.
For clarity YC still obviously has a place as an incubator, mentoring, and networking function. I just think that what was previously the inevitable conclusion that you have to hire all the people the second you hit PMF to keep up with scaling the business as you scale sales is no longer inevitable. If you didn't want to go that way before AI, you were a "lifestyle business" and not worth investing in. As more and more knowledge functions get capably implemented by AI, it's the preferred position: humans are vastly more expensive than tokens, so you want them doing the stuff the AI still can't do.
I don't think this necessarily translates to mass unemployment. I think it translates to masses of smaller businesses that are radically more efficient because the handoffs between business functions are tool calls, not emails to someone who doesn't want to help.
> The Internet was revolutionary because it let millions of people bring products to market without asking permission.
Think about it this way: if I am a small business owner but I think it makes sense to do something that previously only a team in a corporate environment could do but is now within the reach of AI, not only can I do it now, but I also don't have to ask anyone for permission! Who wins between the corporation and the small business in that scenario?
> AI doesn't really have that property - if anything, it makes things more centralized, with more gatekeepers, and so seems more likely to destroy economic value than add to it.
I think this will turn out to be backwards. I can see a version of this where the number of things you can do without needing to turn to a gatekeeper for help increases to the extent that the balance completely inverts.
The vast majority of businesses are small, and AI can give them tools which previously required corporate scale to make sense, without the inefficient hand-offs between busy, political humans. Which is also something that the internet did! Getting an advert in front of a national market pre-internet was Hard but sometimes you had to do it because your target market was "all Canadians who buy toothpaste" or whatever and that meant saturation-bombing the physical environment with physical billboard ads, posters, flyers, and so on. So you only did it if you were P&G-scale. Now you, personally, can do it, trivially, for better or worse.
> Valve
Arguably a monopoly. They've got a product that sells itself with very low infra overheads for the income.
> Hedge funds
Very different model. I don't think the same intuitions apply.
Obviously that includes whatever needs to be done to hoover in data from their marks and Meta also does the same thing without fail and both are really good at it. But outside their remit not so much.
I would agree but it's really minimized the building. More and more time is being spent on pre-coding work.
You'll find that most internal "innovation" teams are just lip service. In most cases, the "mothership" will be incapable of reproducing true innovation -- from a statistical perspective, culture perspective (mega corps are anti-scrappy; internal politics), and motivation perspective (startups aren't 9-to-5). It's much easier to have big M&A budgets, a VC arm, and some handwavvy internal innovation group.
Every now and again, you'll get real innovations (Waymo, transistors, GUIs), but even those have a spotty track record of commercialization when created internally.
Kubernetes is at 11 years ago, and is huge enough to be included there. The Google Pixel was just under 10 years ago. So... not nothing haha
Second to this are countless other areas that have a major impact on the companies bottom line that are entirely engineering driven, especially at google given they are a cloud provider and have meaningfully grown the workspace business and launched waymo in this time.
I suspect that AI will fail to pan out to the same extent for the same reason why outsourcing hasn't fully panned out (even though every company tries it after getting big enough).
The problems that will come up will be and always have been ongoing maintenance. AI is great at writing new code without a brain behind it, but once you get to the point where you need to refactor code, you start really needing someone with coding experience to guide the AI or veto it's mistakes.
I don't think that's really fixable even with a lot better AI. It's not something that ultimately comes out of the likes of github data.
I'm not saying that AI isn't going to make things better, btw, I just don't think we'll see a 20x improvement. Probably more like 1.5 or 2x.
The determinant of success was only whether the task needed American-tier labor or could make do with sub-American quality labor.
Basically every big tech has large offices and employ a lot of people there.
The limitation is that Ireland is a relatively small country, and most Irish developers are already employed (which is why Ireland end up being one of the main destinations for tech workers being hired from abroad).
(Yes, all the good developers from Oklahoma move out, but the same is true of Ireland)
Also, many European devs simply move to the US. Immigration is the primary means by which the arbitrage disappears.
That part of dev work, the requirements gathering, attention to details, clarifying requirements, is something AI also struggles with. A lot of companies basically waste time and money on outsourced devs because without a clear path forward they effectively will sit and do nothing, waiting for a prompt.
How I find your argument is that one distinguished engineer from US could do the same with the use of AI.
I worked with both and I know great and bad engineers from both sides. Only thing is that US has a bigger pool of great engineers.
My mental model for that is that outsourcing fails where the work is being done organisationally far from the knowledge needed to do it. We know that's true of teams inside organisations, there's been a lot of research on how distance in the organisational tree negatively impacts productivity. Outsourcing is a pathological worst-case of that.
The promise (promise! We're not there yet!) of AI is that I can have a cross-functional team on my laptop. Organisational distance is zero. Where previously the outsourced team has to wait for the time zones to roll round so I can answer their blocking question when I get to my email STRICTLY AFTER I have had my coffee, now it's a prompt in a chat window with a button I can click to make a choice in 5 seconds. Delay is gone, cost of delay is gone.
> The problems that will come up will be and always have been ongoing maintenance. AI is great at writing new code without a brain behind it, but once you get to the point where you need to refactor code, you start really needing someone with coding experience to guide the AI or veto it's mistakes.
Oh, absolutely. That's a minefield. Today. It will be, right up until it isn't. There are ways to set up agents and projects right now that make a dramatic difference to how this part of the picture plays out, but those will sink into the harnesses as time goes on.
But also the big problem with maintenance and outsourced teams tends to be the commercial structure around the contract. You get a Build team, who Build the Thing and then: no more features for you, anything you want to add past the original spec costs extra. They hand over to the Run And Maintain team, who get to fix all the bugs that the Build team left but without the knowledge gained from building the thing, but are scaled and located to be absolutely as cheap as the supplier can get away with so probably don't have the skill, inclination, motivation, or permission to take on any restructuring to make the bug fixing easier and they're on the wrong end of the globe so there's a 24-hour latency on any queries. It's a terrible way to set teams up, but it looks good on paper.
Again, that's peculiar to outsourcing and completely goes away if I have the same team that built the thing own the thing long-term. That's true if it's humans or AI!
> I don't think that's really fixable even with a lot better AI. It's not something that ultimately comes out of the likes of github data.
No, it's a harness problem. You need to start from a maintainable point and keep standards in place. It'll take work to get the harnesses there and it's not ubiquitous. You might also need better models, but I've already personally seen big differences in outcomes between projects that took certain steps and others that didn't; it's nothing revolutionary, mostly stuff that works for humans also works for AIs but you need to know to ask for it.
> I'm not saying that AI isn't going to make things better, btw, I just don't think we'll see a 20x improvement. Probably more like 1.5 or 2x.
I think people radically underestimate the cost of delay. I don't know if 20x is realistic for the AI itself, but I think it's not impossible once the inefficiencies of having to go to other humans is factored in.
End result is that many outsourcing firms are borderline fraudulent in the way they treat their customers.
I'm most curious about this sentence. What have you noticed about the similarities? I'm getting really good at asking for confidence levels, tests and pushing back, but I'm curious what you found
Tests are non-negotiable. I've found it helps to be very explicit about Red-Green-Refactor loops so you don't get it trying to one-shot more than it should, alongside git pre-commit hooks that won't let failing tests accidentally get committed. Again, this helps humans.
I'm starting my first coding project with Claude Code and your comment gave me some helpful topics to study
It sounds like the economy would largely reduce to the small minority class of independently wealthy people.
It takes a skilled knowledge worker to use these things.
And worse, these are the tasks that help the junior people eventually grow into the skilled knowledge workers required to operate models, so there's a pipeline problem too.
I'm already seeing tech execs/hiring managers getting very frustrated at the lack of new-senior-engineers to hire. The market will correct for this in time.
The demand for senior+ engineers has remained steadier through this downturn from my anecdotal observations, with new grads being by far the most negatively affected, but even that seems to both be shifting from talking to people a handful of years younger than me + CS enrollment has already precipitously declined [2] as the narrative that programming is dead because of AI has spread rapidly.
All that leads me to think it's going to be a junk-show over the next decade for people trying to hire as the pipeline was destroyed.
1: https://www.citadelsecurities.com/news-and-insights/2026-glo... 2: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/04/13/compute...
Not completely, but compared to the middle ages we 50x'd their output. Which is a great illustration what it means to make a job 50 times more productive. We went from 80-90% of the population being required to barely make enough food for everyone to survive, to 4% of the population producing such an abundance that consuming too much food has become a systemic health issue
I'm pretty skeptical on the outcomes and the costs also (natural and social as well), but possibly we can have 50x or even more software in the end! The phrase will be truer than ever:
> Software is eating the world!
https://www.agtechmarket.net/news/laserweeding (random web search, I don't vouch for this site, it just looks legit at a glance)
Next innovation could be to scale succession planting, which keeps the ground from being exposed in between crops and lets you transition from nitrogen fixers to users quicker, getting more food out per acre while reducing fertilizer usage. But you can't do that with current harvesters and human labor is too valuable to spend on this.
Also take broccoli harvesting, typically you get a few big heads, then it keeps producing smaller heads, but it's not economical to harvest the smaller heads with human labor. Robotic harvesting lets the same plant produce more food per acre and uses the energy needed for new plants instead to keep producing food.
This is where this is going, the whole industrialism is totally self-serving, and for every problem its answer is digging deeper in the rabbit hole, and creating 2 more problems in addition to solving the initial problem only half-way.
I don't want to say what you are suggesting is not possibly useful, I just want to emphasize how stuff works out in reality, in addition to doing some nice stuff like what you called out (the halfway solution to the problems). All we get is more alienation and humans getting depressed and feeling a lack of purpose... but somehow we cannot afford to pay fair prices for the agricultural work, and pay fair prices for the food, and not overproduce and overpollute... and the same thing is happening in every aspect of the human condition, not only food production, which is the most basic and ancient activity we have been doing.
I have done succession planting in my home garden, but it's definitely not worth the time investment for the food alone. But it's real neat to see your aphid problem disappear as the nasturtiums pop up without any pesticides needed. You can even feed the world with it, if most everyone wanted to be farmers... (as opposed to some Organic practices which is the same mass farming but the pesticides are "naturally-derived")
There are other grazing animals in addition to cows btw, as temperate marshland forest can be grazed by pigs, for example. Also sheep, and goat exist for example.
Vegetable production is nice, but we don't need to work all land. We don't need to produce so much food that we cannot use up meaningfully, just waste or take to places to create overpopulation there also. Reckless industrialism and capitalism are the core barriers to sustainability. (the former includes socialist planned-economical models also, we've seen our part of that also)
This also leads to a kind of a singularity.
They do not care unless these companies can get a bailout.
UBI only exists for companies that are too big to fail. Case in point, 2008 and SVB when there was too much money on the line.
One of the AI companies attempted to guarantee themselves a way for the government to bail them out if they were close to defaulting on the debt from the data center build out.
Arguably, the main impact of securing SVB depositors above the $250k limit is that it prevented thousands of people from being laid off that week, as their employers wouldn't have had the money to make payroll the following Wednesday.
Sure, but is that the case now? Is everyone made whole when a bank fails and they have more deposits than the insurance limits? Or only when it's the well-connected / too-big-to-fail?
Looks like the answer is no: https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/a-small-banks-failure-le...
So I don't think it's unreasonable to describe SVB as a bailout. Not for the investors, but for the depositors. Has anything changed to reduce the moral hazard / make it less likely to recur?
But if there was a bank failure at a regionally smaller bank with a regular customer or startup depositing the same amount of money over the insurance limit, their money is gone.
Just like Intel got a "bailout" from investment as chosen by the US government, AI will eventually have a very similar story.
Pretty much and has been for awhile.
https://nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/100-NYU-...
In early 2023, within the span of two months, the United States experienced three out of the four largest commercial bank failures in U.S. history, as Signature Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and First Republic Bank all toppled.1 Yet, despite these banks having roughly $300 billion in uninsured deposits at the time of their failures2 and despite the failures costing the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) an estimated $38 billion, uninsured depositors took no losses in any of the failures.3 While these results were striking, they were far from unusual. Since 2008, uninsured depositors have experienced losses in only 6% of total U.S. bank failures.
...
Formally, the United States caps deposit insurance at $250,000 per account,6 but, in reality, the post-2008 financial system comes close to providing de facto total deposit insurance covering all amounts in all accounts.
What's the U stand for in UBI?
To follow on from that comment, if the growth in breadth of capacity of AI leads to a decrease in the risk of running a smaller business, which I don't think is an unreasonable prediction, then it's not inevitable people do lose their jobs. Employers get smaller, higher-leverage, and more plentiful.
What makes you think the people who used to build (or would have built) software will switch into the industry of "knowing that the thing was the right thing to build", as opposed to something cooler like surgery, city planning or experimental physics? The roles within a tech company are not the only jobs in the world.
I don't.
> What makes you think the people who used to build (or would have built) software will switch into the industry of "knowing that the thing was the right thing to build", as opposed to something cooler like surgery, city planning or experimental physics?
Because it's probably already part of the job. It's a change of emphasis, not a change of career. Your boss can already ask you to do it. If you're producing code, you're probably also reviewing code, checking it matches the acceptance criteria, testing it, sanity checking that it was the right code to have been written, today.
“There’s more capital than good ideas to fund” has been a complaint from the likes of A16z & other VCs for a long time now. It’s why we ended up with stuff like NFTs getting funded.
No one I know feels richer than they did a decade back. I've not been able to meaningfully put up my prices for a decade. People are tired and stressed and scared, particularly scared of a technology everyone keeps telling them will make them redundant.
There is no rising tide lifting all boats, just most of us drowning whilst a few whizz past in their yachts.
I honestly hope these guys faceplant ASAP. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
Consumption has risen, inflation adjusted wages have risen for blue collar and white collar alike. Most social mobility has been the middle class moving into the upper middle class, not moving to the lower class.
The main thing holding people back is the housing crisis. This is orthogonal to the value creation of businesses.
Value creation is growth. If it didn’t exist the S&P would still be 42.55$.
Oh the lost irony.
My wages haven't risen for nearly 5 years, while inflation has occurred over the past 5 years. Why the blanket statements?
> The main thing holding people back is the housing crisis. This is orthogonal to the value creation of businesses.
Are you suggesting a "housing crisis," in your words, wouldn't impact consumption? I'm watching my spending (and living like a child in his parent's house, except it's not my parent and I have to pay for it) in the hopes that in about a decade, I'll have saved up enough of a down payment for a home somewhere in my state that I could actually afford the mortgage on the remaining amount. There are plenty of things I'd potentially spend money on but won't as long as I feel like I'm economically stuck and have a chance in hell of saving my way out of it. So this feeling translates to fact.
If you think my personal experience is just an anecdote and doesn't count because it's not being told through the lens of large-scale numbers, fine. But I really agree with the person you replied to that you're gonna have to be a whole lot more specific than "value creation" if you want people to spend money on your AI products "in this economy," whether it's because they're actually strapped for cash or just pretending like you seem to think they are.
This feels wholly at odds with saying most social mobility is upwards. So most of the social movement is into a class where a home and vacations are a given, but we also have a growing class of people who can't afford a home? Per BLS, average real wages are down 0.3% YoY https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm .
> Value creation is growth. If it didn’t exist the S&P would still be 42.55$.
This reductively assumes "value creation" is the only effect on the S&P pricing. You'll note a ton of graphs correlate with it, e.g. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi is the US inflation rate, which also tracks the S&P pricing. Ie if a company is worth $100 a year ago and inflation was 4%, I'd expect to pay $104 for their stock with 0 value creation whatsoever.
The s&p has vastly outstripped inflation, this isn’t even an argument. It’s a very bizarre and uninformed opinion to say “inflation is correlated with s&p value”.
In economics, you deduct the inflation rate from growth to get the real rate of return.
I wonder why so many people with such little understanding of financial markets make comments like these.
It was at one point, so if you're saying it doesn't now then your "social movement" is really just goalpost moving. I'm sure the upper class does grow if you just declare that the boundaries of it are now lower. We're all millionaires if we just redefine millionaire to mean "not currently overdrafted".
> In economics, you deduct the inflation rate from growth to get the real rate of return.
Which neglects the impact of inflation on the principal. If I put $100k into the S&P in 2016 I'd have 303k now (303% value). Cumulative inflation during that period was 38.8%, so your metric says I'm at 164% rate of return. $303k today is only worth $218k in 2016 dollars though, so I'm really only up 118% in absolute value.
That's also only using the CPI, and neglecting asset inflation which impacts stock prices outside of actual value creation. More money floating around means more gets parked in index funds, regardless of whether the company is actually doing anything better.
You don't re-apply inflation onto the principal.
It's kind of become socially taboo to not be suffering "in this economy", but on paper it's hard to see weakness in places that there isn't always weakness. As long as the 65-95% are doing well, there isn't going to be a collapse.
From the U Michigan page: https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/
or from the FED https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UMCSENT
Everyone hates Walmart but they still do gangbusters numbers.
So people may be hating, but they sure as hell are also still spending
In most of Europe individuals at least don't need any of that. I'm in France and it's just a connection to a government run website to enter a few figures, takes less than an hour most of it is already pre-entered (salary etc), the main thing to add manually is charitable donations.
If you're running a business then yes an accountant can be good (or be required depending on the legal form of the business) but not for individuals.
There are a few people who have a complex situation who need an accountant. Most do not, but since they have never looked at what is really involved they don't realize what is going on.
Otherwise normally costs around $800 to do, because I have a small business too.
Are you? Does it cost you extra (time or money) to be?
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
True, but I think the GP's point was that what consumers will pay won't be nearly as profitable as what enterprises will pay to increase the output of their developers and knowledge workers. ChatGPT is currently the overwhelming leader in consumer AI usage but only ~5% pay $20/mo.
As a recently retired serial tech founder, I'm now one of those consumers. I use AI webchat daily for general search, Q&A and even to write little automation scripts for myself, yet I haven't paid anyone anything for AI yet. Even after being heavily restricted and performance nerfed to hell in recent months, free webchat AI is still fine for everything I do, and I'm not remotely price sensitive.
Even as AI compute costs fall over time, I doubt serving ads against AI webchat to consumers will generate the kind of high-margin, sustainable growth VCs get excited about. It's so undifferentiated I bounce around between all four leading providers because there's virtually no moat locking casual consumers to any chatbot beyond a single question thread. I guess if it had a nearly infinite context window seamlessly integrated across all sessions, that might be somewhat sticky for some consumers but it could also get creepy for some others - and it would devour gobs of the scarcest resource in AI. Beyond Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the mobile phone is the largest revenue, long-term mass consumer product ever but I just got a new flagship phone from a top-tier provider for $30/mo over 3 yrs. IMHO, even an all-you-can-eat, infinite context window, next-gen Mythos couldn't reach and sustain mobile phone levels of global consumer adoption at ~$20/mo. Unlike professional developers and knowledge workers, consumers don't have any "job to be done" big enough for an LLM to command that much of their zero-sum discretionary spend.
That will certainly help but it doesn't move the fundamental limit because resource efficiency is a cost driver not a demand driver - and my argument is against the thesis that lying beyond professional devs and knowledge workers, there's an untapped trillion dollar industry serving LLMs to mass global consumers.
Using Simon's cost estimates, I agree that halving the current $1,000 - $1,200/mo MSRP to profitably serve frontier inference to professional developers and knowledge workers (PD&K) will help Vendor A steal share from Vendor B or C. It will also increase LLM sales penetration into the segments of the global PD&K TAM which can't afford ~$1K/mo for every seat. A fair chunk of the PD&K workers in many SMEs aren't included in today's ~$1K/mo per seat license pool, especially in 2nd and 3rd world geos. When the price falls to $500 and $250 most will but that's still just saturating the existing PD&K TAM - not pushing into mass consumers.
While the PD&K TAM is big, justifying Trillion+ dollar capex spend requires believing the TAM is much more than PD&K and eventually grows into converting a couple billion non-PD&K consumers into ~$20/mo subscribers. I don't buy it for two reasons:
1) The Comps: There are vanishingly few examples of long-term, mass consumer adoption of a discretionary technology at that scale. Mobile phones at ~$15 to $30/mo are the obvious one but LLMs are nowhere near being that valuable to the average plumber in Des Moines, baker in Jakarta or retired nurse in Hamburg. Pondering it, I just imagined forcing any of those people to choose between their mobile phone and an LLM chatbot. Sure, some who are flush with cash might choose both but for most consumers in the world ~$20/mo is big enough they'd have to pick one and ~zero percent would choose the LLM over their phone. After mobile phones, the second comp for discretionary tech spend I thought about was XBox and Playstation monthly gaming subscriptions but combined they have less than 90M paying subscribers and the ARR is just under $10/mo. As an industry, "Big LLM" is spending well over a trillion dollars every five years. XBox and PS ARR doesn't even cover paying the interest on that capital, much less the 3 to 5x returns hedge fund investors are betting on.
2) The Alternative: It's useful to doubt my own intuitions and one counter to my skepticism is to assume "But LLMs aren't finished yet, they're going to get much better." How much better could an LLM which can be profitable at ~$20/mo get than Claude Mythos in the next five years? Instead of debating future unknowables with myself, I've found it's better to just imagine the most perfect future product I can that's still realistically plausible. So, let's imagine we're willing to spend a million dollars a month to very unprofitably deploy a prototype to test the consumer demand for "Tomorrow's Awesomest $20/mo LLM" today. So we gather a few hundred super smart, broadly knowledgeable intellectuals together at one top-tier university research library, where they'll have access to every commercial database and unlimited Claude Mythos 2.0 and ChatGPT 6.0. Since our experimental budget is $1M/mo we can afford to add in several Nobel prize and Fields Medal winners too. They'll work together manually reviewing and improving not only every LLM answer but also our test user's prompts - and of course our test chatbot will have human-level real-time speech recognition and vision (via Zoom and screen-sharing with actual genius-level humans), making this truly a test of the "smartest, most accurate, best consumer chatbot" we can imagine.
Now, let's run the test by having one thousand mass consumers try it out and see how many Des Moines plumbers, Jakarta bakers and Hamburg retired nurses we can convert to a 1 year @ $20/mo subscription for our $1M/mo ultimate chatbot simulation. Playing this thought experiment out in a bunch of ways, I find some percentage of outliers, iconoclasts and closet intellectuals would go for it but... the vast majority just don't find it enough better than "free" chatbot alternatives AT&T includes with their phone subscription or Samsung bundles with Galaxy phones - despite only being ChatGPT 5.4-level. It turns out, most plumbers, bakers and ex-nurses don't have a compelling "job to be done" in their daily lives that even an MoE panel of actual Nobel and Field's medalists with ivy league professors can make enough more valuable than an inferior but free-to-me chatbot, in the judgement of our Des Moines plumber. While the world's smartest chatbot is nice, when it comes time to pay, he prefers having one additional premium football match on TV and a six pack of cold beers every month.
A recent post here said AI spend could be "20% of every software developer's salary"... and that seemed plausible based on productivity improvements. That's not about a phone bill.
Yes, if you agree that not enough consumers will value "smart paid chatbots" over dumb free chatbots at ~$20/mo, then, as you say, the money has to come from enterprise developers and knowledge workers (PD&K). The big problem with that is the numbers don't work. There aren't enough PD&K workers that are highly-paid enough to justify $12,000 to $16,000 a year to cover the astronomical spending run rates.
Without recapitulating all the various scenarios AI CEOs like to hand-wave, my take-away is the scenarios which show today's frontier AI vendors earning the returns they've promised investors to get those trillions of dollars they're spending ALL require truly extraordinary deltas far above current historical actuals. Whereas ALL the scenarios which I find more plausibly realistic, even if still quite bullish, never even get near the required ballpark.
I've tried to make various scenarios fit but inevitably, when the PD&K demand side starts getting implausibly inflated, I start pushing the cost side down to keep the adoption rates remotely plausible. For example, assuming things like the number of PD&K workers will grow at 2X the highest rates ever seen before or that the percentage of the tasks knowledge workers actually do at sufficient frequency to really matter and which are also "LLM improvable" is implausibly vast.
It gets challenging because one quickly hits finite limits on the increase in tangible economic value that an LLM can possibly deliver on many common knowledge work tasks like drafting an email or a product proposal. Even if we assume next year's frontier LLM is so good literally ZERO slop is even possible so that our knowledge worker doesn't ever have to review anything - turning a 20 minute task into 2 minutes, or even 200 milliseconds, yields finite economic value to the enterprise. Even if you go extreme and suppose pretty crazy stuff like 18 months from now LLMs have eliminated 50% of PD&K workers, that messes with the spreadsheet assumptions because now the there are half as many $16,000/yr seats so the LLM license prices have to double again just to stay even.
At the edges it quickly gets nuts. I even tried assuming that in five years LLMs eliminate 100% of non-managerial PD&K jobs. All actual work is done by Super-AGI LLMs. Even if we assume such amazing intelligence can be profitably sold in five years for only 4x the price of today's far dumber LLMs, that Super AGI still costs $50,000/yr per human replaced. Even that assumption only cuts the blended labor cost of non-managerial roles roughly in half (depending on industry and geo). In the end, no matter how much labor cost LLMs enable companies to cut, it still only reduces overhead. Lower costs might allow Vendor A to steal some of Vendor B's customers but it doesn't increase the total TAM or demand of the entire sector both vendors serve.
Once you're out of plausible labor savings, one has to move to assuming that within five years Super-AGI LLMs working unsupervised will be making and validating fundamental scientific breakthroughs, then reducing those breakthroughs to engineering practice enabling new technologies which create entire new markets. Then they'll create whole new companies with maybe only 1/10th the humans and profitably grow those new markets. It quickly starts to feel like bad sci-fi instead of plausible, near-term financial scenario planning. Is stuff that extreme and unprecedented actually possible? Sure, incredibly unlikely and unprecedented things DO sometimes happen but things so far out of the distribution are very rare. But when making Sam and Dario's scenarios actually 'math out' starts requiring more than one "Black Swan" unlikely, historically unprecedented, earth-shaking event. And then goes on to need whole flocks of Black Swans, it just isn't credible. That said, I do believe that some parts of these scenarios may happen in 10 or 20+ years. It's just that the investment theses trillions worth of our 401K's are sunk into assume five or six year amortization and financial payback.
Mostly asking random questions they used to search Google for.
> next to Starbucks and avocado toast, is discretionary.
Sure, but your description implies highly affluent, urban professionals in western nations. I was talking about getting several billion global mass-market consumers to all keep paying ~$20/mo. Mass consumer adoption of mobile phones worldwide is currently >5.8 billion or >70% of humans alive. Only ~50M people are paying $20/mo for an LLM and I suspect many of them are not pure consumers but actually knowledge workers that AI vendors are losing money on and will eventually force into higher tier plans just like the $200/mo developers they're currently losing money on. These heavily subsidized loss-leader offers are all going away post-IPO.
Personally, I know maybe a dozen people who pay $20/mo for an LLM but only two of them are really 'pure consumers' who don't use it for knowledge work. Both of them are multi-millionaires and neither has had a job in ten years. One is retired like me and the other is so wealthy she has a Netjets credit card and has new cars delivered like some people order shoes. Everyone else I know paying $20/mo is a professional who uses the LLM for a lot of office or knowledge work and writes it off as a business expense - examples include a couple of attorneys who are senior partners in a law office they own, a solo architect, and a dentist who owns his own practice.
At $20/mo, AI vendors are probably losing money on most of my professional friends because they use it pretty heavily all day. They're only making money on the two multi-millionaires who both use it so infrequently they could easily be using free chatbots instead but are so rich they could lose $10,000 in their couch cushions and not notice. While they are profitable at $20/mo, they aren't exactly "typical consumers" that there are billion more of. I expect AI vendors will find ways to force my lawyer, architect and dentist friends to switch to higher priced plans soon because they're really knowledge workers abusing a consumer tier plan into unprofitability.
What sort of new value, and why will people pay for it from someone else rather than prompting for it themselves?
The AI might very well be used by noticeable % of population daily, but that doesn't mean they will be paying trillion dollars to the leading US AI companies
Privacy is also a huge issue.
But, at that point I think the big players’ moats will have dried up. Local models will probably be sufficient for 99% of daily office worker tasks.
So I disagree with TFA’s premise. I think this fear is probably shared amongst the LLM giants, and they’re still hoping that neural network transformers are somehow the path to AGI (probably not, imo).
The scale of these investments put the lenders at substantial risk, so the lenders will do anything to make it work. If the current lenders will be damaged by extended payback periods, they can simply sell the debt to someone else who won't be.
2. Where does this $5T number come from? If they make $4T in revenue over the next 5 years instead, what happens?
But the point is that if people are willing to delegate part of their salary (e.g., buy consumer products), vs requiring employers to pay for the tokens, then it's quite possibly a net win. Something like "I pay a largeish fee every month to make my own job much easier", similarly to how we buy a car to make commuting easier.
They are assuming ~10% global GDP growth instead of ~3%. You probably don't need the same %s if the pie grows a ton.
I'm highly skeptical we get that growth, but if you aren't, it makes it easier to digest.
The more AI causes productivity increases, the less and less number of workers will be needed. This will heat up the job market even more and bring salaries down.
Net effect of this productivity increase: less consumption by the masses, even though you may be producing more good and much more efficiently.
A third effect also comes into play that once all this starts to happen, common people, who are generally living paycheck to paycheck, will now start to hesitate towards making any long term investment, housing included. And that indirectly will end up impacting financial and banking sector, which will then impact existing savings, bonds yields and retirement funds, and the recession-like cycle starts.
This productivity increase only makes sense if it is capped to a very small number.. like 20% max. Beyond that, who these companies will even be selling to?
Am I overthinking all this?
That only holds if companies have a fixed need for "productivity" which is met by their current employees, such that their employees becoming more productive means they need less of them.
Every company I've ever worked for has wanted to achieve way more than they are able to get done with current resources.
But generally yes, the biggest open question about all of this is how the impact will play out on the economy, job opportunities etc. I've not seen anyone come close to a confident prediction about how this will play out.
I mean sure. Every company wants an infinite addressable market. But that doesn't mean it exists.
It might not be possible to sell 10x the software we sell today. It might not even be possible to sell 2x
>Net effect of this productivity increase: less consumption by the masses, even though you may be producing more good and much more efficiently.
Big tech companies can't even create login flows and account recovery flows that work for everyone yet. There are countless stories of folks losing access to business Instagram accounts that get hacked, Google support from a human to fix a problem that is outside of their help articles is non-existent, etc etc. There's still so much "low-hanging fruit" IMO that isn't particularly fun or exciting to fix, but ask your average non-tech friend or family member what they think of the Facebook + Instagram security settings pages / sites / desktop-only settings.
Who is going to pay for all of these subscriptions that will power this GDP increase when average purchasing power of those outside of the top ~10% of earners is decreasing YoY? We're headed toward food and water shortages next to sprawling datacenters, not shared societal prosperity and a healthy middle class.
Why does this have to be the case with AI but it didn't have to be (and wasn't) the case with the steam engine, electricity, the automobile, or the computer & internet?
Certainly, AI could be different.
It's curious to me why the vast majority of people on here think it must be different.
Some people take the view that AI could make knowledge work largely irrelevant. Any niche humans could carve for themselves would only live long enough to generate training data for the AI to automate.
Secondarily, reducing the cost of making a thing doesn't always mean you get less of a thing. For me, certainly, what happened is that I write way more software than I originally did. When we built compilers, the amount of human engineering effort required to do things plunged, but the amount of software engineering jobs didn't go down.
This is as bad as models will ever be. That part is true. And it's entirely possible we go foom. But it's also possible we don't, and then it depends on where the asymptote lands.
0: https://www.slowboring.com/p/this-economic-myth-needs-to-go-...
Nope, if AI were to realise the hype, you have to take into account macroeconomics. Usually this isn't a problem for most businesses
>The more AI causes productivity increases, the less and less number of workers will be needed. This will heat up the job market even more and bring salaries down.
People also underestimate that the reason why companies are so excited about AI isn't to increase productivity, its to fire workers and crack down on worker rights. They won't lay people off because AI means they don't need as many people to get the job done, they'll fire everyone while doing a much shittier job, because they hate having to abide by worker's rights and pay people
This might not necessarily be true. Increased efficiency creates induced demand to the point where more workers are needed. Because the new capabilities unlock more value to extract and the economy rushes in to get it. The steam engine is a huge example of this
I dont exactly know what new value genAI will unlock but i think its more likely than not
The market is shrinking and saturated already and it’s not because of AI gains but geopolitical instability and supply chain issues, some of which are caused by AI spending and stupid ass PE firms refocusing on AI supply chains.
Only our pensions and futures burning.
People stopped buying shit.
- S&P has a Q1 2026 blended revenue growth of 11.3% according to FactSet - most sectors are growing, not just tech
This is where the napkin math is breaking down in a big way. There is absolutely no reason to assume this will only impact "knowledge workers". Farmers use computers. Farmers will use AI.
Chapter 11 is not Chapter 7. Businesses survive chapter 11 bankruptcies all the time. For example, WeWork.
Uber was basically only ever software to help people use their own cars so a very small part of their valuation was physical stuff to upkeep, it was just deals and obligations they had.
Not sure how it shakes out for Anthropic and OpenAI. There’s a lot of physical capacity that needs to be built out and can depreciate. But there’s also a lot of network effects and dependencies being built in with enterprise users.
I don’t know how swappable the tooling is either. I think over the long term the UI, model training and documentation, and infrastructure are going to end up being run by different parties and I’m not sure which leg of that chain ends up in a position to skim most of the profit off. My guess is that Apple and Google end up raking in all the money since they control the OS and app stores while the rest of the stack gets driven down to being generic commodities. At least where mass market consumer adoption is concerned.
> But then you sometimes go and talk to your senior engineering leaders and you’re saying, OK, how many projects that were on the cutting room floor got moved above the line because of the productivity gains because 25% of our code commits were via Claude Code last quarter?
> That link is not there yet, right? I think maybe implicitly there’s more that is getting shipped. But it’s very hard to draw a line between one of those stats and, OK, now we’re actually producing like 25% more useful consumer features, right? And that line is hard to draw.
That's pretty weak sauce. I don't think that justifies the headlines that came out of it, personally.
He also said in that article that what prompted the discussion was the public statement by the Uber CTO that he had already burnt through his organisations yearly AI-budget in April. Please stop this shilling mate, and trying to hide the overall perspective between this or that word.
> The most discussed has been Uber, based on this report where CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga indicated that Uber had “maxed out its full year AI budget just a few months into 2026”, mostly thanks to Claude Code.
> Given that Claude Code only got really good in November it’s entirely unsurprising to me that a budget set in 2025 may have failed to predict demand for that tool in 2026!
> We're talking about a world where you need 5% of every knowledge workers salary to go into tokens. 20% if you're a developer.
with that much money, the companies can easily buy their own hardware and hosting free public models, no need for those expensive subscriptions.
What does this even mean? Is this about speed of development? Is this about headcount? LoC? How are coding agents contributing to productivity in places like GitHub, Shopify or Meta? I mean companies that already have an established product. I really wanna understand this because I'm not seeing that GitHub's product suddenly became so much better than it was 2 years ago, so where's all that productivity going?
We've also increased how much our coworkers need to read, or deal with. You can get an AI to make any point you want, so you can ignore the 5 humans raising alarms due to the 1 clanker you made say what you want to hear.
All numbers going up.
There are obviously people producing additional true value with it, probably, but that's almost certainly scarce.
source: https://isaiprofitable.com/
If John Ternus wants to spend some money, spend it on bringing memory in house. Apple has the money and the engineering talent to do so, have it fab/made onshore in partnership with TSMC.
Do it Apple because you have to not because you want to the Chinese probably will be taking over the memory industry, worldwide, by taking advantage of the greed from three memory companies and their AI overlords.
It’s like the industry is willingly introducing a common external risk to everything
It's much like when developers would waste tons of money on AWS spinning up massive test VMs and leaving them running without care. Until the finance people cracked down on it.
Except that if your company go 20% faster than the others companies, you win market shares. But then, everyone will use the same tools and companies will be at even speed, but the tool will stay.
Now...if the market is saturated, it's useless to try to do things faster. Cheaper yes, but not faster.
Simple - you make them work 2x, 5x, or 10x more hours.
> That's a _huge_ shift. Most people I know cite +20%-40% velocity with these tools, against the actual work their company cares about doing. +20% speed for +20% spend isn't going to motivate a trillion dollars a year in spending.
And most research shows people far over-estimating their own gains. Once companies start counting the actual (and not just reported) gains, the AI budgets will be more limited as people realize it's an useful and versatile additon but not replacement for most types of work
> We're not there yet. This is still the upswing of the hype cycle, and unless we figure out how to make developers 2x, 5x, 10x as productive on stuff that matters, this isn't going to play out well.
Upswing of the hype cycle while growth of tech itself is flattening, both coz of techs innate issues (which might or might not be solved, but some papers claim they are unsolvable with current approach) and just the fact the spike in growth caused so high economy cost that it put brakes on itself.
T
It's lossy compression for thoughts at this point
Let's put it context. Google's annual revenue seems to be north of $400B. So if OpenAI suddenly had Google's revenue, it would still be insufficient to recover their investment.
and it's a ticking time bomb because $1T in servers, CPUs, GPUs and memory is going to be worth $200B in 5 years. You can say they can keep using what they've got. Sure. But they're also not going to stop spending on new hardware. And the competitor that comes along in 5 years and spends $1T doing the exact same thing is going to have a huge advantage.
OpenAI at this point reminds me very much of the Russ Henneman pre-money hype cycle.
Data centers come down to performance-per-Watt. Electricity accounts for 20-30% of a data center's operating cost [1]. I don't know the exact breakdown but the GPU part of that is probably the majority given how power hungry GPUs are. The B200 is upwards of 1200 Watts [2]. The B200 is rated at ~4.5PFLOPS of dense FP8. So you're getting 3.75PFLOPS/W. We don't know what the next generation will look like. The A200 (Hopper architecture card that preceded the B200) had ~4PFLOPS apparently but also lower power consumption. Obviously this changes depending on whether you're looking at dense or spare and FP8 vs INT8 vs INT4 vs FP4, etc so we're just using FP8 as a yardstick.
Imagine a fictional B200 successor, the T200 that has 8PFLOPS of dense FP8 at 1000 Watts. Well then a DC built on that where the T200 will likely cost similar to what the B200 does now, you'll get nearly double PPW so the same size DC and same electricity load is going to be like 2 of your old DCs in operating costs. That's a big deal when you've laid out a trillion dollars.
[1]: https://iaeimagazine.org/electrical-fundamentals/how-much-el...
[2]: https://www.trgdatacenters.com/resource/h200-power-consumpti...
It seems quite possible to me that developer tooling is going to end up being the biggest win from LLMs because there is a product-market fit -- and also quite possible that OpenAI and/or Anthropic end up getting bought for pennies on the dollar because their burn rate is unsustainable. AI may end up being this generation's "dark fiber."
and in that sense, if Anthropic and OpenAI are able to create the projection that they can-be profitable despite finances seeming bubbly at best, I think that what happens is that these companies spew so much amount of content that people like Simon get into it too.
There is a deeper problem of people falling into AI psychosis too, in general, I am not sure if Simon has fallen into it or not
I think that the greatest point which can be made here is to not offload your thinking to others and to think about the situation yourself. Sounds familiar (looks like we are all off-loading our thinking itself to machines)
Side-note: As humans, we have a tendency to quickly judge or make quick decisions which stems from our times foraging and scavenging in jungles.
Another Side-note: at a certain point, I am unsure of how much to think about AI or not, certainly discussions about it that were happening 2 years ago weren't helpful in contexts that they are used now (well not in any way or form that a person discussing and getting into the weeds of AI 2 years ago is better than a person just getting into it say 2-3 months ago)
With the industry (moving so fast) [but that doesn't mean that you can't catch up with it, I feel like the fast word has made people think that they are falling behind which is imo wrong i suppose]*, It is basically unsure to me of any FOMO or anything if you aren't using AI already, I find this notion naive.
People might be making strong opinions (AI psychosis) and skills on the tools available at the moment the same done 2 years ago. We don't quite know about the tech as these are still black-boxes and how they progress and what these "AI skills" might survive or not in future. Heck, we aren't even sure if these tools might survive or not or wouldn't be made magnitudes more expensive simply to break even as they are given to us for the first time at percentages of the price.
I don't know if I should form (strong) opinions yet and also a question of its worth so much thinking efforts in the first place, probably just gonna do my own thing (the way I want to) which includes learning C at the moment. because learning is fun.
My question which I wish to ask: What would happen to these AI companies if they turn out to be anything but wildly successful companies, both to the investors who have already invested in it and to those who might be investing indirectly into it in the near-future (passive investors, retirement funds)
I would love to hear your thoughts on it!
Thanks and have a nice day :-D
I'm not nearly enough of an economist / finance person to answer that credibly, but I expect they'll go bust, and a lot of people will lose their shirts.
... and the model weights will be sold to other companies who will then run them at a profit, and eventually figure out an economically sustainable way to train new ones.
The 1800s railway booms are a good comparison here - a lot of companies went bust, a lot of investors lost money, and we still ended up with railways.
If the AI companies all go bust we're going to have a lot of spare data center capacity!
I can be wrong I usually am but an AI DC != compute DC or that it might decrease the prices of servers substantially because of it. (well not exactly, I hope you read my whole message so that I am able to better explain what I am saying.). AI DC's try to optimize for one thing: running GPU's for immense scalability and flexibility (0 to numbers>=large_number).
Currently, its actually way worse, the server providers are some of the worst impacted by the industry at the moment because each server requires ram and ram is well... increasing in its price exponentially. It's really a tough time to be a provider at this time (in certain respects) directly because of AI.
It is unclear to me if spare DC capacity will have any meaningful impact to it. I don't think that atleast within compute (and not GPU/AI DC), that space was too large of a problem.
Fun fact but one of the largest providers (BuyVM) had its datacenter price from where they colo'd increase because of the immense demand at the moment for spots in datacenters by many tens of thousands of dollars that they did the first price hike in at this point at decades! The situation is this dire :-(
Ram prices might come falling down and DC's might get cheaper but they can only get cheaper to limit, they still need to for example DC security employees
and I wish to suggest that if anything, investors might wish to re-coup their losses within the AI loss, they might want to make up with what little they might have (ahem DC)
For example, if you wish to want to take at an even more egregious example of what I am suggesting, there are many new york LLC's who would much rather leave the properties that they own empty rather than decreasing the price of what it costs (which they have set to some egregious amounts). I think that for them, somehow the math ends up working out in the end somehow, so there might be something more to it.
I wish I was optimist but I don't believe that the gains in spare data center capacity are worth even a fraction of fraction of the damage if AI were to go bust as you suggested with trillions of dollars vanished.
So, with the data I have at the moment, I am unable to suggest that compute would be cheaper. Heck, it was cheaper before AI and compute prices have never been something that people worry about because there are sometimes 10x cheaper options than AWS,GCP,Azure with things like Hetzner/OVH and others (yes its not a 1:1 situation but still its a 95% overlap and for all intents and purposes, great)
I can see a potential where GPU compute can get cheaper, oh boy, its so much more expensive than compute but I feel like GPU's aside from AI might still have a much more limited niche than generic CPU.
The issue wasn't ever the pricing. Simon, I own 7$/yr vps's which run my websites fine because they are written in golang. I doubt it can get cheaper than it. (You can get a 3$/yr vps if that is what you are interested with using Nat VPS + cf tunnels)
I would once again appreciate to hear your thoughts on it. The only thing I realistically see is if Ram producers ramp up their productions and create a ram price glut in the next few years, but imo the prices would even out over the long term.
I have seen the point of spare DC capacity being raised up multiple times but I finally ended up writing a message which hopefully captures the nuance, but once again, I don't know the future about it.
Waiting for your reply and have a nice day Simon (& other readers) and thanks for reading if you did, I appreciate it :-D
> my main point is that I don't think AI "just goes away" if the bubble bursts, which seems to be something that a lot of people assume.
i agree with your main point because the cat is out of the box with open source models and others in general. I don't particularly know the extent of what they would be used for.
The technology is still novel so people are trying out too many things with AI, I don't particularly like it being spearheaded into each and every thing but perhaps we are just in experimentation face and seeing what sticks and doesn't. Either way, I disagree with when people treat it more than a tool or is "the tool"
I do also think that the "cat is out of the box" and you are right that it isn't going to go away, particularly with open source models.
I think that there are some use cases where AI might make sense (prototyping or building things for yourself when all you want is the end result or thing which would be too time-consuming/complex to be built and thus wouldn't be worth making in first place for its use-cases)
So overall, yes I think that we are overall in an agreement. I do still believe though that learning the strong foundations.
But all in all I agree with you yes that AI might not be going anywhere, it can certainly have its benefits and hopefully the world uses it in beneficial way rather than negatively, glad we could come to an agreement. Have a nice day Simon.
You have either never seen a tech cycle, or need to be reminded of that. The pressure to buy more expensive plans is already starting to form.
I am willing to bet a Twix we'll look back on that stuff in 2 years with a lot of embarrassment
It really does have a particular lane for each chore, and it’s reproducible.
I have a few live websites built using LLMs and they will just go for default generic templates and colours if there's no vision.
Or did we just get scammed?
Wait what? They spent 2 order of magnitude less on hardware.
> Gartner forecasts that large AI companies would need to earn cumulatively close to $7 trillion in AI-driven revenue through 2029, which is close to $2 trillion per year by the end of the period. In order to achieve “historic returns,” the providers would need to earn nearly $8.2 trillion in the same period.
Everyone's agency is 100% captured by belief in Wall Street. Too few <50 have any meaningful labor skills to blink.
We'll continue to have consent manufactured via media platforms and in 3 years no one will bat an eye at these companies being worth $12 trillion as Altman and Musk climb two ladders holding a "mission accomplished" banner.
I see a lot of out of touch takes here but this might take the cake
I'm not even sure that 1 in 8 people I know would qualify as a knowledge worker, let alone a knowledge worker that might profoundly benefit from on-the-horizon AI. And I'm in a highly skewed population.
Most people I've met -- and again, in a pretty darn skewed sample globally -- see $65/mo as a lot of money to spend on technology of any kind and can't think of anything much they need from "a personal knowledge worker in their pocket". I don't know a single person in real life who remains excited about AI at all, and only a few software engineers who feel it'd be worth that much.
Everybody seems to be mostly confident with the "knowledge productivity" in their personal and professional life and a pretty skittish about spending in today's economy. Most would be excited about a magic new robot that affordably saved them from unwanted physical labor and drudgery, but nobody needs much real help making appointments or filling out forms or whatever.
That's not to say I won't be proved wrong some day, with some further innovations in AI products, but global-scale demand isn't waiting for anything that's been released so far.
There’s only two things useful to the average person something to help them translate and something to help them write in everyday life.
Something else that might be useful would be local single purpose AI agents who’s remit is to help you with one specific task, but I don’t think that’s what the people building those expensive data centers want to sell to the market.
What's the actual TAM for premium tv subscriptions though? Unlike free models which are keep improving, you can't get premium tv for free. Also they are actually competing with the total subscription price a person is willing to pay for a year.
> There’s only two things useful to the average person something to help them translate and something to help them write in everyday life.
Exactly, free models are good enough for these tasks.
I just don't see how b2c is a large enough market to ask average Joe to cough up hundreds per year when there are free stuff everywhere. B2b is another story
27% of the world's workforce is in agriculture (contrast to the US where it is 1-2%). 15% in manufacturing.
A lot of people work in "services" (especially in high income nations, where it's roughly three quarters) and some of those are knowledge workers... but a huge number of them are nail technicians or hairdressers or bartenders (etc etc).
Basically if you're not doing manual labor, it's probably knowledge work.
Roughly 1/3rd of the working population.
Some data tucked in here: https://gist.github.com/danielmiessler/2dc039762a202b083753b...
How do you know this? Im certainly open to recalibrating my numbers which is why I asked for the source
[1]: Berg, Janine and Gmyrek, Pawel, Automation Hits the Knowledge Worker: ChatGPT and the Future of Work (April 21, 2023). UN Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the SDGs (STI Forum) 2023, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4458221
https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/09-24-201...
> "...with more than four-fifths of that growth coming from the emerging world."
If anyone thinks this is a part of the global TAM that's got $1000 a month to blow, well then I've got a stable of flying unicorns to sell you.
To simplify break that 1B up into 3 levels of purchasing:
1) High-tier (US, Western EU, ANZ, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, UAE, etc) - 200-250M knowledge workers.
2) Mid-tier (Eastern EU, Latin America, urban China, India tech sector, etc) - 300-400M
3) Low-tier (Rest of the world) - 300-400M
Low-tier users are mostly free tier or heavily subsidized pricing.
Mid-tier are going to account for USD sub-$100 tiers. Probably averaging less than $50/seat.
High-tier are who you are assuming is the 1B. Users are not equal in that knowledge worker count, so there aren't 1B knowledge workers to charge money.
And when you consider Low-tier users a majority of those are free users which need to be subsidized by the High-tier users. So either free tiers get much more restrictive or the providers lose additional training data. A bulk of Low-tier users cost money and provide little to no revenue.
Edit: And think about Mid-tier and Low-tier for 5 seconds. Why would they pay Anthropic or OAI when they get get 100x+ inference from DeepSeek or Xiaomi? Mid-tier may be the only area that is willing to spend money on a US provider, but I would wager significantly on the fact that users in the Low-tier almost universally do not care.
I do think free accounts are going to end pretty soon, and some of the workers in your tier 3 will pay, but even without them this seems like a pretty healthy market size. I also wouldnt be surprised if mid tier workers are able to afford the $1000/yr vs $500. I use yearly rates because I find it easier to compare them to GDP/salary numbers
I believe we've started to see the top of what individuals and businesses are willing to pay for the current model capabilities. We are nowhere near AGI and models are really only providing significant value in niche markets currently (programming and cybersecurity). And just like SaaS the enterprise has the option to buy hardware and leverage their own models at will which can potentially offset costs and TAM as well. I have talked to a number of large financial corporations in the last 6 months and most have internal initiatives. The same applies in the healthcare vertical.
$250B per annum with AI? That's 20% of global software spend now. Sure, that's possible but that assumes current market prices hold. What if inference ends up normalizing between DeepSeek/Xiaomi & Anthropic/OAI? There's 50% of your revenue and with current costs for inference and training in the US at astronomical levels the US AI industry could also very well be setup to implode overnight.
Lastly I don't believe free can go away anytime soon because it can't. As soon as Anthropic and OAI remove that option those users will move to whatever is. For most of those users it's not a luxury to choose, it is the only option.
The financial engineering occuring right now is something I don't doubt will be text book lessons of the future. We've seen it before and I believe Peter Sorkin when he says that we will see a crash of this bubble, it's just a matter of how catastrophic it ends up being.
Of course it will. The value of an employee is a multiple of what they get paid.
If you pay an employee $500k and they make $2M for your company (like Meta), then of course a 20% increase for the salary is justified if the velocity is increased 20% as well.
Imagine an employer with 10 employees paying $500k per employee and making $2M per employee in revenue (to use your numbers). They could hire two more employees and spend an extra $1M (+20%), but make an extra $4M in revenue (+20%). Alternatively, they could buy all ten employees a $100k AI subscription, for a total of $1M extra spending (+20%) but an extra $4M in revenue (+20%). You'll notice both scenarios are identical, so an employer optimizing for profit would have no reason to prefer one over the other.
And that's not considering that capitalism is going to do what it does best: if they really found a way to be profitable, competitors are going to fight them on pricing. Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, etcetera 's margins are a competitors' opportunities.
It's not as if there weren't chinese models nearly SOTA. Don't know where the french (Mistral) are but they may try to get in the game if there's a way to be profitable (not that France or the EU for that matter are relevant in anything tech or had any tech company besides ASML and SAP in the Top 100 but who knows).
What I'm often hearing though is the equivalent of "gg ez" when I bring that up. I don't understand how this will at any point blitz scale to profitability. As far as I know they don't have positive cash flow, no one has a moat and I don't think they will push out engineers.
Your scope is too narrow. The companies target more than white-collar jobs. And $1t is around 0.5% of the world economy.
So besides the insane hardware buildouts you're correctly mentioning, I don't understand how anyone that invests in these companies is supposed to make their money back in any sort of reasonable timeframe?
The cynical part of me is looking at what happened to the NASDAQ rules recently where essentially index funds are going to be forced to buy SpaceX shares much earlier than they previously would have (ie, before the price has a chance to reach it's real valuation). Which, um, I'm guessing these stocks are going to drop pretty hard when people start looking at the financials of these companies.
My suspicion is that the point of these IPOs is essentially to dump the bill on the unwilling public by forcing various institutions to buy it (ie, your 401k or pension is buying this shit), and maybe their investors can squeeze some money out of this before the stocks reach an equilibrium that's probably like 1/10th of what they're "valued" at.
2. The companies themselves buying tokens for operations to make the work more efficent. e.g. Salesforce agent or Microsoft Office agent or random saas inventory agent. (and if you say those will go away (which I don't believe), it's even more bullish. The tokens just go to someone vibe coding XYZ, which is EVEN MORE than if you were to buy saas because it's SaaS product x Companies that built it instead of just one)
3. The companies SELLING tokens. This is also new markets like schools and small business (e.g. the local gas station buying an inventory tool)
4. The consumers "buying" (I put in quotes because it can be subsidised but the company) through chatgpt, strava, instagram/netflix recommendation, etc.
Local models still take compute, and while it may be cheaper, it is the same argument of on prem vs cloud. No one operates on prem unless you HAVE to for regulatory. Margins will come down and you just spin up a GCP/OpenAI/Anthropic agent.
It may be "cheaper" but rationally its better to pay someone to manage it. Thats why Hetzner only had $367M in revneue (a lot but tiny compared to managed services)
Anthropic Max: $100/month
OpenAI Pro: $100/month
Total paid: $200/month
API equivalent usage: $2,180.16 in 30 days
So paid only 9.17% of API-priced value a 90.83% discount, or about $10.90 of API priced usage for every $1 paid...
That proves heavy usage but not sustainable unit economics.
Anthropic reported numbers point the same way:
Q2 revenue: $10.9B
Adjusted operating profit: $559M
Margin: 5.1%
SpaceX compute: $1.25B/month = $3.75B/quarter
So one compute supplier alone equals 34.4% of quarterly revenue and 6.7x quarterly adjusted operating profit.
Its difficult for the blogger to understand something when its incentives depend on not understanding it...
My usage is therefore a useful indicator of quite how much those enterprise companies may be spending on tokens, given the new pricing scheme.
If enterprise companies were still getting the same discounts that I get myself I would not have written this article.
(I had to dig into your margin figure - looks like you calculated 5.1% as 559000000 / 10900000000 * 100 but that $559M "adjusted operating profit" figure includes training costs, where usually when we talk about margin on inference we're not including those since those costs are fixed, margin calculations make more sense against the variable costs of serving a token.)
It's impossible to know, because you don't know how many tokens total will be served by that model until you retire it at some point in the future.
So you can't say "1,000,000 tokens costs $X in inference and $Y in training" because $Y is not possible to correctly calculate.
So, if you want to have a productive conversation about "margin on inference", it's sensible to look at the cost of serving the tokens independently of the cost of training the underlying model.
(I'm not trying to imply that LLMs can replace software engineers, it's just an interesting comparison. If nothing else, I suspect that if the cost of development goes down, demand for custom software will go up.)
https://claude.ai/share/8a3de813-677e-4a75-9b7f-1785495c2569
Honestly doesn't seem great for the AI companies.
If it works. And I’m not sure who is going to buy the stuff the machines produce, but shrug. Presumably some bots click ads for NFT’s that other bots generate.
What I do not understand is: large sectors of the economy all simultaneously taking this punt, with the necessary productivity boost, as you say, far more like: 2x, 5x, 10x
I'm increasingly realizing this math is wrong, because LLM use is really sticky.
If Anthropic 100x'd prices tomorrow for their best model, so some companies offered 50% salary to keep 100% of your AI usage:
a) There are programmers who would take this deal. They've gotten to the point of doing what feels like even less than 50% of the work, developers were already pretty well paid, so they'll take it.
b) There are companies that'd offer this deal. Even if the only people who are taking this deal are not the best engineers, and the AI output is not the greatest, I think the last 6 or so years have seen a lot of companies realize capitalism is not as competitive as it seems.
They're not worried about putting out a worse product because... frankly, what else are you going to do? CF lay a bunch of people off, support gets awful: well you're probably not building a new Cloudflare in the next few years.
In the meantime the AI will get incrementally better, their market share will grow, and you won't be able to compete without taking the same faustian bargain.
-
Maybe I was just naive but it's making me realize how much we take for granted in the world. Both the quality and relative value of things don't have to go up over time. Quality can go down while prices go up, and nothing will really stop it. Competition should stop it, but competition is really slow and can be interfered with. And as prices go up competition gets really hard.
Just realized something: if one worries about losing jobs to AI, token's high unit cost is good news. To say the least, high cost would delay the displacement, if any, right?
In the meantime, someone shared the below on X. I guess the moral of the story is that "good enough" does not just displace software engineers, but also models.
> I Went From $3,000/Month on Claude to $5/Week on DeepSeek
> And honestly?80% of my work is identical.
> For the past two months, I was burning $3-5K monthly on Claude Code. Every idea from design to development to testing - full end-to-end automation, even simulating users to test my products and provide feedback.
> Extremely token-intensive. But Claude's caching sucked, making it insanely expensive.
> Then I discovered DeepSeek V4.I am rather more concerned about competition from CHINA. With how Huawei (2000 -> 2020) crushed every other telecom company and went from nobody to the most revered leader in 20 years, and with the depth of leadership in manufacturing and work culture, if China surpasses USA in AI, all US companies lose.
In general, I don't think you can reason from the existence of potentially stranded investments back to revenue projections.
And when you frame this as percentage of salaries, that's a sneaky implication that this is only about reducing salaries and headcount, and not about adding capability, or doing things you couldn't do before, or making fewer mistakes, or capturing more revenue, or expanding margins, or competing more effectively.
That said, 5% of knowledge worker comp actually seems very low to me, given the capabilities, and considering the percentage of "knowledge work" that is absolute bullshit.
Two weeks ago I received an email from my HOA saying I'd been billed for a service I never asked for. So I replied to the email saying they'd made a mistake. There are now more than 30 messages in the thread, involving at least 8 "knowledge workers" at the property management company all passing the buck, and the problem is no closer to resolution.
An agent could wipe out all 8 of those bullshit jobs and solve my simple problem in five minutes instead of two weeks. Think of how many hundreds of thousands people are doing this nonsense just in the property management industry alone.
5% is nothing.
We all have our own observations and mine don’t significantly diverge. But that’s bottom up. At this point shouldn’t we be seeing it top down?
If we are beyond potential and into significant productivity gains, why isn’t that showing up for the customers?
Why didn’t delta airlines get significantly more operationally efficient in the last 3 months due to the introduction of better software?
This is a genuine question, I am seeing a disconnect.
The coding agents got good in November. Most individual engineers didn't fully clock this until January/February. This means that companies didn't really figure it out until March/April.
Assuming companies like Delta have adopted coding agents (which would be pretty fast) it still takes months from adopting a new tool to the code results of that tool rolling out to production.
I expect (and would hope) Delta's software development culture is very conservative. Since nobody can confidently tell Delta "here are proven practices for using this tech to produce high quality, more secure code" yet it would be surprising if they were blasting full-steam ahead.
I expect that even companies that got on board with coding agents in January will only just be starting to ship user-facing features that benefited from those new tools. Shipping software takes a long time, no matter how much faster the "typing the code in" bit gets!
Maybe irrelevant to your point, but I'd argue they were really good already in May if one used the right workflow (planning etc.). They've become better, but they're not saving me significantly more time now than they did 12 months ago.
I was recently consulting at org where two separate engineering teams were all in on two different, incompatible deployment platforms and using AI to accelerate adoption of each.
Management was mystified why their engineering leads kept telling them they couldn’t deploy a complete implementation of their solution.
I find it disappointing that a completely wrong statement like this ends up the top comment on HN.
It is wrong in both the math, the logic about public markets and understanding accounting.
> $5t to $10t to make back in the next 5 years
I don't know where this number comes from, but it has gone unchallenged.
OpenAI and Anthropic combined have raised around $100B. This is an investment so isn't something the have to "pay back" from earnings - instead investors expect to make that back from the share price being higher than what they paid for it.
> or the hardware buildouts will start getting written down.
The hardware buildouts get written down anyway!! That is a good thing for investors because as the value gets written down they can book a tax loss. ANd it turns out that generally agreed depreciation schedule for GPUs (used to be 3 years, now 5 years by places like Coreweave) is still too conservative since GPU rental prices for 5 year old chips are higher now than when they were new (!!)
All of this makes the rest of the math in the comment incorrect by at least an order of magnitude and under some scenarios possibly 2 orders of magnitude!
That's not a small error!
Every generation of developer tooling that increase of absolute code throughput creates a new class of developers (and users).
Always been the case since first compilers, through eras of frameworks to today, and the skill level needed to be one has dropped. In mid/late 80s only Master / Doctorate level Comp Sci professional could write any applications. It dropped to undergrad and just Information Technology engineers and comp sci theory became mostly optional and dropped further to any college level educated with some training and has been trending below with no/low code tools like retool pre 2022, that was before agent codegen services such as v0/replit and so on.
The next generation developers will not produce applications and architecture as previous generations did, just as we most of us here don't produce the level of quality that pg did when building this platform[1] , but as long as the user can find value it doesn't matter as countless enterprise applications of middling quality already prove today.
All this to say the 200M/30M numbers will not remain the same is the thesis for these businesses, will it change by large enough at a fast enough pace to justify the capex, I don't think so either. However web 1 then 2.0 , saas and mobile revolutions were pretty quick with new class of users and developers so not completely unrealistic .
[1] While HN is a heavy outlier with its custom lang lisp implementation, there are any number of examples from previous eras that are more moderate in choices but written with solid architecture with skill levels would be hard to find in today's generation founders.
Seems roughly right, that does seem to be about the boost in the most well-suited cases where you essentially know exactly how to solve the problem, the problem won't change much, and it's truly a matter of just churning out the implementation.
In that case precisely prompting, doing the review & nudge loop, can be a pretty nice (nice, still not game changing) speed boost over literally typing out the code to match the design in your head.
The less optimistic view though is that most things you build aren't like that. Even if they seem like it first. These things get booked as a nice speed boost, but you'll only find out much later they weren't.
A confounding factor is that it seems like many people not in the detail of building software do seem to think of most to all things are like that, even before AI assisted coding. Not much need to say more - see the entire history of the 'agile' movement for evidence of this.
And because most things aren't like that, I actually struggle to see fundamentally how more than 20-40% will ever be achieved (short of the ever-present deus ex machina of AGI argument), simply because the generation is already really good for these types of things. So since things like this aren't going to increase in overall proportion of things to be done, I don't see where the overall extra gains come from by models improving at this point.
I hear conflicting things about finances, some have a different opinion, that it won't be written down so long as more funding comes in and revenue keeps increasing. it isn't like how you take mortgage or business loan, it isn't even a loan it's an investment funded by loans. So long as the investment is still promising, what are they going to do? destroy its value by calling in trillion dollar loans?
+ LLM-powered robotics, autonomous, IoT, smart manufacturing
+ LLM-powered biotech, healthcare, genetic engineering, medicine
+ Recursive model improvement
+ Multiply the # of devs (software truly eats world)
+ Exponential increases in model performance / cost decrease (algorithms, power, infra, chips, architectures, etc.)
What are you basing this on? For reference, Anthropic raised ~$70 billion in total and OpenAI ~$190 billion. Why do they need to make 20-40x that?
So yeah, I wouldn't be shocked that in the 2023 - 2033 timespan total AI investment worldwide will be around $5tn, maybe even going towards $10tn.
All that money will have to be repaid, and it will have to be repaid 10x, otherwise heads will roll.
The enshittification we've seen so far is nothing compared to what's coming.
That seems... Pretty reasonable? Like Anthropic is at $45B annual revenue, let's say they enter next year with $100B annual revenue? Let's say they have 30% gross margins (no idea), so $70B goes to data center owners/operators. That's one company doing roughly 1/3rd of what's required to pay the investments off. And you have Ant+OAI+GDM+Internal AI at GOOGL/META/etc.+all the servers for open models.
I'm sure there's a world where you can paint a picture that requires $5-10T but that would require capex increasing significantly NEXT year. And the cloud companies won't do that unless revenue keeps growing.
There's a ton of speculation that all major labs are losing tons of money, so I that 30% gross margin sounds more like -30% to -130% gross margin.
1 in 6 knowledge worker is a developer ! Surely that’s too high thou explains the job market
Maybe it's just me being (trigger warning from me providing an honest self assessment) very intelligent + a generalist, but i went from only full stack webdev and .NET to being able to implement an end-to-end LLM training pipeline (data curation, tokenizer, pretrain, sft, DPO - using ~$100 in cloud compute to train a class-competitive 1B STEM model)...and a full economic financial modeling and quant analysis application that pulls up to date economic, economic, news, stock data from the entire world and uses Dagster to orchestrate tech ical indicators and fundamentals and signals... and i did these things for learning and for fun. i built my own sublime text and obsidian replacement. i built my own reddit/twitter/hackernews/substack/news aggregator. i built countless other useful tools and utilities for me personally and for work I build more that empowers multiple departments.
Ive built 2 browser games, one already released to great reviews and 100k+ hours played. Ive built a tool on top of claude code that does ~60% of my job. Ive run data analysis on company financials for forecasting that have been refined and are producing very accurate predictions. Ive built competitive analysis tools and trackers.
All of this in 3 years. The projects are all clean, documented, with great code practices and modularity. A purist would surely consider some of the code slop. But it all works completely and fills real needs.
This is a huge shift. Anyone not realizing it yet is just simply behind the curve. I would not have accomplished 1/10 of this without AI coding. I went from copying code into and out of browser chats for 2 years before getting on the CLI train, and it is absolutely ridiculous the ROI you get from subscriptions to Claude or Codex.
But by then, I will be able to go one line down in my dropdown menu to switch to a newer LLM provider who doesn't have to amortize those past capex.
For example I don’t anticipate somebody making a living off of making website ever again
Somebody with absolutely no technical experience who needs a website for their business can now make one with almost no money whatsoever.
That’s good enough for their business. and the code can be totally shit and it does not matter because it’s meeting their business objectives. I am seeing this in the wild and I’m paying money to companies that have these types of websites and because it doesn’t matter I don’t need for the website to work perfectly on all my devices all I need to be able to do is pay them through the website which is what they need me to do and our transaction is done.
Don’t forget ultimately the people who pay technologists right now are primarily advertisers
work on hard problems is going to continue to be some tiny fraction percentage of the software engineering discipline
just expect a total bloodbath because the goal isn’t developer productivity the goal is that “I don’t need to pay somebody $200,000 a year to build a website authoring tool like WordPress.”
This is the most recent example I found last week for a local barber:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48166050
They seem to be using Manus: https://manus.im/
And my other assumption is that it immediately integrates with IG/Facebook which is where they do a lot of their marketing
I see no reason that trend is going to slow, especially if you can go to meta to manage your entire business marketing.
Regular people running business just want fast cheaps and good enough.
Also, according to https://isaiprofitable.com/ total industry spend is also an order of magniture less than what your assumption is.
So in your model 0.2% of knowledge worker salaries instead of 5%, IF all the AI players win the investing gamble and do infact make back their money.
When you break it down like that it seems reasonable. I'm spending about $5k/mo on tokens, seems more and more normal.
Not unreasonable. I'm a hardware developer, and my employer spends ~10% of my salary on software tools. Add hardware tools and their maintenance and it's more like 30%.
Depreciation and write-offs are about accounting models. Hardware will still be running after five years and still be making money. They may not be as efficient as the new hardware, but they will still be making real money even though they are valued at $0 in the books.
OpenAI's spending commitment is in the ~1T range for the next 5 years, and Anthropic is ~300B.
If they continue to show strong growth, they likely need to be at 100-300B in revenue/yr to support their yearly payments + financing, not 1T.
200m knowledge workers in US and EU. Total salary around $15T/year.
$1T/year in token spending is about $5k/year per person. A big number, but not totally mad. That's the low end for office space per person for example. Probably close to the existing SaaS spend per person for a lot of roles.
We are still early in the deployment cycle for these tools so I would expect them to get better and also cheaper too.
tldr; 10 developers with 20% more 'productivity' can be replaced by 7.5 ideal developers and more like 6 or 7 developers due to the benefits of simply requiring less organizational communication.
I still think the ideal team size is unchanged however and that's 7-10 people. Note that teams aren't necessarily the same as direct reports. A CEO for instance has a certain number of reports and a leadership 'team' but they're not a team in the traditional sense since they are more about making good decisions and collaborating on specific things but mostly about leading their own orgs that have vastly different skillsets from eachother.
At some point, companies are going to start removing basic features. Governments and essential services are going to make people go through chatbots to get basic service. They're going to require AI to validate stuff that's already automated and working fine. Google search? That'll be all AI (and I guess they're already rolling it out). Dentist appointment? Going to need to do it through some AI app that requires an account and tokens "for a better patient experience". Verifying your ID when buying alcohol? Going to need AI to scan it and take 90 seconds to determine whether it's real. And it'll say you're an 7 year old farm worker in rural Botswana, so you can't get alcohol. And they're going to milk money at every level of this.
And part of my reasoning for this is: the only system capable of actually fixing bugs in vibe-created code is an LLM. If we humans couldn't write it without assistance, we certainly won't be able to debug it without assistance. So there's a real stickiness here.
We're signing pacts with demons - we have to, if we want to outcompete the other warlocks - and those pacts are written in the very size of our codebases.
This is a key point. Some engineers are having fun doing e.g. greenfield stuff with AI that they never would have had time for otherwise. Whether the company cares about that is another question.
It's related to Goodhart’s Law. If AI token usage is a target, then you're going to get a lot of token usage, but it's not likely to correlate well to improved business outcomes.
20-40% sounds about right for me, today. Maybe 40-60% on a good day. But a lot of the reason it's not higher comes from harness gaps and org processes that haven't caught up.
All of that will get fixed with time.
Same happened and happens in gaming. The gamers "invested" into NVDA by eating all the bullshit about ray tracing and the like. And they kept buying all the crappy 1000$+ gpus because youtubers said that the extra 1000 dollars worth those +15 fps plus the ray tracing....
This means we're going to need $1t+ per year in spending, per year, on tokens. 200m knowledge workers in the world, 30m developers. We're talking about a world where you need 5% of every knowledge workers salary to go into tokens. 20% if you're a developer.
That's a _huge_ shift. Most people I know cite +20%-40% velocity with these tools, against the actual work their company cares about doing. +20% speed for +20% spend isn't going to motivate a trillion dollars a year in spending.
We're not there yet. This is still the upswing of the hype cycle, and unless we figure out how to make developers 2x, 5x, 10x as productive on stuff that matters, this isn't going to play out well.