As AI infrastructure giants become government-backed utilities, their investment appeal diminishes like banks after 2008. The next wave of value creation will come from stagnant, existing businesses that adopt AI to unlock new margins, leveraging their established brands and distribution channels rather than building new rails from scratch.

History shows pioneers who fund massive infrastructure shifts, like railroads or the early internet, frequently lose their investment. The real profits are captured later by companies that build services on top of the now-established, de-risked platform.

If AI is truly transformational, its greatest long-term value will accrue to non-tech companies that adopt it to improve productivity. Historical tech cycles show that after an initial boom, the producers of a new technology are eventually outperformed by its adopters across the wider economy.

History shows that transformative innovations like airlines, vaccines, and PCs, while beneficial to society, often fail to create sustained, concentrated shareholder value as they become commoditized. This suggests the massive valuations in AI may be misplaced, with the technology's benefits accruing more to users than investors in the long run.

During major platform shifts like AI, it's tempting to project that companies will capture all the value they create. However, competitive forces ensure the vast majority of productivity gains (the "surplus") flows to end-users, not the technology creators.

The most profound innovations in history, like vaccines, PCs, and air travel, distributed value broadly to society rather than being captured by a few corporations. AI could follow this pattern, benefiting the public more than a handful of tech giants, especially with geopolitical pressures forcing commoditization.

AI favors incumbents more than startups. While everyone builds on similar models, true network effects come from proprietary data and consumer distribution, both of which incumbents own. Startups are left with narrow problems, but high-quality incumbents are moving fast enough to capture these opportunities.

Marks warns against conflating a technology's societal impact with its investment potential. Fierce competition among AI service providers or their customers could pass all productivity gains to consumers through lower prices. This would result in little to no profit for the underlying companies, echoing a similar warning from Warren Buffett during the dot-com era.

The AI investment case might be inverted. While tech firms spend trillions on infrastructure with uncertain returns, traditional sector companies (industrials, healthcare) can leverage powerful AI services for a fraction of the cost. They capture a massive 'value gap,' gaining productivity without the huge capital outlay.