Eclipse Ventures founder Lior Susan shares a quote from Sam Altman that flips a long-held venture assumption on its head. The massive compute and talent costs for foundational AI models mean that software—specifically AI—has become more capital-intensive than traditional hardware businesses, altering investment theses.
While high capex is often seen as a negative, for giants like Alphabet and Microsoft, it functions as a powerful moat in the AI race. The sheer scale of spending—tens of billions annually—is something most companies cannot afford, effectively limiting the field of viable competitors.
Contrary to the belief that hardware is inherently capital-intensive, Monumental's founder argues their biggest expense is salaries for high-quality talent, much like a software startup. The cost of the robots is manageable and their payback time is good, challenging typical VC perceptions of the business model.
In the current market, AI companies see explosive growth through two primary vectors: attaching to the massive AI compute spend or directly replacing human labor. Companies merely using AI to improve an existing product without hitting one of these drivers risk being discounted as they lack a clear, exponential growth narrative.
Multi-million dollar salaries for top AI researchers seem absurd, but they may be underpaid. These individuals aren't just employees; they are capital allocators. A single architectural decision can tie up or waste months of capacity on billion-dollar AI clusters, making their judgment incredibly valuable.
For the first time in years, leading-edge tech is incredibly expensive. This requires structured finance and massive capital, bringing Wall Street back to the table after being sidelined by cash-rich tech giants. The chaos and expense of AI create a new, lucrative playground for financiers.
The massive OpenAI-Oracle compute deal illustrates a novel form of financial engineering. The deal inflates Oracle's stock, enriching its chairman, who can then reinvest in OpenAI's next funding round. This creates a self-reinforcing loop that essentially manufactures capital to fund the immense infrastructure required for AGI development.
Current AI spending appears bubble-like, but it's not propping up unprofitable operations. Inference is already profitable. The immense cash burn is a deliberate, forward-looking investment in developing future, more powerful models, not a sign of a failing business model. This re-frames the financial risk.
The enormous financial losses reported by AI leaders like OpenAI are not typical startup burn rates. They reflect a belief that the ultimate prize is an "Oracle or Genie," an outcome so transformative that the investment becomes an all-or-nothing, existential bet for tech giants.
Many AI startups prioritize growth, leading to unsustainable gross margins (below 15%) due to high compute costs. This is a ticking time bomb. Eventually, these companies must undertake a costly, time-consuming re-architecture to optimize for cost and build a viable business.
OpenAI's partnership with NVIDIA for 10 gigawatts is just the start. Sam Altman's internal goal is 250 gigawatts by 2033, a staggering $12.5 trillion investment. This reflects a future where AI is a pervasive, energy-intensive utility powering autonomous agents globally.