The AI race has been a prisoner's dilemma where companies spend massively, fearing competitors will pull ahead. As the cost of next-gen systems like Blackwell and Rubin becomes astronomical, the sheer economics will force a shift. Decision-making will be dominated by ROI calculations rather than the existential dread of slowing down.

The era of advancing AI simply by scaling pre-training is ending due to data limits. The field is re-entering a research-heavy phase focused on novel, more efficient training paradigms beyond just adding more compute to existing recipes. The bottleneck is shifting from resources back to ideas.

Building software traditionally required minimal capital. However, advanced AI development introduces high compute costs, with users reporting spending hundreds on a single project. This trend could re-erect financial barriers to entry in software, making it a capital-intensive endeavor similar to hardware.

A "software-only singularity," where AI recursively improves itself, is unlikely. Progress is fundamentally tied to large-scale, costly physical experiments (i.e., compute). The massive spending on experimental compute over pure researcher salaries indicates that physical experimentation, not just algorithms, remains the primary driver of breakthroughs.

Historically, a developer's primary cost was salary. Now, the constant use of powerful AI coding assistants creates a new, variable infrastructure expense for LLM tokens. This changes the economic model of software development, with costs per engineer potentially rising by dollars per hour.

AI companies operate under the assumption that LLM prices will trend towards zero. This strategic bet means they intentionally de-prioritize heavy investment in cost optimization today, focusing instead on capturing the market and building features, confident that future, cheaper models will solve their margin problems for them.

A paradox of rapid AI progress is the widening "expectation gap." As users become accustomed to AI's power, their expectations for its capabilities grow even faster than the technology itself. This leads to a persistent feeling of frustration, even though the tools are objectively better than they were a year ago.

For consumer products like ChatGPT, models are already good enough for common queries. However, for complex enterprise tasks like coding, performance is far from solved. This gives model providers a durable path to sustained revenue growth through continued quality improvements aimed at professionals.

Despite billions in funding, large AI models face a difficult path to profitability. The immense training cost is undercut by competitors creating similar models for a fraction of the price and, more critically, the ability for others to reverse-engineer and extract the weights from existing models, eroding any competitive moat.