Top AI labs like OpenAI and Anthropic engage in a 'Cournot Equilibrium' by competing on the supply of compute and data centers, not by undercutting each other on price. This strategy aims to create high barriers to entry and maintain high prices for access to frontier models.
Related Insights
Firms like OpenAI and Meta claim a compute shortage while also exploring selling compute capacity. This isn't a contradiction but a strategic evolution. They are buying all available supply to secure their own needs and then arbitraging the excess, effectively becoming smaller-scale cloud providers for AI.
Top AI labs like Anthropic are simultaneously taking massive investments from direct competitors like Microsoft, NVIDIA, Google, and Amazon. This creates a confusing web of reciprocal deals for capital and cloud compute, blurring traditional competitive lines and creating complex interdependencies.
Founders Fund, a firm known for its concentrated "monopoly thesis," has invested in three competing AI labs: OpenAI, xAI (via SpaceX), and Anthropic. This deviation from their typical strategy suggests a belief that the AI market will evolve into a differentiated oligopoly with multiple winners, rather than a single winner-take-all monopoly.
Large tech companies are buying up compute from smaller cloud providers not for immediate need, but as a defensive strategy. By hoarding scarce GPU capacity, they prevent competitors from accessing critical resources, effectively cornering the market and stifling innovation from rivals.
OpenAI's aggressive partnerships for compute are designed to achieve "escape velocity." By locking up supply and talent, they are creating a capital barrier so high (~$150B in CapEx by 2030) that it becomes nearly impossible for any entity besides the largest hyperscalers to compete at scale.
The current oligopolistic 'Cournot' state of AI labs will eventually shift to 'Bertrand' competition, where labs compete more on price. This happens once the frontier commoditizes and models become 'good enough,' leading to a market structure similar to today's cloud providers like AWS and GCP.
As the current low-cost producer of AI tokens via its custom TPUs, Google's rational strategy is to operate at low or even negative margins. This "sucks the economic oxygen out of the AI ecosystem," making it difficult for capital-dependent competitors to justify their high costs and raise new funding rounds.
![Gavin Baker - Nvidia v. Google, Scaling Laws, and the Economics of AI - [Invest Like the Best, EP.451] thumbnail](https://megaphone.imgix.net/podcasts/d97fee14-d4d7-11f0-8951-8324b640c1c1/image/d3a8b5ecbf3957de5b91f278a191c9ff.jpg?ixlib=rails-4.3.1&max-w=3000&max-h=3000&fit=crop&auto=format,compress)
Major AI labs operate as an oligopoly, competing on the quantity of supply (compute, GPUs) rather than price. This dynamic, known as a Cournot equilibrium, keeps costs for frontier model access high as labs strategically predict and counter each other's investments.
Major AI labs like OpenAI and Anthropic are partnering with competing cloud and chip providers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft). This creates a complex web of alliances where rivals become partners, spreading risk and ensuring access to the best available technology, regardless of primary corporate allegiances.
Contrary to the 'winner-takes-all' narrative, the rapid pace of innovation in AI is leading to a different outcome. As rival labs quickly match or exceed each other's model capabilities, the underlying Large Language Models (LLMs) risk becoming commodities, making it difficult for any single player to justify stratospheric valuations long-term.
