Instead of relying on hyped benchmarks, the truest measure of the AI industry's progress is the physical build-out of data centers. Tracking permits, power consumption, and satellite imagery reveals the concrete, multi-billion dollar bets being placed, offering a grounded view that challenges both extreme skeptics and believers.

Related Insights

From a first-principles perspective, space is the ideal location for data centers. It offers free, constant solar power (6x more irradiance) and free cooling via radiators facing deep space. This eliminates the two biggest terrestrial constraints and costs, making it a profound long-term shift for AI infrastructure.

The progress in deep learning, from AlexNet's GPU leap to today's massive models, is best understood as a history of scaling compute. This scaling, resulting in a million-fold increase in power, enabled the transition from text to more data-intensive modalities like vision and spatial intelligence.

When power (watts) is the primary constraint for data centers, the total cost of compute becomes secondary. The crucial metric is performance-per-watt. This gives a massive pricing advantage to the most efficient chipmakers, as customers will pay anything for hardware that maximizes output from their limited power budget.

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.

Unlike the speculative "dark fiber" buildout of the dot-com bubble, today's AI infrastructure race is driven by real, immediate, and overwhelming demand. The problem isn't a lack of utilization for built capacity; it's a constant struggle to build supply fast enough to meet customer needs.

Don't trust academic benchmarks. Labs often "hill climb" or game them for marketing purposes, which doesn't translate to real-world capability. Furthermore, many of these benchmarks contain incorrect answers and messy data, making them an unreliable measure of true AI advancement.

Beyond the well-known semiconductor race, the AI competition is shifting to energy. China's massive, cheaper electricity production is a significant, often overlooked strategic advantage. This redefines the AI landscape, suggesting that superiority in atoms (energy) may become as crucial as superiority in bytes (algorithms and chips).

The primary reason multi-million dollar AI initiatives stall or fail is not the sophistication of the models, but the underlying data layer. Traditional data infrastructure creates delays in moving and duplicating information, preventing the real-time, comprehensive data access required for AI to deliver business value. The focus on algorithms misses this foundational roadblock.

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.

AI's growth is hampered by a measurement problem, much like early digital advertising. The industry's acceleration won't come from better AI models alone, but from building a 'boring' infrastructure, like Comscore did for ads, to prove the tools actually work.