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.

For current AI valuations to be realized, AI must deliver unprecedented efficiency, likely causing mass job displacement. This would disrupt the consumer economy that supports these companies, creating a fundamental contradiction where the condition for success undermines the system itself.

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.

Massive AI capital expenditures by firms like Google and Meta are driven by a game-theoretic need to not fall behind. While rational for any single company to protect its turf, this dynamic forces all to invest, eroding collective profitability for shareholders across the sector.

Marks questions whether companies will use AI-driven cost savings to boost profit margins or if competition will force them into price wars. If the latter occurs, the primary beneficiaries of AI's efficiency will be customers, not shareholders, limiting the technology's impact on corporate profitability.

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.

Unlike traditional SaaS where high switching costs prevent price wars, the AI market faces a unique threat. The portability of prompts and reliance on interchangeable models could enable rapid commoditization. A price war could be "terrifying" and "brutal" for the entire ecosystem, posing a significant downside risk.

While AI investment has exploded, US productivity has barely risen. Valuations are priced as if a societal transformation is complete, yet 95% of GenAI pilots fail to positively impact company P&Ls. This gap between market expectation and real-world economic benefit creates systemic risk.