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.
The true ROI of AI lies in reallocating the time and resources saved from automation towards accelerating growth and innovation. Instead of simply cutting staff, companies should use the efficiency gains to pursue new initiatives that increase demand for their products or services.
Focusing on AI for cost savings yields incremental gains. The transformative value comes from rethinking entire workflows to drive top-line growth. This is achieved by either delivering a service much faster or by expanding a high-touch service to a vastly larger audience ("do more").
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.
The narrative of "evil capitalists" replacing jobs with robots is misguided. Automation is a direct market response to relentless consumer demand for lower prices and faster service. We, the consumers, are ushering in the robotic future because we vote with our wallets for efficiency and cost-savings.
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.
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.
Fears of AI-driven mass unemployment overlook basic capitalism. Any company that fires staff to boost margins will be out-competed by a rival that uses AI to empower its workforce for greater output and market share, ensuring AI augments jobs rather than eliminates them.
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.
An employee using AI to do 8 hours of work in 4 benefits personally by gaining free time. The company (the principal) sees no productivity gain unless that employee produces more. This misalignment reveals the core challenge of translating individual AI efficiency into corporate-level growth.