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.
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.
New AI models are designed to perform well on available, dominant hardware like NVIDIA's GPUs. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where the incumbent hardware dictates which model architectures succeed, making it difficult for superior but incompatible chip designs to gain traction.
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.
![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)
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.
This theory suggests Google's refusal to sell TPUs is a strategic move to maintain a high market price for AI inference. By allowing NVIDIA's expensive GPUs to set the benchmark, Google can profit from its own lower-cost TPU-based inference services on GCP.
Major AI players treat the market as a zero-sum, "winner-take-all" game. This triggers a prisoner's dilemma where each firm is incentivized to offer subsidized, unlimited-use pricing to gain market share, leading to a race to the bottom that destroys profitability for the entire sector and squeezes out smaller players.
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.
