> The problem isn't demand it's, "how much people are willing to spend on it".
This is the right way to look at it, but a few of your estimates are a bit off. AI is being sold as an accelerator (or, if you're in a dystopian mood, total replacement) of knowledge workers. Currently knowledge worker salaries are $50 - 70 trillion a year globally, $10 - 11T in the US alone: https://gist.github.com/danielmiessler/2dc039762a202b083753b...
> Even if AI eventually replaces an enormous portion of that, it's probably not doing so at the same price. Why would customers switch otherwise?
AI is wayyyyyyy easier to wrangle than humans; no sick leaves, health insurance, perks, HR issues... heck they don't even sleep! If companies could replace us with robots, they would do so in a heartbeat. Capitalism!
So in a "what the market will bear" sense, we have an upper bound on the TAM. Indeed, I expect this is where Anthropic's ridiculous "$30 trillion" number is coming from... except now we see how they came to it.
If AI makes workers even 1% more efficient, that's a $500 - 700 billion value annually. In reality AI makes workers way more efficient (studies from the ancient era of 2024 showed about a 30% boost) so AI companies could realistically charge that much more. But then all the other factors you mentioned -- smaller models, competition, self-hosting, etc -- come into play, which put a downward pressure on revenues.
It's impossible to predict how these dynamics will play out, but the numbers involved are astronomical. This is why everyone from the frontier labs to Big Tech to VCs to nation states are scrambling to get in on it.
This is the right way to look at it, but a few of your estimates are a bit off. AI is being sold as an accelerator (or, if you're in a dystopian mood, total replacement) of knowledge workers. Currently knowledge worker salaries are $50 - 70 trillion a year globally, $10 - 11T in the US alone: https://gist.github.com/danielmiessler/2dc039762a202b083753b...
> Even if AI eventually replaces an enormous portion of that, it's probably not doing so at the same price. Why would customers switch otherwise?
AI is wayyyyyyy easier to wrangle than humans; no sick leaves, health insurance, perks, HR issues... heck they don't even sleep! If companies could replace us with robots, they would do so in a heartbeat. Capitalism!
So in a "what the market will bear" sense, we have an upper bound on the TAM. Indeed, I expect this is where Anthropic's ridiculous "$30 trillion" number is coming from... except now we see how they came to it.
If AI makes workers even 1% more efficient, that's a $500 - 700 billion value annually. In reality AI makes workers way more efficient (studies from the ancient era of 2024 showed about a 30% boost) so AI companies could realistically charge that much more. But then all the other factors you mentioned -- smaller models, competition, self-hosting, etc -- come into play, which put a downward pressure on revenues.
It's impossible to predict how these dynamics will play out, but the numbers involved are astronomical. This is why everyone from the frontier labs to Big Tech to VCs to nation states are scrambling to get in on it.