Research has a large asymmetry to it. Once someone shows something can be done. Others can follow quite easily.

And more substantial is that when someone shows something can be done, its orders of mangnitude easier for $ENGINEER at $CORP to get $CSUITEs attention to get a budget / justify the risk.

Your self driving car example is the best example of this. Since waymo and tesla got popular NVIDIA really started pushing their self driving cars for everyone tech.

https://youtu.be/EzAVW1VgzcI?si=gfnOJoaO9hfIFXX1

And NVIDIA isn't the only one.

> The work on self-driving cars would not be done if there were not a way to profit from it. If it isn’t expected to earn more than it costs, it wouldn’t be done.

I disagree. "Expected" is hiding a lot of the work there, and the reasons for that expectation could be rational or completely irrational.

Hypothetically "work on self-driving cars" would be done if some crazy psychic-trusting billionaire's psychic told him they would be profitable, even if all rational analysis said they'd be a bad business. A lot of major investments, especially in tech, and done based on hope or as a bet, not due to any real foresight.

I think you made the assumption that gp is disagreeing with, that reducing costs necessarily reduces prices. (hence the bit about messed up markets)