Remix.run Logo
btucker 20 hours ago

You can find the 4 versions of Benedict's deck here: https://www.ben-evans.com/presentations I appreciate the temporal view into this thinking. My interpretation:

Nov 2024: Don’t dismiss this; it may be the next platform shift. But the actual questions are still unsettled: scaling, usefulness, deployment, and business model.

May 2025: The model layer is already showing signs of commoditization, so the important question shifts toward deployment: products, use cases, UX, errors, and enterprise adoption.

Nov 2025: The capital cycle has become the story: everyone is spending because missing the platform shift is worse than overbuilding, but there is still no clarity on product shape, moats, or value capture. That creates bubble-like dynamics.

May 2026: Provisional thesis: models look likely to become infrastructure, while value probably moves up-stack into apps, workflows, product, proprietary data/context, GTM, and new questions made possible by cheap automation. But he is still explicitly calling this provisional.

libraryofbabel 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks for the summary. I do love Benedict‘s work; I find he’s one of the few commentators who consistently strikes a balance between taking the transformative potential of AI seriously while not falling over into hype.

Some things that stand out:

* He’s really good with his historical analogies, especially looking at previous transformations like the early Internet and mobile; no surprise given that he has a history degree.

* he emphasizes over and over how we have still have no idea how all of this is going to work when the dust settles. I think that’s kind of a historian’s move as well. When you look at what people were saying during the early days of the web, for example, almost all of their predictions weren’t just wrong… in hindsight, given how the future played out, they were asking the wrong questions. The implication is that we are probably asking the wrong questions about AI too.

* Nonetheless his thesis about the commoditization of models is actually a fairly strong concrete prediction. i’m not sure if I agree with it entirely, but I do keep it in mind every time I look at the valuation of leading AI labs.

* he continually makes the point that a chat bot is barely a product and that AI labs have so far had very little success in delivering products above that layer… with the exception of coding agents, of course.

zetsurin 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> for example, almost all of their predictions weren’t just wrong… in hindsight, given how the future played out, they were asking the wrong question

Do you have an example of this? My (poor) memory remembers "it's going to change how people buy things", was the big deal at the time, and it seems like it was a great prediction.

libraryofbabel 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, yes, but as the other commenter says, that’s a very broad general statement akin to something like “AI will change knowledge work“. That’s certainly true, but how? What are the details? What kind of companies are going to be the winners and what kind will be losers, or end up with commodity margins, like the telcos did after the mobile revolution? What is the pricing structure going to look like?

I suppose a concrete example in 1997 would be that a lot of companies thought the future of e-commerce was setting up a store on AOL, that people would use while sitting down at a desktop PC. Obviously it didn’t turn out quite that way. Furthermore, the Internet enabled new kinds of ways to buy things that weren’t even envisioned in the pre-Internet pre-smartphone world: think Airbnb and Uber.

Predictions are hard, especially about the future. Most predictions reflect the worldview and biases of the time in which they are made: think about all the vintage sci-fi from the 60s 70s and 80s that actually reads or looks kind of retro now. Similarly, our predictions of the future will look kind of retro and strange to someone living in the 2030s or 2040s. If studying history has any lesson to teach us, it’s really just this: that the past is an alien world with alien moods of thinking, and that our moment in time will look similarly alien to people in the future who choose to look back and analyze it closely.

This isn’t an argument that we should stop trying to make predictions. We need to, but it is an argument for humility, and also for questioning all your assumptions that you might be importing.

akiselev 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's a very vague prediction that took decades to bear fruit. The concrete predictions behind the investments into companies like Pets.com and Webvan failed. It took the survivors like Ebay/Paypal and Amazon to build the digital payment and shipping infrastructure over decades until cultural acceptance hit critical mass.

keeda 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Agreed, I appreciate his historical perspective, but I think one critical mistake his posts make is implying, largely because the parallels to history have been similar so far, that history will repeat.

Like, yes, the telecom bubble was a clear case of overbuilding and the AI data center "bubble" looks a lot like that... but this overlooks that the fiber capacity being laid back then far outstripped the demand, whereas all the compute providers today have been desperately crunched for capacity, despite investing almost a trillion in CapEx -- to the tune of almost a trillion dollars more of backlog -- for multiple quarters now.

Or yes, historically new technology has always created new jobs... but all those new jobs required a higher skill level along dimensions that current AI models are already good at, meaning we've never had a technological revolution quite like this.

Or yes, prior technological revolutions consigned incumbents to irrelevancy, primarily due to shifts in technical platforms... but then today's business leaders are 1) very well educated about what happened to their predecessors, 2) very paranoid about the same thing happening to them, and hence 3) are actively making moves to capitalize on the next platform shift.

I also think his dismissal of chatbots is a bit premature. It is precisely because chatbots operate via an extremely simple, flexible and natural modality, i.e. a conversation -- entirely unconstrained by the form factor necessitated by any app -- that their infinite use-cases have become unleashed.

My take is that the AI labs are actively exploiting this extreme flexibility to surface valuable use-cases -- one of the hardest parts of innovation -- at which point they can simply slap an agent on top of them. Which is, yet again, simply a chatbot, except one that can actually do useful things for you and hence can be charged for a lot more money.

benedictevans 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn’t make any comparison at all with the fibre bubble, for precisely that reason. The comparison is with mobile data, which was and is always behind capacity.

I think one of the things that the usage data shows us is that chatbots absolutely do not have infinite use cases - most users only use them a day or two a week or less.

keeda 11 hours ago | parent [-]

That's fair, I may be conflating your takes on mobile data with others who've made the comparison to the telecom bubble, and if so, mea culpa!

But I also do disagree with the take that usage patterns indicate a fundamental shortage of use-cases. Yes, everyone reports WAU instead of DAU because WAU numbers look much more impressive, but I think the extreme shortage of compute plays a major role in this. I suspect all the AI labs are deliberately holding back from pushing AI adoption too much because of this. (Google execs have even made comments internally to this effect.) Note that even at such low frequency of usage all the model providers are desperately strapped for compute, which means there is insanely high demand from some quarters.

One way how capacity limitations could impact adoption is that the free-tier models are not as good as the frontier ones, so the free users come away less impressed with AI capabilities, leading to lower regular usage. This problem is larger than it appears, because it can take a long time to figure out how to get AI to work for your use-case, and people simply have not experimented nearly enough, partially due to first impressions. On the other hand, most companies seem to be OK with huge tokenmaxxing bills!

It seems to me the AI players are all playing a delicate balancing game across three fundamental dimensions: adoption, monetization, capacity. That is, they are simultaneously 1) pushing free / cheap AI usage as much as possible to hook users, capture market share and suss out new use-cases, while 2) carefully allocating token quotas for the most lucrative use-cases to satisfy investors, and 3) balancing available compute between those two competing priorities. I suspect as the compute bottleneck is alleviated and frontier models become more accessible cheaply, we'll see way higher DAU numbers.

flossly 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think that DeepSeek may be important to that. They have a really good model that's open source, raising the bar for all other players: how good your model needs to be so you can make meaningful money on it (better than DeepSeek).

Same thing happened on other places the open source offering became popular.

mchusma 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the original DeepSeek moment seemed important. And yes, the more recent model is good, but there are multiple. This commodification trend spans many different companies, including Kimi 2.5/2.6 and GLM5.1, and even Google itself with its Gemma models. There are a dozen models that exist at roughly the frontier from 6 months ago at 1/10th the cost.

mistrial9 17 hours ago | parent [-]

> that exist at roughly the frontier

no disagree, specifics matter.. There are a dozen well-defined LLM application subject areas that are regularly tested.. one overall grade IMO lacks important detail.. To go a bit abstract, it is ironic that "oversimplification" in the discussion of these complex machines mirrors the effects on information of the automations themselves.. constantly simplifying, substituting and diluting real meaning

dist-epoch 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What good is an open-weights DeepSeek model if you have nowhere to run it?

OpenAI / Google / Anthropic / XAI also have a ton of compute. That is the real moat.

eli 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's quite expensive to self-host but you have many places to run it. OpenRouter alone lists a dozen different providers for DeepSeek 4 Pro. https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro/providers.

So long as there is demand, there are always going to be providers competing to offer it at a low cost. My understanding is that the median price on there is in the ballpark of what it costs to run the inference. This is very different from e.g. Opus, which you can basically only buy from Anthropic at the price they set.

nmfisher 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

antirez running (quantized) DeepSeek V4 Pro on a Mac Studio M3 Ultra with 512GB of RAM:

https://bsky.app/profile/antirez.bsky.social/post/3mlzwmvlov...

It's much closer than you think. We're going to see specialized hardware in the next 24 months capable of running 2025-era frontier models. That's big.

menaerus 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

2-bit quantization? That's a lot of signal being removed. Considering how quickly the AI models are progressing in their capabilities (still exponential curve), I will not want to use the 2025 model in two years time. Similarly, how I don't want to use llama-3 or old Anthropic model from 2023 or 2024. Newer models are so much better that it makes it very difficult to ignore.

Once and if the advancements with the AI models slow down, only then IMHO it will become feasible to design the specialized HW for general-purpose consumption and general-purpose workloads.

treis 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's big because it may take a big swath of people who will actually pay for LLMs out of the market. But for the average consumer they're going to primarily use their phone/tablet and we're far away from that being possible.

Even if it were possible the LLMs are such a gold mine of user data. It's really hard to see that opportunity be passed up.

18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
dist-epoch 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That specialized hardware will be scooped up by AI data-centers, just like RAM is today.

nine_k 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No more than Mac Studios. Datacenters need different hardware.

ffsm8 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The 512 GB ram studio can't even be purchased anymore. It's been delisted

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-studio

Same with the Mac mini. entirely removed from all store references

wolttam 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I just got into self hosting Deepseek v4 Flash on a single DGX Spark via antirez’s DwarfStar 4 project

It feels great to finally have access to something local.

amanaplanacanal 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That seems pretty temporary if people can just build more compute.

benedictevans 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, yes. Anyone who tells you they know how this is going to work is an idiot.

vessenes 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I didn’t know there were a sequence of these decks; thanks — it’s helpful to think of them as updating snapshots in time.

The main thing that stands out to me on these graphs is just . how . early we still are - looking at industries like legal which in my mind are certainly going to be massively disrupted, and seeing the very low usage rates vs. tech (which still shows less than a quarter of tech people using AI daily) — we are in for a lot more change than we’ve seen so far.

cman1444 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Legal has lots of institutional inertia behind it though. I think AI will be very very useful for lawyers..... at their desk in private. But I don't see it replacing them. The legal system is heavily personal and relies a lot on reputation and tradition. I think you'll see courts, bar organizations, etc frowning on using AI too heavily, and certainly not using it to automate "official" processes.

7777777phil 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I appreciate Evans’ work and wrote an “antithesis” to the Nov 2024 iteration of this. Given the pivot to “models look likely to become infrastructure” I might want to update my take.

ffsm8 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Didn't you mean Claude take? It's ai written after all...