> There is no reason for the models to stop their improvements in the near future.

Sure there is.

1. The cost of each new generation of training runs appears to be rapidly rising

2. The Trump admin just told the leading model to stop making it available to non-Americans, which in practice meant stop providing it at all

3. The factories to make the hardware are hitting bottlenecks, and while they've currently been navigated around, there's never a guarantee the next one will be

Currently I'm wondering at what point the direct impact on the US energy supply gives the US a taste of Baumol's cost disease as AI companies continue to outbid everyone else for electricity.

> There is no reason for the models to stop their improvements in the near future.

You speak as if "improvements to models" is just function of time, and resources are infinite.

Models keep improving as long as there are resources to allow for larger and larger datacenters, if we hit a scientific breakthrough once LLM technology become the bottleneck, if the economy is infinite to allow infinite growth, and (geo)politics is not a thing to worry about. Or we discover ASI, machine improve themselves and we reach the technological singularity.

I know everybody is drinking the kool aid by the gallon, but can we maintain a little bit of objectivity?

Remove 20% of AI supply, and the world goes on like nothing happened.

Remove 20% of food supply, and watch prices explode, global unrest, and famine take place.

You can't food maxx a trillion calories a day to generate a multi million dollar bill. You can token maxx it though.

I think the issue is the reality that most life is worth a lot less (in US Freedom units) than some software running doing absolutely nothing truly valuable for anyone.

You are not in any way the average person.

Food is the 3rd largest expenditure in most households, after housing and transportation.

Because there's nowhere else for the money to go, the money must go to AI.

There are no growth opportunities in any other industry (except healthcare due to disastrous demographics), where else are people going to invest?

Cursor is a harness that can be used with all kinds of models. It's a much better harness than anyone else's and takes the company out of just playing the model game.

Exactly this. I think valuations and the AI market could get stirred up if:

- We get an open source Opus 4.8 equivalent and pair it with an open source coding agent

- Running this OS stack becomes cheaper than what frontier model providers charge (see OS model prices on OpenRouter vs. frontier lab prices)

- This happens across verticals (i.e. not just software)

The first “DeepSeek moment” didn’t do much damage back in the days, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a similar moment becomes a lasting, effective, cheaper alternative.

> I don't how SpaceX and other AI companies will be able to keep the weights of their AI models private

That is an interesting point. If there are higher concerns, copyright law is easily ignored, and only one person needs to get access to the data once.

SpaceX is good at building data centers in tough regulatory environments, in a way that other players have been unable to match

They are a distant third at best, at least in trading companies. If you look at Chinese and other likely national actors, they are probably further down.

The thing with dotComs is that they didn't have THIS level of unsustainable financing burn, and a tangible issue of token processing cost that has no magic wand coming with the current practical limits of Moore's law.

Oh, that puts it 0.3% of the way there! And all it cost was increasing prices until every customer started talking about cutting it.

Past performance is not guarantee of future returns.

“ai-x”? Elon? You know that you are not allowed to in this forum. It’s only for adults. Go back to Twitter and play with the other kids.