I think we need to collectively get a grip on statements like this.

There is no reason to think inference can or will remain interestingly profitable even if you assume pure-play inference providers who don't do any model training. Serving an LLM isn't child's play but it's also not so hard as to count as a moat. Inferencing is:

1. Selling a largely undifferentiated product.

2. Into a highly competitive market.

3. To customers who are primarily sensitive to price.

Industries like this have always existed and in the modern era tend to have margins of about 3% to 5%. Any level of margin higher than that gets competed into the ground.

If you want to claim inference is highly profitable in general, you're going to have to answer why it won't end up like supermarkets or airlines, both of which have bigger moats than inference.

The other problem with this analysis is obviously that you can't just stop training models. Even if you don't care about improving capability or performance, the knowledge in their weights gets stale. Cost of inferencing has to take into account the ongoing cost of training, you can't cleanly split one from the other.

Exactly, inference is like groceries or electricity.

Because LLMs are like crabs, they all get to the same point.

"If you want to claim inference is highly profitable in general, you're going to have to answer why it won't end up like supermarkets or airlines, both of which have bigger moats than inference."

- I don't... "inference is profitable" is as of now. No one knows future, neither have I commented anything on it.

The statement is valid as it stands.