upvote
There is no business model. That’s not a joke, the idea is to be the one that survives the race, then figure out how to be profitable. If you look at the level of capex and money raised, that’s not something you do if you have an actual business plan. We are very far from business fundamentals
reply
> I never truly understood what the intended business model around LLMs was.

A closely related question is “what do the American labs need to do in order to justify their enormous market valuations?”

It seems like the answer cannot possibly be “gradually improve model capability while figuring out how to better monetize inference.” The valuations are just way too high for that to be sufficient.

Surely the answer has to be “continually achieve large leaps in capability comparable to the first consumer releases of ChatGPT while also maintaining a significant capability lead over open models and new competitors.”

And does anyone think that’s going to happen? Even with state-level protection from competition (which incidentally would significantly harm the American economy), the large leaps in capability seem to be coming fewer and farther between.

reply
> I never truly understood what the intended business model around LLMs was

What appeared initially to be a huge innovation was later easily duplicated by many. There are no platform-lockins or network effects. Switching costs for users are zero, and there are low barriers to entry, with vast numbers of models to choose from and more appearing every day. As a business a token will be a commodity like an electron. Doesnt matter who produces it, or how (solar, wind, coal, nuclear etc) as long as it powers my toaster.

reply
deleted
reply
It's fairly simple. Sell GPU compute + extra margins as only some GPUs can load the models + extra margins based on how much better closed source models are from open source ones + hopefully reduced cost due to batching
reply
Same business model as always: build cool tech because it is cool and figure it out later.
reply
It seems like the endgame is to amass absurd amounts of hardware and produce something that will replace you the baker entirely

everything else we see today is just preparing for it.

reply
deleted
reply
The valuation is based on one lab getting a decisive first advantage, and turning that into a durable self-improving advantage that can never be caught up to. If any can pull it off (a gigantic if), they will effectively own most AI value, and the people who own their shares will live happily ever after. Divide your investment between the labs that could plausibly do this, and your EV may not be dreadful.
reply
This is clearly not how it's going though. Any advancement from any lab has been quickly (< 6 months) matched up by basically everybody else. Even Grok nowadays is decent, and that's something. When something like you've described actually happened historically you generally had quite fast a clear frontrunner and a bunch of copycats that failed miserably; in 2026 we are very far from that. we are heading face-first into towards a pricing war because all models are easily interchangeable nowadays - AI is turning into a commodity more or less
reply
And then you wake up from the dream…
reply