Yes. But consider this scenario: You get some cloud provider to offer you $90m in credits that are convertible to equity. Then you go to an investor and say, yo

Yes. But consider this scenario: You get some cloud provider to offer you $90m in credits that are convertible to equity. Then you go to an investor and say, you've raised $90m in cash so far, because the bottleneck is compute and compute is expensive. Then they're like, "Oh well a $10m cash investment is reasonable then. Compute is the bottleneck." You go out into the world and say you have a $100m raise on a $500m post for your idea to train an LLM on some niche. Nevermind that if the cloud provider is willing to forgo $90m in hard cash to give somebody else those GPUs "for free," it must not be that expensive in actuality. I mean from their point of view, $90m in cloud credits might cost them only $1m to provide your first year, when you get around to using just a little of them. I guess I am saying that there are a ton of people in startups right now, in this gold rush, for whom "compute is the bottleneck" is an essential narrative to their survival / reason for investing cash. It's not just the chip vendors and the cloud providers. My scenario illustrates how "compute is the bottleneck" turns bad napkin ideas into $10m slush funds. So 4/5 actors in Elad's chart benefit from this being the case. It's the foundational model people like you're saying with Meta who are not bottlenecked by compute neither in fiction nor reality. I'd argue that not only is hardly anyone bottlenecked by compute, but that the people claiming that they are bottlenecked by compute are either guilty of not being informed enough about their problems or guilty of making up a story that results in the easiest-to-obtain investment dollars. Like imagine the counterfactual: Anthropic goes and pitches a synthetic data thing. The tech community mocks that, even if it makes a ton of sense and is responsible for huge demos like Sora.