This "paradox" is being cited everywhere, and while it might apply to AI, people are wrongly using it to justify why nvidia should have a $3.6T or greater valua

This "paradox" is being cited everywhere, and while it might apply to AI, people are wrongly using it to justify why nvidia should have a $3.6T or greater valuation. What happens to a holistic system doesn't necessarily apply to every player in that system. nvidia's heights are largely because of a few super capitalized players dumping enormous amounts of money into data centre GPUs, letting nvidia enjoy outrageous profit margins selling rapidly obsoleted, rapidly iterating products to mega-money players who are all counting on this giving them such a differentiation that it's financially worthwhile. If AI is just some free thing that has little differentiation between the players -- commoditized, so to speak -- the market for $200,000 GPUs probably isn't going to be as big. People won't be rushing to build $500B buildouts. Another argument I keep seeing is smaller models and edge compute. NVDA has almost no stake in that, and there is no reason to believe they're going to have any particular advantage if they tried harder there, any more than Intel could leverage PCs to Smartphones. The core operations of running a model are well known by all of the silicon makers, and they can all make massively scalable FMA matrix operators, etc.