3 ms·

Yup. If you follow the links to the original JP Morgan quote, it's not crazy: > Big picture, to drive a 10% return on our modeled AI investments through 2030 w

Yup. If you follow the links to the original JP Morgan quote, it's not crazy: > Big picture, to drive a 10% return on our modeled AI investments through 2030 would require ~$650 billion of annual revenue into perpetuity, which is an astonishingly large number. But for context, that equates to 58bp of global GDP, or $34.72/month from every current iPhone user...

doodlebugging 9mo ago
> or $34.72/month from every current iPhone user... As a current iPhone user, I'm not signing up for that especially if it is on top of the monthly cell service fee. I do realize though that you were trying to provide useful context.
- manwe150 9mo ago
  But think about it this way: something simple like Slack charges $9/month/person and companies already pay that on many behalf. How hard would it be to imagine all those same companies (and lots more) would pay $30/month/employee for something something AI? Generating an extra $400 per year in value, per employee, isn't that much extra.
  - zozbot234 9mo ago
    That AI will have to be significantly preferable to the baseline of open models running on cheap third-party inference providers, or even on-prem. This is a bit of a challenge for the big proprietary firms.
    - johnvanommen 9mo ago
      > the baseline of open models running on cheap third-party inference providers, or even on-prem. This is a bit of a challenge for the big proprietary firms. It’s not a challenge at all. To win, all you need is to starve your competitors of RAM. RAM is the lifeblood of AI, without RAM, AI doesn’t work.
      - ndriscoll 9mo ago
        Assuming high bandwidth flash works out, RAM requirements should be drastically reduced as you'd keep the weights in much higher capacity flash. > Sample HBF modules are expected in the second half of 2026, with the first AI inference hardware integrating the tech anticipated in early 2027. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/sandisk-and-sk-hynix-join-forces-to-standardize-high-bandwidth-flash-memory-a-nand-based-alternative-to-hbm-for-ai-gpus-move-could-enable-8-16x-higher-capacity-compared-to-dram https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/sandisk-and-sk-hy...
        fc417fc802 9mo ago
        How does HBF compare to the discontinued 3D XPoint?
        zozbot234 9mo ago
        HBF is NAND and integrated in-package like HBM. 3D XPoint or Optane would be extremely valuable today as part of the overall system architecture, but they were power-intensive enough that this particular use probably wouldn't be feasible. (Though maybe it ends up being better if you're doing lots of random tiny 4k reads. It's hard to tell because the technology is discontinued as GP said, whereas NAND has kept progressing.)
  - doodlebugging 9mo ago
    Most people in the economy do not use Slack. That tool may be most beneficial to those people who stand to lose jobs to AI displacement. Maybe after everyone is pink-slipped for an LLM or AI chatbot tool the total cost to the employer is reduced enough that they are willing to spend part of the money they saved eliminating warm bodies on AI tools and willing to pay a higher per employee price. I think with a smaller employee pool though it is unlikely that it all evens out without the AI providers holding the users hostage for quarterly profits' sake.
  - johnvanommen 9mo ago
    > Generating an extra $400 per year in value, per employee, isn't that much extra. I agree, and would add that it’s contributing to inflation in hard assets. Basically: * it’s a safe bet that labor will have lower value in 2031 than it has today * if you have a billion to spend, and you agree, you will be inclined to put your wealth into hard assets, because AI depends on them In a really abstract way, the world is not responsible for feeding a new class of workers: robots. And robots consume electricity, water, space, and generate heat. Which is why those sectors are feeling the affects of supply and demand.
    - whattheheckheck 9mo ago
      The world IS responsible for handling the people. Thats the whole fucking reason we made society to take care of children. Nothing is inevitable. It serves the interests of the few.
      - tjwebbnorfolk 9mo ago
        "The world" isn't responsible for anything. The world simply exists, and owes you nothing.
        samrus 9mo ago
        What your describing is a low trust society. If you disregard the social contract like that, then people wont owe the "the world" anythign either. Collaboration and civics goes out the window. If you want to look at what kind of a shithole that libertarian nonsense leads to, then try taking a stroll in SF at night
        tjwebbnorfolk 9mo ago
        You get out of society what you put into it. If I want a seamless web of deserved trust, then of course I need to contribute to that. I don't consider that to be saying that society "owes" me something. I regard it mutually beneficial, not some kind of debt/debtor relationship.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - steveBK123 9mo ago
    $35/iPhone user is not “per corporate white collar worker”. Think outside the coastal high paid SWE bubble and realize vast swathes of people use 5 year old phones on a $25/phone family mobile plan. Retirees, youth, blue collar, lots of people who don’t want/need AI or wouldn’t fork out $140 for their family of 4 to access it. $35/head is a pretty high bar if you compare to per capita total streaming subscriptions across music and movies across all providers for example.
    - csomar 9mo ago
      $35/head is possible but it has to provide tangible value to the user (beyond coding) which many pro-AI people will fail to recognize. People pay a lot for other stuff (ie: like their phone plan). Being digital or physical is not the issue here but the value perceived by the user.
  - SoftTalker 9mo ago
    They will pay it but lay off the number of employees needed to balance it out, and just expect the remaining ones to make up for it with their new AI subscriptions.
- creative_name3 9mo ago
  A lot of iPhone users will be given a subscription via their job. If they still have a job at that point.
  - doodlebugging 9mo ago
    This is true though I think even if the employer provides all this on a per employee basis, the number of eligible employees, after everyone who stands to lose a job because of a shift to AI tools, will be low enough that each employee will need to add a lot of value for this to be worth it to an employer so the stated number is probably way too low. Ordinary people may just migrate from Apple products to something that is more affordable or, in the extreme case, walk away from the whole surveillance economy. Those people would not buy into any of this.
  - watwut 9mo ago
    Why are they not getting the iPhones paid by employers now?
- DrProtic 9mo ago
  Why you even said you wouldn’t subscribe? It’s not relevant in the slightest.
- scotty79 9mo ago
  It could be priced into your appstore purchases like apple 30% cut is and you wouldn't notice.
  - doodlebugging 9mo ago
    This is true but unfortunately for Apple I don't buy anything from the app store except for a minimal iCloud subscription for temporary photo storage. I am in the process of unwinding that subscription in favor of local storage and periodic sync. I haven't been diligent about syncing things in the past so I did buy a subscription for photo storage to avoid losing photos. I know that lots of people buy apps for all kinds of things. I'm not one of those people though.
- nomercy400 9mo ago
  That's about an extra iPhone every 3-4 years.
theptip 9mo ago
Personally I would be astonished if LLMs percolating through the global economy doesn’t give a 50bp bump from here on out. Even if scaling hit a wall, commoditizing what we have now would do it. We have so much scaffolding and organizational overhang with the current models, it’s crazy.
- SamPatt 9mo ago
  Agreed. Applying the intelligence we already have more broadly will have a huge impact. That's been true for a while now, and it keeps getting more true as models keep getting better.
bunnie 9mo ago
$650bb / ($34.72 * 12 months) = 1.56 billion users. That's far larger than the population of the USA (unclear to me if that 650bb number is global or USA only) but by sheer scale this is assuming that these companies can collect that fee from a global customer base - including users in developing economies, EU, China, etc. and after the middleman fees are accounted for. The comments in this thread seem to be thinking within the context of 'the poorest in their nation'. This calculation assumes collecting this fee from among 'the poorest in the world'. Sure, 1.56bb users could also be interpreted as 'the wealthiest 20% of the world'. But the tail is especially long on this curve given how wealth is concentrated in a small percentage of the global population (1% of users have 50% of wealth).
- nerdix 9mo ago
  Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, etc have been able to collect large amounts of revenue from a global customer base so I don't think the assumption was that unreasonable. Obviously, China will protect its homegrown AI industry. Current geopolitics trending towards US decoupling in Europe might slow it. But under the old status quo, US AI would have been rapidly adopted in the EU (and it still might. It depends greatly on how much of the Trump Doctrine outlasts the current administration). Developing countries eventually adopt new technologies. First they adopted personal computers and became customers of Microsoft, then they adopted the Internet and became customers of Google, they adopted smartphones and became customers of Apple. Eventually they will adopt AI and become customers of someone. The question is whether it will be US tech or Chinese tech.

doodlebugging 9mo ago

> or $34.72/month from every current iPhone user... As a current iPhone user, I'm not signing up for that especially if it is on top of the monthly cell service fee. I do realize though that you were trying to provide useful context.

manwe150 9mo ago
But think about it this way: something simple like Slack charges $9/month/person and companies already pay that on many behalf. How hard would it be to imagine all those same companies (and lots more) would pay $30/month/employee for something something AI? Generating an extra $400 per year in value, per employee, isn't that much extra.
- zozbot234 9mo ago
  That AI will have to be significantly preferable to the baseline of open models running on cheap third-party inference providers, or even on-prem. This is a bit of a challenge for the big proprietary firms.
  - johnvanommen 9mo ago
    > the baseline of open models running on cheap third-party inference providers, or even on-prem. This is a bit of a challenge for the big proprietary firms. It’s not a challenge at all. To win, all you need is to starve your competitors of RAM. RAM is the lifeblood of AI, without RAM, AI doesn’t work.
    - ndriscoll 9mo ago
      Assuming high bandwidth flash works out, RAM requirements should be drastically reduced as you'd keep the weights in much higher capacity flash. > Sample HBF modules are expected in the second half of 2026, with the first AI inference hardware integrating the tech anticipated in early 2027. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/sandisk-and-sk-hynix-join-forces-to-standardize-high-bandwidth-flash-memory-a-nand-based-alternative-to-hbm-for-ai-gpus-move-could-enable-8-16x-higher-capacity-compared-to-dram https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/sandisk-and-sk-hy...
      - fc417fc802 9mo ago
        How does HBF compare to the discontinued 3D XPoint?
        zozbot234 9mo ago
        HBF is NAND and integrated in-package like HBM. 3D XPoint or Optane would be extremely valuable today as part of the overall system architecture, but they were power-intensive enough that this particular use probably wouldn't be feasible. (Though maybe it ends up being better if you're doing lots of random tiny 4k reads. It's hard to tell because the technology is discontinued as GP said, whereas NAND has kept progressing.)
- doodlebugging 9mo ago
  Most people in the economy do not use Slack. That tool may be most beneficial to those people who stand to lose jobs to AI displacement. Maybe after everyone is pink-slipped for an LLM or AI chatbot tool the total cost to the employer is reduced enough that they are willing to spend part of the money they saved eliminating warm bodies on AI tools and willing to pay a higher per employee price. I think with a smaller employee pool though it is unlikely that it all evens out without the AI providers holding the users hostage for quarterly profits' sake.
- johnvanommen 9mo ago
  > Generating an extra $400 per year in value, per employee, isn't that much extra. I agree, and would add that it’s contributing to inflation in hard assets. Basically: * it’s a safe bet that labor will have lower value in 2031 than it has today * if you have a billion to spend, and you agree, you will be inclined to put your wealth into hard assets, because AI depends on them In a really abstract way, the world is not responsible for feeding a new class of workers: robots. And robots consume electricity, water, space, and generate heat. Which is why those sectors are feeling the affects of supply and demand.
  - whattheheckheck 9mo ago
    The world IS responsible for handling the people. Thats the whole fucking reason we made society to take care of children. Nothing is inevitable. It serves the interests of the few.
    - tjwebbnorfolk 9mo ago
      "The world" isn't responsible for anything. The world simply exists, and owes you nothing.
      - samrus 9mo ago
        What your describing is a low trust society. If you disregard the social contract like that, then people wont owe the "the world" anythign either. Collaboration and civics goes out the window. If you want to look at what kind of a shithole that libertarian nonsense leads to, then try taking a stroll in SF at night
        tjwebbnorfolk 9mo ago
        You get out of society what you put into it. If I want a seamless web of deserved trust, then of course I need to contribute to that. I don't consider that to be saying that society "owes" me something. I regard it mutually beneficial, not some kind of debt/debtor relationship.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- steveBK123 9mo ago
  $35/iPhone user is not “per corporate white collar worker”. Think outside the coastal high paid SWE bubble and realize vast swathes of people use 5 year old phones on a $25/phone family mobile plan. Retirees, youth, blue collar, lots of people who don’t want/need AI or wouldn’t fork out $140 for their family of 4 to access it. $35/head is a pretty high bar if you compare to per capita total streaming subscriptions across music and movies across all providers for example.
  - csomar 9mo ago
    $35/head is possible but it has to provide tangible value to the user (beyond coding) which many pro-AI people will fail to recognize. People pay a lot for other stuff (ie: like their phone plan). Being digital or physical is not the issue here but the value perceived by the user.
- SoftTalker 9mo ago
  They will pay it but lay off the number of employees needed to balance it out, and just expect the remaining ones to make up for it with their new AI subscriptions.
creative_name3 9mo ago
A lot of iPhone users will be given a subscription via their job. If they still have a job at that point.
- doodlebugging 9mo ago
  This is true though I think even if the employer provides all this on a per employee basis, the number of eligible employees, after everyone who stands to lose a job because of a shift to AI tools, will be low enough that each employee will need to add a lot of value for this to be worth it to an employer so the stated number is probably way too low. Ordinary people may just migrate from Apple products to something that is more affordable or, in the extreme case, walk away from the whole surveillance economy. Those people would not buy into any of this.
- watwut 9mo ago
  Why are they not getting the iPhones paid by employers now?
DrProtic 9mo ago
Why you even said you wouldn’t subscribe? It’s not relevant in the slightest.
scotty79 9mo ago
It could be priced into your appstore purchases like apple 30% cut is and you wouldn't notice.
- doodlebugging 9mo ago
  This is true but unfortunately for Apple I don't buy anything from the app store except for a minimal iCloud subscription for temporary photo storage. I am in the process of unwinding that subscription in favor of local storage and periodic sync. I haven't been diligent about syncing things in the past so I did buy a subscription for photo storage to avoid losing photos. I know that lots of people buy apps for all kinds of things. I'm not one of those people though.
nomercy400 9mo ago
That's about an extra iPhone every 3-4 years.

theptip 9mo ago

Personally I would be astonished if LLMs percolating through the global economy doesn’t give a 50bp bump from here on out. Even if scaling hit a wall, commoditizing what we have now would do it. We have so much scaffolding and organizational overhang with the current models, it’s crazy.

SamPatt 9mo ago
Agreed. Applying the intelligence we already have more broadly will have a huge impact. That's been true for a while now, and it keeps getting more true as models keep getting better.

bunnie 9mo ago

$650bb / ($34.72 * 12 months) = 1.56 billion users. That's far larger than the population of the USA (unclear to me if that 650bb number is global or USA only) but by sheer scale this is assuming that these companies can collect that fee from a global customer base - including users in developing economies, EU, China, etc. and after the middleman fees are accounted for. The comments in this thread seem to be thinking within the context of 'the poorest in their nation'. This calculation assumes collecting this fee from among 'the poorest in the world'. Sure, 1.56bb users could also be interpreted as 'the wealthiest 20% of the world'. But the tail is especially long on this curve given how wealth is concentrated in a small percentage of the global population (1% of users have 50% of wealth).

nerdix 9mo ago
Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, etc have been able to collect large amounts of revenue from a global customer base so I don't think the assumption was that unreasonable. Obviously, China will protect its homegrown AI industry. Current geopolitics trending towards US decoupling in Europe might slow it. But under the old status quo, US AI would have been rapidly adopted in the EU (and it still might. It depends greatly on how much of the Trump Doctrine outlasts the current administration). Developing countries eventually adopt new technologies. First they adopted personal computers and became customers of Microsoft, then they adopted the Internet and became customers of Google, they adopted smartphones and became customers of Apple. Eventually they will adopt AI and become customers of someone. The question is whether it will be US tech or Chinese tech.