6 ms·
are you saying that previous technologies had effectively infinite supply?
by metalliqaz 4mo ago
are you saying that previous technologies had effectively infinite supply?
- ok123456 4mo agoNo. I'm stating where the paper's assumptions are clearly violated. AI companies are intentionally trying to monopolize the supply of inputs needed for R&D. This violates homogeneity of degree 1.
- gwerbin 4mo agoIsn't this true in a lot of situations? Basically anytime maximum production capacity of an input is limited, or scale-up time is very long, firms are large relative to the supply so they are not price takers.
- curio_Pol_curio 4mo agoPP's point has (mostly?) been addressed in https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20180386 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20180386 Inputs that can be monopolized are manifestly _not_ the intangibles; price-taking is independent of their effect
- gwerbin 4mo agoI don't think they implied that those inputs are the intangibles, only that the functional form assumption in the 2018 paper is unrealistic.
- jmalicki 4mo agoIt's not that supply was actually infinite, but you didn't realistically have situations where you said "I want to buy GPUs for a data center" only to be told "there's a 3 year waiting list." You might have two months after NVidia 3090s came out where they were short, but it is nothing like today.
- zbentley 4mo agoCitation needed. Industries that faced multi year supply constraints in recent memory include: nuclear power, battery manufacturing, flagship commercial aircraft models, late-stage pharmaceutical safety certification, certain luxury cars, and more.
- jmalicki 4mo agoFair! At the same time, a lot of interest in this paper is specific to the AI industry (even if it's not only about that), and outside of high-end labor, the other constraints are new there.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]