TAM

For those not knee deep in bidnezz, that's total addressable market. If you're not some scammer or grifter (hard to find such, given these days of Grifter In Chief ), then the first thing you do when you want to move some new (or importantly updated) widget into Mr. Market is figure out how many end users (aka, buyers) you expect exist. In the pharma world these days, drug companies are actually looking for a TAM that's tiny thanks to Uncle Sugar, who passes on some substantial benefit to them if FDA approves a drug for very limited number (200,000 ... well sorta, kinda) of patients. Although gaming continues as ever. This is one segment of the economy where the TAM is sorta, kinda explicit. And being 'small' is good.

For AI, as currently implemented, it's a bit different. And that difference has been recited here a bit. And it matters, given that Big Tech is spending some non-trivial Billions of Bongo Bucks on hardware (data centres) alone. Who are the patients to be served? Do they have, taken as a whole, enough Bongo Bucks to recoup all those trillions of Bongo Bucks, plus a bit of profit? Here's a recent assessment. As predicted in these missives, the arithmetic looks awful. And, some of the tech bros are worried.

At one point this year, Meta internally projected that it could spend as much as $10 billion annually on Anthropic's A.I. models, said two of the people, who declined to be identified discussing private information. That would have formed a major chunk of Anthropic's yearly revenue, which the start-up estimated in July would pass $65 billion.

Now, that cash flow is wonderful for Anthropic and all of the AI vendors out there. But Meta, and Google, and Microsoft, and the like are buying what we econ types call 'producers' goods'; IOW, stuff that the buyer turns around and uses to make some finished good which Americans on Main Street, Anytown, USofA actually pay for. Well, Meta et al, ain't selling any new thing to Americans on Main Street. Remember, so far as Meta goes, the user is the actual product, sold to advertisers. Microsoft, is more or less, the exception (no one uses Bing).

As of April 2024, Bing holds the position of the second-largest search engine worldwide, with a market share of 3.64%, behind Google's 90.91%.

So, where is the flood of Bongo Bucks to make it all worthwhile? It's a verity that Real Producers always bitch and moan about the Bean Counters ruining the party. I suspect the Real Producers will lickety split concoct some tale to blame the Bean Counters when it all goes Pop.

Mr. Zuckerberg has described Hatch as Meta's next breakthrough, a personal "agent" that works "24/7 on your behalf to help achieve your goals and improve your life, your health, your relationships, your finances."

(By the way, what was the last New Product that Meta made that was a Bigly Win? Just asking for a friend.)

OK. A semblance of recognizing that somewhere, somehow a real live Human (American or otherwise) will use an AI derived service/product. But will such a Human pay a user's fee for the privilege? And, if so, how much? Or does The Zuck assume that Hatch will somehow, some way entice his real customers, advertisers, to pay more and more often? In either case will end users or advert makers generate enough new revenue to make it all make sense? How would you bet on Kalshi?

It's been mentioned here and there that, given existing accounting rules, all this data centre spending is hidden in corporate capital budgets. IOW, very little of it hits their current financials. There will be a reckoning and there will be blood.