[jayd16]

What a strange train of thought. Why would you need that amount in this hypothetical? Why would dethroning them alone be worth it? It would literally only be worth it if you could do so profitably.

More realistically, it seems like someone calculated that it could still be profitable up to several hundreds of billions of dollars which explains the initial investment. And continued investment can be explained by trying to salvage the existing capital spend. But even if it's the best option those companies have now as far as a hypothetical goes, it still might not have been worth it.

[mstank]

I think the opposite is true. To dethrone the top tech company, you need to be able to spend much less than them, at higher efficiency and faster growth. Google didn’t catch up to Microsoft and Apple by spending more, they caught up by developing business lines and flywheels that were much more capital efficient.

If it’s a spending game, the incumbent has a huge advantage.

[doctorpangloss]

You: says someone has a strange train of thought, and then you also ask how can a company become profitable in a situation where it becomes a monopoly? Dude, the winner raises prices? "AI" is not expensive enough!

[raincole]

> Why would you need that amount in this hypothetical?

They didn't say you need that amount. They say how much you're willing to spend. Need = floor, willing = ceiling.

It's a very reasonable argument, except one fact: the chance that you actually dethroning Google is practically zero as Google also has capital, infra and data to train AI. The best plausible outcome is to share the market with Google.

[jayd16]

Where are you getting that?

> Catching up quickly means spending >500 billion.

What part of that implies it's about willingness?