[ksec]

>In this article I will try to explain why I find his framing fascinating but incomplete. Evans structures technology history in cycles. Every 10-15 years, the industry reorganizes around a new platform: mainframes (1960s-70s), PCs (1980s), web (1990s), smartphones (2000s-2010s). Each shift pulls all innovation, investment, and company creation into its orbit. Generative AI appears to be the next platform shift, or it could break the cycle entirely.

A lot of the AI and LLM argument on whether it is really eating the world misses one point, and I think Evans implied but not pointed out explicitly.

Had it not been AI investment, we wouldn't have the current hardware improvement and innovation rate.

Most people have heard about the limit of Moore's law, but every single time it appeared in headline is an economic model limit rather than limit of physics. We were predicting a stop to growth in 90s because we couldn't see a 400M PC market shipment in 2010. Turns out Smartphone carried that forward, and it is what funded growth of TSMC when most on HN even knew much or heard of TSMC. The same goes with LPDDR RAM, Pure Play IP, Wireless, Network, etc. All the hardware improvements that came with Smartphone is now continued to be developed at rapid pace due to AI and Hyperscaler.

What Evan were suggesting is much simpler, could AI automate things that previously were not possible for 99% of business outside of Tech and Software. The answer is a simple yes. And worth pointing out ChartGPT is closing in on a billion weekly active user.

A lot of HN discussion about AI often centered around software development. And whether it is good enough of it. Most of the world outside are happy enjoying AI for many things. What used to require a mildly technical person to do on excel can not be done without one. It is opening up software to even more people. It is creating more value than people imagine, and users are willing to paid for it.