Overvalued, maybe. Extremely valuable, yes, though.

My Codex extension says 11mil users, if my math is correct, and on the $100 plan, that’s ~1.1 billion/mo.

For sure. We're well past the point of being able to reasonably claim that the tools have no practical use. But I share the article's skepticism that LLM-based AI will "produce a fully automated drop-in replacement for most knowledge workers". Which it at this point has to in order to justify these companies' stupendous valuations.

Tomorrow no but there will always be the “hope” which is enough for the next 20 years before giving up. Which meanwhile would be replacing larger and larger chunks of the workforce so it won’t really matter, we’ll be adjusting our lives around it as well so we meet in the middle.

Tesla has been overvalued for over a decade with the promise of “fully autonomous cars” and it’s still not losing its value, despite not meeting that (and probably never will, as the computation necessary to achieve it is bounded by physics).

That's a different situation. Tesla's a public company whose valuation is driven by the market, which has the right to be irrational. My understanding is that the AI buildout is financed such that the companies need to turn a profit by ~2030 or else they drown in capital costs.

Or maybe the frontier labs become Tesla-like, if it turns out investors just want to believe in the dream and don't care about financials that don't make economic sense. I just don't see that happening, given current sentiment and the overwhelming unpopularity of AI in the West.