Charting the AI Commoditisation Curve: Where will LLM Value Flow Next?

26 August 2025 , Amelia Armour

Large language models (LLMs) have raced from breakthrough to baseline in barely two years. Training techniques, open-source releases, and hyperscale infrastructure have driven down costs, nudging today’s frontier models towards commoditisation. In a recent episode of our podcast, Amadeus Venture Partner and “Father of Voice AI” Professor Steve Young mentions that “price competition will turn LLMs into a commodity.” – and it’s simple to see why.

History suggests that, once a horizontal technology standardises, value leaks from core “pipes” (compute and generic models) and migrates to the “plumbing” (tooling, safety, data pipelines) and, ultimately, to the “fixtures” — domain-specific applications with unique distribution. Over the next three-to-five years the biggest profit pools are likely to form around: specialised data assets, workflow-integrated AI agents, efficient and cheaper tuning of models, evaluation/validation layers, and silicon tuned for efficient inference at the edge.

Some companies align neatly with these seams: PolyAI provides enterprise-grade voice AI agents; V7 supplies data-centric tooling that accelerates fine-tuning; Secondmind applies probabilistic machine-learning techniques to slash simulation overheads in automotive design; Safe Intelligence offers automated AI model validation; Inephany tunes models using less data and compute power for faster output; Unlikely AI blends neurosymbolic reasoning to curb hallucination; and XMOS delivers low-power processors that push LLM inference beyond the cloud.

As regulation such as the EU AI Act tightens, and as competitive pressure intensifies across the stack, defensibility will depend less on model scale and more on proprietary context, orchestration, and trust.

Where Next?

In technology, commoditisation creeps in when once-scarce capabilities become abundant. Less than two years separate GPT-4’s debut from the arrival of open weights (Llama 3, Mistral Medium). However, not all LLMs are created equal; ask identical analytical questions across Groq’s Mixtral demo and ChatGPT and you will see stark differences in latency, accuracy, and analysis.

Choosing which model now matters as much as accessing one. The crucial question is no longer if the value chain will rearrange, but where profits will settle next.

What is the Commoditisation Curve?

Borrowed from hardware economics, the curve tracks how margins erode as a product standardises, pushing surplus to adjacent layers. For LLMs the curve is bending towards data ownership, fine-tuning, and deployment tooling rather than sheer parameter count.

Today’s LLM Value Chain

  • Foundation model builders – OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Mistral
  • Compute & infrastructure – Nvidia-dominant GPUs, AMD Instinct, Cerebras wafer-scale, Groq LPUs.
  • Tooling & orchestration – vector databases, RAG frameworks, prompt-ops, evaluation suites
  • Vertical applications – customer service (PolyAI), data annotation (V7), model-based engineering (Secondmind), drug discovery, legal drafting
  • Data moats – proprietary corpora, reinforcement learning from human feedback traces; Meta’s $15bn Scale AI deal shows significant appetite for proprietary data.
  • Routes to market – API marketplaces, cloud distribution, on-device deployment (XMOS)

Historical Analogues

Past tech waves tell a clear story: once the basic hardware becomes common, profits move upstream. The parts that simply provide raw compute see margins shrink first, while niches with unique data or specialised know-how keep earning healthy returns.

Cloud, mobile OS, and semiconductor cycles all show value sliding away from commoditised capacity toward differentiated services. Each precedent suggests the layers closest to undifferentiated compute experience the earliest margin compression; layers with domain context or data loops remain lucrative.

Competitive Forces Shaping the AI Tech Stack

A table showing the competitive forces shaping the AI tech stack.
  1. Model heterogeneity – specialist engines (e.g. Groq) outperform generalists on speed or analysis, driving pick-and-mix adoption.
  2. Code democratisation – It’s now possible to drop an academic paper into an LLM and it will provide runnable code to build algorithms in minutes, democratising code writing.
  3. Training-cost squeezeInephany has the potential to improve sample-efficiency gains, claiming AI development that’s at least 10x more cost-effective.
  4. Data scarcity premium – Meta’s pending Scale AI stake signals soaring demand for curated, labelled datasets.
  5. Regulation & safety – the EU AI Act increases compliance overhead, favouring automated evaluation platforms such as Safe Intelligence.

Defensible Layers & Future Profit Pools

  • Proprietary or real-time data – PolyAI’s voice transcripts and Secondmind’s engineering simulation data. Meta’s Scale AI deal underscores the rising price of data.
  • Domain-specific fine-tuning – V7’s curated datasets shrink training loops.
  • Efficient fine-tuning – Inephany’s training optimiser cuts compute and time-to-market.
  • Integrated workflows & AI agents – seamless orchestration within existing software.
  • Trust & safety – Safe Intelligence automates evaluation against policy.
  • Specialised silicon – XMOS’s xcore® processors enabling sub-watt inference at the edge.

Market Sizing & Insight

Research forecasts the LLM market expanding nearly 3× to $14.4 billion by 2027 and Generative AI reaching $66.8 billion this year, while specialised silicon is set to more than double to $42.2 billion.

To say there’s been rapid growth of revenue in the LLM and Generative AI space would be making a molehill of a mountain. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT,  hit $10 billion annual recurring revenue (ARR) in less than three years. What’s truly exceptional about that figure isn’t just that it’s a significant share of the market, but that the company has yet to turn a profit – with reported losses of around $5 billion in 2024 and no profit expected until 2029. Eye-watering compute costs both for training foundational models and running the chat service for its 500 million weekly users explain the unforeseen scale required to reach profitability.

Training optimisation, model tuning, and hardware improvements could lower the compute costs and the environmental impact of training models and running services like ChatGPT. Regulation of the industry is also going to have an impact on how training data is gathered and used.

  • PolyAI captures high-margin service revenue by owning conversational data loops.
  • V7 monetises tooling as annotation volumes balloon.
  • Inephany optimises model training to deliver faster, cheaper updates.
  • Secondmind applies active-learning optimisation to cut simulation runs by up to 80 % for automotive engineers.
  • Safe Intelligence addresses mandatory validation budgets spurred by regulation.
  • Unlikely AI positions neurosymbolic models to slash compute cost and bolster explainability.
  • XMOS scales edge inference demand in consumer and industrial devices.

Future of AI

LLM commoditisation is not a race to the biggest model but to the right model for each task—delivered quickly, tuned cheaply, and governed safely. As the stack splits into specialised engines, optimiser layers, and data pipelines, value will flow to those who orchestrate diversity rather than chase scale. In that landscape, proprietary data, efficient tuning, and instant inference will trump raw parameter counts—shaping the next wave of AI opportunity.