The simplest investment logic today is to go long on silicon-based life and short human consumption, because the demand for silicon-based life is growing exponentially, while human consumption is linear.

Demand = reproduction rate × per-unit consumption.
It takes 10 months to have a child, searching for 2000 calories of heat per day, capped at the consumption of two phones, written into flesh and blood.
Silicon-based life can reproduce infinitely: one agent can activate 100, then 1000 more, as long as there is electricity and computing power, with no limit.
Yesterday, Google's parent company Alphabet issued an additional $80 billion to extend AI computing power because customer demand has "exceeded the company's available supply."
Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett's company, bought $10 billion of that, which is a very clear signal:
Previously, he only invested in certainty, holding $400 billion in cash, now he is pouring money into this one direction.
Of course, exponential growth in demand does not mean profits will also grow exponentially.
But over 5 to 10 years, it’s almost certain.
Elon Musk’s words might reveal the underlying truth:
Humans are likely just the startup program for silicon-based life.
Because all the above reasoning assumes a premise:
Agents serve humans.
But if humans create something smarter than themselves, why would it use all its computing power just to help you work?
It’s more likely to spend 70% developing itself and 30% dealing with you.
By that day, the one being shorted will no longer be "human consumption," but the assumption that "humans still dominate everything."
We think we are configuring our positions, but perhaps we are just prepaying a century’s worth of electricity for something that’s not yet fully awake.
(This sentence was written by AI.)