Going back to the original "Bitter Lesson" article, I think the analogy to chess computers could be instructive here. A lot of institutional resources were spent trying to achieve "superhuman" chess performance, it was achieved, and today almost the entire TAM for computer chess is covered by good-enough Stockfish, while most of the money tied up in chess is in matching human players with each other across the world, and playing against computers is sort of what you do when you're learning, or don't have an internet connection, or you're embarrassed about your skill and don't want to get trash-talked by an Estonian teenager.

The "Second Bitter Lesson" of AI might be that "just because massive amounts of compute make something possible doesn't mean that there will be a commensurately massive market to justify that compute".

"Bitter Lesson" I think also underplays the amount of energy and structure and design that has to go into compute-intensive systems to make them succeed: Deep Blue and current engines like Stockfish take advantage of tablebases of opening and closing positions that are more like GOFAI than deep tree search. And the current crop of LLMs are not only taking advantage of expanded compute, but of the hard-won ability of companies in the 21st century to not only build and resource massive server farms, but mobilize armies of contractors in low-COL areas to hand-train models into usefulness.