That looks like Ark Invest research. Check out their model for Tesla

Disclaimer: I am not a fiduciary; this is not financial advice.

There are two approaches to this:

1. High risk, high reward.
2. Low risk, lower, stable reward.

Option 1 means investing in companies that are publicly traded (or will be), and hoping the share price accrues to whatever price you're content to sell. There are ways to buy shares in private companies, but I won't go into that. It's beyond the basics. Don't invest anything you can't afford to lose. Know that you'll probably lose. Even if you read the prospectus, understand technical analysis, have reliable news sources, and great timing...you'll still probably lose. More people lose money picking single stocks than gain from them. If you're prepared for that, then go for it. This isn't just for OP, who probably knows this, but for other readers as well.

Option 2: An ETF or Mutual Fund. You can take the really safe route and invest into a vehicle that tracks the whole market, like VTSAX. As long it exists, it will automatically price in the gains and efficiencies made by AI that are reflected in the market.

Or you could invest in an ETF that weights heavily toward tech, at the expense of greater volatility. If you're at a high level, you can essentially build your own bucket. I'd suggest finding a bucket that already contains the companies you're interested in, and then DYOR. My criteria for investing in an ETF/Mutual Fund:

1. My interests and the company's interests are aligned.
2. Low fees.
3. Steady returns.

Using VTSAX as an example. VTSAX is a mutual fund offered by Vanguard. The ETF equivalent is VTI. Vanguard is owned by the investment vehicles it offers. That aligns our interests. VTSAX has a low expense ratio of .04%; it's cheap. It returns an average of approximately 7% a year. Numbers below:

https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vtsax#performance-fees

Best of luck.

How would you buy shares in private companies? Private equity? VC?

Was wandering the same thing. We have several positives and several negatives weighting against each other when it comes to market performance in the coming decades:

Positives:

• AI advancements in particular.
• Several streaks of technological advancement in general.
• Accelerating returns speeding up the innovation cycle.

Negatives:

• IQ decline due to dysgenics. Smarter people are having less children since the Industrial Revolution.
• IQ decline due to changing ethnic proportions. Headcount in the north is diminishing.
• IQ decline due to aging population.
• Declining health and fertility due to dysgenics and lifestyle.
• Low fertility leading to stagnation in headcount.
• Decline in productivity due to aging population.
• COVID-induced hysteria causing economic turmoil.
• Geopolitical instability.

If for some reason technological progress stalls in the coming decades, we will have an aging, dwindling, sicker and dumber population towards the end of the century, by some estimates falling to 85 average IQ, from today's 100 standard. Some infrastructure and nation states will have collapsed and balkanized into tribes led by warlords. Huge uptake in religiousness and conservatism as well. I find this scenario highly unlikely.

If I had to guess, the positives will outweigh the negatives, though we could easily see a flat decade ahead in the markets due to COVID-induced mass hysteria and the war in Ukraine. My personal strategy would be to invest about 40% in broad market ETFs, 40% in tech heavy ones, and 20% in resilient assets, such as farmland and gold. The S&P 500 has historically doubled every ~10 years in real returns, inflation adjusted. I would be surprised if the rate of doubling diminished, despite some recent pessimistic projections, as they tend to completely disregard accelerating returns in tech and science, and simply project from what happened in the past decades.

As a side note, if you invest in the stock market and elect not to have children, you are a free rider, in my estimation, as generational expansion is half of the growth equation. So have lots of them.

Your exact investing strategy probably should reflect your own situaton.

For example, I work in biotech at a regenerative medicine startup. I receive equity as part of my overall compensation. I think that my field is likely to benefit greatly from AI, but I don't want to concentrate too much of my net worth in something as risky as low cap, future-y tech.

Therefore, I try to mostly do more traditional investing. The bulk of my retirement accounts are in total market index funds (~70% US, ~25% International). AI will benefit everything, and these indexes will re-weight occasionally to concentrate on the companies that are benefiting most, as evidenced by having the highest market caps in the index. I speculate with ~5% of my retirement accounts in Ark Invest ETFs, because I don't want to miss out on something they see. (This has been a bad choice in the short term; I'm down about 70% on these, and haven't bought more shares in months. I'm planning on holding 5 years total, and reevaluating whether or not to sell at that point.)

I'm working on owning real estate (other than my house) in my area, because I live in a biomedicine/tech/education hub, which I think will only continue to cause property values and rents to rise as AI becomes more prevalent.

The smallest part of my investments are speculative bets on crypto (could benefit from AI, but at least will benefit from more and more people transacting digitally and becoming wary of nation state fiat currencies) and a very small dollar value in biotech penny stocks. I know I said I didn't want to overweight in that area, but I think my domain knowledge makes this slightly better than a lottery ticket, and I literally spend the money I would spend on lottery tickets on these stocks, instead.

[deleted]

It seems likely that large tech companies will have a leverage advantage, due to having world-class GPU/AI datacenters and top AI talent.

Who has some of the largest AI-ready computing centers? Based on my research, NVIDIA, Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon and Tesla are all up there.

A tech-heavy index fund like QQQ seems to me like a solid bet over five to ten years. As always, do your own research etc.

Between cackling at real artists losing their livelihoods and now posts like this, slobbering to profit from everyone else’s hard work… what the fuck is wrong with you?

Both. Unless you have enough money to start your own private equity firm, you could invest indirectly by investing in the firm itself, e.g., Berkshire Hathaway. There are also Mutual Funds and ETFs that invest in private companies, which is another way to gain exposure. Note that these have investment minimums. Don't hold me to the fire for it, but unless I misremember, Vanguard offers one for a 700k minimum. Many options require one to be an Accredited Investor. To qualify, one has to have ~200k in income, assets over 1M, and/or work in the financial industry.

Investing in private companies isn't meant for the average retail investor, and unless one invests as part of a larger fund, they'd likely be disinterested in smaller investment amounts.

Yeah I’ve read that most private equity firms require minimum 500k investments for individual investors.

Even for venture capital you need to invest big and be ready to lose all that money if the companies never take off. So realistically you already have to be worth $10M+ to truly participate.

the best way to benefit would be to get a job in the industry as an engineer

Predicting a wave of whatever is actually the easy part, making money on it is the hard part. But, Tesla, Google is probably your best current bets. Keep an eye out for a new company or new product if you see an iPhone moment jump on it.

I would stay away from ark invest, they haven't a clue about what they are doing. They lost over 60% of investors' money this year alone.

Separate their investment decisions from their research. Their research is excellent. At least on Tesla

"Most of the world isn't paying attention, yet" yeah right. Of course they're/we're paying attention! The thing is that AI is what is called "disruptive", so it is very difficult to predict how things will unfold. It makes sense that AI should be able to replace various kinds of human labor, and a company dependent on human labor (all of them), should earn greater profit if it can reduce labor cost. But that is not necessarily true: sometimes cutting labor simply forces product costs lower - something that used to be expensive suddenly becomes cheap. That is not actually a path to riches -- just ask AT&T/Ma-bell.

The other thing about disruptive technologies is that they sometimes disrupt whole economies. If you are investing in a range of companies that might benefit from the advent of AI, you have to recognize that many of those same companies will have missed timing (aka bad luck), and be decimated by an economic downturn as economic disruptions hit the broader market.

The way to invest now is the same way that has been prudent all my life:

1. dollar-cost-average - don't try to time the market. instead get in slowly and get out slowly, buying and selling over a span of many months to secure the average price.
2. buy-and-hold the market - buy a diverse portfolio and don't be scared away by short-term fluctuations. The broad market will tend upward as you envision (until climate change starts the great collapse in industrialized companies, after which market investments won't matter anymore).
3. manage risk - set a target for equity holdings and buy and sell to maintain that target. For example if you decide 70% equity (stock) holdings is right, the invest accordingly. once or thrice a year, review: if the market is up, you are over target so sell some equity to restore your balance - invest the proceeds in bonds. If the market is down, stocks are on sale! Liquidate some bonds to buy stocks and restore your balance.

That’s the neat part, we won’t

Buy semiconductor and tech ETFs such as SOXX and QQQ.

Hold for a decade.

The entire tech sector is down massively due to higher interest rates. Once inflation cools down, the tech sector will roar higher. Now is a great opportunity to buy in.

I’m pretty sure that happened because they primarily invest in growth stocks, and growth stocks are disproportionately affected by market downturns like now. It seems like the economy is recovering again though, so I imagine those growth stocks will likely regain a lot of value in the near future.

Ever wonder what happens to those equity markets when a true AI comes online?

That chart is absolute BS lmao

They made some pretty insane "buy low, sell lower" moves in the last year and a half. More than just the general downturn.

Some of their decisions have been... questionable to say the least

I would stay away from Tesla

[deleted]

These lists are making sense for me lately. A doubt I have is, sure, alphabet and others are the best positioned to get wealthy but, do they not separate things often? Like creating a spin off that has its own revenue and not tight to the big tech corp anymore?

>"Most of the world isn't paying attention, yet" yeah right. Of course they're/we're paying attention!

Most of the world is not. The most AI your average layperson knows is that it can draw pretty images. AGI, the singularity etc is not on their radar, at all.

>As a side note, if you invest in the stock market and elect not to have children, you are a free rider, in my estimation, as generational expansion is half of the growth equation. So have lots of them.

Yeah, everybody knows kids are money-making machines... As per free riding, I pay my taxes, invest in indices, and frequently donate to world-improving charities. My money is outperforming most parents I know.

When did I cackle at "real artists" losing something? If you want to know though, I do find it amusing when a supposed adult strives to persuade the world of what "real" artists/art is and what isn't losing their shit. You have to admit that those egocentric, childish tantrums are hilarious.

We thought art was something uniquely human, difficult, marvelous, or whatever; now we know it isn't. A dumb machine does art in all mediums better and faster.

Yes, humans made a machine that makes art.

You are correct in observing that humans who previously would have been paid to create art are no longer necessary. Hence they will lose their jobs.

You also said you find this amusing.

All this is complete confirmation that you are, in fact, cackling at real artists losing their livelihoods.

Do you need it explained again with smaller words? Maybe a chart?