Anatoly Guin: Good afternoon, Boris.
Today we will discuss markets—potential markets for the PANC™ technology and for artificial intelligence in general. Please look at the first slide. This is a forecast produced by the major firm ARK Invest, which manages roughly $60 billion. It’s a prediction of AI development made just before—just a little before—that epochal surge of ChatGPT‑3.
The firm predicts that artificial intelligence will add roughly $30 trillion to market capitalization over the next 15–20 years.
I should remind you that one billion dollars—which, as you recall, is one‑thousandth of a trillion—amounts to roughly 14 cubic meters of $100 bills. The current figure under discussion is $30,000 billion.
But reality—especially after the hype around ChatGPT—so far exceeds these forecasts. So let’s examine how artificial intelligence might generate capitalization across individual markets. We will divide ARK Invest’s estimate into three parts—not multiply, which could also be done, but divide it into three—and, instead of using $30 trillion, we’ll take only $10 trillion.
Let’s assume that the new PANN™/PANC™ technologies—claimed to be a thousand times more efficient—capture only half of the market, and that license fees for applying PANN™/PANC™ amount to just one percent of the capital generated. Under those assumptions, the technology’s value can be estimated at $50 billion. That’s a very large sum, the revenue that would be generated by license sales. Let’s now examine the individual markets.
I chose three markets at random that are familiar to everyone. I selected them solely because they are universally understood.
The first market is telemedicine. I posed the question to the DeepSeek generative AI; you can verify the same through ChatGPT‑5.
DeepSeek gives the following forecast: under a baseline scenario, the market will reach $36 billion by 2030 and $111 billion by 2035.
Prompt to Deep Seek: “Estimate the market size of artificial intelligence in remote medical services, including telemedicine. Provide forecasts for 2030 and 2035.”
Estimated AI market size in remote medical services (including telemedicine) for 2024: approximately $3–10 billion (baseline estimate: $6 billion).
Forecast for 2030 (six years): depending on the scenario, $18 billion (conservative) to $68 billion (aggressive); baseline scenario ≈ $36 billion.
Forecast for 2035 (ten years): $36 billion (conservative) to $253 billion (aggressive); baseline scenario: $111 billion.
Let’s examine another market. I asked what the market size would be for artificial intelligence applications in business management and managerial decision‑making. It produced the following estimate.
Prompt to DeepSeek: “Estimate the market size for AI‑based applications for running businesses and solving managerial problems. Provide estimates for 2030 and 2035.”
Estimated market size for AI‑based business applications and managerial solutions in 2024 (baseline): $90 billion (range: $60–$120 billion).
Forecast for 2030: Conservative scenario: $269 billion; Baseline scenario: $434 billion; Aggressive scenario: $836 billion.
Forecast for 2035: Conservative: $541 billion; Baseline: $1.08 trillion; Aggressive: $2.55 trillion.
Incidentally, DeepSeek produced several pages detailing which sources it used, how it performed the calculations, and which methodologies it applied…
Finally, the third market I selected is unmanned transport systems and transport in general: ground, marine, and aerial. As well as transport management. Here’s what the chat produced:
Prompt to DeepSeek: “Estimate the market size for AI applications in transport—including ground, marine, and aerial transport, as well as unmanned vehicles. Provide estimates for 2030 and 2035.”
Baseline estimate of the AI applications market for transport (ground, marine, aerial, including unmanned vehicles) in 2024: $40 billion (range: $25–$60 billion).
Forecast for 2030: Conservative scenario: $84 billion; Baseline scenario: $153 billion; Aggressive scenario: $301 billion.
Forecast for 2035: Conservative: $135 billion; Baseline: $350 billion; Aggressive: $919 billion.
I selected only three markets. In reality there are many, many more. But now I want to put a question to Boris.
Please tell us which markets you consider most interesting for PANC™.
Boris Zlotin: Fundamentally, what are we discussing selling? Not merely recognition software for PANC™. It is the possibility of economically saturating the entire human environment with intelligence.
For example: the “smart home” is an enormous future market. The intelligent automobile, a domestic robot that serves as an assistant for virtually any task. The system we discussed earlier—”Alter-Ego,” or the “Second Self.” A partner, aide, friend, internet agent, and a host of other devices, whether already existing or yet to be invented.
But now I want to touch on a market that is discussed in the literature yet not strongly associated with artificial intelligence so far: the market of Human Pleasures.
Human pleasures can be divided into two broad groups.
- First: “animal” pleasures—those inherited from our animal nature. These include pleasures from food, sex, rest, the thrill of victory, control, and power. Life without them is unthinkable, and they do not require intelligence to the same degree. “Strength, not brains”—as the old saying goes.
- The second group comprises distinctly human joys tied to intellect, knowledge, and creativity. I would not be wrong to estimate that those capable of creativity and deriving great pleasure from it constitute roughly 5–10% of the population.
Knowledge and creativity are great sources of life’s pleasures. Yet most people are not aware of this, and many dismiss it and mock “nerds.” Much as my wife persuaded me for two years to try Roquefort cheese—I refused. When she finally convinced me, a new problem arose: I could not be dragged away from it.
Intellectual and creative pleasures represent a gigantic potential market. We did not discover it—it’s already actively developing. Even now there are numerous more‑or‑less creative games.
The emergence of simple, inexpensive, and easily scalable artificial intelligence—such as the PANC™ system we’re discussing—enables the next step in accessing intellectual and creative pleasures.
An additional question arises: would people care about pleasures if they lose their jobs? This is a real threat to many—already, numerous people are losing work due to the development of artificial intelligence.
But let us recall history. Early nineteenth century: Luddites destroy machines because machines deprive weavers of their livelihoods. Their destruction accomplishes little; they more often ruin their own lives. A couple of decades pass, and it turns out there isn’t less work but far more. Work itself becomes easier and more intellectual: not a hand weaver but a weaver operating a machine. Whereas people once wore one kind of shirt their whole lives, a profusion of different clothes now appears. Where tailoring served primarily the elite, it now serves the whole population. Instead of a blacksmith—a press operator; instead of a cart driver—a truck driver, and so on. Production based on machines and markets for new products undergoes astonishing development. Workers become scarce and wages rise…
This is the same path we are following now, but at a different level. Yes, transition periods have always been dangerous. Yes, some people are losing jobs now. But given today’s social conditions, this need not be a catastrophe. People can be given opportunities to retrain and to transition comfortably into new, higher‑level occupations and professions that will provide a sustained, substantial source of personal satisfaction.
The transition can occur not over decades, as in the nineteenth century, but within months toward more intellectual work. In the Luddites’ era, the heaviest manual tasks—digging, hammer‑work—were the first to be mechanized. Today, automation will displace the most tedious, monotonous tasks: assembly‑line work, typesetting, rudimentary accounting calculations, and simple roles such as typist, warehouse clerk, or guard. People thus have a chance to move into more creative, pleasure‑providing activities.
And that, in my view, is the most important point. I cannot put a monetary value on this. Indeed, perhaps it should not be monetized—the system’s attractiveness to people will inevitably spawn a large economy. Whether it amounts to $100 billion, $200 billion, or trillions is not the most relevant question right now. Let’s get on with the work rather than count chickens.
Anatoly Guin: Boris, I very much agree with you, and I would only add that entertainment can become highly intelligent. It already is evolving in that direction; engineering games already exist in which children build buildings and cities, design airplanes, and so forth.
I speak with teenagers playing such games—they train their minds effectively and acquire substantive, practical knowledge about airplanes, buildings, and so on. In this respect, learning through play, enabled by artificial intelligence, can reach an entirely new level. Incidentally, few realize that the education market is comparable in size to the automobile market, for example. In other words, it’s enormous.
Thank you very much for this conversation; as always, you developed it in a most interesting way.