The multi-trillion-dollar artificial intelligence (AI) boom was built on certainty that generative models would keep getting exponentially better. Spoiler alert: they are not.
In simple terms, “scaling laws” said that if you threw more data and computing power at an AI model, its capabilities would continuously grow. However, a recent flurry of press reports suggests that is no longer the case, and AI’s leading developers are finding their models are not improving as dramatically as they used to.
OpenAI’s Orion is not that much better at coding than the company’s last flagship model, GPT-4, Bloomberg News said, while Alphabet Inc’s Google is seeing only incremental improvements to its Gemini software. Anthropic, a major rival to both companies, has fallen behind on the release of its long-awaited Claude model.
Illustration: Mountain People
Executives at OpenAI, Anthropic and Google all told me without hesitation in recent months that AI development was not plateauing. However, they would say that. The truth is that long-held fears of diminishing returns for generative AI, predicted even by Bill Gates, are becoming real.
Ilya Sutskever, an AI icon who popularized the bigger-is-better approach to building large language models, recently told Reuters that it had leveled off.
“The 2010s were the age of scaling,” he said. “Now we’re back in the age of wonder and discovery once again.”
“Wonder and discovery” puts quite the positive spin on “we have no idea what to do next.” It could also, understandably, spark anxiety attacks for investors and businesses, who are expected to spend US$1 trillion on the infrastructure needed to deliver on AI’s promise to transform everything.
Wall Street banks, hedge funds and private equity firms are spending billions on funding the buildout of vast data centers, a recent Bloomberg News investigation showed.
Does this all add up to a terrible gamble? Not exactly.
There is no question that the main beneficiaries of the AI boom have been the world’s largest tech companies. Quarterly cloud storage revenue for Microsoft Corp, Google and Amazon Inc has been growing at a steady clip and their market capitalizations, along with those of Nvidia Corp, Apple Inc and Meta Platforms Inc, have soared by US$8 trillion in aggregate over the past two years. Returns on investment for everyone else — their customers — are taking longer to show up.
Yet a break in the market hype around AI could be useful, just as it has been for previous innovations. That is because technology typically does not hit a brick wall and die, but goes through an S-curve. The idea of the S-curve is that initial progress takes years before rapidly accelerating, as we have seen over the last two years with generative AI, before it starts to slow again and, crucially, evolve.
Critics over the years, for instance, regularly declared Moore’s Law dead just before a manufacturing breakthrough for chips pushed it forward again. The development of airplanes progressed at a glacial pace until the transition from propellers to jets in the late 1950s led to a leap forward — before the technology seemed to plateau. Just like chip manufacturing, aviation’s development did not stall, it transformed; passenger planes have become far more fuel efficient, safer and cheaper to operate, even if they are only nominally faster than they were in the 1960s.
A similar plateau for AI and its scaling laws might also mean a new approach to development and measuring success, which until now has focused too much on capability, and not enough on other areas such as safety. Some of the most advanced generative AI models fall short on critical areas such as security and fairness, according to a recent academic study that measured how well they followed Europe’s upcoming AI law.
For much of this year already, AI researchers have been looking at new paths for improving their models that do not just involve throwing more data and computing power at them. One approach is to focus on enhancing a model after it has been trained, in the so-called inference phase. This can involve giving a model extra time to process multiple possibilities before settling on an answer, and it is why OpenAI described its most recent model, o1, as being better at “reasoning.”
The beauty of the S-curve is that it can give everyone else some breathing room, instead of clamoring for the latest tech that would give them an edge over their competitors. Companies that have been experimenting with generative AI and grappling with ways to boost their productivity, now have some time to redesign their workflows and business processes to better capitalize on current AI models, which are already powerful. (Remember, it took years for businesses to reorganize themselves around computers in the 1980s.)
Stanford University professor Erik Brynjolfsson’s writing on the “productivity paradox” said that output often appears to stall or drop when major new technologies arrive, before surging. A pause for AI gives businesses more space in that all-important investment phase.
It also gives regulators time to design more effective guardrails. The EU’s AI Act, which companies would be subject to from 2026, needs to be more specific in how it defines harms. As standards bodies do that work, it helps that newfangled models leading to a batch of unexpected problems are not about to flood the market.
Generative AI has been on a bullet train during the past two years, and the momentum has clearly been lucrative for tech giants. A slowdown at the station offers a much-needed break for everyone else.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of Supremacy: AI, ChatGPT and the Race That Will Change the World.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
RSS