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.
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama