Free shipping on orders in North America

Artificial Intelligence

, ,

Generative AI hype distracts us from AI’s more important breakthroughs

On April 28, 2022, at a highly anticipated concert in Spokane, Washington, the musician Paul McCartney astonished his audience with a groundbreaking application of AI: He began to perform with a lifelike depiction of his long-deceased musical partner, John Lennon. 

Using recent advances in audio and video processing, engineers had taken the pair’s final performance (London, 1969), separated Lennon’s voice and image from the original mix and restored them with lifelike clarity.

This story is part of MIT Technology Review’s Hype Correction package, a series that resets expectations about what AI is, what it makes possible, and where we go next.

For years, researchers like me had taught machines to “see” and “hear” in order to make such a moment possible. As McCartney and Lennon appeared to reunite across time and space, the arena fell silent; many in the crowd began to cry. As an AI scientist and lifelong Beatles fan, I felt profound gratitude that we could experience this truly life-changing moment. 

Later that year, the world was captivated by another major breakthrough: AI conversation. For the first time in history, systems capable of generating new, contextually relevant comments in real time, on virtually any subject, were widely accessible owing to the release of ChatGPT. Billions of people were suddenly able to interact with AI. This ignited the public’s imagination about what AI could be, bringing an explosion of creative ideas, hopes, and fears.

Having done my PhD on AI language generation (long considered niche), I was thrilled we had come this far. But the awe I felt was rivaled by my growing rage at the flood of media takes and self-appointed experts insisting that generative AI could do things it simply can’t, and warning that anyone who didn’t adopt it would be left behind.

This kind of hype has contributed to a frenzy of misunderstandings about what AI actually is and what it can and cannot do. Crucially, generative AI is a seductive distraction from the type of AI that is most likely to make your life better, or even save it: Predictive AI. In contrast to AI designed for generative tasks, predictive AI involves tasks with a finite, known set of answers; the system just has to process information to say which answer is right. A basic example is plant recognition: Point your phone camera at a plant and learn that it’s a Western sword fern. Generative tasks, in contrast, have no finite set of correct answers: The system must blend snippets of information it’s been trained on to create, for example, a novel picture of a fern. 

The generative AI technology involved in chatbots, face-swaps, and synthetic video makes for stunning demos, driving clicks and sales as viewers run wild with ideas that superhuman AI will be capable of bringing us abundance or extinction. Yet predictive AI has quietly been improving weather prediction and food safety, enabling higher-quality music production, helping to organize photos, and accurately predicting the fastest driving routes. We incorporate predictive AI into our everyday lives without evening thinking about it, a testament to its indispensable utility.

To get a sense of the immense progress on predictive AI and its future potential, we can look at the trajectory of the past 20 years. In 2005, we couldn’t get AI to tell the difference between a person and a pencil. By 2013, AI still couldn’t reliably detect a bird in a photo, and the difference between a pedestrian and a Coke bottle was massively confounding (this is how I learned that bottles do kind of look like people, if people had no heads). The thought of deploying these systems in the real world was the stuff of science fiction. 

Yet over the past 10 years, predictive AI has not only nailed bird detection down to the specific species; it has rapidly improved life-critical medical services like identifying problematic lesions and heart arrhythmia. Because of this technology, seismologists can predict earthquakes and meteorologists can predict flooding more reliably than ever before. Accuracy has skyrocketed for consumer-facing tech that detects and classifies everything from what song you’re thinking of when you hum a tune to which objects to avoid while you’re driving—making self-driving cars a reality. 

In the very near future, we should be able to accurately detect tumors and forecast hurricanes long before they can hurt anyone, realizing the lifelong hopes of people all over the world. That might not be as flashy as generating your own Studio Ghibli–ish film, but it’s definitely hype-worthy. 

Predictive AI systems have also been shown to be incredibly useful when they leverage certain generative techniques within a constrained set of options. Systems of this type are diverse, spanning everything from outfit visualization to cross-language translation. Soon, predictive-generative hybrid systems will make it possible to clone your own voice speaking another language in real time, an extraordinary aid for travel (with serious impersonation risks). There’s considerable room for growth here, but generative AI delivers real value when anchored by strong predictive methods.

To understand the difference between these two broad classes of AI, imagine yourself as an AI system tasked with showing someone what a cat looks like. You could adopt a generative approach, cutting and pasting small fragments from various cat images (potentially from sources that object) to construct a seemingly perfect depiction. The ability of modern generative AI to produce such a flawless collage is what makes it so astonishing.

Alternatively, you could take the predictive approach: Simply locate and point to an existing picture of a cat. That method is much less glamorous but more energy-efficient and more likely to be accurate, and it properly acknowledges the original source. Generative AI is designed to create things that look real; predictive AI identifies what is real. A misunderstanding that generative systems are retrieving things when they are actually creating them has led to grave consequences when text is involved, requiring the withdrawal of legal rulings and the retraction of scientific articles.

Driving this confusion is a tendency for people to hype AI without making it clear what kind of AI they’re talking about (I reckon many don’t know). It’s very easy to equate “AI” with generative AI, or even just language-generating AI, and assume that all other capabilities fall out from there. That fallacy makes a ton of sense: The term literally references “intelligence,” and our human understanding of what “intelligence” might be is often mediated by the use of language. (Spoiler: No one actually knows what intelligence is.) But the phrase “artificial intelligence” was intentionally designed in the 1950s to inspire awe and allude to something humanlike. Today, it just refers to a set of disparate technologies for processing digital data. Some of my friends find it helpful to call it “mathy maths” instead.

The bias toward treating generative AI as the most powerful and real form of AI is troubling given that it consumes considerably more energy than predictive AI systems. It also means using existing human work in AI products against the original creators’ wishes and replacing human jobs with AI systems whose capabilities their work made possible in the first place—without compensation. AI can be amazingly powerful, but that doesn’t mean creators should be ripped off. 

Watching this unfold as an AI developer within the tech industry, I’ve drawn important lessons for next steps. The widespread appeal of AI is clearly linked to the intuitive nature of conversation-based interactions. But this method of engagement currently overuses generative methods where predictive ones would suffice, resulting in an awkward situation that’s confusing for users while imposing heavy costs in energy consumption, exploitation, and job displacement. 

We have witnessed just a glimpse of AI’s full potential: The current excitement around AI reflects what it could be, not what it is. Generation-based approaches strain resources while still falling short on representation, accuracy, and the wishes of people whose work is folded into the system. 

If we can shift the spotlight from the hype around generative technologies to the predictive advances already transforming daily life, we can build AI that is genuinely useful, equitable, and sustainable. The systems that help doctors catch diseases earlier, help scientists forecast disasters sooner, and help everyday people navigate their lives more safely are the ones poised to deliver the greatest impact. 

The future of beneficial AI will not be defined by the flashiest demos but by the quiet, rigorous progress that makes technology trustworthy. And if we build on that foundation—pairing predictive strength with more mature data practices and intuitive natural-language interfaces—AI can finally start living up to the promise that many people perceive today.

Dr. Margaret Mitchell is a computer science researcher and chief ethics scientist at AI startup Hugging Face. She has worked in the technology industry for 15 years, and has published over 100 papers on natural language generation, assistive technology, computer vision, and AI ethics. Her work has received numerous awards and has been implemented by multiple technology companies.

Source Link Generative AI hype distracts us from AI’s more important breakthroughs
MIT Technology Review

, , ,

AI might not be coming for lawyers’ jobs anytime soon

When the generative AI boom took off in 2022, Rudi Miller and her law school classmates were suddenly gripped with anxiety. “Before graduating, there was discussion about what the job market would look like for us if AI became adopted,” she recalls. 

So when it came time to choose a speciality, Miller—now a junior associate at the law firm Orrick—decided to become a litigator, the kind of lawyer who represents clients in court. She hoped the courtroom would be the last human stage. “Judges haven’t allowed ChatGPT-enabled robots to argue in court yet,” she says.

This story is part of MIT Technology Review’s Hype Correction package, a series that resets expectations about what AI is, what it makes possible, and where we go next.

She had reason to be worried. The artificial-intelligence job apocalypse seemed to be coming for lawyers. In March 2023, researchers reported that GPT-4 had smashed the Uniform Bar Exam. That same month, an industry report predicted that 44% of legal work could be automated. The legal tech industry entered a boom as law firms began adopting generative AI to mine mountains of documents and draft contracts, work ordinarily done by junior associates. Last month, the law firm Clifford Chance axed 10% of its staff in London, citing increased use of AI as a reason.

But for all the hype, LLMs are still far from thinking like lawyers—let alone replacing them. The models continue to hallucinate case citations, struggle to navigate gray areas of the law and reason about novel questions, and stumble when they attempt to synthesize information scattered across statutes, regulations, and court cases. And there are deeper institutional reasons to think the models could struggle to supplant legal jobs. While AI is reshaping the grunt work of the profession, the end of lawyers may not be arriving anytime soon.

The big experiment

The legal industry has long been defined by long hours and grueling workloads, so the promise of superhuman efficiency is appealing. Law firms are experimenting with general-purpose tools like ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot and specialized legal tools like Harvey and Thomson Reuters’ CoCounsel, with some building their own in-house tools on top of frontier models. They’re rolling out AI boot camps and letting associates bill hundreds of hours to AI experimentation. As of 2024, 47.8% of attorneys at law firms employing 500 or more lawyers used AI, according to the American Bar Association. 

But lawyers say that LLMs are a long way from reasoning well enough to replace them. Lucas Hale, a junior associate at McDermott Will & Schulte, has been embracing AI for many routine chores. He uses Relativity to sift through long documents and Microsoft Copilot for drafting legal citations. But when he turns to ChatGPT with a complex legal question, he finds the chatbot spewing hallucinations, rambling off topic, or drawing a blank.

“In the case where we have a very narrow question or a question of first impression for the court,” he says, referring to a novel legal question that a court has never decided before, “that’s the kind of thinking that the tool can’t do.”

Much of Lucas’s work involves creatively applying the law to new fact patterns. “Right now, I don’t think very much of the work that litigators do, at least not the work that I do, can be outsourced to an AI utility,” he says.

Allison Douglis, a senior associate at Jenner & Block, uses an LLM to kick off her legal research. But the tools only take her so far. “When it comes to actually fleshing out and developing an argument as a litigator, I don’t think they’re there,” she says. She has watched the models hallucinate case citations and fumble through ambiguous areas of the law.

“Right now, I would much rather work with a junior associate than an AI tool,” she says. “Unless they get extraordinarily good very quickly, I can’t imagine that changing in the near future.”

Beyond the bar

The legal industry has seemed ripe for an AI takeover ever since ChatGPT’s triumph on the bar exam. But passing a standardized test isn’t the same as practicing law. The exam tests whether people can memorize legal rules and apply them to hypothetical situations—not whether they can exercise strategic judgment in complicated realities or craft arguments in uncharted legal territory. And models can be trained to ace benchmarks without genuinely improving their reasoning.

But new benchmarks are aiming to better measure the models’ ability to do legal work in the real world. The Professional Reasoning Benchmark, published by ScaleAI in November, evaluated leading LLMs on legal and financial tasks designed by professionals in the field. The study found that the models have critical gaps in their reliability for professional adoption, with the best-performing model scoring only 37% on the most difficult legal problems, meaning it met just over a third of possible points on the evaluation criteria. The models frequently made inaccurate legal judgments, and if they did reach correct conclusions, they did so through incomplete or opaque reasoning processes. 

“The tools actually are not there to basically substitute [for] your lawyer,” says Afra Feyza Akyurek, the lead author of the paper. “Even though a lot of people think that LLMs have a good grasp of the law, it’s still lagging behind.” 

The paper builds on other benchmarks measuring the models’ performance on economically valuable work. The AI Productivity Index, published by the data firm Mercor in September and updated in December, found that the models have “substantial limitations” in performing legal work. The best-performing model scored 77.9% on legal tasks, meaning it satisfied roughly four out of five evaluation criteria. A model with such a score might generate substantial economic value in some industries, but in fields where errors are costly, it may not be useful at all, the early version of the study noted.  

Professional benchmarks are a big step forward in evaluating the LLMs’ real-world capabilities, but they may still not capture what lawyers actually do. “These questions, although more challenging than those in past benchmarks, still don’t fully reflect the kinds of subjective, extremely challenging questions lawyers tackle in real life,” says Jon Choi, a law professor at the University of Washington School of Law, who coauthored a study on legal benchmarks in 2023. 

Unlike math or coding, in which LLMs have made significant progress, legal reasoning may be challenging for the models to learn. The law deals with messy real-world problems, riddled with ambiguity and subjectivity, that often have no right answer, says Choi. Making matters worse, a lot of legal work isn’t recorded in ways that can be used to train the models, he says. When it is, documents can span hundreds of pages, scattered across statutes, regulations, and court cases that exist in a complex hierarchy.  

But a more fundamental limitation might be that LLMs are simply not trained to think like lawyers. “The reasoning models still don’t fully reason about problems like we humans do,” says Julian Nyarko, a law professor at Stanford Law School. The models may lack a mental model of the world—the ability to simulate a scenario and predict what will happen—and that capability could be at the heart of complex legal reasoning, he says. It’s possible that the current paradigm of LLMs trained on next-word prediction gets us only so far.  

The jobs remain

Despite early signs that AI is beginning to affect entry-level workers, labor statistics have yet to show that lawyers are being displaced. 93.4% of law school graduates in 2024 were employed within 10 months of graduation—the highest rate on record—according to the National Association for Law Placement. The number of graduates working in law firms rose by 13% from 2023 to 2024. 

For now, law firms are slow to shrink their ranks. “We’re not reducing headcounts at this point,” said Amy Ross, the chief of attorney talent at the law firm Ropes & Gray. 

Even looking ahead, the effects could be incremental. “I will expect some impact on the legal profession’s labor market, but not major,” says Mert Demirer, an economist at MIT. “AI is going to be very useful in terms of information discovery and summary,” he says, but for complex legal tasks, “the law’s low risk tolerance, plus the current capabilities of AI, are going to make that case less automatable at this point.” Capabilities may evolve over time, but that’s a big unknown.

It’s not just that the models themselves are not ready to replace junior lawyers. Institutional barriers may also shape how AI is deployed. Higher productivity reduces billable hours, challenging the dominant business model of law firms. Liability looms large for lawyers, and clients may still want a human on the hook. Regulations could also constrain how lawyers use the technology.

Still, as AI takes on some associate work, law firms may need to reinvent their training system. “When junior work dries up, you have to have a more formal way of teaching than hoping that an apprenticeship works,” says Ethan Mollick, a management professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Zach Couger, a junior associate at McDermott Will & Schulte, leans on ChatGPT to comb through piles of contracts he once slogged through by hand. He can’t imagine going back to doing the job himself, but he wonders what he’s missing. 

“I’m worried that I’m not getting the same reps that senior attorneys got,” he says, referring to the repetitive training that has long defined the early experiences of lawyers. “On the other hand, it is very nice to have a semi–knowledge expert to just ask questions to that’s not a partner who’s also very busy.” 

Even though an AI job apocalypse looks distant, the uncertainty sticks with him. Lately, Couger finds himself staying up late, wondering if he could be part of the last class of associates at big law firms: “I may be the last plane out.”

Source Link AI might not be coming for lawyers’ jobs anytime soon
MIT Technology Review

, , ,

What even is the AI bubble?

MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here.

In July, a widely cited MIT study claimed that 95% of organizations that invested in generative AI were getting “zero return.” Tech stocks briefly plunged. While the study itself was more nuanced than the headlines, for many it still felt like the first hard data point confirming what skeptics had muttered for months: Hype around AI might be outpacing reality.

Then, in August, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said what everyone in Silicon Valley had been whispering. “Are we in a phase where investors as a whole are overexcited about AI?” he said during a press dinner I attended. “My opinion is yes.” 

This story is part of MIT Technology Review’s Hype Correction package, a series that resets expectations about what AI is, what it makes possible, and where we go next.

He compared the current moment to the dot-com bubble. “When bubbles happen, smart people get overexcited about a kernel of truth,” he explained. “Tech was really important. The internet was a really big deal. People got overexcited.” 

With those comments, it was off to the races. The next day’s stock market dip was attributed to the sentiment he shared. The question “Are we in an AI bubble?” became inescapable.

Who thinks it is a bubble? 

The short answer: Lots of people. But not everyone agrees on who or what is overinflated. Tech leaders are using this moment of fear to take shots at their rivals and position themselves as clear winners on the other side. How they describe the bubble depends on where their company sits.

When I asked Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the AI bubble in September, he ran through the historical analogies of past bubbles—railroads, fiber for the internet, the dot-com boom—and noted that in each case, “the infrastructure gets built out, people take on too much debt, and then you hit some blip … and then a lot of the companies end up going out of business.”

But Zuckerberg’s prescription wasn’t for Meta to pump the brakes. It was to keep spending: “If we end up misspending a couple of hundred billion dollars, I think that that is going to be very unfortunate, obviously. But I’d say the risk is higher on the other side.”

Bret Taylor, the chairman of OpenAI and CEO of the AI startup Sierra, uses a mental model from the late ’90s to help navigate this AI bubble. “I think the closest analogue to this AI wave is the dot-com boom or bubble, depending on your level of pessimism,” he recently told me. Back then, he explained, everyone knew e-commerce was going to be big, but there was a massive difference between Buy.com and Amazon. Taylor and others have been trying to position themselves as today’s Amazon.

Still others are arguing that the pain will be widespread. Google CEO Sundar Pichai told the BBC this month that there’s “some irrationality” in the current boom. Asked whether Google would be immune to a bubble bursting, he warned, “I think no company is going to be immune, including us.”

What’s inflating the bubble?

Companies are raising enormous sums of money and seeing unprecedented valuations. Much of that money, in turn, is going toward the buildout of massive data centers—on which both private companies like OpenAI and Elon Musk’s xAI and public ones such as Meta and Google are spending heavily. OpenAI has pledged that it will spend $500 billion to build AI data centers, more than 15 times what was spent on the Manhattan Project.

This eye-popping spending on AI data centers isn’t entirely detached from reality. The leaders of the top AI companies all stress that they’re bottlenecked by their limited access to computing power. You hear it constantly when you talk to them. Startups can’t get the GPU allocations they need. Hyperscalers are rationing compute, saving it for their best customers.

If today’s AI market is as brutally supply-constrained as tech leaders claim, perhaps aggressive infrastructure buildouts are warranted. But some of the numbers are too large to comprehend. Sam Altman has told employees that OpenAI’s moonshot goal is to build 250 gigawatts of computing capacity by 2033, roughly equaling India’s total national electricity demand. Such a plan would cost more than $12 trillion by today’s standards.

“I do think there’s real execution risk,” OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman recently told me about the company’s aggressive infrastructure goals. “Everything we say about the future, we see that it’s a possibility. It is not a certainty, but I don’t think the uncertainty comes from scientific questions. It’s a lot of hard work.”

Who is exposed, and who is to blame?

It depends on who you ask. During the August press dinner, where he made his market-moving comments, Altman was blunt about where he sees the excess. He said it’s “insane” that some AI startups with “three people and an idea” are receiving funding at such high valuations. “That’s not rational behavior,” he said. “Someone’s gonna get burned there, I think.” As Safe Superintelligence cofounder (and former OpenAI chief scientist and cofounder) Ilya Sutskever put it on a recent podcast: Silicon Valley has “more companies than ideas.”

Demis Hassabis, the CEO of Google DeepMind, offered a similar diagnosis when I spoke with him in November. “It feels like there’s obviously a bubble in the private market,” he said. “You look at seed rounds with just nothing being tens of billions of dollars. That seems a little unsustainable.”

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei also struck at his competition during the New York Times DealBook Summit in early December. He said he feels confident about the technology itself but worries about how others are behaving on the business side: “On the economic side, I have my concerns where, even if the technology fulfills all its promises, I think there are players in the ecosystem who, if they just make a timing error, they just get it off by a little bit, bad things could happen.”

He stopped short of naming Sam Altman and OpenAI, but the implication was clear. “There are some players who are YOLOing,” he said. “Let’s say you’re a person who just kind of constitutionally wants to YOLO things or just likes big numbers. Then you may turn the dial too far.”

Amodei also flagged “circular deals,” or the increasingly common arrangements where chip suppliers like Nvidia invest in AI companies that then turn around and spend those funds on their chips. Anthropic has done some of these, he said, though “not at the same scale as some other players.” (OpenAI is at the center of a number of such deals, as are Nvidia, CoreWeave, and a roster of other players.) 

The danger, he explained, comes when the numbers get too big: “If you start stacking these where they get to huge amounts of money, and you’re saying, ’By 2027 or 2028 I need to make $200 billion a year,’ then yeah, you can overextend yourself.”

Zuckerberg shared a similar message at an internal employee Q&A session after Meta’s last earnings call. He noted that unprofitable startups like OpenAI and Anthropic risk bankruptcy if they misjudge the timing of their investments, but Meta has the advantage of strong cash flow, he reassured staff.

How could a bubble burst?

My conversations with tech executives and investors suggest that the bubble will be most likely to pop if overfunded startups can’t turn a profit or grow into their lofty valuations. This bubble could last longer than than past ones, given that private markets aren’t traded on public markets and therefore move more slowly, but the ripple effects will still be profound when the end comes. 

If companies making grand commitments to data center buildouts no longer have the revenue growth to support them, the headline deals that have propped up the stock market come into question. Anthropic’s Amodei illustrated the problem during his DealBook Summit appearance, where he said the multi-year data center commitments he has to make combine with the company’s rapid, unpredictable revenue growth rate to create a “cone of uncertainty” about how much to spend.

The two most prominent private players in AI, OpenAI and Anthropic, have yet to turn a profit. A recent Deutsche Bank chart put the situation in stark historical context. Amazon burned through $3 billion before becoming profitable. Tesla, around $4 billion. Uber, $30 billion. OpenAI is projected to burn through $140 billion by 2029, while Anthropic is expected to burn $20 billion by 2027.

Consultants at Bain estimate that the wave of AI infrastructure spending will require $2 trillion in annual AI revenue by 2030 just to justify the investment. That’s more than the combined 2024 revenue of Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Meta, and Nvidia. When I talk to leaders of these large tech companies, they all agree that their sprawling businesses can absorb an expensive miscalculation about the returns from their AI infrastructure buildouts. It’s all the other companies that are either highly leveraged with debt or just unprofitable—even OpenAI and Anthropic—that they worry about. 

Still, given the level of spending on AI, it still needs a viable business model beyond subscriptions, which won’t be able to  drive profits from billions of people’s eyeballs like the ad-driven businesses that have defined the last 20 years of the internet. Even the largest tech companies know they need to ship the world-changing agents they keep hyping: AI that can fully replace coworkers and complete tasks in the real world.

For now, investors are mostly buying into the hype of the powerful AI systems that these data center buildouts will supposedly unlock in the future. At some point the biggest spenders, like OpenAI, will need to show investors that the money spent on the infrastructure buildout was worth it.

There’s also still a lot of uncertainty about the technical direction that AI is heading in. LLMs are expected to remain critical to more advanced AI systems, but industry leaders can’t seem to agree on which additional breakthroughs are needed to achieve artificial general intelligence, or AGI. Some are betting on new kinds of AI that can understand the physical world, while others are focused on training AI to learn in a general way, like a human. In other words, what if all this unprecedented spending turns out to have been backing the wrong horse?

The question now

What makes this moment surreal is the honesty. The same people pouring billions into AI will openly tell you it might all come crashing down. 

Taylor framed it as two truths existing at once. “I think it is both true that AI will transform the economy,” he told me, “and I think we’re also in a bubble, and a lot of people will lose a lot of money. I think both are absolutely true at the same time.”

He compared it to the internet. Webvan failed, but Instacart succeeded years later with essentially the same idea. If you were an Amazon shareholder from its IPO to now, you’re looking pretty good. If you were a Webvan shareholder, you probably feel differently. 

“When the dust settles and you see who the winners are, society benefits from those inventions,” Amazon founder Jeff Bezos said in October. “This is real. The benefit to society from AI is going to be gigantic.”

Goldman Sachs says the AI boom now looks the way tech stocks did in 1997, several years before the dot-com bubble actually burst. The bank flagged five warning signs seen in the late 1990s that investors should watch now: peak investment spending, falling corporate profits, rising corporate debt, Fed rate cuts, and widening credit spreads. We’re probably not at 1999 levels yet. But the imbalances are building fast. Michael Burry, who famously called the 2008 housing bubble collapse (as seen in the film The Big Short), recently compared the AI boom to the 1990s dot-com bubble too.

Maybe AI will save us from our own irrational exuberance. But for now, we’re living in an in-between moment when everyone knows what’s coming but keeps blowing more air into the balloon anyway. As Altman put it that night at dinner: “Someone is going to lose a phenomenal amount of money. We don’t know who.”

Alex Heath is the author of Sources, a newsletter about the AI race, and the cohost of ACCESS, a podcast about the tech industry’s inside conversations. Previously, he was deputy editor at The Verge.

Source Link What even is the AI bubble?
MIT Technology Review

, , ,

AI materials discovery now needs to move into the real world

The microwave-size instrument at Lila Sciences in Cambridge, Massachusetts, doesn’t look all that different from others that I’ve seen in state-of-the-art materials labs. Inside its vacuum chamber, the machine zaps a palette of different elements to create vaporized particles, which then fly through the chamber and land to create a thin film, using a technique called sputtering. What sets this instrument apart is that artificial intelligence is running the experiment; an AI agent, trained on vast amounts of scientific literature and data, has determined the recipe and is varying the combination of elements. 

Later, a person will walk the samples, each containing multiple potential catalysts, over to a different part of the lab for testing. Another AI agent will scan and interpret the data, using it to suggest another round of experiments to try to optimize the materials’ performance.  

This story is part of MIT Technology Review’s Hype Correction package, a series that resets expectations about what AI is, what it makes possible, and where we go next.

For now, a human scientist keeps a close eye on the experiments and will approve the next steps on the basis of the AI’s suggestions and the test results. But the startup is convinced this AI-controlled machine is a peek into the future of materials discovery—one in which autonomous labs could make it far cheaper and faster to come up with novel and useful compounds. 

Flush with hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding, Lila Sciences is one of AI’s latest unicorns. The company is on a larger mission to use AI-run autonomous labs for scientific discovery—the goal is to achieve what it calls scientific superintelligence. But I’m here this morning to learn specifically about the discovery of new materials. 

""
Lila Sciences’ John Gregoire (background) and Rafael Gómez-Bombarelli watch as an AI-guided sputtering instrument makes samples of thin-film alloys.
CODY O’LOUGHLIN

We desperately need better materials to solve our problems. We’ll need improved electrodes and other parts for more powerful batteries; compounds to more cheaply suck carbon dioxide out of the air; and better catalysts to make green hydrogen and other clean fuels and chemicals. And we will likely need novel materials like higher-temperature superconductors, improved magnets, and different types of semiconductors for a next generation of breakthroughs in everything from quantum computing to fusion power to AI hardware. 

But materials science has not had many commercial wins in the last few decades. In part because of its complexity and the lack of successes, the field has become something of an innovation backwater, overshadowed by the more glamorous—and lucrative—search for new drugs and insights into biology.

The idea of using AI for materials discovery is not exactly new, but it got a huge boost in 2020 when DeepMind showed that its AlphaFold2 model could accurately predict the three-dimensional structure of proteins. Then, in 2022, came the success and popularity of ChatGPT. The hope that similar AI models using deep learning could aid in doing science captivated tech insiders. Why not use our new generative AI capabilities to search the vast chemical landscape and help simulate atomic structures, pointing the way to new substances with amazing properties?

“Simulations can be super powerful for framing problems and understanding what is worth testing in the lab. But there’s zero problems we can ever solve in the real world with simulation alone.”

John Gregoire, Lila Sciences, chief autonomous science officer

Researchers touted an AI model that had reportedly discovered “millions of new materials.” The money began pouring in, funding a host of startups. But so far there has been no “eureka” moment, no ChatGPT-like breakthrough—no discovery of new miracle materials or even slightly better ones.

The startups that want to find useful new compounds face a common bottleneck: By far the most time-consuming and expensive step in materials discovery is not imagining new structures but making them in the real world. Before trying to synthesize a material, you don’t know if, in fact, it can be made and is stable, and many of its properties remain unknown until you test it in the lab.

“Simulations can be super powerful for kind of framing problems and understanding what is worth testing in the lab,” says John Gregoire, Lila Sciences’ chief autonomous science officer. “But there’s zero problems we can ever solve in the real world with simulation alone.” 

Startups like Lila Sciences have staked their strategies on using AI to transform experimentation and are building labs that use agents to plan, run, and interpret the results of experiments to synthesize new materials. Automation in laboratories already exists. But the idea is to have AI agents take it to the next level by directing autonomous labs, where their tasks could include designing experiments and controlling the robotics used to shuffle samples around. And, most important, companies want to use AI to vacuum up and analyze the vast amount of data produced by such experiments in the search for clues to better materials.

If they succeed, these companies could shorten the discovery process from decades to a few years or less, helping uncover new materials and optimize existing ones. But it’s a gamble. Even though AI is already taking over many laboratory chores and tasks, finding new—and useful—materials on its own is another matter entirely. 

Innovation backwater

I have been reporting about materials discovery for nearly 40 years, and to be honest, there have been only a few memorable commercial breakthroughs, such as lithium-­ion batteries, over that time. There have been plenty of scientific advances to write about, from perovskite solar cells to graphene transistors to metal-­organic frameworks (MOFs), materials based on an intriguing type of molecular architecture that recently won its inventors a Nobel Prize. But few of those advances—including MOFs—have made it far out of the lab. Others, like quantum dots, have found some commercial uses, but in general, the kinds of life-changing inventions created in earlier decades have been lacking. 

Blame the amount of time (typically 20 years or more) and the hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to make, test, optimize, and manufacture a new material—and the industry’s lack of interest in spending that kind of time and money in low-margin commodity markets. Or maybe we’ve just run out of ideas for making stuff.

The need to both speed up that process and find new ideas is the reason researchers have turned to AI. For decades, scientists have used computers to design potential materials, calculating where to place atoms to form structures that are stable and have predictable characteristics. It’s worked—but only kind of. Advances in AI have made that computational modeling far faster and have promised the ability to quickly explore a vast number of possible structures. Google DeepMind, Meta, and Microsoft have all launched efforts to bring AI tools to the problem of designing new materials. 

But the limitations that have always plagued computational modeling of new materials remain. With many types of materials, such as crystals, useful characteristics often can’t be predicted solely by calculating atomic structures.

To uncover and optimize those properties, you need to make something real. Or as Rafael Gómez-Bombarelli, one of Lila’s cofounders and an MIT professor of materials science, puts it: “Structure helps us think about the problem, but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient for real materials problems.”

Perhaps no advance exemplified the gap between the virtual and physical worlds more than DeepMind’s announcement in late 2023 that it had used deep learning to discover “millions of new materials,” including 380,000 crystals that it declared “the most stable, making them promising candidates for experimental synthesis.” In technical terms, the arrangement of atoms represented a minimum energy state where they were content to stay put. This was “an order-of-magnitude expansion in stable materials known to humanity,” the DeepMind researchers proclaimed.

To the AI community, it appeared to be the breakthrough everyone had been waiting for. The DeepMind research not only offered a gold mine of possible new materials, it also created powerful new computational methods for predicting a large number of structures.

But some materials scientists had a far different reaction. After closer scrutiny, researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said they’d found “scant evidence for compounds that fulfill the trifecta of novelty, credibility, and utility.” In fact, the scientists reported, they didn’t find any truly novel compounds among the ones they looked at; some were merely “trivial” variations of known ones. The scientists appeared particularly peeved that the potential compounds were labeled materials. They wrote: “We would respectfully suggest that the work does not report any new materials but reports a list of proposed compounds. In our view, a compound can be called a material when it exhibits some functionality and, therefore, has potential utility.”

Some of the imagined crystals simply defied the conditions of the real world. To do computations on so many possible structures, DeepMind researchers simulated them at absolute zero, where atoms are well ordered; they vibrate a bit but don’t move around. At higher temperatures—the kind that would exist in the lab or anywhere in the world—the atoms fly about in complex ways, often creating more disorderly crystal structures. A number of the so-called novel materials predicted by DeepMind appeared to be well-ordered versions of disordered ones that were already known. 

More generally, the DeepMind paper was simply another reminder of how challenging it is to capture physical realities in virtual simulations—at least for now. Because of the limitations of computational power, researchers typically perform calculations on relatively few atoms. Yet many desirable properties are determined by the microstructure of the materials—at a scale much larger than the atomic world. And some effects, like high-temperature superconductivity or even the catalysis that is key to many common industrial processes, are far too complex or poorly understood to be explained by atomic simulations alone.

A common language

Even so, there are signs that the divide between simulations and experimental work is beginning to narrow. DeepMind, for one, says that since the release of the 2023 paper it has been working with scientists in labs around the world to synthesize AI-identified compounds and has achieved some success. Meanwhile, a number of the startups entering the space are looking to combine computational and experimental expertise in one organization. 

One such startup is Periodic Labs, cofounded by Ekin Dogus Cubuk, a physicist who led the scientific team that generated the 2023 DeepMind headlines, and by Liam Fedus, a co-creator of ChatGPT at OpenAI. Despite its founders’ background in computational modeling and AI software, the company is building much of its materials discovery strategy around synthesis done in automated labs. 

The vision behind the startup is to link these different fields of expertise by using large language models that are trained on scientific literature and able to learn from ongoing experiments. An LLM might suggest the recipe and conditions to make a compound; it can also interpret test data and feed additional suggestions to the startup’s chemists and physicists. In this strategy, simulations might suggest possible material candidates, but they are also used to help explain the experimental results and suggest possible structural tweaks.

The grand prize would be a room-temperature superconductor, a material that could transform computing and electricity but that has eluded scientists for decades.

Periodic Labs, like Lila Sciences, has ambitions beyond designing and making new materials. It wants to “create an AI scientist”—specifically, one adept at the physical sciences. “LLMs have gotten quite good at distilling chemistry information, physics information,” says Cubuk, “and now we’re trying to make it more advanced by teaching it how to do science—for example, doing simulations, doing experiments, doing theoretical modeling.”

The approach, like that of Lila Sciences, is based on the expectation that a better understanding of the science behind materials and their synthesis will lead to clues that could help researchers find a broad range of new ones. One target for Periodic Labs is materials whose properties are defined by quantum effects, such as new types of magnets. The grand prize would be a room-temperature superconductor, a material that could transform computing and electricity but that has eluded scientists for decades.

Superconductors are materials in which electricity flows without any resistance and, thus, without producing heat. So far, the best of these materials become superconducting only at relatively low temperatures and require significant cooling. If they can be made to work at or close to room temperature, they could lead to far more efficient power grids, new types of quantum computers, and even more practical high-speed magnetic-levitation trains. 

""
Lila staff scientist Natalie Page (right), Gómez- Bombarelli, and Gregoire inspect thin-film samples after they come out of the sputtering machine and before they undergo testing.
CODY O’LOUGHLIN

The failure to find a room-­temperature superconductor is one of the great disappointments in materials science over the last few decades. I was there when President Reagan spoke about the technology in 1987, during the peak hype over newly made ceramics that became superconducting at the relatively balmy temperature of 93 Kelvin (that’s −292 °F), enthusing that they “bring us to the threshold of a new age.” There was a sense of optimism among the scientists and businesspeople in that packed ballroom at the Washington Hilton as Reagan anticipated “a host of benefits, not least among them a reduced dependence on foreign oil, a cleaner environment, and a stronger national economy.” In retrospect, it might have been one of the last times that we pinned our economic and technical aspirations on a breakthrough in materials.

The promised new age never came. Scientists still have not found a material that becomes superconducting at room temperatures, or anywhere close, under normal conditions. The best existing superconductors are brittle and tend to make lousy wires.

One of the reasons that finding higher-­temperature superconductors has been so difficult is that no theory explains the effect at relatively high temperatures—or can predict it simply from the placement of atoms in the structure. It will ultimately fall to lab scientists to synthesize any interesting candidates, test them, and search the resulting data for clues to understanding the still puzzling phenomenon. Doing so, says Cubuk, is one of the top priorities of Periodic Labs. 

AI in charge

It can take a researcher a year or more to make a crystal structure for the first time. Then there are typically years of further work to test its properties and figure out how to make the larger quantities needed for a commercial product. 

Startups like Lila Sciences and Periodic Labs are pinning their hopes largely on the prospect that AI-directed experiments can slash those times. One reason for the optimism is that many labs have already incorporated a lot of automation, for everything from preparing samples to shuttling test items around. Researchers routinely use robotic arms, software, automated versions of microscopes and other analytical instruments, and mechanized tools for manipulating lab equipment.

The automation allows, among other things, for high-throughput synthesis, in which multiple samples with various combinations of ingredients are rapidly created and screened in large batches, greatly speeding up the experiments.

The idea is that using AI to plan and run such automated synthesis can make it far more systematic and efficient. AI agents, which can collect and analyze far more data than any human possibly could, can use real-time information to vary the ingredients and synthesis conditions until they get a sample with the optimal properties. Such AI-directed labs could do far more experiments than a person and could be far smarter than existing systems for high-throughput synthesis. 

But so-called self-driving labs for materials are still a work in progress.

Many types of materials require solid-­state synthesis, a set of processes that are far more difficult to automate than the liquid-­handling activities that are commonplace in making drugs. You need to prepare and mix powders of multiple inorganic ingredients in the right combination for making, say, a catalyst and then decide how to process the sample to create the desired structure—for example, identifying the right temperature and pressure at which to carry out the synthesis. Even determining what you’ve made can be tricky.

In 2023, the A-Lab at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory claimed to be the first fully automated lab to use inorganic powders as starting ingredients. Subsequently, scientists reported that the autonomous lab had used robotics and AI to synthesize and test 41 novel materials, including some predicted in the DeepMind database. Some critics questioned the novelty of what was produced and complained that the automated analysis of the materials was not up to experimental standards, but the Berkeley researchers defended the effort as simply a demonstration of the autonomous system’s potential.

“How it works today and how we envision it are still somewhat different. There’s just a lot of tool building that needs to be done,” says Gerbrand Ceder, the principal scientist behind the A-Lab. 

AI agents are already getting good at doing many laboratory chores, from preparing recipes to interpreting some kinds of test data—finding, for example, patterns in a micrograph that might be hidden to the human eye. But Ceder is hoping the technology could soon “capture human decision-making,” analyzing ongoing experiments to make strategic choices on what to do next. For example, his group is working on an improved synthesis agent that would better incorporate what he calls scientists’ “diffused” knowledge—the kind gained from extensive training and experience. “I imagine a world where people build agents around their expertise, and then there’s sort of an uber-model that puts it together,” he says. “The uber-model essentially needs to know what agents it can call on and what they know, or what their expertise is.”

“In one field that I work in, solid-state batteries, there are 50 papers published every day. And that is just one field that I work in. The A I revolution is about finally gathering all the scientific data we have.”

Gerbrand Ceder, principal scientist, A-Lab

One of the strengths of AI agents is their ability to devour vast amounts of scientific literature. “In one field that I work in, solid-­state batteries, there are 50 papers published every day. And that is just one field that I work in,” says Ceder. It’s impossible for anyone to keep up. “The AI revolution is about finally gathering all the scientific data we have,” he says. 

Last summer, Ceder became the chief science officer at an AI materials discovery startup called Radical AI and took a sabbatical from the University of California, Berkeley, to help set up its self-driving labs in New York City. A slide deck shows the portfolio of different AI agents and generative models meant to help realize Ceder’s vision. If you look closely, you can spot an LLM called the “orchestrator”—it’s what CEO Joseph Krause calls the “head honcho.” 

New hope

So far, despite the hype around the use of AI to discover new materials and the growing momentum—and money—behind the field, there still has not been a convincing big win. There is no example like the 2016 victory of DeepMind’s AlphaGo over a Go world champion. Or like AlphaFold’s achievement in mastering one of biomedicine’s hardest and most time-consuming chores, predicting 3D structures of proteins. 

The field of materials discovery is still waiting for its moment. It could come if AI agents can dramatically speed the design or synthesis of practical materials, similar to but better than what we have today. Or maybe the moment will be the discovery of a truly novel one, such as a room-­temperature superconductor.

A hexagonal window in the side of a black box
A small window provides a view of the inside workings of Lila’s sputtering instrument.The startup uses the machine to create a wide variety of experimental samples, including potential materials that could be useful for coatings and catalysts.
CODY O’LOUGHLIN

With or without such a breakthrough moment, startups face the challenge of trying to turn their scientific achievements into useful materials. The task is particularly difficult because any new materials would likely have to be commercialized in an industry dominated by large incumbents that are not particularly prone to risk-taking.

Susan Schofer, a tech investor and partner at the venture capital firm SOSV, is cautiously optimistic about the field. But Schofer, who spent several years in the mid-2000s as a catalyst researcher at one of the first startups using automation and high-throughput screening for materials discovery (it didn’t survive), wants to see some evidence that the technology can translate into commercial successes when she evaluates startups to invest in.  

In particular, she wants to see evidence that the AI startups are already “finding something new, that’s different, and know how they are going to iterate from there.” And she wants to see a business model that captures the value of new materials. She says, “I think the ideal would be: I got a spec from the industry. I know what their problem is. We’ve defined it. Now we’re going to go build it. Now we have a new material that we can sell, that we have scaled up enough that we’ve proven it. And then we partner somehow to manufacture it, but we get revenue off selling the material.”

Schofer says that while she gets the vision of trying to redefine science, she’d advise startups to “show us how you’re going to get there.” She adds, “Let’s see the first steps.”

Demonstrating those first steps could be essential in enticing large existing materials companies to embrace AI technologies more fully. Corporate researchers in the industry have been burned before—by the promise over the decades that increasingly powerful computers will magically design new materials; by combinatorial chemistry, a fad that raced through materials R&D labs in the early 2000s with little tangible result; and by the promise that synthetic biology would make our next generation of chemicals and materials.

More recently, the materials community has been blanketed by a new hype cycle around AI. Some of that hype was fueled by the 2023 DeepMind announcement of the discovery of “millions of new materials,” a claim that, in retrospect, clearly overpromised. And it was further fueled when an MIT economics student posted a paper in late 2024 claiming that a large, unnamed corporate R&D lab had used AI to efficiently invent a slew of new materials. AI, it seemed, was already revolutionizing the industry.

A few months later, the MIT economics department concluded that “the paper should be withdrawn from public discourse.” Two prominent MIT economists who are acknowledged in a footnote in the paper added that they had “no confidence in the provenance, reliability or validity of the data and the veracity of the research.”

Can AI move beyond the hype and false hopes and truly transform materials discovery? Maybe. There is ample evidence that it’s changing how materials scientists work, providing them—if nothing else—with useful lab tools. Researchers are increasingly using LLMs to query the scientific literature and spot patterns in experimental data. 

But it’s still early days in turning those AI tools into actual materials discoveries. The use of AI to run autonomous labs, in particular, is just getting underway; making and testing stuff takes time and lots of money. The morning I visited Lila Sciences, its labs were largely empty, and it’s now preparing to move into a much larger space a few miles away. Periodic Labs is just beginning to set up its lab in San Francisco. It’s starting with manual synthesis guided by AI predictions; its robotic high-throughput lab will come soon. Radical AI reports that its lab is almost fully autonomous but plans to soon move to a larger space.

""
Prominent AI researchers Liam Fedus (left) and Ekin Dogus Cubuk are the cofounders of Periodic Labs. The San Francisco–based startup aims to build an AI scientist that’s adept at the physical sciences.
JASON HENRY

When I talk to the scientific founders of these startups, I hear a renewed excitement about a field that long operated in the shadows of drug discovery and genomic medicine. For one thing, there is the money. “You see this enormous enthusiasm to put AI and materials together,” says Ceder. “I’ve never seen this much money flow into materials.”

Reviving the materials industry is a challenge that goes beyond scientific advances, however. It means selling companies on a whole new way of doing R&D.

But the startups benefit from a huge dose of confidence borrowed from the rest of the AI industry. And maybe that, after years of playing it safe, is just what the materials business needs.

Source Link AI materials discovery now needs to move into the real world
MIT Technology Review

,

The fast and the future-focused are revolutionizing motorsport

When the ABB FIA Formula E World Championship launched its first race through Beijing’s Olympic Park in 2014, the idea of all-electric motorsport still bordered on experimental. Batteries couldn’t yet last a full race, and drivers had to switch cars mid-competition. Just over a decade later, Formula E has evolved into a global entertainment brand broadcast in 150 countries, driving both technological innovation and cultural change in sport.  

“Gen4, that’s to come next year,” says Dan Cherowbrier, Formula E’s chief technology and information officer. “You will see a really quite impressive car that starts us to question whether EV is there. It’s actually faster—it’s actually more than traditional [internal combustion engines] ICE.” 

That acceleration isn’t just happening on the track. Formula E’s digital transformation, powered by its partnership with Infosys, is redefining what it means to be a fan. “It’s a movement to make motor sport accessible and exciting for the new generation,” says principal technologist at Infosys, Rohit Agnihotri. 

From real-time leaderboards and predictive tools to personalized storylines that adapt to what individual fans care most about—whether it’s a driver rivalry or battery performance—Formula E and Infosys are using AI-powered platforms to create fan experiences as dynamic as the races themselves. “Technology is not just about meeting expectations; it’s elevating the entire fan experience and making the sport more inclusive,” says Agnihotri.  

AI is also transforming how the organization itself operates. “Historically, we would be going around the company, banging on everyone’s doors and dragging them towards technology, making them use systems, making them move things to the cloud,” Cherowbrier notes. “What AI has done is it’s turned that around on its head, and we now have people turning up, banging on our door because they want to use this tool, they want to use that tool.” 

As audiences diversify and expectations evolve, Formula E is also a case study in sustainable innovation. Machine learning tools now help determine the most carbon-optimal way to ship batteries across continents, while remote broadcast production has sharply reduced travel emissions and democratized the company’s workforce. These advances show how digital intelligence can expand reach without deepening carbon footprints. 

For Cherowbrier, this convergence of sport, sustainability, and technology is just the beginning. With its data-driven approach to performance, experience, and impact, Formula E is offering a glimpse into how entertainment, innovation, and environmental responsibility can move forward in tandem. 

“Our goal is clear,” says Agnihotri. “Help Formula E be the most digital and sustainable motor sport in the world. The future is electric, and with AI, it’s more engaging than ever.” 

This episode of Business Lab is produced in partnership with Infosys. 

Full Transcript:  

Megan Tatum: From MIT Technology Review, I’m Megan Tatum, and this is Business Lab, the show that helps business leaders make sense of new technologies coming out of the lab, and into the marketplace.  

The ABB FIA Formula E World Championship, the world’s first all-electric racing series, made its debut in the grounds of the Olympic Park in Beijing in 2014. A little more than 10 years later, it’s a global entertainment brand with 10 teams, 20 drivers, and broadcasts in 150 countries. Technology is central to how Formula E is navigating that scale and to how it’s delivering more powerful personalized experiences.  

Two words for you: elevated fandom.  

My guests today are Rohit Agnihotri, principal technologist at Infosys, and Dan Cherowbrier, CTIO of Formula E.  

This episode is produced in partnership with Infosys.  

Welcome, Rohit and Dan. 

Dan Cherowbrier: Hi. Thanks for having us. 

Megan: Dan, as I mentioned there, the first season of the ABB FIA Formula E World Championship launched in 2014. Can you talk us through how the first all-electric motor sport has evolved in the last decade? How has it changed in terms of its scale, the markets it operates in, and also, its audiences, of course? 

Dan: When Formula E launched back in 2014, there were hardly any domestic EVs on the road. And probably if you’re from London, the ones you remember are the hybrid Priuses; that was what we knew of really. And at the time, they were unable to get a battery big enough for a car to do a full race. So the first generation of car, the first couple of seasons, the driver had to do a pit stop midway through the race, get out of one car, and get in another car, and then carry on, which sounds almost farcical now, but it’s what you had to do then to drive innovation, is to do that in order to go to the next stage. 

Then in Gen2, that came up four years later, they had a battery big enough to start full races and start to actually make it a really good sport. Gen3, they’re going for some real speeds and making it happen. Gen4, that’s to come next year, you’ll see acceleration in line with Formula One. I’ve been fortunate enough to see some of the testing. You will see a really quite impressive car that starts us to question whether EV is there. It’s actually faster, it’s actually more than traditional ICE. 

That’s the tech of the car. But then, if you also look at the sport and how people have come to it and the fans and the demographic of the fans, a lot has changed in the last 11 years. We were out to enter season 12. In the last 11 years, we’ve had a complete democratization of how people access content and what people want from content. And as a new generation of fan coming through. This new generation of fan is younger. They’re more gender diverse. We have much closer to 50-50 representation in our fan base. And they want things personalized, and they’re very demanding about how they want it and the experience they expect. No longer are you just able to give them one race and everybody watches the same thing. We need to make things for them. You see that sort of change that’s come through in the last 11 years. 

Megan: It’s a huge amount of change in just over a decade, isn’t it? To navigate. And I wonder, Rohit, what was the strategic plan for Infosys when associating with Formula E? What did Infosys see in partnering with such a young sport? 

Rohit: Yeah. That’s a great question, Megan. When we looked at Formula E, we didn’t just see a racing championship. We saw the future. A sport, that’s electric, sustainable, and digital first. That’s exactly where Infosys wants to be, at the intersection of technology, innovation, and purpose. Our plan has three big goals. First, grow the fan base. Formula E wants to reach 500 million fans by 2030. That is not just a number. It’s a movement to make motor sport accessible and exciting for the new generation. To make that happen, we are building an AI-powered platform that gives personalized content to the fans, so that every fan feels connected and valued. Imagine a fan in Tokyo getting race insights tailored for their favorite driver, while another in London gets a sustainability story that matters to him. That’s the level of personalization we are aiming for. 

Second, bringing technology innovation. We have already launched the Stats Centre, which turns race data into interactive stories. And soon, Race Centre will take this to the next level with real time leaderboards to the race or tracks, overtakes, attack mode timelines, and even AI generated live commentary. Fans will not just watch, they will interact, predict podium finishes, and share their views globally. And third, supports sustainability. Formula E is already net-zero, but now their goal is to cut carbon by 45% by 2030. We’ll be enabling that through AI-driven sustainability, data management, tracking every watt of energy, every logistics decision. and modeling scenarios to make racing even greener. Partnering with a young sport gives us a chance to shape its digital future and show how technology can make racing exciting and responsible. For us, Formula E is not just a sport, it’s a statement about where the world is headed. 

Megan: Fantastic. 500 million fans, that’s a huge number, isn’t it? And with more scale often comes a kind of greater expectation. Dan, I know you touched on this a little in your first question, but what is it that your fans now really want from their interactions? Can you talk a bit more about what experiences they’re looking for? And also, how complex that really is to deliver that as well? 

Dan: I think a really telling thing about the modern day fan is I probably can’t tell you what they want from their experiences, because it’s individual and it’s unique for each of them. 

Megan: Of course. 

Dan: And it’s changing and it’s changing so fast. What somebody wants this month is going to be different from what they want in a couple of months’ time. And we’re having to learn to adapt to that. My CTO title, we often put focus on the technology in the middle of it. That’s what the T is. Actually, if you think about it, it’s continual transformation officer. You are constantly trying to change what you deliver and how you deliver it. Because if fans come through, they find new experiences, they find that in other sports. Sometimes not in sports, they find it outside, and then they’re coming in, and they expect that from you. So how can we make them more part of the sport, more personalized experience, get to know the athletes and the personalities and the characters within it? We’re a very technology centric sport. A lot of motor sport is, but really, people want to see people, right? And even when it’s technology, they want to see people interacting with technology, and it’s how do you get that out to show people. 

Megan: Yeah, it’s no mean feat. Rohit, you’ve worked with brands on delivering these sort of fan experiences across different sports. Is motor sports perhaps more complicated than others, given that fans watch racing for different reasons than just a win? They could be focused on team dynamics, a particular driver, the way the engine is built, and so on and so forth. How does motor sports compare and how important is it therefore, that Formula E has embraced technology to manage expectations? 

Rohit: Yeah, that’s an interesting point. Motor sports are definitely more complex than other sports. Fans don’t just care about who wins, they care about how some follow team strategies, others love driver rivalries, and many are fascinated by the car technology. Formula E adds another layer, sustainability and electric innovation. This makes personalization really important. Fans want more than results. They want stories and insights. Formula E understood this early and embraced technology. 

Think about the data behind a single race, lap times, energy usage, battery performance, attack mode activation, pit strategies, it’s a lot of data. If you just show the raw numbers, it’s overwhelming. But with Infosys Topaz, we turn that into simple and engaging stories. Fans can see how a driver fought back from 10th place to finish on the podium, or how a team managed energy better to gain an edge. And for new fans, we are adding explainer videos and interactive tools in the Race Center, so that they can learn about their sport easily. This is important because Formula E is still young, and many fans are discovering it for the first time. Technology is not just about meeting expectations; it’s elevating the entire fan experience and making the sport more inclusive. 

Megan: There’s an awful lot going on there. What are some of the other ways that Formula E has already put generative AI and other emerging technologies to use? Dan, when we’ve spoken about the demand for more personalized experiences, for example. 

Dan: I see the implementation of AI for us in three areas. We have AI within the sport. That’s in our DNA of the sport. Now, each team is using that, but how can we use that as a championship as well? How do we make it a competitive landscape? Now, we have AI that is in the fan-facing product. That’s what we’re working heavily on Infosys with, but we also have it in our broadcast product. As an example, you might have heard of a super slow-mo camera. A super slow-mo camera is basically, by taking three cameras and having them in exactly the same place so that you get three times the frame rate, and then you can do a slow-motion shot from that. And they used to be really expensive. Quite bulky cameras to put in. We are now using AI to take a traditional camera and interpolate between two frames to make it into a super slow image, and you wouldn’t really know the difference. Now, the joy of that, it means every camera can now be a super slow-mo camera. 

Megan: Wow. 

Dan: In other ways, we use it a little bit in our graphics products, and we iterate and we use it for things like showing driver audio. When the driver is speaking to his engineer or her engineer in the garage, we show that text now on screen. We do that using AI. We use AI to pick out the difference between the driver and another driver and the team engineer or the team principal and show that in a really good way. 

And we wouldn’t be able to do that. We’re not big enough to have a team of 24 people on stenographers typing. We have to use AI to be able to do that. That’s what’s really helped us grow. And then the last one is, how we use it in our business. Because ultimately, as we’ve got the fans, we’ve got the sport, but we also are running a business and we have to pick up these racetracks and move them around the world, and we have all these staff who have to get places. We have insurance who has to do all that kind of stuff, and we use it heavily in that area, particularly when it comes to what has a carbon impact for us. 

So things like our freight and our travel. And we are using the AI tools to tell us, a battery for instance, should we fly it? Should we send it by sea freight? Should we send it by row freight? Or should we just have lots of them? And that sort of depends. Now, a battery, if it was heavy, you’d think you probably wouldn’t fly it. But actually, because of the materials in it, because of the source materials that make it, we’re better off flying it. We’ve used AI to work through all those different machinations of things that would be too difficult to do at speed for a person. 

Megan: Well, sounds like there’s some fascinating things going on. I mean, of course, for a global brand, there is also the challenge of working in different markets. You mentioned moving everything around the world there. Each market with its own legal frameworks around data privacy, AI. How has technology also helped you navigate all of that, Dan? 

Dan: The other really interesting thing about AI is… I’ve worked in technology leadership roles for some time now. And historically, we would be going around the company, banging on everyone’s doors and dragging them towards technology, making them use systems, making them move things to the cloud and things like that. What AI has done is it’s turned that around on its head, and we now have people turning up, banging on our door because they want to use this tool, they want to use that tool. And we’re trying to accommodate all of that and it’s a great pleasure to see people that are so keen. AI is driving the tech adoption in general, which really helps the business. 

Megan: Dan, as the world’s first all-electric motor sport series, sustainability is obviously a real cornerstone of what Formula E is looking to do. Can you share with us how technology is helping you to achieve some of your ambitions when it comes to sustainability? 

Dan: We’ve been the only sport with a certified net-zero pathway, and we have to stay that part. It’s a really core fundamental part of our DNA. I sit on our management team here. There is a sustainability VP that sits there as well, who checks and challenges everything we do. She looks at the data centers we use, why we use them, why we’ve made the decisions we’ve made, to make sure that we’re making them all for the right reasons and the right ways. We specifically embed technology in a couple of ways. One is, we mentioned a little bit earlier, on our freight. Formula E’s freight for the whole championship is probably akin to one Formula One team, but it’s still by far, our biggest contributor to our impact. So we look about how we can make sure that we’ve refined that to get the minimum amount of air freight and sea freight, and use local wherever we can. That’s also part of our pledge about investing in the communities that we race in. 

The second then is about our staff travel. And we’ve done a really big piece of work over the last four to five years, partly accelerated through the covid-19 era actually, of doing remote working and remote TV production. Used to be traditionally, you would fly a hundred plus people out to racetracks, and then they would make the television all on site in trucks, and then they would be satellite distributed out of the venue. Now, what we do is we put in some internet connections, dual and diverse internet connections, and we stream every single camera back. 

Megan: Right. 

Dan: That means on site, we only need camera operators. Some of them actually, are remotely operated anyway, but we need camera operators, and then some engineering teams to just keep everything running. And then back in our home base, which is in London, in the UK, we have our remote production center where we layer on direction, graphics, audio, replay, team radio, all of those bits that break the color and make the program and add to that significant body of people. We do that all remotely now. Really interesting actually, a bit. So that’s the carbon sustainability story, but there is a further ESG piece that comes out of it and we haven’t really accommodated when we went into it, is the diversity in our workforce by doing that. We were discovering that we had quite a young, equally diverse workforce until around the age of 30. And then once that happened, then we were finding we were losing women, and that’s really because they didn’t want to travel. 

Megan: Right. 

Dan: And that’s the age of people starting to have children, and things were starting to change. And then we had some men that were traveling instead, and they weren’t seeing their children and it was sort of dividing it unnecessarily. But by going remote, by having so much of our people able to remotely… Or even if they do have to travel, they’re not traveling every single week. They’re now doing that one in three. They’re able to maintain the careers and the jobs they want to do, whilst having a family lifestyle. And it also just makes a better product by having people in that environment. 

Megan: That’s such an interesting perspective, isn’t it? It’s a way of environmental sustainability intersects with social sustainability. And Rohit, and your work are so interesting. And Rohit, can you share any of the ways that Infosys has worked with Formula E, in terms of the role of technology as we say, in furthering those ambitions around sustainability? 

Rohit: Yeah. Infosys understands that sustainability is at the heart of Formula E, and it’s a big part of why this partnership matters. Formula E is already net-zero certified, but now, they have an ambitious goal to cut carbon emissions by 45%. Infosys is helping in two ways. First, we have built AI-powered sustainability data tools that make carbon reporting accurate and traceable. Every watt of energy, every logistic decision, every material use can be tracked. Second, we use predictive analytics to model scenarios, like how changing race logistics or battery technology impact emissions so Formula E can make smarter, greener decisions. For us, it’s about turning sustainability from a report into an action plan, and making Formula E a global leader in green motor sport. 

Megan: And in April 2025, Formula E working with Infosys launched its Stats Centre, which provides fans with interactive access to the performances of their drivers and teams, key milestones and narratives. I know you touched on this before, but I wonder if you could tell us a bit more about the design of that platform, Rohit, and how it fits into Formula E’s wider plans to personalize that fan experience? 

Rohit: Sure. The Stats Centre was a big step forward. Before this, fans had access to basic statistics on the website and the mobile app, but nothing told the full story and we wanted to change that. Built on Infosys Topaz, the Stats Centre uses AI to turn race data into interactive stories. Fans can explore key stat cards that adapt to race timelines, and even chat with an AI companion to get instant answers. It’s like having a person race analyst at your fingertips. And we are going further. Next year, we’ll launch Race Centre. It’ll have live data boards, 2D track maps showing every driver’s position, overtakes and more attack timelines, and AI-generated commentary. Fans can predict podium finishes, vote for the driver of the race, and share their views on social media. Plus, we are adding video explainers for new fans, covering rules, strategies, and car technology. Our goal is simple: make every moment exciting and easy to understand. Whether you are a hardcore fan or someone watching Formula E for the first time, you’ll feel connected and informed. 

Megan: Fantastic. Sounds brilliant. And as you’ve explained, Dan, leveraging data and AI can come with these huge benefits when it comes to the depth of fan experience that you can deliver, but it can also expose you to some challenges. How are you navigating those at Formula E? 

Dan: The AI generation has presented two significant challenges to us. One is that traditional SEO, traditional search engine optimization, goes out the window. Right? You are now looking at how do we design and build our systems and how do we populate them with the right content and the right data, so that the engines are picking it up correctly and displaying it? The way that the foundational models are built and the speed and the cadence of which they’re updated, means quite often… We’re a very fast-changing organization. We’re a fast-changing product. Often, the models don’t keep up. And that’s because they are a point in time when they were trained. And that’s something that the big organizations, the big tech organizations will fix with time. But for now, what we have to do is we have to learn about how we can present our fan-facing, web-facing products to show that correctly. That’s all about having really accurate first-party content, effectively earned media. That’s the piece we need to do. 

Then the second sort of challenge is sadly, whilst these tools are available to all of us, and we are using them effectively, so are another part of the technology landscape, and that is the cybersecurity basically they come with. If you look at the speed of the cadence and severity of hacks that are happening now, it’s just growing and growing and growing, and that’s because they have access to these tools too. And we’re having to really up our game and professionalize. And that’s really hard for an innovative organization. You don’t want to shut everything down. You don’t want to protect everything too much because you want people to be able to try new things. Right? If I block everything to only things that the IT team had heard of, we’d never get anything new in, and it’s about getting that balance right. 

Megan: Right. 

Dan: Rohit, you probably have similar experiences? 

Megan: How has Infosys worked with Formula E to help it navigate some of that, Rohit? 

Rohit: Yeah. Infosys has helped Formula E tackle some of the challenges in three key ways, simplify complex race data into engaging fan experience through platforms like Stats Centre, building a secure and scalable cloud data backbone for the real-time insights, and enabling sustainability goals with AI-driven carbon tracking and predictive analytics. This solution makes the sport interactive, more digital, and more responsible. 

Megan: Fantastic. I wondered if we could close with a bit of a future forward look. Can you share with us any innovations on the horizon at Formula E that you are really excited about, Dan? 

Dan: We have mentioned the Race Centre is going to launch in the next couple of months, but the really exciting thing for me is we’ve got an amazing season ahead of us. It’s the last season of our Gen3 car, with 10 really exciting teams on the grid. We are going at speed with our tech innovation roadmap and what our fans want. And we’re building up towards our Gen4 car, which will come out for season 13 in a year’s time. That will get launched in 2026, and I think it will be a game changer in how people perceive electric motor sport and electric cars in general. 

Megan: It sounds like there’s all sorts of exciting things going on. And Rohit too, what’s coming up via this partnership that you are really looking forward to sharing with everyone? 

Rohit: Two things stand out for me. First is the AI-powered fan data platform that I’ve already spoken about. Second is the launch of Race Centre. It’s going to change how fans experience live racing. And beyond final engagement, we are helping Formula E lead in sustainability with AI tools that model carbon impact and optimize logistics. This means every race can be smarter and greener. Our goal is clear: help Formula E be the most digital and sustainable motor sport in the world. The future is electric, and with AI, it’s more engaging than ever. 

Megan: Fantastic. Thank you so much, both. That was Rohit Agnihotri, principal technologist at Infosys, and Dan Cherowbrier, CITO of Formula E, whom I spoke with from Brighton, England.  

That’s it for this episode of Business Lab. I’m your host, Megan Tatum. I’m a contributing editor and host for Insights, the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review. We were founded in 1899 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and you can find us in print, on the web and at events each year around the world. For more information about us and the show, please check out our website at technologyreview.com.  

This show is available wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoyed this episode, we hope you’ll take a moment to rate and review us. Business Lab is a production of MIT Technology Review and this episode was produced by Giro Studios. Thanks for listening. 

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

Source Link The fast and the future-focused are revolutionizing motorsport
MIT Technology Review

Man-doing-pottery
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Power of Imperfect Work in an AI-Driven, Perfection-Obsessed World

The Power of Imperfect Work in an AI-Driven, Perfection-Obsessed World

“Have no fear of perfection—you’ll never reach it.” ~Salvador Dalí

We live in a world that worships polish.

Perfect photos on Instagram. Seamless podcasts with no awkward pauses. Articles that read like they’ve passed through a dozen editors.

And now, with AI tools that can produce mistake-free writing in seconds, the bar feels even higher. Machines can generate flawless sentences, perfect grammar, and shiny ideas on demand. Meanwhile, I’m over here second-guessing a paragraph, rewriting the same sentence six different ways, and still wondering if “Best” or “Warmly” is the less awkward email sign-off.

It’s easy to feel like our messy, human work doesn’t measure up.

I’ve fallen into that trap plenty of times. I’ve delayed publishing because “it’s not ready.” I’ve rerecorded podcasts because I stumbled on a word. I’ve tweaked and reformatted things no one else would even notice.

Perfectionism whispers: If it isn’t flawless, don’t share it.

But over time, I’ve learned something else: imperfection is not a liability. It’s the whole point.

A Table Full of Flaws

One of the best lessons I’ve ever learned about imperfection came not from writing or technology, but from woodworking.

About a decade ago, I decided to build a dining table. I spent hours measuring, cutting, sanding, and staining. I wanted it to be perfect.

But here’s the truth about woodworking: nothing ever turns out perfect. Ever.

That table looks solid from across the room. But if you step closer, you’ll notice the flaws. The board I mismeasured by a quarter inch. The corner I over-sanded. The stain that didn’t set evenly.

At first, I saw those flaws as failures. Proof that I wasn’t skilled enough, patient enough, or careful enough.

But then something surprising happened. My wife walked into the room, saw the finished table, and said she loved it. She didn’t see the mistakes. She saw something that had been made with love and care.

And slowly, I began to see it that way, too.

That table isn’t just furniture. It’s proof of effort, process, and patience. It carries my fingerprints, my sweat, and my imperfect humanity.

And here’s the kicker: it’s way more fulfilling than anything mass-produced or manufactured as machine-perfect.

Why Imperfection Connects Us

That table taught me something AI never could: flaws tell a story.

Machines can produce flawless outputs, but they can’t create meaning. They can’t replicate the pride of sanding wood with your own hands or the laughter around a table that wobbled for the first month.

Imperfections are what make something ours. They carry our fingerprints, quirks, and lived experiences.

In contrast, perfection is sterile. It might be impressive, but it rarely feels alive.

Think about the things that move us most—a friend’s vulnerable story, a laugh that turns into a snort, a talk where the speaker loses their train of thought but recovers with honesty. When was the last time you felt closest to someone? Chances are, it wasn’t when they were polished, it was when they were real. Those moments connect us precisely because they are imperfect.

They remind us we’re not alone in our flaws.

The AI Contrast

AI dazzles us because it never stutters. It never doubts. It never sends an awkward text or spills coffee on its keyboard. AI can do flawless. But flawless isn’t the same as meaningful.

But here’s what it doesn’t do:

  • It doesn’t feel the mix of pride and embarrassment in showing someone your wobbly table.
  • It doesn’t understand the joy of cooking a meal that didn’t go exactly to plan.
  • It doesn’t know what it’s like to hit “publish” while your stomach churns with nerves, only to get a message later that says, “This made me feel less alone.”

Flawlessness might be a machine’s strength. But humanity is ours.

The very things I used to try to hide—the quirks, the rough edges, the imperfections—are the things that make my work worth sharing.

A Different Kind of Readiness

I used to think I needed to wait until something was “ready.” The blog post polished just right. The podcast that’s perfectly edited. The message refined until it couldn’t possibly be criticized.

But I’ve learned that readiness is a mirage. It’s often just perfectionism in disguise.

The truth is, most of the things that resonated most with people—my most-downloaded podcast episode, the articles that readers emailed me about months later—were the ones I almost didn’t share. The ones that felt too messy, too vulnerable, too real.

And yet, those are the ones people said, “This is exactly what I needed to hear.”

Not the flawless ones. The human ones.

How We Can Embrace Imperfection

I’m not saying it’s easy. Perfectionism is sneaky. It wears the disguise of “high standards” or “being thorough.”

Here’s what I’ve found helps me. Not rules, but reminders I keep returning to:

Share before you feel ready.If it feels 80% good enough, release it. The last 20% is often just endless polishing.

Reframe mistakes as stories.My table’s flaws? Now they’re conversation starters. What mistakes of yours might carry meaning, too?

Notice where imperfection builds connection.The things that make people feel closer to you usually aren’t the shiny parts. They’re the honest ones.

The Bigger Picture

We live in a culture obsessed with speed, optimization, and polish. AI accelerates that pressure. It tempts us to compete on machine terms: flawless, instant, infinite.

But that’s not the game we’re meant to play.

Our advantage—our only real advantage—is that we’re human. We bring nuance, empathy, humor, vulnerability, and lived experience.

Robots don’t laugh until they snort. They don’t ugly cry during Pixar movies. They don’t mismeasure wood or forget to use the wood glue and build a table that their partner loves anyway.

You do. I do. That’s the point.

So maybe we don’t need to sand down every rough edge. Perhaps we don’t need to hide every flaw.

Because when the world is flooded with flawless, machine-polished work, the imperfect, human things will stand out.

And those are the things people will remember.

See more posts

About Chris Cage

Chris Cage is the author of Still Human: Staying Sane, Productive, and Fully You in the Age of AI. He is a product manager, writer, and mental health advocate. He writes at The Mental Lens blog and hosts the podcast Through the Mental Lens, where he explores the intersection of productivity, mental well-being, and technology. Learn more and subscribe to the newsletter at TheMentalLens.com. You can also follow Chris on Instagram, Goodreads, and Amazon.

Web | More Posts

Get in the conversation! Click here to leave a comment on the site.

Source Link The Power of Imperfect Work in an AI-Driven, Perfection-Obsessed World

, ,

The State of AI: A vision of the world in 2030

Welcome back to The State of AI, a new collaboration between the Financial Times and MIT Technology Review. Every Monday, writers from both publications debate one aspect of the generative AI revolution reshaping global power. You can read the rest of the series here.

In this final edition, MIT Technology Review’s senior AI editor Will Douglas Heaven talks with Tim Bradshaw, FT global tech correspondent, about where AI will go next, and what our world will look like in the next five years.

(As part of this series, join MIT Technology Review’s editor in chief, Mat Honan, and editor at large, David Rotman, for an exclusive conversation with Financial Times columnist Richard Waters on how AI is reshaping the global economy. Live on Tuesday, December 9 at 1:00 p.m. ET. This is a subscriber-only event and you can sign up here.)

state of AI

Will Douglas Heaven writes: 

Every time I’m asked what’s coming next, I get a Luke Haines song stuck in my head: “Please don’t ask me about the future / I am not a fortune teller.” But here goes. What will things be like in 2030? My answer: same but different. 

There are huge gulfs of opinion when it comes to predicting the near-future impacts of generative AI. In one camp we have the AI Futures Project, a small donation-funded research outfit led by former OpenAI researcher Daniel Kokotajlo. The nonprofit made a big splash back in April with AI 2027, a speculative account of what the world will look like two years from now. 

The story follows the runaway advances of an AI firm called OpenBrain (any similarities are coincidental, etc.) all the way to a choose-your-own-adventure-style boom or doom ending. Kokotajlo and his coauthors make no bones about their expectation that in the next decade the impact of AI will exceed that of the Industrial Revolution—a 150-year period of economic and social upheaval so great that we still live in the world it wrought.

At the other end of the scale we have team Normal Technology: Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor, a pair of Princeton University researchers and coauthors of the book AI Snake Oil, who push back not only on most of AI 2027’s predictions but, more important, on its foundational worldview. That’s not how technology works, they argue.

Advances at the cutting edge may come thick and fast, but change across the wider economy, and society as a whole, moves at human speed. Widespread adoption of new technologies can be slow; acceptance slower. AI will be no different. 

What should we make of these extremes? ChatGPT came out three years ago last month, but it’s still not clear just how good the latest versions of this tech are at replacing lawyers or software developers or (gulp) journalists. And new updates no longer bring the step changes in capability that they once did. 

And yet this radical technology is so new it would be foolish to write it off so soon. Just think: Nobody even knows exactly how this technology works—let alone what it’s really for. 

As the rate of advance in the core technology slows down, applications of that tech will become the main differentiator between AI firms. (Witness the new browser wars and the chatbot pick-and-mix already on the market.) At the same time, high-end models are becoming cheaper to run and more accessible. Expect this to be where most of the action is: New ways to use existing models will keep them fresh and distract people waiting in line for what comes next. 

Meanwhile, progress continues beyond LLMs. (Don’t forget—there was AI before ChatGPT, and there will be AI after it too.) Technologies such as reinforcement learning—the powerhouse behind AlphaGo, DeepMind’s board-game-playing AI that beat a Go grand master in 2016—is set to make a comeback. There’s also a lot of buzz around world models, a type of generative AI with a stronger grip on how the physical world fits together than LLMs display. 

Ultimately, I agree with team Normal Technology that rapid technological advances do not translate to economic or societal ones straight away. There’s just too much messy human stuff in the middle. 

But Tim, over to you. I’m curious to hear what your tea leaves are saying. 

Tim Bradshaw and Will Douglas Heaven

FT/MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW | ADOBE STOCK

Tim Bradshaw responds“

Will, I am more confident than you that the world will look quite different in 2030. In five years’ time, I expect the AI revolution to have proceeded apace. But who gets to benefit from those gains will create a world of AI haves and have-nots.

It seems inevitable that the AI bubble will burst sometime before the end of the decade. Whether a venture capital funding shakeout comes in six months or two years (I feel the current frenzy still has some way to run), swathes of AI app developers will disappear overnight. Some will see their work absorbed by the models upon which they depend. Others will learn the hard way that you can’t sell services that cost $1 for 50 cents without a firehose of VC funding.

How many of the foundation model companies survive is harder to call, but it already seems clear that OpenAI’s chain of interdependencies within Silicon Valley make it too big to fail. Still, a funding reckoning will force it to ratchet up pricing for its services.

When OpenAI was created in 2015, it pledged to “advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole.” That seems increasingly untenable. Sooner or later, the investors who bought in at a $500 billion price tag will push for returns. Those data centers won’t pay for themselves. By that point, many companies and individuals will have come to depend on ChatGPT or other AI services for their everyday workflows. Those able to pay will reap the productivity benefits, scooping up the excess computing power as others are priced out of the market.

Being able to layer several AI services on top of each other will provide a compounding effect. One example I heard on a recent trip to San Francisco: Ironing out the kinks in vibe coding is simply a matter of taking several passes at the same problem and then running a few more AI agents to look for bugs and security issues. That sounds incredibly GPU-intensive, implying that making AI really deliver on the current productivity promise will require customers to pay far more than most do today.

The same holds true in physical AI. I fully expect robotaxis to be commonplace in every major city by the end of the decade, and I even expect to see humanoid robots in many homes. But while Waymo’s Uber-like prices in San Francisco and the kinds of low-cost robots produced by China’s Unitree give the impression today that these will soon be affordable for all, the compute cost involved in making them useful and ubiquitous seems destined to turn them into luxuries for the well-off, at least in the near term.

The rest of us, meanwhile, will be left with an internet full of slop and unable to afford AI tools that actually work.

Perhaps some breakthrough in computational efficiency will avert this fate. But the current AI boom means Silicon Valley’s AI companies lack the incentives to make leaner models or experiment with radically different kinds of chips. That only raises the likelihood that the next wave of AI innovation will come from outside the US, be that China, India, or somewhere even farther afield.

Silicon Valley’s AI boom will surely end before 2030, but the race for global influence over the technology’s development—and the political arguments about how its benefits are distributed—seem set to continue well into the next decade. 

Will replies: 

I am with you that the cost of this technology is going to lead to a world of haves and have-nots. Even today, $200+ a month buys power users of ChatGPT or Gemini a very different experience from that of people on the free tier. That capability gap is certain to increase as model makers seek to recoup costs. 

We’re going to see massive global disparities too. In the Global North, adoption has been off the charts. A recent report from Microsoft’s AI Economy Institute notes that AI is the fastest-spreading technology in human history: “In less than three years, more than 1.2 billion people have used AI tools, a rate of adoption faster than the internet, the personal computer, or even the smartphone.” And yet AI is useless without ready access to electricity and the internet; swathes of the world still have neither. 

I still remain skeptical that we will see anything like the revolution that many insiders promise (and investors pray for) by 2030. When Microsoft talks about adoption here, it’s counting casual users rather than measuring long-term technological diffusion, which takes time. Meanwhile, casual users get bored and move on. 

How about this: If I live with a domestic robot in five years’ time, you can send your laundry to my house in a robotaxi any day of the week. 

JK! As if I could afford one. 

Further reading 

What is AI? It sounds like a stupid question, but it’s one that’s never been more urgent. In this deep dive, Will unpacks decades of spin and speculation to get to the heart of our collective technodream. 

AGI—the idea that machines will be as smart as humans—has hijacked an entire industry (and possibly the US economy). For MIT Technology Review’s recent New Conspiracy Age package, Will takes a provocative look at how AGI is like a conspiracy. 

The FT examined the economics of self-driving cars this summer, asking who will foot the multi-billion-dollar bill to buy enough robotaxis to serve a big city like London or New York.
A plausible counter-argument to Tim’s thesis on AI inequalities is that freely available open-source (or more accurately, “open weight”) models will keep pulling down prices. The US may want frontier models to be built on US chips but it is already losing the global south to Chinese software.

Source Link The State of AI: A vision of the world in 2030
MIT Technology Review

Artist-remasters-famous-characters-using-artificial-intelligence-5f9fb7d73b093__700
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist

21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist
21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist

Artificial intelligence has become very easy to access to the public, which has made it very popular. Artists all over are combining their skills and AI to create all kinds of edits. Even most apps have filters that use AI to make you look older, younger, or even a different gender.

This San Francisco-based graphics artist uses this new technology to see how famous paintings and cartoon characters would look if they were realistic, and how artificial intelligence recreates historical figures from paintings or portraits on money bills.

On his website, Nathan says: “I am a technical director, creative technologist, visual effects supervisor, and motion graphics artist with over a decade of experience. Currently exploring the intersection of art and AI.”

More info: Instagram | twitter.com | nathanshipley.com

Discover more in 21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist

Click here & follow us for more lists, facts, and stories.

#1 Rembrandt

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

Nathan Shipley answered some questions for us. He told us what inspired him to create these edits: “On one side, I love to create impossible images and explore new technology. I’ve got a background in animation and visual effects and once I saw what is possible using AI and machine learning tools, I realized there are so many things that could be done with them that would otherwise be impossible. Even some things that may be technically possible with VFX and CG could still be very time-consuming or expensive, whereas AI enables entirely new possibilities.

On the other side, it’s fascinating to explore how an AI model built on a particular dataset with a particular framework can ‘see’ the world and then transform images. The AI ‘knows’ only what it has already seen and filters the world through this lens. Each little tweak to the dataset, the training parameters, the model, and the input imagery all have the possibility to change the output. This is a space to explore how artificial neural networks interpret the world in a way that can be similar to our own minds. I’m not saying that an image I created is what Mona Lisa actually looked like, but it is how the machine sees her based on this particular arrangement of variables. That, to me, is fascinating.

I also want to add that these are definitely just experiments and that there are some pretty obvious limitations of the AI and the datasets that it’s trained on. Frida loses her unibrow, Miles’ hair gets mangled, Lil Miquela’s freckles disappear, hats turn to hair, and Ben Franklin even gets an earring! These are just some examples of how this particular combination of variables recreates a face that comes with a lot of randomness and inconsistencies. Keeping diversity in AI is an area of active research.”

#2 Miles Morales From Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

“I have always loved to draw, take photos, and paint. I’ve also always had a computer around since I was in elementary school using a 286 with MS-DOS and no hard drive. The combination of traditional art and technology has been a natural step for me and led to my career in VFX and animation.

My current interest in exploring face manipulation and generative art using AI and machine learning started with a project for the Salvador Dali museum called Dali Lives in 2018. I used early deepfake code to bring Dali back to the museum to talk to visitors about his art. From here, I moved into working with GANs and realized how powerful neural networks can be for image processing and generation! For me, creating art is both an expression of curiosity and an act of exploration through process.”

#3 Mona Lisa

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

#4 Elastigirl From The Incredibles

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

“My favorite part about creating art is the process of actually making it; the journey and all the exploration that goes with it. I love having a problem and no idea how I’m going to solve it, putting my headphones on, losing track of time, and just trying things until it works.

It’s great to see a finished image, but it’s even more exciting to try new code, use code in ways it wasn’t meant to be, combine different tools together, and create entirely new art through new processes.”

#5 Benjamin Franklin

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

#6 Miguel From Coco

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

Nathan has a 4-year-old son and he loves to explore the world with him: “We fish, go to the beach, paint, draw, read, play baseball, and pretend. Otherwise, I love running—it calms me down and focuses my mind.”

The artist tells us more about himself: “I’m just a guy from the Midwest of the United States. I grew up in Indiana, went to Indiana University, and then worked doing animation for TV at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Eventually, I was ready to leave Indiana and go to California.

I was very fortunate to first have the opportunity to travel around the world for a year with no plan before moving to San Francisco. I flew to Lima, Peru on a one-way ticket and spent the next 12 months staying in a handful of cities in South America, Eastern Europe, Turkey, India, and Thailand. If I got to a place I liked, I got an apartment and stayed for a month.

Traveling, being curious about the world, and meeting many different people goes quite well with creating art and just living life in general.

I did eventually land in San Francisco, where I’ve spent the last 10 years working on animation, VFX, and creative technology projects at Google, Intel, and currently the ad agency Goodby, Silverstein & Partners.”

#7 Diego Rivera

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

#8 George Washington

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

Nathan explains how he creates these edits: “It’s a very iterative and explorative process. In the most simple terms, a face is used as input for the software and the software generates new faces based on the input. I have examples where I am creating ‘real’ versions of painted or cartoon people and also cartoon versions of real people.

More specifically, to create real people, the central part of the process uses machine learning to find a human who has a similar shape to the faces in an AI network created by Nvidia. This network is created with a GAN (a kind of machine learning framework, this GAN is called StyleGAN) and trained on a dataset of 70,000 human faces (called FFHQ). The AI learns how to generalize what a human face looks like and can then generate new human faces that don’t actually exist but look very realistic.

Because the network is trained on images of real people, it’s very good at creating more real people, even when you give it an input that is just a drawing or painting.

I have other examples using the same tool (StyleGAN) to create new images based on 400-year-old woodcuts of Aesop’s Fables illustrations, Beeple’s library of everydays, and even custom datasets to make music videos for musicians like Qrion and Hiatus. A lot of these are on my site here.”

#9 Frida Kahlo

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

“I have a core set of tools that I use from my background in animation and VFX (Photoshop, After Effects, C4D, Maya, Nuke) but the most interesting tools usually come from Github repos released by academics and machine learning researchers. These are often run by editing Python code on a Linux machine which controls a machine learning library like Tensorflow or PyTorch.  

In fact, almost everything about these face images comes directly as output from the Python code. I’ve been particularly interested in exploring Nvidia’s StyleGAN and a StyleGAN encoder called pixel2style2pixel.”

Nathan says that the actual images take minutes to create; however, he had to go a long way to learn everything: “All of the learning and background I needed to get to this point has been a couple years of exploration and trial and error. I even attended a conference at MIT called GANocracy back in 2019.

I’ve built an art player, for example, that can generate completely new, never-ending, totally novel art in real time. Frames are made on the fly! However, training the model and writing the code for the player was weeks of work and processing time.”

#10 Rembrandt

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

#11 Ulysses S. Grant

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

The artist shared how he chooses which people or characters to recreate: “I pick characters that I love (Miguel from Coco, for example) or historic people that we don’t actually have photographs of. Some faces don’t work as well as others, but it’s really exciting when there is a compelling result! A lot of this is trial and error and me just publicly sharing the tests that I make as I go.

For example, I would love to see what Mona Lisa might look like and now I’ve got a realistic face that might be like her. I’m not saying that it is Mona Lisa, but it’s a possibility.

When people see my edits, they say everything from ‘amazing!’ to ‘creepy!’ to ‘that looks like my cousin!’ They seem to be getting a good amount of attention, so at the very least, they’re interesting!”

#12 Lil Miquela

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

#13 Andrew Jackson

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

“Overall, I think the space of generative and AI art is a fascinating and very deep well to explore. I’d certainly encourage readers that are interested to try it out! The technical hurdles can seem daunting, but with a little bit of background, you can really Google your way through a lot of this.

It’s also the sort of thing where academics and researchers present these technologies in a very academic or complicated-sounding way. Understanding a paper called ‘A Style-Based Generator Architecture for Generative Adversarial Networks’ can seem daunting. However, seeing imagery created by artists with the same technology can be very inspiring!

I’d highly encourage readers to check out the work of Memo Akten, Scott Eaton, Mario Klingemann, Refik Anandol, Helena Sarin, and Ben Snell to name just a few. These are the artists that have been foundational in my own interest in exploring AI and machine learning.”

#14 Diego Rivera

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

#15 Mr. Incredible From The Incredibles

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

What do you think of these edits? Tell us in the comments and vote for your favorite ones! Don’t forget to go show some love to the artist on his social media accounts.

If you want to see more posts similar to this one, click here or here!

#16 Rembrandt

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

#17 Rembrandt

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

#18 Rembrandt

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

#19 Dash From The Incredibles

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

#20

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

#21 Russell From Up

© Photo: nathan_shipley_vfx

Source Link 21 Artificial Intelligence Recreations Of Famous Paintings, Historical Figures, And Cartoons By This Artist

Load More