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.

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Introducing: the AI Hype Correction package

AI is going to reproduce human intelligence. AI will eliminate disease. AI is the single biggest, most important invention in human history. You’ve likely heard it all—but probably none of these things are true.

AI is changing our world, but we don’t yet know the real winners, or how this will all shake out.

After a few years of out-of-control hype, people are now starting to re-calibrate what AI is, what it can do, and how we should think about its ultimate impact.

Here, at the end of 2025, we’re starting the post-hype phase. This new package of stories, called Hype Correction, is a way to reset expectations—a critical look at where we are, what AI makes possible, and where we go next.

Here’s a sneak peek at what you can expect:

+ An introduction to four ways of thinking about the great AI hype correction of 2025.

+  While it’s safe to say we’re definitely in an AI bubble right now, what’s less clear is what it really looks like—and what comes after it pops. Read the full story.

+ Why OpenAI’s Sam Altman can be traced back to so many of the more outlandish proclamations about AI doing the rounds these days. Read the full story.

+ It’s a weird time to be an AI doomer. But they’re not giving up.

+ AI coding is now everywhere—but despite the billions of dollars being poured into improving AI models’ coding abilities, not everyone is convinced. Read the full story.

+ If we really want to start finding new kinds of materials faster, AI materials discovery needs to make it out of the lab and move into the real world. Read the full story.

+ Why reports of AI’s potential to replace trained human lawyers are greatly exaggerated.

+ Dr. Margaret Mitchell, chief ethics scientist at AI startup Hugging Face, explains why the generative AI hype train is distracting us from what AI actually is and what it can—and crucially, cannot—do. Read the full story.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 iRobot has filed for bankruptcy
The Roomba maker is considering handing over control to its main Chinese supplier. (Bloomberg $)
+ A proposed Amazon acquisition fell through close to two years ago. (FT $)
+ How the company lost its way. (TechCrunch)
+ A Roomba recorded a woman on the toilet. How did screenshots end up on Facebook? (MIT Technology Review)

2 Meta’s 2025 has been a total rollercoaster ride
From its controversial AI team to Mark Zuckerberg’s newfound appreciation for masculine energy. (Insider $)

3 The Trump administration is giving the crypto industry a much easier ride
It’s dismissed crypto lawsuits involving many firms with financial ties to Trump. (NYT $)
+ Celebrities are feeling emboldened to flog crypto once again. (The Guardian)
+ A bitcoin investor wants to set up a crypto libertarian community in the Caribbean. (FT $)

4 There’s a new weight-loss drug in town
And people are already taking it, even though it’s unapproved. (Wired $)
+ What we still don’t know about weight-loss drugs. (MIT Technology Review)

5 Chinese billionaires are having dozens of US-born surrogate babies
An entire industry has sprung up to support them. (WSJ $)
+ A controversial Chinese CRISPR scientist is still hopeful about embryo gene editing. (MIT Technology Review)

6 Trump’s “big beautiful bill” funding hinges on states integrating AI into healthcare
Experts fear it’ll be used as a cost-cutting measure, even if it doesn’t work. (The Guardian)
+ Artificial intelligence is infiltrating health care. We shouldn’t let it make all the decisions. (MIT Technology Review)

7 Extreme rainfall is wreaking havoc in the desert
Oman and the UAE are unaccustomed to increasingly common torrential downpours. (WP $)

8 Data centers are being built in countries that are too hot for them
Which makes it a lot harder to cool them sufficiently. (Rest of World)

9 Why AI image generators are getting deliberately worse
Their makers are pursuing realism—not that overly polished, Uncanny Valley look. (The Verge)
+ Inside the AI attention economy wars. (NY Mag $)

10 How a tiny Swedish city became a major video game hub
Skövde has formed an unlikely community of cutting-edge developers. (The Guardian)
+ Google DeepMind is using Gemini to train agents inside one of Skövde’s biggest franchises. (MIT Technology Review)

Quote of the day

“They don’t care about the games. They don’t care about the art. They just want their money.”

—Anna C Webster, chair of the freelancing committee of the United Videogame Workers union, tells the Guardian why their members are protesting the prestigious 2025 Game Awards in the wake of major layoffs.

One more thing

Recapturing early internet whimsy with HTML

Websites weren’t always slick digital experiences.

There was a time when surfing the web involved opening tabs that played music against your will and sifting through walls of text on a colored background. In the 2000s, before Squarespace and social media, websites were manifestations of individuality—built from scratch using HTML, by users who had some knowledge of code.

Scattered across the web are communities of programmers working to revive this seemingly outdated approach. And the movement is anything but a superficial appeal to retro aesthetics—it’s about celebrating the human touch in digital experiences. Read the full story.

—Tiffany Ng

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)

+  Here’s how a bit of math can help you wrap your presents much more neatly this year.
+ It seems that humans mastered making fire way, way earlier than we realized.
+ The Arab-owned cafes opening up across the US sound warm and welcoming.
+ How to give a gift the recipient will still be using and loving for decades to come.

Depending who you ask, AI-powered coding is either giving software developers an unprecedented productivity boost or churning out masses of poorly designed code that saps their attention and sets software projects up for serious long term-maintenance problems.

The problem is right now, it’s not easy to know which is true.

As tech giants pour billions into large language models (LLMs), coding has been touted as the technology’s killer app. Both Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and Google CEO Sundar Pichai have claimed that around a quarter of their companies’ code is now AI-generated. And in March, Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, predicted that within six months 90% of all code would be written by AI. It’s an appealing and obvious use case. Code is a form of language, we need lots of it, and it’s expensive to produce manually. It’s also easy to tell if it works—run a program and it’s immediately evident whether it’s functional.

---

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.

---

Executives enamored with the potential to break through human bottlenecks are pushing engineers to lean into an AI-powered future. But after speaking to more than 30 developers, technology executives, analysts, and researchers, MIT Technology Review found that the picture is not as straightforward as it might seem.  

For some developers on the front lines, initial enthusiasm is waning as they bump up against the technology’s limitations. And as a growing body of research suggests that the claimed productivity gains may be illusory, some are questioning whether the emperor is wearing any clothes.

The pace of progress is complicating the picture, though. A steady drumbeat of new model releases mean these tools’ capabilities and quirks are constantly evolving. And their utility often depends on the tasks they are applied to and the organizational structures built around them. All of this leaves developers navigating confusing gaps between expectation and reality. 

Is it the best of times or the worst of times (to channel Dickens) for AI coding? Maybe both.

A fast-moving field

It’s hard to avoid AI coding tools these days. There are a dizzying array of products available, both from model developers like Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google and from companies like Cursor and Windsurf, which wrap these models in polished code-editing software. And according to Stack Overflow’s 2025 Developer Survey, they’re being adopted rapidly, with 65% of developers now using them at least weekly.

AI coding tools first emerged around 2016 but were supercharged with the arrival of LLMs. Early versions functioned as little more than autocomplete for programmers, suggesting what to type next. Today they can analyze entire code bases, edit across files, fix bugs, and even generate documentation explaining how the code works. All this is guided through natural-language prompts via a chat interface.

“Agents”—autonomous LLM-powered coding tools that can take a high-level plan and build entire programs independently—represent the latest frontier in AI coding. This leap was enabled by the latest reasoning models, which can tackle complex problems step by step and, crucially, access external tools to complete tasks. “This is how the model is able to code, as opposed to just talk about coding,” says Boris Cherny, head of Claude Code, Anthropic’s coding agent.

These agents have made impressive progress on software engineering benchmarks—standardized tests that measure model performance. When OpenAI introduced the SWE-bench Verified benchmark in August 2024, offering a way to evaluate agents’ success at fixing real bugs in open-source repositories, the top model solved just 33% of issues. A year later, leading models consistently score above 70%. 

In February, Andrej Karpathy, a founding member of OpenAI and former director of AI at Tesla, coined the term “vibe coding”—meaning an approach where people describe software in natural language and let AI write, refine, and debug the code. Social media abounds with developers who have bought into this vision, claiming massive productivity boosts.

But while some developers and companies report such productivity gains, the hard evidence is more mixed. Early studies from GitHub, Google, and Microsoft—all vendors of AI tools—found developers completing tasks 20% to 55% faster. But a September report from the consultancy Bain & Company described real-world savings as “unremarkable.”

Data from the developer analytics firm GitClear shows that most engineers are producing roughly 10% more durable code—code that isn’t deleted or rewritten within weeks—since 2022, likely thanks to AI. But that gain has come with sharp declines in several measures of code quality. Stack Overflow’s survey also found trust and positive sentiment toward AI tools falling significantly for the first time. And most provocatively, a July study by the nonprofit research organization Model Evaluation & Threat Research (METR) showed that while experienced developers believed AI made them 20% faster, objective tests showed they were actually 19% slower.

Growing disillusionment

For Mike Judge, principal developer at the software consultancy Substantial, the METR study struck a nerve. He was an enthusiastic early adopter of AI tools, but over time he grew frustrated with their limitations and the modest boost they brought to his productivity. “I was complaining to people because I was like, ‘It’s helping me but I can’t figure out how to make it really help me a lot,’” he says. “I kept feeling like the AI was really dumb, but maybe I could trick it into being smart if I found the right magic incantation.”

When asked by a friend, Judge had estimated the tools were providing a roughly 25% speedup. So when he saw similar estimates attributed to developers in the METR study he decided to test his own. For six weeks, he guessed how long a task would take, flipped a coin to decide whether to use AI or code manually, and timed himself. To his surprise, AI slowed him down by an median of 21%—mirroring the METR results.

This got Judge crunching the numbers. If these tools were really speeding developers up, he reasoned, you should see a massive boom in new apps, website registrations, video games, and projects on GitHub. He spent hours and several hundred dollars analyzing all the publicly available data and found flat lines everywhere.

“Shouldn’t this be going up and to the right?” says Judge. “Where’s the hockey stick on any of these graphs? I thought everybody was so extraordinarily productive.” The obvious conclusion, he says, is that AI tools provide little productivity boost for most developers. 

Developers interviewed by MIT Technology Review generally agree on where AI tools excel: producing “boilerplate code” (reusable chunks of code repeated in multiple places with little modification), writing tests, fixing bugs, and explaining unfamiliar code to new developers. Several noted that AI helps overcome the “blank page problem” by offering an imperfect first stab to get a developer’s creative juices flowing. It can also let nontechnical colleagues quickly prototype software features, easing the load on already overworked engineers.

These tasks can be tedious, and developers are typically  glad to hand them off. But they represent only a small part of an experienced engineer’s workload. For the more complex problems where engineers really earn their bread, many developers told MIT Technology Review, the tools face significant hurdles.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that LLMs can hold only a limited amount of information in their “context window”—essentially their working memory. This means they struggle to parse large code bases and are prone to forgetting what they’re doing on longer tasks. “It gets really nearsighted—it’ll only look at the thing that’s right in front of it,” says Judge. “And if you tell it to do a dozen things, it’ll do 11 of them and just forget that last one.”

LLMs’ myopia can lead to headaches for human coders. While an LLM-generated response to a problem may work in isolation, software is made up of hundreds of interconnected modules. If these aren’t built with consideration for other parts of the software, it can quickly lead to a tangled, inconsistent code base that’s hard for humans to parse and, more important, to maintain.

Developers have traditionally addressed this by following conventions—loosely defined coding guidelines that differ widely between projects and teams. “AI has this overwhelming tendency to not understand what the existing conventions are within a repository,” says Bill Harding, the CEO of GitClear. “And so it is very likely to come up with its own slightly different version of how to solve a problem.”

The models also just get things wrong. Like all LLMs, coding models are prone to “hallucinating”—it’s an issue built into how they work. But because the code they output looks so polished, errors can be difficult to detect, says James Liu, director of software engineering at the advertising technology company Mediaocean. Put all these flaws together, and using these tools can feel a lot like pulling a lever on a one-armed bandit. “Some projects you get a 20x improvement in terms of speed or efficiency,” says Liu. “On other things, it just falls flat on its face, and you spend all this time trying to coax it into granting you the wish that you wanted and it’s just not going to.”

Judge suspects this is why engineers often overestimate productivity gains. “You remember the jackpots. You don’t remember sitting there plugging tokens into the slot machine for two hours,” he says.

And it can be particularly pernicious if the developer is unfamiliar with the task. Judge remembers getting AI to help set up a Microsoft cloud service called an Azure Functions, which he’d never used before. He thought it would take about two hours, but nine hours later he threw in the towel. “It kept leading me down these rabbit holes and I didn’t know enough about the topic to be able to tell it ‘Hey, this is nonsensical,’” he says.

The debt begins to mount up

Developers constantly make trade-offs between speed of development and the maintainability of their code—creating what’s known as “technical debt,” says Geoffrey G. Parker, professor of engineering innovation at Dartmouth College. Each shortcut adds complexity and makes the code base harder to manage, accruing “interest” that must eventually be repaid by restructuring the code. As this debt piles up, adding new features and maintaining the software becomes slower and more difficult.

Accumulating technical debt is inevitable in most projects, but AI tools make it much easier for time-pressured engineers to cut corners, says GitClear’s Harding. And GitClear’s data suggests this is happening at scale. Since 2020, the company has seen a significant rise in the amount of copy-pasted code—an indicator that developers are reusing more code snippets, most likely based on AI suggestions—and an even bigger decline in the amount of code moved from one place to another, which happens when developers clean up their code base.

And as models improve, the code they produce is becoming increasingly verbose and complex, says Tariq Shaukat, CEO of Sonar, which makes tools for checking code quality. This is driving down the number of obvious bugs and security vulnerabilities, he says, but at the cost of increasing the number of “code smells”—harder-to-pinpoint flaws that lead to maintenance problems and technical debt. 

Recent research by Sonar found that these make up more than 90% of the issues found in code generated by leading AI models. “Issues that are easy to spot are disappearing, and what’s left are much more complex issues that take a while to find,” says Shaukat. “That’s what worries us about this space at the moment. You’re almost being lulled into a false sense of security.”

If AI tools make it increasingly difficult to maintain code, that could have significant security implications, says Jessica Ji, a security researcher at Georgetown University. “The harder it is to update things and fix things, the more likely a code base or any given chunk of code is to become insecure over time,” says Ji.

There are also more specific security concerns, she says. Researchers have discovered a worrying class of hallucinations where models reference nonexistent software packages in their code. Attackers can exploit this by creating packages with those names that harbor vulnerabilities, which the model or developer may then unwittingly incorporate into software. 

LLMs are also vulnerable to “data-poisoning attacks,” where hackers seed the publicly available data sets models train on with data that alters the model’s behavior in undesirable ways, such as generating insecure code when triggered by specific phrases. In October, research by Anthropic found that as few as 250 malicious documents can introduce this kind of back door into an LLM regardless of its size.

The converted

Despite these issues, though, there’s probably no turning back. “Odds are that writing every line of code on a keyboard by hand—those days are quickly slipping behind us,” says Kyle Daigle, chief operating officer at the Microsoft-owned code-hosting platform GitHub, which produces a popular AI-powered tool called Copilot (not to be confused with the Microsoft product of the same name).

The Stack Overflow report found that despite growing distrust in the technology, usage has increased rapidly and consistently over the past three years. Erin Yepis, a senior analyst at Stack Overflow, says this suggests that engineers are taking advantage of the tools with a clear-eyed view of the risks. The report also found that frequent users tend to be more enthusiastic and more than half of developers are not using the latest coding agents, perhaps explaining why many remain underwhelmed by the technology.

Those latest tools can be a revelation. Trevor Dilley, CTO at the software development agency Twenty20 Ideas, says he had found some value in AI editors’ autocomplete functions, but when he tried anything more complex it would “fail catastrophically.” Then in March, while on vacation with his family, he set the newly released Claude Code to work on one of his hobby projects. It completed a four-hour task in two minutes, and the code was better than what he would have written.

“I was like, Whoa,” he says. “That, for me, was the moment, really. There’s no going back from here.” Dilley has since cofounded a startup called DevSwarm, which is creating software that can marshal multiple agents to work in parallel on a piece of software.

The challenge, says Armin Ronacher, a prominent open-source developer, is that the learning curve for these tools is shallow but long. Until March he’d remained unimpressed by AI tools, but after leaving his job at the software company Sentry in April to launch a startup, he started experimenting with agents. “I basically spent a lot of months doing nothing but this,” he says. “Now, 90% of the code that I write is AI-generated.”

Getting to that point involved extensive trial and error, to figure out which problems tend to trip the tools up and which they can handle efficiently. Today’s models can tackle most coding tasks with the right guardrails, says Ronacher, but these can be very task and project specific.

To get the most out of these tools, developers must surrender control over individual lines of code and focus on the overall software architecture, says Nico Westerdale, chief technology officer at the veterinary staffing company IndeVets. He recently built a data science platform 100,000 lines of code long almost exclusively by prompting models rather than writing the code himself.

Westerdale’s process starts with an extended conversation with the modelagent to develop a detailed plan for what to build and how. He then guides it through each step. It rarely gets things right on the first try and needs constant wrangling, but if you force it to stick to well-defined design patterns, the models can produce high-quality, easily maintainable code, says Westerdale. He reviews every line, and the code is as good as anything he’s ever produced, he says: “I’ve just found it absolutely revolutionary,. It’s also frustrating, difficult, a different way of thinking, and we’re only just getting used to it.”

But while individual developers are learning how to use these tools effectively, getting consistent results across a large engineering team is significantly harder. AI tools amplify both the good and bad aspects of your engineering culture, says Ryan J. Salva, senior director of product management at Google. With strong processes, clear coding patterns, and well-defined best practices, these tools can shine. 

But if your development process is disorganized, they’ll only magnify the problems. It’s also essential to codify that institutional knowledge so the models can draw on it effectively. “A lot of work needs to be done to help build up context and get the tribal knowledge out of our heads,” he says.

The cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase has been vocal about its adoption of AI tools. CEO Brian Armstrong made headlines in August when he revealed that the company had fired staff unwilling to adopt AI tools. But Coinbase’s head of platform, Rob Witoff, tells MIT Technology Review that while they’ve seen massive productivity gains in some areas, the impact has been patchy. For simpler tasks like restructuring the code base and writing tests, AI-powered workflows have achieved speedups of up to 90%. But gains are more modest for other tasks, and the disruption caused by overhauling existing processes often counteracts the increased coding speed, says Witoff.

One factor is that AI tools let junior developers produce far more code,. As in almost all engineering teams, this code has to be reviewed by others, normally more senior developers, to catch bugs and ensure it meets quality standards. But the sheer volume of code now being churned out i whichs quickly saturatinges the ability of midlevel staff to review changes. “This is the cycle we’re going through almost every month, where we automate a new thing lower down in the stack, which brings more pressure higher up in the stack,” he says. “Then we’re looking at applying automation to that higher-up piece.”

Developers also spend only 20% to 40% of their time coding, says Jue Wang, a partner at Bain, so even a significant speedup there often translates to more modest overall gains. Developers spend the rest of their time analyzing software problems and dealing with customer feedback, product strategy, and administrative tasks. To get significant efficiency boosts, companies may need to apply generative AI to all these other processes too, says Jue, and that is still in the works.

Rapid evolution

Programming with agents is a dramatic departure from previous working practices, though, so it’s not surprising companies are facing some teething issues. These are also very new products that are changing by the day. “Every couple months the model improves, and there’s a big step change in the model’s coding capabilities and you have to get recalibrated,” says Anthropic’s Cherny.

For example, in June Anthropic introduced a built-in planning mode to Claude; it has since been replicated by other providers. In October, the company also enabled Claude to ask users questions when it needs more context or faces multiple possible solutions, which Cherny says helps it avoid the tendency to simply assume which path is the best way forward.

Most significant, Anthropic has added features that make Claude better at managing its own context. When it nears the limits of its working memory, it summarizes key details and uses them to start a new context window, effectively giving it an “infinite” one, says Cherny. Claude can also invoke sub-agents to work on smaller tasks, so it no longer has to hold all aspects of the project in its own head. The company claims that its latest model, Claude 4.5 Sonnet, can now code autonomously for more than 30 hours without major performance degradation.

Novel approaches to software development could also sidestep coding agents’ other flaws. MIT professor Max Tegmark has introduced something he calls “vericoding,” which could allow agents to produce entirely bug-free code from a natural-language description. It builds on an approach known as “formal verification,” where developers create a mathematical model of their software that can prove incontrovertibly that it functions correctly. This approach is used in high-stakes areas like flight-control systems and cryptographic libraries, but it remains costly and time-consuming, limiting its broader use.

Rapid improvements in LLMs’ mathematical capabilities have opened up the tantalizing possibility of models that produce not only software but the mathematical proof that it’s bug free, says Tegmark. “You just give the specification, and the AI comes back with provably correct code,” he says. “You don’t have to touch the code. You don’t even have to ever look at the code.”

When tested on about 2,000 vericoding problems in Dafny—a language designed for formal verification—the best LLMs solved over 60%, according to non-peer-reviewed research by Tegmark’s group. This was achieved with off-the-shelf LLMs, and Tegmark expects that training specifically for vericoding could improve scores rapidly.

And counterintuitively, Tthe speed at which AI generates code could actuallylso ease maintainability concerns. Alex Worden, principal engineer at the business software giant Intuit, notes that maintenance is often difficult because engineers reuse components across projects, creating a tangle of dependencies where one change triggers cascading effects across the code base. Reusing code used to save developers time, but in a world where AI can produce hundreds of lines of code in seconds, that imperative has gone, says Worden.

Instead, he advocates for “disposable code,” where each component is generated independently by AI without regard for whether it follows design patterns or conventions. They are then connected via APIs—sets of rules that let components request information or services from each other. Each component’s inner workings are not dependent on other parts of the code base, making it possible to rip them out and replace them without wider impact, says Worden. 

“The industry is still concerned about humans maintaining AI-generated code,” he says. “I question how long humans will look at or care about code.”

A narrowing talent pipeline

For the foreseeable future, though, humans will still need to understand and maintain the code that underpins their projects. And one of the most pernicious side effects of AI tools may be a shrinking pool of people capable of doing so. 

Early evidence suggests that fears around the job-destroying effects of AI may be justified. A recent Stanford University study found that employment among software developers aged 22 to 25 fell nearly 20% between 2022 and 2025, coinciding with the rise of AI-powered coding tools.

Experienced developers could face difficulties too. Luciano Nooijen, an engineer at the video-game infrastructure developer Companion Group, used AI tools heavily in his day job, where they were provided for free. But when he began a side project without access to those tools, he found himself struggling with tasks that previously came naturally. “I was feeling so stupid because things that used to be instinct became manual, sometimes even cumbersome,” says Nooijen.

Just as athletes still perform basic drills, he thinks the only way to maintain an instinct for coding is to regularly practice the grunt work. That’s why he’s largely abandoned AI tools, though he admits that deeper motivations are also at play. 

Part of the reason Nooijen and other developers MIT Technology Review spoke to are pushing back against AI tools is a sense that they are hollowing out the parts of their jobs that they love. “I got into software engineering because I like working with computers. I like making machines do things that I want,” Nooijen says. “It’s just not fun sitting there with my work being done for me.”

Each time you’ve heard a borderline outlandish idea of what AI will be capable of, it often turns out that Sam Altman was, if not the first to articulate it, at least the most persuasive and influential voice behind it. 

For more than a decade he has been known in Silicon Valley as a world-class fundraiser and persuader. OpenAI’s early releases around 2020 set the stage for a mania around large language models, and the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 granted Altman a world stage on which to present his new thesis: that these models mirror human intelligence and could swing the doors open to a healthier and wealthier techno-utopia.

---

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.

---

Throughout, Altman’s words have set the agenda. He has framed a prospective superintelligent AI as either humanistic or catastrophic, depending on what effect he was hoping to create, what he was raising money for, or which tech giant seemed like his most formidable competitor at the moment. 

Examining Altman’s statements over the years reveals just how much his outlook has powered today’s AI boom. Even among Silicon Valley’s many hypesters, he’s been especially willing to speak about open questions—whether large language models contain the ingredients of human thought, whether language can also produce intelligence—as if they were already answered. 

In conclusion … 

Altman didn’t dupe the world. OpenAI has ushered in a genuine tech revolution, with increasingly impressive language models that have attracted millions of users. Even skeptics would concede that LLMs’ conversational ability is astonishing.

But Altman’s hype has always hinged less on today’s capabilities than on a philosophical tomorrow—an outlook that quite handily doubles as a case for more capital and friendlier regulation. Long before large language models existed, he was imagining an AI powerful enough to require wealth redistribution, just as he imagined humanity colonizing other planets. Again and again, promises of a destination—abundance, superintelligence, a healthier and wealthier world—have come first, and the evidence second. 

Even if LLMs eventually hit a wall, there’s little reason to think his faith in a techno-utopian future will falter. The vision was never really about the particulars of the current model anyway. 

It’s a weird time to be an AI doomer.

This small but influential community of researchers, scientists, and policy experts believes, in the simplest terms, that AI could get so good it could be bad—very, very bad—for humanity. Though many of these people would be more likely to describe themselves as advocates for AI safety than as literal doomsayers, they warn that AI poses an existential risk to humanity. They argue that absent more regulation, the industry could hurtle toward systems it can’t control. They commonly expect such systems to follow the creation of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a slippery concept generally understood as technology that can do whatever humans can do, and better. 

---

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.

---

Though this is far from a universally shared perspective in the AI field, the doomer crowd has had some notable success over the past several years: helping shape AI policy coming from the Biden administration, organizing prominent calls for international “red lines” to prevent AI risks, and getting a bigger (and more influential) megaphone as some of its adherents win science’s most prestigious awards.

But a number of developments over the past six months have put them on the back foot. Talk of an AI bubble has overwhelmed the discourse as tech companies continue to invest in multiple Manhattan Projects’ worth of data centers without any certainty that future demand will match what they’re building. 

And then there was the August release of OpenAI’s latest foundation model, GPT-5, which proved something of a letdown. Maybe that was inevitable, since it was the most hyped AI release of all time; OpenAI CEO Sam Altman had boasted that GPT-5 felt “like a PhD-level expert” in every topic and told the podcaster Theo Von that the model was so good, it had made him feel “useless relative to the AI.” 

Many expected GPT-5 to be a big step toward AGI, but whatever progress the model may have made was overshadowed by a string of technical bugs and the company’s mystifying, quickly reversed decision to shut off access to every old OpenAI model without warning. And while the new model achieved state-of-the-art benchmark scores, many people felt, perhaps unfairly, that in day-to-day use GPT-5 was a step backward. 

All this would seem to threaten some of the very foundations of the doomers’ case. In turn, a competing camp of AI accelerationists, who fear AI is actually not moving fast enough and that the industry is constantly at risk of being smothered by overregulation, is seeing a fresh chance to change how we approach AI safety (or, maybe more accurately, how we don’t). 

This is particularly true of the industry types who’ve decamped to Washington: “The Doomer narratives were wrong,” declared David Sacks, the longtime venture capitalist turned Trump administration AI czar. “This notion of imminent AGI has been a distraction and harmful and now effectively proven wrong,” echoed the White House’s senior policy advisor for AI and tech investor Sriram Krishnan. (Sacks and Krishnan did not reply to requests for comment.) 

(There is, of course, another camp in the AI safety debate: the group of researchers and advocates commonly associated with the label “AI ethics.” Though they also favor regulation, they tend to think the speed of AI progress has been overstated and have often written off AGI as a sci-fi story or a scam that distracts us from the technology’s immediate threats. But any potential doomer demise wouldn’t exactly give them the same opening the accelerationists are seeing.)

So where does this leave the doomers? As part of our Hype Correction package, we decided to ask some of the movement’s biggest names to see if the recent setbacks and general vibe shift had altered their views. Are they frustrated that policymakers no longer seem to heed their threats? Are they quietly adjusting their timelines for the apocalypse? 

Recent interviews with 20 people who study or advocate AI safety and governance—including Nobel Prize winner Geoffrey Hinton, Turing Prize winner Yoshua Bengio, and high-profile experts like former OpenAI board member Helen Toner—reveal that rather than feeling chastened or lost in the wilderness, they’re still deeply committed to their cause, believing that AGI remains not just possible but incredibly dangerous.

At the same time, they seem to be grappling with a near contradiction. While they’re somewhat relieved that recent developments suggest AGI is further out than they previously thought (“Thank God we have more time,” says AI researcher Jeffrey Ladish), they also feel angry that people in power are not taking them seriously enough (Daniel Kokotajlo, lead author of a cautionary forecast called “AI 2027,” calls the Sacks and Krishnan tweets “deranged and/or dishonest”). 

Broadly speaking, these experts see the talk of an AI bubble as no more than a speed bump, and disappointment in GPT-5 as more distracting than illuminating. They still generally favor more robust regulation and worry that progress on policy—the implementation of the EU AI Act; the passage of the first major American AI safety bill, California’s SB 53; and new interest in AGI risk from some members of Congress—has become vulnerable as Washington overreacts to what doomers see as short-term failures to live up to the hype. 

Some were also eager to correct what they see as the most persistent misconceptions about the doomer world. Though their critics routinely mock them for predicting that AGI is right around the corner, they claim that’s never been an essential part of their case: It “isn’t about imminence,” says Berkeley professor Stuart Russell, the author of Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Most people I spoke with say their timelines to dangerous systems have actually lengthened slightly in the last year—an important change given how quickly the policy and technical landscapes can shift. 

“If someone said there’s a four-mile-diameter asteroid that’s going to hit the Earth in 2067, we wouldn’t say, ‘Remind me in 2066 and we’ll think about it.’”

Many of them, in fact, emphasize the importance of changing timelines. And even if they are just a tad longer now, Toner tells me that one big-picture story of the ChatGPT era is the dramatic compression of these estimates across the AI world. For a long while, she says, AGI was expected in many decades. Now, for the most part, the predicted arrival is sometime in the next few years to 20 years. So even if we have a little bit more time, she (and many of her peers) continue to see AI safety as incredibly, vitally urgent. She tells me that if AGI were possible anytime in even the next 30 years, “It’s a huge fucking deal. We should have a lot of people working on this.”

So despite the precarious moment doomers find themselves in, their bottom line remains that no matter when AGI is coming (and, again, they say it’s very likely coming), the world is far from ready. 

Maybe you agree. Or maybe you may think this future is far from guaranteed. Or that it’s the stuff of science fiction. You may even think AGI is a great big conspiracy theory. You’re not alone, of course—this topic is polarizing. But whatever you think about the doomer mindset, there’s no getting around the fact that certain people in this world have a lot of influence. So here are some of the most prominent people in the space, reflecting on this moment in their own words. 

Interviews have been edited and condensed for length and clarity. 

---

The Nobel laureate who’s not sure what’s coming

Geoffrey Hinton, winner of the Turing Award and the Nobel Prize in physics for pioneering deep learning

The biggest change in the last few years is that there are people who are hard to dismiss who are saying this stuff is dangerous. Like, [former Google CEO] Eric Schmidt, for example, really recognized this stuff could be really dangerous. He and I were in China recently talking to someone on the Politburo, the party secretary of Shanghai, to make sure he really understood—and he did. I think in China, the leadership understands AI and its dangers much better because many of them are engineers.

I’ve been focused on the longer-term threat: When AIs get more intelligent than us, can we really expect that humans will remain in control or even relevant? But I don’t think anything is inevitable. There’s huge uncertainty on everything. We’ve never been here before. Anybody who’s confident they know what’s going to happen seems silly to me. I think this is very unlikely but maybe it’ll turn out that all the people saying AI is way overhyped are correct. Maybe it’ll turn out that we can’t get much further than the current chatbots—we hit a wall due to limited data. I don’t believe that. I think that’s unlikely, but it’s possible. 

I also don’t believe people like Eliezer Yudkowsky, who say if anybody builds it, we’re all going to die. We don’t know that. 

But if you go on the balance of the evidence, I think it’s fair to say that most experts who know a lot about AI believe it’s very probable that we’ll have superintelligence within the next 20 years. [Google DeepMind CEO] Demis Hassabis says maybe 10 years. Even [prominent AI skeptic] Gary Marcus would probably say, “Well, if you guys make a hybrid system with good old-fashioned symbolic logic … maybe that’ll be superintelligent.” [Editor’s note: In September, Marcus predicted AGI would arrive between 2033 and 2040.]

And I don’t think anybody believes progress will stall at AGI. I think more or less everybody believes a few years after AGI, we’ll have superintelligence, because the AGI will be better than us at building AI.

So while I think it’s clear that the winds are getting more difficult, simultaneously, people are putting in many more resources [into developing advanced AI]. I think progress will continue just because there’s many more resources going in.

The deep learning pioneer who wishes he’d seen the risks sooner

Yoshua Bengio, winner of the Turing Award, chair of the International AI Safety Report, and founder of LawZero

Some people thought that GPT-5 meant we had hit a wall, but that isn’t quite what you see in the scientific data and trends.

There have been people overselling the idea that AGI is tomorrow morning, which commercially could make sense. But if you look at the various benchmarks, GPT-5 is just where you would expect the models at that point in time to be. By the way, it’s not just GPT-5, it’s Claude and Google models, too. In some areas where AI systems weren’t very good, like Humanity’s Last Exam or FrontierMath, they’re getting much better scores now than they were at the beginning of the year.

At the same time, the overall landscape for AI governance and safety is not good. There’s a strong force pushing against regulation. It’s like climate change. We can put our head in the sand and hope it’s going to be fine, but it doesn’t really deal with the issue.

The biggest disconnect with policymakers is a misunderstanding of the scale of change that is likely to happen if the trend of AI progress continues. A lot of people in business and governments simply think of AI as just another technology that’s going to be economically very powerful. They don’t understand how much it might change the world if trends continue, and we approach human-level AI. 

Like many people, I had been blinding myself to the potential risks to some extent. I should have seen it coming much earlier. But it’s human. You’re excited about your work and you want to see the good side of it. That makes us a little bit biased in not really paying attention to the bad things that could happen.

Even a small chance—like 1% or 0.1%—of creating an accident where billions of people die is not acceptable. 

The AI veteran who believes AI is progressing—but not fast enough to prevent the bubble from bursting

Stuart Russell, distinguished professor of computer science, University of California, Berkeley, and author of Human Compatible

I hope the idea that talking about existential risk makes you a “doomer” or is “science fiction” comes to be seen as fringe, given that most leading AI researchers and most leading AI CEOs take it seriously. 

There have been claims that AI could never pass a Turing test, or you could never have a system that uses natural language fluently, or one that could parallel-park a car. All these claims just end up getting disproved by progress.

People are spending trillions of dollars to make superhuman AI happen. I think they need some new ideas, but there’s a significant chance they will come up with them, because many significant new ideas have happened in the last few years. 

My fairly consistent estimate for the last 12 months has been that there’s a 75% chance that those breakthroughs are not going to happen in time to rescue the industry from the bursting of the bubble. Because the investments are consistent with a prediction that we’re going to have much better AI that will deliver much more value to real customers. But if those predictions don’t come true, then there’ll be a lot of blood on the floor in the stock markets.

However, the safety case isn’t about imminence. It’s about the fact that we still don’t have a solution to the control problem. If someone said there’s a four-mile-diameter asteroid that’s going to hit the Earth in 2067, we wouldn’t say, “Remind me in 2066 and we’ll think about it.” We don’t know how long it takes to develop the technology needed to control superintelligent AI.

Looking at precedents, the acceptable level of risk for a nuclear plant melting down is about one in a million per year. Extinction is much worse than that. So maybe set the acceptable risk at one in a billion. But the companies are saying it’s something like one in five. They don’t know how to make it acceptable. And that’s a problem.

The professor trying to set the narrative straight on AI safety

David Krueger, assistant professor in machine learning at the University of Montreal and Yoshua Bengio’s Mila Institute, and founder of Evitable

I think people definitely overcorrected in their response to GPT-5. But there was hype. My recollection was that there were multiple statements from CEOs at various levels of explicitness who basically said that by the end of 2025, we’re going to have an automated drop-in replacement remote worker. But it seems like it’s been underwhelming, with agents just not really being there yet.

I’ve been surprised how much these narratives predicting AGI in 2027 capture the public attention. When 2027 comes around, if things still look pretty normal, I think people are going to feel like the whole worldview has been falsified. And it’s really annoying how often when I’m talking to people about AI safety, they assume that I think we have really short timelines to dangerous systems, or that I think LLMs or deep learning are going to give us AGI. They ascribe all these extra assumptions to me that aren’t necessary to make the case. 

I’d expect we need decades for the international coordination problem. So even if dangerous AI is decades off, it’s already urgent. That point seems really lost on a lot of people. There’s this idea of “Let’s wait until we have a really dangerous system and then start governing it.” Man, that is way too late.

I still think people in the safety community tend to work behind the scenes, with people in power, not really with civil society. It gives ammunition to people who say it’s all just a scam or insider lobbying. That’s not to say that there’s no truth to these narratives, but the underlying risk is still real. We need more public awareness and a broad base of support to have an effective response.

If you actually believe there’s a 10% chance of doom in the next 10 years—which I think a reasonable person should, if they take a close look—then the first thing you think is: “Why are we doing this? This is crazy.” That’s just a very reasonable response once you buy the premise.

The governance expert worried about AI safety’s credibility

Helen Toner, acting executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology and former OpenAI board member

When I got into the space, AI safety was more of a set of philosophical ideas. Today, it’s a thriving set of subfields of machine learning, filling in the gulf between some of the more “out there” concerns about AI scheming, deception, or power-seeking and real concrete systems we can test and play with. 

“I worry that some aggressive AGI timeline estimates from some AI safety people are setting them up for a boy-who-cried-wolf moment.”

AI governance is improving slowly. If we have lots of time to adapt and governance can keep improving slowly, I feel not bad. If we don’t have much time, then we’re probably moving too slow.

I think GPT-5 is generally seen as a disappointment in DC. There’s a pretty polarized conversation around: Are we going to have AGI and superintelligence in the next few years? Or is AI actually just totally all hype and useless and a bubble? The pendulum had maybe swung too far toward “We’re going to have super-capable systems very, very soon.” And so now it’s swinging back toward “It’s all hype.”

I worry that some aggressive AGI timeline estimates from some AI safety people are setting them up for a boy-who-cried-wolf moment. When the predictions about AGI coming in 2027 don’t come true, people will say, “Look at all these people who made fools of themselves. You should never listen to them again.” That’s not the intellectually honest response, if maybe they later changed their mind, or their take was that they only thought it was 20 percent likely and they thought that was still worth paying attention to. I think that shouldn’t be disqualifying for people to listen to you later, but I do worry it will be a big credibility hit. And that’s applying to people who are very concerned about AI safety and never said anything about very short timelines.

The AI security researcher who now believes AGI is further out—and is grateful

Jeffrey Ladish, executive director at Palisade Research

In the last year, two big things updated my AGI timelines. 

First, the lack of high-quality data turned out to be a bigger problem than I expected. 

Second, the first “reasoning” model, OpenAI’s o1 in September 2024, showed reinforcement learning scaling was more effective than I thought it would be. And then months later, you see the o1 to o3 scale-up and you see pretty crazy impressive performance in math and coding and science—domains where it’s easier to sort of verify the results. But while we’re seeing continued progress, it could have been much faster.

All of this bumps up my median estimate to the start of fully automated AI research and development from three years to maybe five or six years. But those are kind of made up numbers. It’s hard. I want to caveat all this with, like, “Man, it’s just really hard to do forecasting here.”

Thank God we have more time. We have a possibly very brief window of opportunity to really try to understand these systems before they are capable and strategic enough to pose a real threat to our ability to control them.

But it’s scary to see people think that we’re not making progress anymore when that’s clearly not true. I just know it’s not true because I use the models. One of the downsides of the way AI is progressing is that how fast it’s moving is becoming less legible to normal people. 

Now, this is not true in some domains—like, look at Sora 2. It is so obvious to anyone who looks at it that Sora 2 is vastly better than what came before. But if you ask GPT-4 and GPT-5 why the sky is blue, they’ll give you basically the same answer. It is the correct answer. It’s already saturated the ability to tell you why the sky is blue. So the people who I expect to most understand AI progress right now are the people who are actually building with AIs or using AIs on very difficult scientific problems.

The AGI forecaster who saw the critics coming

Daniel Kokotajlo, executive director of the AI Futures Project; an OpenAI whistleblower; and lead author of “AI 2027,” a vivid scenario where—starting in 2027—AIs progress from “superhuman coders” to “wildly superintelligent” systems in the span of months

AI policy seems to be getting worse, like the “Pro-AI” super PAC [launched earlier this year by executives from OpenAI and Andreessen Horowitz to lobby for a deregulatory agenda], and the deranged and/or dishonest tweets from Sriram Krishnan and David Sacks. AI safety research is progressing at the usual pace, which is excitingly rapid compared to most fields, but slow compared to how fast it needs to be.

We said on the first page of “AI 2027” that our timelines were somewhat longer than 2027. So even when we launched AI 2027, we expected there to be a bunch of critics in 2028 triumphantly saying we’ve been discredited, like the tweets from Sacks and Krishnan. But we thought, and continue to think, that the intelligence explosion will probably happen sometime in the next five to 10 years, and that when it does, people will remember our scenario and realize it was closer to the truth than anything else available in 2025. 

Predicting the future is hard, but it’s valuable to try; people should aim to communicate their uncertainty about the future in a way that is specific and falsifiable. This is what we’ve done and very few others have done. Our critics mostly haven’t made predictions of their own and often exaggerate and mischaracterize our views. They say our timelines are shorter than they are or ever were, or they say we are more confident than we are or were.

I feel pretty good about having longer timelines to AGI. It feels like I just got a better prognosis from my doctor. The situation is still basically the same, though.

Garrison Lovely is a freelance journalist and the author of Obsolete, an online publication and forthcoming book on the discourse, economics, and geopolitics of the race to build machine superintelligence (out spring 2026). His writing on AI has appeared in the New York Times, Nature, Bloomberg, Time, the Guardian, The Verge, and elsewhere.

Some disillusionment was inevitable. When OpenAI released a free web app called ChatGPT in late 2022, it changed the course of an entire industry—and several world economies. Millions of people started talking to their computers, and their computers started talking back. We were enchanted, and we expected more.

We got it. Technology companies scrambled to stay ahead, putting out rival products that outdid one another with each new release: voice, images, video. With nonstop one-upmanship, AI companies have presented each new product drop as a major breakthrough, reinforcing a widespread faith that this technology would just keep getting better. Boosters told us that progress was exponential. They posted charts plotting how far we’d come since last year’s models: Look how the line goes up! Generative AI could do anything, it seemed.

Well, 2025 has been a year of reckoning. 

---

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 a start, the heads of the top AI companies made promises they couldn’t keep. They told us that generative AI would replace the white-collar workforce, bring about an age of abundance, make scientific discoveries, and help find new cures for disease. FOMO across the world’s economies, at least in the Global North, made CEOs tear up their playbooks and try to get in on the action.

That’s when the shine started to come off. Though the technology may have been billed as a universal multitool that could revamp outdated business processes and cut costs, a number of studies published this year suggest that firms are failing to make the AI pixie dust work its magic. Surveys and trackers from a range of sources, including the US Census Bureau and Stanford University, have found that business uptake of AI tools is stalling. And when the tools do get tried out, many projects stay stuck in the pilot stage. Without broad buy-in across the economy it is not clear how the big AI companies will ever recoup the incredible amounts they’ve already spent in this race. 

At the same time, updates to the core technology are no longer the step changes they once were.

The highest-profile example of this was the botched launch of GPT-5 in August. Here was OpenAI, the firm that had ignited (and to a large extent sustained) the current boom, set to release a brand-new generation of its technology. OpenAI had been hyping GPT-5 for months: “PhD-level expert in anything,” CEO Sam Altman crowed. On another occasion Altman posted, without comment, an image of the Death Star from Star Wars, which OpenAI stans took to be a symbol of ultimate power: Coming soon! Expectations were huge.

And yet, when it landed, GPT-5 seemed to be—more of the same? What followed was the biggest vibe shift since ChatGPT first appeared three years ago. “The era of boundary-breaking advancements is over,” Yannic Kilcher, an AI researcher and popular YouTuber, announced in a video posted two days after GPT-5 came out: “AGI is not coming. It seems very much that we’re in the Samsung Galaxy era of LLMs.”

A lot of people (me included) have made the analogy with phones. For a decade or so, smartphones were the most exciting consumer tech in the world. Today, new products drop from Apple or Samsung with little fanfare. While superfans pore over small upgrades, to most people this year’s iPhone now looks and feels a lot like last year’s iPhone. Is that where we are with generative AI? And is it a problem? Sure, smartphones have become the new normal. But they changed the way the world works, too.

To be clear, the last few years have been filled with genuine “Wow” moments, from the stunning leaps in the quality of video generation models to the problem-solving chops of so-called reasoning models to the world-class competition wins of the latest coding and math models. But this remarkable technology is only a few years old, and in many ways it is still experimental. Its successes come with big caveats.

Perhaps we need to readjust our expectations.

The big reset

Let’s be careful here: The pendulum from hype to anti-hype can swing too far. It would be rash to dismiss this technology just because it has been oversold. The knee-jerk response when AI fails to live up to its hype is to say that progress has hit a wall. But that misunderstands how research and innovation in tech work. Progress has always moved in fits and starts. There are ways over, around, and under walls.

Take a step back from the GPT-5 launch. It came hot on the heels of a series of remarkable models that OpenAI had shipped in the previous months, including o1 and o3 (first-of-their-kind reasoning models that introduced the industry to a whole new paradigm) and Sora 2, which raised the bar for video generation once again. That doesn’t sound like hitting a wall to me.

AI is really good! Look at Nano Banana Pro, the new image generation model from Google DeepMind that can turn a book chapter into an infographic, and much more. It’s just there—for free—on your phone.

And yet you can’t help but wonder: When the wow factor is gone, what’s left? How will we view this technology a year or five from now? Will we think it was worth the colossal costs, both financial and environmental? 

With that in mind, here are four ways to think about the state of AI at the end of 2025: The start of a much-needed hype correction.

01: LLMs are not everything

In some ways, it is the hype around large language models, not AI as a whole, that needs correcting. It has become obvious that LLMs are not the doorway to artificial general intelligence, or AGI, a hypothetical technology that some insist will one day be able to do any (cognitive) task a human can.

Even an AGI evangelist like Ilya Sutskever, chief scientist and cofounder at the AI startup Safe Superintelligence and former chief scientist and cofounder at OpenAI, now highlights the limitations of LLMs, a technology he had a huge hand in creating. LLMs are very good at learning how to do a lot of specific tasks, but they do not seem to learn the principles behind those tasks, Sutskever said in an interview with Dwarkesh Patel in November.

It’s the difference between learning how to solve a thousand different algebra problems and learning how to solve any algebra problem. “The thing which I think is the most fundamental is that these models somehow just generalize dramatically worse than people,” Sutskever said.

It’s easy to imagine that LLMs can do anything because their use of language is so compelling. It is astonishing how well this technology can mimic the way people write and speak. And we are hardwired to see intelligence in things that behave in certain ways—whether it’s there or not. In other words, we have built machines with humanlike behavior and cannot resist seeing a humanlike mind behind them.

That’s understandable. LLMs have been part of mainstream life for only a few years. But in that time, marketers have preyed on our shaky sense of what the technology can really do, pumping up expectations and turbocharging the hype. As we live with this technology and come to understand it better, those expectations should fall back down to earth.  

02: AI is not a quick fix to all your problems

In July, researchers at MIT published a study that became a tentpole talking point in the disillusionment camp. The headline result was that a whopping 95% of businesses that had tried using AI had found zero value in it.  

The general thrust of that claim was echoed by other research, too. In November, a study by researchers at Upwork, a company that runs an online marketplace for freelancers, found that agents powered by top LLMs from OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic failed to complete many straightforward workplace tasks by themselves.

This is miles off Altman’s prediction: “We believe that, in 2025, we may see the first AI agents ‘join the workforce’ and materially change the output of companies,” he wrote on his personal blog in January.

But what gets missed in that MIT study is that the researchers’ measure of success was pretty narrow. That 95% failure rate accounts for companies that had tried to implement bespoke AI systems but had not yet scaled them beyond the pilot stage after six months. It shouldn’t be too surprising that a lot of experiments with experimental technology don’t pan out straight away.

That number also does not include the use of LLMs by employees outside of official pilots. The MIT researchers found that around 90% of the companies they surveyed had a kind of AI shadow economy where workers were using personal chatbot accounts. But the value of that shadow economy was not measured.  

When the Upwork study looked at how well agents completed tasks together with people who knew what they were doing, success rates shot up. The takeaway seems to be that a lot of people are figuring out for themselves how AI might help them with their jobs.

That fits with something the AI researcher and influencer (and coiner of the term “vibe coding”) Andrej Karpathy has noted: Chatbots are better than the average human at a lot of different things (think of giving legal advice, fixing bugs, doing high school math), but they are not better than an expert human. Karpathy suggests this may be why chatbots have proved popular with individual consumers, helping non-experts with everyday questions and tasks, but they have not upended the economy, which would require outperforming skilled employees at their jobs.

That may change. For now, don’t be surprised that AI has not (yet) had the impact on jobs that boosters said it would. AI is not a quick fix, and it cannot replace humans. But there’s a lot to play for. The ways in which AI could be integrated into everyday workflows and business pipelines are still being tried out.   

03: Are we in a bubble? (If so, what kind of bubble?)

If AI is a bubble, is it like the subprime mortgage bubble of 2008 or the internet bubble of 2000? Because there’s a big difference.

The subprime bubble wiped out a big part of the economy, because when it burst it left nothing behind except debt and overvalued real estate. The dot-com bubble wiped out a lot of companies, which sent ripples across the world, but it left behind the infant internet—an international network of cables and a handful of startups, like Google and Amazon, that became the tech giants of today.  

Then again, maybe we’re in a bubble unlike either of those. After all, there’s no real business model for LLMs right now. We don’t yet know what the killer app will be, or if there will even be one. 

And many economists are concerned about the unprecedented amounts of money being sunk into the infrastructure required to build capacity and serve the projected demand. But what if that demand doesn’t materialize? Add to that the weird circularity of many of those deals—with Nvidia paying OpenAI to pay Nvidia, and so on—and it’s no surprise everybody’s got a different take on what’s coming. 

Some investors remain sanguine. In an interview with the Technology Business Programming Network podcast in November, Glenn Hutchins, cofounder of Silver Lake Partners, a major international private equity firm, gave a few reasons not to worry. “Every one of these data centers—almost all of them—has a solvent counterparty that is contracted to take all the output they’re built to suit,” he said. In other words, it’s not a case of “Build it and they’ll come”—the customers are already locked in. 

And, he pointed out, one of the biggest of those solvent counterparties is Microsoft. “Microsoft has the world’s best credit rating,” Hutchins said. “If you sign a deal with Microsoft to take the output from your data center, Satya is good for it.”

Many CEOs will be looking back at the dot-com bubble and trying to learn its lessons. Here’s one way to see it: The companies that went bust back then didn’t have the money to last the distance. Those that survived the crash thrived.

With that lesson in mind, AI companies today are trying to pay their way through what may or may not be a bubble. Stay in the race; don’t get left behind. Even so, it’s a desperate gamble.

But there’s another lesson too. Companies that might look like sideshows can turn into unicorns fast. Take Synthesia, which makes avatar generation tools for businesses. Nathan Benaich, cofounder of the VC firm Air Street Capital, admits that when he first heard about the company a few years ago, back when fear of deepfakes was rife, he wasn’t sure what its tech was for and thought there was no market for it.

“We didn’t know who would pay for lip-synching and voice cloning,” he says. “Turns out there’s a lot of people who wanted to pay for it.” Synthesia now has around 55,000 corporate customers and brings in around $150 million a year. In October, the company was valued at $4 billion.

04: ChatGPT was not the beginning, and it won’t be the end

ChatGPT was the culmination of a decade’s worth of progress in deep learning, the technology that underpins all of modern AI. The seeds of deep learning itself were planted in the 1980s. The field as a whole goes back at least to the 1950s. If progress is measured against that backdrop, generative AI has barely got going.

Meanwhile, research is at a fever pitch. There are more high-quality submissions to the world’s major AI conferences than ever before. This year, organizers of some of those conferences resorted to turning down papers that reviewers had already approved, just to manage numbers. (At the same time, preprint servers like arXiv have been flooded with AI-generated research slop.)

“It’s back to the age of research again,” Sutskever said in that Dwarkesh interview, talking about the current bottleneck with LLMs. That’s not a setback; that’s the start of something new.

“There’s always a lot of hype beasts,” says Benaich. But he thinks there’s an upside to that: Hype attracts the money and talent needed to make real progress. “You know, it was only like two or three years ago that the people who built these models were basically research nerds that just happened on something that kind of worked,” he says. “Now everybody who’s good at anything in technology is working on this.”

Where do we go from here?

The relentless hype hasn’t come just from companies drumming up business for their vastly expensive new technologies. There’s a large cohort of people—inside and outside the industry—who want to believe in the promise of machines that can read, write, and think. It’s a wild decades-old dream. 

But the hype was never sustainable—and that’s a good thing. We now have a chance to reset expectations and see this technology for what it really is—assess its true capabilities, understand its flaws, and take the time to learn how to apply it in valuable (and beneficial) ways. “We’re still trying to figure out how to invoke certain behaviors from this insanely high-dimensional black box of information and skills,” says Benaich.

This hype correction was long overdue. But know that AI isn’t going anywhere. We don’t even fully understand what we’ve built so far, let alone what’s coming next.

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.

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.”

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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.

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Expanded carrier screening: Is it worth it?

Carrier screening  tests would-be parents for hidden genetic mutations that might affect their children. It initially involved testing for specific genes in at-risk populations.

Expanded carrier screening takes things further, giving would-be parents an option to test for a wide array of diseases in prospective parents and egg and sperm donors.

The companies offering these screens “started out with 100 genes, and now some of them go up to 2,000,” Sara Levene, genetics counsellor at Guided Genetics, said at a meeting I attended this week. “It’s becoming a bit of an arms race amongst labs, to be honest.”

But expanded carrier screening comes with downsides. And it isn’t for everyone. Read the full story.

—Jessica Hamzelou

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

Southeast Asia seeks its place in space

It’s a scorching October day in Bangkok and I’m wandering through the exhibits at the Thai Space Expo, held in one of the city’s busiest shopping malls, when I do a double take. Amid the flashy space suits and model rockets on display, there’s a plain-looking package of Thai basil chicken. I’m told the same kind of vacuum-­sealed package has just been launched to the International Space Station.

It’s an unexpected sight, one that reflects the growing excitement within the Southeast Asian space sector. And while there is some uncertainty about how exactly the region’s space sector may evolve, there is plenty of optimism, too. Read the full story.

—Jonathan O’Callaghan

This story is from the next print issue of MIT Technology Review magazine. If you haven’t already, subscribe now to receive future issues once they land.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Disney just signed a major deal with OpenAI
Meaning you’ll soon be able to create Sora clips starring 200 Marvel, Pixel and Star Wars characters. (Hollywood Reporter $)
+ Disney used to be openly skeptical of AI. What changed? (WSJ $)
+ It’s not feeling quite so friendly towards Google, however. (Ars Technica)
+ Expect a load of AI slop making its way to Disney Plus. (The Verge)

2 Donald Trump has blocked US states from enforcing their own AI rules
But technically, only Congress has the power to override state laws. (NYT $)
+ A new task force will seek out states with “inconsistent” AI rules. (Engadget)
+ The move is particularly bad news for California. (The Markup)

3 Reddit is challenging Australia’s social media ban for teens
It’s arguing that the ban infringes on their freedom of political communication. (Bloomberg $)
+ We’re learning more about the mysterious machinations of the teenage brain. (Vox)

4 ChatGPT’s “adult mode” is due to launch early next year
But OpenAI admits it needs to improve its age estimation tech first. (The Verge)
+ It’s pretty easy to get DeepSeek to talk dirty. (MIT Technology Review)

5 The death of Running Tide’s carbon removal dream
The company’s demise is a wake-up call to others dabbling in experimental tech. (Wired $)
+ We first wrote about Running Tide’s issues back in 2022. (MIT Technology Review)
+ What’s next for carbon removal? (MIT Technology Review)

6 That dirty-talking AI teddy bear wasn’t a one-off
It turns out that a wide range of LLM-powered toys aren’t suitable for children. (NBC News)
+ AI toys are all the rage in China—and now they’re appearing on shelves in the US too. (MIT Technology Review)

7 These are the cheapest places to create a fake online account
For a few cents, scammers can easily set up bots. (FT $)

8 How professors are attempting to AI-proof exams
ChatGPT won’t help you cut corners to ace an oral examination. (WP $)

9 Can a font be woke?
Marco Rubio seems to think so. (The Atlantic $)

10 Next year is all about maximalist circus decor
That’s according to Pinterest’s trend predictions for 2026. (The Guardian)

Quote of the day

 “Trump is delivering exactly what his billionaire benefactors demanded—all at the expense of our kids, our communities, our workers, and our planet.” 

—Senator Ed Markey criticizes Donald Trump’s decision to sign an order cracking down on US states’ ability to self-regulate AI, the Wall Street Journal reports.

One more thing

Taiwan’s “silicon shield” could be weakening

Taiwanese politics increasingly revolves around one crucial question: Will China invade? China’s ruling party has wanted to seize Taiwan for more than half a century. But in recent years, China’s leader, Xi Jinping, has placed greater emphasis on the idea of “taking back” the island (which the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, has never controlled).

Many in Taiwan and elsewhere think one major deterrent has to do with the island’s critical role in semiconductor manufacturing. Taiwan produces the majority of the world’s semiconductors and more than 90% of the most advanced chips needed for AI applications.

But now some Taiwan specialists and some of the island’s citi­zens are worried that this “silicon shield,” if it ever existed, is cracking. Read the full story.

—Johanna M. Costigan

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)

+ Reasons to be cheerful: people are actually nicer than we think they are.
+ This year’s Krampus Run in Whitby—the Yorkshire town that inspired Bram Stoker’s Dracula—looks delightfully spooky.
+ How to find the magic in that most mundane of locations: the airport.
+ The happiest of birthdays to Dionne Warwick, who turns 85 today.

It’s a scorching October day in Bangkok and I’m wandering through the exhibits at the Thai Space Expo, held in one of the city’s busiest shopping malls, when I do a double take. Amid the flashy space suits and model rockets on display, there’s a plain-looking package of Thai basil chicken. I’m told the same kind of vacuum-­sealed package has just been launched to the International Space Station.

“This is real chicken that we sent to space,” says a spokesperson for the business behind the stunt, Charoen Pokphand Foods, the biggest food company in Thailand.

It’s an unexpected sight, one that reflects the growing excitement within the Southeast Asian space sector. At the expo, held among designer shops and street-food stalls, enthusiastic attendees have converged from emerging space nations such as Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, and of course Thailand to showcase Southeast Asia’s fledgling space industry.

While there is some uncertainty about how exactly the region’s space sector may evolve, there is plenty of optimism, too. “Southeast Asia is perfectly positioned to take leadership as a space hub,” says Candace Johnson, a partner in Seraphim Space, a UK investment firm that operates in Singapore. “There are a lot of opportunities.”

For example, Thailand may build a spaceport to launch rockets in the next few years, the country’s Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency announced the day before the expo started. “We don’t have a spaceport in Southeast Asia,” says Atipat Wattanuntachai, acting head of the space economy advancement division at the agency. “We saw a gap.” Because Thailand is so close to the equator, those rockets would get an additional boost from Earth’s rotation.

All kinds of companies here are exploring how they might tap into the global space economy. VegaCosmos, a startup based in Hanoi, Vietnam, is looking at ways to use satellite data for urban planning. The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand is monitoring rainstorms from space to predict landslides. And the startup Spacemap, from Seoul, South Korea, is developing a new tool to better track satellites in orbit, which the US Space Force has invested in.

It’s the space chicken that caught my eye, though, perhaps because it reflects the juxtaposition of tradition and modernity seen across Bangkok, a city of ancient temples nestled next to glittering skyscrapers.

In June, astronauts on the space station were treated to this popular dish, known as pad krapow. It’s more commonly served up by street vendors, but this time it was delivered on a private mission operated by the US-based company Axiom Space. Charoen Pokphand is now using the stunt to say its chicken is good enough for NASA (sadly, I wasn’t able to taste it to weigh in).

Other Southeast Asian industries could also lend expertise to future space missions. Johnson says the region could leverage its manufacturing prowess to develop better semiconductors for satellites, for example, or break into the in-space manufacturing market.

I left the expo on a Thai longboat down the Chao Phraya River that weaves through Bangkok, with visions of astronauts tucking into some pad krapow in my head and imagining what might come next.

Jonathan O’Callaghan is a freelance space journalist based in Bangkok who covers commercial spaceflight, astrophysics, and space exploration.

This week I’ve been thinking about babies. Healthy ones. Perfect ones. As you may have read last week, my colleague Antonio Regalado came face to face with a marketing campaign in the New York subway asking people to “have your best baby.”

The company behind that campaign, Nucleus Genomics, says it offers customers a way to select embryos for a range of traits, including height and IQ. It’s an extreme proposition, but it does seem to be growing in popularity—potentially even in the UK, where it’s illegal.

The other end of the screening spectrum is transforming too. Carrier screening, which tests would-be parents for hidden genetic mutations that might affect their children, initially involved testing for specific genes in at-risk populations.

Now, it’s open to almost everyone who can afford it. Companies will offer to test for hundreds of genes to help people make informed decisions when they try to become parents. But expanded carrier screening comes with downsides. And it isn’t for everyone.

That’s what I found earlier this week when I attended the Progress Educational Trust’s annual conference in London.

First, a bit of background. Our cells carry 23 pairs of chromosomes, each with thousands of genes. The same gene—say, one that codes for eye color—can come in different forms, or alleles. If the allele is dominant, you only need one copy to express that trait. That’s the case for the allele responsible for brown eyes. 

If the allele is recessive, the trait doesn’t show up unless you have two copies. This is the case with the allele responsible for blue eyes, for example.

Things get more serious when we consider genes that can affect a person’s risk of disease. Having a single recessive disease-causing gene typically won’t cause you any problems. But a genetic disease could show up in children who inherit the same recessive gene from both parents. There’s a 25% chance that two “carriers” will have an affected child. And those cases can come as a shock to the parents, who tend to have no symptoms and no family history of disease.

This can be especially problematic in communities with high rates of those alleles. Consider Tay-Sachs disease—a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disorder caused by a recessive genetic mutation. Around one in 25 members of the Ashkenazi Jewish population is a healthy carrier for Tay-Sachs. Screening would-be parents for those recessive genes can be helpful. Carrier screening efforts in the Jewish community, which have been running since the 1970s, have massively reduced cases of Tay-Sachs.

Expanded carrier screening takes things further. Instead of screening for certain high-risk alleles in at-risk populations, there’s an option to test for a wide array of diseases in prospective parents and egg and sperm donors. The companies offering these screens “started out with 100 genes, and now some of them go up to 2,000,” Sara Levene, genetics counsellor at Guided Genetics, said at the meeting. “It’s becoming a bit of an arms race amongst labs, to be honest.”

There are benefits to expanded carrier screening. In most cases, the results are reassuring. And if something is flagged, prospective parents have options; they can often opt for additional testing to get more information about a particular pregnancy, for example, or choose to use other donor eggs or sperm to get pregnant. But there are also downsides. For a start, the tests can’t entirely rule out the risk of genetic disease.

Earlier this week, the BBC reported news of a sperm donor who had unwittingly passed on to at least 197 children in Europe a genetic mutation that dramatically increased the risk of cancer. Some of those children have already died.

It’s a tragic case. That donor had passed screening checks. The (dominant) mutation appears to have occurred in his testes, affecting around 20% of his sperm. It wouldn’t have shown up in a screen for recessive alleles, or even a blood test.

Even recessive diseases can be influenced by many genes, some of which won’t be included in the screen. And the screens don’t account for other factors that could influence a person’s risk of disease, such as epigenetics, microbiome, or even lifestyle.

“There’s always a 3% to 4% chance [of having] a child with a medical issue regardless of the screening performed,” said Jackson Kirkman-Brown, professor of reproductive biology at the University of Birmingham, at the meeting.

The tests can also cause stress. As soon as a clinician even mentions expanded carrier screening, it adds to the mental load of the patient, said Kirkman-Brown: “We’re saying this is another piece of information you need to worry about.”

People can also feel pressured to undergo expanded carrier screening even when they are ambivalent about it, said Heidi Mertes, a medical ethicist at Ghent University. “Once the technology is there, people feel like if they don’t take this opportunity up, then they are kind of doing something wrong or missing out,” she said.

My takeaway from the presentations was that while expanded carrier screening can be useful, especially for people from populations with known genetic risks, it won’t be for everyone.

I also worry that, as with the genetic tests offered by Nucleus, its availability gives the impression that it is possible to have a “perfect” baby—even if that only means “free from disease.” The truth is that there’s a lot about reproduction that we can’t control.

The decision to undergo expanded carrier screening is a personal choice. But as Mertes noted at the meeting: “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Solar geoengineering startups are getting serious

Solar geoengineering aims to manipulate the climate by bouncing sunlight back into space. In theory, it could ease global warming. But as interest in the idea grows, so do concerns about potential consequences.

A startup called Stardust Solutions recently raised a $60 million funding round, the largest known to date for a geoengineering startup. My colleague James Temple has a new story out about the company, and how its emergence is making some researchers nervous.

So far, the field has been limited to debates, proposed academic research, and—sure—a few fringe actors to keep an eye on. Now things are getting more serious. So what does it mean for geoengineering, and for the climate? Read the full story.

—Casey Crownhart

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

If you’re interested in reading more about solar geoengineering, check out:

+ Why the for-profit race into solar geoengineering is bad for science and public trust. Read the full story.

+ Why we need more research—including outdoor experiments—to make better-informed decisions about such climate interventions.

+ The hard lessons of Harvard’s failed geoengineering experiment, which was officially terminated last year. Read the full story.

+ How this London nonprofit became one of the biggest backers of geoengineering research.

+ The technology could alter the entire planet. These groups want every nation to have a say.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 OpenAI is being sued for wrongful death
By the estate of a woman killed by her son after he engaged in delusion-filled conversations with ChatGPT. (WSJ $)
+ The chatbot appeared to validate Stein-Erik Soelberg’s conspiratorial ideas. (WP $)
+ It’s the latest in a string of wrongful death legal actions filed against chatbot makers. (ABC News)

2 ICE is tracking pregnant immigrants through specifically-developed smartwatches
They’re unable to take the devices off, even during labor. (The Guardian)
+ Pregnant and postpartum women say they’ve been detained in solitary confinement. (Slate $)
+ Another effort to track ICE raids has been taken offline. (MIT Technology Review)

3 Meta’s new AI hires aren’t making friends with the rest of the company
Tensions are rife between the AGI team and other divisions. (NYT $)
+ Mark Zuckerberg is keen to make money off the company’s AI ambitions. (Bloomberg $)
+ Meanwhile, what’s life like for the remaining Scale AI team? (Insider $)

4 Google DeepMind is building its first materials science lab in the UK
It’ll focus on developing new materials to build superconductors and solar cells. (FT $) 

5 The new space race is to build orbital data centers
And Blue Origin is winning, apparently. (WSJ $)
+ Plenty of companies are jostling for their slice of the pie. (The Verge)
+ Should we be moving data centers to space? (MIT Technology Review)

6 Inside the quest to find out what causes Parkinson’s
A growing body of work suggests it may not be purely genetic after all. (Wired $)

7 Are you in TikTok’s cat niche? 
If so, you’re likely to be in these other niches too. (WP $)

8 Why do our brains get tired?
Researchers are trying to get to the bottom of it.  (Nature $)

9 Microsoft’s boss has built his own cricket app
Satya Nadella can’t get enough of the sound of leather on willow. (Bloomberg $)

10 How much vibe coding is too much vibe coding? 
One journalist’s journey into the heart of darkness. (Rest of World)
+ What is vibe coding, exactly? (MIT Technology Review)

Quote of the day

“I feel so much pain seeing his sad face…I hope for a New Year’s miracle.”

—A child in Russia sends a message to the Kremlin-aligned Safe Internet League explaining the impact of the country’s decision to block access to the wildly popular gaming platform Roblox on their brother, the Washington Post reports.

 One more thing

Why it’s so hard to stop tech-facilitated abuse

After Gioia had her first child with her then husband, he installed baby monitors throughout their home—to “watch what we were doing,” she says, while he went to work. She’d turn them off; he’d get angry. By the time their third child turned seven, Gioia and her husband had divorced, but he still found ways to monitor her behavior. 

One Christmas, he gave their youngest a smartwatch. Gioia showed it to a tech-savvy friend, who found that the watch had a tracking feature turned on. It could be turned off only by the watch’s owner—her ex.

Gioia is far from alone. In fact, tech-facilitated abuse now occurs in most cases of intimate partner violence—and we’re doing shockingly little to prevent it. Read the full story. 

—Jessica Klein

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)

+ The New Yorker has picked its best TV shows of 2025. Let the debate commence!
+ Check out the winners of this year’s Drone Photo Awards.
+ I’m sorry to report you aren’t half as intuitive as you think you are when it comes to deciphering your dog’s emotions.
+ Germany’s “home of Christmas” sure looks magical.

Solar geoengineering aims to manipulate the climate by bouncing sunlight back into space. In theory, it could ease global warming. But as interest in the idea grows, so do concerns about potential consequences.

A startup called Stardust Solutions recently raised a $60 million funding round, the largest known to date for a geoengineering startup. My colleague James Temple has a new story out about the company, and how its emergence is making some researchers nervous.

So far, the field has been limited to debates, proposed academic research, and—sure—a few fringe actors to keep an eye on. Now things are getting more serious. What does it mean for geoengineering, and for the climate?

Researchers have considered the possibility of addressing planetary warming this way for decades. We already know that volcanic eruptions, which spew sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, can reduce temperatures. The thought is that we could mimic that natural process by spraying particles up there ourselves.

The prospect is a controversial one, to put it lightly. Many have concerns about unintended consequences and uneven benefits. Even public research led by top institutions has faced barriers—one famous Harvard research program was officially canceled last year after years of debate.

One of the difficulties of geoengineering is that in theory a single entity, like a startup company, could make decisions that have a widespread effect on the planet. And in the last few years, we’ve seen more interest in geoengineering from the private sector. 

Three years ago, James broke the story that Make Sunsets, a California-based company, was already releasing particles into the atmosphere in an effort to tweak the climate.

The company’s CEO Luke Iseman went to Baja California in Mexico, stuck some sulfur dioxide into a weather balloon, and sent it skyward. The amount of material was tiny, and it’s not clear that it even made it into the right part of the atmosphere to reflect any sunlight.

But fears that this group or others could go rogue and do their own geoengineering led to widespread backlash. Mexico announced plans to restrict geoengineering experiments in the country a few weeks after that news broke.

You can still buy cooling credits from Make Sunsets, and the company was just granted a patent for its system. But the startup is seen as something of a fringe actor.

Enter Stardust Solutions. The company has been working under the radar for a few years, but it has started talking about its work more publicly this year. In October, it announced a significant funding round, led by some top names in climate investing. “Stardust is serious, and now it’s raised serious money from serious people,” as James puts it in his new story.

That’s making some experts nervous. Even those who believe we should be researching geoengineering are concerned about what it means for private companies to do so.

“Adding business interests, profit motives, and rich investors into this situation just creates more cause for concern, complicating the ability of responsible scientists and engineers to carry out the work needed to advance our understanding,” write David Keith and Daniele Visioni, two leading figures in geoengineering research, in a recent opinion piece for MIT Technology Review.

Stardust insists that it won’t move forward with any geoengineering until and unless it’s commissioned to do so by governments and there are rules and bodies in place to govern use of the technology.

But there’s no telling how financial pressure might change that, down the road. And we’re already seeing some of the challenges faced by a private company in this space: the need to keep trade secrets.

Stardust is currently not sharing information about the particles it intends to release into the sky, though it says it plans to do so once it secures a patent, which could happen as soon as next year. The company argues that its proprietary particles will be safe, cheap to manufacture, and easier to track than the already abundant sulfur dioxide. But at this point, there’s no way for external experts to evaluate those claims.

As Keith and Visioni put it: “Research won’t be useful unless it’s trusted, and trust depends on transparency.”

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

In this exclusive subscriber-only eBook, you’ll learn about a new method that scientists have uncovered to look at the ways our bodies are aging.

by  Jessica Hamzelou October 14, 2025

Table of Contents:

• Clocks kick off
• Black-box clocks
• How to be young again
• Dogs and dolphins
• When young meets old

Related Stories:

• How aging clocks can help us understand why we age—and if we can reverse it
• The quest to legitimize longevity medicine

Access all subscriber-only eBooks:

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

How one controversial startup hopes to cool the planet

Stardust Solutions believes that it can solve climate change—for a price. 

The Israel-based geoengineering startup has said it expects nations will soon pay it more than a billion dollars a year to launch specially equipped aircraft into the stratosphere. Once they’ve reached the necessary altitude, those planes will disperse particles engineered to reflect away enough sunlight to cool down the planet, purportedly without causing environmental side effects. 

But numerous solar geoengineering researchers are skeptical that Stardust will line up the customers it needs to carry out a global deployment in the next decade. They’re also highly critical of the idea of a private company setting the global temperature for us. Read the full story.

—James Temple

MIT Technology Review Narrated: Is this the electric grid of the future?  

In Nebraska, a publicly owned utility company is tackling the challenges of delivering on reliability, affordability, and sustainability. It aims to reach net zero by 2040—here’s how it plans to get there.

This is our latest story to be turned into a MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we’re publishing each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Australia’s social media ban for teens has just come into force
The whole world will be watching to see what happens next. (The Guardian)
+ Opinions about the law are sharply divided among Australians. (BBC)
+ Plenty of teens hate it, naturally. (WP $)
+ A third of US teens are on their phones “almost constantly.” (NYT $)

2 This has been the second-hottest year since records began
Mean temperatures approached 1.5°C above the preindustrial average. (New Scientist $)
+ Meanwhile world leaders at this year’s UN climate talks couldn’t even agree to use the phrase ‘fossil fuels’ in the final draft. (MIT Technology Review)

3 OpenAI is in trouble
It’s rapidly losing its technological edge to competitors like Google and Anthropic. (The Atlantic $)
+ Silicon Valley is working harder than ever to sell AI to us. (Wired $)
+ There’s a new industry-wide push to agree shared standards for AI agents. (TechCrunch)
+ No one can explain how AI really works—not even the experts attending AI’s biggest research gathering. (NBC)

4 MAGA influencers want Trump to kill the Netflix/Warner Bros deal
They argue Netflix is simply too woke (after all, it employs the Obamas.) (WP $)

5 AI slop videos have taken over social media
It’s now almost impossible to tell if what you’re seeing is real or not. (NYT $)

6 Trump’s system to weed out noncitizen voters is flagging US citizens 
Once alerted, people have 30 days to provide proof of citizenship before they lose their ability to vote. (NPR)
+ The US is planning to ask visitors to disclose five years of social media history. (WP $)
+ How open source voting machines could boost trust in US elections. (MIT Technology Review)

7 Virtual power plants are having a moment
Here’s why they’re poised to play a significant role in meeting energy demand over the next decade. (IEEE Spectrum)
+ How virtual power plants are shaping tomorrow’s energy system. (MIT Technology Review)

8 New devices are about to get (even) more expensive
You can thank AI for pushing up the price of RAM for the rest of us. (The Verge)

9 People hated the McDonald’s AI ad so much the company pulled it 
How are giant corporations still falling into this exact trap every holiday season? (Forbes)  

10 Why is ice slippery? There’s a new hypothesis 
You might think you know. But it’s still fiercely debated among ice researchers! (Quanta $)

Quote of the day

“We’re pleased to be the first, we’re proud to be the first, and we stand ready to help any other jurisdiction who seeks to do these things.”

—Australia’s communications minister Anika Wells tells the BBC how she feels about her government’s decision to ban social media for under-16s. 

One more thing

The entrepreneur dreaming of a factory of unlimited organs

At any given time, the US transplant waiting list is about 100,000 people long. Thousands die waiting, and many more never make the list to begin with. Entrepreneur Martine Rothblatt wants to address this by growing organs compatible with human bodies in genetically modified pigs.

In recent years, US doctors have attempted seven pig-to-human transplants, the most dramatic of which was a case where a 57-year-old man with heart failure lived two months with a pig heart supplied by Rothblatt’s company. 

The experiment demonstrated the first life-sustaining pig-to-human organ transplant—and paved the way towards an organized clinical trial to prove they save lives consistently. Read the full story.

—Antonio Regalado

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)

+ I want to eat all of these things, starting with the hot chocolate cookies. 
+ Even one minute is enough time to enjoy some of the benefits of mindfulness.
+ The Geminid meteor shower will reach its peak this weekend. Here’s how to see it. 
+ I really enjoy Leah Gardner’s still life paintings.

At a regional hospital, a cardiac patient’s lab results sit behind layers of encryption, accessible to his surgeon but shielded from those without strictly need-to-know status. Across the street at a credit union, a small business owner anxiously awaits the all-clear for a wire transfer, unaware that fraud detection systems have flagged it for further review.

Such scenarios illustrate how companies in regulated industries juggle competing directives: Move data and process transactions quickly enough to save lives and support livelihoods, but carefully enough to maintain ironclad security and satisfy regulatory scrutiny.

Organizations subject to such oversight walk a fine line every day. And recently, a number of curveballs have thrown off that hard-won equilibrium. Agencies are ramping up oversight thanks to escalating data privacy concerns; insurers are tightening underwriting and requiring controls like MFA and privileged-access governance as a condition of coverage. Meanwhile, the shifting VMware landscape has introduced more complexity for IT teams tasked with planning long-term infrastructure strategies. 

Download the full article

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.

This content 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.

Stardust Solutions believes that it can solve climate change—for a price.

The Israel-based geoengineering startup has said it expects  nations will soon pay it more than a billion dollars a year to launch specially equipped aircraft into the stratosphere. Once they’ve reached the necessary altitude, those planes will disperse particles engineered to reflect away enough sunlight to cool down the planet, purportedly without causing environmental side effects. 

The proprietary (and still secret) particles could counteract all the greenhouse gases the world has emitted over the last 150 years, the company stated in a 2023 pitch deck it presented to venture capital firms. In fact, it’s the “only technologically feasible solution” to climate change, the company said.

The company disclosed it raised $60 million in funding in October, marking by far the largest known funding round to date for a startup working on solar geoengineering.

Stardust is, in a sense, the embodiment of Silicon Valley’s simmering frustration with the pace of academic research on the technology. It’s a multimillion-dollar bet that a startup mindset can advance research and development that has crept along amid scientific caution and public queasiness.

But numerous researchers focused on solar geoengineering are deeply skeptical that Stardust will line up the government customers it would need to carry out a global deployment as early as 2035, the plan described in its earlier investor materials—and aghast at the suggestion that it ever expected to move that fast. They’re also highly critical of the idea that a company would take on the high-stakes task of setting the global temperature, rather than leaving it to publicly funded research programs.

“They’ve ignored every recommendation from everyone and think they can turn a profit in this field,” says Douglas MacMartin, an associate professor at Cornell University who studies solar geoengineering. “I think it’s going to backfire. Their investors are going to be dumping their money down the drain, and it will set back the field.”

The company has finally emerged from stealth mode after completing its funding round, and its CEO, Yanai Yedvab, agreed to conduct one of the company’s first extensive interviews with MIT Technology Review for this story.

Yedvab walked back those ambitious projections a little, stressing that the actual timing of any stratospheric experiments, demonstrations, or deployments will be determined by when governments decide it’s appropriate to carry them out. Stardust has stated clearly that it will move ahead with solar geoengineering only if nations pay it to proceed, and only once there are established rules and bodies guiding the use of the technology.

That decision, he says, will likely be dictated by how bad climate change becomes in the coming years.

“It could be a situation where we are at the place we are now, which is definitely not great,” he says. “But it could be much worse. We’re saying we’d better be ready.”

“It’s not for us to decide, and I’ll say humbly, it’s not for these researchers to decide,” he adds. “It’s the sense of urgency that will dictate how this will evolve.”

The building blocks

No one is questioning the scientific credentials of Stardust. The company was founded in 2023 by a trio of prominent researchers, including Yedvab, who served as deputy chief scientist at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission. The company’s lead scientist, Eli Waxman, is the head of the department of particle physics and astrophysics at the Weizmann Institute of Science. Amyad Spector, the chief product officer, was previously a nuclear physicist at Israel’s secretive Negev Nuclear Research Center.

Stardust says it employs 25 scientists, engineers, and academics. The company is based in Ness Ziona, Israel, and plans to open a US headquarters soon. 

Yedvab says the motivation for starting Stardust was simply to help develop an effective means of addressing climate change. 

“Maybe something in our experience, in the tool set that we bring, can help us in contributing to solving one of the greatest problems humanity faces,” he says.

Lowercarbon Capital, the climate-tech-focused investment firm  cofounded by the prominent tech investor Chris Sacca, led the $60 million investment round. Future Positive, Future Ventures, and Never Lift Ventures, among others, participated as well.

AWZ Ventures, a firm focused on security and intelligence technologies, co-led the company’s earlier seed round, which totaled $15 million.

Yedvab says the company will use that money to advance research, development, and testing for the three components of its system, which are also described in the pitch deck: safe particles that could be affordably manufactured; aircraft dispersion systems; and a means of tracking particles and monitoring their effects.

“Essentially, the idea is to develop all these building blocks and to upgrade them to a level that will allow us to give governments the tool set and all the required information to make decisions about whether and how to deploy this solution,” he says. 

The company is, in many ways, the opposite of Make Sunsets, the first company that came along offering to send particles into the stratosphere—for a fee—by pumping sulfur dioxide into weather balloons and hand-releasing them into the sky. Many researchers viewed it as a provocative, unscientific, and irresponsible exercise in attention-gathering. 

But Stardust is serious, and now it’s raised serious money from serious people—all of which raises the stakes for the solar geoengineering field and, some fear, increases the odds that the world will eventually put the technology to use.

“That marks a turning point in that these types of actors are not only possible, but are real,” says Shuchi Talati, executive director of the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, a nonprofit that strives to ensure that developing nations are included in the global debate over such climate interventions. “We’re in a more dangerous era now.”

Many scientists studying solar geoengineering argue strongly that universities, governments, and transparent nonprofits should lead the work in the field, given the potential dangers and deep public concerns surrounding a tool with the power to alter the climate of the planet. 

It’s essential to carry out the research with appropriate oversight, explore the potential downsides of these approaches, and publicly publish the results “to ensure there’s no bias in the findings and no ulterior motives in pushing one way or another on deployment or not,” MacMartin says. “[It] shouldn’t be foisted upon people without proper and adequate information.”

He criticized, for instance, the company’s claims to have developed what he described as their “magic aerosol particle,” arguing that the assertion that it is perfectly safe and inert can’t be trusted without published findings. Other scientists have also disputed those scientific claims.

Plenty of other academics say solar geoengineering shouldn’t be studied at all, fearing that merely investigating it starts the world down a slippery slope toward its use and diminishes the pressures to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. In 2022, hundreds of them signed an open letter calling for a global ban on the development and use of the technology, adding the concern that there is no conceivable way for the world’s nations to pull together to establish rules or make collective decisions ensuring that it would be used in “a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.”

“Solar geoengineering is not necessary,” the authors wrote. “Neither is it desirable, ethical, or politically governable in the current context.”

The for-profit decision 

Stardust says it’s important to pursue the possibility of solar geoengineering because the dangers of climate change are accelerating faster than the world’s ability to respond to it, requiring a new “class of solution … that buys us time and protects us from overheating.”

Yedvab says he and his colleagues thought hard about the right structure for the organization, finally deciding that for-profits working in parallel with academic researchers have delivered “most of the groundbreaking technologies” in recent decades. He cited advances in genome sequencing, space exploration, and drug development, as well as the restoration of the ozone layer.

He added that a for-profit structure was also required to raise funds and attract the necessary talent.

“There is no way we could, unfortunately, raise even a small portion of this amount by philanthropic resources or grants these days,” he says.

He adds that while academics have conducted lots of basic science in solar geoengineering, they’ve done very little in terms of building the technological capacities. Their geoengineering research is also primarily focused on the potential use of sulfur dioxide, because it is known to help reduce global temperatures after volcanic eruptions blast massive amounts of it into the stratospheric. But it has well-documented downsides as well, including harm to the protective ozone layer.

“It seems natural that we need better options, and this is why we started Stardust: to develop this safe, practical, and responsible solution,” the company said in a follow-up email. “Eventually, policymakers will need to evaluate and compare these options, and we’re confident that our option will be superior over sulfuric acid primarily in terms of safety and practicability.”

Public trust can be won not by excluding private companies, but by setting up regulations and organizations to oversee this space, much as the US Food and Drug Administration does for pharmaceuticals, Yedvab says.

“There is no way this field could move forward if you don’t have this governance framework, if you don’t have external validation, if you don’t have clear regulation,” he says.

Meanwhile, the company says it intends to operate transparently, pledging to publish its findings whether they’re favorable or not.

That will include finally revealing details about the particles it has developed, Yedvab says. 

Early next year, the company and its collaborators will begin publishing data or evidence “substantiating all the claims and disclosing all the information,” he says, “so that everyone in the scientific community can actually check whether we checked all these boxes.”

In the follow-up email, the company acknowledged that solar geoengineering isn’t a “silver bullet” but said it is “the only tool that will enable us to cool the planet in the short term, as part of a larger arsenal of technologies.”

“The only way governments could be in a position to consider [solar geoengineering] is if the work has been done to research, de-risk, and engineer safe and responsible solutions—which is what we see as our role,” the company added later. “We are hopeful that research will continue not just from us, but also from academic institutions, nonprofits, and other responsible companies that may emerge in the future.”

Ambitious projections

Stardust’s earlier pitch deck stated that the company expected to conduct its first “stratospheric aerial experiments” last year, though those did not move ahead (more on that in a moment).

On another slide, the company said it expected to carry out a “large-scale demonstration” around 2030 and proceed to a “global full-scale deployment” by about 2035. It said it expected to bring in roughly $200 million and $1.5 billion in annual revenue by those periods, respectively.

Every researcher interviewed for this story was adamant that such a deployment should not happen so quickly.

Given the global but uneven and unpredictable impacts of solar geoengineering, any decision to use the technology should be reached through an inclusive, global agreement, not through the unilateral decisions of individual nations, Talati argues. 

“We won’t have any sort of international agreement by that point given where we are right now,” she says.

A global agreement, to be clear, is a big step beyond setting up rules and oversight bodies—and some believe that such an agreement on a technology so divisive could never be achieved.

There’s also still a vast amount of research that must be done to better understand the negative side effects of solar geoengineering generally and any ecological impacts of Stardust’s materials specifically, adds Holly Buck, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo and author of After Geoengineering.

“It is irresponsible to talk about deploying stratospheric aerosol injection without fundamental research about its impacts,” Buck wrote in an email.

She says the timelines are also “unrealistic” because there are profound public concerns about the technology. Her polling work found that a significant fraction of the US public opposes even research (though polling varies widely). 

Meanwhile, most academic efforts to move ahead with even small-scale outdoor experiments have sparked fierce backlash. That includes the years-long effort by researchers then at Harvard to carry out a basic equipment test for their so-called ScopeX experiment. The high-altitude balloon would have launched from a flight center in Sweden, but the test was ultimately scratched amid objections from environmentalists and Indigenous groups. 

Given this baseline of public distrust, Stardust’s for-profit proposals only threaten to further inflame public fears, Buck says.

“I find the whole proposal incredibly socially naive,” she says. “We actually could use serious research in this field, but proposals like this diminish the chances of that happening.”

Those public fears, which cross the political divide, also mean politicians will see little to no political upside to paying Stardust to move ahead, MacMartin says.

“If you don’t have the constituency for research, it seems implausible to me that you’d turn around and give money to an Israeli company to deploy it,” he says.

An added risk is that if one nation or a small coalition forges ahead without broader agreement, it could provoke geopolitical conflicts. 

“What if Russia wants it a couple of degrees warmer, and India a couple of degrees cooler?” asked Alan Robock, a professor at Rutgers University, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2008. “Should global climate be reset to preindustrial temperature or kept constant at today’s reading? Would it be possible to tailor the climate of each region of the planet independently without affecting the others? If we proceed with geoengineering, will we provoke future climate wars?”

Revised plans

Yedvab says the pitch deck reflected Stardust’s strategy at a “very early stage in our work,” adding that their thinking has “evolved,” partly in response to consultations with experts in the field.

He says that the company will have the technological capacity to move ahead with demonstrations and deployments on the timelines it laid out but adds, “That’s a necessary but not sufficient condition.”

“Governments will need to decide where they want to take it, if at all,” he says. “It could be a case that they will say ‘We want to move forward.’ It could be a case that they will say ‘We want to wait a few years.’”

“It’s for them to make these decisions,” he says.

Yedvab acknowledges that the company has conducted flights in the lower atmosphere to test its monitoring system, using white smoke as a simulant for its particles, as the Wall Street Journal reported last year. It’s also done indoor tests of the dispersion system and its particles in a wind tunnel set up within its facility.

But in response to criticisms like the ones above, Yedvab says the company hasn’t conducted outdoor particle experiments and won’t move forward with them until it has approval from governments. 

“Eventually, there will be a need to conduct outdoor testing,” he says. “There is no way you can validate any solution without outdoor testing.” But such testing of sunlight reflection technology, he says, “should be done only working together with government and under these supervisions.”

Generating returns  

Stardust may be willing to wait for governments to be ready to deploy its system, but there’s no guarantee that its investors will have the same patience. In accepting tens of millions in venture capital, Stardust may now face financial pressures that could “drive the timelines,” says Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia University. 

And that raises a different set of concerns.

Obliged to deliver returns, the company might feel it must strive to convince government leaders that they should pay for its services, Talati says. 

“The whole point of having companies and investors is you want your thing to be used,” she says. “There’s a massive incentive to lobby countries to use it, and that’s the whole danger of having for-profit companies here.”

She argues those financial incentives threaten to accelerate the use of solar geoengineering ahead of broader international agreements and elevate business interests above the broader public good.

Stardust has “quietly begun lobbying on Capitol Hill” and has hired the law firm Holland & Knight, according to Politico.

It has also worked with Red Duke Strategies, a consulting firm based in McLean, Virginia, to develop “strategic relationships and communications that promote understanding and enable scientific testing,” according to a case study on the company’s  website. 

“The company needed to secure both buy-in and support from the United States government and other influential stakeholders to move forward,” Red Duke states. “This effort demanded a well-connected and authoritative partner who could introduce Stardust to a group of experts able to research, validate, deploy, and regulate its SRM technology.”

Red Duke didn’t respond to an inquiry from MIT Technology Review. Stardust says its work with the consulting firm was not a government lobbying effort.

Yedvab acknowledges that the company is meeting with government leaders in the US, Europe, its own region, and the Global South. But he stresses that it’s not asking any country to contribute funding or to sign off on deployments at this stage. Instead, it’s making the case for nations to begin crafting policies to regulate solar geoengineering.

“When we speak to policymakers—and we speak to policymakers; we don’t hide it—essentially, what we tell them is ‘Listen, there is a solution,’” he says. “‘It’s not decades away—it’s a few years away. And it’s your role as policymakers to set the rules of this field.’”

“Any solution needs checks and balances,” he says. “This is how we see the checks and balances.”

He says the best-case scenario is still a rollout of clean energy technologies that accelerates rapidly enough to drive down emissions and curb climate change.

“We are perfectly fine with building an option that will sit on the shelf,” he says. “We’ll go and do something else. We have a great team and are confident that we can find also other problems to work with.”

He says the company’s investors are aware of and comfortable with that possibility, supportive of the principles that will guide Stardust’s work, and willing to wait for regulations and government contracts.

Lowercarbon Capital didn’t respond to an inquiry from MIT Technology Review.

‘Sentiment of hope’

Others have certainly imagined the alternative scenario Yedvab raises: that nations will increasingly support the idea of geoengineering in the face of mounting climate catastrophes. 

In Kim Stanley Robinson’s 2020 novel, The Ministry for the Future, India unilaterally forges ahead with solar geoengineering following a heat wave that kills millions of people. 

Wagner sketched a variation on that scenario in his 2021 book, Geoengineering: The Gamble, speculating that a small coalition of nations might kick-start a rapid research and deployment program as an emergency response to escalating humanitarian crises. In his version, the Philippines offers to serve as the launch site after a series of super-cyclones batter the island nation, forcing millions from their homes. 

It’s impossible to know today how the world will react if one nation or a few go it alone, or whether nations could come to agreement on where the global temperature should be set. 

But the lure of solar geoengineering could become increasingly enticing as more and more nations endure mass suffering, starvation, displacement, and death.

“We understand that probably it will not be perfect,” Yedvab says. “We understand all the obstacles, but there is this sentiment of hope, or cautious hope, that we have a way out of this dark corridor we are currently in.”

“I think that this sentiment of hope is something that gives us a lot of energy to move on forward,” he adds.

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

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

There are huge gulfs of opinion when it comes to predicting the near-future impacts of generative AI. In one camp there are those who predict that over 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’: experts who push back not only on these sorts of predictions but on their 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? 

Read the full conversation between MIT Technology Review’s senior AI editor Will Douglas Heaven and Tim Bradshaw, FT global tech correspondent, about where AI will go next, and what our world will look like in the next five years.

This is the final edition of The State of AI, a collaboration between the Financial Times and MIT Technology Review. Read the rest of the series, and if you want to keep up-to-date with what’s going on in the world of AI, sign up to receive our free Algorithm newsletter every Monday.

How AI is changing the economy

There’s a lot at stake when it comes to understanding how AI is changing the economy at large. What’s the right outlook to have? Join Mat Honan, editor in chief, David Rotman, editor at large, and Richard Waters, FT columnist, at 1pm ET today to hear them discuss what’s happening across industries and the market. Sign up now to be part of this exclusive subscriber-only event.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Trump says he’ll sign an order blocking states from regulating AI
But he’s facing a lot of pushback, including from members of his own party. (CNN)
+ The whole debacle can be traced back to congressional inaction. (Semafor)

2 Google’s new smart glasses are getting rave reviews 
You’ll be able to get your hands on a pair in 2026. Watch out, Apple and Meta. (Tech Radar)

3 Trump gave the go-ahead for Nvidia to sell powerful AI chips to China
The US gets a 25% cut of the sales—but what does it lose longer-term? (WP $)
+ And how much could China stand to gain? (NYT $)
+ How a top Chinese AI model overcame US sanctions. (MIT Technology Review)

4 America’s data center backlash is here
Republican and Democrat alike, local residents are sick of rapidly rising power bills. (Vox $)
+ More than 200 environmental groups are demanding a US-wide moratorium on new data centers. (The Guardian)
+ The data center boom in the desert. (MIT Technology Review)

5 A quarter of teens are turning to AI chatbots for mental health support
Given the lack of real-world help, can you really blame them? (The Guardian)
+ Therapists are secretly using ChatGPT. Clients are triggered. (MIT Technology Review)

6 ICEBlock is suing the US government over its App Store removal 
Its creator is arguing that the Department of Justice’s demands to Apple violated his First Amendment rights. (404 Media)
+ It’s one of a number of ICE-tracking initiatives to be pulled by tech platforms this year. (MIT Technology Review)

7 This band quit Spotify, but it’s been replaced by AI knockoffs
The platform seems to be struggling against the tide of slop. (Futurism) 
+ AI is coming for music, too. (MIT Technology Review)

8 Think you’re immune to online ads? Think again
If you’re scrolling on social media, you’re being sold to. Relentlessly. (The Verge $)

9 People really do not like Microsoft Copilot
It’s like Clippy all over again, except it’s even less avoidable. (Quartz $)

10 The longest solar eclipse for 100 years is coming
And we’ll only have to wait until 2027 to see it! (Wired $)

Quote of the day

“Governments and MPs are shooting themselves in the foot by pandering to tech giants, because that just tells young people that they don’t care about our future.”

—Adele Zeynep Walton, founding member of online safety campaign group Ctrl+Alt+Reclaim, tells The Guardian why young activists are taking matters into their own hands. 

One more thing

Inside the long quest to advance Chinese writing technology

Every second of every day, someone is typing in Chinese. Though the mechanics look a little different from typing in English—people usually type the pronunciation of a character and then pick it out of a selection that pops up, autocomplete-style—it’s hard to think of anything more quotidian. The software that allows this exists beneath the awareness of pretty much everyone who uses it. It’s just there.

What’s largely been forgotten is that a large cast of eccentrics and linguists, engineers and polymaths, spent much of the 20th century torturing themselves over how Chinese was ever going to move away from the ink brush to any other medium. Read the full story.

—Veronique Greenwood

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)

+ Pantone chose a ‘calming’ shade of white for its Color of 2026… and people are fuming. 
+ Ozempic needles on the Christmas tree, anyone? Here’s why we’re going crazy for weird baubles. 
+ Can relate to this baby seal for instinctively heading to the nearest pub.
+ Thrilled to see One Battle After Another get so many Golden Globes nominations.