đ° News â Awesome Similarity Search
Loading newsâŠ
Loading newsâŠ
73 recent industry stories relevant to the field â releases, launches, and announcements beyond the papers.
The neolab is betting that automating routine computer tasks will soon outpace coding as AI's biggest use case.
Weeks after Anthropic's latest toe-to-toe with the US government, and days after an OpenAI security incident that dominated tech industry discussions, Anthropic on Thursday released its newest model, Claude Opus 5. The company said in a release that Opus 5 "comes close to the capabilities of Claude Fable 5 in many domains" and is much […]
Opus 5 will be both cheaper and less restrictive than Fable, likely making it preferable in most use cases.
AI companies, including Nvidia and Mistral, urge policymakers to avoid broad restrictions on open-weight AI models as Washington debates responses to Chinese AI and alleged model distillation.
AMD is challenging its chipmaker rival with a new rack-scale system that will start shipping to customers later this year.
Etched, founded by three Harvard dropouts, has created new chips and memory components that speed up inference on any AI model -- no GPUs required, it says.
Designing and developing a new medicine is an expensive, failure-prone scientific challenge. A new drug can take many years to develop, at the cost of a significant investment. And even then, most possible candidates never reach the patient. For biologic medicines, therapies made from engineered proteins rather than synthetic chemistry (which are often used to…
Major benchmarks measure what AI can do. None measure whether it does what you mean: the distance between what you ask an AI to do and the unspoken assumptions about how you want the AI to do it. We propose a new metric: the Genie coefficient.Thereâs often a gap between one personâs request and anotherâs understanding. Most of the time, we bridge it using general knowledge. For example, if you ask a friend to get you coffee, theyâll pour a cup from the pot or buy one from a coffee shop. They wonât bring you a bag of raw beans or snatch a cup from a stranger and hand it to you. You never specified any of this. You never had to.One might think the fix is just to specify tasks, questions, and intent better. But in 1987, in their seminal book on AI, Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores succinctly captured why that wonât work: âQ: Is there any water in the refrigerator? A: Yes. Q: Where? I donât see it. A: In the cells of the eggplant.â In human language, wants and desires are always underspecified. It is impossible to list all the caveats, all the limitations, all the exceptions.So how does anyone communicate, if intent canât be pinned down? Because a reasonable person can make a reasonable guess. Even though wants and desires are always underspecified, a competent person generally knows enough context to get it right or else knows to ask for clarification. Linguists call this pragmatics: Meaning lies in the words and the situation and also in all prior communication, shared culture, and innate human behavior.An AI agent asked for coffee might buy a coffee plantation or order a cup of coffee for delivery in three weeks.It doesnât always work out, of course. Your friend might bring you a hot coffee when you wanted an iced coffee, or an Italian coffee when you wanted a Turkish coffee. The more dissimilar the two people are in age, culture, and background, the more likely the request will be misunderstood in some way.This situation has major implications for AI agents that are increasingly being given requests by humans and expected to fulfill them. They have enormous latitude to get it wrong. An AI agent asked for coffee might buy a coffee plantation or order a cup of coffee for delivery in three weeks. Its actions may be recognizable as âgetting coffee,â but not remotely what you intended. Theyâll think outside the box because they wonât have our conception of the box.When AI Gets ProactiveFor most of the last decade, when systems like Alexa or Siri misinterpreted a request, it was annoying, not dangerous. Beyond the AI model itself, what has changed is the harness: the ordinary code that wraps around an AI model, decides when and how to use the model, and controls access to tools like a browser, a low-level command line, or a financial API. Developments in harnesses have turned large-language models that just predict text into AI agents that take actions in the world, without necessarily checking back in before reaching the goal.AI researcher Simon Willison spent two days with Anthropicâs Fable AI, and called it ârelentlessly proactive.â For example, he asked it to track down a stray scroll bar in a web app. He came back to find it had opened browsers, written its own screenshot tooling, created its own page to re-create the bug, and stood up a local web server to collect measurements. It found the bug and, along the way, did many surprising things he never asked it to do. And we are seeing similar behavior with all recent AI models when combined with flexible harnesses.This kind of behavior could easily go off the rails. Tell an AI agent to book you a flight and, finding the airlineâs site says sold out, it might break into the booking database and force a reservation. Ask it to schedule a meeting and it might snoop your password to access your calendar. Tell it to save money on your phone plan and it might cancel the plan outright, or scam someone else into paying the bill.Getting precisely what you asked for and bitterly regretting it is one of the oldest hazards from ancient folklore. King Midas asked Dionysus for the power to turn everything he touched into gold only to see his bread, wine, and daughter turn to gold. Tithonus, granted the immortality his lover asked for but not the eternal youth she forgot to request, withered into a husk. The sorcererâs apprentice enchanted a broom to fill the cistern, and the broom relentlessly complied until it flooded the house. The Golem of Prague, shaped from clay to guard its community, guarded it past all reason until someone erased the word on its forehead.The most classic of these is a genie, bound to obey and indifferent to whether the wish was wise or well-structured.Genies are now an engineering problem. We are handing them the keys to our inboxes, bank accounts, code repositories, and physical infrastructure. And we have no agreed-upon ways to measure how genie-like any AI system actually is.Measuring Genie BehaviorIn economics, the Gini coefficient (developed by statistician Corrado Gini) is a measure of the gap between an actual distribution and a perfectly equal one; itâs useful for understanding income inequality and more. Our proposed Genie coefficient measures the gap between what a user asked an AI to do and what the AI actually did.Sometimes the AI might do the wrong thing. Like Dionysus, it reads your request literally and returns you a mess you never intended: like a coffee plantation instead of a cup. Asked to deal with all the spam phone calls youâre getting, a Dionysus genie might contact your carrier and change your phone number. Asked to get a refund for a bad toaster, it might draft a legal threat on fake letterhead and send it to the retailer. Ryan SnookOther times the AI does exactly the right thing, trampling everything nearby to get there. Like a golem or the sorcererâs broom, it books your flight by hacking the airline. Or consider a ticket sale for a popular concert, where the ticketing system puts buyers into a virtual waiting room and admits them a few at a time. Asked to buy a ticket, a golem genie might spin up cloud servers to pose as millions of buyers from different addresses, improving your odds of getting a ticket while crowding out other users.The two are not opposites, and a single botched task can have both characteristics.Genie behavior is not flat-out failure. If you ask the AI for Q3 numbers and get Q2âs, thatâs not a genie. Nor is prompt injection: Thatâs someone tricking the AI into doing something it shouldnât. Here, the user is trying to work with the AI, and the AI is trying to comply. Itâs also not simply a measure of the AIâs success in fulfilling a task. Itâs a recognition that how an AI interprets and achieves a goal is as important as whether it achieves a goal. Genie behavior isnât new. Researchers have spent years studying AI systems that âgameâ their objectives. Goodhartâs law says that when a measure becomes a target, it stops being a good measure, and itâs long been known that AIs sometimes achieve goals in ways we donât expect due to reward hacking. Some AI models will accidentally learn that cheating is one way to âwin.â More recently, researchers have developing benchmarks for reward hacking in coding agents and for unpredictable behavior in customer support agents, while AI labs conduct their own safety evaluations before model releases. One effort found that AIs under pressure use tools they were told not to use, and this was a case where the rules were made explicit. These are all disparate research directions; nothing yet ties them together.This problem falls under the general theme of alignment, a topic that has occupied science fiction writers and AI researchers for decades. At one extreme, the âpaper-clip maximizerâ thought experiment postulates a superintelligent and powerful AI that is told to maximize paper-clip production and turns the world into paper clips, which is the ultimate golem genie. At a mundane level, AI researchers are working to better design reward functions to ensure that AIs behave well and donât cheat in the lab. Itâs the practical middle ground that remains unbenchmarked: the ordinary AI agent in use today that might take your request and satisfy it the wrong way. We are not at the stage where an AI can focus the worldâs production on paper clips, but it might charge a million paper clips to your credit card or hack into a paper-clip companyâs network.Building a Genie BenchmarkThe Genie coefficient is meant for AI agents operating in the real world. It measures their behavior as they perform real tasks long after the model is trained, not just during development. It also recognizes that genie-like behavior is a property of the harness-plus-model system, not the model alone. The harness determines what tools the agent can use, how much autonomy it has, and how proactive it is, and itâs a place we can make real interventions.It rests on the same âreasonable personâ standard that we use for people. Did the system do what a reasonable person would have taken the request to mean? Answering that requires human judgment.If we get the measurement right, it enables things that arenât possible today, like policies concerning AI behavior. In a courtroom, the concept of mens rea, what someone meant to do, is often as important as what they did. The Genie coefficient suggests an AI analogue, where a user is accountable for the plain intent of what they asked the AI. If an AI system betrays the reasonable meaning of an instruction, thatâs the AIâs misbehavior, not the userâs.Weâll need multiple benchmarks to measure the Genie coefficient, because genie-like behavior can be domain specific. An AI coding agent may need to be judged on how often it fakes the tests, or swallows errors, or colors outside the lines on its way to a solution. An AI legal agent will need to be judged on how often its output says what you asked but means something youâll regret. And so on for medical, finance, and other domains of knowledge and expertise.Genie benchmarks can be built inside out, each task seeded with a choice that might literally satisfy but that a reasonable person rejects, such as tempting misreadings or unsanctioned shortcuts. The traps in a Genie coefficient benchmark might turn on situational knowledge, the kind of context that a reasonable person would bring to the task. Another approach is to give the same request in several different contexts, each with a different reasonable course of action.Getting precisely what you asked for and bitterly regretting it is one of the oldest hazards from ancient folklore.A Genie benchmark should be permissive and make it genuinely tempting for an AI agent to take unreasonable shortcuts, because it can only find genie behavior when itâs actually possible. Test the AI in a safe, walled-off copy of a real system, with real tools it can misuse and some tasks that canât be done honestly at all. Make the temptation to cut corners real. Test a diverse array of skills, use cases, and tools, and give the AI system sparse, confusing, or overwhelming context. Include tasks that people have learned, through experience, require human oversight.How the benchmark is scored matters just as much. Measure Dionysus and golem genies separately and together, based on their worst, not best, behavior. Run the same model inside harnesses that vary its freedom to act, revealing which limits actually keep it in line and should therefore be required in AI harness policies. Weight each failure by the harm it would cause, not just a simple count. And donât measure genie behavior in isolation: A model could otherwise earn a perfect score by stalling, refusing, or drowning the user in clarifying questions without ever doing the job. The first versions of these benchmarks will be crude, but thatâs how benchmarks always start.We have built genies. We have handed them our data and credentials. We made them relentless, creative, and indifferent to the gap between what we tell them and what we mean. The least we can do, before they are booking our flights, running our infrastructure, and signing contracts unsupervised, is to measure how often they betray us.
Google released Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and Flash Cyber, but the continued absence of Gemini 3.5 Pro raises fresh questions about its AI strategy.
A federal judge has signed off on Anthropic's $1.5 billion class action settlement with authors who accused the company of training its AI models on copyrighted books, as reported earlier by Reuters. In an order on Monday, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín writes that the settlement will provide "meaningful relief," offering authors around $3,000 for each book […]
Zain Hasan, an AI engineer at Together AI, has taught himself to use AI coding assistants while still keeping an eye on cost. He directs difficult problems to a frontier model, meaning one near the current state of the art in reasoning and capability, such as Anthropicâs Fable. But if the task that Hasan is outsourcing is more straightforward, he directs it to a less capableâand less expensiveâlanguage model. Right now, the cheaper model, for him, tends to be GLM 5.2. Released on 16 June by the Beijing-based lab Z.ai, GLM 5.2 is an open-weights model, meaning any organization with sufficient hardware can download and host the model for free.Those that pay Z.ai for GLM access still can save money, because the companyâs API costs US $4.40 per million output tokens. Thatâs less than a fifth of the comparable price for access to Anthropicâs Opus 4.8 model, and a tenth the price of Anthropicâs Fable coding model. An output token is the basic unit of text a model generates in response to a prompt. Yet many software engineers around the world, Hasan said, arenât yet fully mindful of the net AI price tag for a given coding project.âA lot of companies right nowâtheyâre still trying to figure this technology out, and so there isnât really a token budget,â said Hasan. And when someone else is paying, the rational move for many software engineers is to skip tabulating costs entirely. âThe easiest thing is to pick the most powerful model.â That price-be-damned habit, reinforced by loose token budgets in software companies today, may now be the widest moat protecting the U.S. frontier AI labs. Z.ai Narrows Benchmark Gap With U.S. RivalsZ.aiâs GLM 5.2 is an AI large language model (LLM) with 753 billion parameters, though it has only 40 billion parameters active at onceâan optimization that improves the speed at which a model can respond. Z.ai released the model under an MIT open-source license, which means anyone can distribute, copy, modify, and use it.GLM 5.2âs release added to fears that U.S. AI companies could lose their competitive edge. The model nearly ties Opus 4.8âs score on some agentic coding benchmarks, such as FrontierSWE and PostTrainBench. Cybersecurity researchers have also found that GLM 5.2 scores well in cybersecurity benchmarks, a capability that spurred comparisons to Anthropicâs Mythos. Z.ai arrives amid a broader trend. According to Stanfordâs AI Index (an annual, 300-plus-page survey of AI trends) Chinese companies produced just over half as many ânotableâ AI models in 2025 as their U.S. counterparts. Thatâs up from roughly a third in 2023, and a fifth in 2020.GLM 5.2 caused hand-wringing among some U.S. observers due to its outstanding benchmark scores, which set new records for both open-weights models and Chinese-developed models generally. The modelâs Chinese origin also complicates its use for companies in the U.S. and elsewhere that are wary of routing sensitive data through Chinese-linked infrastructure. However, the modelâs open weights provide an out. Any organization worried about where its data is being sent can instead host the model on its own hardware. This stands in contrast to most frontier-level models, which are gated behind an API with no self-hosting option.Z.ai backed up GLM 5.2âs release with the companyâs own numbers, publishing a research report the same day as GLM 5.2âs launch.The report doesnât mention Anthropicâs Mythos or Fable, which were announced but not yet publicly available at the time of its release.The report instead focuses on Anthropicâs Opus 4.8 and OpenAIâs GPT-5.5. And while GLM 5.2 often performs almost as well as Opus 4.8 in benchmarks, the report claims a win only in two less-difficult reasoning benchmarksâand none in coding.Many of the reportâs benchmarks place GLM 5.2 behind Opus 4.8 (and, at times, OpenAIâs GPT-5.5) in agentic coding. For example, GLM 5.2 completed just 13 percent of tasks in SWE-Marathon, a difficult long-duration agentic coding benchmark. Claude Opus 4.8 doubled GLM 5.2âs score in this benchmark. Opus 4.8 also notched wins of 10 percent or more in the coding benchmarks NL2Repo, DeepSWE, and Tool-Decathlon.How Do Coders Use GLM 5.2? Software engineers whoâve pitted GLM 5.2 against their own workflows report a wide range of results.âThe main thing that I realized with [GLM 5.2], was that it can do more long-horizon tasks,â said Hasan, whose company hosts GLM 5.2 on North American infrastructure. Earlier open-weights models, he said, often lost the thread after around 5 to 15 back-and-forth exchanges. âThis one, I noticed that I could be using it for hours, and it would still have a coherent train of thought.âDavid Nix, a principal software engineer at the Denver-based MetaRouter, puts LLMs to work at both his day job and for personal side projects. (Nix also operates a jobs board of AI engineers.) Nix said GLM 5.2 comes âreally closeâ to frontier models like Anthropicâs Opus and OpenAIâs GPT-5.5âclose enough to earn a permanent spot in his rotation.âItâs pretty great at front-end development, for example, where I donât need to always go to Opus or Fable for those things,â said Nix. He estimates that GLM 5.2 handles 10 to 20 percent of the work he sends to an LLM on a given day, and itâs now his first stop for some specific tasks, such as front-end design. Others reported the same strength. Hasan said GLM 5.2 has âreally good tasteâ in web design. Kacper Michalik, a software engineer at KrakĂłw, Polandâbased Screen Studio, received good results while using GLM 5.2 to create forms for use on a website.On the other hand, Sai Kiran Myadaram, a software engineer at Bengaluru, Indiaâbased Indhic AI, reports less positive results with Z.ai. He signed up for Z.aiâs subscription plan the week GLM 5.2 launched and found the model burned through its token allotment quickly. âThe weekly quota that Z.ai provides has been exhausted for me in less than two to three days,â he said. Michalik, who also accessed Z.ai directly, had no significant issues with the modelâs quality but occasionally bumped into rate limits, though in his case he stuck to the free plan.In addition to rate limits, Myadaram experienced problems with model hallucinations and overplanning when asked to tackle minor front-end fixes. âItâs messing up my code base,â said Myadaram. Heâs since drifted back to OpenAIâs Codex.
The conversation about AI often centers on algorithms, computing power, or huge investments in new semiconductor fabrication plants and hyperscale data centers. But beneath each of these advances is another layer of innovation that makes them possible: advanced materials. Every new generation of AI technology demands more processing power, more memory, greater energy efficiency, and…
The final approval settles one case, but it doesn't resolve the broader issue of using copyrighted works to train AI models.
Databricks has remade its image into an AI company and has published research on the cost savings of open weight AI models for coding.
A $400 million chip-backed loan points to the next wave of AI infrastructure deals.
Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today; a majority intend to switch or add providers within the year, many within a quarter. Buying decisions turn on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline token price â which is fortunate, because most enterprises cannot yet see their unit economics clearly: GPUs sit at half utilization or less, and fewer than half rigorously track what their compute actually costs. The result is a compute gap â heavy, fast-moving investment running ahead of the visibility needed to control it.This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise AI infrastructure and compute: where organizations are in their deployment journey, what they run AI on today, how satisfied they are, what would make them switch, where they plan to evaluate their investments, and â most revealingly â how well they can measure and control the economics of the compute underneath it all.The central finding is a compute gap â the distance between how aggressively enterprises are investing in AI infrastructure and how little of its economics they can see. Only about one in five (21%) run AI in production at scale, yet spending intentions are outrunning that maturity: the single largest planned area enterprises plan to evaluate over the next year is AI-specialized clouds (45%), a layer almost none of these enterprises use today. Meanwhile the compute already in place runs cold â 83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less â and fewer than half (44%) can rigorously track what their AI compute costs. Enterprises are buying more infrastructure faster than they can account for what they already own.Enterprises are not settled on their infrastructure vendors, either: A clear majority (64%) plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider within twelve months, and 38% within the next quarter â unusually high churn intent for a category this foundational. When they choose, they choose on integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%), not on headline price: cost per million tokens is the deciding factor for just 8%. And the frontier constraint that will shape the next round of decisions â the shift from GPU compute to memory bandwidth as inference scales â is barely on the radar, with roughly one in five enterprises either unaware of it or yet to address it.MethodologyVentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey focused on enterprise AI infrastructure, compute, and inference economics. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the surveyâs smallest size band, 1â100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 101â250 employees (36%) and 251â1,000 (27%) lead, with 1,001â5,000 (22%), 5,001â10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (38%), individual contributors (28%), VPs and directors (19%), and the C-suite (13%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 45% final decision-makers and another 30% recommenders or influencers for AI solutions. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 26%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (15%), Financial Services (13%), and Retail/E-commerce (12%).At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It also skews toward the mid-market and toward earlier-stage adopters, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively building out AI infrastructure rather than from the largest hyperscale operators.Finding 1: Ambition outpaces productionOnly one in five run AI in production at scaleWe asked where organizations sit in their AI deployment journey. Most are still building toward production rather than operating at scale.The maturity curve is front-loaded. Three-quarters of enterprises (76%) are either experimenting or running only some workloads in production, and just 21% describe AI in production at scale. This matters for everything that follows: the infrastructure decisions in this report are being made largely by organizations still early in deployment, whose compute footprint â and whose costs â are about to grow. The evaluation and switching intentions in Findings 3 and 4 are the leading edge of that build-out, not the settled preferences of operators who have already found what works.Finding 2: Enterprises run on hyperscalers and model APIsThe specialized GPU clouds barely register â todayWe asked which providers and platforms enterprises currently use to run their AI. The answer is a familiar one: the incumbents.The current stack is hyperscaler-and-API. Google Cloud leads at 48%, and the general-purpose clouds (Google, Microsoft, AWS, Oracle) together with the major model APIs (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic) account for essentially all current deployment. The specialized âneocloudâ GPU providers that dominate AI-infrastructure headlines â CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius and peers â register at or near zero among these enterprises today. Only 6% run their own on-prem GPU clusters and 4% a custom open-source stack. Enterprises are, for now, running AI on the providers they already buy from â which makes the evaluation intentions in Finding 3 all the more striking.(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, this sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and this question counted every provider a respondent uses â an average of 2.1 selections each â so the figures measure presence in the stack rather than spending or primary status. A sample built this way will show a different provider mix than a spend-weighted census of the broader market; Google's strength here, for example, is consistent with its long-standing position among smaller enterprises building on AI. Read these shares as a portrait of what this AI-active cohort runs today, and treat gaps between these figures and industry-wide market share estimates as a property of the sample rather than a contradiction of either.)Finding 3: The next dollar goes to infrastructure they donât yet runAI-specialized clouds top the evaluations listWe asked where enterprises planned to evaluate AI infrastructure over the next 12 months. Their answers point away from the stack they run today.Here is the reportâs sharpest tension. The single most-cited planned evaluation area â AI-specialized clouds, at 45% â is the very category almost none of these enterprises use today (Finding 2). Nearly a third (32%) intend to evaluate non-Nvidia accelerators, and 28% in next-generation Nvidia silicon; even decentralized compute networks (16%) and sovereign compute (11%) draw meaningful interest. Read against current usage, this is not incremental â it is the leading edge of a re-platforming. The direction-of-travel question tells the same story: every infrastructure approach is net-expanding, but specialized AI clouds carry the highest net momentum (+24), edging out even the hyperscalers (+22). Enterprises are preparing to move a meaningful share of AI compute off the general-purpose cloud.This continues a trend we saw in our April-May survey wave. Back then, usage of the AI-specialized clouds was equally marginal â CoreWeave at 3%, Lambda at 4%, Crusoe at 2% of enterprises. When we asked enterprises what change they planned in their AI infrastructure strategy over the next twelve months, the most-cited answer was moving workloads to specialized AI clouds, at 33%. Asked in April-May which emerging compute option they were most likely to evaluate AI-specialized clouds again drew the most responses. Two waves, two differently worded questions, one consistent picture: the type of cloud enterprises are most eager to assess is the type they have barely begun to use.Finding 4: A switching wave is buildingSix in 10 plan to change providers within a year â many within a quarterWe asked whether and when enterprises plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider. Very few intend to stand still.For a category as foundational as compute, this is a remarkable amount of intended movement. Only 36% have no plans to change, meaning a clear majority (64%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months â and 38% within the next quarter alone. Where that interest points is telling: the providers drawing the most switching consideration are again the incumbents â Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud (33% each), OpenAI (30%), and Gemini (22%) â which suggests much of the near-term movement is reshuffling among the majors and consolidating spend rather than defecting to new entrants. The neocloud interest in Finding 3 is a 12-month evaluation thesis; the switching in the next quarter is mostly incumbents trading share.(Method note: Respondents who selected both "no plans to change" and a specific switching window are counted as switchers, on the logic that naming a timeframe is the more specific answer; three respondents were reclassified under this rule.)Finding 5: Nobody buys on token priceIntegration and total cost of ownership decide â not sticker priceWe asked what matters most when enterprises select an AI infrastructure provider. Headline price finished last.Enterprises do not buy AI infrastructure on pricing, which is the place vendors compete on hardest. Integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%) dominate, while the headline metric â cost per million tokens â is the deciding factor for just 8%, dead last. The pattern is coherent: buyers are optimizing for how a provider fits and what it truly costs to operate, not for the advertised unit rate. It also foreshadows Finding 7 â enterprises say TCO matters most, yet most cannot yet measure it rigorously. The stated priority and the measured capability are out of step.Finding 6: Expensive GPUs, idle most of the time83% report GPU utilization of 50% or lessWe asked what share of their GPU capacity enterprises actually utilize. The answer is a well-known but rarely quantified inefficiency.Disclosure: Band percentages count every selection against all 107 qualified respondents; 14 respondents selected more than one band, so bands overlap. At the respondent level, 83 of the 100 GPU-operating enterprises reported utilization at or below 50%The compute already in place runs cold. Adding the bands at or below half capacity, 83% of enterprises that operate GPUs report utilization of 50% or less, and nearly half (49%) run at 25% or below. Only 12% clear the 50% mark, and a further 8% do not measure utilization at all. Idle accelerators are expensive accelerators, and this is the clearest single measure of the compute gap: enterprises are planning to buy more GPUs and specialized compute (Finding 3) while the capacity they already own sits substantially unused. The efficiency headroom in the current fleet is large â and largely unmeasured.Finding 7: Spending fast, measuring slowlyFewer than half rigorously track what their compute costsWe asked whether enterprises can quantify the cost and return of their AI infrastructure spend, and how satisfied they are with what they run. Confidence in the ledger lags the spending.Measurement trails money. Fewer than half of enterprises (44%) rigorously track the cost and return of their AI compute; the majority track only partially (39%), cannot quantify it yet (20%), or have not prioritized it (6%). That gap is consequential given Finding 5, where total cost of ownership was the second-ranked buying criterion â enterprises are choosing providers on an economic basis they mostly cannot yet measure. Satisfaction with current infrastructure is moderately positive but not enthusiastic: on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation (3.8) and value for money (3.9) trailing slightly â the softness landing, tellingly, on cost. Enterprises are spending quickly and accounting slowly.Finding 8: The next bottleneck few are watchingAs inference shifts from compute to memory, the field scattersFinally, we asked how enterprises would address the emerging constraint in large-scale inference â the shift from GPU compute to memory, specifically KV-cache capacity. The responses reveal a frontier that is not yet a priority.The memory frontier is real but barely governed. Asked which approach they would rely on as the binding constraint in inference shifts from compute to memory bandwidth, enterprises scatter: Dell leads at 31%, Nvidia follows at 16%, and the rest fragments across storage vendors, open-source tooling, and model-level efficiency techniques. Most telling is that roughly one in five (18%) either do not recognize the constraint or have not begun to address it. For a shift that will reshape inference cost and architecture, this is an early and unsettled market â and, consistent with the measurement gap in Finding 7, one where many enterprises simply do not yet have a view. It is the next chapter of the compute gap, arriving before most have closed the current one.The bottom line: A compute gap that faster spending will widen, not closeOrganizations with more than 100 employees are investing in AI infrastructure faster than they can measure it. Most are still early in deployment, yet their spending intentions point past their current stack â toward specialized clouds and alternative accelerators almost none of them run today â and a clear majority intend to change providers within the year. They buy on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline price, which is rational; the difficulty is that most cannot yet see those economics clearly.The visibility gap is concrete. The GPUs enterprises already own run at half utilization or less for the overwhelming majority, and fewer than half can rigorously track what their compute costs or returns. Satisfaction is decent but unenthusiastic, softest on value for money â the dimension hardest to judge without measurement. And the next constraint, the shift from compute to memory in large-scale inference, is arriving while most enterprises are still unaware of it. At 107 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market and earlier-stage adopters â but the direction is consistent: the appetite to spend is running well ahead of the instrumentation to spend well. The compute gap is not a capacity problem that more hardware will solve on its own; it is, first, a problem of seeing what the hardware already costs. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises build that visibility before the re-platforming arrives â or buy the next layer of infrastructure as blind to its economics as the last.Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the results read cross-sectionally rather than as a month-over-month trend, and at 107 respondents this is a directional signal rather than a precise measurement â the sample is self-selected, skews mid-market, and leans toward earlier-stage adopters rather than the largest hyperscale operators. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with buyer-credible purchasing authority, across Technology/Software, Healthcare/Life Sciences, Financial Services, Retail/E-commerce, and other industries.
Drawing on more than a decade spent helping build some of the world's most influential AI systems, including research that later informed the development of ChatGPT, Andrew Dai explains why he believes visual AI is one of the next major frontiers in artificial intelligence.
The FT reports Kimi K3 will be the largest open AI model from China, with a parameter count between 2 trillion and 3 trillion.
OpenAI has built an LLM super-hacker called GPT-Red that it uses as a sparring partner to help its other models boost their defenses against cyberattacks. Last week the company released the latest version of its flagship LLM, GPT-5.6. OpenAI says that training it against GPT-Red made the model its most robust release yet. GPT-Red automates…
The funding discussions point to investor interest in applying AI to make breakthroughs in life sciences.
Hachette, Cengage, Elsevier, and other publishers allege that Google trained its AI on copyrighted works without the necessary permissions.
DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis is proposing an AI "standards body" modeled after FINRA, to test frontier models and develop best practices for their release.
New York has become the first state to temporarily halt approval of large data centers, as Gov. Kathy Hochul argues the AI-driven building boom shouldnât come at the expense of higher electricity costs, water supplies, or local control.
Reflection AI has signed a $1 billion deal to access Nebius' compute. Reflection was founded in 2024 and is developing open source AI technology.
Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue says enterprises increasingly want open models, due to cost, accessibility, and ownership. Do frontier models still matter if most production AI ends up running on open models?
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. What Anthropicâs latest AI discovery doesâand doesnâtâshow âJames O’Donnell When Anthropic announced last week that it had found a new window into its modelsâ âinternal thoughtsâ as they reason through answers,…
Open source AI is booming, according to Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue. The company has grown into something like a GitHub for AI in recent years, where AI builders can share and download open models and datasets, now used by roughly half the Fortune 500. Delangue has seen the same story play out again and again: companies start […]
Open source AI is booming, according to Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue. The company has grown into something like a GitHub for AI in recent years, where AI builders can share and download open models and datasets, now used by roughly half the Fortune 500. Delangue has seen the same story play out again and again: companies start […]
OpenAI's latest family of models promises improvements across a range of areas, including cybersecurity.
The AI firm Anthropic has developed a technique that has given it the clearest glimpse yet at whatâs really going on inside large language models as they answer questions or carry out tasks. What they found ranges from the mundane to the unnerving. Researchers at the company built a tool called the Jacobian lens (or…
The company is taking a modular approach to designing these chips, anticipating that their needs will change as AI evolves rapidly by the time the chips are in production.
The large language models (LLMs) that form the basis of generative AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini can generate uncannily human-like text and images. But these models still struggle with a skill that, ironically, looks at face value to be right in their wheelhouse: analyzing structured data. A new type of generative AI is set to change this situation.Although you can get your favorite chatbot to solve intractable math problems, review dense legal documents, compose a catchy pop song, or put together some slick PowerPoint slides, give it anything more than a small table and it doesnât have a clue what to do.For most companies and organizations, the most important data sits in spreadsheets. Whether itâs a bankâs transaction logs, a marketing agencyâs website metrics, clinical trial participantsâ vital signs, or the vast amount of proton collision information produced at atom smashers like the Large Hadron Collider, structured, row-and-column data runs the world, and LLMs canât deal with it.AI startup Fundamental is pioneering a new type of AI foundation model, known as a large tabular model (LTM), to fill the gap. Fundamental came out of stealth mode on 5 February 2026 with US $275 million in funding and a model called NEXUS, purpose-built for tabular data. Now, the model is being adopted by companies such as Amazon Web Services, while others race to build their own LTMs. Why LLMs struggle with spreadsheetsPart of why structured data has garnered less attention is a very human bias, argues Boris van Breugel, a senior AI researcher based in Amsterdam. âPeople like to see images, videos, and ChatGPT responses,â he says. âBut tabular data really lags behind because itâs not fun to look at numbers.â Different tabular datasets are also difficult to compare, explains van Breugel, who co-wrote a prescient position paper on this topic in 2024. Whereas most language has similar semantics, making LLMs well-suited to being trained on vast amounts of text data, van Breugel argues that it is much harder to train a single tabular model on tables with very different variables. Additionally, language is sequential by nature (as are music, images, and video). Changing the order of words in a sentence may change or completely destroy its meaning. But the structured data you find in spreadsheets isnât sequential. You can swap the order of columns or play around with rows, but the underlying factual meaning of the data remains the same.This independence from linear order is incompatible with an LLMâs fundamental purpose of predicting the next value in a linear sequence. âWith LLMs, even slightly changing the input, you get a different output,â says Jeremy Fraenkel, CEO of Fundamental. âThatâs fine and actually often desirable for LLMs, but when youâre making a prediction of whether a transaction is fraudulent or not, you want to make sure that the prediction is the same, or deterministic, no matter what.âDeveloping Fundamentalâs LTMCurrent tabular data solutions are limited to machine learning algorithms, such as XGBoost, that have been around for more than 15 years and are used by organizations globally. These algorithmsâcalled gradient-boosted decision treesâhave to be trained and optimized by data scientists over the course of months for each and every use case. In contrast, NEXUS and other emerging LTMs are foundational, leveraging learning amassed from pre-training on diverse databases so that they can be applied across a range of different predictive tasks with minimal bespoke feature engineering or task-specific model building.And unlike LLMs, which primarily model sequences of tokens, LTMs model the structure of tabular data directly. They jointly learn from each entryâs numerical value, what it represents, and how it relates to other entries. For example, imagine an entry in a grocery stock inventory table for bananas: The LTM can take in not just the magnitudeâsay, 500âbut the fact that the entry represents the current banana stock quantity, its category (produce), and the statistical properties that link the entry with the rest of the column. This contextual understanding enables more accurate reasoning and prediction over structured data.According to Fraenkel, one of Fundamentalâs biggest challenges in developing NEXUS was obtaining the right training data. Unlike natural language, which is abundant and broadly uniform in structure, tabular data is relatively hard to findâmuch of the data is sensitive or proprietaryâand diverse. There are very few similarities between, for instance, a biology dataset and a financial one. That combination of factors meant Fundamental needed to invest in building a huge training set.âWe pre-trained NEXUS on billions of tables using a combination of proprietary datasets acquired through partnerships and licensing, high-quality public and open-source datasets, and data augmentation techniques that expanded the diversity and coverage of our training corpus,â Fraenkel says, though he is keen to point out that NEXUS is not trained on customer data. In fact, it is a confidential computing platform, which means that Fundamental physically cannot access customer data, let alone train on it.This feature was most likely a key consideration when in June, Amazon Web Services (AWS) embedded NEXUS in Amazon SageMaker, widely considered the default operating system for secure machine learning. This brings NEXUS to many customersâ often sensitive dataâa contrasting approach to LLMs, where the data has to be imported to the model.âWith Amazon, we have a first-party partnership, which means that our model exists as if itâs a native AWS solution,â Fraenkel says. âAnd over time, the goal is to expand these types of relationships to allow [end users] to really access their data wherever they do their predictions.âThe future of data analysisThough Fundamental has taken the lead, at least in enterprise applications, the company is not alone in pursuing foundational LTMs. In March, Feedzai, which provides fraud and financial crime prevention services, and credit card company Mastercard separately launched similar proprietary technologies focused on finance. Then, in late June, Google launched its own foundational competitor, TabFM, trained entirely on hundreds of millions of synthetic datasets. And machine learning researchers are not far behind either. FlexTab, TabICL, and iLTM are just three of a raft of LTMs developed by the research community in the past year, all in the pursuit of bringing the success of LLMs to the tabular domain.For all involved, the direction of travel is clear. âI would be very surprised if most data processing and analysis is not done through an automated system in the future, whether thatâs an LLM, an LTM, or some combination,â van Breugel says. âMost people donât necessarily like to do data analysis, and these systems will be able to do it a lot better.âFraenkel agrees. âI see the relationship between LLMs and LTMs as being a bit like the human brain: The left side is good at reasoning and understanding and summarizing text, and the right side is really good at understanding numbers and statistics and patterns,â he says. âBut itâs when you combine both of those that you really get something much more powerful.â
Open source modelsâ success isnât coming at the expense of frontier labs. Instead, they each seem to capture two phases of the same life cycle.
With the rapid progress of AI capabilities and the move to agentic systems, organizations are expanding their use cases as the technology continues to grow. That constant evolution also introduces risk, leaving IT leaders to wonder which investments will prove valuable even six months into the future. Returning to the foundational elements of AI architectureâthe…
One morning in 2019, Adebayo Alonge was in a Cape Town hotel room, preparing to demonstrate his startupâs AI answer to a serious problem in African health care: counterfeit medication, which kills thousands of people across the continent every year.The RxScanner is a handheld spectrometer that scans a pill with infrared light, then sends the itemâs molecular profile to an AI model equipped with a pharmaceutical database. In seconds, the AI identifies the medication from its molecular profileâor reports that itâs phony.Pharmacies were using the system in more than a dozen countries, including Ghana, Kenya, Myanmar, and Alongeâs native Nigeria. But that morning in South Africa, it didnât work. âI was shocked,â Alonge says.The spectrometer connected to the AI modelâbut the data center was 14,000 kilometers away and bandwidth was limited. âOur server was in the United States, and just to get the result of a single scan was taking me over 5 minutes.âSo Alonge immediately asked his engineers to shrink the AI model down to a smaller, low-power, unconnected version that could run entirely on his Android phone. They produced it 2 hours later, and that saved the demo.More importantly, the work birthed a new version of his device, which can authenticate a pill in places without broadband, computers, or even reliable electricity. It also turned Alonge into an advocate for this kind of âsmall AI.âSmall AI for Global Health Care AccessSmall AI is a far cry from wealthy nationsâ colossal large language models (LLMs), hyperscale data centers, multibillion-dollar investments, and debates about AI consciousness. But for millions of people around the world, the only AI that matters, and often the only kind available, is small. (According to a World Bank Report issued in November, only 0.7 percent of internet users in the worldâs poorest countries have used ChatGPT, compared to a quarter of all internet users in the most developed nations.)âMost people are discussing AI from the LLM/generative side. But that needs a lot of computing power, electricity, massive data, and skilled people to manage it,â Ajay Banga, president of the World Bank, said last January at the World Economic Forum, in Davos. âOutside the developed world, other than maybe India and China, very few countries have that combination.âBy contrast, small AI can deliver useful, even life-saving services to people in areas that have none of those things, Banga said. In India, where the governmentâs AI plans call for more development of small AI, many such systems are working for farmers.For example, a drone-based system developed by Bala Murugan and colleagues at the Vellore Institute of Technology, in India, takes photos of cashew plants and quickly identifies those with splotches that indicate disease. All the processing takes place on the drone itself, so thereâs no need for a computer on-site, nor for a connection to a central server.Using small language models trained for a specific problem, and sometimes running on cheap, low-power devices, other small-AI implementations have been developed to identify ant infestations in a Uruguayan vineyard, detect the presence of malaria-carrying mosquitoes in a number of nations, and run electrocardiograms from an Arduino device in parts of Brazil that lack access to more complex equipment.âThis is the most important area in AI nowadays,â says Marcelo JosĂ© Rovai, a professor at the Institute of Engineering and Information Systems at the Federal University of ItajubĂĄ, in Brazil, who was involved in all three projects. âItâs growing very fast.âLow-Power, Small-AI Models on Devices Small AI models can run on a variety of low-power devices, including [from left to right] an Arduino Nano 33 BLE Sense, a Seeed Wio Terminal, and an Arduino Portenta.Moez AltayebFor Alonge, Rovai, and other advocates, small AI is not just âa promising trend,â as that November World Bank report calls it. It may be, in the long term, the form of AI that will touch the most lives and remain sustainable after some of the giant models become too costly for most users.âI think the future of AI is not like one giant model, at a center. I think itâs millions of small, precise models deployed at the edge, each one solving like a specific problem, a specific context,â Alonge says. This is partly because much of humanityâincluding people in parts of rich countries as well as the developing worldâlives without access to cutting-edge frontier models. But, he says, itâs also because those models are not sustainable.âIf someone is not subsidizing it, most people will not be able to afford those models. So those of us who are said to be small-AI developers are the ones who will have to build for the majority of the world,â Alonge says.There is no strict definition of âsmall AI,â but people often use the term for language models with at most a few billion parameters. (Compare that to cutting-edge models, which can include more than a trillion.) Thatâs small enough to run directly on a phone or a Raspberry Pi. Thatâs what allows these applications to run on devices without a connection to a data center and use only a few watts of power, often supplied by a battery or a solar panel.Despite their small footprint, these models arenât fundamentally different technology from that of gigantic AI models, Rovai says. Many instances of small language models were created the same way the phone-based version of Alongeâs pharmaceuticals scanner wasâby âpruningâ large models, or removing the parameters that werenât involved in the task. The result is a system thatâs less capable generally but still very good at the specific job it was pruned for, Rovai says. A lighter version of RxAllâs RxScanner spectrometer sends its results to an AI model run locally on a phone to check that a drugâs molecular signature is genuine.RxAllOther small models are created by âdistillation.â They are trained to mimic a large model, until their performance approaches that of their âteacher,â Rovai says. In other cases, a larger modelâs precision is reduced, for example, so that a model run on 32-bit architecture can run on 8-bit designs. In situations where the machine learning application is being used to classify data or predict patterns (like an ant infestation), itâs trained from the beginning on a small device, not derived from a larger model at all. Running all these small, specialized systems is becoming easier, Rovai says, for two reasons.The first reason is that hardware is getting better and more capable while using less power, he says. This means more and more phones can run small AIâespecially those equipped with neural processing units, which are specialized chips that handle AI tasks like facial recognition and changing the brightness, shadows, or contrast in a photo.In 2025, slightly more than a third of all smartphones shipped worldwide were capable of running generative AI, and that figure will reach 45 percent by the end of this year, according to the technology research firm Counterpoint. By the end of next year, slightly more than half of all smartphones will be able to run a small AI model.The second reason Rovai cites is the shrinking footprint of language models. Both Google DeepMindâs Gemma 4 (released in April) and Alibabaâs Qwen 3.5 are âfantasticâ for small AI, Rovai says. Both models are âopen weight,â meaning users can adjust the connections between parameters to suit their needs. This makes it easy, for example, âto take a lot of data from, say, the milk industry and retrain the model specifically on that,â Rovai says.Rovai illustrated these reasons on a Zoom call, using one of his most recent experiments. Holding up a device, he says, âThis is the new Arduino UNO Qâa US $50 device with a Qualcomm chipset. Iâm running a language model here, which collects data from sensors and analyzes that data to detect tiny pools of water where mosquitoes might be breeding. It takes 3 watts to run it.âSupport for Small-AI DevelopmentConvinced that millions of people are already benefiting from these kinds of applications, the World Bank now actively promotes small AI with grants, mentorship programs, financing, technical advice, and models of government policies that are friendly for small-AI development. For example, in Rwanda, the World Bank is backing a government program to help low-income households get devices that can run AI.All that said, no one claims that large language models are going away entirely. To create a generative AI that can run on a phone or other small device requires the architectural insights, data processing, and results of a larger model, Rovai says. âWe need the big models to create these smaller models.â And for all that small AI can benefit people without access to big AI, the technology canât solve the larger problems of development and digital inequality, Alonge says. Implementing small AI wonât allow nations to escape the challenge of creating an ecosystem to support AI: reliable power, a supply chain that works, and an educational system that develops the talents needed to create AI tools.Though his drug-scanning system can run for days on a phone with no connection, âyou still want to be able to enable periodic syncing for updates with new signatures for the medications and analytics,â Alonge says. âAnd even when you are using batteries, reliable power is important. That phone battery is not going to last forever.âIn many parts of the world, the future of small AI isnât assured, he says. âIt works, and many places will eventually need to use it. The question is whether or not the political actors are wise enough to invest in infrastructure to support it long term.â
Station F, a Paris-based startup hub founded by French billionaire Xavier Niel, is gearing up for a new edition of its F/ai accelerator program in a bid to strengthen its positioning as a stepping stone for promising AI startups.
At an internal meeting, the Meta CEO reportedly said that AI development efforts were not moving as quickly as anticipated.
The news comes about a week after OpenAI announced its own custom AI chip in a partnership with Broadcom.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has reportedly proposed giving 5% of the companyâs equity to a U.S. sovereign wealth fund, reviving discussions about letting the public share in the financial gains from the AI boom.
Microsoft follows Amazon, OpenAI, and Anthropic with its new AI deployment group.
Cloudflare is giving AI companies until September 15 to separate web crawlers used for search from those used for AI training and agents, or risk being blocked by default on many publisher sites.
Venice AI is already profitable, with annualized run-rate revenues of over $70 million, CEO Erik Voorhees said.
Meta is developing plans for a cloud infrastructure business, selling access to AI compute power and models. The move would pit it against the big cloud providers like Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure.
Anthropic said it would begin restoring access to the Fable on July 1.
After weeks of negotiating with the Trump administration, Anthropic is finally going to be able to bring Claude Fable 5 back online. In a post on X, Anthropic said it plans to begin restoring access Wednesday to users globally on Claude platforms, and that the company would re-enable access on AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft […]
At an event for pharmaceutical executives, biotech founders, and researchers on Tuesday, Anthropic announced Claude Science, a major new product intended to support scientific research in the same way that Claude Code supports software engineering. Like Claude Code, Claude Science can autonomously carry out meaningful work when given concise, high-level instructions, and it has access…
Anthropicâs Claude Sonnet 5 brings stronger agentic capabilities, lower pricing, and improved safety, positioning the model as a cheaper alternative to Opus, GPT-5.5, and Gemini Pro.
Anthropic's Claude Science is a workbench that gives scientists one environment to do computational research, saving them from the need to bounce between databases, pipelines, and tools.
Engineers on the new team will embed within companies to deploy purpose-built agents, focusing on fast deployments and customer self-sufficiency.
Agent-testing startup Patronus AI, founded by former Meta AI researchers, is experiencing nearly insatiable demand, its investor says.
General Intuition has raised $320 million to scale AI trained on millions of hours of gameplay, betting action data can help AI develop something closer to human intuition.
Amazonâs latest India investment comes as global tech companies race to expand AI infrastructure in the country.
Named Jalapeño, the new processor was designed specifically for the unique needs of OpenAI's inference systems.
OpenAI has just revealed a new "intelligence processor" chip for AI servers made in partnership with Broadcom. The chip, called Jalapeño, is designed to power current and future large language models, according to an announcement on Wednesday. Jalapeño is an ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit), meaning it's designed for a specific purpose: AI inference. With AI […]
AI is booming. New use cases are emerging each day. To capitalize on the technologyâs potential, enterprises require data at scale. In many cases, though, the relevant information is blocked or unstructured, which limits its use by AI models.  To understand this challenge, consider the foundation of the web itself. The web was not designed…
What does an AI company do after one of those not-acqui-hire deals? Groq raised money, is leaning into its neocloud business, and is hiring new execs.
Google DeepMind and A24 are teaming up to build AI filmmaking tools.
Reflection AI will pay $150 million a month beginning July 1, 2026 through 2029 for immediate access to Nvidia's latest GB300 AI chips and supporting hardware across SpaceX's Colossus 2 data center near Memphis, Tennessee.
Large language models have moved out of the research lab and into engineersâ daily workflow. LLMs serve as reasoning engines that can orchestrate complex tasks including identifying vulnerabilities in source code and transforming fragmented project discussions into rigorous technical specifications.While the general public uses AI tools to write email and plan vacations, technical professionals use LLMs as core architectural elements that are fundamentally changing how digital infrastructures are built and maintained. As the AI models move into mainstream engineering practice, the demand for technical expertise is rising.The LLM technology market is expected to grow by about 33 percent every year through 2030, according to MarketsandMarkets. The rapid expansion suggests that proficiency in implementing and securing the models is transitioning from a niche into a core requirement for technologists.More than just a better search engineTo use LLMs effectively, technical professionals must move beyond treating them as conversational robots. At a fundamental level, the AI systems are built on the transformer architecture, a framework that replaced the older method of processing data in a fixed, sequential order. Unlike earlier models that analyzed information one step at a time, transformers use self-attention mechanisms to ingest vast datasets simultaneously.For technical professionals, LLMs are core architectural elements that are fundamentally changing how digital infrastructures are built and maintained.Relying on such LLMs without understanding their internal logic creates a significant reliability risk. To build tools that work consistently, developers must understand the core principles that govern how the models process information and generate results. By mastering how a model processes information and how its internal settings influence the result, developers can move away from a trial-and-error approach toward a more precise one to ensure the AI tool handles complex data reliably.Four ways LLMs are changing jobsHere are areas that integrate large language models.Moving past basic prompts. Developers are using application program interfaces (APIs) to connect LLMs directly to their databases and software tools. Employing the APIs allows AI to perform work such as executing code or searching through internal repositories.Fixing the âhallucinationâ problem. LLMs are at risk of hallucinations, which are generated facts or code that looks correct but actually is wrong or broken. To fix the problem, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) forces AI to look up information in a trusted source such as a companyâs database.Prioritizing data security. When using AI with proprietary code, security is a major concern. Engineers must learn how to set up âprivateâ instances of the models to ensure that sensitive company data stays within a secure cloud environment and is not used to train public versions.The future of collaboration. By automating repetitive coding tasks and summarizing thousands of pages of documentation, LLMs let engineers spend more time on high-level designs and solving important issues.Online course program helps with mastering the techThe gap between people who use AI and those who understand how to build with it is growing wider. To help technical professionals stay ahead, IEEE offers a five-course online program, Large Language Models Demystified, available through the IEEE Learning Network.The program, developed by IEEE Educational Activities in partnership with the IEEE Computer Society, is built for people who want to understand the âhowâ and the âwhyâ behind the technology. Rather than just teaching basic prompting, the curriculum dives into the engineering behind generative AI, including:Evolution, impact, and hands-on exercises: the shift from statistical methods to modern transformers, including hands-on model optimization.Understanding transformer architectures: the mathematical core of self-attention and positional encoding, implemented in NumPy and Python.Architectural analysis and implementation: advanced LLM design with practical model-building exercises.Training and modeling with PyTorch: end-to-end pipelines in PyTorch, leveraging parameter-efficient techniques such as low-rank adaptation and quantization.Optimization, alignment, and deployment: performance scaling, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), group-relative policy optimization, RAG, and agentic AI.Upon completion of the program, participants earn professional development credits and a digital badge from IEEE to verify their expertise.Enroll in the course program on the IEEE Learning Network.Organizations looking to prepare their teams to work on LLMs can connect with an IEEE content specialist to discuss group enrollment and tailored training paths.
Miami-based AI startup Subquadratic came out of stealth mode last month with a huge claim. It announced that it had solved a mathematical bottleneck that had been holding back large language models for almost a decade. The details were thin, and many people were unconvinced. But Subquadratic has started to bring the receipts, sharing the…
Deductive AI, a startup that uses AI to catch and resolve bugs in software, was founded just three years ago.
AWS is in talks to sell its chips to other data centers. CEO Andy Jassy has said this represents a $50 billion opportunity for the company.
FERC told grid operators to give data centers a fast lane for interconnections, but it failed to address electricity supply shortages.