This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset . Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions . Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper .

AI might not be coming for lawyers' jobs anytime soon Generative AI might have aced the bar exam, but an LLM still can't think like a lawyer. 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.

Four ways to think about this year's reckoning 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. 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.

Startups flush with cash are building AI-assisted laboratories to find materials far faster and more cheaply, but are still waiting for their ChatGPT moment. 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. 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.

Here's how pinning a utopian vision for AI on LLMs kicked off the hype cycle that's causing fears of a bubble today. 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. 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.

What even is the AI bubble? Everyone in tech agrees we're in a bubble. They just can't agree on what it looks like -- or what happens when it pops. In July, a widely cited MIT study claimed that 95% of organizations that invested in generative AI were getting "zero return." 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.

But they certainly wish people were still taking their warnings really seriously. 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. 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.

It's a seductive distraction from the advances in AI that are most likely to improve or even save your life 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. 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.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. Save 87% on a ChatPlayground AI lifetime subscription that includes access to every top model and unlimited credits. If you've been experimenting with AI tools, you already know the pain: every platform has its strengths, its weak spots, and its own subscription. ChatPlayground AI solves that by putting GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and more into one clean interface. Then, it lets you run the against all of them at once.

Softmax attention is a central component of transformer architectures, yet its nonlinear structure poses significant challenges for theoretical analysis. We develop a unified, measure-based framework for studying single-layer softmax attention under both finite and infinite prompts. For i.i.d. Gaussian inputs, we lean on the fact that the softmax operator converges in the infinite-prompt limit to a linear operator acting on the underlying input-token measure. Building on this insight, we establish non-asymptotic concentration bounds for the output and gradient of softmax attention, quantifying how rapidly the finite-prompt model approaches its infinite-prompt counterpart, and prove that this concentration remains stable along the entire training trajectory in general in-context learning settings with sub-Gaussian tokens. In the case of in-context linear regression, we use the tractable infinite-prompt dynamics to analyze training at finite prompt length. Our results allow optimization analyses developed for linear attention to transfer directly to softmax attention when prompts are sufficiently long, showing that large-prompt softmax attention inherits the analytical structure of its linear counterpart. This, in turn, provides a principled and broadly applicable toolkit for studying the training dynamics and statistical behavior of softmax attention layers in large prompt regimes.