The firm said it took the the case since this is an ever-growing problem.
A man from Montreal, Canada, is filing a class-action lawsuit against social media platforms TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Instagram, and Facebook alleging that they are too addictive and have a lot of negative impact on mental health, as per CTV News.
The 24-year-old said that he began using social media in 2015 and experienced several problems with productivity and body image. According to the lawsuit, he utilised social networking apps for up to four hours every day, but he has subsequently cut that down to about two hours. “He still finds that it has an effect on his productivity and his sleep,” said Philippe Brault from Lambert Avocats, the law firm representing the man.
“In 2024, it’s estimated that humanity as a whole will be using social media for a total of 500 million years,” Mr Brault added. “That just goes to show that it’s not a problem for a certain number of individuals, it’s a widespread problem for everyone,” he continued, adding that the firm took the case since this is an ever-growing problem.
Mr Brault also pointed out that 52 per cent of Canadian children between the ages of 7 and 11 use social media, and that platform owners must prioritise the health and safety of their users.
The case aims to recover damages and punitive damages for the purportedly careless platform design of these companies. According to Lambert Avocats, the psychological weaknesses of users are exploited by the way social media programs are now designed, leading to a prolonged engagement that affects their daily lives. “We’re also looking to get this message out there by talking to the media. People have to understand the risks to the use of social media,” he added.
Mr Pichai is not alone. New Street Research, a firm of analysts, estimates that Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft will together splurge $104bn on building AI data centres this year. Add in spending by smaller tech firms and other industries and the total AI data-centre binge between 2023 and 2027 could reach $1.4trn.
The scale of this investment, and uncertainty over if and when it will pay off, is giving shareholders the jitters. The day after Alphabet’s results the Nasdaq, a tech-heavy index,fell by 4%,the biggest one-day drop since October 2022. This week analystswill pore over the quarterly results of Amazon and Microsoft,the world’s two biggest cloud companies,for clues as to how their AI businesses are faring.
For now, the tech giants show little inclination to pare back their investments, as Mr Pichai’s remarks show. That is good news for the myriad suppliers that are benefiting from the boom. Nvidia, a maker of AI chips that in June briefly became the world’s most valuable company, has grabbed most of the headlines. But the AI supply chain is far more sprawling. It spans hundreds of firms, from Taiwanese server manufacturers and Swiss engineering outfits to American power utilities. Many have seen a surge in demand since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, and are themselves investing accordingly. In time, supply bottlenecks or waning demand could leave them over-extended.
View Full Image
Graphic: The Economist
AI investment can broadly be split into two. Half of it goes to chipmakers, with Nvidia the main beneficiary. The rest is spent on makers of equipment that keeps the chips whirring, ranging from networking gear to cooling systems. To assess the goings-on along the ai supply chain, The Economist has examined a basket of 60-odd such companies. Since the start of 2023 the mean share price of firms in our universe has risen by 106%, compared with a 42% increase in the s&p 500 index of American stocks (see chart). Over that time their expected sales for 2025 climbed by 14%, on average. That compares with a 1% increase across non-financial firms, excluding tech companies, in the S&P 500.
The biggest gainers were chipmakers and server manufacturers (see chart). Nvidia accounted for almost a third of the rise in the group’s expected sales. It is forecast to sell $105bn of AI chips and related equipment this year, up from $48bn in its latest fiscal year. AMD, its nearest rival, will probably sell about $12bn of data-centre chips this year, up from $7bn. In June Broadcom, another chipmaker, said that its quarterly AI revenues jumped by 280%, year on year, to $3.1bn. It helps customers, including cloud providers, design their own chips, and also sells networking equipment. Two weeks later Micron, a maker of memory chips, said its data-centre revenues had also jumped, thanks to soaring AI demand.
View Full Image
Graphic: The Economist
Companies that make servers are also raking it in. Both Dell and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) said in their most recent earnings calls that sales of AI servers doubled in the past quarter. Foxconn, a Taiwanese manufacturer that assembles lots of Apple’s iPhones, also has a server business. In May it said its AI sales had tripled over the past year.
Other firms are seeing interest spike, even if new sales have not yet materialised. Eaton, an American maker of industrial machinery, said that in the past year it saw more than a four-fold increase in customer enquiries related to its AI data-centre products. AI servers can require up to ten times more power than conventional ones. Earl Austin junior, the boss of Quanta Services, a firm that builds renewable-power and transmission equipment, recently admitted that the surge in demand for its data-centre business had “caught me off guard a little bit”. Vertiv, which sells cooling systems used in data centres, noted in April that its pipeline of AI projects more than doubled within two months.
All this interest is setting off a further frenzy of investment. This year around two-thirds of firms in our sample are expected to raise their capital expenditure, relative to sales, above their five-year averages. Many companies are building new factories. They include Wiwynn, a Taiwanese server-maker, Supermicro, an American one, and Lumentum, an American seller of advanced networking cables. Many are also spending more on research and development.
Some companies are investing through acquisitions. This month AMD said it was buying Silo AI, a startup, to boost its AI capabilities. In January HPE announced that it would spend $14bn to buy Juniper Networks, a networking firm. In December Vertiv announced its purchase of CoolTera, a liquid-cooling specialist. The firm hopes this will help it scale up its production of liquid-cooling technology 40-fold.
Just as the spending ramps up, though, the threats to the ai supply chain are building. One problem is its heavy reliance on Nvidia. Baron Fung, of Dell’Oro Group, a research firm, notes that when Nvidia went from launching a new chip every two years to every year, the entire supply chain had to scramble to build new production lines and meet accelerated timelines. Future sales for lots of firms in the AI supply chain are predicated on keeping the world’s most valuable chipmaker happy.
Another threat stems from supply bottlenecks, most notably in the availability of power. An analysis by Bernstein, a broker, looks at a scenario in which by 2030 AI tools are used roughly as much as Google search is today. That would raise the growth in power demand in America to 7% a year, from 0.2% between 2010 and 2022. It would be hard to build that much power capacity swiftly. Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley, a bank, notes that in California, where many AI data centres could be built, it takes six to ten years to get connected to the grid.
Some companies are already trying to fill the gaps by providing off-grid power. In March Talen Energy, a power company, sold Amazon a data centre connected to a nuclear-power plant for $650m. CoreWeave, a small AI cloud provider, recently struck a deal with Bloom Energy, a fuel-cell maker, to produce on-site power. Others are repurposing sites such as bitcoin-mining locations that already have grid access and power infrastructure. Still, the energy needs for AI are so vast that the risk of a power shortage limiting activity remains.
The biggest threat to the AI supply chain would come from waning demand. In June Goldman Sachs, a bank, and Sequoia, a venture-capital firm, published reports questioning the benefits of current generative-AI tools, and—by extension—the wisdom of the cloud-computing giants’ spending bonanza. If AI profits remain elusive, the tech giants could cut capital spending, leaving the supply chain exposed.
The build-out of factories has brought higher fixed costs. Across our sample of firms the median spending on property, plants and equipment is expected to jump by 14% between 2023 and 2025. Some investments may start to look suspect if demand is slow to materialise. The price tag on HPE’s purchase of Juniper Networks was two-thirds of the acquirer’s market value when it was announced in January.
Even after the wobbles of last week, market expectations remain bullish. For our sample of firms the median price-to-earnings ratio, a measure of how investors value profits, has climbed by nine percentage points since the start of 2023. If such expectations are to be met, AI tools need to improve quickly, and businesses need to adopt them en masse. For the many companies along the AI supply chain, the stakes are getting uncomfortably high.
Since AI’s most popular offering, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, debuted two years back and made esoteric AI tech accessible to the masses, there has been excitement over intelligent machines taking over mundane tasks or assisting humans in complex work. Geeks declared that costs would drop and productivity skyrocket, eventually leading to ‘artificial general intelligence’, when machines would run the world.
Huge sums were poured into companies focused on building AI solutions. In 2023, venture capital investments into Generative AI (a subset of AI to create text, images, video) startups totalled $21.3 billion, growing three-fold from $7.1 billion in 2022, according to consultancy EY.
But AI is a cash guzzler—Microsoft, Meta and Alphabet invested $32 billion in the first quarter of 2024 in AI development. The billions that were invested have been spent on expensive hardware, software and power-hungry data centres, totting up Big Tech valuations, but without real benefits.
Enterprises, meanwhile, have been waiting on the sidelines for the most part. With little return on investment (RoI) expected in the foreseeable future, they have been hesitant to deploy or depend entirely on AI. They also have doubts about the accuracy of AI generated results, aside from concerns over data privacy and governance.
So, while huge sums of money have been invested in AI, the rate of adoption has been slow, costs (of access) are very high, and the output is not reliable. For all the money that has been spent, AI should be able to solve complex tasks. But the only visible beneficiaries are the few big companies with a stake in AI, such as AI chipmaker Nvidia, which saw its market value jump by over $2 trillion in under two years as investors picked the stock anticipating a disruptive change. But what happened on 24 July shows that investors are running out of patience.
Inflated expectations
View Full Image
Goldman Sachs forecasts there will be expenditure of $1 trillion over the next few years to develop AI infrastructure.
Last month, Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs released a 31-page report on AI, questioning its benefits. Titled‘GenAI: Too much spend, too little benefit’ the report points out that AI’s impact on productivity and economic returns may have been overestimated. Jim Covello, head of global equity research, Goldman Sachs, asked, “What $1 trillion problem will AI solve?”
The venerable investment bank forecasts there will be expenditure of $1 trillion over the next few years to develop AI infrastructure but casts doubts over returns or breakthrough applications. In fact, the report warns that if significant AI applications fail to materialize in the next 12-18 months, investor enthusiasm may wane.
The flow of funds is already thinning, particularly in early-stage AI ventures. While investments in AI startups surged in 2023, the first quarter of 2024 saw just $3 billion invested globally, according to the EY report. The consultancy projects total global investment to be in the region of$12 billion in 2024, a little over half the level in 2023.
“GenAI was crowned very quickly to be the best new thing to have happened since sliced bread,” said Archana Jahagirdar, founder and managing partner, Rukam Capital, a Delhi-based early-stage investor which has backed three AI ventures—unScript.ai, Beatoven.ai and upliance.ai. “Now, there’s a realization that GenAI tech is exciting, but monetizable use cases are yet to emerge.”
Daron Acemoglu, institute professor at MIT, noted in the Goldman Sachs report that “truly transformative changes won’t happen quickly. Only a quarter of AI exposed tasks will be cost effective to automate in the next 10 years”.
Indeed, technology research and consulting firm Gartner, which popularized the concept of the new-technology hype cycle, says that Generative AI has passed the peak of inflated expectations (marked by overenthusiasm and unrealistic projections) and is entering the trough of disillusionment.
Poor RoI
“The RoI (return on investment) is not in tune with the high capex on AI. At the heart of GenAI is the ability to summarize, synthesize and create content. People are using ChatGPT, like they use Google search,” said Arjun Rao, partner, Speciale Invest, a venture capital firm.
Comparisons with another disruptive technology, the internet, are inevitable. The internet impacted every area of work, business, the economy, and society with tangible benefits—banks could expand without opening branches, or online retail could reach anyone without investing in physical stores. The internet led to the global IT services boom, as work could be sent online to tap affordable resources. This resulted in a $250 billion industry in India employing nearly five million. The internet offered cost effective and efficient alternatives. In contrast, AI will likely be replacing low-wage jobs with expensive technologies and lack of reliability, as of now.
“Unless there is RoI, companies will not invest. But we believe every business will be an AI business in future. Voice assistants are improving, and can also analyze conversations at scale. We do see adoption going up,” said Ganesh Gopalan, chief executive and co-founder, Gnani.ai. Set up by a group of former Texas Instruments engineers, Gnani.ai is a conversational AI platform backed by Samsung Ventures.
To be fair, technology disruptions are not easy and geeks tend to oversell ideas saying they will change the world. “A lot of people will lose money before they start making money,” Nishit Garg, partner, RTP Global Asia, an early-stage venture capital firm, toldMint. “This happens with every disruption we have seen, in cloud, internet and e-commerce. AI is going to raise the intelligence level of every organization. But before that happens it has to be affordable to use and error free.” RTP Global has invested in a few AI-led ventures, in areas such as market automation and drug development.
The internet, cloud, smartphones went through that hype cycle of lofty promises but eventually did improve and changed the way we work. Proponents argue that it takes a lot of money to set up infrastructure. For instance, it took billions of dollars to set up mobile networks before calls could be made.
Repeating history?
Back in 1905, Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Geeks fervently believe that the next big tech idea will change the world. But history shows that many of the tech ideas that lured investors and enterprises like moths to light were either ahead of their time or just plain wrong.
For instance, after companies poured billions into solving the Y2K problem, the dotcom bubble started taking shape. Fuelled by investments in internet-based companies in the late 1990s, the value of equity markets grew exponentially during the dotcom bubble, with the Nasdaq rising from under 1,000 to more than 5,000 between 1995 and 2000. Everyone from autoparts sellers to the neighbourhood bakery were sold the idea that if they weren’t online they were doomed.
By the end of 2001, reality set in—companies were online but there were no users. TheNasdaq composite stock market index, which had risen almost 800% in just a few years, crashed from its peak by October 2002, giving up all its gains as the bubble burst.
More recent examples are the metaverse and non fungible tokens (NFTs). The metaverse was a vision that people flock to the 3D virtual web via their avatars. Analysts projected that the market would be worth over $1 trillion in a decade. NFTs started selling with eyepopping valuations. Both were swept away as AI mania took over and were clearly ahead of their time.
Still early days
For all its niggles, AI is a more fundamental technology shift than the metaverse or NFTs. But if it was having a meaningful impact, more people, at least in developed economies, would have been willing to pay to use ‘reliable’ premium services. But that is not quite the case. Open AI’s ChatGPT has around 180 million daily active users worldwide, but less than 5% (less than 9 million) pay to use it. And across companies, the use of AI varies, with digital startups using it more than traditional companies.
View Full Image
Sam Altman, chief executive officer, Open AI. (AFP)
“From a tech evolution standpoint, we are at the infrastructure buildout phase,” said Namit Chugh, principal W Health Ventures, a healthcare focused venture investor. “The middleware, services layer, applications layer will come on top of that. That’s when companies can start monetizing. The problem is AI infrastructure is very expensive to build.” W Health Ventures has invested in AI-focused startups such as Wysa, an AI assistant for people who need mental health support.
“There is a lot of FOMO—fear of missing out—ensuring that enterprises have an AI strategy. But at 60-65% accuracy AI won’t be good. This has to improve,” said RTP Global’s Garg.
“If you ignore AI you will be out of business. Ventures like Uber, Netflix, Amazon, Airbnb disrupted the market. If they don’t adapt with AI they will be dinosaurs. The problem is, a lot of people do not understand this animal,” said Arnab Basu, partner and leader, advisory, PwC India.
There is a lot of FOMO ensuring that enterprises have an AI strategy. But at 60-65% accuracy, AI won’t be good.
—Nishit Garg
The India reality
“India’s ambition is to…become one of the top three global economies in terms of GDP,” Rajnil Malik, partner and GenAI go-to-market leader, PwC India, said. AI services will play a big role in this. RoI is not evident yet, but building blocks are being put in place. Platforms like Uber were using AI from day 1, but there was no RoI for long, he added.
According to EY, 66% of India’s top 50 unicorns are already using AI. But only 15-20% of proof of concept AI projects (more like trials) by domestic enterprises have rolled out into production. However, among Global Capability Centres (GCCs), the back offices of global companies in India, the shift from PoC to roll out is around 40%. According to IT body Nasscom, there are around 1,600 GCCs in India and their numbers are growing.
About a third of the use cases in India are for intelligent assistants and chatbots. Another 25% relate to marketing automation enabled by text generation and other capabilities like test-to-images or text-to-videos. Document intelligence is emerging as a key opportunity with around one-fifth of the use cases focusing on document summarization, enterprise knowledge management and search, according to EY.
Tata Steel has partnered with an AI tech platform to use AI for green steel by reducing emissions. Indigo has introduced the AI chatbot 6Eskai to assist travellers. Ecommerce major Flipkart’s knowledge assistant Flippi uses GenAI and LLMs to offer customized recommendations. Reliance Industries and Tata Group inked a strategic pact with Nvidia in September last year to develop India-focused AI powered supercomputers, cloud (for AI use cases) and GenAI applications. The government of India has also made a provision of ₹10,000 crore to procure computing power for AI projects.
About a third of the use cases in India are for intelligent assistants and chatbots. Another 25% relate to marketing automation enabled by text generation and other capabilities.
Rao of Speciale Invest believes that in India, in sectors such as manufacturing, there may not be a blanket use of AI as it competes with relatively low labour costs. AI will be more cost effective in software development if it takes over some coding tasks, and decreases the need for additional manpower.
“There are productivity improvements,” said Mahesh Makhija, partner and technology consulting leader, EY India. “But with errors, hallucinations (when an AI model generates misleading or incorrect results), and the risk of data thefts, securitycompanies are cautious about using AI.”
But Makhija is bullish on AI’s long-term prospects. “Things will improve. The nature of work will change, like Excel sheets and PPTs decades back, collapsed business planning times from weeks to days. Further improvements will come with AI,” he said.
The human element
View Full Image
Users often find the experience of interacting with chatbots frustrating and want a human to solve their problems. (istockphoto)
An oft-cited example of AI success is Swedish fintech company Klarna. In 2023, Klarna partnered with OpenAI to develop a virtual assistant. This March, the fintech claimed its virtual agent helped shrink its query resolution time from 11 minutes to just two. The assistant does the work of 700 humans and Klarna expects to save $40 million this year.
Virtual assistants and chatbots are increasingly being used across enterprises to reduce the load (and save costs) on human contact centres and also improve what they can do (though this is mostly restricted to answering FAQs). But users often find the experience frustrating and want a human to solve their problems.
In the US, a Gartner survey of 5,728 customers, conducted in December 2023, underlined that people remain concerned about the use of AI in the customer service function. Of those surveyed, 64% said they would prefer that companies didn’t use AI in customer service. In addition, 53% of the customers surveyed stated that they would consider switching to a competitor if they found a company was going to use AI for customer service. The top concern? It will get more difficult to reach a human agent. Other concerns include AI displacing jobs and AI providing wrong answers.
“Once customers exhaust self-service options, they’re ready to reach out to a person. Many customers fear that GenAI will simply become another obstacle between them and an agent,” Keith McIntosh, senior principal, research, Gartner customer service and support practice, said in a media release earlier this month.
For AI to take off, its proponents will have to address high costs, build killer apps, and generate correct, error-free output for institutions and people. If this disruptive force is to become as ubiquitous as the internet is today, it has to show trustworthy results. Else it runs the risk of a further erosion in value as stakeholders grow impatient.
