Producing tangible business benefits from modern iPaaS solutions

When a historic UK-based retailer set out to modernize its IT environment, it was wrestling with systems that had grown organically for more than 175 years. Prior digital transformation efforts had resulted in a patchwork of hundreds of integration flows spanning cloud, on-premises systems, and third-party vendors, all communicating across multiple protocols. 

The company needed a way to bridge the invisible seams stitching together decades of technology decisions. So, rather than layering on yet another patch, it opted for a more cohesive approach: an integration platform as a service (iPaaS) solution, i.e. a cloud-based ecosystem that enables smooth connections across applications and data sources. By going this route, the company reduced the total cost of ownership of its integration landscape by 40%.

The scenario illustrates the power of iPaaS in action. For many enterprises, iPaaS turns what was once a costly, complex undertaking into a streamlined, strategic advantage. According to Forrester research commissioned by SAP, businesses modernizing with iPaaS solutions can see a 345% return on investment over three years, with a payback period of less than six months.

Agile integration for an AI-first world

In 2025, the business need for flexible and friction-free integration has new urgency. When core business systems can’t communicate easily, the impacts ripple across the organization: Customer support teams can’t access real-time order statuses, finance teams struggle to consolidate data for monthly closes, and marketers lack reliable insights to personalize campaigns or effectively measure ROI.

A lack of high-quality data access is particularly problematic in the AI era, which depends on current, consistent, and connected data flows to fuel everything from predictive analytics to bespoke AI copilots. To unleash the full potential of AI, enterprises must first solve for any bottlenecks that prevent information from flowing freely across their systems. They must also ensure data pipelines are reliable and well-governed; when AI models are trained on inconsistent or outdated data, the insights they generate can be misleading or incomplete—which can undermine everything from customer recommendations to financial forecasting.

iPaaS platforms are often well-suited for accomplishing this across dynamic, distributed environments. Built as cloud-native, microservices-based integration hubs, modern iPaaS platforms can scale rapidly, adapt to changing workloads, and support hybrid architectures without adding complexity. They also help simplify the user experience for everyday business users via low-code functionalities that allow both technical and non-technical employees to build workflows with simple drag-and-drop or click-to-configure interfaces.

This self-service model has practical, real-world applications across business functions: For instance, customer service agents can connect support ticketing systems with real-time inventory or shipping data, finance departments can link payment processors to accounting software, and marketing teams can sync CRM data with campaign platforms to trigger personalized outreach—all without waiting for IT to come to the rescue.

Architectural foundations for fast, flexible integration

Several key architectural elements make the agility associated with iPaaS solutions possible:

  1. API-first design that treats every connection as a reusable service
  2. Event-driven capabilities that enable real-time responsiveness
  3. Modular components that can be mixed and matched to address specific business scenarios

These principles are central to making the transition from “spaghetti architecture” to “integration fabric”—a shift from brittle point-to-point connections to intelligent, policy-driven connectivity that spans multidimensional IT environments.

This approach means that when a company wants to add a new application, onboard a new partner, or create a new customer experience, they’re able to do so by tapping into existing integration assets rather than starting from scratch—which can lead to dramatically faster deployment cycles. It also helps enforce consistency and, in some cases, security and compliance across environments (role-based access controls and built-in monitoring capabilities, for example, can allow organizations to apply standards more uniformly).

Further, studies suggest that iPaaS solutions enable companies to unlock new revenue streams by integrating previously siloed data and processes. Forrester research found that organizations adopting iPaaS solutions stand to generate nearly $1 million in incremental profit over three years by creating new digital services, improving customer experiences, and automating revenue-generating processes that were previously manual.

Where iPaaS is headed: convergence and intelligence

All this momentum is perhaps one of the reasons why the global iPaaS market, valued at approximately $12.9 billion in 2024, is projected to reach more than $78 billion by 2032—with growth rates exceeding 25% annually.

This trajectory is contingent on two ongoing trends: the convergence of integration capabilities into broader application development platforms, and the infusion of AI into the integration lifecycle.

Today, the boundaries between iPaaS, automation platforms, and AI development environments are blurring as vendors create unified solutions that can handle everything from basic data synchronization to complex business processes. 

AI and machine learning capabilities are also being embedded directly into integration platforms. Soon, features like predictive maintenance of integration flow or intelligent routing of data based on current conditions are likely to become table stakes. Already, integration platforms are becoming smarter and more autonomous, capable of optimizing themselves and, in some cases, even initiating self-healing actions when problems arise.

At the same time, this shift is transforming how businesses think about integration as a dynamic enabler of AI strategy. In the near future, robust integration frameworks will be essential to operationalize AI at scale and feed these systems the rich, contextual data they need to deliver meaningful insights.

Building integration as competitive advantage

In addition to the retail modernization story detailed earlier, a few more real-world examples highlight the potential of iPaaS:

  • A chemicals manufacturer migrated 363 legacy interfaces to an iPaaS platform and now spins up new integrations 50% faster.
  • A North American bottling company reduced integration runtime costs by more than 50% while supporting 12 legal entities on a single cloud ERP instance through common APIs.
  • A global shipping-technology firm connected its CRM and third-party systems via cloud-based iPaaS solutions, enabling 100% touchless order fulfillment and a 95% cut in cost centers after a nine-month rollout in its first region.

Taken together, these examples make a compelling case for integration as strategy, not just infrastructure. They reflect a shift in mindset, where integration is democratized and embedded into how every team, not just IT, gets work done. Companies that treat integration as a core capability versus an IT afterthought are reaping tangible, enterprise-wide benefits, from faster go-to-market timelines and reduced operational costs to fully automated business processes.

As AI reshapes business processes and customer standards continue to climb, enterprises are realizing that integration architecture determines not only what they can build today, but how quickly they can adapt to whatever comes tomorrow.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

This content was researched, designed, and written entirely by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

Google, Microsoft Clarify Ad Bidding

Google and Microsoft are rolling out updates to improve transparency while removing redundant (and confusing) bidding features. The first Google update concerns AI Max for Search, a focus of the company’s recent Marketing Live event.

AI Max Transparency

Google launched AI Max for Search in May. It is now available in all accounts. Using AI, Google displays ads for more queries and customizes them based on the user. The idea is to reach more potential customers.

My initial impressions of AI Max for Search are positive. I haven’t experienced many conversions in my client’s accounts, perhaps because the additional traffic is low. But I’m receiving complementary traffic instead of cannibalizing the keywords I’ve bid on. In other words, it’s not driving traffic merely to generate clicks and spend, and moreover, the ancillary traffic appears qualified.

Two new segments provide AI Max clarity. First, advertisers can segment the Keyword report by search term match type. The report displays data from AI Max as well as standard exact, phrase, and broad match.

Second, advertisers can view the AI Max search terms and associated landing pages. It’s beneficial for discovering landing pages to test elsewhere in the account or exclude altogether.

Advertisers can view the AI Max search terms and associated landing pages in the search terms report.

For example, a landing page that converts well in AI Max is worth testing as the standard version. Conversely, advertisers could exclude a poor-converting page.

When launched in 2021, Performance Max campaigns did not provide this level of detail. Google added the transparency to AI Max from the start.

Screenshot of the URL exclusions screen in Google Ads

Advertisers can exclude poor-converting landing pages.

Combined Campaign Metrics

Google introduced Brand Reports late last year to show reach and frequency metrics across campaigns. Advertisers could always view the metrics for individual campaigns but not in aggregate. For example, Video and Demand Gen campaigns provided metrics separately, but not for consumers who viewed ads in both campaigns.

Brand Reports include filters by age range, gender, or both. The “co-viewed” metric shows the number of unique consumers who viewed the ad, even if they watched together on connected TV. It’s a good start for displaying the combined reach and frequency of multiple campaigns.

Unfortunately, the report does not provide conversion metrics to reveal how non-search campaigns contribute to overall conversions.

Microsoft Drops tCPA, tROAS

Microsoft is moving away from tCPA and tROAS bid strategies.

Google removed tCPA and tROAS bidding a couple of years ago because they were redundant: Both told Google to optimize for conversions.

Google renamed the strategy to “Maximize conversions with an optional tCPA.” By default, the “Maximize conversions” strategy strives to, well, maximize conversions, but advertisers can still set an optional acquisition target.

For example, advertisers unconcerned about tCPA can instruct Google to generate as many conversions as possible within the budget. But they can check the option to set a target CPA that does not exceed, say, $50.

Microsoft is adopting the same tactic. Beginning August 4, new Microsoft Ad campaigns will provide only the “maximize conversions” and “maximize conversion values” counterparts. Microsoft says it will automatically transition tCPA and tROAS campaigns.

No action is required by Microsoft advertisers. The update removes redundancies and simplifies bidding.

Relying Too Much On AI Is Backfiring For Businesses via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

As more companies race to adopt generative AI tools, some are learning a hard lesson: when used without oversight or expertise, these tools can cause more problems than they solve.

From broken websites to ineffective marketing copy, the hidden costs of AI mistakes are adding up, forcing businesses to bring in professionals to clean up the mess.

AI Delivers Mediocrity Without Supervision

Sarah Skidd, a product marketing manager and freelance writer, was hired to revise the website copy generated by an AI tool for a hospitality company, according to a report by the BBC.

Instead of the time- and cost-savings the client expected, the result was 20 hours of billable rewrites.

Skidd told the BBC:

“[The copy] was supposed to sell and intrigue but instead it was very vanilla.”

This isn’t an isolated case. Skidd said other writers have shared similar stories. One told her that 90% of their workload now consists of editing AI-generated text that falls flat.

The issue isn’t just quality. According to a study by researchers Anders Humlum and Emilie Vestergaard, real-world productivity gains from AI chatbots are far below expectations.

Although controlled experiments show improvements of over 15%, most users report time savings of just 2.8% of their work hours on average.

Cutting Corners Can Lead To Problems

The risks go beyond boring copy. Sophie, co-owner of Create Designs, a UK-based digital agency, says she’s seen a wave of clients suffer avoidable problems after trying to use AI tools like ChatGPT for quick fixes.

Warner tells the BBC:

“Now they are going to ChatGPT first.”

And that’s often when things go wrong.

In one case, a client used AI-generated code to update an event page. The shortcut crashed their entire website, causing three days of downtime and a $485 repair bill.

Warner says even larger clients encounter similar issues but hesitate to admit AI was involved, making diagnosis harder and more expensive.

Warner added:

“The process of correcting these mistakes takes much longer than if professionals had been consulted from the beginning.”

Training & Infrastructure Matter More Than Tools

The Danish research paper by Humlum and Vestergaard finds businesses that offer AI training and establish internal guidelines see better (if still modest) results.

Workers with employer support saved slightly more time, about 3.6% of work hours compared to 2.2% without guidance.

Even then, the productivity benefits don’t seem to trickle down. The study found no measurable changes in earnings, hours worked, or job satisfaction for 97% of AI users surveyed.

Prof. Feng Li, associate dean for research and innovation at Bayes Business School, told the BBC:

“Human oversight is essential. Poor implementation can lead to reputational damage, unexpected costs—and even significant liabilities.”

The Gap Between AI Speed & Human Standards

Kashish Barot, a copywriter based in Gujarat, India, told the BBC she spends her time editing AI-generated content for U.S. clients.

She says many underestimate what it takes to produce effective writing.

Barot says:

“AI really makes everyone think it’s a few minutes’ work. However, good copyediting, like writing, takes time because you need to think and not just curate like AI.”

The research backs this up: marketers and software developers report slightly higher time savings when employers support AI use, but gains for teachers and accountants are negligible.

While AI tools may speed up certain tasks, they still require human judgment to meet brand standards and audience needs.

Key Takeaways

The takeaway for businesses? AI isn’t a shortcut to quality. Without proper training, strategy, and infrastructure, even the most powerful tools fall short.

What many companies overlook is that AI’s success depends less on the technology itself and more on the people using it, and whether they’ve been equipped to use it well.

Rushed adoption may save time upfront, but it leads to more expensive problems down the line. Whether it’s broken code, off-brand messaging, or public-facing content that lacks nuance, the cost of fixing AI mistakes can quickly outweigh the perceived savings.

For marketers, developers, and business leaders, the lesson is: AI can help, but only when human expertise stays in the loop.


Featured Image: Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock

How To Get The Perfect Budget Mix For SEO And PPC via @sejournal, @brookeosmundson

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to deciding how much of your marketing budget should go toward SEO versus PPC.

But that doesn’t mean the decision should be based on gut instinct or what your competitors are doing.

Marketing leaders are under more pressure than ever to show a return on every dollar spent.

So, it’s not about choosing one over the other. It’s about finding the right balance based on your goals, your timelines, and what kind of results the business expects to see.

This article walks through how to think about budget allocation between SEO and PPC with a focus on what kind of output you can reasonably expect for your spend.

What You’re Actually Paying For

When you spend money on PPC, you’re buying immediate visibility.

Whether it’s Google Ads, Microsoft Ads, or paid social, you’re paying for clicks, impressions, and leads right now.

That cost is largely predictable and better to forecast. For example, if your cost-per-click (CPC) is $3 and your budget is $10,000, you can expect about 3,300 clicks.

PPC spend can be directly tied to pipeline, which is why it’s often favored by performance-driven teams.

With SEO, you’re investing in long-term growth. You’re paying for content, technical fixes, site structure improvements, and link acquisition.

But you don’t pay for clicks or impressions. Once rankings improve, those clicks come organically.

The upside is compounding growth and reduced cost per lead over time.

The downside? It can take months to see meaningful impact, and the cost-to-output ratio is harder to predict.

It’s also worth noting that PPC costs often increase with competition, while SEO costs tend to remain relatively stable over time. That can make SEO more scalable in the long term, especially for brands in high-CPC industries.

How Urgency And Goals Influence Budget Splits

If you need leads or traffic now, PPC should probably get the bulk of your short-term budget.

Launching a new product? Trying to meet quarterly goals? Paid search and social can give you the volume you need pretty quickly.

But if you’re trying to reduce customer acquisition cost (CAC) in the long run or improve visibility in organic search to support brand awareness, SEO deserves more attention. It builds value over time and often pays dividends past the life of your campaign.

Many brands start with a 70/30 or 60/40 split favoring PPC, then shift the mix as organic efforts gain traction.

Just make sure you set clear expectations: SEO is not a quick fix, and over-promising short-term gains can backfire when the board wants results next quarter.

If you’re rebranding, expanding into new markets, or supporting a product launch, a heavier upfront PPC investment makes sense. But brands that already rank well organically or have strong content foundations can afford to rebalance the mix in favor of SEO.

Why Organic Traffic Is Getting Harder To Defend

One emerging challenge for organic marketing is the rise of AI Overviews in Google Search. More brands are seeing a dip in organic traffic even when they maintain strong rankings.

Why?

Because the search experience is shifting. AI-generated summaries are now answering questions directly on the results page, often pushing traditional organic listings further down.

That means your SEO strategy can’t just be about rankings anymore. You need to invest in content that earns visibility in AI Overviews, featured snippets, and other enhanced search features.

This may involve rethinking how content is structured, focusing more on schema markup, FAQs, and direct-answer formats that AI models tend to surface.

In practical terms, your SEO budget should now include:

  • Structured content planning built around entity-based search.
  • Technical SEO improvements like schema and page speed.
  • Multimedia content like images and videos, which AI often pulls into results.
  • Continual refresh of older content to maintain relevance in evolving search formats.

This shift doesn’t mean SEO is no longer worth it. It means you need to be more strategic in how you spend.

Ask your SEO partner or in-house team how they’re adapting to AI search changes, and make sure your budget reflects that evolution.

Budget Planning Based On Realistic Outputs

Let’s put this into numbers. Say you have a $100,000 annual digital marketing budget.

Putting $80,000 toward PPC might get you 25,000 paid clicks and 500 conversions (based on a fictional $3.20 CPC and 2% conversion rate).

The remaining $20,000 on SEO might buy you four high-quality articles a month, technical clean-up work, and backlink outreach.

If done well, this might start showing traction in three to six months and bring in sustained traffic over time.

The key is to model your budget around what’s actually possible for each channel, not just what you hope will happen. SEO efforts often have a longer lag time, but PPC campaigns can run out of gas as soon as you turn off the spend.

You should also budget for maintenance and reinvestment. Even strong SEO performance requires fresh content and updates to keep rankings.

Similarly, PPC campaigns need regular optimization, creative testing, and bid adjustments to stay efficient.

You should also plan for budget allocation across different campaign types: brand vs. non-brand, search vs. display, and prospecting vs. retargeting.

Each serves a different purpose, and over-investing on one without supporting the others can limit growth.

For example, allocating part of your PPC budget to retargeting warm audiences can drastically improve efficiency compared to cold prospecting alone.

While branded search often delivers low-cost conversions, it shouldn’t be your only area of investment if you’re trying to scale.

What To Communicate To Leadership

Leadership wants to know two things: how much are we spending, and what are we getting in return?

A mixed SEO and PPC strategy gives you the ability to answer both.

PPC provides short-term wins you can report on monthly.

SEO builds long-term momentum that pays off in quarters and years.

Explain that PPC is more like a faucet you control. SEO is more like building your own well. Both are valuable.

But if you only have one or the other, you’re either stuck renting traffic or waiting too long to see the impact.

Board members and non-marketing executives often prefer hard numbers. So, when proposing a budget mix, include projected costs per acquisition, estimated traffic volumes, and timelines for ramp-up.

Make it clear where each dollar is going and what kind of return is expected.

If possible, create a model that shows various scenarios. For example, what a 50/50 vs. 70/30 SEO/PPC split might look like in terms of conversions, traffic, and cost per lead over time.

Visuals help ground the conversation in data rather than preference.

Choosing The Right Metrics For Each Channel

One challenge with mixed-channel budget planning is deciding which key performance indicator (KPI) to prioritize.

PPC is easier to measure in terms of direct return on investment (ROI), but SEO plays a broader role in business success.

For PPC metrics, you may want to focus on KPIs like:

  • Impression share.
  • Conversion rate.
  • Cost per acquisition (CPA).
  • Return on ad spend (ROAS).

For SEO metrics, you may want to focus on:

  • Organic traffic growth over time.
  • Ranking improvements.
  • Page engagement.
  • Assisted conversions.

When reporting to leadership, show how the two channels complement each other.

For example, paid search might drive immediate clicks, but your top-converting landing page could rank organically and reduce spend over time.

When To Adjust Your Budget Mix

Your initial budget allocation isn’t set in stone. It should evolve based on performance data, market shifts, and internal needs.

If PPC costs rise but conversion rates drop, that could be a cue to pull back and invest more in organic.

If you’re seeing strong rankings but low engagement, it may be time to shift some SEO funds into conversion rate optimization (CRO) or paid retargeting.

Seasonality and campaign cycles also matter. Retailers may lean heavily on PPC during Q4, while B2B companies might invest more in SEO during longer sales cycles.

Set quarterly review points where you re-evaluate performance and make adjustments. That level of agility shows leadership you’re making informed decisions, not just sticking to arbitrary ratios.

Avoiding Common Budget Mistakes

Some companies go all-in on SEO, expecting miracles. Others burn through paid budgets with nothing left to sustain organic efforts. Both approaches are risky.

A healthy mix means budgeting for:

  • Immediate lead gen (PPC).
  • Long-term traffic growth (SEO).
  • Regular testing and performance analysis.

Don’t forget to budget for what happens after the click: landing page development, CRO, and reporting tools that tie it all together.

Another mistake is treating SEO as a one-time project instead of an ongoing investment. If you only fund it during a site migration or a content sprint, you’ll lose momentum.

Same goes for PPC: Without a proper landing page experience or conversion tracking, even high-performing ads won’t deliver meaningful results.

Balancing Short-Term Wins With Long-Term Growth

There is no universal perfect split between SEO and PPC. But there is a perfect mix for your goals, stage of growth, and available resources.

Take the time to assess what you actually need from each channel and what you can realistically afford. Make sure your projections align with internal timelines and expectations.

And most importantly, keep reviewing your mix as performance data rolls in. The right budget allocation today might look very different six months from now.

Smart marketing leaders don’t choose sides. They choose what makes sense for the business today, and build flexibility into their strategy for tomorrow.

More Resources:


Featured Image: Jirapong Manustrong/Shutterstock

This Is Why AI Won’t Take Your Job (Yet) via @sejournal, @SequinsNsearch

SEO died a thousand times only this year, and the buzzword that resonates across every boardroom (and let’s be honest, everywhere else) is “AI.”

With Google releasing several AI-powered views over the past year and a half, along with the latest take on its own SearchGPT rival AI Mode, we are witnessing a traffic erosion that is very hard to counteract if we stay stuck in our traditional view of our role as search professionals.

And it is only natural that the debate we keep hearing is the same: Is AI eventually going to take our jobs? In a stricter sense, it probably will.

SEO, as we know it, has transformed drastically. It will keep evolving, forcing people to take on new skills and have a broader, multichannel strategy, along with clear and prompt communication to stakeholders who might still be confused about why clicks keep dropping while impressions stay the same.

The next year is expected to bring changes and probably some answers to this debate.

But in the meantime, I was able to draw some predictions, based on my own study investigating humans’ ability to discern AI, to see if the “human touch” really has an advantage over it.

Why This Matters For Us Now

Knowing if people can recognize AI matters for us because people’s behavior changes when they know they’re interacting with it, as compared to when they don’t.

A 2023 study by Yunhao Zhang and Renée Richardson Gosline compared content created by humans, AI, and hybrid approaches for marketing copy and persuasive campaigns.

What they noticed is that when the source was undisclosed, participants preferred AI-generated content, a result that was reversed when they knew how the content was created.

It’s like the transparency on using AI added a layer of diffidence to the interaction, rooted in the common mistrust that is reserved for any new and relatively unknown experience.

At the end of the day, we have consumed human-written content for centuries, but generative AI has been scaled only in the past few years, so this wasn’t even a challenge we were exposed to before.

Similarly, Gabriele Pizzi from the University of Bologna showed that when people interact with an AI chatbot in a simulated shopping environment, they are more likely to consider the agent as competent (and, in turn, trust it with their personal information) when the latter looks more human as compared to “robotic.”

And as marketers, we know that trust is the ultimate seal not only to get a visit and a transaction, but also to form a lasting relationship with the user behind the screen.

So, if recognizing AI content changes the way we interact with it and make decisions, do we still retain the human advantage when AI material gets so close to reality that it is virtually undistinguishable?

Your Brain Can Discriminate AI, But It Doesn’t Mean We Are Infallible Detectors

Previous studies have shown that humans display a feeling of discomfort, known as the uncanny valley, when they see or interact with an artificial entity with semi-realistic features.

How this negative feeling is manifested physiologically with higher activity of our sympathetic nervous system (the division responsible for our “fight or flight” response) before participants can verbally report on or even be aware of it.

It’s a measure of their “gut feeling” towards a stimulus that mimics human features, but does not succeed in doing so entirely.

The uncanny valley phenomenon arises from the fact that our brain, being used to predicting patterns and filling in the blanks based on our own experience, sees these stimuli as “glitches” and spots them as outliers in our known library of faces, bodies, and expressions.

The deviation from the norm and the uncertainty in labeling these “uncanny” stimuli can be triggering from a cognitive perspective, which manifests in higher electrodermal activity (shortened as EDA), a measure of psychological arousal that can be measured with electrodes on the skin.

Based on this evidence, it is realistic to hypothesize that our brain can spot AI before making any active discrimination, and that we can see higher EDA in relation to faces generated with AI, especially when there is something “off” about them.

It is unclear, though, at what level of realism we stop displaying a distinctive response, so I wanted to find that out with my own research.

Here are the questions I set up to answer with my study:

  1. Do we have an in-built pre-conscious “detector” system for AI, and at what point of realistic imitation does it stop responding?
  2. If we do, does it guide our active discrimination between AI and human content?
  3. Is our ability to discriminate influenced by our overall exposure to AI stimuli in real life?

And most of all, can any of the answers to these questions predict what are the next challenges we’ll face in search and marketing?

To answer these questions, I measured the electrodermal activity of 24 participants between 25 and 65 years old as they were presented with neutral, AI-generated, and human-generated images, and checked for any significant differences in responses to each category.

My study ran in three phases, one for each question I had:

  1. A first task where participants visualized neutral, AI, and human static stimuli on a screen without any actions required, while their electrodermal activity was recorded. This was intended to measure the automatic, pre-conscious response to the stimuli presented.
  2. A second behavioral task, where participants had to press a button to categorize the faces that they had seen into AI- vs. human-generated, as fast and accurately as they could, to measure their conscious discrimination skills.
  3. A final phase where participants declared their demographic range and their familiarity with AI on a self-reported scale across five questions. This gave me a self-reported “AI-literacy” score for each participant that I could correlate with any of the other measures obtained from the physiological and behavioral tasks.

And here is what I found:

  • Participants showed a significant difference in pre-conscious activation between conditions, and in particular, the EDA was significantly higher for human faces rather than AI faces (both hyper-realistic and CGI faces). This would support the hypothesis that our brain can tell the difference between AI and human faces before we even initiate a discrimination task.
  • The higher activation for human faces contrasts with the older literature showing higher activation for uncanny valley stimuli, and this could be related to either our own habituation to CGI visuals (meaning they are not triggering outliers anymore), or the automatic cognitive effort involved in trying to extrapolate the emotion of human neutral faces. As a matter of fact, the limitation of EDA is that it tells us something is happening in our nervous system, but it doesn’t tell us what: higher activity could be related to familiarity and preference, negative emotional states, or even cognitive effort, so more research on this is needed.
  • Exposure and familiarity with AI material correlated with higher accuracy when participants had to actively categorize faces into AI-generated and human, supporting the hypothesis that the more we are exposed to AI, the better we become at spotting subtle differences.
  • People were much faster and accurate in categorizing stimuli of the “uncanny valley” nature into the AI-generated bucket, but struggled with hyper-realistic faces, miscategorizing them as human faces in 22% of cases.
  • Active discrimination was not guided by pre-conscious activation. Although a difference in autonomous activity can be seen for AI and human faces, this did not correlate with how fast or accurate participants were. In fact, it can be argued that participants “second-guessed” their own instincts when they knew they had to make a choice.

And yet, the biggest result of all was something I noticed on the pilot I ran before the real study: When the participant is familiar with the brand or the product presented, it’s how they feel about it that guides what we see at the neural level, rather than the automatic response to the image presented.

So, while our brain can technically “tell the difference,” our emotions, familiarity with the brand, the message, and expectations are all factors that can heavily skew our own attitude and behavior, essentially making our discrimination (automatic or not) almost irrelevant in the cascade of evaluations we make.

This has massive implications not only in the way we retain our existing audience, but also in how we approach new ones.

We are now at a stage where understanding what our user wants beyond the immediate query is even more vital, and we have a competitive advantage if we can identify all of this before they explicitly express their needs.

The Road To Survival Isn’t Getting Out Of The Game. It’s Learning The New Rules To Play By

So, does marketing still need real people?

It definitely does, although it’s hard to see that now that every business is ignited by the fear of missing out on the big AI opportunity and distracted by new shiny objects populating the web every day.

Humans thrive on change – that’s how we learn and grow new connections and associations that help us adapt to new environments and processes.

Ever heard of the word neuroplasticity? While it might just sound like a fancy term for learning, it is quite literally the ability of your brain to reshape as a result of experience.

That’s why I think AI won’t take our jobs. We are focusing on AI’s fast progress in the ability to ingest content and recreate outputs that are virtually indistinguishable from our own, but we are not paying attention to our own power of evolving to this new level field.

AI will keep on moving, but so will the needle of our discernment and our behavior towards it, based on the experiences that we build with new processes and material.

My results already indicate how familiarity with AI plays a role in how good we are at recognizing it, and in a year’s time, even the EDA results might change as a function of progressive exposure.

Our skepticism and diffidence towards AI is rooted in the unknown sides of it, paired with a lot of the misuse that we’ve seen as a by-product of a fast, virtually unregulated growth.

The nature of our next interactions with AI will shape our behavior.

I think this is our opportunity as an industry to create valuable AI-powered experiences without sacrificing the quality of our work, our ethical responsibilities toward the user, and our relationship with them. It’s a slower process, but one worth undertaking.

So, even if, at the beginning, I approached this study as a man vs. the machine showdown, I believe we are heading toward the man and the machine era.

Far from the “use AI for everything” approach we tend to see around, below is a breakdown of where I see a (supervised) integration of AI to our job unproblematic, and where I think it still has no space in its current state.

Use: Anything That Provides Information, Facilitates Navigation, And Streamlines User Journeys

  • For example, testing product descriptions based on the features that already reside in the catalog, or providing summaries of real users’ reviews that highlight pros and cons straight away.
  • Virtual try-ons and enabling recommended products based on similarity.
  • Automating processes like identifying internal link opportunities, categorizing intent, and combining multiple data sources for better insights.

Avoid: Anything That’s Based On Establishing A Connection Or Persuading The User

  • This includes any content that fakes expertise and authority in the field. The current technology (and the lack of regulation) even allows for AI influencers, but bear in mind that your brand authenticity is still your biggest asset to preserve when the user is looking to convert. The pitfalls of deceiving them when they expect organic content are greater than just losing a click. This is the work you can’t automate.
  • Similarly, generating reviews or user-generated content at scale to convey legitimacy or value. If you know this is what your users want to get more information on, then you cannot meet their doubts with fake arguments. Gaming tactics are short-lived in marketing because people learn to discern and actively avoid them once they realize they are being deceived. Humans crave authenticity and real peer validation of their decisions because it makes them feel safe. If we ever reach a point where, as a collective, we feel we can trust AI, then it might be different, but that’s not going to happen when most of its current use is dedicated to tricking users into a transaction at all cost, rather than providing the necessary information they need to make an informed decision.
  • Replacing experts and quality control. If it backfired for customer-favorite Duolingo, it will likely backfire for you, too.

The New Goals We Should Be Setting

Here’s where a new journey starts for us.

The collective search behavior has already changed not only as a consequence of any AI-powered view on the SERP that makes our consumption of information and decision-making faster and easier, but also as a function of the introduction of new channels and forms of content (the “Search Everywhere” revolution we hear all about now).

This brings us to new goals as search professionals:

  • Be omnipresent: It’s now the time to work with other channels to improve organic brand awareness and be in the mind of the user at every stage of the journey.
  • Remove friction: Now that we can get answers right off the search engine results page without even clicking to explore more, speed is the new normal, and anything that makes the journey slower is an abandonment risk. Getting your customers what they want straight off the bat (being transparent with your offer, removing unnecessary steps to find information, and improving user experience to complete an action) prevents them from going to seek better results from competitors.
  • Preserve your authenticity: Users want to trust you and feel safe in their choices, so don’t fall into the hype of scalability that could harm your brand.
  • Get to know your customers deeper: Keyword data is no longer enough. We need to know their emotional states when they search, what their frustrations are, and what problems they are trying to solve. And most of all, how they feel about our brand, our product, and what they expect from us, so that we can really meet them where they are before a thousand other options come into play.

We’ve been there before. We’ll adapt again. And I think we’ll come out okay (maybe even more skilled) on the other side of the AI hype.

More Resources:


Featured Image: Stock-Asso/Shutterstock

Google AI Overviews Target Of Legal Complaints In The UK And EU via @sejournal, @martinibuster

The Movement For An Open Web and other organizations filed a legal challenge against Google, alleging harm to UK news publishers. The crux of the legal filing is the allegation that Google’s AI Overviews product is using news content as part of its summaries and for grounding AI answers, but not allowing publishers to opt out of that use without also opting out of appearing in search results.

The Movement For An Open Web (MOW) in the UK published details of a complaint to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA):

“Last week, the CMA announced plans to consult on how to make Google search fairer, including providing “more control and transparency for publishers over how their content collected for search is used, including in AI-generated responses.” However, the complaint from Foxglove, the Alliance and MOW warns that news organisations are already being harmed in the UK and action is needed immediately.

In particular, publishers urgently need the ability to opt out of Google’s AI summaries without being removed from search altogether. This is a measure that has already been proposed by other leading regulators, including the US Department of Justice and the South African Competition Commission. Foxglove is warning that without immediate action, the UK – and its news industry – risks being left behind, while other states take steps to protect independent news from Google.

Foxglove is therefore seeking interim measures to prevent Google misusing publisher content pending the outcome of the CMA’s more detailed review.”

Reuters is reporting on an EU antitrust complaint filed in Brussels seeking relief for the same thing:

“Google’s core search engine service is misusing web content for Google’s AI Overviews in Google Search, which have caused, and continue to cause, significant harm to publishers, including news publishers in the form of traffic, readership and revenue loss.”

Publishers And SEOs Critical Of AI Overviews

Google is under increasing criticism from the publisher and the SEO community for sending fewer clicks to users, although Google itself insists it is sending more traffic than ever. This may be one of those occasions where the phrase “let the judge decide” describes where this is all going, because there are no signs that Google is backing down from its decade-long trend of showing fewer links and more answers.

Featured Image by Shutterstock/nitpicker

5 Content Marketing Ideas for August 2025

Marketers hoping to drive traffic and convert visitors in August 2025 can produce content tailored to students, pet owners, readers, spa enthusiasts, and value shoppers.

Content marketing is the act of creating, publishing, and promoting articles, videos, podcasts, and the like to attract, engage, and retain customers.

A downside of the tactic is the seemingly unending need to produce new material. With this in mind, here are five content marketing ideas your company can use in August 2025.

Discoverable Back-to-School Lists

A mom and a grade-school daughter in front of a school bus

Back-to-school product listicles can appear in Google Discover, leading to a surge in traffic.

Google Discover is a personalized article feed in Google’s Search mobile app, Chrome app, and various mobile pages.

The feature is Google’s way of helping folks discover relevant, interesting, and timely content, with an emphasis on timely.

Some professional search engine optimizers believe that Discover favors recent articles, such as news stories or seasonal shopping listicles. There is no guarantee Google Discover will pick up an article, but it can drive significant traffic when it does.

Most content marketers launch back-to-school content in July, yet August could be the month to publish product listicles aimed at Discover.

Here are some example titles:

  • “21 Essentials Every High School Student Forgot to Buy.”
  • “15 Back-to-School Deals You Cannot Afford to Miss.”
  • “10 STEM Toys to Boost Your Kid’s Grades.”

Celebrate Cats and Dogs

Photo of a cat and a dog

August 2025 has a “day” for both cats and dogs.

August 2025 features International Cat Day on the 8th and International Dog Day on the 26th.

This duo of pet-centered remembrances can honor our feline and canine companions while also raising awareness about their overall well-being.

For content marketers, the cat and dog days offer an opportunity to engage with the millions of pet-loving shoppers.

Roughly two-thirds of American households own at least one pet, according to Forbes. Sixty-five million families have a dog, and 47 million keep a cat.

Certainly pet supply retailers can capitalize on the two occasions, although nearly any online store could likely connect pets to the products it sells. Here are some example titles.

  • A Pet Supply Store: “10 Ways to Spoil Your Pup on International Dog Day”
  • An Outdoor Gear Company: “The Ultimate Checklist for Hiking with Your Dog”
  • A Home Goods Retailer: “5 Tips for a Stylish and Pet-Proof Home”
  • A Car Accessories Store: “The Best Car Accessories for a Dog”

National Book Lovers Day

Photo of a female in an outdoor patio reading a book

National observances offer an opportunity to associate content with real-world events.

Almost any national observance — such as National Book Lovers Day on August 9 — can serve as a content anchor. It’s an opportunity to associate your marketing with timely, real-world happenings, however niche.

The trick is connecting your products to the day’s theme.

Imagine an online home decor shop. The company does not sell books, but it can still write about Book Lovers Day. For example, it could publish an article titled “How to Decorate the Perfect Reading Nook.”

Similarly, an electronics store could produce a video sharing “The Top eReaders for National Book Lovers Day.” A tea merchant might publish clever genre pairing guides.

National Relaxation Day

Photo of a 20-something female in a swimming pool

Relaxation can mean different things to consumers, making it ideal for content marketers.

Observed on August 15, 2025, National Relaxation Day is about taking a breather. For some, it will be a day at the spa. For others, relaxation will be watching the Seattle Mariners play the New York Mets at Citi Field.

Regardless, National Relaxation Day comes at an opportune time. As summer ends, many folks look to unwind. It’s an opportunity for businesses to position products for self-care and stress relief.

Here are some ideas.

  • Beauty boutique: “Step-by-Step Guide to an At-Home Spa Day”
  • Candle purveyor: “5 Calming Scents for Your Home”
  • Hobby shop: “5 Screen-Free Hobbies for Relaxation”

Interactive Pricing

Content marketing is evolving to include interactive site experiences, AI-generated.

Generative artificial intelligence has become ubiquitous. Content marketers often prompt genAI platforms for article topics and outlines.

In August 2025, take your company’s AI use to the next level. Instead of just generating articles, create an interactive price-related tool using your favorite AI model and also a code generator such as Replit.

Here’s an example using an online secondhand clothing shop.

This shop carefully curates clothing from thrift shops and estate sales. The staff cleans, repairs, and sells the items on the shop’s ecommerce site. But some shoppers question the store’s prices. “Aren’t these items just used shirts and pants?”

To respond, the store’s content team utilizes AI to generate an interactive “cost per wear” calculator, reframing the conversation from “price” to “value.” It’s a tangible, data-driven justification for a higher-priced, quality purchase.

Once generated, deploy the tool on product detail pages, category pages, and even social media campaigns.

Don’t let hype about AI agents get ahead of reality

Google’s recent unveiling of what it calls a “new class of agentic experiences” feels like a turning point. At its I/O 2025 event in May, for example, the company showed off a digital assistant that didn’t just answer questions; it helped work on a bicycle repair by finding a matching user manual, locating a YouTube tutorial, and even calling a local store to ask about a part, all with minimal human nudging. Such capabilities could soon extend far outside the Google ecosystem. The company has introduced an open standard called Agent-to-Agent, or A2A, which aims to let agents from different companies talk to each other and work together.

The vision is exciting: Intelligent software agents that act like digital coworkers, booking your flights, rescheduling meetings, filing expenses, and talking to each other behind the scenes to get things done. But if we’re not careful, we’re going to derail the whole idea before it has a chance to deliver real benefits. As with many tech trends, there’s a risk of hype racing ahead of reality. And when expectations get out of hand, a backlash isn’t far behind.

Let’s start with the term “agent” itself. Right now, it’s being slapped on everything from simple scripts to sophisticated AI workflows. There’s no shared definition, which leaves plenty of room for companies to market basic automation as something much more advanced. That kind of “agentwashing” doesn’t just confuse customers; it invites disappointment. We don’t necessarily need a rigid standard, but we do need clearer expectations about what these systems are supposed to do, how autonomously they operate, and how reliably they perform.

And reliability is the next big challenge. Most of today’s agents are powered by large language models (LLMs), which generate probabilistic responses. These systems are powerful, but they’re also unpredictable. They can make things up, go off track, or fail in subtle ways—especially when they’re asked to complete multistep tasks, pulling in external tools and chaining LLM responses together. A recent example: Users of Cursor, a popular AI programming assistant, were told by an automated support agent that they couldn’t use the software on more than one device. There were widespread complaints and reports of users canceling their subscriptions. But it turned out the policy didn’t exist. The AI had invented it.

In enterprise settings, this kind of mistake could create immense damage. We need to stop treating LLMs as standalone products and start building complete systems around them—systems that account for uncertainty, monitor outputs, manage costs, and layer in guardrails for safety and accuracy. These measures can help ensure that the output adheres to the requirements expressed by the user, obeys the company’s policies regarding access to information, respects privacy issues, and so on. Some companies, including AI21 (which I cofounded and which has received funding from Google), are already moving in that direction, wrapping language models in more deliberate, structured architectures. Our latest launch, Maestro, is designed for enterprise reliability, combining LLMs with company data, public information, and other tools to ensure dependable outputs.

Still, even the smartest agent won’t be useful in a vacuum. For the agent model to work, different agents need to cooperate (booking your travel, checking the weather, submitting your expense report) without constant human supervision. That’s where Google’s A2A protocol comes in. It’s meant to be a universal language that lets agents share what they can do and divide up tasks. In principle, it’s a great idea.

In practice, A2A still falls short. It defines how agents talk to each other, but not what they actually mean. If one agent says it can provide “wind conditions,” another has to guess whether that’s useful for evaluating weather on a flight route. Without a shared vocabulary or context, coordination becomes brittle. We’ve seen this problem before in distributed computing. Solving it at scale is far from trivial.

There’s also the assumption that agents are naturally cooperative. That may hold inside Google or another single company’s ecosystem, but in the real world, agents will represent different vendors, customers, or even competitors. For example, if my travel planning agent is requesting price quotes from your airline booking agent, and your agent is incentivized to favor certain airlines, my agent might not be able to get me the best or least expensive itinerary. Without some way to align incentives through contracts, payments, or game-theoretic mechanisms, expecting seamless collaboration may be wishful thinking.

None of these issues are insurmountable. Shared semantics can be developed. Protocols can evolve. Agents can be taught to negotiate and collaborate in more sophisticated ways. But these problems won’t solve themselves, and if we ignore them, the term “agent” will go the way of other overhyped tech buzzwords. Already, some CIOs are rolling their eyes when they hear it.

That’s a warning sign. We don’t want the excitement to paper over the pitfalls, only to let developers and users discover them the hard way and develop a negative perspective on the whole endeavor. That would be a shame. The potential here is real. But we need to match the ambition with thoughtful design, clear definitions, and realistic expectations. If we can do that, agents won’t just be another passing trend; they could become the backbone of how we get things done in the digital world.

Yoav Shoham is a professor emeritus at Stanford University and cofounder of AI21 Labs. His 1993 paper on agent-oriented programming received the AI Journal Classic Paper Award. He is coauthor of Multiagent Systems: Algorithmic, Game-Theoretic, and Logical Foundations, a standard textbook in the field.

Google’s electricity demand is skyrocketing

We got two big pieces of energy news from Google this week. The company announced that it’s signed an agreement to purchase electricity from a fusion company’s forthcoming first power plant. Google also released its latest environmental report, which shows that its energy use from data centers has doubled since 2020.

Taken together, these two bits of news offer a fascinating look at just how desperately big tech companies are hunting for clean electricity to power their data centers as energy demand and emissions balloon in the age of AI. Of course, we don’t know exactly how much of this pollution is attributable to AI because Google doesn’t break that out. (Also a problem!) So, what’s next and what does this all mean? 

Let’s start with fusion: Google’s deal with Commonwealth Fusion Systems is intended to provide the tech giant with 200 megawatts of power. This will come from Commonwealth’s first commercial plant, a facility planned for Virginia that the company refers to as the Arc power plant. The agreement represents half its capacity.

What’s important to note here is that this power plant doesn’t exist yet. In fact, Commonwealth still needs to get its Sparc demonstration reactor, located outside Boston, up and running. That site, which I visited in the fall, should be completed in 2026.

(An aside: This isn’t the first deal between Big Tech and a fusion company. Microsoft signed an agreement with Helion a couple of years ago to buy 50 megawatts of power from a planned power plant, scheduled to come online in 2028. Experts expressed skepticism in the wake of that deal, as my colleague James Temple reported.)

Nonetheless, Google’s announcement is a big moment for fusion, in part because of the size of the commitment and also because Commonwealth, a spinout company from MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center, is seen by many in the industry as a likely candidate to be the first to get a commercial plant off the ground. (MIT Technology Review is owned by MIT but is editorially independent.)

Google leadership was very up-front about the length of the timeline. “We would certainly put this in the long-term category,” said Michael Terrell, Google’s head of advanced energy, in a press call about the deal.

The news of Google’s foray into fusion comes just days after the tech giant’s release of its latest environmental report. While the company highlighted some wins, some of the numbers in this report are eye-catching, and not in a positive way.

Google’s emissions have increased by over 50% since 2019, rising 6% in the last year alone. That’s decidedly the wrong direction for a company that’s set a goal to reach net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by the end of the decade.

It’s true that the company has committed billions to clean energy projects, including big investments in next-generation technologies like advanced nuclear and enhanced geothermal systems. Those deals have helped dampen emissions growth, but it’s an arguably impossible task to keep up with the energy demand the company is seeing.

Google’s electricity consumption from data centers was up 27% from the year before. It’s doubled since 2020, reaching over 30 terawatt-hours. That’s nearly the annual electricity consumption from the entire country of Ireland.

As an outsider, it’s tempting to point the finger at AI, since that technology has crashed into the mainstream and percolated into every corner of Google’s products and business. And yet the report downplays the role of AI. Here’s one bit that struck me:

“However, it’s important to note that our growing electricity needs aren’t solely driven by AI. The accelerating growth of Google Cloud, continued investments in Search, the expanding reach of YouTube, and more, have also contributed to this overall growth.”

There is enough wiggle room in that statement to drive a large electric truck through. When I asked about the relative contributions here, company representative Mara Harris said via email that they don’t break out what portion comes from AI. When I followed up asking if the company didn’t have this information or just wouldn’t share it, she said she’d check but didn’t get back to me.

I’ll make the point here that we’ve made before, including in our recent package on AI and energy: Big companies should be disclosing more about the energy demands of AI. We shouldn’t be guessing at this technology’s effects.

Google has put a ton of effort and resources into setting and chasing ambitious climate goals. But as its energy needs and those of the rest of the industry continue to explode, it’s obvious that this problem is getting tougher, and it’s also clear that more transparency is a crucial part of the way forward.

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

Inside India’s scramble for AI independence

In Bengaluru, India, Adithya Kolavi felt a mix of excitement and validation as he watched DeepSeek unleash its disruptive language model on the world earlier this year. The Chinese technology rivaled the best of the West in terms of benchmarks, but it had been built with far less capital in far less time. 

“I thought: ‘This is how we disrupt with less,’” says Kolavi, the 20-year-old founder of the Indian AI startup CognitiveLab. “If DeepSeek could do it, why not us?” 

But for Abhishek Upperwal, founder of Soket AI Labs and architect of one of India’s earliest efforts to develop a foundation model, the moment felt more bittersweet. 

Upperwal’s model, called Pragna-1B, had struggled to stay afloat with tiny grants while he watched global peers raise millions. The multilingual model had a relatively modest 1.25 billion parameters and was designed to reduce the “language tax,” the extra costs that arise because India—unlike the US or even China—has a multitude of languages to support. His team had trained it, but limited resources meant it couldn’t scale. As a result, he says, the project became a proof of concept rather than a product. 

“If we had been funded two years ago, there’s a good chance we’d be the ones building what DeepSeek just released,” he says.

Kolavi’s enthusiasm and Upperwal’s dismay reflect the spectrum of emotions among India’s AI builders. Despite its status as a global tech hub, the country lags far behind the likes of the US and China when it comes to homegrown AI. That gap has opened largely because India has chronically underinvested in R&D, institutions, and invention. Meanwhile, since no one native language is spoken by the majority of the population, training language models is far more complicated than it is elsewhere. 

Historically known as the global back office for the software industry, India has a tech ecosystem that evolved with a services-first mindset. Giants like Infosys and TCS built their success on efficient software delivery, but invention was neither prioritized nor rewarded. Meanwhile, India’s R&D spending hovered at just 0.65% of GDP ($25.4 billion) in 2024, far behind China’s 2.68% ($476.2 billion) and the US’s 3.5% ($962.3 billion). The muscle to invent and commercialize deep tech, from algorithms to chips, was just never built.

Isolated pockets of world-class research do exist within government agencies like the DRDO (Defense Research & Development Organization) and ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization), but their breakthroughs rarely spill into civilian or commercial use. India lacks the bridges to connect risk-taking research to commercial pathways, the way DARPA does in the US. Meanwhile, much of India’s top talent migrates abroad, drawn to ecosystems that better understand and, crucially, fund deep tech.

So when the open-source foundation model DeepSeek-R1 suddenly outperformed many global peers, it struck a nerve. This launch by a Chinese startup prompted Indian policymakers to confront just how far behind the country was in AI infrastructure, and how urgently it needed to respond.

India responds

In January 2025, 10 days after DeepSeek-R1’s launch, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) solicited proposals for India’s own foundation models, which are large AI models that can be adapted to a wide range of tasks. Its public tender invited private-sector cloud and data‑center companies to reserve GPU compute capacity for government‑led AI research. 

Providers including Jio, Yotta, E2E Networks, Tata, AWS partners, and CDAC responded. Through this arrangement, MeitY suddenly had access to nearly 19,000 GPUs at subsidized rates, repurposed from private infrastructure and allocated specifically to foundational AI projects. This triggered a surge of proposals from companies wanting to build their own models. 

Within two weeks, it had 67 proposals in hand. That number tripled by mid-March. 

In April, the government announced plans to develop six large-scale models by the end of 2025, plus 18 additional AI applications targeting sectors like agriculture, education, and climate action. Most notably, it tapped Sarvam AI to build a 70-billion-parameter model optimized for Indian languages and needs. 

For a nation long restricted by limited research infrastructure, things moved at record speed, marking a rare convergence of ambition, talent, and political will.

“India could do a Mangalyaan in AI,” said Gautam Shroff of IIIT-Delhi, referencing the country’s cost-effective, and successful, Mars orbiter mission. 

Jaspreet Bindra, cofounder of AI&Beyond, an organization focused on teaching AI literacy, captured the urgency: “DeepSeek is probably the best thing that happened to India. It gave us a kick in the backside to stop talking and start doing something.”

The language problem

One of the most fundamental challenges in building foundational AI models for India is the country’s sheer linguistic diversity. With 22 official languages, hundreds of dialects, and millions of people who are multilingual, India poses a problem that few existing LLMs are equipped to handle.

Whereas a massive amount of high-quality web data is available in English, Indian languages collectively make up less than 1% of online content. The lack of digitized, labeled, and cleaned data in languages like Bhojpuri and Kannada makes it difficult to train LLMs that understand how Indians actually speak or search.

Global tokenizers, which break text into units a model can process, also perform poorly on many Indian scripts, misinterpreting characters or skipping some altogether. As a result, even when Indian languages are included in multilingual models, they’re often poorly understood and inaccurately generated.

And unlike OpenAI and DeepSeek, which achieved scale using structured English-language data, Indian teams often begin with fragmented and low-quality data sets encompassing dozens of Indian languages. This makes the early steps of training foundation models far more complex.

Nonetheless, a small but determined group of Indian builders is starting to shape the country’s AI future.

For example, Sarvam AI has created OpenHathi-Hi-v0.1, an open-source Hindi language model that shows the Indian AI field’s growing ability to address the country’s vast linguistic diversity. The model, built on Meta’s Llama 2 architecture, was trained on 40 billion tokens of Hindi and related Indian-language content, making it one of the largest open-source Hindi models available to date.

Pragna-1B, the multilingual model from Upperwal, is more evidence that India could solve for its own linguistic complexity. Trained on 300 billion tokens for just $250,000, it introduced a technique called “balanced tokenization” to address a unique challenge in Indian AI, enabling a 1.25-billion-parameter model to behave like a much larger one.

The issue is that Indian languages use complex scripts and agglutinative grammar, where words are formed by stringing together many smaller units of meaning using prefixes and suffixes. Unlike English, which separates words with spaces and follows relatively simple structures, Indian languages like Hindi, Tamil, and Kannada often lack clear word boundaries and pack a lot of information into single words. Standard tokenizers struggle with such inputs. They end up breaking Indian words into too many tokens, which bloats the input and makes it harder for models to understand the meaning efficiently or respond accurately.

With the new technique, however, “a billion-parameter model was equivalent to a 7 billion one like Llama 2,” Upperwal says. This performance was particularly marked in Hindi and Gujarati, where global models often underperform because of limited multilingual training data. It was a reminder that with smart engineering, small teams could still push boundaries.

Upperwal eventually repurposed his core tech to build speech APIs for 22 Indian languages, a more immediate solution better suited to rural users who are often left out of English-first AI experiences.

“If the path to AGI is a hundred-step process, training a language model is just step one,” he says. 

At the other end of the spectrum are startups with more audacious aims. Krutrim-2, for instance, is a 12-billion-parameter multilingual language model optimized for English and 22 Indian languages. 

Krutrim-2 is attempting to solve India’s specific problems of linguistic diversity, low-quality data, and cost constraints. The team built a custom Indic tokenizer, optimized training infrastructure, and designed models for multimodal and voice-first use cases from the start, crucial in a country where text interfaces can be a problem.

Krutrim’s bet is that its approach will not only enable Indian AI sovereignty but also offer a model for AI that works across the Global South.

Besides public funding and compute infrastructure, India also needs the institutional support of talent, the research depth, and the long-horizon capital that produce globally competitive science.

While venture capital still hesitates to bet on research, new experiments are emerging. Paras Chopra, an entrepreneur who previously built and sold the software-as-a-service company Wingify, is now personally funding Lossfunk, a Bell Labs–style AI residency program designed to attract independent researchers with a taste for open-source science. 

“We don’t have role models in academia or industry,” says Chopra. “So we’re creating a space where top researchers can learn from each other and have startup-style equity upside.”

Government-backed bet on sovereign AI

The clearest marker of India’s AI ambitions came when the government selected Sarvam AI to develop a model focused on Indian languages and voice fluency.

The idea is that it would not only help Indian companies compete in the global AI arms race but benefit the wider population as well. “If it becomes part of the India stack, you can educate hundreds of millions through conversational interfaces,” says Bindra. 

Sarvam was given access to 4,096 Nvidia H100 GPUs for training a 70-billion-parameter Indian language model over six months. (The company previously released a 2-billion-parameter model trained in 10 Indian languages, called Sarvam-1.)

Sarvam’s project and others are part of a larger strategy called the IndiaAI Mission, a $1.25 billion national initiative launched in March 2024 to build out India’s core AI infrastructure and make advanced tools more widely accessible. Led by MeitY, the mission is focused on supporting AI startups, particularly those developing foundation models in Indian languages and applying AI to key sectors such as health care, education, and agriculture.

Under its compute program, the government is deploying more than 18,000 GPUs, including nearly 13,000 high-end H100 chips, to a select group of Indian startups that currently includes Sarvam, Upperwal’s Soket Labs, Gnani AI, and Gan AI

The mission also includes plans to launch a national multilingual data set repository, establish AI labs in smaller cities, and fund deep-tech R&D. The broader goal is to equip Indian developers with the infrastructure needed to build globally competitive AI and ensure that the results are grounded in the linguistic and cultural realities of India and the Global South.

According to Abhishek Singh, CEO of IndiaAI and an officer with MeitY, India’s broader push into deep tech is expected to raise around $12 billion in research and development investment over the next five years. 

This includes approximately $162 million through the IndiaAI Mission, with about $32 million earmarked for direct startup funding. The National Quantum Mission is contributing another $730 million to support India’s ambitions in quantum research. In addition to this, the national budget document for 2025-26 announced a $1.2 billion Deep Tech Fund of Funds aimed at catalyzing early-stage innovation in the private sector.

The rest, nearly $9.9 billion, is expected to come from private and international sources including corporate R&D, venture capital firms, high-net-worth individuals, philanthropists, and global technology leaders such as Microsoft. 

IndiaAI has now received more than 500 applications from startups proposing use cases in sectors like health, governance, and agriculture. 

“We’ve already announced support for Sarvam, and 10 to 12 more startups will be funded solely for foundational models,” says Singh. Selection criteria include access to training data, talent depth, sector fit, and scalability.

Open or closed?

The IndiaAI program, however, is not without controversy. Sarvam is being built as a closed model, not open-source, despite its public tech roots. That has sparked debate about the proper balance between private enterprise and the public good. 

“True sovereignty should be rooted in openness and transparency,” says Amlan Mohanty, an AI policy specialist. He points to DeepSeek-R1, which despite its 236-billion parameter size was made freely available for commercial use. 

Its release allowed developers around the world to fine-tune it on low-cost GPUs, creating faster variants and extending its capabilities to non-English applications.

“Releasing an open-weight model with efficient inference can democratize AI,” says Hancheng Cao, an assistant professor of information systems and operations management at Emory University. “It makes it usable by developers who don’t have massive infrastructure.”

IndiaAI, however, has taken a neutral stance on whether publicly funded models should be open-source. 

“We didn’t want to dictate business models,” says Singh. “India has always supported open standards and open source, but it’s up to the teams. The goal is strong Indian models, whatever the route.”

There are other challenges as well. In late May, Sarvam AI unveiled Sarvam‑M, a 24-billion-parameter multilingual LLM fine-tuned for 10 Indian languages and built on top of Mistral Small, an efficient model developed by the French company Mistral AI. Sarvam’s cofounder Vivek Raghavan called the model “an important stepping stone on our journey to build sovereign AI for India.” But its download numbers were underwhelming, with only 300 in the first two days. The venture capitalist Deedy Das called the launch “embarrassing.”

And the issues go beyond the lukewarm early reception. Many developers in India still lack easy access to GPUs and the broader ecosystem for Indian-language AI applications is still nascent. 

The compute question

Compute scarcity is emerging as one of the most significant bottlenecks in generative AI, not just in India but across the globe. For countries still heavily reliant on imported GPUs and lacking domestic fabrication capacity, the cost of building and running large models is often prohibitive. 

India still imports most of its chips rather than producing them domestically, and training large models remains expensive. That’s why startups and researchers alike are focusing on software-level efficiencies that involve smaller models, better inference, and fine-tuning frameworks that optimize for performance on fewer GPUs.

“The absence of infrastructure doesn’t mean the absence of innovation,” says Cao. “Supporting optimization science is a smart way to work within constraints.” 

Yet Singh of IndiaAI argues that the tide is turning on the infrastructure challenge thanks to the new government programs and private-public partnerships. “I believe that within the next three months, we will no longer face the kind of compute bottlenecks we saw last year,” he says.

India also has a cost advantage.

According to Gupta, building a hyperscale data center in India costs about $5 million, roughly half what it would cost in markets like the US, Europe, or Singapore. That’s thanks to affordable land, lower construction and labor costs, and a large pool of skilled engineers. 

For now, India’s AI ambitions seem less about leapfrogging OpenAI or DeepSeek and more about strategic self-determination. Whether its approach takes the form of smaller sovereign models, open ecosystems, or public-private hybrids, the country is betting that it can chart its own course. 

While some experts argue that the government’s action, or reaction (to DeepSeek), is performative and aligned with its nationalistic agenda, many startup founders are energized. They see the growing collaboration between the state and the private sector as a real opportunity to overcome India’s long-standing structural challenges in tech innovation.

At a Meta summit held in Bengaluru last year, Nandan Nilekani, the chairman of Infosys, urged India to resist chasing a me-too AI dream. 

“Let the big boys in the Valley do it,” he said of building LLMs. “We will use it to create synthetic data, build small language models quickly, and train them using appropriate data.” 

His view that India should prioritize strength over spectacle had a divided reception. But it reflects a broader growing consensus on whether India should play a different game altogether.

“Trying to dominate every layer of the stack isn’t realistic, even for China,” says Shobhankita Reddy, a researcher at the Takshashila Institution, an Indian public policy nonprofit. “Dominate one layer, like applications, services, or talent, so you remain indispensable.” 

Correction: We amended Reddy’s name