China built hundreds of AI data centers to catch the AI boom. Now many stand unused.

A year or so ago, Xiao Li was seeing floods of Nvidia chip deals on WeChat. A real estate contractor turned data center project manager, he had pivoted to AI infrastructure in 2023, drawn by the promise of China’s AI craze. 

At that time, traders in his circle bragged about securing shipments of high-performing Nvidia GPUs that were subject to US export restrictions. Many were smuggled through overseas channels to Shenzhen. At the height of the demand, a single Nvidia H100 chip, a kind that is essential to training AI models, could sell for up to 200,000 yuan ($28,000) on the black market. 

Now, his WeChat feed and industry group chats tell a different story. Traders are more discreet in their dealings, and prices have come back down to earth. Meanwhile, two data center projects Li is familiar with are struggling to secure further funding from investors who anticipate poor returns, forcing project leads to sell off surplus GPUs. “It seems like everyone is selling, but few are buying,” he says.

Just months ago, a boom in data center construction was at its height, fueled by both government and private investors. However, many newly built facilities are now sitting empty. According to people on the ground who spoke to MIT Technology Review—including contractors, an executive at a GPU server company, and project managers—most of the companies running these data centers are struggling to stay afloat. The local Chinese outlets Jiazi Guangnian and 36Kr report that up to 80% of China’s newly built computing resources remain unused.

Renting out GPUs to companies that need them for training AI models—the main business model for the new wave of data centers—was once seen as a sure bet. But with the rise of DeepSeek and a sudden change in the economics around AI, the industry is faltering.

“The growing pain China’s AI industry is going through is largely a result of inexperienced players—corporations and local governments—jumping on the hype train, building facilities that aren’t optimal for today’s need,” says Jimmy Goodrich, senior advisor for technology to the RAND Corporation. 

The upshot is that projects are failing, energy is being wasted, and data centers have become “distressed assets” whose investors are keen to unload them at below-market rates. The situation may eventually prompt government intervention, he says: “The Chinese government is likely to step in, take over, and hand them off to more capable operators.”

A chaotic building boom

When ChatGPT exploded onto the scene in late 2022, the response in China was swift. The central government designated AI infrastructure as a national priority, urging local governments to accelerate the development of so-called smart computing centers—a term coined to describe AI-focused data centers.

In 2023 and 2024, over 500 new data center projects were announced everywhere from Inner Mongolia to Guangdong, according to KZ Consulting, a market research firm. According to the China Communications Industry Association Data Center Committee, a state-affiliated industry association, at least 150 of the newly built data centers were finished and running by the end of 2024. State-owned enterprises, publicly traded firms, and state-affiliated funds lined up to invest in them, hoping to position themselves as AI front-runners. Local governments heavily promoted them in the hope they’d stimulate the economy and establish their region as a key AI hub. 

However, as these costly construction projects continue, the Chinese frenzy over large language models is losing momentum. In 2024 alone, over 144 companies registered with the Cyberspace Administration of China—the country’s central internet regulator—to develop their own LLMs. Yet according to the Economic Observer, a Chinese publication, only about 10% of those companies were still actively investing in large-scale model training by the end of the year.

China’s political system is highly centralized, with local government officials typically moving up the ranks through regional appointments. As a result, many local leaders prioritize short-term economic projects that demonstrate quick results—often to gain favor with higher-ups—rather than long-term development. Large, high-profile infrastructure projects have long been a tool for local officials to boost their political careers.

The post-pandemic economic downturn only intensified this dynamic. With China’s real estate sector—once the backbone of local economies—slumping for the first time in decades, officials scrambled to find alternative growth drivers. In the meantime, the country’s once high-flying internet industry was also entering a period of stagnation. In this vacuum, AI infrastructure became the new stimulus of choice.

“AI felt like a shot of adrenaline,” says Li. “A lot of money that used to flow into real estate is now going into AI data centers.”

By 2023, major corporations—many of them with little prior experience in AI—began partnering with local governments to capitalize on the trend. Some saw AI infrastructure as a way to justify business expansion or boost stock prices, says Fang Cunbao, a data center project manager based in Beijing. Among them were companies like Lotus, an MSG manufacturer, and Jinlun Technology, a textile firm—hardly the names one would associate with cutting-edge AI technology.

This gold-rush approach meant that the push to build AI data centers was largely driven from the top down, often with little regard for actual demand or technical feasibility, say Fang, Li, and multiple on-the-ground sources, who asked to speak anonymously for fear of political repercussions. Many projects were led by executives and investors with limited expertise in AI infrastructure, they say. In the rush to keep up, many were constructed hastily and fell short of industry standards. 

“Putting all these large clusters of chips together is a very difficult exercise, and there are very few companies or individuals who know how to do it at scale,” says Goodrich. “This is all really state-of-the-art computer engineering. I’d be surprised if most of these smaller players know how to do it. A lot of the freshly built data centers are quickly strung together and don’t offer the stability that a company like DeepSeek would want.”

To make matters worse, project leaders often relied on middlemen and brokers—some of whom exaggerated demand forecasts or manipulated procurement processes to pocket government subsidies, sources say. 

By the end of 2024, the excitement that once surrounded China’s data center boom was  curdling into disappointment. The reason is simple: GPU rental is no longer a particularly  lucrative business.

The DeepSeek reckoning

The business model of data centers is in theory straightforward: They make money by renting out GPU clusters to companies that need computing capacity for AI training. In reality, however, securing clients is proving difficult. Only a few top tech companies in China are now drawing heavily on computing power to train their AI models. Many smaller players have been giving up on pretraining their models or otherwise shifting their strategy since the rise of DeepSeek, which broke the internet with R1, its open-source reasoning model that matches the performance of ChatGPT o1 but was built at a fraction of its cost. 

“DeepSeek is a moment of reckoning for the Chinese AI industry. The burning question shifted from ‘Who can make the best large language model?’ to ‘Who can use them better?’” says Hancheng Cao, an assistant professor of information systems at Emory University. 

The rise of reasoning models like DeepSeek’s R1 and OpenAI’s ChatGPT o1 and o3 has also changed what businesses want from a data center. With this technology, most of the computing needs come from conducting step-by-step logical deductions in response to users’ queries, not from the process of training and creating the model in the first place. This reasoning process often yields better results but takes significantly more time. As a result, hardware with low latency (the time it takes for data to pass from one point on a network to another) is paramount. Data centers need to be located near major tech hubs to minimize transmission delays and ensure access to highly skilled operations and maintenance staff. 

This change means many data centers built in central, western, and rural China—where electricity and land are cheaper—are losing their allure to AI companies. In Zhengzhou, a city in Li’s home province of Henan, a newly built data center is even distributing free computing vouchers to local tech firms but still struggles to attract clients. 

Additionally, a lot of the new data centers that have sprung up in recent years were optimized for pretraining workloads—large, sustained computations run on massive data sets—rather than for inference, the process of running trained reasoning models to respond to user inputs in real time. Inference-friendly hardware differs from what’s traditionally used for large-scale AI training. 

GPUs like Nvidia H100 and A100 are designed for massive data processing, prioritizing speed and memory capacity. But as AI moves toward real-time reasoning, the industry seeks chips that are more efficient, responsive, and cost-effective. Even a minor miscalculation in infrastructure needs can render a data center suboptimal for the tasks clients require.

In these circumstances, the GPU rental price has dropped to an all-time low. A recent report from the Chinese media outlet Zhineng Yongxian said that an Nvidia H100 server configured with eight GPUs now rents for 75,000 yuan per month, down from highs of around 180,000. Some data centers would rather leave their facilities sitting empty than run the risk of losing even more money because they are so costly to run, says Fan: “The revenue from having a tiny part of the data center running simply wouldn’t cover the electricity and maintenance cost.”

“It’s paradoxical—China faces the highest acquisition costs for Nvidia chips, yet GPU leasing prices are extraordinarily low,” Li says. There’s an oversupply of computational power, especially in central and west China, but at the same time, there’s a shortage of cutting-edge chips. 

However, not all brokers were looking to make money from data centers in the first place. Instead, many were interested in gaming government benefits all along. Some operators exploit the sector for subsidized green electricity, obtaining permits to generate and sell power, according to Fang and some Chinese media reports. Instead of using the energy for AI workloads, they resell it back to the grid at a premium. In other cases, companies acquire land for data center development to qualify for state-backed loans and credits, leaving facilities unused while still benefiting from state funding, according to the local media outlet Jiazi Guangnian.

“Towards the end of 2024, no clear-headed contractor and broker in the market would still go into the business expecting direct profitability,” says Fang. “Everyone I met is leveraging the data center deal for something else the government could offer.”

A necessary evil

Despite the underutilization of data centers, China’s central government is still throwing its weight behind a push for AI infrastructure. In early 2025, it convened an AI industry symposium, emphasizing the importance of self-reliance in this technology. 

Major Chinese tech companies are taking note, making investments aligning with this national priority. Alibaba Group announced plans to invest over $50 billion in cloud computing and AI hardware infrastructure over the next three years, while ByteDance plans to invest around $20 billion in GPUs and data centers.

In the meantime, companies in the US are doing likewise. Major tech firms including OpenAI, Softbank, and Oracle have teamed up to commit to the Stargate initiative, which plans to invest up to $500 billion over the next four years to build advanced data centers and computing infrastructure. ​Given the AI competition between the two countries, experts say that China is unlikely to scale back its efforts. “If generative AI is going to be the killer technology, infrastructure is going to be the determinant of success,”  says Goodrich, the tech policy advisor to RAND.

“The Chinese central government will likely see [underused data centers] as a necessary evil to develop an important capability, a growing pain of sorts. You have the failed projects and distressed assets, and the state will consolidate and clean it up. They see the end, not the means,” Goodrich says.

Demand remains strong for Nvidia chips, and especially the H20 chip, which was custom-designed for the Chinese market. One industry source, who requested not to be identified under his company policy, confirmed that the H20, a lighter, faster model optimized for AI inference, is currently the most popular Nvidia chip, followed by the H100, which continues to flow steadily into China even though sales are officially restricted by US sanctions. Some of the new demand is driven by companies deploying their own versions of DeepSeek’s open-source models.

For now, many data centers in China sit in limbo—built for a future that has yet to arrive. Whether they will find a second life remains uncertain. For Fang Cunbao, DeepSeek’s success has become a moment of reckoning, casting doubt on the assumption that an endless expansion of AI infrastructure guarantees progress.

That’s just a myth, he now realizes. At the start of this year, Fang decided to quit the data center industry altogether. “The market is too chaotic. The early adopters profited, but now it’s just people chasing policy loopholes,” he says. He’s decided to go into AI education next. 

“What stands between now and a future where AI is actually everywhere,” he says, “is not infrastructure anymore, but solid plans to deploy the technology.” 

Why the world is looking to ditch US AI models

A few weeks ago, when I was at the digital rights conference RightsCon in Taiwan, I watched in real time as civil society organizations from around the world, including the US, grappled with the loss of one of the biggest funders of global digital rights work: the United States government.

As I wrote in my dispatch, the Trump administration’s shocking, rapid gutting of the US government (and its push into what some prominent political scientists call “competitive authoritarianism”) also affects the operations and policies of American tech companies—many of which, of course, have users far beyond US borders. People at RightsCon said they were already seeing changes in these companies’ willingness to engage with and invest in communities that have smaller user bases—especially non-English-speaking ones. 

As a result, some policymakers and business leaders—in Europe, in particular—are reconsidering their reliance on US-based tech and asking whether they can quickly spin up better, homegrown alternatives. This is particularly true for AI.

One of the clearest examples of this is in social media. Yasmin Curzi, a Brazilian law professor who researches domestic tech policy, put it to me this way: “Since Trump’s second administration, we cannot count on [American social media platforms] to do even the bare minimum anymore.” 

Social media content moderation systems—which already use automation and are also experimenting with deploying large language models to flag problematic posts—are failing to detect gender-based violence in places as varied as India, South Africa, and Brazil. If platforms begin to rely even more on LLMs for content moderation, this problem will likely get worse, says Marlena Wisniak, a human rights lawyer who focuses on AI governance at the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law. “The LLMs are moderated poorly, and the poorly moderated LLMs are then also used to moderate other content,” she tells me. “It’s so circular, and the errors just keep repeating and amplifying.” 

Part of the problem is that the systems are trained primarily on data from the English-speaking world (and American English at that), and as a result, they perform less well with local languages and context. 

Even multilingual language models, which are meant to process multiple languages at once, still perform poorly with non-Western languages. For instance, one evaluation of ChatGPT’s response to health-care queries found that results were far worse in Chinese and Hindi, which are less well represented in North American data sets, than in English and Spanish.   

For many at RightsCon, this validates their calls for more community-driven approaches to AI—both in and out of the social media context. These could include small language models, chatbots, and data sets designed for particular uses and specific to particular languages and cultural contexts. These systems could be trained to recognize slang usages and slurs, interpret words or phrases written in a mix of languages and even alphabets, and identify “reclaimed language” (onetime slurs that the targeted group has decided to embrace). All of these tend to be missed or miscategorized by language models and automated systems trained primarily on Anglo-American English. The founder of the startup Shhor AI, for example, hosted a panel at RightsCon and talked about its new content moderation API focused on Indian vernacular languages.

Many similar solutions have been in development for years—and we’ve covered a number of them, including a Mozilla-facilitated volunteer-led effort to collect training data in languages other than English, and promising startups like Lelapa AI, which is building AI for African languages. Earlier this year, we even included small language models on our 2025 list of top 10 breakthrough technologies

Still, this moment feels a little different. The second Trump administration, which shapes the actions and policies of American tech companies, is obviously a major factor. But there are others at play. 

First, recent research and development on language models has reached the point where data set size is no longer a predictor of performance, meaning that more people can create them. In fact, “smaller language models might be worthy competitors of multilingual language models in specific, low-resource languages,” says Aliya Bhatia, a visiting fellow at the Center for Democracy & Technology who researches automated content moderation. 

Then there’s the global landscape. AI competition was a major theme of the recent Paris AI Summit, which took place the week before RightsCon. Since then, there’s been a steady stream of announcements about “sovereign AI” initiatives that aim to give a country (or organization) full control over all aspects of AI development. 

AI sovereignty is just one part of the desire for broader “tech sovereignty” that’s also been gaining steam, growing out of more sweeping concerns about the privacy and security of data transferred to the United States. The European Union appointed its first commissioner for tech sovereignty, security, and democracy last November and has been working on plans for a “Euro Stack,” or “digital public infrastructure.” The definition of this is still somewhat fluid, but it could include the energy, water, chips, cloud services, software, data, and AI needed to support modern society and future innovation. All these are largely provided by US tech companies today. Europe’s efforts are partly modeled after “India Stack,” that country’s digital infrastructure that includes the biometric identity system Aadhaar. Just last week, Dutch lawmakers passed several motions to untangle the country from US tech providers. 

This all fits in with what Andy Yen, CEO of the Switzerland-based digital privacy company Proton, told me at RightsCon. Trump, he said, is “causing Europe to move faster … to come to the realization that Europe needs to regain its tech sovereignty.” This is partly because of the leverage that the president has over tech CEOs, Yen said, and also simply “because tech is where the future economic growth of any country is.”

But just because governments get involved doesn’t mean that issues around inclusion in language models will go away. “I think there needs to be guardrails about what the role of the government here is. Where it gets tricky is if the government decides ‘These are the languages we want to advance’ or ‘These are the types of views we want represented in a data set,’” Bhatia says. “Fundamentally, the training data a model trains on is akin to the worldview it develops.” 

It’s still too early to know what this will all look like, and how much of it will prove to be hype. But no matter what happens, this is a space we’ll be watching.

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

Why the world is looking to ditch US AI models

A few weeks ago, when I was at the digital rights conference RightsCon in Taiwan, I watched in real time as civil society organizations from around the world, including the US, grappled with the loss of one of the biggest funders of global digital rights work: the United States government.

As I wrote in my dispatch, the Trump administration’s shocking, rapid gutting of the US government (and its push into what some prominent political scientists call “competitive authoritarianism”) also affects the operations and policies of American tech companies—many of which, of course, have users far beyond US borders. People at RightsCon said they were already seeing changes in these companies’ willingness to engage with and invest in communities that have smaller user bases—especially non-English-speaking ones. 

As a result, some policymakers and business leaders—in Europe, in particular—are reconsidering their reliance on US-based tech and asking whether they can quickly spin up better, homegrown alternatives. This is particularly true for AI.

One of the clearest examples of this is in social media. Yasmin Curzi, a Brazilian law professor who researches domestic tech policy, put it to me this way: “Since Trump’s second administration, we cannot count on [American social media platforms] to do even the bare minimum anymore.” 

Social media content moderation systems—which already use automation and are also experimenting with deploying large language models to flag problematic posts—are failing to detect gender-based violence in places as varied as India, South Africa, and Brazil. If platforms begin to rely even more on LLMs for content moderation, this problem will likely get worse, says Marlena Wisniak, a human rights lawyer who focuses on AI governance at the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law. “The LLMs are moderated poorly, and the poorly moderated LLMs are then also used to moderate other content,” she tells me. “It’s so circular, and the errors just keep repeating and amplifying.” 

Part of the problem is that the systems are trained primarily on data from the English-speaking world (and American English at that), and as a result, they perform less well with local languages and context. 

Even multilingual language models, which are meant to process multiple languages at once, still perform poorly with non-Western languages. For instance, one evaluation of ChatGPT’s response to health-care queries found that results were far worse in Chinese and Hindi, which are less well represented in North American data sets, than in English and Spanish.   

For many at RightsCon, this validates their calls for more community-driven approaches to AI—both in and out of the social media context. These could include small language models, chatbots, and data sets designed for particular uses and specific to particular languages and cultural contexts. These systems could be trained to recognize slang usages and slurs, interpret words or phrases written in a mix of languages and even alphabets, and identify “reclaimed language” (onetime slurs that the targeted group has decided to embrace). All of these tend to be missed or miscategorized by language models and automated systems trained primarily on Anglo-American English. The founder of the startup Shhor AI, for example, hosted a panel at RightsCon and talked about its new content moderation API focused on Indian vernacular languages.

Many similar solutions have been in development for years—and we’ve covered a number of them, including a Mozilla-facilitated volunteer-led effort to collect training data in languages other than English, and promising startups like Lelapa AI, which is building AI for African languages. Earlier this year, we even included small language models on our 2025 list of top 10 breakthrough technologies

Still, this moment feels a little different. The second Trump administration, which shapes the actions and policies of American tech companies, is obviously a major factor. But there are others at play. 

First, recent research and development on language models has reached the point where data set size is no longer a predictor of performance, meaning that more people can create them. In fact, “smaller language models might be worthy competitors of multilingual language models in specific, low-resource languages,” says Aliya Bhatia, a visiting fellow at the Center for Democracy & Technology who researches automated content moderation. 

Then there’s the global landscape. AI competition was a major theme of the recent Paris AI Summit, which took place the week before RightsCon. Since then, there’s been a steady stream of announcements about “sovereign AI” initiatives that aim to give a country (or organization) full control over all aspects of AI development. 

AI sovereignty is just one part of the desire for broader “tech sovereignty” that’s also been gaining steam, growing out of more sweeping concerns about the privacy and security of data transferred to the United States. The European Union appointed its first commissioner for tech sovereignty, security, and democracy last November and has been working on plans for a “Euro Stack,” or “digital public infrastructure.” The definition of this is still somewhat fluid, but it could include the energy, water, chips, cloud services, software, data, and AI needed to support modern society and future innovation. All these are largely provided by US tech companies today. Europe’s efforts are partly modeled after “India Stack,” that country’s digital infrastructure that includes the biometric identity system Aadhaar. Just last week, Dutch lawmakers passed several motions to untangle the country from US tech providers. 

This all fits in with what Andy Yen, CEO of the Switzerland-based digital privacy company Proton, told me at RightsCon. Trump, he said, is “causing Europe to move faster … to come to the realization that Europe needs to regain its tech sovereignty.” This is partly because of the leverage that the president has over tech CEOs, Yen said, and also simply “because tech is where the future economic growth of any country is.”

But just because governments get involved doesn’t mean that issues around inclusion in language models will go away. “I think there needs to be guardrails about what the role of the government here is. Where it gets tricky is if the government decides ‘These are the languages we want to advance’ or ‘These are the types of views we want represented in a data set,’” Bhatia says. “Fundamentally, the training data a model trains on is akin to the worldview it develops.” 

It’s still too early to know what this will all look like, and how much of it will prove to be hype. But no matter what happens, this is a space we’ll be watching.

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

OpenAI’s new image generator aims to be practical enough for designers and advertisers

OpenAI has released a new image generator that’s designed less for typical surrealist AI art and more for highly controllable and practical creation of visuals—a sign that OpenAI thinks its tools are ready for use in fields like advertising and graphic design. 

The image generator, which is now part of the company’s GPT-4o model, was promised by OpenAI last May but wasn’t released. Requests for generated images on ChatGPT were filled by an older image generator called DALL-E. OpenAI has been tweaking the new model since then and will now release it over the coming weeks to all tiers of users starting today, replacing the older one. 

The new model makes progress on technical issues that have plagued AI image generators for years. While most have been great at creating fantastical images or realistic deepfakes, they’ve been terrible at something called binding, which refers to the ability to identify certain objects correctly and put them in their proper place (like a sign that says “hot dogs” properly placed above a food cart, not somewhere else in the image). 

It was only a few years ago that models started to succeed at things like “Put the red cube on top of the blue cube,” a feature that is essential for any creative professional use of AI. Generators also struggle with text generation, typically creating distorted jumbles of letter shapes that look more like captchas than readable text.

OPENAI

Example images from OpenAI show progress here. The model is able to generate 12 discrete graphics within a single image—like a cat emoji or a lightning bolt—and place them in proper order. Another shows four cocktails accompanied by recipe cards with accurate, legible text. More images show comic strips with text bubbles, mock advertisements, and instructional diagrams. The model also allows you to upload images to be modified, and it will be available in the video generator Sora as well as in GPT-4o. 

OPENAI

It’s “a new tool for communication,” says Gabe Goh, the lead designer on the generator at OpenAI. Kenji Hata, a researcher at OpenAI who also worked on the tool, puts it a different way: “I think the whole idea is that we’re going away from, like, beautiful art.” It can still do that, he clarifies, but it will do more useful things too. “You can actually make images work for you,” he says, “and not just just look at them.”

It’s a clear sign that OpenAI is positioning the tool to be used more by creative professionals: think graphic designers, ad agencies, social media managers, or illustrators. But in entering this domain, OpenAI has two paths, both difficult. 

One, it can target the skilled professionals who have long used programs like Adobe Photoshop, which is also investing heavily in AI tools that can fill images with generative AI. 

“Adobe really has a stranglehold on this market, and they’re moving fast enough that I don’t know how compelling it is for people to switch,” says David Raskino, the cofounder and chief technical officer of Irreverent Labs, which works on AI video generation. 

The second option is to target casual designers who have flocked to tools like Canva (which has also been investing in AI). This is an audience that may not have ever needed technically demanding software like Photoshop but would use more casual design tools to create visuals. To succeed here, OpenAI would have to lure people away from platforms built for design in hopes that the speed and quality of its own image generator would make the switch worth it (at least for part of the design process). 

It’s also possible the tool will simply be used as many image generators are now: to create quick visuals that are “good enough” to accompany social media posts. But with OpenAI planning massive investments, including participation in the $500 billion Stargate project to build new data centers at unprecedented scale, it’s hard to imagine that the image generator won’t play some ambitious moneymaking role. 

Regardless, the fact that OpenAI’s new image generator has pushed through notable technical hurdles has raised the bar for other AI companies. Clearing those hurdles likely required lots of very specific data, Raskino says, like millions of images in which text is properly displayed at lots of different angles and orientations. Now competing image generators will have to match those achievements to keep up.

“The pace of innovation should increase here,” Raskino says.

OpenAI’s new image generator aims to be practical enough for designers and advertisers

OpenAI has released a new image generator that’s designed less for typical surrealist AI art and more for highly controllable and practical creation of visuals—a sign that OpenAI thinks its tools are ready for use in fields like advertising and graphic design. 

The image generator, which is now part of the company’s GPT-4o model, was promised by OpenAI last May but wasn’t released. Requests for generated images on ChatGPT were filled by an older image generator called DALL-E. OpenAI has been tweaking the new model since then and will now release it over the coming weeks to all tiers of users starting today, replacing the older one. 

The new model makes progress on technical issues that have plagued AI image generators for years. While most have been great at creating fantastical images or realistic deepfakes, they’ve been terrible at something called binding, which refers to the ability to identify certain objects correctly and put them in their proper place (like a sign that says “hot dogs” properly placed above a food cart, not somewhere else in the image). 

It was only a few years ago that models started to succeed at things like “Put the red cube on top of the blue cube,” a feature that is essential for any creative professional use of AI. Generators also struggle with text generation, typically creating distorted jumbles of letter shapes that look more like captchas than readable text.

OPENAI

Example images from OpenAI show progress here. The model is able to generate 12 discrete graphics within a single image—like a cat emoji or a lightning bolt—and place them in proper order. Another shows four cocktails accompanied by recipe cards with accurate, legible text. More images show comic strips with text bubbles, mock advertisements, and instructional diagrams. The model also allows you to upload images to be modified, and it will be available in the video generator Sora as well as in GPT-4o. 

OPENAI

It’s “a new tool for communication,” says Gabe Goh, the lead designer on the generator at OpenAI. Kenji Hata, a researcher at OpenAI who also worked on the tool, puts it a different way: “I think the whole idea is that we’re going away from, like, beautiful art.” It can still do that, he clarifies, but it will do more useful things too. “You can actually make images work for you,” he says, “and not just just look at them.”

It’s a clear sign that OpenAI is positioning the tool to be used more by creative professionals: think graphic designers, ad agencies, social media managers, or illustrators. But in entering this domain, OpenAI has two paths, both difficult. 

One, it can target the skilled professionals who have long used programs like Adobe Photoshop, which is also investing heavily in AI tools that can fill images with generative AI. 

“Adobe really has a stranglehold on this market, and they’re moving fast enough that I don’t know how compelling it is for people to switch,” says David Raskino, the cofounder and chief technical officer of Irreverent Labs, which works on AI video generation. 

The second option is to target casual designers who have flocked to tools like Canva (which has also been investing in AI). This is an audience that may not have ever needed technically demanding software like Photoshop but would use more casual design tools to create visuals. To succeed here, OpenAI would have to lure people away from platforms built for design in hopes that the speed and quality of its own image generator would make the switch worth it (at least for part of the design process). 

It’s also possible the tool will simply be used as many image generators are now: to create quick visuals that are “good enough” to accompany social media posts. But with OpenAI planning massive investments, including participation in the $500 billion Stargate project to build new data centers at unprecedented scale, it’s hard to imagine that the image generator won’t play some ambitious moneymaking role. 

Regardless, the fact that OpenAI’s new image generator has pushed through notable technical hurdles has raised the bar for other AI companies. Clearing those hurdles likely required lots of very specific data, Raskino says, like millions of images in which text is properly displayed at lots of different angles and orientations. Now competing image generators will have to match those achievements to keep up.

“The pace of innovation should increase here,” Raskino says.

Why handing over total control to AI agents would be a huge mistake

AI agents have set the tech industry abuzz. Unlike chatbots, these groundbreaking new systems operate outside of a chat window, navigating multiple applications to execute complex tasks, like scheduling meetings or shopping online, in response to simple user commands. As agents are developed to become more capable, a crucial question emerges: How much control are we willing to surrender, and at what cost? 

New frameworks and functionalities for AI agents are announced almost weekly, and companies promote the technology as a way to make our lives easier by completing tasks we can’t do or don’t want to do. Prominent examples include “computer use,” a function that enables Anthropic’s Claude system to act directly on your computer screen, and the “general AI agent” Manus, which can use online tools for a variety of tasks, like scouting out customers or planning trips.

These developments mark a major advance in artificial intelligence: systems designed to operate in the digital world without direct human oversight.

The promise is compelling. Who doesn’t want assistance with cumbersome work or tasks there’s no time for? Agent assistance could soon take many different forms, such as reminding you to ask a colleague about their kid’s basketball tournament or finding images for your next presentation. Within a few weeks, they’ll probably be able to make presentations for you. 

There’s also clear potential for deeply meaningful differences in people’s lives. For people with hand mobility issues or low vision, agents could complete tasks online in response to simple language commands. Agents could also coordinate simultaneous assistance across large groups of people in critical situations, such as by routing traffic to help drivers flee an area en masse as quickly as possible when disaster strikes. 

But this vision for AI agents brings significant risks that might be overlooked in the rush toward greater autonomy. Our research team at Hugging Face has spent years implementing and investigating these systems, and our recent findings suggest that agent development could be on the cusp of a very serious misstep. 

Giving up control, bit by bit

This core issue lies at the heart of what’s most exciting about AI agents: The more autonomous an AI system is, the more we cede human control. AI agents are developed to be flexible, capable of completing a diverse array of tasks that don’t have to be directly programmed. 

For many systems, this flexibility is made possible because they’re built on large language models, which are unpredictable and prone to significant (and sometimes comical) errors. When an LLM generates text in a chat interface, any errors stay confined to that conversation. But when a system can act independently and with access to multiple applications, it may perform actions we didn’t intend, such as manipulating files, impersonating users, or making unauthorized transactions. The very feature being sold—reduced human oversight—is the primary vulnerability.

To understand the overall risk-benefit landscape, it’s useful to characterize AI agent systems on a spectrum of autonomy. The lowest level consists of simple processors that have no impact on program flow, like chatbots that greet you on a company website. The highest level, fully autonomous agents, can write and execute new code without human constraints or oversight—they can take action (moving around files, changing records, communicating in email, etc.) without your asking for anything. Intermediate levels include routers, which decide which human-provided steps to take; tool callers, which run human-written functions using agent-suggested tools; and multistep agents that determine which functions to do when and how. Each represents an incremental removal of human control.

It’s clear that AI agents can be extraordinarily helpful for what we do every day. But this brings clear privacy, safety, and security concerns. Agents that help bring you up to speed on someone would require that individual’s personal information and extensive surveillance over your previous interactions, which could result in serious privacy breaches. Agents that create directions from building plans could be used by malicious actors to gain access to unauthorized areas. 

And when systems can control multiple information sources simultaneously, potential for harm explodes. For example, an agent with access to both private communications and public platforms could share personal information on social media. That information might not be true, but it would fly under the radar of traditional fact-checking mechanisms and could be amplified with further sharing to create serious reputational damage. We imagine that “It wasn’t me—it was my agent!!” will soon be a common refrain to excuse bad outcomes.

Keep the human in the loop

Historical precedent demonstrates why maintaining human oversight is critical. In 1980, computer systems falsely indicated that over 2,000 Soviet missiles were heading toward North America. This error triggered emergency procedures that brought us perilously close to catastrophe. What averted disaster was human cross-verification between different warning systems. Had decision-making been fully delegated to autonomous systems prioritizing speed over certainty, the outcome might have been catastrophic.

Some will counter that the benefits are worth the risks, but we’d argue that realizing those benefits doesn’t require surrendering complete human control. Instead, the development of AI agents must occur alongside the development of guaranteed human oversight in a way that limits the scope of what AI agents can do.

Open-source agent systems are one way to address risks, since these systems allow for greater human oversight of what systems can and cannot do. At Hugging Face we’re developing smolagents, a framework that provides sandboxed secure environments and allows developers to build agents with transparency at their core so that any independent group can verify whether there is appropriate human control. 

This approach stands in stark contrast to the prevailing trend toward increasingly complex, opaque AI systems that obscure their decision-making processes behind layers of proprietary technology, making it impossible to guarantee safety.

As we navigate the development of increasingly sophisticated AI agents, we must recognize that the most important feature of any technology isn’t increasing efficiency but fostering human well-being. 

This means creating systems that remain tools rather than decision-makers, assistants rather than replacements. Human judgment, with all its imperfections, remains the essential component in ensuring that these systems serve rather than subvert our interests.

Margaret Mitchell, Avijit Ghosh, Sasha Luccioni, Giada Pistilli all work for Hugging Face, a global startup in responsible open-source AI.

Dr. Margaret Mitchell is a machine learning researcher and Chief Ethics Scientist at Hugging Face, connecting human values to technology development.

Dr. Sasha Luccioni is Climate Lead at Hugging Face, where she spearheads research, consulting and capacity-building to elevate the sustainability of AI systems. 

Dr. Avijit Ghosh is an Applied Policy Researcher at Hugging Face working at the intersection of responsible AI and policy. His research and engagement with policymakers has helped shape AI regulation and industry practices.

Dr. Giada Pistilli is a philosophy researcher working as Principal Ethicist at Hugging Face.

OpenAI has released its first research into how using ChatGPT affects people’s emotional wellbeing

OpenAI says over 400 million people use ChatGPT every week. But how does interacting with it affect us? Does it make us more or less lonely? These are some of the questions OpenAI set out to investigate, in partnership with the MIT Media Lab, in a pair of new studies

They found that only a small subset of users engage emotionally with ChatGPT. This isn’t surprising given that ChatGPT isn’t marketed as an AI companion app like Replika or Character.AI, says Kate Devlin, a professor of AI and society at King’s College London, who did not work on the project. “ChatGPT has been set up as a productivity tool,” she says. “But we know that people are using it like a companion app anyway.” In fact, the people who do use it that way are likely to interact with it for extended periods of time, some of them averaging about half an hour a day. 

“The authors are very clear about what the limitations of these studies are, but it’s exciting to see they’ve done this,” Devlin says. “To have access to this level of data is incredible.” 

The researchers found some intriguing differences between how men and women respond to using ChatGPT. After using the chatbot for four weeks, female study participants were slightly less likely to socialize with people than their male counterparts who did the same. Meanwhile, participants who interacted with ChatGPT’s voice mode in a gender that was not their own for their interactions reported significantly higher levels of loneliness and more emotional dependency on the chatbot at the end of the experiment. OpenAI plans to submit both studies to peer-reviewed journals.

Chatbots powered by large language models are still a nascent technology, and it’s difficult to study how they affect us emotionally. A lot of existing research in the area—including some of the new work by OpenAI and MIT—relies upon self-reported data, which may not always be accurate or reliable. That said, this latest research does chime with what scientists so far have discovered about how emotionally compelling chatbot conversations can be. For example, in 2023 MIT Media Lab researchers found that chatbots tend to mirror the emotional sentiment of a user’s messages, suggesting a kind of feedback loop where the happier you act, the happier the AI seems, or on the flipside, if you act sadder, so does the AI.  

OpenAI and the MIT Media Lab used a two-pronged method. First they collected and analyzed real-world data from close to 40 million interactions with ChatGPT. Then they asked the 4,076 users who’d had those interactions how they made them feel. Next, the Media Lab recruited almost 1,000 people to take part in a four-week trial. This was more in-depth, examining how participants interacted with ChatGPT for a minimum of five minutes each day. At the end of the experiment, participants completed a questionnaire to measure their perceptions of the chatbot, their subjective feelings of loneliness, their levels of social engagement, their emotional dependence on the bot, and their sense of whether their use of the bot was problematic. They found that participants who trusted and “bonded” with ChatGPT more were likelier than others to be lonely, and to rely on it more. 

This work is an important first step toward greater insight into ChatGPT’s impact on us, which could help AI platforms enable safer and healthier interactions, says Jason Phang, an OpenAI safety researcher who worked on the project.

“A lot of what we’re doing here is preliminary, but we’re trying to start the conversation with the field about the kinds of things that we can start to measure, and to start thinking about what the long-term impact on users is,” he says.

Although the research is welcome, it’s still difficult to identify when a human is—and isn’t—engaging with technology on an emotional level, says Devlin. She says the study participants may have been experiencing emotions that weren’t recorded by the researchers.

“In terms of what the teams set out to measure, people might not necessarily have been using ChatGPT in an emotional way, but you can’t divorce being a human from your interactions [with technology],” she says. “We use these emotion classifiers that we have created to look for certain things—but what that actually means to someone’s life is really hard to extrapolate.”

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated that study participants set the gender of ChatGPT’s voice, and that OpenAI did not plan to publish either study. Study participants were assigned the voice mode gender, and OpenAI plans to submit both studies to peer-reviewed journals. The article has since been updated.

Powering the food industry with AI

There has never been a more pressing time for food producers to harness technology to tackle the sector’s tough mission. To produce ever more healthy and appealing food for a growing global population in a way that is resilient and affordable, all while minimizing waste and reducing the sector’s environmental impact. From farm to factory, artificial intelligence and machine learning can support these goals by increasing efficiency, optimizing supply chains, and accelerating the research and development of new types of healthy products. 

In agriculture, AI is already helping farmers to monitor crop health, tailor the delivery of inputs, and make harvesting more accurate and efficient. In labs, AI is powering experiments in gene editing to improve crop resilience and enhance the nutritional value of raw ingredients. For processed foods, AI is optimizing production economics, improving the texture and flavor of products like alternative proteins and healthier snacks, and strengthening food safety processes too. 

But despite this promise, industry adoption still lags. Data-sharing remains limited and companies across the value chain have vastly different needs and capabilities. There are also few standards and data governance protocols in place, and more talent and skills are needed to keep pace with the technological wave. 

All the same, progress is being made and the potential for AI in the food sector is huge. Key findings from the report are as follows: 

Predictive analytics are accelerating R&D cycles in crop and food science. AI reduces the time and resources needed to experiment with new food products and turns traditional trial-and-error cycles into more efficient data-driven discoveries. Advanced models and simulations enable scientists to explore natural ingredients and processes by simulating thousands of conditions, configurations, and genetic variations until they crack the right combination. 

AI is bringing data-driven insights to a fragmented supply chain. AI can revolutionize the food industry’s complex value chain by breaking operational silos and translating vast streams of data into actionable intelligence. Notably, large language models (LLMs) and chatbots can serve as digital interpreters, democratizing access to data analysis for farmers and growers, and enabling more informed, strategic decisions by food companies. 

Partnerships are crucial for maximizing respective strengths. While large agricultural companies lead in AI implementation, promising breakthroughs often emerge from strategic collaborations that leverage complementary strengths with academic institutions and startups. Large companies contribute extensive datasets and industry experience, while startups bring innovation, creativity, and a clean data slate. Combining expertise in a collaborative approach can increase the uptake of AI. 

Download the full report.

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.

When you might start speaking to robots

Last Wednesday, Google made a somewhat surprising announcement. It launched a version of its AI model, Gemini, that can do things not just in the digital realm of chatbots and internet search but out here in the physical world, via robots. 

Gemini Robotics fuses the power of large language models with spatial reasoning, allowing you to tell a robotic arm to do something like “put the grapes in the clear glass bowl.” These commands get filtered by the LLM, which identifies intentions from what you’re saying and then breaks them down into commands that the robot can carry out. For more details about how it all works, read the full story from my colleague Scott Mulligan.

You might be wondering if this means your home or workplace might one day be filled with robots you can bark orders at. More on that soon. 

But first, where did this come from? Google has not made big waves in the world of robotics so far. Alphabet acquired some robotics startups over the past decade, but in 2023 it shut down a unit working on robots to solve practical tasks like cleaning up trash. 

Despite that, the company’s move to bring AI into the physical world via robots is following the exact precedent set by other companies in the past two years (something that, I must humbly point out, MIT Technology Review has long seen coming). 

In short, two trends are converging from opposite directions: Robotics companies are increasingly leveraging AI, and AI giants are now building robots. OpenAI, for example, which shuttered its robotics team in 2021, started a new effort to build humanoid robots this year. In October, the chip giant Nvidia declared the next wave of artificial intelligence to be “physical AI.”

There are lots of ways to incorporate AI into robots, starting with improving how they are trained to do tasks. But using large language models to give instructions, as Google has done, is particularly interesting. 

It’s not the first. The robotics startup Figure went viral a year ago for a video in which humans gave instructions to a humanoid on how to put dishes away. Around the same time, a startup spun off from OpenAI, called Covariant, built something similar for robotic arms in warehouses. I saw a demo where you could give the robot instructions via images, text, or video to do things like “move the tennis balls from this bin to that one.” Covariant was acquired by Amazon just five months later. 

When you see such demos, you can’t help but wonder: When are these robots going to come to our workplaces? What about our homes?

If Figure’s plans offer a clue, the answer to the first question is soon. The company announced on Saturday that it is building a high-volume manufacturing facility set to manufacture 12,000 humanoid robots per year. But training and testing robots, especially to ensure they’re safe in places where they work near humans, still takes a long time

For example, Figure’s rival Agility Robotics claims it’s the only company in the US with paying customers for its humanoids. But industry safety standards for humanoids working alongside people aren’t fully formed yet, so the company’s robots have to work in separate areas.

This is why, despite recent progress, our homes will be the last frontier. Compared with factory floors, our homes are chaotic and unpredictable. Everyone’s crammed into relatively close quarters. Even impressive AI models like Gemini Robotics will still need to go through lots of tests both in the real world and in simulation, just like self-driving cars. This testing might happen in warehouses, hotels, and hospitals, where the robots may still receive help from remote human operators. It will take a long time before they’re given the privilege of putting away our dishes.  

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

Is Google playing catchup on search with OpenAI?

This story originally appeared in The Debrief with Mat Honan, a weekly newsletter about the biggest stories in tech from our editor in chief. Sign up here to get the next one in your inbox.

I’ve been mulling over something that Will Heaven, our senior editor for AI, pointed out not too long ago: that all the big players in AI seem to be moving in the same directions and converging on the same things. Agents. Deep research. Lightweight versions of models. Etc. 

Some of this makes sense in that they’re seeing similar things and trying to solve similar problems. But when I talked to Will about this, he said, “it almost feels like a lack of imagination, right?” Yeah. It does.

What got me thinking about this, again, was a pair of announcements from Google over the past couple of weeks, both related to the ways search is converging with AI language models, something I’ve spent a lot of time reporting on over the past year. Google took direct aim at this intersection by adding new AI features from Gemini to search, and also by adding search features to Gemini. In using both, what struck me more than how well they work is that they are really just about catching up with OpenAI’s ChatGPT.  And their belated appearance in March of the year 2025 doesn’t seem like a great sign for Google. 

Take AI Mode, which it announced March 5. It’s cool. It works well. But it’s pretty much a follow-along of what OpenAI was already doing. (Also, don’t be confused by the name. Google already had something called AI Overviews in search, but AI Mode is different and deeper.) As the company explained in a blog post, “This new Search mode expands what AI Overviews can do with more advanced reasoning, thinking and multimodal capabilities so you can get help with even your toughest questions.”

Rather than a brief overview with links out, the AI will dig in and offer more robust answers. You can ask followup questions too, something AI Overviews doesn’t support. It feels like quite a natural evolution—so much so that it’s curious why this is not already widely available. For now, it’s limited to people with paid accounts, and even then only via the experimental sandbox of Search Labs. But more to the point, why wasn’t it available, say, last summer?

The second change is that it added search history to its Gemini chatbot, and promises even more personalization is on the way. On this one, Google says “personalization allows Gemini to connect with your Google apps and services, starting with Search, to provide responses that are uniquely insightful and directly address your needs.”

Much of what these new features are doing, especially AI Mode’s ability to ask followup questions and go deep, feels like hitting feature parity with what ChatGPT has been doing for months. It’s also been compared to Perplexity, another generative AI search engine startup. 

What neither feature feels like is something fresh and new. Neither feels innovative. ChatGPT has long been building user histories and using the information it has to deliver results. While Gemini could also remember things about you, it’s a little bit shocking to me that Google has taken this long to bring in signals from its other products. Obviously there are privacy concerns to field, but this is an opt-in product we’re talking about. 

The other thing is that, at least as I’ve found so far, ChatGPT is just better at this stuff. Here’s a small example. I tried asking both: “What do you know about me?” ChatGPT replied with a really insightful, even thoughtful, profile based on my interactions with it. These aren’t  just the things I’ve explicitly told it to remember about me, either. Much of it comes from the context of various prompts I’ve fed it. It’s figured out what kind of music I like. It knows little details about my taste in films. (“You don’t particularly enjoy slasher films in general.”) Some of it is just sort of oddly delightful. For example: “You built a small shed for trash cans with a hinged wooden roof and needed a solution to hold it open.”

Google, despite having literal decades of my email, search, and browsing history, a copy of every digital photo I’ve ever taken, and more darkly terrifying insight into the depths of who I really am than I probably I do myself, mostly spat back the kind of profile an advertiser would want, versus a person hoping for useful tailored results. (“You enjoy comedy, music, podcasts, and are interested in both current and classic media”)

I enjoy music, you say? Remarkable! 

I’m also reminded of something an OpenAI executive said to me late last year, as the company was preparing to roll out search. It has more freedom to innovate precisely because it doesn’t have the massive legacy business that Google does. Yes, it’s burning money while Google mints it. But OpenAI has the luxury of being able to experiment (at least until the capital runs out) without worrying about killing a cash cow like Google has with traditional search. 

Of course, it’s clear that Google and its parent company Alphabet can innovate in many areas—see Google DeepMind’s Gemini Robotics announcement this week, for example. Or ride in a Waymo! But can it do so around its core products and business? It’s not the only big legacy tech company with this problem. Microsoft’s AI strategy to date has largely been reliant on its partnership with OpenAI. And Apple, meanwhile, seems completely lost in the wilderness, as this scathing takedown from longtime Apple pundit John Gruber lays bare

Google has billions of users and piles of cash. It can leverage its existing base in ways OpenAI or Anthropic (which Google also owns a good chunk of) or Perplexity just aren’t capable of. But I’m also pretty convinced that unless it can be the market leader here, rather than a follower, it points to some painful days ahead. But hey, Astra is coming. Let’s see what happens.