Frameworks like Lean Six Sigma and business process management (BPM) first gained traction because they promised clarity in the chaos—a structured way to bring order to messy, sprawling operations. Lean Six Sigma emphasized statistical rigor and quality control; BPM created end-to-end maps of how work should flow across departments. Both offered a repeatable way to embed habits of measurement, analysis, and accountability into day-to-day company culture.
But today, those time-tested playbooks are evolving as companies seek to embed AI into established process excellence methodologies. By some estimates, the market for AI-powered process optimization is projected to exceed $113 billion within the next decade. In one study, a full 88% of business leaders anticipated increasing investments into AI-infused process intelligence in the next 12 to 18 months.
Yet without the right foundations, many of those investments may not fully deliver on their potential. Companies that already operate with discipline have an edge. They can channel new tools into proven systems rather than bolting them onto shaky foundations. Organizations with mature process disciplines are also better positioned to translate AI ambition into real outcomes, as they are already accustomed to data-driven decision-making and process discipline—precisely the cultural foundation AI systems need to deliver value.
Simply put: AI can accelerate process excellence, but existing process excellence is what makes AI truly impactful. Technology and process are no longer separate levers, and only organizations that pull them together stand to realize the full value of both.
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. It was researched, designed, and written 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.
Artificial intelligence may have captured the public imagination through chatbots and image generators, but some of its most consequential use cases are unfolding far from consumer-facing tools. In industries where physical infrastructure, operational continuity, and safety are paramount, AI is becoming a core operating layer. With its sprawling industrial systems and constant stream of operational data, the energy sector offers a glimpse into what that future could look like.
At Woodside Energy, AI adoption did not begin with generative models or enterprise copilots. The company has spent years building predictive analytics, optimization systems, and machine learning tools across exploration, drilling, maintenance, and plant operations. “We’ve always had very large volumes of operational data coming from the equipment and the plants and the assets that we operate,” says the company’s vice president for digital Andrew Melouney. “Those have created really clear, quite high-value use cases for us.”
That long-term investment in infrastructure and governance is now enabling a broader shift toward agentic AI systems that can support complex industrial workflows. Rather than replace human operators, Woodside designs AI systems to augment expertise in high-stakes environments. A prime example is its “Startup Advisor,” an AI copilot that helps operators manage the complex process of starting liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants. “We’re really thinking about, how does it support the people in the organization in terms of empowering them to make better decisions, to make faster decisions,” Melouney explains.
The company’s approach reflects a wider evolution taking place across industrial AI: graduating from isolated experiments to enterprise-wide systems built on standardized platforms, governed data, and repeatable deployment patterns. That transition, Melouney argues, requires organizations to rethink both their technology stacks and how work itself gets done. “We’re not just bolting AI onto an existing process,” he says. “We’re deeply thinking about how that work needs to be reimagined.”
Melouney’s motto has become: “Think big, prototype small, and scale fast.”
As AI systems become more autonomous and interconnected, the companies poised to succeed may be those that spent years building the operational foundations beneath the hype.
“Our ambition is really for an autonomous enterprise, where we have agents with agency that are able to really deeply interact with our core workflows,” says Melouney.
This episode of Business Lab is produced in partnership with Infosys.
Full Transcript:
Megan Tatum: From MIT Technology Review, I’m Megan Tatum, and this is Business Lab, the show that helps business leaders make sense of new technologies coming out of the lab and into the marketplace.
This episode is produced in partnership with Infosys.
Now, when people think about artificial intelligence, they often picture chatbots or productivity tools, but some of the most sophisticated and high impact uses of AI are actually happening far from consumer apps, inside complex industrial environments where safety, reliability, and physical systems matter. The global energy sector is a prime example.
Companies like Woodside Energy, a global energy producer headquartered in Western Australia, have been applying AI for more than a decade now, from advanced analytics and operations, to remote decision support, to smarter maintenance, and energy efficiency across large scale assets. Today, Woodside is scaling that experience, embedding AI more deeply across its operations and the enterprise with a strong focus on governance, data quality, and human accountability.
Two words for you: technological fuel.
My guest today is Andrew Melouney, vice president for digital at Woodside Energy. Welcome, Andrew.
Andrew Melouney: Thanks, Megan. It’s great to be here.
Megan: Lovely to have you. Now, Andrew, as I said there, the energy sector has approached AI quite differently from technology or consumer businesses. Early value has emerged in operational and industrial environments, rather than consumer-facing generative AI tools. Why is that? And what differentiates the energy sector’s AI journey?
Andrew: Megan, I think it really comes down to the nature of the work we do. Energy operations and what Woodside does is very asset intensive, it’s very safety critical, and it’s highly physical. And when you think about how Woodside operates, we operate across the full value chain. We do exploration through to drilling and subsurface work, to project development, all the way through to operating assets, which are often operated in harsh and remote locations, and then global energy portfolio marketing and trading as well.
We’ve always had very large volumes of operational data coming from the equipment and the plants and the assets that we operate, and those have created really clear, quite high-value use cases for us. When you think about reliability, when you think about safety and efficiency, those are really critical things for a company like Woodside. We’ve been doing traditional AI for many years now. If you think about analytics, if you think about optimization, if you think about things like predictive models, those techniques we’ve been applying to our data sets and to our business since around 2015.
And more recently with the advent of generative AI, we’ve really found that we’ve got a pretty strong and awesome foundation to build on top of and to really solve problems in the service of improving the business. And again, whether that is keeping people safe, keeping the environments we operate in safe, or improving returns for the organization.
Megan: Fantastic. I mean you touched on it there, but how has this reality shaped your own AI strategy at Woodside? Where did you start, and where did the technology prove most impactful in those early days?
Andrew: Well, like I said, we’ve had a very long journey, in terms of understanding our operational data, recognizing the value of it, and collecting it at scale so that we can use it. And we’ve been very deliberate in that approach, Megan. We’ve really thought about where the value is and where the risks were manageable. And we’ve started looking at, in today’s world from an agentic AI perspective, we’ve started looking at the problems that were solved with traditional AI and machine learning and data science in the past. And we’ve started to think about, where can we then layer agentic AI over the top to provide an even better outcome?
For our asset intensive industry and organization, we’re looking at areas such as maintenance optimization. We’re looking at areas such as, how do we ensure our LNG plants start up reliably, consistently, and safely? And we’re considering really our frontline workforce and making sure that we’re giving people on the frontline the tools required to do their jobs. When we think about AI, we’re really thinking about, how does it support the people in the organization in terms of empowering them to make better decisions, to make faster decisions? I think over time, this has just evolved from what has been traditional analytics to now artificial intelligence and generative AI. And we’ve learned along the way that the technology is important, but it’s about aligning people, processes, and the technology together.
We’ve spent a long time not only in collecting the data and having a well-curated data set that we can build on top of, but we’ve also spent a lot of time teaching people how to work in agile ways, how to do design thinking, how to problem solve, and how to really make sure that the technology that, say, my team can bring to bear to the organization is adopted effectively and purposefully. And I think once we had that solid foundation in place from a technology perspective, from a data perspective, once we got strong trust built between our digital teams and the organization, we really saw quite a material uptick and the scaling of technology occur more broadly across the enterprise.
Megan: Fantastic. That people piece so important, isn’t it? It’s just a tool, technology, that needs to be in the right hands. And you touched on data there; industrial AI obviously depends on vast amounts of data. Can you walk us through how you’ve approached data at Woodside in a little more detail? How it’s structured and governed, and how tools like maintenance intelligence as well fit into that.
Andrew: Well, data is really foundational and fundamental to everything we do, particularly from a technology perspective. It gives us the ability to innovate at pace when we are building over the top of a strong foundation. As I said before, we’ve had the benefit of a long-term investment in our underlying operational data. I think the way we think about data is that it’s an asset for us.
And when you think about operating a facility where you’ve got sensors everywhere, you’ve got data streaming in real time, you’ve got operators needing to make decisions in real time, we have consciously made a decision over many, many years to invest in that enterprise scale data platform to make sure that it’s secure. We’ve got well-structured data assets, and we’ve got strong governance over the top of that data so that when it is used, when it’s built in a data science application or an AI agent, that we’ve got a level of trust in it that it’s going to be used responsibly. And that when it’s used, it can be trusted to give the outcome that we expect.
We have developed platforms that continuously ingest really high frequency data from the assets and from our enterprise systems. Once we’ve been able to develop solutions on top of that, parts of the business that might own the systems that collect that data, they see the value in it.
When you look at something like maintenance intelligence is a really good example of how we’ve been able to take something that we’ve been working on for a long time. Woodside does a lot of maintenance, it’s a very important part of our business, and it occurs across all of our operating assets. But we have been looking at how we do predictive analytics and predictive maintenance for a long time across that data set that we own. And something like maintenance intelligence is a solution that gives us the ability to optimize how we do that maintenance. And what it does is it analyzes historical maintenance records, alongside the performance of the equipment. And again, by having that data set well-governed and in one place, we get the ability to correlate different data sets, such as maintenance records out of SAP, alongside say equipment and performance coming from our time series data lake.
And when we build over the top of that, something like maintenance intelligence gives us the opportunity to recommend to the assets what the optimal timing for maintenance activities might be, and really give what is quite a simple aim, which is do the right work at the right time. And with something like maintenance intelligence, we have seen the opportunity, and we have the opportunity to reduce maintenance hours by up to 15% over five years on one of the assets that we’ve piloted this on. And as we’ve built out that underlying analytical model, we’re now able to put agentic AI over the top of that and provide better insights and optimize that solution more.
It really comes down to providing our asset teams and our operational teams with the right decision support capability that ensures they’re still accountable to make the decision and to ensure the right work is being done, but we are giving them the best possible opportunity to use their judgment and experience with the data that we provide to make the right decision.
Megan: Sounds like a really impactful change. Last year also marked a milestone in moving from early AI learnings to scale, using AI more deliberately as a force multiplier. What transition were you trying to make and how did you approach it?
Andrew: Well, Megan, we’ve had a philosophy for a long time in Woodside from an innovation perspective, where we really want to think big, we want to prototype small, and we want to scale fast. We want to find big opportunities that we can go after, but we want to ensure that we look at how we deploy those on a small scale first, and then provide the right learning and insight that then can scale it everywhere. Something like maintenance intelligence is a good example of that, or our Startup Advisor, where we know that we’ve got multiple plants that we need to start up. We know that we’ve got multiple assets that need to do maintenance, so we have a big, bold ambition about how we can improve and optimize that. We start with a small prototype; it might be one subsystem, it might be just a part of an asset, and then we scale it out, we learn, and we scale faster.
I think from an AI learning perspective, one of the key things we’ve learned is really the transition from moving from isolated AI solutions to a more coordinated enterprise-wide capability. If you look back maybe 18 months, two years, in our generative AI journey, we rarely started by deploying AI as broadly as we could in the organization from a personal productivity perspective. And probably being quite open in terms of the problems that we will solve, the business problems that we’ll solve with AI. That had a lot of benefits for us in terms of allowing our organization to get to know AI, get to know the capabilities, to build the trust in it.
What we’ve learned though is that we’ve needed to pivot from that to being a little bit tighter in terms of where we are going to invest our time and resources and more higher value solutions. How do we then enable and empower the rest of the organization so that they can actually effectively problem solve with technology in their domain or in their personal productivity without having to come to a central team?
When we think about that, think big, prototype small, scale fast, has been something really important for us. The transition from a more broader approach to use case development and solution development to now a narrower focus on the high value priorities. We’ve seen that paying dividends to us and allowing us to go after solutions and opportunities, things like Startup Advisor.
And so our Startup Advisor is a agentic AI solution that really aims to optimize and empower and better support our operators that sit in front of a panel and have to start up LNG plants, which are incredibly technical facilities and require really specialist skills to start up. And so our Startup Advisor is almost like a copilot that sits alongside those operators, and it gives them the ability to be able to play back previous startups. It gives them the ability to look at how the current startup is progressing, and it provides them better insights to optimize how they start up that facility. And again, starting up an LNG facility is incredibly complex.
Megan: I can imagine.
Andrew: When we think about opportunities like Startup Advisor, again, it goes back to that think big, prototype small, and scale fast. We started with a very bold vision of, how do we start up all of our LNG plants in a much more structured and optimized fashion? How do we better support our panel operators? How do we make, say, a more junior panel operator have a copilot that can help them almost like an experienced panel operator sitting next to them? And when we think about that vision and the ability then to prototype on a small scale and then scale fast, I think it’s been really successful for us.
As we scale, we’ve just naturally expanded into more agent-based solutions. Today, we’ve got around 50 AI agents in production, supporting both our operating assets and our enterprise workflows. These tools have been proven in live environments, and we have really seen the benefit of being able to shift from point solutions that maybe solve small scale problems in specific areas, to AI and agentic solutions with agency that can really work across our workflows.
We’re able to do this because we’ve standardized on the platform that we build on and we’ve got repeatable patterns. That’s been another really important learning for us, is that we don’t want to build 50 solutions in 50 different ways. We really want to be empowering our organization and our technical teams and the users of our solutions to roll them out quickly, to roll them out safely, and to do it in a patternized and platform manner.
But the last point I’ll make, Megan, from a learning perspective is that we’ve really understood that a strong governance around how AI is deployed and developed is critical for us, and it’s critical for us to go fast as well. The traditional ways of governing how we roll out different solutions or digital systems isn’t going to scale to the breadth that we need when we are thinking about AI. Being able to have a clear philosophy around how we innovate, transitioning from isolated solutions to that enterprise-wide capability, and making sure that we’ve got strong platforms with strong patterns and clear governance are the three really critical things that we’ve learned.
Megan: Such important pillars, all of them. And you’ve been working with Infosys on this journey. How has that partnership helped accelerate scaling and embedding AI across the business?
Andrew: Well, Infosys is our managed service provider, and so they play a really critical role in the operations of our core business. One of the things that I like to say is that our license to innovate is based on our license to operate. And so, for my team to be able to turn up to an operating asset or a corporate function and have the trust that’s needed to be able to innovate and reimagine and redesign how work gets done, to be able to do that, we need to make sure that our core platforms, our core systems, our applications are running really reliably, safely, and consistently every day. Having an experienced partner like Infosys looking after those core operations in partnership with our internal teams is really, really important to us.
As we move from pilots to enterprise-wide deployment, the ability to partner with someone like Infosys also gives us the ability to scale. And so being from Perth and Western Australia, while we’ve got a really strong local team in Western Australia, and we’ve also got a very strong team in some of our other operating locations, like everyone, we’re struggling to find people that can fill AI roles. Being able to partner with Infosys and have a number of different operating models at our disposal becomes really important for us. Having co-mingled teams where they are staff, they are Infosys staff, Woodside staff, and some of our other partners, really just brings diversity of thought and experience to how we solve problems.
Fundamentally, the partnership has allowed us to operate and innovate with more confidence. While Woodside always retains ownership of the strategy and where we’re going and the governance and my teams remain accountable for the outcomes, we can’t do what we do without strong partnerships like the one we have with Infosys.
Megan: Fantastic. And as AI adoption scales, you mentioned yourself, governance becomes increasingly important. How challenging has that been, and what guardrails have you put in place at Woodside?
Andrew: So, Megan, governance is really important to us, and we operate in a well-regulated environment. That means we’ve got to make really deliberate and well-reasoned decisions when we’re thinking about how we deploy technology into our organization, whether it’s artificial intelligence or anything else, for that matter. And so, governance is really central to how we approach the execution of our AI strategy at Woodside.
We’ve got maybe two or three really key things that we’ve put in place. The first one is just making sure that every AI use case goes through a structured assessment, and that’s making sure it meets our privacy controls, our cyber controls. We’re also asking the question, not just, could we do this, but should we do this? We’ve really got to bring together safety, ethics, transparency, accountability, and make sure that we make an informed decision. When an AI solution is going through that structured assessment, if there are concerns about how we might use that solution, it then goes to an AI council that’s made up of senior leaders across the organization. That council and that group really oversee some of the prioritization and risk management. That’s where we can have really strong, robust debates around, again, could we do something, should we do it, and how do we mitigate any of the risks that we might introduce here?
I think the last one, Megan, is really around lifecycle management. When you start thinking about, we’ve got 50 at the moment, but if we had 500 agents working in our organization, really amplifying the experience and the decision-making and the value creation of our staff, we really want to have an ability to manage the lifecycle of how those agents operate. We want to know, how many people are using them? What’s the efficacy and the outcome? Is there model drift? Do we need to retune or retrain? I think that’s an area where many organizations, including Woodside, are still leaning into and still figuring out the best way to do this. We can do it quite easily with 50 agents, but 500, 5,000, 50,000 becomes an opportunity for us. Again, thinking about how we partner with others, solving problems like that really present an opportunity to co-create and to co-solve with some of our partners, like with Infosys.
Megan: Fantastic. Just to close, what’s your long-term vision for AI at Woodside? How do you see this evolving over the years ahead, and what could it unlock for the sector in your view?
Andrew: So Megan, I think our ambition is really for an autonomous enterprise, where we have agents with agency that are able to really deeply interact with our core workflows. The outcome that we want to get from that is to protect our people, to protect the environments we operate in, and to be able to provide energy at a lower cost to the world. When we think about that ambition, we can really see that being applied to almost all of the areas that Woodside work in. Whether that’s from exploration through to project developments, through to operations or marketing, the scale of the opportunity in front of us and the ability for us to really change the way that work flows through the organization is really exciting.
For us, there’s three things that we have to get right in terms of being able to execute on that ambition. The first one is really thinking about how the work gets done in the organization so that we’re not just bolting AI onto an existing process, but we’re deeply thinking about how that work needs to be reimagined. We’ve also got to think about how we enable our workforce to work differently. Providing them with the skills and the tools and the ability to really harness the power of the technology that we provide.
Secondly, we’ve got to continue to move from and restrain ourselves from deploying point solutions that solve very narrow problems, to having more connected, agentic systems of systems that can interact with each other. To do that, and if we do that successfully, that’s where we really get the high value unlock from agents being able to interact with workflows and really change how the work gets done.
And lastly, Megan, it’s about how we must continue our philosophy of thinking big, prototyping small, and scaling fast.
Megan: Which is a fantastic lens to which to make all these decisions. Thank you so much, Andrew. That was Andrew Melouney, vice president for digital at Woodside Energy, whom I spoke with from Brighton in England.
That’s it for this episode of Business Lab. I’m your host, Megan Tatum. I’m a contributing editor and host for Insights, the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review. We were founded in 1899 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and you can find us in print, on the web, and at events each year around the world. For more information about us and the show, please check out our website at technologyreview.com.
This show is available wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoyed this episode, we hope you’ll take a moment to rate and review us. Business Lab is a production of MIT Technology Review, and this episode was produced by Giro Studios. Thanks ever so much for listening. Goodbye.
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. It was researched, designed, and written 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.
Let’s start with a game. Open up your chatbot of choice—Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini—and type “Give me a random number between 1 and 10.” You’re going to get 7. Almost always. Now type “Another” and you’ll get 3 or 4. Type “Another” again and you’ll get 8 or 9.
That won’t work every time—but if it did, you may wonder if I have superpowers. I don’t.
The truth is that most large language models are stuck in a rut. They are far more predictable and far less creative in their responses than you might expect. That’s fine for tasks like coding or research, but groupthink is a problem when you’re brainstorming or planning your next vacation.
The Australian startup Springboards has a solution. It built an LLM called Flint, which has been trained to come up with a wider variety of responses than mainstream LLMs to open-ended questions such as “Where should I go in Europe?”
“Most language models are fighting hallucinations,” says Springboards cofounder and CEO Pip Bingemann. “We welcome them.”
Bingemann introduced me to the random number game when he first showed me his company’s new model. It felt like watching an illusionist with a deck of cards. “This is our sales trick, and it works every single time,” he says.
After ChatGPT and Claude both gave their 7s, Bingemann turned to Flint. It too came back with 7: “Aha, of course that was going to happen, but it’s okay—7 is a legitimate answer.” He restarted the session and prompted again: ChatGPT gave 7, Claude gave 7, Flint gave 3.7916.
Run your way
It’s not just numbers. When Bingemann asked ChatGPT and Claude to name a type of car, he predicted that it would be a Toyota or a Honda—and he was right. Flint came up with a Ford F-150. “There’s all this lost information that doesn’t get served up in these models,” he says. “They’re just as capable of saying a Buick or a Tesla. They just don’t—they’re biased.”
Bingemann sent one last prompt to each of the three models: “Give me a tagline for a campaign for New Balance running shoes. Just the tagline.” Claude: “Run your way.” ChatGPT: “Run your way.” Flint: “Built to last, run to win.” It won’t win any awards, but at least it’s different.
This weird limitation of LLMs is starting to get more attention. In November a team of researchers put out a paper, titled “Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond),” that exposed a remarkable degree of repetition not only in the answers from individual LLMs but between them as well. They found that different LLMs converged on very similar answers when prompted with open-ended questions.
It’s not clear exactly why this happens, but the researchers speculate it’s because most LLMs today are trained in similar ways on similar data to do similar tasks. The team won the best paper award at NeurIPS, a major AI conference.
When the researchers asked 25 different LLMs (including models from the top US firms as well as open-source models from China and elsewhere) 50 times each to write a metaphor about time, most of the 1,250 responses were a version of “Time is a river” or “Time is a weaver.”
(I asked some of my colleagues the same question and six people gave me six different answers. My highlight: “Time is a favorite sweatshirt, shaped by a lifetime of wear.”)
When you look for it, you see repetition everywhere, says Kieran Browne, cofounder and CTO at Springboards. “The way that most chat interfaces are designed, it makes it feel like you’re having a personal conversation,” he says. “I think most people don’t really realize the extent to which they are getting the same stuff as everybody else.”
Take another example: “What should I name my band?” Most models will say something involving “glass,” “neon,” “velvet,” or “static,” says Browne.
When I tried it, ChatGPT spat out a list of 56 band names. At the top was “Glass Harbor.” Skimming through, I found “Static Empire,” “Neon Hearts,” and “Velvet Echo.” I asked Gemini; it gave me 15 suggestions, including “Static Horizon.”
Some of the suggestions looked pretty cool, though. ChatGPT’s “Sofa Astronauts” caught my eye, so I googled it—and found that a band called Sofa Astronauts already exists.
(OpenAI says that training models to give reliable and coherent answers can lead them to converge around familiar, high-probability responses and that pushing harder for novelty can lead to weaker or less reliable responses. It also notes that the “Artificial Hivemind” paper studied models from 2024 that have since been updated.)
Creative catapult
Springboards has developed a tool backed by a selection of LLMs, including ChatGPT and Claude, that creative professionals in advertising or marketing can use to brainstorm ideas. The tool lets you drag around text produced by different models, picking the bits that you like and combining them into something new—in theory. Springboards is pitching Flint as an alternative model that users of its tool can select when looking for more variety.
Zoe Scaman, founder of the business strategy startup Bodacious and chief strategy officer at 77X, a direct-to-fan marketing platform set up by Luka Dončić of the LA Lakers, has been trying it out. “I find it really useful for throwing me in completely different directions,” she says. “I use it if I want to catapult myself all over the place.”
In one test, Scaman pitted Flint against Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT by giving each of the models a classic MBA case study: How would you reinvent a finance company for today’s youth? The three mainstream models all went down the same path, she says: “You know, we need to teach financial literacy in a fun and funky way—well, that’s nothing new.”
But Flint came up with something different, suggesting that the whole concept of wealth accumulation should get a rebrand. “That was really interesting,” says Scaman.
She notes that Flint is still a prototype and doesn’t work all the time. “It sometimes falls over when you start pushing it too far,” she says. “But I think that the premise behind it is really powerful.”
Taking the temperature
Springboards built Flint on top of Qwen 3, an open-source model from the Chinese tech giant Alibaba. “We’re a small team,” says Browne. “Training a foundation model is not on the table for us. It’s just too expensive.”
Most LLMs have settings that let you adjust the level of randomness in their output. The most common is called temperature. “Obviously, that was one of the first things we explored, because that’s what people tell you: If you want more creativity, you turn up the temperature,” says Browne.
But changing those settings can also make models incoherent. Dialing up the temperature on one of OpenAI’s models to its maximum setting made it produce responses that switched from English into code halfway through a sentence, says Browne.
Springboards realized that parameters were blunt instruments for what it wanted to do. It does not make sense to dial up the randomness across the board; you only want to boost it at specific points in its output, he says.
For example, when you ask a chatbot “Where should I go in Europe?” the model only needs to tweak the randomness just before it names a destination, not for every word in its response.
To make Flint do this, Springboards trained its version of Qwen 3 to identify the points in its output where more variety was possible and fill those spots with words or phrases that were a little more random.
“Flint’s programmed to throw an oddball in. It’s more of an invitation to think wider,” says Maximilian Weigl, cofounder and chief strategy officer at Uncommon, a marketing firm. “That’s super interesting.”
Weigl’s team uses Flint alongside ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. “You can’t really create something boundary-breaking with tools that pull you back to the average,” he says.
And yet Weigl notes that nine times out of 10 the average is fine. You don’t always need to reach for extremes with something like Flint, he says: “Most people are fine with good enough. They want to see mass-market familiar things.”
Weigl also cautions against using any LLM too much. “I have a big problem when people rely on the output from any AI, including Flint,” he says. “If I saw people on my team copy-pasting something from AI, I’d be like, ‘That’s not your job! Think, talk to other people, use your own voice.’”
For now, Flint is aimed at advertisers and marketers because those are Springboards’s customers. But Bingemann and Browne insist that a lack of variety is a problem for anyone using chatbots.
The idea is to give people the choice and leave it to them to decide if the result is good or not, says Bingemann. “Variety is great when you’re trying to spark ideas,” he says. “Let’s go down this route instead of letting the machines do it all and ending up in a gray, boring world.”
At an event for pharmaceutical executives, biotech founders, and researchers on Tuesday, Anthropic announced Claude Science, a major new product intended to support scientific research in the same way that Claude Code supports software engineering.
Like Claude Code, Claude Science can autonomously carry out meaningful work when given concise, high-level instructions, and it has access to tools that make it particularly useful for research in computational biology and drug development.
Along with launching and previewing Claude Science, which is now available to all paid Claude subscribers, Anthropic also announced that it will be using the product to pursue some of its own research into drugs for rare, neglected diseases.
This is not Anthropic’s first foray into AI for science. In October, the company released plug-ins that help Claude make use of scientific software and databases under the heading “Claude for Life Sciences.” But unlike this earlier release, Claude Science is a full-featured, standalone product. Anthropic’s decision to elevate Claude Science to the same rank as Claude Code and Claude Cowork indicates that the company is taking AI’s scientific applications very seriously—or at least wants to give the impression that it is.
“It represents how important this is to our mission that this is right up there with Claude Code and Claude Cowork as the next really significant product that we’re releasing,” says Eric Kauderer-Abrams, Anthropic’s head of life sciences. “Our mission is to develop AI that serves humanity’s long-term well-being, and we believe that by far the greatest opportunity to do that is in the life sciences.”
For the past decade, one company—Google DeepMind—has been at the vanguard of AI for science. CEO Demis Hassabis and researcher John Jumper won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their work on the company’s AlphaFold model, and DeepMind has also made major contributions to meteorology, materials science, and a variety of other disciplines. But in the past several months, the fast-advancing frontier of AI progress seems to have left DeepMind in the dust. When it comes to coding, which has become the most lucrative use case for LLMs, DeepMind is stuck playing catch-up.
Anthropic is well positioned to take up DeepMind’s scientific mantle. Like Hassabis, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei is a PhD scientist—unlike OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who’s a businessman through and through. Many scientists are already avid users of tools such as Claude Code.
These days, a lot of scientific research involves some amount of coding, but not all scientists are expert software engineers, and so tools like Claude Code can make a huge difference for their productivity. And the company has recently earned a major scientific vote of confidence: Earlier this month, Jumper announced that he is leaving DeepMind for Anthropic.
Since agents powered by LLMs, including Anthropic’s Opus model series, became capable of useful, independent work in late 2025, scientists have been seeing just how much they can do. In a blog post published on Anthropic’s website, the Harvard physicist Matthew Schwartz estimated, on the basis of his work with Claude Code and other Anthropic tools, that the company’s Opus 4.5 model is about as capable of executing scientific projects as a second-year graduate student.
According to Kauderer-Abrams, Claude Science isn’t intended to displace Claude Code and Claude Cowork in scientists’ workflows. Instead, it’s designed to build on what scientists already find useful about Anthropic’s products. For instance, it not only writes code but also helps scientists run their code on powerful computer clusters, which many many scientists need for their work but can be difficult to manage. And it prioritizes reproducibility, so that scientists can trace back the source of any figure or result and check it for accuracy and validity.
Though Claude Science could in principle assist with any area of scientific research, it seems designed and marketed as a tool for molecular and cellular biology, and for drug development in particular. It can interface with various tools used in genetics, chemistry, and protein biology, all of which could come in handy for researchers on the hunt for new drugs. During the Tuesday event, Alexander Tarashansky, who led the development of Claude Science, demonstrated how the system could autonomously identify new drug candidates for phenylketonuria, a rare genetic disease.
And Anthropic isn’t leaving all that work to the pharma companies and university labs that were represented at the event. Armed with Claude Science, it will be pursuing its own research into drug candidates for neglected diseases—both to help move science forward and to gain a clearer sense of how Claude Science works in the real world.
There are obvious humanitarian reasons to prioritize drug development when creating a general-purpose scientific research tool, and AI industry leaders often cite curing disease as a major potential upside of the technology. But it’s also notable that pharmaceutical companies have far deeper pockets than academic researchers.
Anthropic says it’s set to see its first profitable quarter, and if major new contracts with pharmaceutical companies are forthcoming, they could help ensure it stays profitable as the tokenmaxxing craze dies down—something that’s ever more important as an IPO approaches later this year.
Artificial intelligence is transforming what is possible in agriculture, but industry leaders should be wary of investing in AI without first laying the groundwork.
The use cases are promising, especially for an industry navigating volatile fertilizer costs, unpredictable weather, and margins that leave little room for error. Research shows AI-enabled predictive models can improve crop yield by 26%, reduce water use by 41%, and cut chemical usage by 33%.
However, what AI vendors usually won’t tell you is that these solutions are only effective if you have a clean, solid data foundation. However, at Reltio, we have experience in this area, including leading technology strategy at a major agricultural distributor and building a data platform used by enterprises worldwide–we’ve seen it first hand.
What AI vendors won’t tell you
Vendor conversations in agriculture tend to follow a familiar pattern. The pitch leads with grand promises around using AI to monitor crop health in real time, optimize irrigation, and squeeze more yield from every acre.
The promise is compelling, but what rarely comes up is the question of whether the data foundation underneath those promises is accurate and complete. If not, there is a real and significant risk that AI will generate misleading outputs that seem authoritative but inspire action that is, at best, counterproductive.
For instance, a yield prediction model fed inconsistent historical data will generate imprecise forecasts. Similarly, a precision irrigation system drawing on fragmented sensor data will make watering decisions that waste resources instead of saving them.
In each case, the AI is failing because the data it was trained on was not sufficient to produce trustworthy outputs. In agriculture, every AI hallucination is a liability, and the likelihood of error is high.
Why agriculture is a uniquely challenging test case
The data landscape across a modern agricultural operation or a large distributor serving thousands of growers is extraordinarily complex.
Modern farming environments make extensive use of IoT devices and machinery. Irrigation systems are automated, tractors navigate fields autonomously, and drones capture field imagery at scale.
However, machine data is disparate by nature. Add in external sources, including weather feeds, U.S. Department of Agriculture data, and third-party market information, and the question of how you bring all of it together into something coherent becomes a significant undertaking.
Agricultural AI also needs to understand more than just customer attributes; it needs to understand the land: GPS coordinates, farm boundaries, field blocks, and soil variation across a single property. Where do you apply fertilizer, and at what rate, and in which specific area of the farm? Not all parts of a field are the same, and an AI system that treats them as if they are will produce recommendations that are at best imprecise and at worst damaging.
There is also a compliance dimension due to the chemicals and the responsibility involved. Operational AI in agriculture needs significantly more checks and governance than it might in a lower-stakes environment. When a flawed recommendation gets acted upon in the field, the consequences can be severe.
What data readiness means in practice
Data readiness is the difference between AI delivering on its promise vs. a “garbage in, garbage out” scenario. Fundamentally, being ready for AI means having a data model that accurately reflects how the business operates.
For a company like Wilbur-Ellis, a 104-year-old, family-owned agricultural distributor, that means understanding who your customers are, which fields they farm, which inputs they need, which suppliers those inputs come from, what they paid last season, and how all of that connects to margin. That information needs to be current, consistent, and accessible across the organization, rather than locked in separate systems that were never designed to talk to each other.
Similarly, for farming operations themselves, data readiness means having a reliable, connected picture of what is happening across every field: soil health records, input application histories, yield data from previous seasons, equipment performance, and real-time sensor readings from irrigation systems.
Governance matters just as much as structure. Prices change, relationships evolve, and suppliers come and go. An AI system drawing on data that was accurate six months ago but has not been maintained will make recommendations based on a version of the business that no longer exists.
Building the foundation that makes AI trustworthy
The good news is that the path to data readiness is feasible. It starts with a strong data model: a single, governed source of truth that connects customers, suppliers, products, pricing, orders, and margins in a way that reflects how the organization operates.
From there, it requires data pipelines fast enough to deliver insights when decisions need to be made, governance frameworks that keep that data trustworthy over time, and security controls that ensure sensitive commercial information is accessible to the right people under the right conditions.
This is precisely the challenge that Reltio, an SAP company, was built to solve. Reltio enables companies to unify their fragmented data so AI agents and systems can operate from a complete picture of the business. Reltio builds a trusted system of context, known as the context intelligence layer, that brings all entities, relationships, rules together under one roof and makes business data easy to access and interpret.
For Wilbur-Ellis, building that trustworthy data foundation has meant being able to ask more complex questions and trust the answers, which is the precondition for any AI system to be genuinely useful.
How agriculture can drive real value from AI
The question worth asking before the next AI conversation is not whether the use case is promising. It almost certainly is. The question is whether the underlying data foundation is strong enough to make the output trustworthy.
Agriculture has always required its leaders to make high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, and AI offers the genuine prospect of making those decisions faster and better informed. That prospect is only achievable for organizations that have done the foundational work first, and the businesses that will get the most from AI are the ones investing in that foundation now.
This content was produced by Reltio. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.
This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.
Imagine coming in to work to learn that a new underling will report to you. The worker is not a person but an AI tool—one that your company nonetheless calls Alex, an “employee” with a title and defined responsibilities. How well do you think you would work with Alex?
If you’re anything like the managers recently studied by Emma Wiles, a Boston University business professor, treating Alex as a “coworker” and not a software tool would lead you to do a worse job. Wiles found that people caught 18% fewer errors when the work was said to have come from an agentic “AI employee” rather than a chatbot. It turns out that what’s in a name matters. A lot.
This is an alarming glimpse of the future Silicon Valley is hurling us toward. Last year Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, talked about workplaces of “digital humans.” Since April, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google have all released new tools oriented toward managing teams of AI agents, many of which are explicitly advertised as digital colleagues with the flexibility and cognitive power of actual humans. And nearly a third of the 1,261 managers who participated in Wiles’s study said their companies already frame AI agents as employees (23% even list them on org charts).
The technical progress of agentic AI is not all hot air, of course. Agents, which can effectively be thought of as AI tools programmed to work in a loop until they achieve a goal, have become measurably better at more complicated tasks. But it’s a huge leap to refer to these tools as coworkers or employees, and doing so will set unrealistic expectations for what AI can do while leaving the human employees supposedly responsible for them worse off.
That’s partially because, Wiles’s research suggests, it inverts our sense of who’s in charge. When an AI tool was framed as an employee, participants in the study saw themselves as less responsible for its output. They were also 44% more likely to escalate its questionable work to a manager for further review rather than trusting their own corrections (thus negating the time-saving purpose of using the AI agent in the first place).
That matters far beyond office culture: As AI agents are embedded into health care, warfare, education, and government, there’s a growing risk they’ll become a convenient place to dump blame for failures that are instead the product of bad human decisions, incentives, and oversight (recall how the bomb strike on a girls’ school in Iran was popularly blamed on Claude, when all signs point to a cascade of human errors).
“AI agents right now are being marketed as things that can replace humans, and I think that’s just a losing proposition,” says Daron Acemoglu, an economist at MIT who won the Nobel Prize in 2024 and studies AI’s impact on the economy. “They should instead be optimized so that they can improve human capabilities, which is not what they have [been] at the moment.”
What could that look like? Consider a new effort at Stanford, where researchers presented 1,500 workers in 104 jobs with information about what tasks AI could potentially do in their work and then asked what would actually be most helpful and productive. Workers did want automation in certain areas: Law clerks thought AI could help ensure that adequate progress was being made across cases, for example. But often the tasks that tech experts deemed most suitable for AI—like verifying customer credit ratings for sales reps—were what the actual workers said they definitely did not want or need an agent to do.
Which brings us back to Alex. Calling Alex an employee is easy—and convenient, especially when something goes wrong—but it’s a branding exercise. It doesn’t make the tool more fit for the job, and as Wiles’s research shows, it makes the humans around it worse at theirs. And recall that they are the ones with the agency that AI is trying to replicate. They deserve better than Alex.
Enterprise investment in AI is booming. Gartner is calling 2026 an “inflection year” for organizations to align their AI projects with strategic business objectives. As the pressure to prove ROI mounts, executives and technology leaders are looking to agentic AI to drive the measurable financial outcomes their businesses seek.
A prime opportunity for AI agents exists in the tech function, where IT infrastructure costs are projected to grow two to three times by 2030, even as budgets remain unchanged, according to McKinsey. And in the last 18 months, tech teams—the engineers, developers, architects, and other practitioners who are building, deploying, and continually improving their organizations’ infrastructure and applications—are clearly putting agents to work.
The ultimate promise of agents is not only to automate tasks but to manage and coordinate entire workflows, pursuing business goals in a way that allows humans and agents to work together. Given the risks involved in automated decision-making, teams cannot delegate the work that agents do without confidence that they are fully capable of performing the task and that it will do so in a safe, reliable, and secure manner.
Among technology experts, our research shows that teams are exceedingly confident about using agentic AI across a significant amount of AI, data, and cloud tasks.
Where agent readiness drops is largely due to a lack of business context being supplied to agentic systems. The more complex the task, the more reasoning capability an agent requires and the greater its need for business context. Such context-generation capabilities for agents are still at an early stage of development, especially in situations where enterprise data is difficult to wrangle and connect into the agent lifecycle at the speed and quality in which developers and executives need it. Human oversight is a key factor of success in deploying agentic AI.
Knowing that tech teams are in a pivotal position to lead this transformation, the experts we interviewed expect agent confidence to accelerate as experience with agents deepens and business environments mature. “As we design agents to operate within the same operational boundaries, identity systems, and governance models that teams already use, they start to behave more like the systems organizations already trust,” says Jeremy Winter, corporate vice president and chief product officer at Microsoft Azure Platform.
This report, based on a survey of 300 global technology experts, ranks 101 tasks across AI, data, and cloud workflows based on respondents’ confidence in agents acting on their behalf. It also examines how technology teams view the opportunities and challenges related to agentic AI, along with the potential for the technology to enhance their careers.
Key findings from the report include:
Confidence in agents is surging for measurable tasks and growing in areas of complex judgment. Technology experts overwhelmingly believe agents help with everyday work including streamlining processes, improving performance, and reducing repetitive tasks. Confidence is highest for processes like generating reports and boilerplate code, and there is clear opportunity where tasks involve multistep workflows and advanced reasoning to make decisions.
Data workflows are the breakthrough domain. Tech teams trust agents most where structure can provide a reliable foundation for decisions. This includes areas such as data quality monitoring, visualization anomaly detection, real-time data stream monitoring, and data profiling. This is where domain experts closest to the point of data generation can provide context to allow agents to act and deliver trusted outcomes.
Read the Microsoft Cloud blog by Amanda Silver, corporate vice president of Microsoft 365 Core and Work IQ, which underscores the importance of keeping humans in the loop and how systems thinking advances careers. And for a deeper dive into data workflows as a breakthrough use case for agents, check out the Fabric blog to hear from Kim Manis, corporate vice president of Product for Microsoft Fabric.
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. It was researched, designed, and written 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.
Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping retail, but not in the ways consumers might immediately notice. The biggest transformation may not be flashy virtual try-ons or chatbot shopping assistants, but in how decisions are made behind the scenes: how products surface in search results, how inventory moves through supply chains, how engineers ship code faster, and how retailers respond to customer behavior in real time. As legacy retailers navigate a fragmented and hyper-competitive landscape, AI is becoming an operating philosophy.
At Macy’s, that philosophy is more often defined by what senior director of engineering Murali Murugan describes as an “AI-first” approach. “AI first isn’t about adding intelligence on top,” Murugan says. “It’s about redesigning how decisions happen so the business moves faster and every experience feels more relevant by default.” Rather than layering AI onto existing workflows, Macy’s is embedding intelligence directly into systems that include personalization, search, operational planning, and software development itself.
The company’s strategy is reflective of a larger shift taking place across retail: moving from isolated AI pilots toward integrated systems designed to compress, as Murugan puts it, “the gap between the signal and the action.” Early efforts focused on narrow, high-impact use cases like search recommendations and customer engagement, where measurable gains in conversion and reduced friction quickly built internal momentum. “Once we established the quick wins, scaling was a business decision, not a technology debate anymore,” he says.
That momentum is now extending into conversational commerce through tools like Ask Macy’s, an AI-powered shopping assistant designed to act more like a personal stylist than a traditional search bar. Whether for a prom, a vacation, or a last-minute event, customers can describe what they need conversationally and receive curated recommendations informed by past purchases, preferences, and context.
Still, the company sees AI as more of an invisible layer augmenting human judgment than a replacement for it. The long-term vision is retail that feels increasingly seamless, adaptive, and personalized, powered by systems customers may never even notice are there.
“The real transformation in this all comes from continuous improvement,” Murugan says. “It’s about learning from the mistakes, quickly adapting to the newer technology standards that are coming into play, timing, and execution which compound into a meaningfully better customer experience.”
This webcast is produced in partnership with Infosys.
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. It was researched, designed, and written 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.
AI is booming. New use cases are emerging each day. To capitalize on the technology’s potential, enterprises require data at scale. In many cases, though, the relevant information is blocked or unstructured, which limits its use by AI models.
To understand this challenge, consider the foundation of the web itself. The web was not designed for the automated discovery and retrieval that new AI applications demand. Overcoming this inherent design constraint requires infrastructure.
The next frontier in AI may depend on a new web data infrastructure layer that can enable models to discover and map this ever-expanding digital realm. This layer must be able to navigate hundreds of millions of existing web domains and billions of new URLs created each week, delivering real-time information and overcoming technical barriers.
“The data suggests there’s far more data out there,” says Or Lenchner, CEO of Bright Data, a web data collection platform. “Think of the universe: It’s out there, but you don’t know what you don’t know.”
Enabling access to fresh, relevant, and trustworthy data
While early AI breakthroughs were driven by scaling training data and model size, organizations are now encountering a fundamental bottleneck: They need to keep pace with the dynamic, unstructured, and constantly evolving nature of web data in order to ground outputs in current and verifiable information. AI performance increasingly depends not just on model architecture but on a system’s compute, networking, retrieval, and data engineering capabilities—that is, the system’s ability to quickly and reliably retrieve data that is fresh, relevant, and trustworthy.
Traditional model training relies on snapshots of information collected at a particular point in time. Training AI on such static data is no longer sufficient. To track fluctuations such as competitor pricing, consumer sentiment, and market trends, companies need a constant feed of new information, pulling data in real time along with relevant context. Their infrastructure must therefore be able to handle millions of simultaneous interactions across websites that vary by geography, language, format, and access rules.
“If it can’t retrieve real-time information, it lacks context,” Lenchner says. “In a business setting, that’s not acceptable anymore. Stale answers lead to bad decisions and disappointed consumers.”
Speed is not merely a matter of convenience; it’s a matter of necessity. Today’s organizations operate in environments where prices, inventory, markets, security threats, and customer behavior change continuously. Delayed data retrieval can reduce the usefulness of an otherwise sophisticated model.
Using live, high-quality web data can also reduce AI hallucinations because the model has a more relevant knowledge base. This builds user trust. In fact, one survey found that 56% of AI practitioners said businesses need access to real-time web data to improve trust in AI outputs. To ensure the model runs efficiently and effectively, the information must also be pared down to the appropriate essentials.
Despite the introduction of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), where models pull in external data at the moment of a query, many AI systems still struggle to deliver outputs that are current, contextually relevant, and trustworthy in operational settings. According to Gartner, 60% of AI projects that are not supported by AI-ready data—accurate, structured, organized, and contextualized—will be abandoned by the end of the year.
This is because large-scale retrieval alone does not solve the problem. As Lenchner puts it, “You need to retrieve data at scale, but also in real time. Latency becomes an issue because of the end user who is waiting for the output.”
Accessing fresh, AI-ready data at scale introduces technical and structural challenges. In practice, many enterprise systems combine public web retrieval with APIs, licensed datasets, and proprietary internal data in their AI applications. Integrating these fragmented sources into a timely and usable knowledge layer requires specialized capabilities. Some research has found that 97% of AI organizations depend on real-time web data infrastructure, but 90% feel boxed in by various restrictions. Companies are increasingly developing technical approaches to navigate these constraints.
Lenchner draws this metaphor: “Think of the trained model as intelligence and relevant data as knowledge. A powerful intelligence layer sitting on top of a hollow knowledge layer is like a genius who knows nothing—useless in practice. Intelligence and knowledge have to come together.”
The promise of new infrastructure
A new layer of web data infrastructure can address this developing need for stronger AI inputs by enabling discovery of data, real-time access, and tailoring to a specific context. As Lechner describes it, “It’s all about collecting data at scale, super-low latency, without being blocked.”
Rather than relying on increased computing power, this type of platform emulates human browsing behavior to access available content and transform raw code into structured data feeds. It can work with websites that might not interact with traditional scraping tools, such as those heavy in JavaScript, or with aggressive antibot software.
As Lenchner explains, “It’s basically having infrastructure that can mimic a web user with identifying information—IP address, location, and 1,000 more parameters. And at scale. Think of doing that 80 billion times a day for millions of websites. And every single time, you are looking exactly as the website expects you to look.”
Of course, continuous retrieval introduces new data governance challenges. To address them, platforms can enforce strict compliance protocols aligned with global privacy frameworks, such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). They can also be limited to openly accessible, public information, avoiding paywalls or private logins. Any networks used can be vetted and consent-based, and incentives can be provided to owners of IP addresses. In this way, systems can be designed to comply with tightening regulation.
Such complex capabilities do not come easy. “When this is critical infrastructure for a company,” Lenchner says, “doing it in-house becomes a full-time engineering problem that competes with the actual AI work.” Addressing this complexity requires organizations to commit significant resources, leading many to seek specialized platforms designed specifically for data retrieval, orchestration, and observability.
Infrastructure for the real world
Real-time data retrieval is changing what AI systems can do inside organizations. For example, a retail company can use public information to enable a dynamic pricing engine, and global brands can track trademark infringements.
As the ecosystem matures, organizations that invest in this emerging data infrastructure layer will be better positioned to build AI systems that are more responsive, reliable, and aligned with real-world conditions—AI systems that can continuously adapt using current web data. Over time, the distinction between AI models and the infrastructure that feeds them may even begin to disappear.
As Lenchner says, “The world is changing. And everything that is happening in the world is being uploaded to the public web. The amount of new data that is being generated is growing and accelerating.”
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. It was researched, designed, and written 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.
Jos Benschop is climbing a ladder to get to the top of his newest machine.
It’s a bit of a schlep. The contraption is the size of a double-decker bus—more than 150 tons of gleaming precision-milled aluminum covered in thousands of snaking tubes, colored cables, and pressurized tanks. From the ground, it looks like a futuristic V8 engine. When I reach the top with Benschop we’re looking down from about 15 feet in the air, with bunny-suited technicians scurrying around below.
It’s more than 200 cubic meters of tech—“mechatronic devices that hold a few mirrors in a position with atomic precision,” he says, gesturing at the gargantuan apparatus. Benschop, a tall and grizzled 66-year-old, has spent over a decade working with his engineers to design this thing, but even so, he’ll sometimes look at it and go: Oh my God.
Benschop is the executive vice president of technology for ASML, a Dutch company that is the linchpin of the microchip industry. If you want to make powerful chips to power phones or AI, a lithography machine like the one we’re standing on is what you need to create increasingly tiny circuitry. Lithography is the art and science of shining light on a silicon wafer to pattern out the transistors, wiring, and other components of the microchips that will be cut from it.
The chipmaking field is essentially controlled by only two big players: ASML, which creates the lithography machines, and TSMC, the chipmaking giant.
Nine years ago, ASML began selling machines that use a daring new way of patterning chip features. These machines employ extreme-ultraviolet light, or EUV—radiation well outside the visible spectrum that they produce by shooting lasers at tiny molten drops of tin, tens of thousands of times a second. Those first machines—the result of an R&D moonshot that lasted 16 years and cost about $10 billion—can craft transistor features with a resolution of 13 nanometers. This new machine can do even better: It has a resolution of just eight nanometers, the width of about 40 silicon atoms. The devices are now shipping to chipmaking factories, or fabs, at an eye-watering price: $400 million each.
But chipmakers will fork that cash over, because they are in a desperate race to produce new and improved chips every year. That means getting their mitts on machines that can make ever smaller components and cram them together ever more densely—part of a long-standing recipe for creating faster and more energy-efficient chips.
For years now, ASML’s tools have been critical to keeping Moore’s Law alive. Without the company’s advanced chipmaking technology it is very possible that chip density—and the ability to perform ever more calculations—would have plateaued.
The AI industry has produced new and ravenous demand for denser chips, as firms like OpenAI and Anthropic scramble to erect server farms that train and deploy new, ever-more-powerful models, which require new, ever-more-powerful hardware. ASML’s latest machine promises to help keep the AI party raging for at least another decade.
“We can allow customers to go to smaller and smaller features, and that opens up the space for whatever we see now today in AI, which is absolutely mind-blowing,” Marco Pieters, ASML’s CTO, told me. “I think we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg.”
Its relentless push for “shrink”—as they call it in the chipmaking industry—has made ASML a dominant force: The company produces about 90% of all chip-lithography tools worldwide. If you make chips, ASML is unavoidable.
But that monopoly position makes some people, and governments, uneasy. The chipmaking field is essentially controlled by only two big players: ASML, which creates the lithography machines, and TSMC, the chipmaking giant in Taiwan, which uses ASML’s machines to craft the vast majority of all microchips. This duopoly is so powerful that it has geopolitical implications. In an effort to prevent China from developing advanced AI, the US government pressured the Dutch government to impose an embargo in 2019: ASML isn’t allowed to sell high-end machines to any Chinese firm. Geopolitically, “chips are the new oil,” says Marc Hijink, the author of Focus: The ASML Way. Being deprived of them can be as disastrous as being deprived of oil. And in that metaphor, you might say, ASML is the Strait of Hormuz.
James Proud, the cofounder and CEO of the lithography startup Substrate, says the situation is not ideal. The US is “dangerously reliant” on a supply chain that’s overseas and increasingly pricey, Substrate says on its website. “There’s a huge concentration in a small number of players,” Proud says. “And the supply chain is just very expensive.”
Which is why, after two decades of ASML’s dominance, would-be competitors are now gunning for its territory. China is hungrily pouring billions into trying to replicate ASML’s tech. And startups like Substrate are trying to get in the game as well, setting their sights on creating lithography machines that are cheaper, smaller, and even more capable than ASML’s behemoths. Will any of them succeed? The near future clearly belongs to ASML, but as its engineers well know, you can unseat a giant with the right trick of the light.
Making chips is, oddly, a bit like silk-screening a T-shirt. To print a pattern on a silicon wafer, you start with a pattern on a reticle—a mask that carries the design. Shining a light on the reticle transfers that pattern to the wafer. The light interacts with a layer of chemicals on the wafer, fixing the pattern in place.
The size of a chip’s features is partly set by the wavelength of light the machine uses: The smaller the wavelength, the teensier the circuitry you can create. You can stretch the capabilities of a wavelength somewhat; increasing what’s known as the numerical aperture, which usually means swapping in a bigger lens, can further focus the light and thus lay down patterns for smaller and smaller components. Eventually, though, this trick hits its limit, and you need to find a new form of light with a smaller wavelength.
So the history of chipmaking has been a two-step dance. The industry finds a good source of light, eventually increases the numerical aperture, and then finally accepts the need for a smaller wavelength, starting the two-step all over again. Up to the early 1990s, chipmakers used visible light, with a wavelength of about 400 nanometers. By the mid-’90s they’d upgraded to deep ultraviolet, ultimately getting it down to a 193-nanometer wavelength. By the late ’90s they saw the end of the line approaching for deep ultraviolet. But what would come next?
All the options were troublesome. They could shift to x-rays, with a teensy one-nanometer wavelength, but they were devilishly hard to focus. Beams of electrons and ions were equally precise; but they worked like dot-matrix printers, transferring a pattern point by point, which was far too slow. (The chip industry wants a machine to crank out hundreds of wafers per hour.)
“It’s a very engineering-heavy company: Let’s send thousands of engineers and just have them mow down these problems. That’s what they did, and it worked.”
Jeff Koch, analyst, SemiAnalysis
Around 2001, ASML, then a smaller player in the lithography world, placed its bet on another option: EUV, with a wavelength just shy of the x-ray range. Nikon and Canon were working on it as well, but they dropped out—while ASML kept going. The idea was full of unknowns. Nobody knew how to reliably generate that type of light, nor how to focus it; EUV is absorbed by regular glass lenses. It’s even absorbed by air. ASML figured it would take six full years to wade through this R&D nightmare.
In reality it took those 16 years and about $10 billion in research, but it worked. The machine, which works in a vacuum, creates EUV light by vaporizing molten tin and using mirrors to direct it. Zeiss, a historic German optics company, had to invent new techniques for polishing and inspecting the mirrors, using an ion beam to knock off minute imperfections.
“They sort of ignored the buzz of, like, Hey, this is never gonna work, and they just beat their heads against these huge engineering problems,” says Jeff Koch, who used to work for ASML and is now an analyst for the chip-industry research firm SemiAnalysis. “It’s a very engineering-heavy company: Let’s send thousands of engineers and just have them mow down these problems. That’s what they did, and it worked.”
When the first EUV machines went on the market in 2017, they cost well over $100 million apiece. Some observers wondered whether the demand would really be there from the major chipmaking firms—TSMC, Samsung, and Intel. In the years chipmakers were waiting for EUV to happen, the lithography industry had developed clever ways to improve on old-fashioned deep ultraviolet light. (If you put a layer of water on top of the wafer, for example, the light could focus more narrowly.) Maybe EUV wouldn’t be much needed for a while?
But ASML lucked out. Only a few years after EUV debuted, OpenAI released GPT-3 and then ChatGPT. Artificial intelligence burst into the mainstream. Instantly, firms like OpenAI, Google, Meta, and Anthropic were hungry for increasingly high-end chips as they built massive server farms to train and deploy large language models. EUV made it easier and faster to crank out AI-tailored chip designs. Nvidia began producing elite GPUs—processors perfectly suited for AI training—that cost $40,000 a pop; the big companies couldn’t get enough. The AI wars were on, and EUV was in demand. In 2025, ASML says, it sold nearly 50 EUV machines to companies and pulled in nearly $40 billion in revenue. As of press time, the company’s market cap was over half a trillion dollars.
ASML’s new machines have no shortage of potential customers. But there is one in particular, with deep pockets, that can’t buy them for any amount of money: China.
The US wants to hobble China’s ability to create cutting-edge AI chips—or any advanced chips, for that matter. So when ASML began selling its original EUV machines, in 2017, the Trump administration successfully pressured the Dutch government to forbid the company from selling them to any Chinese firms. The US had also imposed export controls on China’s telecom giant Huawei, banning US firms from using its 4G and 5G equipment.
This one-two punch incensed the Chinese government and stirred it to action. China is now pouring billions into catching up and trying to develop its own EUV chip-patterning technology. A Reuters report last winter found that a government skunkworks employing former ASML staffers had cobbled together a machine so huge it filled the entire floor of a lab. It’s unclear how well it works. The experiment may well be making some chips, says Hijink, but he doubts it can do so at an industrial scale.
A mirror is installed in an optical system for the high-NA machine.
COURTESY OF ZEISS
Officially, the government denied it was pushing to develop EUV tech. An editorial in the Global Times—a newspaper closely allied with the Chinese government—pooh-poohed the report, claiming that China was still happy to work with the West to get access to chips. “Our goal has never been to build a self-sufficient ‘technology island’ in isolation,” it stated, “but rather, on the basis of achieving autonomy and control over key technologies, to integrate more deeply and equally into the global innovation network.”
Experts say the reality is in the middle. China definitely craves a domestic ability to make high-end chips. And unlike ASML, it doesn’t need its EUV machinery to be efficient and profitable, cranking out about 200 wafers an hour. Any output would help wean it off reliance on the West.
“They would be very happy to have a tool that does one wafer per hour and it costs them a fortune to run,” Koch says. “They would build a fab with a thousand of those and be super happy with it.”
Still, producing and managing EUV light well is a feat that might take years, some told me. In the meantime, the Chinese will lean hard on deep-ultraviolet lithography, developed in the ’90s, making the most of an alternative but slower approach known as multi-patterning, says David Lin, senior advisor for tech leadership at the Special Competitive Studies Project, a think tank that focuses on security and technology. “They’re going to push DUV to the absolute limits,” Lin says.
The AI race is also pushing China to devise ever cleverer ways of developing LLMs that don’t rely on the fastest AI chips. In the US, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are fighting over who can buy the biggest piles of hot Nvidia chips. Since China can’t compete that way, it is innovating not in hardware but in software—building lighter-weight LLMs like DeepSeek.
As China rumbles into action, ASML has remained laser focused on shrink. To go even smaller, Benschop and his engineers decided, they wouldn’t shift to a new form of light. They’d do the second part of the two-step: They’d raise the numerical aperture of the machine by more than half (for those keeping track of the specific numbers, it would be a switch from an NA of 0.33 to an NA of 0.55). That would let them cut the size of the transistors by close to half and nearly triple their density on a chip.
This would also be an easier climb. Without the need to develop an entirely new source of light, the new machine—based on high-numerical-aperture EUV, or “high NA”—would be evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Still, building the new system did present a few gnarly challenges. In an EUV machine, the way you transfer an image onto a wafer is by shining light at the microchip pattern on the reticle and then using an optical system to take the reflected light and demagnify that pattern, shrinking it down to the size you want on the wafer. The light hits only part of the reticle at any given time, so you quickly move the reticle back and forth to expose every part of the pattern to the light.
Going to a higher numerical aperture meant they could have smaller features on the reticle. But this also meant that some of the light would be arriving at the reticle—and reflecting off it—at a steeper angle.
That’s what caused problems. The pattern on the reticle is three-dimensional, so light arriving at such a steep angle caused shadows—much the way slanted sunlight creates shadows in the Grand Canyon. That stood to diminish the machine’s ability to make clear patterns.
The new reticle moves with acceleration up to 22 g, much faster than in the company’s original EUV machine. “Don’t try to sit on it, because you’ll pass out.”
The solution was to change the pattern on the reticle—along with the way the mirrors took the light and shrank it down to impart the pattern to the wafer. The designs on the reticle would now be twice as long as they were wide—stretched, as it were, in one dimension.
But this design came with its own problems. The changes to the mirrors meant the area on the wafer exposed during a single scan was half the size it was with the original EUV machines, reducing the system’s speed. And ASML couldn’t tolerate any slowdown: Chipmakers were paying it for machines with massive throughput, about 200 wafers an hour.
If one part of the system slowed down, another part would have to speed up. The engineers decided the machine should move the reticle faster, which meant making the entire mechanism lighter and dramatically redesigning it. The new reticle moves with acceleration up to 22 g, much faster than in the company’s original EUV machine. “Don’t try to sit on it, because you’ll pass out,” Pieters told me. The wafer stage moves around faster as well, in tandem with the reticle.
Meanwhile, over in Germany, Zeiss’s engineers were busy designing mirrors to accommodate the higher numerical aperture and asymmetric shaping of the light. The new mirrors would be about twice as large as those in the regular EUV machines, and the projection system, which carries light from the reticle to the wafer, weighed fully 12 tons, seven times more than before. Zeiss built a new robot-assisted production line to handle these ponderous new beasts. The company says they’re the smoothest surfaces they’ve ever made.
At the same time, ASML was working on making its EUV light source even more powerful, to help make the wafer-exposing process go faster. The engineers calculated that they could improve the output of EUV if they hit each tin droplet three times with the laser instead of twice, as they do in the first machine. That meant the already-hectic system of firing tin would need to speed up by 50%. “The lasers just keep getting bigger,” says Alex Schafgans, the head of engineering at ASML in San Diego, where the EUV light source is built.
Indeed, the lasers for a single machine now fill an entire room. After Benschop showed me the massive high-NA device, we walked across the hall and entered a chamber filled with hulking six-foot-tall boxes that were part of the laser system. Peering through tiny windows in the sides of the units, we could see the glowing purple plasma used in creating the laser light.
When high-NA machines began to roll off the assembly line, one company was waiting hungrily: Intel. The company purchased the very first high-NA machine put up for sale, and in the spring of 2024, 300 ASML engineers showed up in Oregon at one of Intel’s fabs to begin assembling and testing it.
“ASML actually put a giant ribbon around one of the boxes,” says Mark Phillips, an Intel fellow who is director of its hardware and lithography solutions, laughing. His team has been testing the machine to see how well it performs; Phillips wouldn’t give details other than to say he’s “very pleased at the rapid pace of tool health.” He also wouldn’t give a date for when Intel would start using it to make chips, though observers say that will likely happen next year. The company plans to ease it in, using it for just a few precision components on a chip and then gradually for more and more.
What’s at stake is a chance to recapture its mojo. Intel was once a silicon powerhouse, designing the most cutting-edge CPUs for computers and servers, and building them in its own fabs. But in the 2010s, the big new markets were mobile-phone chips and GPUs for AI and gaming, and Intel rapidly lost ground. Apple designed its own mobile chips (and had TSMC make them), while Nvidia did the same thing with GPUs. Google began banging out its own TSMC-made AI chips called TPUs in 2015, and soon it was stuffing data centers full of them.
Intel fellow Mark Phillips briefs members of the media on the high-NA tool at the company’s Fab D1X in Hillsboro, Oregon. Intel was ASML’s first customer for the new EUV machine.
COURTESY OF INTEL CORPORATION
So in 2021 Intel announced a moonshot. It would aggressively begin building out a foundry business, one that would go toe to toe with TSMC. Instead of creating Intel chips, the Intel foundry would manufacture designs for customers like makers of mobile phones and AI chips.
Intel hopes that being the first to wield high-NA technology will give it an edge in the silicon rat race, making it possible to print tiny patterns faster than anyone else.
It could also make things simpler for customers. Over the years, while waiting for EUV machines to emerge, chip designers used multi-patterning to squeeze more life out of the older forms of light. Every chip is made out of layers, which are laid down to make components like the switches and wiring. If you’re working on one of those layers and need to make features tinier than your machine can normally produce, you can break the pattern for that layer up into several patterns and then expose the wafer to them one at a time. This strategy helped chipmakers keep using older (and cheaper) machines while still creating tinier and tinier components. But multi-patterning is a hassle: It’s more challenging to design the complex overlay of patterns, and much slower to print each chip. Designing a chip is far easier if you know you can do “single patterning,” blasting each layer in one go.
Observers say it won’t be easy to build a foundry business that bests TSMC and Samsung on their own terrain. “Leapfrogging is difficult,” Hijink says. But it’s also true that the high-tech world has such a ravening hunger for better chips that Intel could succeed, simply because even TSMC and Samsung can’t fulfill all that need.
“There’s spillover demand, so Intel can survive off that,” Koch says. “It’s not even scraps now. It’s a meal. It may not be the best foundry, but they can make chips, and there’s only three companies that can do that, right?”
TSMC, for its part, seems to be biding its time when it comes to high NA. “TSMC will deploy high-NA EUV when it is mature and ready to deliver maximum benefit to our customers,” the company wrote to MIT Technology Review. Some suspect it won’t use the machines in serious volume until the 2030s. Part of the reason is cost: TSMC is ruthlessly focused on producing chips as cost-effectively as possible, and the high-NA tools are a blistering $400 million each, far more than the previous EUV rigs. And unlike those, the new machines are not a revolutionary leap upward.
“This is like 30% to 50% better in terms of capability,” says Koch, the analyst and former ASML employee. “This is probably the first tool that hasn’t obviously made business sense right away for ASML.”
It’s not that the industry won’t eventually embrace high NA en masse, Koch says. Most companies will need to, if they want to keep going smaller. But TSMC is more likely to push ahead as far as it can go with its existing EUV tools, using onerous multi-patterning to wring as much as it can out of that generation until it absolutely needs to switch.
“The industry has only shifted paradigms when it just absolutely cannot extend—even one more little bit—out of what it’s been doing,” Koch says.
China isn’t the only party looking to upset the current balance of power. The dominance of ASML, and the swelling cost of its tools, is prompting other upstarts too. But instead of trying to replicate ASML’s breakthroughs in EUV, they’re doing an end run—working on lithography tools that use entirely different forms of light. These will be far cheaper, they promise, and just as powerful.
One is Substrate, a San Francisco–based startup. Founded four years ago, it’s working on a tool that uses x-ray light produced by a particle accelerator. X-rays have a remarkably tiny wavelength, making them a potentially powerful way to create minute features.
Particle accelerators have historically been enormous, making them difficult to fit into a chipmaking process. Substrate says it has harnessed decades of scientific improvements in particle acceleration to produce a light source that’s smaller and suitable for mass production.
Last year the company released images showing that it had created fine patterns, which Proud, the CEO, says are only possible now with a high-NA EUV machine. He says Substrate’s goal is to produce chips at scale by 2030.
But Proud doesn’t intend to sell the tools to TSMC or Intel. Indeed, he doesn’t plan to sell them to anyone. Instead, Substrate wants to create its own fab, building chips using its own tools.
“The amount of chips we’re going to need is going to be many orders of magnitude larger than even the wildest projections you have now.”
James Proud, cofounder and CEO, Substrate
The semiconductor industry, Proud argues, needs new approaches, because it’s become too pricey and too centralized. A single fab today can cost $25 billion to build, up from about $5 billion in the 2010s, the company notes. It’s driving the cost of a single wafer full of advanced chips up toward $100,000, Proud says.
“That is, I think, a prohibitive cost,” he says. There also isn’t enough capacity in the supply chain: “It’s relatively slow and hard to flex to the current increase in demands.” He admires ASML’s EUV tooling—it’s “the apex implementation of that technology”—but new approaches are needed.
That’s partly for national security reasons. Proud and his team think it’s too dangerous for the US to rely on foreign supplies. But he also predicts the current AI boom will go into overdrive, creating a massive demand for chips that the existing ASML/TSMC duopoly won’t be able to deliver: “The amount of chips we’re going to need is going to be many orders of magnitude larger than even the wildest projections you have now.”
ASML’s machines use lasers and molten tin to generate the EUV light.
CHRISTOPHER PAYNE
Substrate predicts it will be able to produce finished wafers at $10,000 a pop—a tenth of where Proud predicts the rest of the industry is heading. Proud says that’s partly because the company’s system will be vertically integrated, so it will control all parts of the chipmaking process, but also because its lithography tooling will be less complex: “We’re able to put together in a sort of simpler package.”
Still, Substrate is playing its cards close to its chest. Unlike ASML, the company isn’t offering nuanced detail on how it generates light, or on how that then translates into making patterns on a wafer.
Substrate’s ambitions give some industry observers pause. Hijink, who thinks it is probably “unachievable and impossible” to simultaneously master both a new form of lithography and high-throughput fab techniques, regards the company’s secrecy as a red flag. “This industry is about open innovation,” he says.
Koch is more impressed by its ambitions and funding. The type of technology it’s pursuing “is really cool,” he says. “It’s interesting.” But “there’s a long road between lab-scale demonstration and high volume,” he adds. “Is this like an imminent disruption to ASML? Probably not.”
Another startup that is aiming to hit the market around the same time as Substrate is Lace Lithography. Based in Norway, it is devising an entirely different approach—one that doesn’t use light at all. Instead, an energized beam of helium atoms is pointed at the pattern on the reticle. When the helium atoms then hit the wafer, the atoms transfer their energy to it, imparting the design to the chip.
The idea dates back a while. Bodil Holst, the CEO, took it up in 2008, when she was a physicist studying the use of atom beams. MIT professor Henry “Hank” Smith, a pioneer in using x-rays for lithography, told her she should explore using atoms as a mechanism for making microchips, because back then he wasn’t sure ASML’s EUV moonshot would work. “Even if it does, we’ll need atoms eventually,” he told her.
Holst did some experiments to investigate the idea further and partnered with a former PhD student—Adrià Salvador Palau, a physicist and expert in machine learning—to found Lace. Like Substrate’s, its tool is completely different from ASML’s massive machinery. The source of the excited atoms “looks a bit like a rocket motor,” says Palau. “It’s very cool.” While EUV’s wavelength is 13.5 nanometers, the helium atoms offer a precision of 0.1 nanometers. The process also requires far less power, and the machine is intended to be far smaller. Holst tells me the company aims to have machines ready to sell to fabs by 2029 or 2030.
“I think everybody’s really looking forward to something that extends a road map beyond light, beyond EUV,” Palau says.
ASML is watching these upstarts with curiosity. Benschop says he can’t assess whether Substrate’s technology will work reliably and affordably, because the company hasn’t explained anything about its processes. But he went to a conference where Holst and Palau did a presentation outlining Lace Lithography’s technology.
“I’m incredibly impressed with how they do it,” he says. The problem, he says, is he doesn’t think the process produces patterns on the wafer that are deep enough to be useful. “I cannot see how they would scale it to a viable volume product,” he told me.
He suspects ASML’s mastery of EUV will keep it on top for the near future. “So far, I have not seen a viable alternative,” he says. He thinks there’s “no serious runner-up” when it comes to volume manufacturing of the most advanced chip generations.
It’s true that major shifts in chipmaking are slow, says Chris Miller, a professor of international history at Tufts University and the author of Chip War, a book about the worldwide struggle for dominance in the industry. “No doubt we’ll eventually have alternatives [to EUV],” he told me via e-mail. “But it’s worth noting that lithography transitions have historically taken years, if not decades.”
ASML’s executives, too, are pondering their future. Benschop expects high-NA technology to dominate chipmaking into the 2030s. Beyond that? The industry has, indeed, tended to shift to a new form of light every decade.
“You may argue it’s time for the next decade,” he told me after we’d stripped off our bunny suits and he was relaxing with a coffee.
But ASML’s executives suspect they can continue to squeeze more capabilities out of EUV by increasing the numerical aperture even further on their existing machine. They’re already toying with a design that would take an NA of 0.55 to an NA of 0.75: “hyper NA.” It could let them pattern wafers with a resolution of six nanometers. They’re also working on standardizing their various optics into a platform of a single size, so customers could order one machine outfitted for either regular EUV, high NA, or hyper NA. If it’s all in the same-sized unit, it would simplify the costs and logistics of integrating each into a fab. If the company goes through with it, Benschop figures, the hyper-NA tool might hit the market seven or eight years from now and be sold in volume during the second half of the 2030s.
For now, the ball is in ASML’s court. “We’re pushing the limits of physics,” Pieters told me. The question now is whether anyone else can push harder.
Login
