Future scenario

Slow Burn / AI Winter

AI progress and deployment slow materially. The technology remains useful, but the sense of an accelerating transformation fades.

What this future looks like

By the end of the decade, AI is everywhere, but it no longer feels like a force rewriting the economy in real time. Models keep improving, just more slowly. The hardest gains require more compute, more data, more engineering, and more money. The frontier advances, but each step buys less than the one before it.

Companies still use AI aggressively where it works. Coding, analysis, customer service, search, and routine knowledge work all look different. But AI stops expanding cleanly into longer, messier, more consequential work. The grander promises move further out.

The biggest consequence is time. Organizations, workers, schools, regulators, and governments get more room to adapt. AI still matters enormously; it just stops outrunning everything around it.

Distribution of leverage

Who benefits — and who faces the most pressure?

This is about who is better positioned in this world — and who has a harder time adapting to it.

Most likely to benefit

  • Established firms that can integrate useful, bounded AI without betting the company on frontier progress.
  • Workers whose judgment, relationships, and domain expertise remain hard to automate.
  • Institutions that benefit from more time to adapt.

Most likely to feel the pressure

  • Frontier labs and investors priced for continued exponential gains.
  • Businesses built around rapid displacement of human labor.
  • AI-native entrants whose advantage depends on capability continuing to leap forward.
Conditions

What would have to happen next?

These are the changes that would make this future feel much less hypothetical.

  1. Capability gains flatten across refreshed, hard-to-game benchmarks.
  2. AI-assisted R&D fails to materially accelerate frontier progress.
  3. Deployment keeps spreading, but autonomy and task length plateau.
  4. The economics of training and inference become a binding constraint.
Combinations

What happens when this future overlaps another?

These futures can overlap. Pairing two shows the more specific world you get when both are true at the same time.

What would change our mind?

We would pull this future back if the evidence starts moving the important turning points in the opposite direction.

See how this path has changed →