On Tuesday, I was thinking I might write a story about the implications of the Trump administration’s repeal of the Biden executive order on AI. (The biggest implication: that labs are no longer asked to report dangerous capabilities to the government, though they may do so anyway.) But then two bigger and more important AI stories dropped: one of them technical, and one of them economic.
Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.
Stargate is a jobs program — but maybe not for humans
The economic story is Stargate. In conjunction with companies like Oracle and Softbank, OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman announced a mind-boggling planned $500 billion investment in “new AI infrastructure for OpenAI” — that is, for data centers and the power plants that will be needed to power them.
People immediately had questions. First, there was Elon Musk’s public declaration that “they don’t actually have the money,” followed by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s rejoinder: “I’m good for my $80 billion.” (Microsoft, remember, has a large stake in OpenAI.)
Second, some challenged OpenAI’s assertion that the program will “create hundreds of thousands of American jobs.”
Why? Well, the only plausible way for investors to get their money back on this project is if, as the company has been betting, OpenAI will soon develop AI systems that can do most work humans can do on a computer. Economists are fiercely debating exactly what economic impacts that would have, if it came about, though the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs doesn’t seem like one, at least not over the long term. (Disclosure: Vox Media is one of several publishers that have signed partnership agreements with OpenAI. Our reporting remains editorially independent.)
Mass automation has happened before, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and some people sincerely expect that in the long run it’ll be a good thing for society. (My take: That really, really depends on whether we have a plan to maintain democratic accountability and adequate oversight, and to share the benefits of the alarming new sci-fi world. Right now, we absolutely don’t have that, so I’m not cheering the prospect of being automated.)
But even if you’re more excited about automation than I am, “we will replace all office work with AIs” — which is fairly widely understood to be OpenAI’s business model — is an absurd plan to spin as a jobs program. But then, a $500 billion investment to eliminate countless jobs probably wouldn’t get President Donald Trump’s imprimatur, as Stargate has.
DeepSeek may have figured out reinforcement on AI feedback
The other huge story of this week was DeepSeek r1, a new release from the Chinese AI startup DeepSeek, that the company advertises as a rival to OpenAI’s o1. What makes r1 a big deal is less the economic implications and more the technical ones.
To teach AI systems to give good answers, we rate the answers they give us, and train them to home in on the ones we rate highly. This is “reinforcement learning from human feedback” (RLHF), and it has been the main approach to training modern LLMs since an OpenAI team got it working. (The process is described in this 2019 paper.)
But RLHF is not how we got the ultra superhuman AI games program AlphaZero. That was trained using a different strategy, based on self-play: the AI was able to invent new puzzles for itself, solve them, learn from the solution, and improve from there.
This strategy is particularly useful for teaching a model how to do quickly anything it can do expensively and slowly. AlphaZero could slowly and time-intensively consider lots of different policies, figure out which one is best, and then learn from the best solution. It is this kind of self-play that made it possible for AlphaZero to vastly improve on previous game engines.
So, of course, labs have been trying to figure out something similar for large language models. The basic idea is simple: you let a model consider a question for a long time, potentially using lots of expensive computation. Then you train it on the answer it eventually found, trying to produce a model that can get the same result more cheaply.
But until now, “major labs were not seeming to be having much success with this sort of self-improving RL,” machine learning engineer Peter Schmidt-Nielsen wrote in an explanation of DeepSeek r1’s technical significance. What has engineers so impressed with (and so alarmed by) r1 is that the team seems to have made significant progress using that technique.
This would mean that AI systems can be taught to rapidly and cheaply do anything they know how to slowly and expensively do — which would make for some of the fast and shocking improvements in capabilities that the world witnessed with AlphaZero, only in areas of the economy far more important than playing games.
One other notable fact here: these advances are coming from a Chinese AI company. Given that US AI companies are not shy about using the threat of Chinese AI dominance to push their interests — and given that there really is a geopolitical race around this technology — that says a lot about how fast China may be catching up.
A lot of people I know are sick of hearing about AI. They’re sick of AI slop in their newsfeeds and AI products that are worse than humans but dirt cheap, and they aren’t exactly rooting for OpenAI (or anyone else) to become the world’s first trillionaires by automating entire industries.
But I think that in 2025, AI is really going to matter — not because of whether these powerful systems get developed, which at this point looks well underway, but for whether society is ready to stand up and insist that it’s done responsibly.
When AI systems start acting independently and committing serious crimes (all of the major labs are working on “agents” that can act independently right now), will we hold their creators accountable? If OpenAI makes a laughably low offer to its nonprofit entity in its transition to fully for-profit status, will the government step in to enforce nonprofit law?
A lot of these decisions will be made in 2025, and the stakes are very high. If AI makes you uneasy, that’s a lot more reason to demand action than it is a reason to tune out.
A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here!
Editor’s note, January 25, 2025, 9 am ET: This story has been updated to include a disclosure about Vox Media’s relationship to OpenAI.
You’ve read 1 article in the last month
Here at Vox, we’re unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.
Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.
We rely on readers like you — join us.
Swati Sharma
Vox Editor-in-Chief
