The Scaling Paradox in Human-AI Collaboration

The discovery of scaling laws has highlighted the extraordinary potential of AI systems with a striking empirical pattern: as AI systems scale, their capabilities tend to improve predictably. Yet, in real-world applications, AI rarely operates in isolation; instead, it often works alongside humans, raising the question of whether these gains persist in human-AI collaboration. In this work, we develop an analytical model to examine when the empirical scaling benefits of AI translate into improved human-AI joint system performance. We demonstrate that the performance of a human-AI system can scale positively as the AI scales up-provided that humans have an accurate perception of the AI's capabilities. Human misperception, however, can fundamentally alter this relationship: i) when humans over-perceive the AI's capabilities, a scaling paradox may arise, in which greater AI scale reduces overall system performance and amplifies firm-level profit losses, and (ii) when humans under-perceive the AI's capabilities, performance still improves with scale but at a substantially slower rate. We further show that firms can actively manage these distortions through operational policies such as cost internalization and perception alignment, whose effectiveness depends on the economics of AI deployment and the direction of human misperception. These findings suggest that organizations may benefit more from managing the human-AI interface than from simply investing in larger, more expensive AI systems. More broadly, our results suggest that AI scaling should be viewed not only as a technological challenge, but also as a behavioral and operational one, and caution against the view that larger AI systems will automatically lead to better operational outcomes. Whether AI scaling creates value ultimately depends on how increased AI capabilities shape human beliefs and collaborative efforts.

Lights, Camera, Carbon: Architectural Scaling Laws for Video Generation Energy Consumption

We present a bidirectional framework for estimating the energy consumption of text-to-video (T2V) and text-to-video-audio (T2VA) models from architectural first principles and observable generation parameters such as resolution and duration, requiring no access to weights, model size, or implementation details. Forward, it predicts energy from generation parameters and architectural principles; backward, it recovers architectural scaling behavior from observed inference times, with accuracy serving as a criterion for architectural validity. Building on the established compute-bound nature of video diffusion models, we demonstrate that each model's energy profile obeys theoretically derived scaling laws, decomposing into quadratic and linear terms whose coefficients directly reflect the underlying architectural complexity. Validated across six open-source models spanning 8.3B-27B parameters and three GPU configurations, this decomposition achieves below 3% MAPE across all architectures. This approach offers a standardized, empirically and theoretically grounded framework for sustainability benchmarking across T2V models and architectures.

On the Smallness of the Large Language Models Scaling Exponents

We discuss reasons why the scaling exponents of current Large Language Models (LLMs) applications are indicating an unsustainable regime in terms of energy resources. We further show that attributing the smallness of such exponents to a numerical bias due to the neglect of a non-zero value of the loss function in the limit of infinite data (``pedestal effect") does not remove the unsustainability issue. Finally, the effects of the smoothness (roughness) of the data on the scaling exponents is commented upon based on an analogy with phenomenological models of fluid turbulence.

Human vs Machine Mathematical Difficulty on Project Euler: An Experimental Analysis

We study how the effort and success probability of frontier AI systems scale with human difficulty on problems from Project Euler, an online platform of computational mathematics problems. Our dataset, from the MathArena benchmark, consists of 3840 attempts across 50 problems and 26 model configurations, with problem difficulty measured by the site's public human solve times. Motivated by a proposal of Timothy Gowers, we test a power-law relation $t_{\text{machine}} = a \cdot t_{\text{human}}^b$ between generated-token cost per successful answer and human time, and find $b < 1$ for 20 of the 25 models with usable fits, including the strongest base models; this operationalization therefore does not support an earlier prediction that machines scale worse than humans with difficulty. We also investigate whether success probability on the tested problems can be modeled by a simple exponential decay $p_{\text{success}} = e^{c t_{\text{human}}}$, predicting a linear relation between $\log p_{\text{success}}$ and $t_{\text{human}}$. Using a binning approach for data aggregation we find moderate empirical support (median bin-level $R^2 = 0.92$ across the 22 best-covered configurations) for this model. Following METR, we also fit logistic success curves and extract 50\% task-length horizons $h_{50}$; the strongest configurations in our 20 April 2026 snapshot reach roughly $2.5$--$4.3$ hours on our fastest-five human baseline, with a log-linear fit through the state-of-the-art frontier giving a descriptive doubling time of about $75$~days for the SOTA $h_{50}$.

Position: Don't Just "Fix it in Post": A Science of AI Must Study Training Dynamics

What would it mean to have a scientific understanding of AI? Models are not static objects: they are snapshots of time-evolving processes shaped by data, objectives, architectures, and optimization dynamics. Yet much of AI research treats models as fixed artifacts, analyzing behaviors after training rather than asking why they emerge. This position paper argues that a science of AI must move beyond post-hoc fixes and study the training dynamics that produce model behavior. Such a science should support progressively stronger forms of understanding: predicting outcomes from early training signals, intervening when trajectories go wrong, and ultimately designing training procedures that more reliably produce desired properties. Scaling laws have made prediction routine for loss; the challenge is extending this success to capabilities, biases, robustness, and safety-relevant behaviors. We articulate requirements for such theories grounded in the history and philosophy of science, examine progress in mechanistic interpretability, fairness, memorization, and simplicity bias, and identify concrete open problems.