Over the past seven years, we have witnessed a steady, almost ritualistic cycle: as soon as the AI industry reaches another peak, voices immediately emerge predicting an imminent plateau and the "death" of progress. However, as data and years of practice show, each such forecast systematically fails. Instead of a slowdown, we only observe acceleration.
Analysts at Rand Group have clearly demonstrated this pattern. They compared the actual growth of AI capabilities with pessimistic forecasts. The key metric was the length of a task in person-hours that AI can complete in half of the cases. The result is obvious: the black line of real progress has not only not stopped but continues to grow steadily, while the yellow lines of plateau forecasts repeatedly fall short.
A Chronicle of "Deadly" Forecasts
Here are a few striking examples from recent history. In March 2022, an article titled "Deep Learning Hits a Wall" was published. About a year later, the world saw GPT-4 — a model that revolutionized the understanding of AI capabilities. The second episode occurred in November 2024. At that time, claims emerged that "the returns from model pre-training have plateaued, and the models themselves have hit a ceiling." For an entire month, "obituaries" on this topic spread across the industry. And again — reality refuted the skeptics.
The Trap of the "Mature Position"
Why are these forecasts so easily believed? The 2024 statement sounded particularly convincing because it came from people who themselves created the technology. According to experts, this is precisely where the trap lies. Predicting a plateau always seems like a "mature," skeptical, and hype-resistant position. However, it has been a losing one for seven consecutive years. Every forecast of an imminent limit has been shattered by continued growth.
My conclusion as an analyst: The AI market and technology demonstrate remarkable resilience to pessimism. Every time the industry declares the "death" of progress, it finds a new way to accelerate it. Investors and developers should remember: betting on stagnation is a systematic error that has repeatedly let down those who made it. Skepticism is good, but it must be backed by data, not by a desire to appear "mature."