Computing Changes How We Think—But Creativity, Not Just GPUs, Will Decide AI’s Next Decade

 In a wide-ranging Bloomberg interview, Dr. Wang Jian (founder of Alibaba Cloud) makes a forceful case that the era of AI “toy problems” is over. I agree. The last two years moved us from brittle demos to systems that reliably draft code, analyze documents, and support human decision-making. His analogy that more compute is like upgrading from a bicycle to a rocket is compelling: when the cost and scale of computation change, the feasible solution space—and our mental models—change with it.

Where I especially align is his view that markets are not just places to sell, but living testbeds where technology matures under real constraints. This resonates with best practices in ML ops: no benchmark, however well chosen, substitutes for deployment feedback. China’s dense competitive landscape, as he notes, creates short iteration loops—startups push features, rivals answer, users vote—accelerating collective learning. In ML terms, it’s a virtuous cycle of data, gradient steps, and evaluation at production scale.

I also appreciate his skepticism about tidy labels like AI → AGI → ASI. In practice, capability is a continuum: larger context windows, better tool use, richer memory, and planning—these blur categorical boundaries. Treating progress as increasing capability across tasks avoids false thresholds and keeps builders focused on measurable gains.

That said, I diverge on several points.

First, Dr. Wang downplays compute as a long-term bottleneck. I’m not fully convinced. While creativity and product insight absolutely dominate value creation, frontier training remains capital- and energy-intensive. Export controls, supply chain variability, and power availability still shape who can train or serve the most advanced models. For many labs, clever data curation and distillation help—but they don’t erase the physics and economics of scaling laws.

Second, on robotics, he frames AI as a new “engine” for an existing vehicle. Conceptually useful—but today’s embodied intelligence also requires tight integration across perception, control, simulation, and safety, not just swapping motors. Progress is real (foundation models for vision and language transfer surprisingly well), yet reliable grasping, long-horizon autonomy, and recovery from edge cases remain research frontiers. The “AI engine” metaphor risks underestimating those system-level challenges.

Third, the notion that no current advantage forms a durable moat is directionally optimistic and healthy for competition; still, moats can emerge from datasets with verified provenance, reinforcement-learning pipelines at scale, distribution, and compliance. Even if individual components commoditize, the orchestration (agents, tools, retrieval, evals, and workflow integration) can compound into real defensibility.

Finally, I agree with his emphasis that creativity is the scarcest input. Where I’d extend the argument is execution discipline: teams need evaluation harnesses, safety checks, and shipping cadences so creativity feeds a measurable loop. In other words, pair inspired ideas with ruthless metrics.

The upshot: Dr. Wang’s thesis—compute reshapes thinking, markets mature tech, creativity drives breakthroughs—captures much of what’s powering AI right now. My caveats don’t negate his vision; they refine it. The winners will be those who marry inventive product design with pragmatic engineering and acknowledge that, even in a marathon, hardware, data, and distribution still set the course.