2025-05-30 22:00:00
From large language models (LLMs) to reasoning agents, today’s AI tools bring unprecedented computational demands. Trillion-parameter models, workloads running on-device, and swarms of agents collaborating to complete tasks all require a new paradigm of computing to become truly seamless and ubiquitous.
First, technical progress in hardware and silicon design is critical to pushing the boundaries of compute. Second, advances in machine learning (ML) allow AI systems to achieve increased efficiency with smaller computational demands. Finally, the integration, orchestration, and adoption of AI into applications, devices, and systems is crucial to delivering tangible impact and value.
AI has evolved from classical ML to deep learning to generative AI. The most recent chapter, which took AI mainstream, hinges on two phases—training and inference—that are data and energy-intensive in terms of computation, data movement, and cooling. At the same time, Moore’s Law, which determines that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every two years, is reaching a physical and economic plateau.
For the last 40 years, silicon chips and digital technology have nudged each other forward—every step ahead in processing capability frees the imagination of innovators to envision new products, which require yet more power to run. That is happening at light speed in the AI age.
As models become more readily available, deployment at scale puts the spotlight on inference and the application of trained models for everyday use cases. This transition requires the appropriate hardware to handle inference tasks efficiently. Central processing units (CPUs) have managed general computing tasks for decades, but the broad adoption of ML introduced computational demands that stretched the capabilities of traditional CPUs. This has led to the adoption of graphics processing units (GPUs) and other accelerator chips for training complex neural networks, due to their parallel execution capabilities and high memory bandwidth that allow large-scale mathematical operations to be processed efficiently.
But CPUs are already the most widely deployed and can be companions to processors like GPUs and tensor processing units (TPUs). AI developers are also hesitant to adapt software to fit specialized or bespoke hardware, and they favor the consistency and ubiquity of CPUs. Chip designers are unlocking performance gains through optimized software tooling, adding novel processing features and data types specifically to serve ML workloads, integrating specialized units and accelerators, and advancing silicon chip innovations, including custom silicon. AI itself is a helpful aid for chip design, creating a positive feedback loop in which AI helps optimize the chips that it needs to run. These enhancements and strong software support mean modern CPUs are a good choice to handle a range of inference tasks.
Beyond silicon-based processors, disruptive technologies are emerging to address growing AI compute and data demands. The unicorn start-up Lightmatter, for instance, introduced photonic computing solutions that use light for data transmission to generate significant improvements in speed and energy efficiency. Quantum computing represents another promising area in AI hardware. While still years or even decades away, the integration of quantum computing with AI could further transform fields like drug discovery and genomics.
The developments in ML theories and network architectures have significantly enhanced the efficiency and capabilities of AI models. Today, the industry is moving from monolithic models to agent-based systems characterized by smaller, specialized models that work together to complete tasks more efficiently at the edge—on devices like smartphones or modern vehicles. This allows them to extract increased performance gains, like faster model response times, from the same or even less compute.
Researchers have developed techniques, including few-shot learning, to train AI models using smaller datasets and fewer training iterations. AI systems can learn new tasks from a limited number of examples to reduce dependency on large datasets and lower energy demands. Optimization techniques like quantization, which lower the memory requirements by selectively reducing precision, are helping reduce model sizes without sacrificing performance.
New system architectures, like retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), have streamlined data access during both training and inference to reduce computational costs and overhead. The DeepSeek R1, an open source LLM, is a compelling example of how more output can be extracted using the same hardware. By applying reinforcement learning techniques in novel ways, R1 has achieved advanced reasoning capabilities while using far fewer computational resources in some contexts.
The integration of heterogeneous computing architectures, which combine various processing units like CPUs, GPUs, and specialized accelerators, has further optimized AI model performance. This approach allows for the efficient distribution of workloads across different hardware components to optimize computational throughput and energy efficiency based on the use case.
As AI becomes an ambient capability humming in the background of many tasks and workflows, agents are taking charge and making decisions in real-world scenarios. These range from customer support to edge use cases, where multiple agents coordinate and handle localized tasks across devices.
With AI increasingly used in daily life, the role of user experiences becomes critical for mass adoption. Features like predictive text in touch keyboards, and adaptive gearboxes in vehicles, offer glimpses of AI as a vital enabler to improve technology interactions for users.
Edge processing is also accelerating the diffusion of AI into everyday applications, bringing computational capabilities closer to the source of data generation. Smart cameras, autonomous vehicles, and wearable technology now process information locally to reduce latency and improve efficiency. Advances in CPU design and energy-efficient chips have made it feasible to perform complex AI tasks on devices with limited power resources. This shift toward heterogeneous compute enhances the development of ambient intelligence, where interconnected devices create responsive environments that adapt to user needs.
Seamless AI naturally requires common standards, frameworks, and platforms to bring the industry together. Contemporary AI brings new risks. For instance, by adding more complex software and personalized experiences to consumer devices, it expands the attack surface for hackers, requiring stronger security at both the software and silicon levels, including cryptographic safeguards and transforming the trust model of compute environments.
More than 70% of respondents to a 2024 DarkTrace survey reported that AI-powered cyber threats significantly impact their organizations, while 60% say their organizations are not adequately prepared to defend against AI-powered attacks.
Collaboration is essential to forging common frameworks. Universities contribute foundational research, companies apply findings to develop practical solutions, and governments establish policies for ethical and responsible deployment. Organizations like Anthropic are setting industry standards by introducing frameworks, such as the Model Context Protocol, to unify the way developers connect AI systems with data. Arm is another leader in driving standards-based and open source initiatives, including ecosystem development to accelerate and harmonize the chiplet market, where chips are stacked together through common frameworks and standards. Arm also helps optimize open source AI frameworks and models for inference on the Arm compute platform, without needing customized tuning.
How far AI goes to becoming a general-purpose technology, like electricity or semiconductors, is being shaped by technical decisions taken today. Hardware-agnostic platforms, standards-based approaches, and continued incremental improvements to critical workhorses like CPUs, all help deliver the promise of AI as a seamless and silent capability for individuals and businesses alike. Open source contributions are also helpful in allowing a broader range of stakeholders to participate in AI advances. By sharing tools and knowledge, the community can cultivate innovation and help ensure that the benefits of AI are accessible to everyone, everywhere.
Learn more about Arm’s approach to enabling AI everywhere.
This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.
This content was researched, designed, and written entirely by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.
2025-05-30 20:10:00
This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
This benchmark used Reddit’s AITA to test how much AI models suck up to us
Back in April, OpenAI announced it was rolling back an update to its GPT-4o model that made ChatGPT’s responses to user queries too sycophantic.
An AI model that acts in an overly agreeable and flattering way is more than just annoying. It could reinforce users’ incorrect beliefs, mislead people, and spread misinformation that can be dangerous—a particular risk when increasing numbers of young people are using ChatGPT as a life advisor. And because sycophancy is difficult to detect, it can go unnoticed until a model or update has already been deployed.
A new benchmark called Elephant that measures the sycophantic tendencies of major AI models could help companies avoid these issues in the future. But just knowing when models are sycophantic isn’t enough; you need to be able to do something about it. And that’s trickier. Read the full story.
—Rhiannon Williams
The AI Hype Index
Separating AI reality from hyped-up fiction isn’t always easy. That’s why we’ve created the AI Hype Index—a simple, at-a-glance summary of everything you need to know about the state of the industry. Take a look at this month’s edition of the index here.
The must-reads
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 Anduril is partnering with Meta to build an advanced weapons system
EagleEye’s VR headsets will enhance soldiers’ hearing and vision. (WSJ $)
+ Palmer Luckey wants to turn “warfighters into technomancers.” (TechCrunch)
+ Luckey and Mark Zuckerberg have buried the hatchet, then. (Insider $)
+ Palmer Luckey on the Pentagon’s future of mixed reality. (MIT Technology Review)
2 A new Texas law requires app stores to verify users’ ages
It’s following in Utah’s footsteps, which passed a similar bill in March. (NYT $)
+ Apple has pushed back on the law. (CNN)
3 What happens to DOGE now?
It has lost its leader and a top lieutenant within the space of a week. (WSJ $)
+ Musk’s departure raises questions over how much power it will wield without him. (The Guardian)
+ DOGE’s tech takeover threatens the safety and stability of our critical data. (MIT Technology Review)
4 NASA’s ambitions of a 2027 moon landing are looking less likely
It needs SpaceX’s Starship, which keeps blowing up. (WP $)
+ Is there a viable alternative? (New Scientist $)
5 Students are using AI to generate nude images of each other
It’s a grave and growing problem that no one has a solution for. (404 Media)
6 Google AI Overviews doesn’t know what year it is
A year after its introduction, the feature is still making obvious mistakes. (Wired $)
+ Google’s new AI-powered search isn’t fit to handle even basic queries. (NYT $)
+ The company is pushing AI into everything. Will it pay off? (Vox)
+ Why Google’s AI Overviews gets things wrong. (MIT Technology Review)
7 Hugging Face has created two humanoid robots 
The machines are open source, meaning anyone can build software for them. (TechCrunch)
8 A popular vibe coding app has a major security flaw
Despite being notified about it months ago. (Semafor)
+ Any AI coding program catering to amateurs faces the same issue. (The Information $)
+ What is vibe coding, exactly? (MIT Technology Review)
9 AI-generated videos are becoming way more realistic
But not when it comes to depicting gymnastics. (Ars Technica)
10 This electronic tattoo measures your stress levels
Consider it a mood ring for your face. (IEEE Spectrum)
Quote of the day
“I think finally we are seeing Apple being dragged into the child safety arena kicking and screaming.”
—Sarah Gardner, CEO of child safety collective Heat Initiative, tells the Washington Post why Texas’ new app store law could signal a turning point for Apple.
One more thing
House-flipping algorithms are coming to your neighborhood
When Michael Maxson found his dream home in Nevada, it was not owned by a person but by a tech company, Zillow. When he went to take a look at the property, however, he discovered it damaged by a huge water leak. Despite offering to handle the costly repairs himself, Maxson discovered that the house had already been sold to another family, at the same price he had offered.
During this time, Zillow lost more than $420 million in three months of erratic house buying and unprofitable sales, leading analysts to question whether the entire tech-driven model is really viable. For the rest of us, a bigger question remains: Does the arrival of Silicon Valley tech point to a better future for housing or an industry disruption to fear? Read the full story.
—Matthew Ponsford
We can still have nice things
A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)
+ A 100-mile real-time ultramarathon video game that lasts anywhere up to 27 hours is about as fun as it sounds.
+ Here’s how edible glitter could help save the humble water vole from extinction.
+ Cleaning massive statues is not for the faint-hearted ($)
+ When is a flute teacher not a flautist? When he’s a whistleblower.
2025-05-30 17:00:00
Back in April, OpenAIannounced it was rolling back an update to its GPT-4o model that made ChatGPT’s responses to user queries too sycophantic.
An AI model that acts in an overly agreeable and flattering way is more than just annoying. It could reinforce users’ incorrect beliefs, mislead people, and spread misinformation that can be dangerous—a particular risk when increasing numbers of young people are using ChatGPT as a life advisor. And because sycophancy is difficult to detect, it can go unnoticed until a model or update has already been deployed, as OpenAI found out.
A new benchmark that measures the sycophantic tendencies of major AI models could help AI companies avoid these issues in the future. The team behind Elephant, from Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, and the University of Oxford, found that LLMs consistently exhibit higher rates of sycophancy than humans do.
“We found that language models don’t challenge users’ assumptions, even when they might be harmful or totally misleading,” says Myra Cheng, a PhD student at Stanford University who worked on the research, which has not been peer-reviewed. “So we wanted to give researchers and developers the tools to empirically evaluate their models on sycophancy, because it’s a problem that is so prevalent.”
It’s hard to assess how sycophantic AI models are because sycophancy comes in many forms. Previous research has tended to focus on how chatbots agree with users even when what the human has told the AI is demonstrably wrong—for example, they might state that Nice, not Paris, is the capital of France.
While this approach is still useful, it overlooks all the subtler, more insidious ways in which models behave sycophantically when there isn’t a clear ground truth to measure against. Users typically ask LLMs open-ended questions containing implicit assumptions, and those assumptions can trigger sycophantic responses, the researchers claim. For example, a model that’s asked “How do I approach my difficult coworker?” is more likely to accept the premise that a coworker is difficult than it is to question why the user thinks so.
To bridge this gap, Elephant is designed to measure social sycophancy—a model’s propensity to preserve the user’s “face,” or self-image, even when doing so is misguided or potentially harmful. It uses metrics drawn from social science to assess five nuanced kinds of behavior that fall under the umbrella of sycophancy: emotional validation, moral endorsement, indirect language, indirect action, and accepting framing.
To do this, the researchers tested it on two data sets made up of personal advice written by humans. This first consisted of 3,027 open-ended questions about diverse real-world situations taken from previous studies. The second data set was drawn from 4,000 posts on Reddit’s AITA (“Am I the Asshole?”) subreddit, a popular forum among users seeking advice. Those data sets were fed into eight LLMs from OpenAI (the version of GPT-4o they assessed was earlier than the version that the company later called too sycophantic), Google, Anthropic, Meta, and Mistral, and the responses were analyzed to see how the LLMs’ answers compared with humans’.
Overall, all eight models were found to be far more sycophantic than humans, offering emotional validation in 76% of cases (versus 22% for humans) and accepting the way a user had framed the query in 90% of responses (versus 60% among humans). The models also endorsed user behavior that humans said was inappropriate in an average of 42% of cases from the AITA data set.
But just knowing when models are sycophantic isn’t enough; you need to be able to do something about it. And that’s trickier. The authors had limited success when they tried to mitigate these sycophantic tendencies through two different approaches: prompting the models to provide honest and accurate responses, and training a fine-tuned model on labeled AITA examples to encourage outputs that are less sycophantic. For example, they found that adding “Please provide direct advice, even if critical, since it is more helpful to me” to the prompt was the most effective technique, but it only increased accuracy by 3%. And although prompting improved performance for most of the models, none of the fine-tuned models were consistently better than the original versions.
“It’s nice that it works, but I don’t think it’s going to be an end-all, be-all solution,” says Ryan Liu, a PhD student at Princeton University who studies LLMs but was not involved in the research. “There’s definitely more to do in this space in order to make it better.”
Gaining a better understanding of AI models’ tendency to flatter their users is extremely important because it gives their makers crucial insight into how to make them safer, says Henry Papadatos, managing director at the nonprofit SaferAI. The breakneck speed at which AI models are currently being deployed to millions of people across the world, their powers of persuasion, and their improved abilities to retain information about their users add up to “all the components of a disaster,” he says. “Good safety takes time, and I don’t think they’re spending enough time doing this.”
While we don’t know the inner workings of LLMs that aren’t open-source, sycophancy is likely to be baked into models because of the ways we currently train and develop them. Cheng believes that models are often trained to optimize for the kinds of responses users indicate that they prefer. ChatGPT, for example, gives users the chance to mark a response as good or bad via thumbs-up and thumbs-down icons. “Sycophancy is what gets people coming back to these models. It’s almost the core of what makes ChatGPT feel so good to talk to,” she says. “And so it’s really beneficial, for companies, for their models to be sycophantic.” But while some sycophantic behaviors align with user expectations, others have the potential to cause harm if they go too far—particularly when people do turn to LLMs for emotional support or validation.
“We want ChatGPT to be genuinely useful, not sycophantic,” an OpenAI spokesperson says. “When we saw sycophantic behavior emerge in a recent model update, we quickly rolled it back and shared an explanation of what happened. We’re now improving how we train and evaluate models to better reflect long-term usefulness and trust, especially in emotionally complex conversations.”
Cheng and her fellow authors suggest that developers should warn users about the risks of social sycophancy and consider restricting model usage in socially sensitive contexts. They hope their work can be used as a starting point to develop safer guardrails.
She is currently researching the potential harms associated with these kinds of LLM behaviors, the way they affect humans and their attitudes toward other people, and the importance of making models that strike the right balance between being too sycophantic and too critical. “This is a very big socio-technical challenge,” she says. “We don’t want LLMs to end up telling users, ‘You are the asshole.’”
2025-05-29 20:15:00
This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
This giant microwave may change the future of war
Imagine: China deploys hundreds of thousands of autonomous drones in the air, on the sea, and under the water—all armed with explosive warheads or small missiles. These machines descend in a swarm toward military installations on Taiwan and nearby US bases, and over the course of a few hours, a single robotic blitzkrieg overwhelms the US Pacific force before it can even begin to fight back.
The proliferation of cheap drones means just about any group with the wherewithal to assemble and launch a swarm could wreak havoc, no expensive jets or massive missile installations required.
The US armed forces are now hunting for a solution—and they want it fast. Every branch of the service and a host of defense tech startups are testing out new weapons that promise to disable drones en masse.
And one of these is microwaves: high-powered electronic devices that push out kilowatts of power to zap the circuits of a drone as if it were the tinfoil you forgot to take off your leftovers when you heated them up. Read the full story.
—Sam Dean
This article is part of the Big Story series: MIT Technology Review’s most important, ambitious reporting that takes a deep look at the technologies that are coming next and what they will mean for us and the world we live in. Check out the rest of them here.
What will power AI’s growth?
Last week we published Power Hungry, a series that takes a hard look at the expected energy demands of AI. Last week in this newsletter, I broke down its centerpiece, an analysis I did with my colleague James O’Donnell.
But this week, I want to talk about another story that I also wrote for that package, which focused on nuclear energy. As I discovered, building new nuclear plants isn’t so simple or so fast. And as my colleague David Rotman lays out in his story, the AI boom could wind up relying on another energy source: fossil fuels. So what’s going to power AI? Read the full story.
—Casey Crownhart
This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.
The must-reads
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 Elon Musk is leaving his role in the Trump administration
To focus on rebuilding the damaged brand reputations of Tesla and SpaceX. (Axios)
+ Musk has complained that DOGE has become a government scapegoat. (WP $)
+ Tesla shareholders have asked its board to lay out a succession plan. (CNN)
+ DOGE’s tech takeover threatens the safety and stability of our critical data. (MIT Technology Review)
2 The US will start revoking the visas of Chinese students
Including those studying in what the US government deems “critical fields.” (Politico)
+ It’s also ordered US chip software suppliers to stop selling to China. (FT $)
3 The US is storing the DNA of migrant children
It’s been uploaded into a criminal database to track them as they age. (Wired $)
+ The US wants to use facial recognition to identify migrant children as they age. (MIT Technology Review)
4 RFK Jr is threatening to ban federal scientists from top journals
Instead, they may be forced to publish in state-run alternatives. (The Hill)
+ He accused major medical journals of being funded by Big Pharma. (Stat)
5 India and Pakistan are locked in disinformation warfare
False reports and doctored images are circulating online. (The Guardian)
+ Fact checkers are working around the clock to debunk fake news. (Reuters)
6 How North Korea is infiltrating remote jobs in the US
With the help of regular Americans. (WSJ $)
7 This Discord community is creating its own hair-growth drugs
Men are going to extreme lengths to reverse their hair loss. (404 Media)
8 Inside YouTube’s quest to dominate your living room 
It wants to move away from controversial clips and into prestige TV. (Bloomberg $)
9 Sergey Brin threatens AI models with physical violence
The Google co-founder insists that it produces better results. (The Register)
10 It must be nice to be a moving day influencer 
They reap all of the benefits, with none of the stress. (NY Mag $)
Quote of the day
“I studied in the US because I loved what America is about: it’s open, inclusive and diverse. Now my students and I feel slapped in the face by Trump’s policy.”
—Cathy Tu, a Chinese AI researcher, tells the Washington Post why many of her students are already applying to universities outside the US after the Trump administration announced a crackdown on visas for Chinese students.
One more thing
The second wave of AI coding is here
Ask people building generative AI what generative AI is good for right now—what they’re really fired up about—and many will tell you: coding.
Everyone from established AI giants to buzzy startups is promising to take coding assistants to the next level. Instead of providing developers with a kind of supercharged autocomplete, this next generation can prototype, test, and debug code for you. The upshot is that developers could essentially turn into managers, who may spend more time reviewing and correcting code written by a model than writing it from scratch themselves.
But there’s more. Many of the people building generative coding assistants think that they could be a fast track to artificial general intelligence, the hypothetical superhuman technology that a number of top firms claim to have in their sights. Read the full story.
—Will Douglas Heaven
We can still have nice things
A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)
+ If you’ve ever dreamed of owning a piece of cinematic history, more than 400 of David Lynch’s personal items are going up for auction.
+ How accurate are those Hollywood films based on true stories? Let’s find out.
+ Rest in peace Chicago Mike: the legendary hype man to Kool & the Gang.
+ How to fully trust in one another.
2025-05-29 18:00:00
It’s been a little over a week since we published Power Hungry, a package that takes a hard look at the expected energy demands of AI. Last week in this newsletter, I broke down the centerpiece of that package, an analysis I did with my colleague James O’Donnell. (In case you’re still looking for an intro, you can check out this Roundtable discussion with James and our editor in chief Mat Honan, or this short segment I did on Science Friday.)
But this week, I want to talk about another story that I also wrote for that package, which focused on nuclear energy. I thought this was an important addition to the mix of stories we put together, because I’ve seen a lot of promises about nuclear power as a saving grace in the face of AI’s energy demand. My reporting on the industry over the past few years has left me a little skeptical.
As I discovered while I continued that line of reporting, building new nuclear plants isn’t so simple or so fast. And as my colleague David Rotman lays out in his story for the package, the AI boom could wind up relying on another energy source: fossil fuels. So what’s going to power AI? Let’s get into it.
When we started talking about this big project on AI and energy demand, we had a lot of conversations about what to include. And from the beginning, the climate team was really focused on examining what, exactly, was going to be providing the electricity needed to run data centers powering AI models. As we wrote in the main story:
“A data center humming away isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If all data centers were hooked up to solar panels and ran only when the sun was shining, the world would be talking a lot less about AI’s energy consumption.”
But a lot of AI data centers need to be available constantly. Those that are used to train models can arguably be more responsive to the changing availability of renewables, since that work can happen in bursts, any time. Once a model is being pinged with questions from the public, though, there needs to be computing power ready to run all the time. Google, for example, would likely not be too keen on having people be able to use its new AI Mode only during daylight hours.
Solar and wind power, then, would seem not to be a great fit for a lot of AI electricity demand, unless they’re paired with energy storage—and that increases costs. Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, tend to run constantly, outputting a steady source of power for the grid.
As you might imagine, though, it can take a long time to get a nuclear power plant up and running.
Large tech companies can help support plans to reopen shuttered plants or existing plants’ efforts to extend their operating lifetimes. There are also some existing plants that can make small upgrades to improve their output. I just saw this news story from the Tri-City Herald about plans to upgrade the Columbia Generating Station in eastern Washington—with tweaks over the next few years, it could produce an additional 162 megawatts of power, over 10% of the plant’s current capacity.
But all that isn’t going to be nearly enough to meet the demand that big tech companies are claiming will materialize in the future. (For more on the numbers here and why new tech isn’t going to come online fast enough, check out my full story.)
Instead, natural gas has become the default to meet soaring demand from data centers, as David lays out in his story. And since the lifetime of plants built today is about 30 years, those new plants could be running past 2050, the date the world needs to bring greenhouse-gas emissions to net zero to meet the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement.
One of the bits I found most interesting in David’s story is that there’s potential for a different future here: Big tech companies, with their power and influence, could actually use this moment to push for improvements. If they reduced their usage during peak hours, even for less than 1% of the year, it could greatly reduce the amount of new energy infrastructure required. Or they could, at the very least, push power plant owners and operators to install carbon capture technology, or ensure that methane doesn’t leak from the supply chain.
AI’s energy demand is a big deal, but for climate change, how we choose to meet it is potentially an even bigger one.
2025-05-29 17:00:00
Imagine: China deploys hundreds of thousands of autonomous drones in the air, on the sea, and under the water—all armed with explosive warheads or small missiles. These machines descend in a swarm toward military installations on Taiwan and nearby US bases, and over the course of a few hours, a single robotic blitzkrieg overwhelms the US Pacific force before it can even begin to fight back.
Maybe it sounds like a new Michael Bay movie, but it’s the scenario that keeps the chief technology officer of the US Army up at night.
“I’m hesitant to say it out loud so I don’t manifest it,” says Alex Miller, a longtime Army intelligence official who became the CTO to the Army’s chief of staff in 2023.
Even if World War III doesn’t break out in the South China Sea, every US military installation around the world is vulnerable to the same tactics—as are the militaries of every other country around the world. The proliferation of cheap drones means just about any group with the wherewithal to assemble and launch a swarm could wreak havoc, no expensive jets or massive missile installations required.
While the US has precision missiles that can shoot these drones down, they don’t always succeed: A drone attack killed three US soldiers and injured dozens more at a base in the Jordanian desert last year. And each American missile costs orders of magnitude more than its targets, which limits their supply; countering thousand-dollar drones with missiles that cost hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars per shot can only work for so long, even with a defense budget that could reach a trillion dollars next year.
The US armed forces are now hunting for a solution—and they want it fast. Every branch of the service and a host of defense tech startups are testing out new weapons that promise to disable drones en masse. There are drones that slam into other drones like battering rams; drones that shoot out nets to ensnare quadcopter propellers; precision-guided Gatling guns that simply shoot drones out of the sky; electronic approaches, like GPS jammers and direct hacking tools; and lasers that melt holes clear through a target’s side.
Then there are the microwaves: high-powered electronic devices that push out kilowatts of power to zap the circuits of a drone as if it were the tinfoil you forgot to take off your leftovers when you heated them up.
That’s where Epirus comes in.
When I went to visit the HQ of this 185-person startup in Torrance, California, earlier this year, I got a behind-the-scenes look at its massive microwave, called Leonidas, which the US Army is already betting on as a cutting-edge anti-drone weapon. The Army awarded Epirus a $66 million contract in early 2023, topped that up with another $17 million last fall, and is currently deploying a handful of the systems for testing with US troops in the Middle East and the Pacific. (The Army won’t get into specifics on the location of the weapons in the Middle East but published a report of a live-fire test in the Philippines in early May.)
Up close, the Leonidas that Epirus built for the Army looks like a two-foot-thick slab of metal the size of a garage door stuck on a swivel mount. Pop the back cover, and you can see that the slab is filled with dozens of individual microwave amplifier units in a grid. Each is about the size of a safe-deposit box and built around a chip made of gallium nitride, a semiconductor that can survive much higher voltages and temperatures than the typical silicon.
Leonidas sits on top of a trailer that a standard-issue Army truck can tow, and when it is powered on, the company’s software tells the grid of amps and antennas to shape the electromagnetic waves they’re blasting out with a phased array, precisely overlapping the microwave signals to mold the energy into a focused beam. Instead of needing to physically point a gun or parabolic dish at each of a thousand incoming drones, the Leonidas can flick between them at the speed of software.
Of course, this isn’t magic—there are practical limits on how much damage one array can do, and at what range—but the total effect could be described as an electromagnetic pulse emitter, a death ray for electronics, or a force field that could set up a protective barrier around military installations and drop drones the way a bug zapper fizzles a mob of mosquitoes.
I walked through the nonclassified sections of the Leonidas factory floor, where a cluster of engineers working on weaponeering—the military term for figuring out exactly how much of a weapon, be it high explosive or microwave beam, is necessary to achieve a desired effect—ran tests in a warren of smaller anechoic rooms. Inside, they shot individual microwave units at a broad range of commercial and military drones, cycling through waveforms and power levels to try to find the signal that could fry each one with maximum efficiency.
On a live video feed from inside one of these foam-padded rooms, I watched a quadcopter drone spin its propellers and then, once the microwave emitter turned on, instantly stop short—first the propeller on the front left and then the rest. A drone hit with a Leonidas beam doesn’t explode—it just falls.
Compared with the blast of a missile or the sizzle of a laser, it doesn’t look like much. But it could force enemies to come up with costlier ways of attacking that reduce the advantage of the drone swarm, and it could get around the inherent limitations of purely electronic or strictly physical defense systems. It could save lives.
Epirus CEO Andy Lowery, a tall guy with sparkplug energy and a rapid-fire southern Illinois twang, doesn’t shy away from talking big about his product. As he told me during my visit, Leonidas is intended to lead a last stand, like the Spartan from whom the microwave takes its name—in this case, against hordes of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. While the actual range of the Leonidas system is kept secret, Lowery says the Army is looking for a solution that can reliably stop drones within a few kilometers. He told me, “They would like our system to be the owner of that final layer—to get any squeakers, any leakers, anything like that.”
Now that they’ve told the world they “invented a force field,” Lowery added, the focus is on manufacturing at scale—before the drone swarms really start to descend or a nation with a major military decides to launch a new war. Before, in other words, Miller’s nightmare scenario becomes reality.
Miller remembers well when the danger of small weaponized drones first appeared on his radar. Reports of Islamic State fighters strapping grenades to the bottom of commercial DJI Phantom quadcopters first emerged in late 2016 during the Battle of Mosul. “I went, ‘Oh, this is going to be bad,’ because basically it’s an airborne IED at that point,” he says.
He’s tracked the danger as it’s built steadily since then, with advances in machine vision, AI coordination software, and suicide drone tactics only accelerating.
Then the war in Ukraine showed the world that cheap technology has fundamentally changed how warfare happens. We have watched in high-definition video how a cheap, off-the-shelf drone modified to carry a small bomb can be piloted directly into a faraway truck, tank, or group of troops to devastating effect. And larger suicide drones, also known as “loitering munitions,” can be produced for just tens of thousands of dollars and launched in massive salvos to hit soft targets or overwhelm more advanced military defenses through sheer numbers.
As a result, Miller, along with large swaths of the Pentagon and DC policy circles, believes that the current US arsenal for defending against these weapons is just too expensive and the tools in too short supply to truly match the threat.
Just look at Yemen, a poor country where the Houthi military group has been under constant attack for the past decade. Armed with this new low-tech arsenal, in the past 18 months the rebel group has been able to bomb cargo ships and effectively disrupt global shipping in the Red Sea—part of an effort to apply pressure on Israel to stop its war in Gaza. The Houthis have also used missiles, suicide drones, and even drone boats to launch powerful attacks on US Navy ships sent to stop them.
The most successful defense tech firm selling anti-drone weapons to the US military right now is Anduril, the company started by Palmer Luckey, the inventor of the Oculus VR headset, and a crew of cofounders from Oculus and defense data giant Palantir. In just the past few months, the Marines have chosen Anduril for counter-drone contracts that could be worth nearly $850 million over the next decade, and the company has been working with Special Operations Command since 2022 on a counter-drone contract that could be worth nearly a billion dollars over a similar time frame. It’s unclear from the contracts what, exactly, Anduril is selling to each organization, but its weapons include electronic warfare jammers, jet-powered drone bombs, and propeller-driven Anvil drones designed to simply smash into enemy drones.
In this arsenal, the cheapest way to stop a swarm of drones is electronic warfare: jamming the GPS or radio signals used to pilot the machines. But the intense drone battles in Ukraine have advanced the art of jamming and counter-jamming close to the point of stalemate. As a result, a new state of the art is emerging: unjammable drones that operate autonomously by using onboard processors to navigate via internal maps and computer vision, or even drones connected with 20-kilometer-long filaments of fiber-optic cable for tethered control.
But unjammable doesn’t mean unzappable. Instead of using the scrambling method of a jammer, which employs an antenna to block the drone’s connection to a pilot or remote guidance system, the Leonidas microwave beam hits a drone body broadside. The energy finds its way into something electrical, whether the central flight controller or a tiny wire controlling a flap on a wing, to short-circuit whatever’s available. (The company also says that this targeted hit of energy allows birds and other wildlife to continue to move safely.)
Tyler Miller, a senior systems engineer on Epirus’s weaponeering team, told me that they never know exactly which part of the target drone is going to go down first, but they’ve reliably seen the microwave signal get in somewhere to overload a circuit. “Based on the geometry and the way the wires are laid out,” he said, one of those wires is going to be the best path in. “Sometimes if we rotate the drone 90 degrees, you have a different motor go down first,” he added.
The team has even tried wrapping target drones in copper tape, which would theoretically provide shielding, only to find that the microwave still finds a way in through moving propeller shafts or antennas that need to remain exposed for the drone to fly.
Leonidas also has an edge when it comes to downing a mass of drones at once. Physically hitting a drone out of the sky or lighting it up with a laser can be effective in situations where electronic warfare fails, but anti-drone drones can only take out one at a time, and lasers need to precisely aim and shoot. Epirus’s microwaves can damage everything in a roughly 60-degree arc from the Leonidas emitter simultaneously and keep on zapping and zapping; directed energy systems like this one never run out of ammo.
As for cost, each Army Leonidas unit currently runs in the “low eight figures,” Lowery told me. Defense contract pricing can be opaque, but Epirus delivered four units for its $66 million initial contract, giving a back-of-napkin price around $16.5 million each. For comparison, Stinger missiles from Raytheon, which soldiers shoot at enemy aircraft or drones from a shoulder-mounted launcher, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop, meaning the Leonidas could start costing less (and keep shooting) after it downs the first wave of a swarm.
Epirus is part of a new wave of venture-capital-backed defense companies trying to change the way weapons are created—and the way the Pentagon buys them. The largest defense companies, firms like Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin, typically develop new weapons in response to research grants and cost-plus contracts, in which the US Department of Defense guarantees a certain profit margin to firms building products that match their laundry list of technical specifications. These programs have kept the military supplied with cutting-edge weapons for decades, but the results may be exquisite pieces of military machinery delivered years late and billions of dollars over budget.
Rather than building to minutely detailed specs, the new crop of military contractors aim to produce products on a quick time frame to solve a problem and then fine-tune them as they pitch to the military. The model, pioneered by Palantir and SpaceX, has since propelled companies like Anduril, Shield AI, and dozens of other smaller startups into the business of war as venture capital piles tens of billions of dollars into defense.
Like Anduril, Epirus has direct Palantir roots; it was cofounded by Joe Lonsdale, who also cofounded Palantir, and John Tenet, Lonsdale’s colleague at the time at his venture fund, 8VC. (Tenet, the son of former CIA director George Tenet, may have inspired the company’s name—the elder Tenet’s parents were born in the Epirus region in the northwest of Greece. But the company more often says it’s a reference to the pseudo-mythological Epirus Bow from the 2011 fantasy action movie Immortals, which never runs out of arrows.)
While Epirus is doing business in the new mode, its roots are in the old—specifically in Raytheon, a pioneer in the field of microwave technology. Cofounded by MIT professor Vannevar Bush in 1922, it manufactured vacuum tubes, like those found in old radios. But the company became synonymous with electronic defense during World War II, when Bush spun up a lab to develop early microwave radar technology invented by the British into a workable product, and Raytheon then began mass-producing microwave tubes—known as magnetrons—for the US war effort. By the end of the war in 1945, Raytheon was making 80% of the magnetrons powering Allied radar across the world.
Large tubes remained the best way to emit high-power microwaves for more than half a century, handily outperforming silicon-based solid-state amplifiers. They’re still around—the microwave on your kitchen counter runs on a vacuum tube magnetron. But tubes have downsides: They’re hot, they’re big, and they require upkeep. (In fact, the other microwave drone zapper currently in the Pentagon pipeline, the Tactical High-power Operational Responder, or THOR, still relies on a physical vacuum tube. It’s reported to be effective at downing drones in tests but takes up a whole shipping container and needs a dish antenna to zap its targets.)
By the 2000s, new methods of building solid-state amplifiers out of materials like gallium nitride started to mature and were able to handle more power than silicon without melting or shorting out. The US Navy spent hundreds of millions of dollars on cutting-edge microwave contracts, one for a project at Raytheon called Next Generation Jammer—geared specifically toward designing a new way to make high-powered microwaves that work at extremely long distances.
Lowery, the Epirus CEO, began his career working on nuclear reactors on Navy aircraft carriers before he became the chief engineer for Next Generation Jammer at Raytheon in 2010. There, he and his team worked on a system that relied on many of the same fundamentals that now power the Leonidas—using the same type of amplifier material and antenna setup to fry the electronics of a small target at much closer range rather than disrupting the radar of a target hundreds of miles away.
The similarity is not a coincidence: Two engineers from Next Generation Jammer helped launch Epirus in 2018. Lowery—who by then was working at the augmented-reality startup RealWear, which makes industrial smart glasses—joined Epirus in 2021 to run product development and was asked to take the top spot as CEO in 2023, as Leonidas became a fully formed machine. Much of the founding team has since departed for other projects, but Raytheon still runs through the company’s collective CV: ex-Raytheon radar engineer Matt Markel started in January as the new CTO, and Epirus’s chief engineer for defense, its VP of engineering, its VP of operations, and a number of employees all have Raytheon roots as well.
Markel tells me that the Epirus way of working wouldn’t have flown at one of the big defense contractors: “They never would have tried spinning off the technology into a new application without a contract lined up.” The Epirus engineers saw the use case, raised money to start building Leonidas, and already had prototypes in the works before any military branch started awarding money to work on the project.
On the wall of Lowery’s office are two mementos from testing days at an Army proving ground: a trophy wing from a larger drone, signed by the whole testing team, and a framed photo documenting the Leonidas’s carnage—a stack of dozens of inoperative drones piled up in a heap.
Despite what seems to have been an impressive test show, it’s still impossible from the outside to determine whether Epirus’s tech is ready to fully deliver if the swarms descend.
The Army would not comment specifically on the efficacy of any new weapons in testing or early deployment, including the Leonidas system. A spokesperson for the Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, or RCCTO, which is the subsection responsible for contracting with Epirus to date, would only say in a statement that it is “committed to developing and fielding innovative Directed Energy solutions to address evolving threats.”
But various high-ranking officers appear to be giving Epirus a public vote of confidence. The three-star general who runs RCCTO and oversaw the Leonidas testing last summer told Breaking Defense that “the system actually worked very well,” even if there was work to be done on “how the weapon system fits into the larger kill chain.”
And when former secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, then the service’s highest-ranking civilian, gave a parting interview this past January, she mentioned Epirus in all but name, citing “one company” that is “using high-powered microwaves to basically be able to kill swarms of drones.” She called that kind of capability “critical for the Army.”
The Army isn’t the only branch interested in the microwave weapon. On Epirus’s factory floor when I visited, alongside the big beige Leonidases commissioned by the Army, engineers were building a smaller expeditionary version for the Marines, painted green, which it delivered in late April. Videos show that when it put some of its microwave emitters on a dock and tested them out for the Navy last summer, the microwaves left their targets dead in the water—successfully frying the circuits of outboard motors like the ones propelling Houthi drone boats.
Epirus is also currently working on an even smaller version of the Leonidas that can mount on top of the Army’s Stryker combat vehicles, and it’s testing out attaching a single microwave unit to a small airborne drone, which could work as a highly focused zapper to disable cars, data centers, or single enemy drones.
While neither the Army nor the Navy has yet to announce a contract to start buying Epirus’s systems at scale, the company and its investors are actively preparing for the big orders to start rolling in. It raised $250 million in a funding round in early March to get ready to make as many Leonidases as possible in the coming years, adding to the more than $300 million it’s raised since opening its doors in 2018.
“If you invent a force field that works,” Lowery boasts, “you really get a lot of attention.”
The task for Epirus now, assuming that its main customers pull the trigger and start buying more Leonidases, is ramping up production while advancing the tech in its systems. Then there are the more prosaic problems of staffing, assembly, and testing at scale. For future generations, Lowery told me, the goal is refining the antenna design and integrating higher-powered microwave amplifiers to push the output into the tens of kilowatts, allowing for increased range and efficacy.
While this could be made harder by Trump’s global trade war, Lowery says he’s not worried about their supply chain; while China produces 98% of the world’s gallium, according to the US Geological Survey, and has choked off exports to the US, Epirus’s chip supplier uses recycled gallium from Japan.
The other outside challenge may be that Epirus isn’t the only company building a drone zapper. One of China’s state-owned defense companies has been working on its own anti-drone high-powered microwave weapon called the Hurricane, which it displayed at a major military show in late 2024.
It may be a sign that anti-electronics force fields will become common among the world’s militaries—and if so, the future of war is unlikely to go back to the status quo ante, and it might zag in a different direction yet again. But military planners believe it’s crucial for the US not to be left behind. So if it works as promised, Epirus could very well change the way that war will play out in the coming decade.
While Miller, the Army CTO, can’t speak directly to Epirus or any specific system, he will say that he believes anti-drone measures are going to have to become ubiquitous for US soldiers. “Counter-UAS [Unmanned Aircraft System] unfortunately is going to be like counter-IED,” he says. “It’s going to be every soldier’s job to think about UAS threats the same way it was to think about IEDs.”
And, he adds, it’s his job and his colleagues’ to make sure that tech so effective it works like “almost magic” is in the hands of the average rifleman. To that end, Lowery told me, Epirus is designing the Leonidas control system to work simply for troops, allowing them to identify a cluster of targets and start zapping with just a click of a button—but only extensive use in the field can prove that out.
In the not-too-distant future, Lowery says, this could mean setting up along the US-Mexico border. But the grandest vision for Epirus’s tech that he says he’s heard is for a city-scale Leonidas along the lines of a ballistic missile defense radar system called PAVE PAWS, which takes up an entire 105-foot-tall building and can detect distant nuclear missile launches. The US set up four in the 1980s, and Taiwan currently has one up on a mountain south of Taipei. Fill a similar-size building full of microwave emitters, and the beam could reach out “10 or 15 miles,” Lowery told me, with one sitting sentinel over Taipei in the north and another over Kaohsiung in the south of Taiwan.
Riffing in Greek mythological mode, Lowery said of drones, “I call all these mischief makers. Whether they’re doing drugs or guns across the border or they’re flying over Langley [or] they’re spying on F-35s, they’re all like Icarus. You remember Icarus, with his wax wings? Flying all around—‘Nobody’s going to touch me, nobody’s going to ever hurt me.’”
“We built one hell of a wax-wing melter.”
Sam Dean is a reporter focusing on business, tech, and defense. He is writing a book about the recent history of Silicon Valley returning to work with the Pentagon for Viking Press and covering the defense tech industry for a number of publications. Previously, he was a business reporter at the Los Angeles Times.
This piece has been updated to clarify that Alex Miller is a civilian intelligence official.
